Toward A Workable Census Methodology.

[Guest]

Stan just thinking out loud here but several things we just don't know for sure could raise or lower the population in a given area. Just off the top of my head is what their main diet consists of and weather they live in groups, male/female and kido's, or are loners. Just these couple of items could affect weather there were 10 BF living in an area or 1. Just something that crossed my mind. There is so much about them that we just don't know for sure.

Family groups Yes as the norm. 

[scottv]

Hello everyone, I’m a wildlife biologist and have experience doing population estimates for various bird species, small mammals, various reptiles, deer and Asiatic water buffalo. I’ve done both estimates for density, presence/absence and index type surveys which generally give some type of detection rate (e.g. the average number seen per station or per 10 km of driving) but not absolute numbers (density or population number). I’m a bigfoot skeptic.

 

Walking (or driving) transect lines can work depending on the species and habitat. Typically you calculate how many you see per 1km of walking for whatever distance or rate you prefer. You can also measure the perpendicular distance from the center of the transect to the detected animal and use what is called “DISTANCE†methodology (the software for this is called DISTANCE) to estimate the population density of the species. For this method the rule of thumb is at least 60 detections to make a decent estimate. There are times when you can also measure the distance to signs of the animals. Gorilla and Orangutan populations are estimated this way by measuring the distances to nests, then estimating how many nests are in the area and using this to estimate the number of gorillas or orangutans. Nighttime surveys are also done for ungulate species in Africa using distance methodlogy. If the terrain is too rugged walking transects can be difficult as you spend most of your time trying not to fall instead of looking for the target species or sign. In rugged terrain, survey from a series of  points or station counts often works better. You arrive at the point/station and for a set time period count whatever you hear and/or see. Distance methodology can be done from points also.

 

On the “let’s do the math†thread Coonbo described how he does his surveys which are basically “playbacksâ€. Play the call and wait a set time period for a response. This often works well with birds. As near as I can tell he is one of the few using a survey methodology used by mainstream biologists for other species. Using this methodology he has estimated that bigfoot are A LOT more common than what most people believe. Trail cameras are the other technique commonly used by biologists that are being used in bigfoot surveys. Trail cameras and being able to get DNA samples from hair has made it possible to study animals that previously had been very difficult to establish population densities for. Because trail cameras photograph anything that passes by they pick up much more than the target species. So all of the trail camera projects being done in bigfoot habitat would able to document an 8 foot tall bipedal ape.

 

If I were going to try to document the existence of bigfoot I would rely heavily on trail cameras and would probably try to stick within National Parks that formerly had grizzly bears but presently do not. There is no hunting in national parks so the animals would be less skittish. I would assume that a lack of grizzly bears would cause an increase in bigfoot numbers as they expand to fill the empty niche of a seriously large omnivore.  I would try to identify possible seasonal food sources or movement corridors for camera placement. I would also systematically survey back roads during winter when snow is present for tracks and then follow tracks to collect hair samples. This has been done for mountain lions with good success. In the same parks It’s interesting that bigfoot projects that I know of (internet searches) that have made extensive use of trail cameras, have failed to document bigfoot.

 

The problem with these methods is that when the target species is detected or its sign, it’s pretty clear cut with no ambiguity. Yes trail cameras do produce blobs where it is difficult to impossible to tell the species. However, that photo is not used in the analyses and the vast majority of photos (in my experience) taken by trail cameras are identifiable with little difficulty. The same cannot be said for bigfoot detections. From what I can gather there is no collective opinion of what constitutes a definitive bigfoot or sign detection. If there is please let me know what that is. As a biologist I find the excessive secrecy/elusiveness of what should be an easy species to document the existence of, let alone population density, to be puzzling. Documenting the known, large ape species is not that difficult. They leave obvious sign, are diurnal and not that shy, even when hunted. I don’t see why this ape species would be so different.

 

Apologies for the length of this and thanks for starting this thread.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Scott,

Great detailed response. Thanks for that. Many good points. I too find the apparent lack of definitive trail cam images very odd as there are numerous other highly secretive mammals which have been successfully captured this way.

It is also the notable absence of genuine standard census methods that puzzles me. Why on earth would you not at least attempt to apply tried and tested methods to this animal? Fair play to coonbo for being systematic.

[southernyahoo]

 

Ok, so what might that field sign be? Are there putative signs common to all areas? There is something in this I know it. We just need to pool minds to work towards an answer. Maybe what we decide upon as a surveyable field sign may lead on to more insights, who knows?

