Hey Researchers, Why Don't You Leave Them Squatch Alone!

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Remember  Pink Floyd on The Wall, "Hey teachers, why don't you leave them kids alone! All in all your just a another brick in the wall."

 

My question here is whether our research is actually getting in the way of this specie being discovered, by that I mean, are we super educating these creatures in how to permanently stay hidden, seems like the more people search for them the smarter they are getting, it could lead to an impossible situation where humans will never get close to them, and they will forever retreat beyond our reach....it is just a simple thought, and considering how well they have adapted in the past, one that might be a very real possibility. While much of what is written below is not directly correlated to our research, much of the principles should be noted, and we can certainly learn and apply a similar approach to Sasquatch.

 

Wildlife research

A wide variety of wildlife is used in research (including mammals, birds, reptiles, fishes, amphibians and invertebrates) in studies aimed at:

• understanding species behaviour and ecology
• species conservation
• population management
• evaluating methodologies for control
• understanding the role of wildlife in disease transmission

Wildlife studies vary in their invasiveness and impact on the animals being studied. In all circumstances, researchers should seek to minimise any negative impact on the welfare of animals involved. Good animal welfare practice for wildlife research is characterised by the same features as laboratory-based research, however different approaches and procedures may be needed for wild animals compared with laboratory-bred animals.

Wildlife research is usually conducted with free-living animals in their natural habitat or with wild-caught animals in various captive settings (e.g. laboratory, zoo, aquarium, sanctuary). Rarely, wildlife species are purpose-bred under laboratory conditions similar to those used for animal models. Animals should not be taken from their natural habitat unless animals bred in captivity are unavailable or unsuitable for the scientific purpose. Taking animals from the wild for scientific purposes is regulated by legislation.  

• Field studies
• Captive studies
• The 3Rs

Field studies

Many wildlife studies focus on conservation and management, with the aim of learning about the ecology of a population in the field. In such cases, minimising disturbance to the animals is important for the scientific validity of the research as well as for good animal welfare.

Some field studies require altering the animals' habitat or behaviour as a goal of the study, whilst others require monitoring the animals in response to a change in habitat. In such cases, it is important to minimise disturbance both to the animals around the study site, and to the animals under investigation.

Many field studies involve manipulating the study animals involving capture, marking or additional procedures, or a combination of these, which can cause distress. Capture, marking, radio tagging and collecting physiological data (e.g. blood or tissue samples) can also have delayed consequences, such as a reduced probability of survival and reproduction. It is]therefore vitally important to carry out such procedures according to 'best practice' and to monitor the animals for potential adverse effects. Pilot studies may be used to assess the potential environmental disruption of fieldwork and follow-up studies may be used to monitor the success of the study and any adverse effects caused to the animals.

Researchers should take into account the social structure and behaviour of the species under investigation. The most obvious example is the dependence of young on maternal care. For species with a complex social organisation, removing a critical member of the social group can impair the well-being of the remaining group members. Such considerations may be pertinent even when the removal of animals is temporary.

Even purely observational studies, where there is no manipulation of the animals, can raise ethical concerns with regard to animal welfare and/or conservation. For example, human observation can disturb normal animal activities such that animals abandon their territories, home ranges or young. Making trails through habitats to access, observe and census animals can also cause disturbance. Researchers should consider such issues when designing their studies. Camera traps can sometimes be used to avoid disturbing the animals either by trapping or direct observation.  

Back to the top

Captive studies

In general, wild-caught animals should be kept in captive conditions that conform as closely as possible to their natural habitat (e.g. in such respects as light intensity, food etc.). Length of time in captivity and location of release are important additional considerations for animals being returned to the wild. Prolonged time in captivity may result in the released animal being rejected by its conspecifics and losing access to essential resources (e.g. badger's sett), which may compromise its ability to feed or fend for itself. Animals should always be returned to the exact point of capture. 

Back to the top

The 3Rs

The 3Rs are an integral part of the UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, amended 2012 (ASPA), which regulates the use of vertebrates and cephalopods, including wildlife species, in procedures with the potential to cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. The ASPA also requires that the likely benefits of the research, to humans, animals or the environment, are weighed against the likely harms to the animals involved.

The 3Rs and harm/benefit assessment are relevant also to wildlife research that is not regulated by the ASPA but which, nonetheless, has the potential to compromise the welfare of the study or non-study species. The 3Rs should always be considered as part of the design and conduct of wildlife studies.  

