Does it seem that there hasn’t been any good Bigfoot track ways found lately? Have we gotten so good at looking at this type of evidence that the preponderance of new finds have people not wanting to come forward with their pictures, tracks or casts of them? We now can look at these tracks and casts and tell with reasonable certainty if they were or were not of human manufacture?

In the past, large finds of track ways seem to have been laid down at random. What was going on in the Bossburg, Washington area (for now forget about Ivan Marx) that left over 1,000 tracks with all the tracks found at Blue Creek mountain, California? Would it be prudent to make a simple spread sheet for each of the large finds and place columns next to them of seemingly unrelated activities to see if maybe we were wrong and that there is a really is a pattern?

Logging, road construction, road building, harvest time, good substrate for tracks, Bigfoot researchers in the area, dynamite explosions, floods, drought, time of year for latitude, forest fires, holidays, fish runs, human behavioral changes with new laws, who knows.

Of course quantification for relatedness has to be determined… spatial and temporal distance limits for instance. A new road punched through an area may not mean Bigfoot suddenly gets seen more on that newer road… but maybe 20 miles away on an older road it use to cross easily and unseen things are now changed. What if the area is only occupied partially during the year? A road punched through in summer may not affect anything until fall.

A study area size is determined by a lot of these factors and you sometimes just have to take a WAG as to what to include and what not to include. A contiguous area can be just as hard to work as a patchwork or mosaic. I like both for each has its advantages.

I think that track ways are still being found, but just not reported even to the bigfoot community. Call it "professional jealousy" or what have you. But "many" not all , but many researchers are involved in some kind of group which may not allow information to be released for fear someone or another group will come in and steal the big discovery from them. Also researchers may think if they release info, the others will snipe them as hoaxers or Biscardi's or such.

Bottom line, with as many people out there looking they are surely finding evidences but simply not releasing it.

my cent and a half worth,

dav

Finding a good track way is as much luck as anything else. There are good locations to look for such things but it really comes down to luck until we know more about these animals habits.

I wonder if finding a good track or trackway just isn't newsworthy anymore.

I know of several serious 'footers finding tracks (I was present at one finding) and it just didn't occur to them to report it other than maybe casually mentioning it out of hand. Heck, they don't seem to report their sightings even, as far as I know, and it doesn't appear because of secrecy as much as they realize it doesn't add alot to the general discussion.

I know that's pretty much how I would react to finding a track, unless there was something really unusual and useful about it, like prominent dermals.

I know this kind of thing frustrates any kind of study that would depend on a comprehensive database. A well informed 'footer finding a track will be personally excited, but taking the time to make the finding just one more boring datum seems to not interest them.

The problem with tracks seems to be that they are seen just frequently enough not to be that special, but possibly too infrequently in any given area to find a meaningful relationship with other variables.

We'll be in the Olympic rain forest next week for several days, and I know for darn sure, if we run across any tracks that are clear enough to be readily identified as such, I'd sure report the general details: When, where, and so on. Some may see a track report as passe', but I think it adds to the database in a positive way.

When my brother and I had our possible encounter which left no doubt in our minds at the time, it didn't even occur to me to look for prints because I wanted a picture of one with a resolution comparable to the PGF. Footprints are not likely to influence anybody. I wasn't particularly interested in proving it to anybody. That may seem strange to a Bigfoot researcher but I don't think most people care what other people think. Now I wish I had some evidence to back up my story, but at the time I had no plans to tell anybody who didn't know me.

I am curious about something and perhaps it is worthy of it's own thread but I agree with this statement. I look for proof for personal reasons really and I am not even sure if I had it that i would make it public or share it with anyone but folks like you who have an interest in the topic. I guess what I am wodering is if you go out into the woods looking for proof so that you can dazzle the world with the actual discovery that the legend is true or just because youw nat to know for whatever personal reasons you have that compell you to go out there to begin with?

That place, Bluff Creek, is so rugged, inaccessible and isolated that it is particularly appealing as an adventure. The slim chance of a picture of Bigfoot was just a bonus like winning the lottery.

Bob Zenor, I was unaware you (and your brother Jim?) had an encounter (a 'possible'?) of any sort. I've no doubt it's in the forum somewhere, but I've not seen it. In five words or less, what happened?

Right behind you........

Something snook up on us.

The very few times I've come across possible Sasquatch evidence (always found by someone else, or sounds heard by my group, tho in one case of nearby bipedal walking I was by myself), I've gotten excited about one particular angle and tended to pay less attention to other aspects of it. In one case I was really interested in footprints while I didn't pay very much attention to a possible nest find.

I try to be as comprehensive as possible in examining and documenting all of the evidence, but always after the trip is over I slap myself on the head with a "Dang, I shoulda _______."

I think that what happens is that there is so much to pay attention to (socializing with other members, logistics of travel and camping, etc.) that it's sometimes hard to give enough time to certain deserving things

damndirtyape, at your study site, have you found enough tracks or other sign to make some inferences not obvious from a single find?

We think so. Owen I both feel that the area where the animal(s) reside is all but inaccessible to the faint of heart. It is steep, rugged, overgrown mountains with no trails except for a few game trails that get regularly chewed up with hooved animal travel. It seems that we find more tracks when the river isn't high and the fish are good. Unfortunately the track ways have only gone on in distance till the low spots where river over flow periodically sweeps through and either strips or deposits more sand. Lower down the river of course the sand particles are much bigger and tracks don’t take as well. The sand even stays drier.

