The Missionary, the Former Slave, and the Sasquatch

What do an eighteenth-century Jesuit missionary and a former slave from the state of Arkansas have in common? I hate to disappoint any of you that thought this might be the opening line to a bad joke, it is actually a legitimate question. Read on for the answer.

In my mind, some of the strongest sources of anecdotal evidence regarding the existence of the sasquatch are those that pre-date the coining of the term bigfoot in an article about a catskinner named Jerry Crew - who found massive human-like tracks around his road-building equipment in California’s Six Rivers National Forest in August of 1958 - and the explosion of the Patterson-Gimlin footage on the world stage in October of 1967. Sightings reported before these two seminal events cannot be dismissed as the work of hoaxers seeking to hop on the bigfoot bandwagon. The sasquatch was all but unknown to the Europeans who began flooding the North and South American continents in the 1500s…and to the slaves that they brought with them. Their accounts of bipedal, hair-covered creatures simply cannot be dismissed out of hand.    

 

I would like to discuss here two such historical sightings. The incidents are not well-known, but they may well be extremely important when attempting to trace just how far back sightings of wood apes might go. The similarity between these two accounts cannot be denied and both lend credibility to the opinion of those who believe the animal commonly referred to as bigfoot was being seen well before the 1950s by people of different cultural backgrounds living many miles apart.

     

The first incident comes directly from the writings of a Jesuit missionary who worked among the people of the province of Sonora, Mexico – a region that stretched up from northwest Mexico to the Sierra Madre from Cjeme (now Ciudad Obregon), near the California coast, to Tuscon - in the eighteenth-century. Father Ignaz Pfefferkorn (b. 1725), a German Jesuit lived and worked among the Pima Indians from 1756 to 1767. Details of his work and life among these people can be found in his Descripcion de la Provincia de Sonora. The diaries, journals, and logs of missionaries have long been highly valued by anthropologists and historians. Pfefferkorn’s work was no different and he is considered by academics to have been an extremely reliable and credible observer. His writings continue to be cited by historians to this day. Among Pfefferkorn’s writings were descriptions of the local wildlife. Among the descriptions of what would be considered common animals, the good father wrote about the different bears (differentiated by their color) found in the region. He wrote:

 

“Of the Sonora bears some have black hair, others dark gray, and the smallest number are a reddish color. These last are the most cruel and harmful, according to the statements of herdsmen.”

 

Only two species of bear are known to have ever lived in the Province of Sonora during the eighteenth-century. The black bear (Ursus americanus) and the grizzly (Ursus arctos horribilis) both made Sonora part of their home range during the time in question. While black bears can be black, blonde, or reddish, it is likely the cinnamon-colored bears that were “the most cruel and harmful” were grizzlies. While these grizzlies were likely the animals most often responsible for the killing of livestock in the region, some of the other activities attributed to them may well have been the work of something else.

 

Pfefferkorn, while documenting bear activity related to him by the indigenous tribesmen, in some cases may have actually been recording accounts of bigfoot interaction with humans. If so, his accounts are some of the earliest ever written down in North America. One intriguing passage is below:

 

“Bears are a special menace to stock raising, for they eat many a calf, and, if no smaller prey falls into their clutches, they will attack even horses, cows, and oxen. They delight especially in eating maize as long as it is still tender and soft. Woe to the field if a hungry bear breaks into it at night. He eats as much as he can and makes off with as much as he can grasp and carry in his mighty arms. In so doing he ruins even more of the field by breaking it down and treading upon it. The inhabitants assert that a bear defends himself by throwing stones when one attempts to chase him away and that a stone hurled from his paws comes with much greater force than one thrown from the hand of the strongest man.”

 

I do not think I have to tell anyone that a bear cannot throw stones; nor is it capable of walking bipedally in order to carry off large amounts of corn in its “mighty arms.” Pfefferkorn was familiar with bears. He had traveled across the region for many years and had seen many bruins. Pfefferkorn even witnessed a grizzly kill his Indian guide on one trip across Sonora (the guide had attempted to kill the bear, succeeded only in wounding it, and paid the ultimate price when the animal turned on its tormentor). This being the case, it is strange that Pfefferkorn would attribute rock-throwing and the ability to carry large amounts of corn away while walking on two legs to grizzlies. I think it is entirely possible that the stone-hurling, corn-stealing, bipedal “bears” of Sonora might have actually been wood apes.

