Toward A Workable Census Methodology.

[Guest Stan Norton]

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.

Indeed. That is point: what factors might we consider using in order to get to a realistic field census technique.

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

Maybe if we ask politely in colonial era Spanish they might?

[Sasfooty]

I doubt it.

 

Besides, the ones in south Louisiana, most of the Midwest & NE, Canada, & the PNW wouldn't understand. So you're going to need a lot of translators.

[southernyahoo]

Indeed. That is point: what factors might we consider using in order to get to a realistic field census technique.

 

 

 

We might be able to takle a square mile of prime habitat and with high recent reports, and monitor for certain types of vocalizations to determine if there could be a few in it. If we decided to count whoops from several different subjects for instance, then we might say we had three per square mile.  Ofcoarse you aren't accounting for how much they move around or where they might go seasonally. You could maybe figure a minimum based on the need to procreate and a max based on ecological impact to keep yourself in line, but not sure how to get reasonable numbers when they may not behave like other animals which could skew the whole census.

[ohiobill]

I doubt it.

 

Besides, the ones in south Louisiana, most of the Midwest & NE, Canada, & the PNW wouldn't understand. So you're going to need a lot of translators.

Maybe multilanguage signs offering free overalls and cigars could be strategically placed near train yards or even on train cars in conjunction with cameras as a form of rolling billboard to cover huge areas? Costs would be minimized by only using the dead language translators once to craft something along the lines of "follow me for the finest in free overalls and tobacco" in numerous dead languages. The amount of steel and EMF present around diesel electric locomotives may interfere with the bigfoots ability to sense cameras present in habituation scenarios. It seems shortsighted to discount the superior intelligence and affinity for overalls, tobacco and trains described by reliable witnesses. 

[Guest Stan Norton]

Ohiobill,

Love it! But can you contribute something sensible? Maybe we can start another thread for general mickey taking? I'd certainly be up fot it...

Cheers

[Sasfooty]

Well, I don't know about the overalls. I haven't personally seen that. Just heard about it on one of those BF shows on TV a few years ago. And I doubt that they hang out in train yards anyway. Probably catch their rides out of town a ways. So you would just be wasting your money having all those signs painted up & buying cameras for the train yard.

[ohiobill]

Actually Stan, train mounted cameras wouldn't be a horrible idea as train vs wildlife footage is common enough. Cameras placed along power line or gas line rights of way or wildlife corridors under busy highways would be excellent ideas as well due to long clear vistas and relatively easy access for monitoring. I don't see the logic in using vocalizations as we have no verified calls to use as a standard. A line hunt through a near impassable swamp seems out but concentrating cameras around a "hot spot" like Nathan's seems to hold promise. My concern would be how to determine a "hot spot" utilizing anecdotal sighting reports as the basis for my decision to place the cameras.

 

A better approach might be to base camera placement priority on official investigations completed by police or wildlife management officers where the risks of dealing with hoaxers or attention seekers will be minimized and with the expectation that an on scene investigation happened with trained personnel within minutes or hours rather than the weeks, months, or years common to bigfoot reports if they are scrutinized at all. Realistically I would not be willing to invest my time, money or cameras investigating a sighting where the witness claimed to have been terrified by a 9' tall bigfoot without ever having called authorities.

[southernyahoo]

 My theory has been called the evergreen theory

 

 

Nathan I think the evergreen theory has some merit, if for no other reason than to provide good cover year round, but also the Cedars have oils in the bark that may act as an insect repellant and is good for the skin.

[Guest DWA]

Assumptions are all we have to go on, Bigfoot is yet to be proven to exist. And yet here we are conjectuting on how to count them.

I just think we need to find them first. Silly me.

 

Well, this is the question.  Until, as Stan says, scientific rigor is applied, forget 'find.'

 

The fundamental problem here is a lack of scientific application to the issue, mainly because of denial among the very folks who should be solving the problem.  Scientists are waiting for a hillbilly to drive in with one in his truck, when ....well, we know how the saying goes.  If you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem.  There is more than enough evidence

 

(and please let's not have, in a serious discussion, the typical inability to differentiate between evidence and proof)

 

to get science involved, full bore, on this.

 

There are ways to use information now available to determine where to focus the search.  (Finding Bigfoot?  Those people have that information...and they are not using it.  They want to do Fun TV, not solve the problem.)  The problems are the same ones encountered with any other animal.  For my part, I discount "you aren't including intellect and intentional evasion".  That short-changes animals, which aren't stupid and...."instinct" is a scientific cop-out, not a real thing.

 

For any animal, reports will lag behind actual encounters.  (I have reported barely a handful of my wildlife encounters to any authority.)  But I would propose that reports on major databases give pretty good prima facie indices of where to look for sasquatch.

 

I have always felt that a leading scientific or trade journal - Science; Nature; Scientific American; shoot even Outdoor Life or Field and Stream or others of that ilk would work - should get the ball rolling by appealing to its readership.  (From that standpoint the latter two publications might actually be best.)  Compile reports - crib format from BFRO or NAWAC, or even cooperate with them - and let the results start informing search strategies.

