I've been using statistical analysis to create an accurate map of Bigfoot's likely range in North America.

Right now, Alaska, Montana, Washington, Oregon, Northern California, Idaho, Yukon, British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan are completely filled in. As I analyze these areas with greater precision, some of the green may disappear from these states.

"Hot spots" like Texas and Colorado have not yet been plotted on the map. I have not yet analyzed these states. I plan to analyze and plot them all eventually. Most likely either Texas or a more precise analysis of Alaska will be next.

Ohio and Florida are pretty much final at this point. I don't forsee any reason to adjust these again in the future.

When this map is completed, I believe that it may be the most accurate map of Bigfoot's range ever created. The methodology I am using to determine the ranges is capable of discerning regions of high Bigfoot population density from regions of widespread hoaxing.

Eventually I will share my data, methodology, and conclusions more fully in several informal, semi-technical papers.

Until then, here's the map as of April 28th, 2005.

Interesting, but you seem to have missed a great deal of likely habitat, or population. Perhaps you still are to deal with the majority of the central and eastern U.S.?

That's correct. This map is still a work in progress. To date I've only analyzed the U.S. as a whole (identifying six states as likely Bigfoot habitat), Canada as a whole (identifying six provinces or territories as likely Bigfoot habitat), and Florida and Ohio individually (in which I identified ten and fourteen counties, respectively, as likely Bigfoot habitat).

I'm pretty much analyzing the states now in order of personal interest, but if you have any states in mind, I'll move them up a bit in my mental list. I'm also going to eventually revisit the entirely "green" states and analyze them with more precision.

One thing I've already noticed is that the "real sighting" areas I've identified closely match the "hot spots" identified by other researchers (such as belemnoid). In science, repeatability is important, and that's what we seem to be getting.

Stay tuned.

The Upper Midwest(Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan) has both habitat and wilderness on par with much of the PNW. Fewer sightings, but better habitat than ohio or Florida(IMO). The former is most likely due to a distinct lack of human habitation(The Upper Peninsula of Michigan, for example.).
This is just one area....
This is not to negate the likelyhood of a population in Ohio or Florida..but simply to wonder why those two locations were chosen, when others of equall or even better likelyhood would seem to exist.
It seems your system must weight sightings very heavily. Not a negative..but for sightings to occour, there must be someone to see something.
See the "are they everywhere" thread for a short list of additional areas(yeah, including the big thicket ), for additional areas of possible populations.

I'll add Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan to the end of my "To Do" list.



I chose Florida because I live there. I chose Ohio because it's the most famous "Bigfoot territory" after the Pacific Northwest. I'll probably do Texas next, for the same reason I chose Ohio.



That's an excellent observation. And actually, my method weighs sighting areas by normalized frequency (the number of sightings per person per square mile) in order to eliminate any bias in the data that would result from differing numbers of people in the right place at the right time to see Bigfoot. This way, there's no preference; it doesn't matter whether an area has 100 or 100,000 people. I then check each sighting area for telltale correlations that allow me to distinguish a real animal population from a set of hoaxes.

hi blight good morning my state of connecticut has had share of good sasquatch creatures in colebrook,ellington,bristol,litchfield,winsted, & trumbell im sure there is other areas in my state that had sasquatch activity over the years but i cant think of them right now. but maybe the bfro gcbro & other organizations can you help you as well. thanks bill green

B, sounds like you've got good methodologies going there. Be interested in seeing your final work for sure. Keep us updated..

Pennsylvania has a number of sightings (+60) use the BFRO database or the PBS database.

find the PBS here:

www.pabigfootsociety.com

They would be glad to help you out.

Blight good job I look forward t oseeing the completed job

Here's a small update on my progress:

As of today, I've analyzed nearly two-thirds of the United States. Most of the remainder is in the eastern and northeastern U.S. I estimate that, by the time I'm finished, this project will have taken somewhere between 100 and 150 hours of work.