 

A strikingly similar account comes from another historical source: a former Arkansas slave. Doc Quinn was one of the oldest living residents of Miller County, Arkansas (yes, the same Miller County that would become known as the home of the Fouke Monster of The Legend of Boggy Creek fame) when he was interviewed by Cecil Copeland at his home in Texarkana in the 1930s. Doc recalled when he was first brought to the plantation of one Colonel Ogburn – between Index and Fulton on the Red River - that there was a section of the property dominated by an immense canebrake. This canebrake was a favorite retreat of bears and other wild animals. It was all but impossible to go in after problem bears that would steal out of the thicket at night and take livestock, so the plantation owner had the slaves round up the hogs and animals and place them in pens at the end of the day. Several slaves were charged with standing guard at night over the domesticated animals. The efforts of the slaves helped somewhat, but bears were still seen often and some of their actions “were almost human.” The following is a passage taken from the book Bearing Witness: Memories of Arkansas Slavery Narratives from the 1930s WPA Collection in which Doc Quinn describes to Cecil Copeland the odd behavior of a “bear” he came across in a cornfield one day:

 

“The bear picked off an ear of corn and put it in his bended arm. He repeated this action until he had an armful, and then waddled over to the fence. Standing by the fence, he carefully threw the corn on the other side, ear by ear. The bear then climbed the fence, much in the same manner of a human being, retrieved the corn, and went on his way.”

 

Sounds familiar, does it not? The simple truth is that bears cannot stroll around in a bipedal fashion while plucking ears of corn from stalks in the field with one front paw and place them into the crook of their other front “arm.” The description of how Quinn witnessed this animal climb a fence “in the same manner of a human being” is fascinating. The entire incident simply does not describe bear behavior in any form or fashion.

Quinn provides another interesting anecdote in the same interview. I thought long and hard about including it here, not because it is not interesting (it is), but because Doc Quinn’s words are transcribed in such a way that his dialect is evident. Some hot-button words, including the n-word, are used. After wrestling with it for a while, I decided to include the account here with only one minor edit (I decided not to type the n-word out. I fear in today’s climate, I would be accused of approving of it or some such thing). Again, I would remind readers these are not my words. These are the words spoken by former Arkansas slave, Doc Quinn and transcribed by his interviewer, Cecil Copeland. The text comes straight from the book previously mentioned. Try to focus on the story Doc Quinn is telling and not the language and terminology he uses. The account is as follows: 

 

“Late one ebenin’, me an’ anudder (edit) named Jerry wuz comin’ home frum fishin’. Roundin’ a bend in de trail, whut do we meet almos’ face to face? – A great big ol’ bar! Bein’ young, and blessed wid swif’ feet, I makes fo’ de nearest tree, and hastily scrambles to safety. Not so wid mah fat frien’. Peerin’ outen thru de branches ob de tree, I sees de bar makin’ fo’ Jerry, an’ I says to mahself: ‘ Jerry, yo’ sins has sho’ kotched up wid yo’ dis time.’ But Jerry, allus bein’ a mean (edit), mus’ hab had de debbil by he side. Pullin’ outen his Bowie knife, dat (edit) jumps to one side as de bar kum chargin’ pas’, and’ stab it in de side, near de shoulder. As de bar started toinin’ roun’ to make annuder lunge at de (edit) he notice de blood spurtin’ frum de shoulder. An’ whut do yo’ think happen’? Dat ole bar forgets all about Jerry. Hastily scramblin’ aroun’, he begins to pick up leaves, an trash an’ clamps dem on de wound, tryin’ to keep frum bleedin’ to deaf. Yo’ ax did de bar die? Well, suh, I didn’ wait to see de result. Jerry, he done lef’ dem parts, an’ not wantin’ to stay up in dat tree alnight by mahself, I scrambles down an’ run fo’ mile home in double quick time!”

