Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[kitakaze]

Still waiting for you to prove how you can always tell the difference between a photo of a "real" animal and a "fake" animal ?

 

For example, how can you prove that the Groundhog photos Kitkaze posted weren't stuffed Groundhogs. 

 

Or for that matter digitally created Groundhogs?

 

Groundhogs/gophers:

 

Real...

 

 

 

Stuffed...

 

 

 

CG...

 

[Guest DWA]

Um, as an indicator of the general Science Quotient on this thread...those aren't gophers...

[Cotter]

I think for the premise of 'BF doesn't exist b/c it hasn't been caught on trail cameras' to be true.  One must assume that wolverines, deer, groundhogs, etc have the same intelligence and sensory abilities as BF.

 

IMHO - there is a major flaw in that thinking b/c if indeed BF was as 'smart' as a Wolverine, I would agree that yes, we would have our camera evidence and physical proof by now. 

 

Edited January 8, 2014 by Cotter

[dmaker]

^^ But, Cotter, we do have trail cam photos of other higher primates. I don't think it is illogical to consider that if BF did exist, its intelligence would be within that range. Also, humans get caught on cameras all the time. We have zero innate ability to know when we're being filmed. 

[WSA]

Actually George, those are prarie dogs, am I right?

 

Or, to say it another way, "Unga gunga alunga..."

[dmaker]

DWA, WSA, tell you what? Rather than split hairs about rodent species, how about you provide some equally clear photos of large, bipedal primates in North America and we can then discuss species identification issues?

[kitakaze]

Anyone claiming to have interaction with a large animal should be able to provide some physical or photographic evidence.

How is not believing the stories coming out of area x faith? The stories haven't been backed up by physical or photographic evidence. Should scientists believe all stories without corroborating evidence they hear then?

 

 

And anyone saying that all this evidence is being produced by liars, the deluded and the deranged should be able to prove that too.

 

Any decade now.

 

 

They can prove I'm wrong when they bring in their Bigfoot. It shouldn't be too hard if their stories are to be believed unless they are completely inept.

 

 

Well at least we're getting cool pictures out of this.

 

I just have less faith than some in "hey boss, bigfoot's real!  Look..."

 

NAWAC/TBRC had 5 years/40 cameras running in an area where they were reporting significant Bigfoot activity. Why did they never record a single Bigfoot?

[Cotter]

@dmaker - one would also then have to assume that BF's intelligence and sensory abilities are the same as higher primates and humans.

 

I personally think, that if BF exists, it has intelligence and sensory abilities unique to primates.  Otherwise, well, y'know?

 

What we all do not know is where BF falls on either scale.

[dmaker]

I agree Cotter. You, however, brought up the comparative intelligence angle. Personally I think those type of conversations are akin to discussing how many horns does the average unicorn have. 

[Guest DWA]

NAWAC/TBRC had 5 years/40 cameras running in an area where they were reporting significant Bigfoot activity. Why did they never record a single Bigfoot?

Um... because...they....didn't?  Good answer?  I thought so.

 

So?

 

I'm dismissing the evidence because 40 cameras - think about how little those cameras are actually covering, now, and add that we know next to nothing about this animal's travel patterns - just happened not to come up with something?  No more than I'm dismissing a person's existence because I haven't seen her.

 

A big dumb rhino science knows all about went ten years in a tiny corner of Borneo before they got video.

 

So? 

[kitakaze]

Extremely impressive post on this subject, unfortunately over-looked, little understood...

 

 

The following is just a summary of my explorations on this topic.  Nothing is conclusive given that I am using theoretical models and extrapolation of correlations generated with other mammal species.  Nonetheless, the exercise was helpful in terms of understanding some of the key variables and dimensions of the problem.

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

I am curious about the lack of success in using game camera techniques to capture an unambiguous photo/video of Bigfoot.  I don’t know the specific techniques and strategies used by the three projects that have used Game Cameras to look for BF evidence (Project Forest Vigil (from NAWAC), Olympic Project and Bluff Creek Camera Project), and thus can’t comment on their outcomes. Nonetheless, I wanted to better understand the theoretical relationships between animal density and camera capture rate.