[NathanFooter]

  Yeah, the temps are better under evergreens, { cooler in the summer sun and warmer in the winter } the hanging bows can act as natural shelter from snow or frost and reflect bod heat back down.  I use deer as an example, after a really cold night or a chilly night with wind I can very reliably go out and find deer beds under pines and low growing spruce.

 

 You know, now that you mention the oil aspect, I can think back times where odd damage or bark stripping had been done to cedar trees, I have personally seen that kind of damage but never thought much of it at the time.  Interesting for sure.

[scottv]

Hello, 

 

NathanFooter, your theory explains where they go in winter or why they are so hard to document (both)? Either way it works for your this area but not the rest of the U.S. where bigfoot is reported to be. I would not consider 4 miles x 4 miles to be all that big especially for animals of this size. Have you looked at it on google earth? Might help you see different vegetation zones and possible migration corridors and help you focus your efforts. Also if you get responses to play backs you can plot the detection locations on google earth and reveal a home range or area of activity. This is called "spot mapping" Apologies if you already know this.

 

These might help you with survey design.

 

http://www.bbec.sabah.gov.my/phase2/downloads/2012/april/camera_trap_manual_for_printing_final.pdf

 

http://apes.eva.mpg.de/eng/pdf/documentation/WhiteEdwards2000.pdf

 

Wildlife Conservation Society Malaysia, has a wonderful website with some very good tutorials on statistics and survey design:

http://www.wcsmalaysia.org/analysis/default.htm

 

As stated I'm a skeptic on bigfoot but, I think it would be good if people used some of the methods used by wildlife biologists for what should be just another animal species. I wish you luck in your search.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Yep, I've always wondered why a team of researchers cannot work in unison to triangulate the likely location of a suspected sasquatch vocalisation. Do folks simply not attempt to locate or, a la Finding Bigfoot, just wander off aimlessly into the forest in the hope of bumping into something?

 

Scott you are so right in that it is through the application of tried and tested field methods (or at least an attempt to apply them to this creature) that results are likely to come. Results that someone else can take seriously. What we really don't need more of is vague subjective reports. 

[NathanFooter]

 Scottv , I realize that it is not a theory that applicable to the entire US, I did mention that in my post that the theory was developed from data collected from Michigan.  Different habitats, average temps and terrain are huge factors in survival and life style of any species so I completely agree.

 

 My reference to a 4X4 mile box was not to stand for the entire range of habitat, it was what might represent the core area or place of retreat.    If I where to span that box out to the entire range I think the group is using I would say that the range would be closer to a 12X12 mile box.

 

 I have been doing just such a project with spot mapping methods, the only lack at this point is the recording equipment to cover a broad enough area.  I have built my own long term audio recording devices that can record audio every night for 10 hours a night for over 30 days at a time, I have currently 2 of these system built, 1 is ready for deployment { next week maybe } but the other was damaged last year by the evil doings of a raccoon LOL.   As always, money is the limiting factor in this field.

 

 As for area mapping and vegetation overlay plotting, I have also done extensive work on those fronts as well,  I custom made my own maps from images taken for Google and Bing maps that where taken in the summer and early spring, the spring map was completely void of foliage from deciduous flora and revealed the landscape and water sources that where before hidden by the growth.  This provided contrast of tree and other plants species for identification.  Collectively, these points helped with learning the forest composition and terrain greatly.

 

 Great links and information,  I will be sure to read through them all this evening.   I completely agree that this field need to bone up on the implementation  of proper methodology and field routines, I spend time hear on the forums to make a push for real data collection vs the casual ,, camp and squatch ,, thing.    In the end, data is what is important.

[scottv]

NathanFooter, you are definitely on top of things. Acoustic surveys are becoming more common in wildlife biology. It is still mostly whales and bats but acoustic bird surveys are starting to happen. Not sure if these will be applicable for you but look at this link:

 

https://swfsc.noaa.gov/uploadedFiles/Divisions/PRD/Programs/Coastal_Marine_Mammal/Barlow_and_Taylor_2005_Sperm_Whale_MMS.pdf

 

and do a google search for: "A fully automatic wildlife acoustic monitor and survey system"

 

If you do a good job with your data collection, even if you do not document a bipedal ape in North America, you might discover something interesting (but not so spectacular) and useful nonetheless. 

 

Hope this helps and good luck!

[southernyahoo]

 

Yep, I've always wondered why a team of researchers cannot work in unison to triangulate the likely location of a suspected sasquatch vocalisation. Do folks simply not attempt to locate or, a la Finding Bigfoot, just wander off aimlessly into the forest in the hope of bumping into something?

 

Scott you are so right in that it is through the application of tried and tested field methods (or at least an attempt to apply them to this creature) that results are likely to come. Results that someone else can take seriously. What we really don't need more of is vague subjective reports.

 

I can say there is the consideration of having access to the land or property in which you collect the sounds from. It's certainly not legal in most or many locations to just go towards the sounds without regard to who owns the land or controls access to it. Some vocalizations have been captured from public roads and couldn't be persued further. Determining direction of origin is usually not a problem.