 

I ask you, what kind of bear notices it is bleeding, stops in the middle of an altercation, begins gathering leaves, and then packs its own wound? I will tell you the answer. None. No bear behaves in this manner. If Doc Quinn is not spinning a yarn to his interviewer, the creature his fishing partner, Jerry, tangled with was certainly no bear. Was it an aggressive sasquatch? Certainly, the location was right as the aggressive nature of the Fouke Monster would be well documented some years later. There is a real shortage of viable alternatives if the creature in question was not a bear.

 

The parallels between these two accounts – accounts separated by more than a century and approximately 1,400 miles – are uncanny. Bears cannot and do not gather up corn in their “arms” and walk away with it in a bipedal fashion. Yet, a Jesuit missionary and a former Arkansas slave describe observing this same behavior. Doc Quinn’s account of how his fishing partner, Jerry, tangled with an animal that packed its own wound after being stabbed lends credence to the theory that something other than a bear was roaming about Miller County, Arkansas in his youth. Is it possible that these two men from very different worlds - Father Ignaz Pfefferkorn and former slave Doc Quinn - described the same type of animal? An animal they had no name for? An animal that just might have been a wood ape?

 

Food for thought.

 

*Special thanks to NAWAC Chairman Emeritus, Alton Higgins, who authored the article, “A Sonoran Sasquatch,” that I drew heavily from for this post.

 

Sources:

 

Brown, D. E. (1996). The Grizzly in the Southwest: Documentary of an Extinction. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Pfefferkorn, I., Treutlein, T. E., & Pfefferkorn, I. (1949). Sonora A Description of the Province. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Higgins, A. (2010, November 19). A Sonoran Sasquatch? Retrieved January 11, 2021, from https://www.woodape.org/index.php/sonoransasquatch/

Lankford, G. E. (Ed.). (2006). Bearing Witness Memories of Arkansas Slavery. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press. 

 

 

 

 

 

Ape Appellations

Ape Appellations
By Alton Higgins and Daryl Colyer

Over many centuries numerous appellations have been ascribed to the huge hairy hominoids said to inhabit North America, “Bigfoot” being one of the more widely used in recent decades. In his opening address at the 2013 Texas Bigfoot Conference, Brian Brown first announced the TBRC move to officially change its name to the North American Wood Ape Conservancy and the rationale behind the NAWAC decision to largely cease using the media moniker “Bigfoot” when referring to the species (Brown, 2013a).

As a companion piece to his conference presentation, Brown subsequently provided an article on the NAWAC website summarizing the reasons for the change (Brown, 2013b). While it is not necessary to reiterate those reasons, we would like to further discuss the “wood ape” appellation in terms of its use by others, predating the NAWAC’s use of the moniker, and its relevance from a natural science perspective. Although some may question or even deride the semantic modification, we propose that the term “wood ape” is an altogether more fittingly descriptive term and a more appropriate designator from a scientific perspective.

Many interested parties may not realize that the term “wood ape” has a history of use when addressing the North American ape phenomenon. One example, written quite a few years ago, is from the Q&A section of the Bigfoot Field Research Organization (BFRO) website, written in response to the constantly asked question: “Where are the physical remains?”

No serious work has ever been done to look for remains of surviving wood apes in areas where they are rumored to reside. No one should expect remains of such an elusive species to be found, collected and identified without some effort.



Very few remains of ancient wood apes have ever been found in Asia, where they were much more abundant. Millions of Gigantos (a branch of the wood ape line) lived and died in Asia over the ages. All the remaining physical evidence we have of them could fit into a few shoe boxes. Fossils of any land animal are very rare.

Remains do not become fossilized very often, but unless that happens, all the remains will, in time, become completely reabsorbed into the ecosystem. There would be remains of animals everywhere if remains were not naturally recycled, including bones and teeth.

