Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[scottv]

Hello,

 

length of time that the cameras are operating and frequency/degree of movement (long or short distances) of the animal also has to be factored into detection probability. Animals that move frequently and for long distances (or have large home ranges) have a higher probability of detection. Somewhat touched on by Explorer is number of cameras within an animals area of activity or home range. ALOT of thought and work has been put into using trail cameras for not just presence absence but estimating animal density. Here's an interesting read on the subject:

 

http://www.mikemeredith.net/blog/1308_Trap_layout_for_SECR.htm#fold

 

What would be good camera location for documenting presence of bigfoot?

[scottv]

What percentage of the medium to small mammal community was documented by the Cascades project? Of the known medium to large mammal species in the area, were any missed by the cameras?

[Guest DWA]

Darrell:  true, but there at least from appearances are LOTS of coyotes, by comparison, and as it's generally believed that they exist and their habits are well known, we have a substantially higher chance of getting one on a game cam.

 

Deer are, on an individual basis, about as elusive a forest animal as one will find.  But there are beyond tons of them.  And elusiveness will only help an animal so much before, well, it has to eat.  And lots of deer have found out that humans tolerate their presence, and that nothing in particular will happen if a human sees one.  Yep, in areas where they're actively hunted, that's different, and the behavior of individuals and frequency of sightings reflect that.

 

As you yourself have pointed out:  we know almost nothing about this species - at least nothing that is commonly agreed on except the barest generalities - and may find out, after confirmation, that we just had no idea how or where to place game cameras.  Or...that they'll never work.  We just don't know yet.

[hiflier]

Hello All,

 

Lots of jokes but still no explanation for a lack of game cam photos. Except conspiracy theories and maybe magic I guess.

 

It occurs to me that the fault in the entire thing lies in calling the devices "game" cams.  THAT's why the BF joke around. We've set the rules standards. Now if we called them Sasquatch cams instead I have a hunch that our luck would change. We might then see the big males dressed in red and white striped coats with straw hats and canes doing the ol' soft shoe and the females in turn lined up doing the can-can.

Edited January 12, 2014 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

I also think that after reading this thread, anyone who comes up with "conspiracy" and "magic" as the only explanations for no pics wants to believe something worse than Linus wants the Great Pumpkin to be real, but that's just me.

 

No, there are possible reasons that make loads of sense to people who understand animals and the outdoors.  YMMV with your understanding of those things.

[dmaker]

^^ Yeah, but you were one of the people claiming conspiracy DWA. Several times in this thread you claimed that officials had almost certainly ignored or destroyed bigfoot evidence.  Or were you just claiming conspiracy because you lack the required understanding of animals and the outdoors? Your own words of course, so please forgive me if they have a mild sting.

 

 

Should we start calling you Linus then?

 

 

 

"Sometimes, science can be done from an armchair by the perceptive." DWA

 

 

Sure, if by science you mean wild speculation.

Edited January 13, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

No wild speculation going on here.  But again, I prefer incisive argument from evidence.

 

Others may prefer clicking their heels together three times and hoping they're right, and I never claim conspiracy as an explanation for anything.  But I guess I've only said that thirty times on this thread.  Just people being people.  Just that some people don't understand people too well.

 

Not to worry.   Nothing you say carries any sting at all. 

[kitakaze]

Kitakaze,

 

Thanks much for re-introducing this topic in 2014 (for those of us who missed it in 2011).

I agree with you that the fact that wildlife monitoring organizations (in US and Canada) that used camera trap tools/methods in areas considered to be BF habitat and found no evidence is of concern to those who believe BF is present there.

 

I had the same concern last year when I realized that BF Research organizations (Project Forest Vigil, Olympic Project, and Bluff Creek Camera Project) had not had any success despite the high number of camera-trap days used. In addition we need to add the thousands of game cameras that are installed by hunters all over North America to look for patterns in their target animal (deer, bear, etc.) that also have not captured any BF photo.

 

This lack of success with game cameras is an issue that needs to be addressed as opposed to dismissed. Camera traps have proven to be ideally suited for detecting rare and cryptic species that an observer may rarely, if ever, encounter. Thus, it is a fair question to ask if BF is real how come camera-trap studies have not captured it.