Well the best field sign aside from the sounds would be the tracks and limb structures/breaks with hairs collected. Those seem to be found across the country. I still find the sounds to be easiest to survey for. Like a field biologist, once you know a unique call or other sound that a species makes, you can find them just about anywhere they reside. Eliciting calls with playbacks seems to have limited success with primates though because they learn and don't fall for the same thing repeatedly "unless there is some reward for them", so once you get that response you have to change up your method. I think BF would likely be mans most worthy adversary in a game of hide and seek, so switching over to the field sign and manning observation points would be the next step. If you can stay in one place a while, they might come knock on your door occasionally , so to speak.

[southernyahoo]

The problem with these methods is that when the target species is detected or its sign, it’s pretty clear cut with no ambiguity. Yes trail cameras do produce blobs where it is difficult to impossible to tell the species. However, that photo is not used in the analyses and the vast majority of photos (in my experience) taken by trail cameras are identifiable with little difficulty.

 

 

While I generally agree that the trail cams have come up short, there is the one or two captures that could be the exception to the rule. The study of any other species doesn't have to deal with the "Man in a suit" hypothesis for each and every capture, which tends to put the "hirsuted man" hypothesis out the window.

 

http://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/hunt-tv/

[NathanFooter]

 I know I may not qualify as scientist or have a degree proving I am capable of helping in this topic but I am a field researcher and report investigator who has poured well over a thousand hours over data sets { seasonal, topo, forest composition and water table maps and as well as ranges and densities of flora and fauna within my state } from my own field work, state wildlife programs, field biology projects and a few fellow field researchers ongoing projects and report mapping studies.

 

 I have commented on a topic similar to this before, I will quote my self from the topic combining and adjusting a few posts with relevant information from the thread and as well add some new information for detail in the following.

 

 My theory has been called the evergreen theory and it was developed on a combination of data sets { from the listed above } from the state of Michigan where I live and research.  Theory and information follows below.

 

 The activity from spring-summer-fall extends out from a massive evergreen swamp { about 4 X 4 miles in size } mostly composed of pine, spruce and cedar into farmland along large patches of forest near a few human residences. { I believe this to be due the deer are on these areas heavily during these times} . These types of areas produce a very broad food spectrum that offers calories from both seasonal and nonseasonal sources. Water is everywhere and is really the lifeblood and reason for this caloric density region. 

 

 This evergreen swamp really acts as untouchable zone or core area, it is nearly impossible to enter due to muck, roots and the possibility of getting very lost. Deer hunters will not even venture very deep going after a deer { no more then 250 yards and coincidentally they sometimes get yelled at doing so, as reported   }.  The forest density for most of the region not only makes movement through the area nearly impossible but also brings visibility to a range of 1 to 10 yards unless you happen to be really tall but even then you still have a very limited visual detection range.

 

 It is my thought that the local sasquatch spend the majority of the warmer months going back and forth between areas of caloric density { be it man made or natural, what ever offers advantage } and this core area.   In the winter the group would most likely restrict their movement to the core area almost entirely, feeding on the deer and other  wildlife that have been forced into this core area by hunting pressure or cold temperatures.  

 

 This pattern is strikingly similar to black bear life style and routine { for the warmer months }, in fact the number and quality of sasquatch observation reports drastically increases in good black bear habitat. This can be seen in the reflection of the BFRO google earth layer when held up to a forest composition map and a black bear population estimation map.  In short, by the data alone it is safe to assume that more black bear per square mile equal more sasquatch per square mile.

 

 Side Note - A evergreen swamp produces heat due to the under lying decomposing material witch is black muck and also holds it down due to the flat layered growth of the evergreens it equals an environment that can be as much as 10 degrees warmer than the exposed hardwoods environments witch are scarce of food as well by comparison.

 

 I have noted that many of the reports { on and off record } of individuals passing through areas of higher human population { higher than the remote back country noted above } are of individuals of mid size { 6'6 to 7'4 } very muscular and of an over all male build, to me this strikes as possibly the result of young males reaching maturity and going out on their own to find a territory and or mate. My sighting in 2009 could be an example of this pattern. This may account for the this data point that has seemingly until now conflicted with the home range or core area theory.

 

 This would conclude the theoretical year cycle of activity and life style of the species in Michigan.

 

 I hope this information is of use to those involved.     ,,,Nathan.