Fossils or preserved bones of wood apes may exist in the Americas, but they will be exceedingly rare, because these animals are rare to begin with, and only a tiny fraction of that population will die in locations and soils that will preserve bones somehow. Odds are slim at best that any bones (which are normally fragmentary) will be found, collected and identified unless a focused effort is made to look for them. Until efforts are made in many places, over a long period time, no one should be scratching their head wondering why “we” don’t have any physical remains. (BFRO, n.d., http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/MJM/hunters.htm)

Regarding a scientific perspective, interestingly enough, the apes that moved out of Africa into Europe millions of years ago, such as Dryopithecus, are referred to as “wood apes” by some anthropologists, including Chris Stringer, a human evolution expert (Andrews & Stringer, 1989, p. 22). After moving into Europe, Dryopithecus then immigrated into Asia where it apparently was ancestral to subsequent lineages, including Gigantopithecus and today’s orangutans. The species we refer to as the North American wood ape would almost certainly have dispersed from Asia, so the reference to the creatures as “wood apes” is a very reasonable alternative to “Bigfoot” and the plethora of additional locally derived epithets.

References

Andrews, P. J., & Stringer, C. P. (1989). Human evolution: An illustrated guide. Ipswich, England, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization. (n.d.). Where is the physical evidence?: Nobody looks for physical remains. Retrieved from http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/MJM/hunters.htm
Brown, B. (2013a). In the valley of the wood ape. Live presentation at 2013 Texas Bigfoot Conference.
Brown B. (2013b). New name, same mission. Retrieved from http://woodape.org/index.php

Bigfoot/Sasquatch Sightings: Correlations to Annual Rainfall Totals, Waterways, Human Population Densities and Black Bear Habitat Zones

The following article originally appeared on the website of the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy and is reprinted here with permission.

Bigfoot/Sasquatch Sightings: Correlations to Annual Rainfall Totals, Waterways, Human Population Densities and Black Bear Habitat Zones

By Daryl Colyer & Alton Higgins

In Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana, anecdotes about huge, hairy, apelike creatures said to dwell in the deep woods and, occasionally, near the peripheries of rural communities, have accumulated for centuries. Many of these accounts were related by highly reliable and trustworthy individuals, people who had nothing to gain by telling their stories.

Indeed, in many cases, these witnesses became the subjects of much ridicule, even among close friends and relatives. To the present day, most witnesses hesitate to share their incredible stories of seeing this strange, undocumented animal. Their reticence should come as no surprise given the treatment of the subject by the mass media and some mainstream scientists.

There are many skeptics; their concerns are legitimate. Skeptics demand to know why no skeletal remains have been found; they want to know why no hunters have killed one, or why no driver has collided with one on a secluded country highway. Would not a large primate, skeptics ask, leave an undeniable, discernable mark on the environment in perhaps the same manner as mountain gorillas (Gorilla gorilla beringei)? Such questions are not invalid. Expecting skeptics to accept the likelihood of such a species existing beneath our proverbial noses may be asking just a tad too much. Nevertheless, the body of anecdotal accounts and accompanying evidence seems to indicate just such a possibility.

Contrary to what some may assert, most hunters do not generally shoot at anything other than their intended game. While there are exceptions, most hunters will definitively identify their targets and normally just do not shoot at unknown or unidentified prey. That said, there have been a few scant reports of sasquatch shootings; most were relayed through second hand sources. Further, most of those few reports that were related to shootings indicate that the shooters either missed or did not immediately bring the fleeing sasquatches down.

Skeletal remains are rarely found of any common, large, wild animal, so it should not be surprising that the skeletal remains of a sasquatch are not readily available. The acidic forest soils and muddy river bottoms found in the preferred habitat for the sasquatch tend to work in tandem with scavengers to quickly eliminate the remains of deceased animals. Finding a cougar (Puma concolor) carcass as a result of a natural death would probably be most analogous to finding a sasquatch carcass, although the most conservative estimates of cougar population densities most certainly are far greater than even the most liberal estimates of sasquatch population densities.