 

However, failure to detect a species in a camera trap is not proof of its absence.

 

To brainstorm on possible reasons why BF was not detected, I will deconstruct the problem into 2 parts: probability of availability and probability of detection given that it is available.

 

P (D) = P (A) x P(D|A)

 

For detection to be zero, then either of these 2 probabilities has to be zero.

 

Possible reasons for the probability of availability to be zero:

1. BF does not exist

2. BF exist but was not available in the area sampled with camera traps

Possible reasons for the probability of detection to be zero given that BF exists and is available in the sample area:

1. The area covered by camera trap cells (or sample sites) was too small relative to the range area of BF.

2. The cameras were placed too close to each other and despite the high camera density, the survey did not cover a large and diverse enough habitat

3. Cameras were placed in a straight line fashion or following a creek/game trail/ridge line instead of covering a grid (does not have to be random distribution).

4. The habitat features that were targeted (based on species of interest in the wildlife study) to place cameras is avoided by BF.

5. BF prefers to move on roads and human trails and not in game trails or wild areas, thus camera-traps placed in wild habitat will miss them.

6. The BF communities have sentries that monitor every hiker that gets close to their home range and when humans install these odd objects, they avoid them.

7. BF (like most primates) is an arboreal species and is hard to detect on ground-based camera traps. (This is a wild claim and I throw it in the pot just as part of the brainstorm. I recall reading in one of Paulides books about NorCal that BF’s were scouting the area from above on the redwood trees).

With regard to the 7 possible reasons for lack of detection given availability, items 1 thru 3 are methodological reasons applicable to any species and reasons 4-7 are speculative reasons particular to BF. (BTW, I am not a proponent of those reasons, I am just brainstorming. I am excluding reasons that seem farfetched like conspiracy theories or dimensional portals).

I read the Canadian Rockies Carnivore Monitoring Project report (see link below) and it is very impressive. They certainly followed and established best practices on the use of camera-traps for wildlife monitoring. They followed the best methodologies available for establishing the presence of multiple species. Thus, if they did not detect BF and BF is claimed to live in those Canadian National Parks, then the reasons for no detection must be the more speculative ones and not the methodological ones.

 

http://www.cfc.umt.edu/heblab/Projects/Steenweg%20etal%202012%20PC%20Report%20remote%20camera%20occupancy.pdf

 

 

I also read about the work that Shiloh Halsey and GP Task Force did on modeling the Distribution of Bobcats the Southern Washington Cascades, and believe that he also used the best available methods.

Halsey’s dissertation will be available in August 2014 (see link below). I look forward to a more detail review of his methodology.

http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds/996/

http://www.gptaskforce.org/our-work/conservation/wildlife-tracking/fisher-habitat

 

On the other hand, the Cascades Carnivore Project is not that comprehensive with regard to camera-traps. The report said that they did not have camera-traps in every sample station that collected hair samples from bear and martens. Their focus was on DNA testing of collected hair samples and not on developing occupancy statistics purely on camera-traps. Thus, it is not clear if the camera-trap methodology used by the Cascades Carnivore Project could be used to conclude that lack of detection of BF with camera traps was statistically sound.

With regard to the BF organization studies, however, I am not familiar with the details of the methodologies used and thus don’t know if they were designed to the standards of wildlife biologist to increase the probability of detection (of any of the mammals present).  I wish Project Forest Vigil had issued an analytical report describing all the animals that were captured in their cameras as a function of camera site and day, and more information on the distribution of the cameras (how far apart, cell distribution, camera density, etc.). This would help in comparing methodologies between them and wildlife monitoring organizations.

 

Jamie Schutmaat from the Bluff Creek Camera Project wrote on his Facebook page (see link below) that he is creating a catalogue of all the animals captured on the BC Project since they started in 2012. I look forward to that report, since it will provide some calibration with bear and cougar population estimates from the CA DFG and that will provide insights into how well the BC camera-trap methodology is representing that habitat.

https://www.facebook.com/BluffCreekProject

 

 

Explorer:  plussed, absolutely.