One paper that I found very interesting is titled “Estimating Animal Density using Camera Traps without the Need for Individual Recognition†by Rowcliffe, Field, Turvey and Carbone in Journal of Applied Ecology, 2008. The paper is available at link below.

http://onlinelibrary...008.01473.x/pdf

The authors developed a theoretical formula linking the animal density to the photo capture rate using properties of the camera. The formula is shown below:

D = (y/t) π/(vr(2+θ))

Where, D is animal density (number per square kilometers)
y/t = is the camera capture rate, number of photographs per unit time
v = animal speed of movement
r = camera radius of detection
θ = camera angle of detection

This theoretical framework supports our common sense expectation that if you set a number of camera traps in a fixed area, then the cameras should capture more photos of those animals that are more common per square kilometer (higher density). The equation also provides a theoretical guidance for what the Bigfoot research community should expect from game camera projects, given its expectations on BF density.

The authors developed a model of trapping effort (how many camera days are required to capture 10 photos) as a function of animal density and day range. See attached graph.

The chart shows that given an animal day range, the higher the density the lower the number of camera trap days required to capture 10 photographs. For example, if an animal’s day range is 1 kilometer, then at densities of 10/km2, 1/km2 and 0.1/km2 it will require about 100, 1000, and 10,000 camera days. This makes sense; the higher the animal density (given a day range) the less camera days are needed to capture the animal in photo. Less intuitively is looking at the chart from a fixed density position. Given an animal density, then the more it moves per day the less camera days are required. For example, for a given animal density of 1/km2, if the animal moves 10 km/day, the you need 100 camera days, but if the animal moves only 1 km/day, then you need 1000 camera days. The rationale here is that the more the animal moves (within a given area), the higher the probability of capturing it.

To apply this theoretical model to Bigfoot we need to estimate its density. However, there is no data on BF density.

Thus, I estimated BF density by extrapolating from existing allometric scaling equations developed from known mammals.
The paper I referenced to get the equations is titled, “The Allometric Scaling of Density and Body Mass: A Non-Linear Relationship for Terrestrial Mammalsâ€, by Marina Silva and John Downing, The American Naturalist , May 1995

The paper is available at link below:
http://www.public.ia...... 704-727.pdf

 

Silva and Downing relate animal density (number per km2) to body mass (kilograms) using power function equations. However, they found that the equations are different depending on animal size and whether the animal is a herbivore, carnivore, insectivore, or secondary consumer.
These equations use mass (kilograms) of the animal as the input variable to estimate density. And as we all know, there is no agreement on what is the average weight of a BF since none has been captured (or confirmed to exist). Thus, I relied on published estimates.

 

The best analysis I have seen is by Dr. Wolf Fahrenbach titled “Sasquatch: Size, Scaling and Statisticsâ€, Cryptozoology, 13, 1997-1998 (see link below) where he estimated a weight range from 490 to 1,040 lbs and an average of about 660 lbs. Fahrenbach estimate of the weight of the PGF film creature was ~540 lbs.

http://www.bfro.net/...bacharticle.htm

Estimates by Titmus and Green placed the average BF size at 800 lbs. I will examine the density equations using 3 estimates: 540, 660, and 800 lbs in order to determine sensitivity of this uncertainty on the density.

Table 1 shows the application of allometric scaling equations for animal density that Silva/Downing developed for Herbivores (of more than 100 kilograms and less than 100 kilograms). These equations were applied to California Black bear (just to check them) and to Bigfoot (for illustrative purposes only). The CA black bear is less than 100 kg, thus the appropriate equation is shown on the blue box of Table 1. The equation estimate a density of about 2.5 bears per square mile. This estimate is close to the CA Fish and Game range estimate of 1 to 2.5 bears per square mile for the North Coast/Cascade region – that contains about 50% of CA black bears (see link below).

http://www.dfg.ca.go...population.html

 

The BF density estimates shown in Table 1 are just illustrative, since there is general agreement that BF is not herbivore. If BF was herbivore, then applying these equations would yield very high (and unreasonable) densities.