There have been a few unsubstantiated reports of near misses of sasquatches by drivers, and given the probability that many encounters go unreported, it is possible that a sasquatch could have been hit and killed by a moving vehicle. However, realistically, given the probable rarity of these creatures along with their intelligence and caution, the odds of such an event occurring seem almost non-existent.

There are some discernable signs that possibly indicate the presence of sasquatches (thus the noticeable effect on the environment), however, the signs are easily disregarded by someone unfamiliar with purported sasquatch behavior. For example, there are numerous reports of bigfoots breaking branches, trees, and saplings, and to a lesser degree, constructing nest-like structures.

Tree damage, possibly done for the purpose of marking trails or territory is discernable, but oftentimes hardly stands out among deadfall and ice or wind-broken trees. Most people would miss or casually dismiss such signs. It is unlikely that a typical wildlife biologist or anyone not knowledgeable on this subject, upon observing sasquatch-related limb breaks, would ever suspect a sasquatch as the culprit, even in the absence of any other readily apparent explanation. The characteristic twisting accompanying such breaks would appear to require enormous strength that can only be accomplished by something with hands. Nest-like structures, purportedly built by sasquatches, have been found by researchers in areas of sightings.

Another contention often heard is that the thousands of credible reports from throughout North America are, in one way or another, the products of human imagination. The contention is that many of the witnesses are intentionally lying about what they encountered and are actually themselves the perpetrators of hoaxes, or the witnesses are simply mistaken and are misidentifying what they saw or heard. Or, as the argument goes, many of the witnesses are simply victims of practical jokes and/or hoaxes. All evidence aside, it may seem more plausible to consider that there actually is an undocumented animal that is prompting thousands of reports than it is to believe in an unrelated series of hoaxed sightings and misidentifications.

It should soon become evident to anyone who seriously and objectively delves into and studies the numerous credible sightings that many of the reports themselves are quite compelling. It is difficult to totally dismiss as fabrications all the reports that have accumulated from so many credible witnesses over so many decades.

However, the essence of the research presented here does not focus on the validity of any individual report, but on the body of reports as a whole in order to ascertain any correlations and patterns that may exist. When one impartially studies the sum total of all the reports it becomes evident that there do indeed seem to be correlations and patterns that could be representative of a living species.

Among these correlations, particularly in Texas, is the likelihood of sighting reports in areas with certain amounts of annual rainfall. The same pattern is also evident in the body of reports that originate in other states where there are divergent rainfall totals in different parts of each state, such as Oregon, Washington, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Montana, Colorado and California. (Conversely, in states with widespread abundant rainfall totals, such as Arkansas and Louisiana, a rainfall total/reported bigfoot encounters correlation is not evident). There is also a pattern of reported sightings along rivers, creeks or lakes. Reported sightings and human population densities seem to have some correlation, as does the distribution of alleged bigfoot sightings and areas viewed as suitable black bear habitat.

John Green, journalist, author and renowned sasquatch researcher, first touched upon the association of reported sasquatch sightings and annual rainfall totals in his 1978 book Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us. Though the book was written nearly thirty years ago, the passage of time has not diminished its relevance. On the contrary, the increase of credible reports since that time has served to further validate Green’s thesis. He determined that eighty percent of the reported sightings and alleged footprint finds in North America occurred in areas receiving more than seventeen inches of annual rainfall.



When this observation is applied to credible Texas reports and is represented on a map, discernable patterns seemingly indicative of a living species emerge. In Texas and Oklahoma, roughly ninety percent of the credible reports occur in areas that see at least thirty-five inches of rain per year, or in the eastern third of the state(s). Since the vast majority of Texas and Oklahoma reports are aligned with rainfall patterns, it is possible to dispute allegations of fabrication or mistaken identity. It is not rational to assume or propose that people living in areas with more than thirty-five inches of annual rainfall are more likely to submit a hoaxed report or misidentify what they saw than people living in areas with less than thirty-five inches of annual rainfall. While a few reports have originated in areas with lower amounts of rainfall, they appear to be sporadic and isolated, possibly due to a natural propensity of wildlife to use watercourses as travel routes; if the sasquatch is a legitimate species, it makes perfect sense that it would also use watercourses as travel routes.