 

That, folks, is how a scientist looks at a problem. 

 

 

 

Excellent post, Explorer, and you're welcome.

 

The CCCP has 62 remote cameras deployed in remote areas of the North Cascades and 75 corrals as of 2012. The number of cameras will have increased since then.

 

http://www.cascadesconnectivity.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/2012-Interim-Report-November-2012_Final.pdf

 

On the Olympic Peninsula in the Olympic National Forest the Olympic Project has has 51 cameras in their study area which is in its fourth year of operation. Details on placement from project head Derek Randles...

 

 

 

Norse,

 

At this point I believe they stay on the Peninsula year round.  They can exit on the South end very easily, but the thing about the Olympic Peninsula is IMHO, they have everything they need right there.  There is ample cover, Massive vegetation,  abundant rainfall, salt and fresh water.  The terrain provides the best case scenario for cover.  The rivers are seasonally rich with Salmon, and the land is full of Deer and Elk.  I think it's the perfect Sasquatch habitat.

 

That being said, I do think they migrate on the peninsula to different locations depending on Salmon runs, Elk calving, weather conditions and wild berry consumption.  I actually think we're getting a pretty good handle on when and why.  For example, right now I'm concentrating on Southern slopes between 2,000 to 3,000 FT.  Last month and the month before it was 1,000 to 2,000 ft.  The problem is, this time of year it's really hard to find tracks at those elevations, especially with dry hot weather.

 

Hiflier,

 

Searching the sighting record does help a lot, and I think that's pretty effective, depending on the accuracy of the available reports.

 

Bobby O,

 

Love to help

 

DR 

 

 

I would say right now it's about 50%. We now have cameras in river drainage's such as the Quinalt and Queets, focusing on Elk calving areas. Every year in April a lot of tracks show up in these areas. The other 50% or so are still looking at ridge lines and predatory travel routes.

 

Parn,

we currently have 51 cameras deployed, and ya there are some that are trained on each other.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/7259-sierra-shooting-from-a-z/page-122

 

The following is a large sample of the mammals captured by the project's Reconyx RC60 Covert game cams...

 

http://www.olympicproject.com/id5.html

 

Black bear, cougar, bobcat, lynx, mountain goat, elk, deer, coyotes (including alphas), and mule deer.

 

Explorer, what is your response to these criticisms of your OP on the subject of animal density regarding Bigfoot and game cams?

 

 

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

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/43879-animal-population-density-and-game-camera-capture/#entry790573

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

"Nothing is conclusive given that I am using theoretical models and extrapolation of correlations generated with other mammal species" = wild guesses.

 

I hope that answers your question..

 

 

Yes it does.

 

Explorer clearly stated that it was "theoretical" and therefore not "conclusive".

 

All that leaves is an exercise regarding how "wild" his "guesses" were.

 

One can't theorize or extrapolate regarding something about which one is in denial.  Model destroyed.

 

[Explorer]

Kitakaze and all,

 

The Rowcliffe model is theoretical. The relationships of the model were developed using scientific principles and it was tested/vetted in an enclosed animal park with known abundances (but a limited number of animal species). Thus, I am cognizant that we can’t draw firm conclusions from this model. I liked this model because we don’t have to recognize the individual animal and still estimate animal density (if the cameras are placed with enough distance to each other and followed the specified methodology).

 

Nevertheless, models are used all the time to understand problems and to figure out the bounds of possible solutions and how the key variables of the problem affect the outcome.
In this particular case, I was trying to figure out how many camera-trap days are required to capture Bigfoot, if you assume that BF is a real animal. I thought that this is the first question somebody should answer before attempting a camera-trap survey for BF.

 

We all agree that there is no data on BF, but we can always bound the problem and analyze. We don’t know the weight, but we can use a ceiling and a floor based on ranges reported and Fahrenbach’s work. We don’t know the animal day range, but we can use a ceiling and floor based on reports or analogies to known animals. The density relationship to weight are based on empirical data from many mammalian species, but I acknowledge that they don’t include BF data. However, again I looked at a range of equations to avoid anchoring and estimated a range of densities.