Replacement

Replacement does not often apply to studies aimed at understanding the behaviour and ecology of wildlife species, because the animals themselves are the objects of study. However, in silico techniques, such as computer modelling, are used for population studies, including those aimed at evaluating methods of lethal/fertility control, investigating animal movements and predicting disease spread.  

Reduction

Many of the principles and techniques used to reduce the numbers of animals used in biomedical research are applicable to wildlife research. These include

• using appropriate and efficient experimental designs, e.g. factorial designs to explore the effects of several variables in one experiment; sequential and multivariate statistical methods; repeated measures designs; phasing of experiments.
• estimating minimum sample size necessary for statistical significance and for adequate statistical power using information from the literature, pilot data, or both.
• keeping the number of replicates/experimental units (e.g. individual animals, cages of animals, social groups) to the minimum for the power level required.
• utilising statistical programmes that indicate when sufficient data have been collected for a significant result. 
• avoiding repeating studies, unless it is essential for the purpose or design of the project.
• sharing data and resources (e.g. biological and genetic samples) and publishing results, preferably in free access formats

Animal use can also be reduced by

• minimising the number of procedures to be carried out (e.g. trapping once to gain data for different parts of the study).
• utilising species/gender/age-specific experimental designs (e.g. using species specific baits, or trapping at specific times or locations to minimise non-target capture).

In contrast to most laboratory studies, sample size is not easy to control in field studies. For example, it may be necessary to trap 100 animals to find 40 that meet the age and sex requirements for a study. In addition, there may be external factors, such as weather conditions, that may affect the data that can be collected. It is important to consider these factors when designing field studies.  

Refinement

Assessing potential sources of harm to study and non-study species and how these will be eliminated or minimised should form part of all wildlife research proposals. In many cases, any negative impact on animal welfare can be reduced by careful experimental design and choosing the least invasive techniques. Issues to consider include

• capture/trapping - best practice guidelines are available (e.g. from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, American Society of Mammalogists).
• handling and restraint - handling wild animals should always be kept to a minimum; the correct techniques are not necessarily the same as those recommended for laboratory animals.
• marking by banding, tagging, branding, tattooing and toe, ear or tail clipping
• attaching an external, or implanting an internal, radio transmitter - the device should be within the recommended percentage of weight of the study animal and also be suitable for the animal's lifestyle (e.g. external transmitters may not be very useful for animals that squeeze through small openings, such as bats)
• medical/surgical interventions using anaesthetics and immobilising agents - anaesthesia is often needed to prevent distress or injury when handling or fitting non-invasive devices (e.g. radio collars)
• sampling hair, feathers, scales, milk, skin scrapings, stomach contents
• sampling blood and other body fluids - often non-invasive samples, such as saliva or faeces, can be used in place of blood or plasma
• methods for measuring body weight, respiration rate, heart rate, pulse rate, body temperature and body lengths
• euthanasia - humane killing methods in the field are not necessarily the same as those in Schedule 1 of the ASPA; researchers should be trained in the most appropriate field methods for the animals likely to be encountered (i.e. not just the target species)
• close examination of den sites, nests, etc. when this involves handling and/or removal of young animals, eggs or other objects
• removal to novel environments
• transport
• housing and maintenance in captivity - for most wild animal species there are no specific guidelines in the Home Office code of practice on care and accommodation; consider outdoor housing where appropriate
• environmental manipulation
• changes to diet and access to food/water - wild animals may not be able to use drinking bottles or to recognise certain novel foods; knowledge of the natural diet and behaviour and close monitoring of food and water intake is essential
• manipulating social grouping
• social deprivation
• methods of attracting animals, e.g. playback of calls, provisioning, baiting
• frequency and duration of human observation - consider using remote video surveillance
• habituation to humans
• disturbing interactions between species (e.g predator-prey), within species (e.g competition) and between species and habitat

Wildlife species used in research vary greatly in their body size, physiology and behaviour. The methods and equipment used should be appropriate to the species and cause the least distress. It is therefore recommended to consult species-appropriate literature and to seek the advice of those who are experienced with the particular species of interest and familiar with its response to disturbance, sensitivity to capture and restraint, and, if necessary, requirements for captive maintenance. Anyone capturing animals should be trained and competent in humane methods of capture, handling and release, and in any scientific procedures used, to minimise the impact on animals and their environment.  