While portions of far western Texas and Oklahoma are certainly semi-arid, the eastern sections of both states receive abundant annual rainfall. These areas are heavily forested and feature an abundance of waterways and lakes; they are very much ecological clones of the two neighboring eastern states of the region, Arkansas and Louisiana.

The combined total amount of forestland in the four-state region equates to roughly 65,000,000 acres, or 100,000 square miles (the size of the state of Oregon). According to The Online Handbook of Texas, there are roughly 22,000,000 acres of forest in Texas alone; per the Arkansas Forestry Association, there are roughly 19,000,000 acres of forest in Arkansas; the Louisiana Forestry Association reports that there are 14,000,000 acres of forest in Louisiana; Oklahoma has approximately 10,000,000 acres of forest as indicated by the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry.



While the forestlands of Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana and Oklahoma may be somewhat more parceled, or discontinuous, than northwestern forests, it is obvious that they are enormous in scope and depth, contrary to the misperceptions of some. Wildlife biologist Dr. John Bindernagel, who visited the region in 2001 and 2002, was struck by the richness and scope of the region’s forests, which are predominantly mixed deciduous, as opposed to the largely coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest. Dr. Bindernagel recognized the value and productivity of deciduous forests in terms of wildlife habitat and he pointed out that large species of mammals living in the southern forests would almost certainly require smaller home ranges than in northern coniferous forests.

Almost without exception, reported sasquatch sightings occur near water. This is even true with the relatively few reports originating in the drier regions of Texas and Oklahoma, where sasquatches are reportedly seen generally on or near waterways or lakes in thick brush or dense riparian vegetation. Most wildlife researchers and hunters would quickly reinforce the observation that many mammalian species often use rivers and creeks as travel routes. Since water is essential for the cycle of life, animals regularly congregate near or at least dwell primarily in areas featuring bodies of fresh water. Both Texas and Oklahoma have an abundance of rivers, creeks, swamps, reservoirs and lakes, particularly in their eastern regions. It is also reasonable for a large number of reported sightings to occur in or around swamps, river bottoms or bayous, since a reclusive, shy animal would find seclusion and sanctuary in such areas.

When a river basins map is viewed with an overlay of reported encounters and an annual rainfall overlay, it becomes evident that most alleged sightings have occurred along waterways and lakes and in areas with thirty-five inches or more of annual rainfall. Many reported sightings in Northeast Texas have occurred in the Red River Basin along the Sulphur River or Red River and/or their adjoining reservoirs or creeks. Many reported encounters have also occurred in the Red/Sulphur River watershed in southeastern Oklahoma, southwestern Arkansas and Northeast Texas. Similarly, the Sabine River Basin, extending from Southeast Texas into Northeast Texas has also generated quite a few reports. In Oklahoma, the Canadian River Basin is not without its share of reported encounters. In Southeast Texas, in what is called the Primitive Big Thicket (encompassing the Sam Houston National Forest and the Big Thicket National Preserve area), the Neches River Basin, Trinity River Basin and San Jacinto River Basin have had many reports through the years as well as in recent times. In fact, Southeast Texas is the most prolific area in Texas for reports of bigfoot sightings. Likewise in Oklahoma, the most prolific area for reported encounters is also in its southeastern region. It should come as no surprise that the southeastern regions in both Texas and Oklahoma also receive the highest amount of rainfall for both states, with totals as high as sixty inches per year in spots.

Although the East Texas river basins have generated far more reports, the Brazos, Colorado and Guadalupe basins have also had occasional reported sightings. These three basins average less than thirty-five inches of rainfall per year, but they typically have dense vegetation and trees in the riparian margins. Given that the vast majority of Texas and Oklahoma reports follows rainfall patterns and occurs along waterways, the notion that these reports are simply the result of the misidentification of known animals, wishful thinking, and/or deliberate fabrications seems flawed.