 

Using ranges for the 2 key parameters of the model, we end up with camera-trap days required that are reasonable and not impossible (< 10,000 camera-trap days). A very interesting observation from this model is that the higher the animal day range, the higher the likelihood of camera capture and the less cameras you need.

 

Personally, after doing this work, I was surprised by the results because I was expecting millions of camera trap days required to capture BF. If you believe these results and assume that project Forest Vigil and OP followed the methodologies Rowcliffe outlines, then you would expect capture. However, I don’t know what methodologies were applied for FV and OP. In the Canadian Rockies Carnivore project and Bobcat study in South Cascades, while they did not use Rowcliffe model (that was not their objective) they used very robust methodologies and I believe exceeded the 10,000 camera-trap days. (I did not calculate to check).

 

I consider the BF Density post, to be a first attempt at bounding the problem. BF proponents should attempt to estimate density since this helps understand the problem scope. The allometric scaling equations are all I had.  I acknowledge that the upper-bound estimate of camera-trap days required could be wrong. Would I bet my salary that 10,000 camera-traps are sufficient to capture a BF? No, I am not that confident on this model and don’t have any experience setting camera-traps to really understand the field issues/problems that divide theory from practice. I wish others with more expertize in wildlife biology that do this kind of work for a living will jump in and develop a more robust theoretical model.

 

 

On the other hand, a key conclusion from that model that is supported by their test results, is that animal density could be estimated from camera-trap rate. So the ratio of BF density to Bear or cougar density, should provide an estimate for camera-trap rate expected for BF (given the obtained trap rate for bear and/or cougar). This assumes that BF behaves just like any other animal and does not have special abilities or powers. Also, it assumes that none of the more speculative reasons for lack of detection apply.

 

BTW, I am not a wildlife biologist. I am just an engineer who builds statistical models of real world problems and find the camera-trap modeling problem fascinating.

 

My conclusion on all this discussion is that we have a mystery (lack of BF capture on camera-trap studies) that is hard to explain if BF is a real animal.

[Cotter]

^All of that statistical mumbo jumbo is great, and when assumptions are sound, can be applied to tell us all sorts of information.

 

I don't think we have our assumptions dialed in enough to accurately predict the pass/fail probability of capturing a BF on camera.

[dmaker]

No wild speculation going on here.  But again, I prefer incisive argument from evidence.

 

Others may prefer clicking their heels together three times and hoping they're right, and I never claim conspiracy as an explanation for anything. 

 

"One of the best examples of sheer unthinking denial I can come up with offhand is the assertion that "coverups just don't happen."

 

They happen all the time...and for the most mundane and totally understandable reasons imaginable.  And yes, a number of sasquatch reports include what look like coverups by land management and law enforcement personnel for just those mundane reasons".       DWA post #653

Edited January 13, 2014 by dmaker

[WSA]

You and DWA should just take out reciprocal restraining orders Dmaker, and just get on with the divorce. Obviously, irreconcilable differences would be the grounds. :-)

[Guest DWA]

If he clicked his heels together three times before that post I get the house.

Bigfoot skeptics are a powerful testament to the lengths to which folks will go to make something real by wishin'.

[Guest DWA]

I am at present on Steinbeck's The Log from the Sea of Cortez.  One so inclined - bigfoot skeptics generally are not - should read the log entry from chapter 17 (March 27), particularly the last page or so.  It neatly summarizes the cranny into which we can safely stash the work of the Cascades Carnivore Project, at least with regard to a certain species.

"...demonstrated to be in error."  Oh if only you knew,.  If only you knew. 

Edited January 15, 2014 by DWA
Rule 1A

[Guest DWA]

Explorer: 

 

Greatly appreciating your analysis.  The only thing I can say  about camera trap failure (presuming of course that there aren't some good pictures out there we don't know about, and that no anomaly ever caught on such a cam is a sasquatch) is that, if the results aren't happening and we know little about the subject, and science accepts nothing as evidence let alone proof, the model is flawed, and the failure can't simply deep-six the evidence.