Edited February 5, 2016 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

I like your approach.

With perhaps as few as 400 Bigfoot in the lower 48 a non-intrusive approach is best.

And the habitat is being decimated as well, the amount of logging in the last 20 years is runaway.

I'd estimate 50 percent of all forests have been cut over world wide.

Probably one of the most endangered large mammalian species on the planet, as well.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[BigTreeWalker]

Yes, that is a pretty good overview of what Wildlife Biology is about. I will say this. We don't know enough about this species to know if our actions are affecting them or not, period. All we can do is extrapolate our affects upon other wildlife. Which is still mostly a WAG.

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

It is probable that sasquatch investigators/researchers are affecting these animals to some degree, and it follows that their behavior is altered as well. I imagine that there are sasquatch who have never seen a human, meaning those who live in areas without a nearby human population, but it could also be argued that because sasquatch likely traverse great distances as opposed to staying in a single area for years at a time, that they are likely to have at least seen a human from a distance at some point in their lives. Does their familiarity with humans alter their behavior? Not that it really matters in most cases, considering that a bigfoot really does not need to behave any differently most of the time. I say this because the odds are that even if a bigfoot remained stationary, it is unlikely that a human would get close enough to see them. All the bigfoot would need to do is remain stationary. This however is just a single aspect of how we could have some impact on these animals.

 

The question is how are these animals being affected where their behavior is concerned? I would argue that their reactions are based mostly upon instinct, the most prominent being the "avoidance instinct." Perhaps humans are not affecting the behavior of the animals directly, but instead we are limiting their options, which in turn alters the behavior of these animals indirectly. For instance, if a sasquatch wants to do a particular thing but it is prevented by the presence of humans, the option of doing that thing is eliminated, and the animal must do something else. I would say that this means humans are altering the behavior of the animals, but again not directly, since the animal is simply making the next best choice, as opposed to the best choice, ie what it wants to do.

 

One of the most important questions is whether our behavior is detrimental to these animals, since at the end of the day that is what really matters. Based on the limited information available to us, and remember that this is information that must be interpreted by each of us, I would say that at present sasquatch researchers are not really harming the animals. As I mentioned earlier we may instead be limiting their options, but it is important to remember that this is unlikely to have any meaning for the overall bigfoot population, but instead will only affect individual animals who happen to be located in the small areas of forested land in which humans trek. It is hard to grasp just how much pristine forestland exists in North America, and I am of the opinion that most of this area has either never had human visitors, or only very occasionally sees a human pass through the general vicinity.

 

I've mentioned before my answer to a related question, that being "why do sasquatch seem to live in those areas that are very near to human settlements, as opposed to retreating deeper into the plentiful wilderness?" - that answer being that the sasquatch population is much greater than most tend to believe, and the density of the sasquatch population within these areas is such that the carrying capacity has essentially been reached. Now it could be that all of the available resources have been claimed, meaning there is not enough to support any more sasquatch, but it could also mean that the more dominant animals have forced out the weaker, less-dominant animals. IF true this has an interesting implication- is the behavior of those animals most seen by us humans, those animals who live nearest to us, skewed in comparison to the overall sasquatch population? Think about it like this- if the weaker animals are the ones we see the most, could they be more "skittish" than those sasquatch living deeper in the forests?

Edited February 6, 2016 by JiggyPotamus

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

     Our two species have evolved into separate niches from a common ancestor which means we had contact until we drove them into high mountain forests because we could out compete them in our environment.

     So we had very intimate contact that led to a set of behaviors that led to avoidance and mutual exclusion of common habitats by both. 

     We mount ineffective campaigns to "find" Bigfoot and attack those that say they see them or go looking for them and most would avoid those areas like the plague out of fear and a lack of adaptation to those habitats or ability to get in and out easily (our behaviors).

     They sneak around and don't come near us for the same reasons.

     Millions of years of experience have imprinted avoidance and stealth to an extreme degree at a instinctive behavioral level to both our Genus.

     Man seems to instinctively experience terror and avoidance behaviors on experiencing a Bigfoot as well.

     So at points in the past we have been very dangerous to each other because we are both seeking to dominate our respective environments.

     We won and they retreated and adapted through evolution to the forest uplands.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[FarArcher]

To succinctly answer the question - they bothered me first.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

To succinctly answer the question - they bothered me first.

Do you believe they sought you out or was it an accidental bothering?