Edited April 16, 2014 by NathanFooter

[Guest Stan Norton]

Nathan, 

 

Many thanks for your detailed response. Looks and sounds like your are applying scientific rigour to your research which is only to be lauded. Keep on keeping on...it is this approach that will yield results in the end. 

 

Out of interest, do you share results and methods with any other researchers to see if any potentially fruitful approaches can be applied to other locales?

While I generally agree that the trail cams have come up short, there is the one or two captures that could be the exception to the rule. The study of any other species doesn't have to deal with the "Man in a suit" hypothesis for each and every capture, which tends to put the "hirsuted man" hypothesis out the window.

 

http://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/hunt-tv/

 Hirsute v hair suit...

[NathanFooter]

  Thanks Stan, I do share a little here on the forums but mainly with a private group of serious and invested researchers who are focused on scientific documentation.

 

  Much of my data and results are not yet public, I still have audio { about 160 hours } and environmental notes to compile from last year but over all we had a fantastic season last year being that we found tracks and recorded some good audio clips.  A small sample of my recorded efforts from last year can be found by clicking the link that is at the bottom of ever one of my posts.

 

   Now with a thermal camera in my arsenal and bag full of new tech I can only imagine what is in store for this seasons efforts.

[Guest lightheart]

Sounds like you are definitely ready to get out there with your new equipment. Good luck Nathan!

[Guest keninsc]

Ken, you misunderstand. The point of my thread is to discuss possible methods, using scientifically valid techniques, of censusing sasquatch. This would be one way of helping establish if there is truly something out there. Its an open discussion but please do read and understand what is being asked before commenting.

I'd like serious comments on possible field methods applicable to sample areas within the purported range.

 

Sorry, but that is what i did. You're counting the eggs before they're hatched and that can't be right? Before you can begin a census then you need to find them because you're going to have to understand their habits, hunting patterns, reproduction cycles, territorial requirements, caloric intake, as well as their social structure. You need to have some of this down in order to determine what an effective means of calculating a population might be.

 

My comment is quite serious, well reasoned and insightful, you're jumping the gun.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Sorry, but that is what i did. You're counting the eggs before they're hatched and that can't be right? Before you can begin a census then you need to find them because you're going to have to understand their habits, hunting patterns, reproduction cycles, territorial requirements, caloric intake, as well as their social structure. You need to have some of this down in order to determine what an effective means of calculating a population might be.

My comment is quite serious, well reasoned and insightful, you're jumping the gun.

But again, this entire forum is predicated with the fact that sasquatch is not a confirmed species. Therefore its a moot point in the context of both this forum and this thread: that's been done to death. The game I invited everyone to play is to consider what some census methods might be. Its quite simple. Lets use some brain power and imagination. If you need to state that this is pointless because we have no scientific confirmation then fine, your point is unoriginal but made well and noted. Can we now get back to the op?

[Guest keninsc]

A game? Really?

 

After you said this in the OP?

 

I would therefore like serious minded individuals - I am hoping that those with outlandish ideas about sasquatch will opt out - to attempt to reach a workable census methodology which could be applied in a state or region or continent wide survey of likely sasquatch habitat, with the aim of gathering statistically valid data to see if there is indeed anything to this. 

 

I should very much like the sceptical among the membership to chip in in a constructive manner...please do suspend your natural incredulity for a while and play along...it would be much appreciated by many, not least me. 

 

I am looking for those with experience or knowledge of wildlife survey to help. Are there parallels from censuses for other organisms? Are there techniques which would not work for this creature? What is the balance between scientific rigour and practicable field methods?

 

 

So? Is this a game or a serious discussion, if it's a game then you need to specify this is a game. Silly me, I thought I was chipping in in a constructive manner by pointing out the cart before the horse. In order to count something, you need to have something to count.

 

If it's a game, then I'll bow out, I've no time for such silliness.

[Guest Stan Norton]

If you wish to willfully miconstrue then maybe it is best that you bow out. I have no time for silly arguments either. I think it is perfectly clear what the point of my thread is.

[southernyahoo]

I personally think that coming up with accurate numbers for a census is fraut with factors that may not be measurable. One could maybe estimate some ballpark figures based on knowledge of everything else except bigfoot and see what that leaves room for.

With that said, it matters more on what you are counting to plug in the numbers, so it looks like time is better spent shoring up the indicators/ or things to be counted.

[Sasfooty]

I don't think they'll participate in a census.