I recently completed my analysis of the Bigfoot reports in Minnesota. I found a very large cluster of likely Bigfoot populations in northeastern Minnesota. I plan to analyze Wisconsin within the next few days.

Connecticut will be one of the last states I analyze, because I'm mapping the Bigfoot habitat state by state, and assembling the states to form a map of the entire U.S. (like a puzzle). For geometric reasons, I started with Texas and radiated outward, and Connecticut is one of the furthest away.

I should get to Pennsylvania within the next few weeks, and I'm looking forward to that one.

The results of my analysis of South Dakota have led me to suspect that there may actually be some kind of coordinated (non-random) effort to hoax Bigfoot sightings in that state. Who is the leading authority on Bigfoot in South Dakota?

Blight, Could you please explain a bit more (if possible) why you have a belief that there are hoaxings in South Dakota. It may help us to oncover any more hoaxes in our areas.
Thank You.

My reasoning is based on a simple model for animal sightings. The expected signature of an animal population is a correlation between report frequency and human population density. The expected signature of random hoaxing is a correlation between report frequency and human population. Read Glickman's paper, "Toward a Resolution of the Bigfoot Phenomenon", for more information.

In South Dakota, I actually found an inverse relationship between Bigfoot report frequency and human population and population density. This is what first alerted me to the possibility of organized hoaxing. To me, this relationship suggests that one or more people are deliberately hoaxing in areas of low population density--in other words, they're making an organized effort.

Since I discovered this relationship, I've uncovered additional data that supports my hypothesis. In perusing the Bigfoot reports themselves, I noticed that a handful of people in South Dakota reported a suspiciously high number of Bigfoot sightings. These may be the hoaxers required by my hypothesis.

In other news, I've completed this project. The entire Bigfoot population of the United States has been mapped down to the county level. I think that my map may be the most accurate map of Bigfoot's range ever produced.

I'm leaving for a trip tomorrow. I'll post the details of the completed project when I return.

:clap:

Well done!

Interesting how your sasquatch range map compares to grizzly bear range in North America.

Thank you Blight for your information. Would it be possible to give us the countys or regions so we do not kiss off all the sightings in South Dakota.

Did you ever get to Michigan? I will be interesting to see how your map compares to mine, some of which was also done using knowlege of local characteristics not available just from sighting reports.

I think I know what the completed map should look like. Color all of the U.S. and Canada green. Remove the arctic regions. Remove for all areas of significant population density. Remove the wide open spaces of vast prairies and deserts. Allow timber and vegetatively covered waterways to remain. Everywhere else has suitable terrain and some reported sightings. These adaptable creatures are apparently survivors, somehow, in all of the continent's varying terrains and climates.

Come at the same map-plotting goal from opposite perspectives and meet, or overlap, somewhere in the middle. From one side-suitable habitat with fairly reliable reports of sightings. From the other-unsuitable, unavailable territory. An interesting map for someone with more tech-ability than I to make would be to start with a colored map and remove all cities and other areas that can fairly reliably be discounted as very probable saquatch habitat, and then look at all the remaining ground...

I assume some level of wandering accounts for sightings almost everywhere, but in some prime areas, less wandering of territory for subsistence might be required, allowing for a fairly resident population. If you can possibly come close to locating one of these possible areas, you at least increase your odds slightly, as opposed to areas that might see only the occasional passing through. But that still would require an area of at least a few hundred square miles, I would think. No matter what, we've still got quite the needle in a haystack with a hiding (and moving) needle.

Just a few thoughts...

I'm actually working on a paper analyzing the relationship between brown or grizzly bears and the Bigfoot phenomenon.



The South Dakota counties in which I suspect organized hoaxing are: Corson, Dewey, Custer, Shannon, and Meade.



Yes, I've completed the entire United States. The Michigan counties in which there is a likely Bigfoot population are: Keweenaw, Oscoda, Ontonagon, Schoolcraft, Luce, and Baraga.