[FarArcher]

 

To succinctly answer the question - they bothered me first.

Do you believe they sought you out or was it an accidental bothering?

 

 

First face to face was a bit of a meeting engagement - while backing away from one growling at me, I turned and discovered one was running at me, and when I spotted him, he veered slightly and ran past me.  The other times were on their part because I wanted no part of them.

 

It seems we were all living that Summer and Fall on the same mountain.  Our bad luck.

[BigTreeWalker]

 

I've mentioned before my answer to a related question, that being "why do sasquatch seem to live in those areas that are very near to human settlements, as opposed to retreating deeper into the plentiful wilderness?" - that answer being that the sasquatch population is much greater than most tend to believe, and the density of the sasquatch population within these areas is such that the carrying capacity has essentially been reached. Now it could be that all of the available resources have been claimed, meaning there is not enough to support any more sasquatch, but it could also mean that the more dominant animals have forced out the weaker, less-dominant animals. IF true this has an interesting implication- is the behavior of those animals most seen by us humans, those animals who live nearest to us, skewed in comparison to the overall sasquatch population? Think about it like this- if the weaker animals are the ones we see the most, could they be more "skittish" than those sasquatch living deeper in the forests?

Jiggy, that was well thought through. But it is only part of the answer. In a biological sense, the suburbs are actually becoming more plentiful than the wilderness areas. With all the available food for deer and other small animals, their populations are actually increasing. Some municipal areas are having ever increasing problems with deer. Management becomes a big problem since hunting can't be used as a means of population control. So this becomes a readily available food source for predators, along with people's pets. From coyotes all the way up to cougars and black bears. In the Washington and Oregon areas there are constant sightings of cougars and problems with bears and coyotes close to urban areas. They go where the food is. As these predators do, so would something like bigfoot that uses deer and small mammals for a food source.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

 

 

To succinctly answer the question - they bothered me first.

Do you believe they sought you out or was it an accidental bothering?

 

 

First face to face was a bit of a meeting engagement - while backing away from one growling at me, I turned and discovered one was running at me, and when I spotted him, he veered slightly and ran past me.  The other times were on their part because I wanted no part of them.

 

It seems we were all living that Summer and Fall on the same mountain.  Our bad luck.

 

I suspect our fall may be their summer, if you are using a metaphor. (poetic)

Would you recommend getting in touch with them?

Or are they uninterestingly giant and hostile?

Edited February 6, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[FarArcher]

 

 

 

To succinctly answer the question - they bothered me first.

Do you believe they sought you out or was it an accidental bothering?

 

 

First face to face was a bit of a meeting engagement - while backing away from one growling at me, I turned and discovered one was running at me, and when I spotted him, he veered slightly and ran past me.  The other times were on their part because I wanted no part of them.

 

It seems we were all living that Summer and Fall on the same mountain.  Our bad luck.

 

I suspect our fall may be their summer, if you are using a metaphor. (poetic)

Would you recommend getting in touch with them?

Or are they uninterestingly giant and hostile?

 

 

The bulk of commentary from many assume these are benign, shy, gentle giants who just want to be left alone, and are relatively harmless.  Maybe.

 

However, in any living population of any species, much like the typical distribution found in a Bell Curve, the bulk of the population, regardless of your factor being measured - has the bulk pattern in the center, and yet on each end of the Bell Curve, there are lesser tails that account for aberrations.

 

In human populations, there are aberrant behaviors that are so dissimilar to conventional behavior, it's hard to believe the aberrations are of the same human species.  We have our Jeffrey Dahlmers, John Wayne Gacy, Henry Lee Lucas.  There are hundreds of serial and spree killers identified from around the world, a significant number who are also cannibals.  Ukrainian, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Polish, South American, Arabic, African, on and on.

 

So.  For me, knowing the always present dangers of human predators, for me to complicate matters and roam alone in remote areas where there is a fair possibility of meeting one of these critters - however rare - I'd say that if someone alone meets up with an aberrant critter - you may be lunch.

 

While I had one growling at me, and had my full attention, only by habit did I turn and discover one running at me from behind.  Maybe he was just trying to get to the other one growling at me to not press the matter - or - the voluminous distraction was by design while the other one closed in on me from behind.  I'll never know.

 

I have a problem believing in coincidence.  I have a problem trusting unknowns.

 

Just my contrary nature, but it's gotten me through some real close events.

[georgerm]

FarArcher, is your report written up some where?