There is yet another interesting correlation with the distribution of these sighting reports. For the most part it appears that most reported sightings in the four-state region occur in counties with lower human population densities. There are a few exceptions. However, 100% of the sightings reported from counties with higher populations still occurred in areas that were along the peripheries of or outside of the realm of human development (such as in Montgomery County, Texas, in the Sam Houston National Forest, an area of consistent reports). Actually, suitable wildlife habitat often exists close to urban and suburban areas. That being said, reported sightings that have occurred on the edge of small towns and larger cities are by far the exceptions.

In fact, it seems that where human populations increase, reported sasquatch sightings decrease. Where human populations decrease, reported sasquatch sightings may increase. The reputed shyness of the sasquatch is only further girded by this human population correlation. This observation is further enhanced by the inference from reports that sasquatches are nocturnal, or at the very least, crepuscular. Not only do the reported sightings seem to suggest that sasquatches live in areas of low human population densities, along waterways, and in areas of high annual rainfall, but they may be most active when humans are not, which is at night. The notion of fabrications and mistakes is unrealistic in light of these correlations.

While Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana have resident populations of black bears (Ursus americanus), there remains the question of whether or not the 12,000,000 acres of dense forest in East Texas can support even a small population of large omnivores such as the sasquatch. After all, black bears no longer roam the Piney Woods of East Texas. But did black bears disappear from East Texas because of a shortage of suitable habitat? No, or so says the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Biologists conducted a black bear habitat suitability study in four areas of East Texas: the Sulphur River Bottom (51,000 acres), the Big Thicket National Preserve (97,000 acres), the Middle Neches River Corridor (247,000 acres), and the Lower Neches River Corridor (312,000 acres). The purpose of the study was to determine the suitability of habitat in East Texas for the black bear, a large omnivorous mammal. The study is relevant because there may be a correlation between purported sasquatch and suitable black bear habitat. If an area is suitable for a large omnivore such as the black bear, it seems reasonable to posit that it is just as likely to be suitable for a small population of omnivorous sasquatches.

One part of the study dealt with food availability in summer and winter; all four areas scored very high. Biologists calculated a strong favorable rating for the availability of protection and concealment cover in all four areas. In the category of human/bear conflict zones, a less than favorable rating for the Big Thicket National Preserve was determined, but a moderately to strongly favorable rating was found for the other three areas.

Overall, the study indicated that the most suitable region for bears among the four study areas was the Middle Neches River Corridor, followed in order by the Lower Neches River Corridor, the Sulphur River Bottom, and the Big Thicket National Preserve. All four areas have had an abundance of bigfoot sighting reports.

Environmental suitability issues were also addressed by another group of scientists. While the curators of Chimp Haven in Northwest Louisiana probably do not spend too much time contemplating black bear habitat factors, they do devote much of their time discussing and evaluating primate habitat. According to their web site, Chimp Haven provides a permanent home for chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) retired from biomedical research, the entertainment industry, and those no longer wanted as pets. Their new sanctuary, presently under construction, is planned to accommodate 300 chimpanzees, animals which may be the closest relatives of sasquatches. Due to its ecology and climate, Chimp Haven curators believe that Northwest Louisiana is ideal primate habitat. Western Louisiana and East Texas are virtually ecological clones. It should come as no surprise that Northwest Louisiana was selected as the new site of Chimp Haven’s operations, given what we believe about sasquatch habitat.

In conclusion, several observations serve to dispel the notion that bigfoot sighting reports in Texas and Oklahoma are not the result of actual encounters. The reports, based on recent as well as older credible encounters, continue to accumulate and show no signs of abating. If one chooses to take the reports seriously and the apparent associated ecological patterns, as has been done in this paper, debates regarding the existence of this species are replaced by new issues such as those pertaining to ecology, distribution, behavior, and population densities.

References

Alley, J. Robert (2003). Raincoast Sasquatch. 351 pp. Hancock House, Blaine, Washington.

Bindernagel, J.A. (1998). North America's Great Ape: The Sasquatch. 270 pp. Beachcomber Books. Courtenay, B.C., Canada.

Chimp Haven.

