The idea that North America is home to a completely unknown primate species seems to persist. It’s been years since everyone started walking around with high-quality cameras on their phones, but we still don’t have a clear image of Bigfoot. However, incidents that are reported as sightings continue to occur.
Now, a person by the name of Flo Foxon has followed up on his previous analysis by looking at factors that may influence the frequency of Bigfoot sightings across North America. The results suggest a strong correlation between sightings and local black bear populations. For every 1,000 bears, the frequency of Bigfoot sightings increases by about 4%.
Big (foot) data
It’s easy to see how black bears and Bigfoot can be mistaken. Despite their name, bears vary in color from golden yellow to deep reddish to the black that gives them their name. They are also large animals, often standing on their hind legs to get a better view of their surroundings. They also frequent wooded areas, which is likely Bigfoot’s preferred terrain. Foxon cites Bigfoot sightings and even says that he has obtained photos and that “one of the photos looks like a bear.”
Previous research used data from the Pacific Northwest to show that the presence of bears correlated with the frequency of Bigfoot sightings. However, Foxon decided to expand its analysis to include the rest of the United States and Canada.
The most recent comprehensive, peer-reviewed data on black bear populations are from 2006, so the analysis was performed using that year’s data. Still, many states and localities had to be excluded. Unfortunately, in 2006 there were no known black bear populations in Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, or South Dakota. did not. Adequate population statistics were also not available in Rhode Island, Texas, and Wisconsin. , Wyoming, Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories, and Nova Scotia. Therefore, although this study was more comprehensive than an analysis of the Pacific Northwest alone, there were still significant gaps.
Sighting data was provided by the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, which maintains a geotagged database of reported sightings. Census data was used to determine the population of these areas, and estimates of forest area were also obtained from the governments of Canada and the United States.
All this was combined into two different models. In both models, the probability of sightings was expected to increase as the human population increases, simply due to increased opportunity. Bigfoot sightings tend to occur in forested areas, and it is difficult to understand how large primates hide in most other terrain, so we would expect there to be a correlation between forests and sightings. I was there.
where there are bears
The main difference between the models was whether local black bear populations were included. The model that included the bear variable had a much better fit to the data, suggesting that mistaken identity is a factor in Bigfoot sightings.
Overall, Foxon found, there is about one Bigfoot sighting for every 5,000 black bears, taking into account forest areas and human populations. For every 1,000 additional bears, the probability of being sighted increases by approximately 4%. So the conclusion is, “If there is a Bigfoot, it might be a bear.”
That doesn’t mean bears account for everything. Foxon points out that there are states where there are still reports of Bigfoot sightings, even if there is no known breeding bear population. And human population levels may not only increase the chance of sightings, but also contribute as a source of mistaken identity.
The paper also notes that the findings could help in bear conservation, as the frequency of Bigfoot sightings could serve as a surrogate indicator of black bear abundance and an independent way to track population changes. also suggests.
Journal of Zoology, 2024. DOI: 10.1111/jzo.13148 (About DOI).