Toward A Workable Census Methodology.

[NathanFooter]

Bump.....

[NathanFooter]

I felt like this thread was really interesting and potentially beneficial for research efforts. I really hope the conversation picks back up.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Seeing as I started it I feel somewhat responsible! Where did we get to? How to census an organism about which no-one has any real idea of population size or structure, status, distribution or ecology: ideas please...

[Guest Stan Norton]

Would there be mileage in using distinct research teams in a given area (as someone suggested), say a particular tetrad within purported core habitat. Separate teams could look at prints, vocalisations and sightings and see if these show any correlation. I'm sure some folks are already doing this anyway.

[Trogluddite]

Stan, 

 

* When you first posted this, I stayed away as I have no experience or knowledge of wildlife survey techniques.  I’m not sure that there is a “likely†‘squatch habitat, as these appear to be fairly adaptable woodland animals – maybe it’s easier to rule out certain habitat, such as desert or swamps? (Okay, as I read the rest of the thread, let’s leave swamps in for now...)

 

* Are evaluating reported encounters by non-scientists considered to be a ‘valid wildlife survey technique?’  If a “real scientist†^TM were trying to take a census of wombatelopes and had a very difficult time finding these wombatelopes, could a real scientist rely on reports from the locals about where wombatelopes were encountered?  If you can’t use anecdotal evidence of Bigfoot, you are left with very limited and uncertain evidence of Bigfoot.  (If you can use anecdotal evidence of Bigfoot, you are left with lots and lots of uncertain evidence of Bigfoot.)   

 

* I will just add that the idea of using teams to triangulate in on a vocalization or to comb through zones of suspected habitat appears to not take into account the relative rarity of encounters, the very large expanse of habitat that has to be covered, and the fact that most researchers can’t spend the necessary weeks in the woods.  For example, just in the northeastern United States, I have 675 encounters consolidated.  Round up to 1,000, as I’m sure I’ll have that many reports to analyze.  That sounds good until you divide those 1,000 encounters by 100,000 square miles and 300 years (knocking out the possible 1759 encounter).  So to quote Jayne Cobb, finding Bigfoot can be, “let’s see, zero divided by zero, carry the zero, and that leaves us with ... zero.†    

 

* Any suggestions on a good, publicly available website that provides consolidated biological data (e.g., average height/weight, daily range, territorial range, etc.) on varying species?  I believe that Bigfoot, if it exists, falls on the normal scale for animals in attributes and behavior; I’d like to update my list of comparables. 

[NathanFooter]

For a visual representation of the types of swamp forest I have been describing I have included a few example images from my research area.

[Trogluddite]

Nathan, 

 

When you put info in, I know its solid.  I am curious though, do you think that a 4x4 square mile swamp is big enough to be a "core" home range - for purposes of that question, let's say "core" = bigfoot in the area 75% of the time.  

 

I ask because when I was new here others suggested home ranges of up to 400 square miles, w/Bigfoot constantly riding its circuit as it were.  I've tentatively begun identifying clusters, over time and distance, of encounters that could be related.  For example, one bigfoot of a particular description was seen six times over 9 years in a 30 square mile area. That's the smallest home territory I've identified; others include 900 square miles and 1275 square miles. 

 

Is it possible that your swamp is a way station, where they hole up from time to time in a larger area or network of base camps?

[NathanFooter]

When I started looking at the commom factors in my state amoung the locations of reports I noticed that the reports where of a higher density near expansive tracts of swamp forest and that the most common size of these areas was about 4 miles by 4 miles or a larger. This size figure happens to fall inline with two other compelling factors, one being that bear populations are much higher in areas of this composition and second this 4x4 area size is just large enough that people feel less compelled to enter into as the chances of getting very lost or injured become much higher.

These 4x4 evergreen swamps that produce reports always seem connected to many streams and river systems that could certainly be pathways for travel but that being said if they are traveling these in the winter they are doing a superb job of not leaving clear trackways in the snow.

Snow trackways are rare and most often (in my state) seem to be crossing from one large swamp into another, one such recent example comes to mind from the BFRO near Alpena,MI.

 

Is it possible that your swamp is a way station, where they hole up from time to time in a larger area or network of base camps?

Something like that has crossed my mind, it could be that they stay in big swamp area "A" untill they tapout the resources then follow one of the many connected river system pathways out to the next 4x4 big swamp area "B". Come to think of it, this would be very much like what a stealthy military unit would do to get through a rough time of year in a remote area. I guess this would be considered a tactical/nomadic way of life if it is indeed the case.

[norseman]

I think a good way to cut sign is in winter. Drive logging roads in a particular drainage for a day and then move one drainage over the next day, rinse and repeat. Anything that is out there moving has a good chance of being forced to cross a road. The only enemy in winter time is fresh snow fall that's buries tracks.

A person needs a GPS to mark track ways and either a snowmobile or four wheeler with tracks. Owning a set of snow shoes or skis could further research by following the track way and determining what it's doing. As well as a chance to encounter scat or hair or the animal itself.

Also, it's not necessary to "volunteer" for a survey. If you are attempting to make a living in a forest or jungle somewhere the evidence of that struggle betrays your presence.

[Trogluddite]

Nathan, 

 

Thanks for the clarification - I thought you were focused on a single 4x4 area; my bad. Best of luck getting a body or clear, unequivocal photo in the new year.  Trogs. 

[Guest]

Preparatory work begins with a general outline of what you intend to accomplish. Create your mission statement. How you intend to get from point A to point B. Before any of this can be considered, I would read and research. Identify and target researcher of like-minded interest and goals. Enlist assistance from some of the best researchers out there. Read and analyze known Bigfoot hotspots. Study the nuances and the ebb and flow of activity. Never outlook some of the information you find here.