 

We don't leave mysteries unsolved due to the effect on human populations for the positive or negative. For our own safety, we need to know about them. Do they kidnap people? Bigfoots have had some positive effects on humans such as when habituation occurs so how often can this happen? Do they stay away from us since our diseases decimates them or visa versa. We can't leave them alone due to our driving need to know.

 

Once proven then habitats will probably be protected from human intrusion once we locate and define their homeland.

Edited February 7, 2016 by georgerm

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

 

 

 

 

To succinctly answer the question - they bothered me first.

Do you believe they sought you out or was it an accidental bothering?

 

 

First face to face was a bit of a meeting engagement - while backing away from one growling at me, I turned and discovered one was running at me, and when I spotted him, he veered slightly and ran past me.  The other times were on their part because I wanted no part of them.

 

It seems we were all living that Summer and Fall on the same mountain.  Our bad luck.

 

I suspect our fall may be their summer, if you are using a metaphor. (poetic)

Would you recommend getting in touch with them?

Or are they uninterestingly giant and hostile?

 

 

The bulk of commentary from many assume these are benign, shy, gentle giants who just want to be left alone, and are relatively harmless.  Maybe.

 

However, in any living population of any species, much like the typical distribution found in a Bell Curve, the bulk of the population, regardless of your factor being measured - has the bulk pattern in the center, and yet on each end of the Bell Curve, there are lesser tails that account for aberrations.

 

In human populations, there are aberrant behaviors that are so dissimilar to conventional behavior, it's hard to believe the aberrations are of the same human species.  We have our Jeffrey Dahlmers, John Wayne Gacy, Henry Lee Lucas.  There are hundreds of serial and spree killers identified from around the world, a significant number who are also cannibals.  Ukrainian, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Polish, South American, Arabic, African, on and on.

 

So.  For me, knowing the always present dangers of human predators, for me to complicate matters and roam alone in remote areas where there is a fair possibility of meeting one of these critters - however rare - I'd say that if someone alone meets up with an aberrant critter - you may be lunch.

 

While I had one growling at me, and had my full attention, only by habit did I turn and discover one running at me from behind.  Maybe he was just trying to get to the other one growling at me to not press the matter - or - the voluminous distraction was by design while the other one closed in on me from behind.  I'll never know.

 

I have a problem believing in coincidence.  I have a problem trusting unknowns.

 

Just my contrary nature, but it's gotten me through some real close events.

 

I came to the same conclusion with bears and other large animals this summer.

I came into close proximity with several bear and a moose and where I had always been adventuresome

it seemed though I was able to stay in control of the situation other outcomes were very possible and I realized that 

I could not count on my luck as much anymore.

I have been very close to a large cryptid, though not BF but that was a totally peaceful event.

With the bears I just clapped my hands or shooed them, the moose was very startled so I made sure I turned tail and let him be.

Had many near death experiences myself, though some day it won't just be near and the deal is the real is.

BF seems to be mostly bluff charging and threatening. 

Seems capable of killing, I wonder if they don't is because then the threat from retaliation from humans is much greater.

We tend to wipe out large predators and will track down anything that kills a man and take it out, our modus operandi.

Also, I doubt they are a predator, as such but an omnivore, so no real kill instinct except when backed into a corner, like almost any creature. Almost no apelike creature except man hunts down and kills large animals, anyway. Stealing carrion or scavenging remains or small animals, fish, insects, etc. is more what I would expect the protein component of their diet to be.

[BigTreeWalker]

Also, I doubt they are a predator, as such but an omnivore, so no real kill instinct except when backed into a corner, like almost any creature. Almost no apelike creature except man hunts down and kills large animals, anyway. Stealing carrion or scavenging remains or small animals, fish, insects, etc. is more what I would expect the protein component of their diet to be.

Cryptic, you seem very sure of your assumptions. Do you have any actual evidence to support them? Just curious.

[coffee2go]

However, in any living population of any species, much like the typical distribution found in a Bell Curve, the bulk of the population, regardless of your factor being measured - has the bulk pattern in the center, and yet on each end of the Bell Curve, there are lesser tails that account for aberrations.

 

As you pointed out, there are those outliers that do not fall within the normal curve.  Although most reports may say there was no aggressive behavior or merely bluff charging, maybe the majority of those who encountered a bf that was not behaving in a way we consider "normal" did not survive their encounter.  How are we to know how many of those encounters there were?