Table 2 shows the application of allometric scaling equations for animal density that Silva/Downing developed for Carnivores and Secondary Consumers. These equations were then applied to California cougars (just to check them) and to Bigfoot. The CA cougar density is estimated at 0.24 using the carnivore equation and 0.10 using the secondary consumer equation. The carnivore density estimate is high since the USFS and F&G studies put the CA cougar population at between 0.04 and 0.12 cougars/square mile.

When we apply these equations to BF, they lead to very different extrapolations. The secondary consumer equation has a positive scaling factor, thus BF weight increases the density. This result is counter-intuitive but Silva/Downing explain it as follows: “Mammalian reproductive ecology may cause large mammals to maintain population levels that are higher than those projected by simple allometry. Population persistence can be limited by the ability of animals to find mates. Thus, the largest species may not be able to survive at very low densitiesâ€.
The calculation of BF density using the carnivore equation yield more reasonable numbers in terms of meeting the expectation of a lower density for a bigger animal. Given that BF is not considered to be 100% carnivore, this estimate might be a floor for the BF density. However, given the uncertainty on the accuracy of this equation (given that cougar density estimate in CA could be 82% too high), I generated a third set of density estimates for BF by downward adjusting the Carnivore equation to match 2012 cougar estimates.

Using these three density estimates (Carnivore, Secondary consumer, and adjusted carnivore), I then applied them to National Forest areas in Northern California to see what kind of population estimates they yielded. For BF Habitat in Northern CA, I used Six Rivers NF (1,496 square miles), Klamath NF (2,715 square miles) and Shasta-Trinity NF (3,453 square miles) for a total area of 7,664 sq. miles.

Table 3 shows the population estimates using this Northern California and the 3 density estimates.


The range of estimates for BF population in Northern CA (for the average BF weight of 660 lbs) is from 34 to 1,824. However, the Secondary consumers equation is controversial and might be flawed to apply it to BF because of its positive power coefficient. Thus, the more reasonable range population range might be 34 to 188. Likewise, the more reasonable population densities to use for the Game camera analysis might be 0.004 to 0.025 per sq. mile (or 0.002 to 0.009 per sq. km).

Going back to the graph developed by Rowcliffe (2008) on camera trap effort as a function of density and applying this low density estimate (use approximately 0.01/sq. km). Figure 2 shows the number of camera days required at this low density estimate (shown in red line) will depend on the day range of the BF. If BF moves only 1 km per day, then we need 100,000 camera days. If BF moves 10 km per day, then we need 10,000 camera days. If BF moves, 100 km per day, then we need only 1,000 camera days. 10,000 camera days is not a lot considering that typical camera trap studies use 40 cameras. If you run 40 cameras 365 days a year, that will give you 14,600 camera days (not an unreasonable study). Furthermore, the number of days required for photo capture by this theoretical model is for 10 photos. Thus, if we only need one photo then these estimates are conservative.

Attached Thumbnails

• 
•  
• 
• 
•  
• 
• 

 

 

 

[Guest DWA]

They can prove I'm wrong when they bring in their Bigfoot. It shouldn't be too hard if their stories are to be believed unless they are completely inept.

Like, you mean, all those scientists who ACTUALLY CAPTURED kouprey, MULTIPLE kouprey - a 1000-pound known cow, ferepetesake - and couldn't get a specimen back?  Like, you know, them?

 

Know their excuse?  I'll paraphrase:  it's almost like there's a spell that scientists are not ever to know about or capture this animal.

 

Gotcha.  (I'll let you look it up.  Hint.  Wharton.)

Here you have an animal that no full-time effort has ever been devoted to bringing back for a period longer than three weeks.

 

Oh, I'm perfectly comfortable with where we are.  I'd expect it.

 

Extremely impressive post on this subject, unfortunately over-looked, little understood...

 

 

 

OK.  Well, he is apparently wrong, and not surprising, given that the estimates he's using are derived from WAGs in turn developed from SWAGs...about an animal that common sense would dictate that the vast majority of people encountering one don't report.

[Guest]

Why is a critically endangered rhino relevant to this? Is bigfoot rare too?

[Cotter]

In response to Kit's post - 'nothing is conclusive' - says so in the first couple sentences.

 

Also, this equation may work for normal woodland animals.  But we're not dealing with 'normal' here now are we?

[Guest]

Sounds like more special pleading.