There also seems to be some kind of link to major log jams... the kind that are 20' or more tall and about 100' in diameter. But this could just be from it closing off a section of waterway and trapping fish.

We found one track way that showed us some very interesting morphology as well as behavior. We could see changes in the foot structure in three subsequent tracks, as if it was adapting to walking in sand versus the rockier areas. Following these led us to where the animal may have laid in ambush, 10' off the sand, near the river shoreline to possibly pounce onto something like a fisher. There was a large area showing what looked like, yes folks, another body impression. The 3 foot diameter log the animal was on still had bark except where it came loose from the foot or when it slid or jumped off. When I was on it the bark all stayed in position.

The other end of this 80'+ log, in a log jam, is where Owen had been placing pheromone chips during the fall. There is enough cover to hide a large animal walking, foraging, hunting or doing just about anything on these sand bars. There is enough distance between these bars and where humans would more likely be that if they were seen they would look like a darkly colored human shape, possibly a fisherman or Native American hunter and get dismissed (I have seen quite a few Native American hunters who do not wear the gaudy international orange).

So far the best evidence seems to come from waterways such as these... Patty...

speaking of cycles, DDA, you mentioned you are finding more tracks when the river is down and the fish are good. I am thinking late summer early fall. Are there times of the year that are becoming obvious with more activity than other times? I dont want to infer migration activity just more activity in general. And I have to ask, anymore attacks on your game cams?

thanks

dav

Since posting on here and what was shown in the Giganto: The Real King Kong show, we have a very real lack of negative data for our site now. Would be investigations, not conducted by Owen or I and so not recorded go undocumented. For instance, we don’t know that 20 visits in fall produce the same amount, or lack thereof, of evidence as say 20 visits in the spring, summer or winter. There would certainly be a lot of hoopla in the area if evidence was found on all 80 visits.

I know there are people out there that just want to help, see one for themselves, are curious or maybe even want to take over something already started but it really hurts the study to have people go in there who are not held accountable for what they find or more likely do not find. Who practice techniques not a part of our study methodology. Who desensitize the area…. You must know what I mean.

I won’t be getting into the details of our work publicly anymore. Some of you may understand. Some may think otherwise.

What has been given here is just some stuff that may help others in their own areas.

understand completed DDA, I wouldn't expect you to divulge anything specific regarding evidences found. I was just curious to see if you were seeing any type of cyclical patterns.

dav

Thanks damndirtyape for sharing some of your findings.

It is immeasurably fascinating to hear stuff from long term studies like your own from guys who have alot of experience with this.

Feel free to say "Go probe yourself," but I would love to see you publish some findings on the SRI or AIBR or like minded sites. I acknowledge the importance of not revealing the study site location (and perhaps some types of methodology).

But if you decide not to, I understand. It's good to hear, tho, and encouraging that you're having continuing success.

If I understood your implication, you've found less (or no) evidence on game trails away from the water. Could this be a preservational artefact or do you think it representative of your study animal(s) mostly moving along the water course?

An added thought on publishing an article on the AIBR or SRI sites for experienced field guys with something new to say.

The BFF can be a rough and cranky place to present new information - and in the end it may not the best place to do that if there is alot of detailed information. There's so much back and forth on a forum (which is the whole point of the BFF), certain involved subjects get lost in minutia or worse.

A long report or article may receive some useful, collegiate peer review from a limited number of established researchers (say from the governing boards of AIBR or SRI) but avoid the helter skelter of a forum. And it would probably find a wider audience than just a single thread on a forum.

Probably haven't said anything that you haven't already thought of.

I'm not following. Could some light be shed on this one?

Ok. Duuhhhh!! A fisher, the type of fish! It only took me a week to figure that one out!

Or this?
Click to view attachment

It all boils down to the right place at the right time. I had my first encounter when I was 14 in an area I have been keeping tabs on ever since. I am now in my 40's and all of my encounters/findings have been in 5-7 year patterns. The problem is that it is always found in the past tense. Always a day or week behind the subject. What does a lay researcher do with the evidence they collect? When that day finally comes, a confirmed discovery, it will be lighting in a bottle. Problaby not by a group a researchers working an area for years, but by a hunter or driver by pure accident. After a confirmed discovery the field data may be useful. I think Grover Krantz siad it best "When a subject has been confirmed by the scientific world, all these amaetures will be swept aside". Quoted as best as I could remember.

Yup.

The pattern that I see is that sign is decreasing even as the invasion of the West by humanity increases exponentially.

Of course, I'd like to repeat my assertion that these creatures are likely going extinct, but that would only spur the predictible, unreasonable skeptic "how do you know" responses.

It's a no-win situation...............

For what it's worth, I'm with you Huntster.

I believe this sums up all the BF evidence found.

Best 2 cents I've ever read.

Yeah like this.

Why are they called fishers since they don't fish?
Seems like an irrelevant question but the answer reveals something interesting with possible relevance on the cyrptic lanscape.

OR, they are retreating further into the remaining wilderness, of which there is still an enormous number of acres that have never seen the sight of modern man. (Just suggesting an alternative)

Considering how modern man "sees" a landscape, it'd be no wonder that there remains a lot un-observed and un-realized, even right around us. Perceptual blindness insures that we see the stuff that matters to us and remain largely blind to stuff that doesn't fit into our models of reality.