Distribution of Precipitation in Oklahoma map. Provided by the online Web Atlas of Oklahoma.

Fahrenbach, W.H. (1997-1998). Sasquatch: Size, Scaling, and Statistics. Cryptozoology Vol. 13: 47-75.

Garner, Nathan P. and Sean Willis. (1997). Black Bear Habitat Suitability in East Texas, featured in Wildlife Research Highlights, pages 18-19 (.pdf). Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas.

Gould Ecoregions of Texas map (.pdf). Provided by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department GIS Lab.

Green, J. (1978). Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us. 492 pp. Hancock House Publishers Ltd., Saanichton, B.C., Canada.

Natural Regions of Texas map (.pdf). Provided by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department GIS Lab.

Natural Subregions of Texas map (.pdf). Provided by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department GIS Lab.

Oklahoma Ecoregions map. Provided by the online Web Atlas of Oklahoma.

Population of Oklahoma map. Provided by the online Web Atlas of Oklahoma.

Precipitation in Texas map (.pdf). Provided by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department GIS Lab.

Surface Hydrography of Oklahoma map. Provided by the online Web Atlas of Oklahoma.

Texas River Basins, Major Bays and Streams map (.pdf). Provided by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department GIS Lab.

Texas Sightings Database. TBRC Report Explorer. Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy.

The Vegetation Types of Texas map (.pdf). Provided by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department GIS Lab.

Vegetation in Oklahoma map. Provided by the online Web Atlas of Oklahoma.

Watersheds Across Oklahoma map. Provided by the online Web Atlas of Oklahoma.

A Sonoran Sasquatch?

The following article was written by TBRC Chairman Alton Higgins and discusses what may be the earliest documented descriptions of sasquatch observations and behaviors yet discovered in North America.

Sonoran Sasquatch
By Alton Higgins

The Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy has long advocated the position that a large upright primate exists in the most remote confines of Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana, particularly the region where those states adjoin. However, it cannot be denied that popular culture strongly identifies Western Canada and the heavily forested parts of the Pacific Northwest as the most likely abode of the sasquatch. Certainly, legends and more contemporary accounts from other parts of North America have been recorded, but reports originating south of the U.S. border are rare.

While this may be considered to be a function of both language differences and a less technologically connected populace, it is probably safe to say that the sasquatch is generally visualized as a creature of the higher latitudes.

The following highlighted passages were taken from the writings of one of the Jesuit missionaries who worked in the villages of the Province of Sonora in the eighteenth century. As described by Brown in The Grizzly in the Southwest, eighteenth-century Sonora extended “northward on the west side to the Sierra Madre from Cajeme (now Ciudad Obregon), near the California Gulf coast, to Tucson,” an ecologically diverse area of deserts, semiarid grasslands, and mountains comprising the northern portion of the modern Mexican state of Sonora and the southern portion of Arizona.



Father Ignaz Pfefferkorn (b. 1725), a German Jesuit, labored among the Pima Indians from 1756 to 1767. Following the expulsion of his Order from Spanish dominions, he penned a Descripción de la Provincia de Sonora, first published in German (Beschreibung del Landschaft Sonora) in 1795, and later translated into Spanish and English. Because of their experiences and close observations of the geography and the different people who lived in the provinces, the reports and letters of missionaries provide valuable information for historians and anthropologists. Pfefferkorn is considered an extremely reliable and creditable observer, and his writings are widely cited by historians.



While journals and reports of European (and American) explorers, surveyors, travelers, and others were often extremely detailed and trustworthy, early accounts of wildlife written by Europeans could sometimes be rather vague. For example, it was not uncommon to describe several different kinds of bears based on color. In his discussion of the animals of Sonora, Pfefferkorn wrote:

Of the Sonora bears some have black hair, others dark grey, and the smallest number are a reddish color. These last are the most cruel and harmful, according to the statements of the herdsmen. The herdsmen who often have the opportunity on the field and in the bush to observe the natural impulses of animals tell also that the cinnamon bears eagerly go after ants. … Hence the Spaniards in Sonora call the reddish bear “oso hormiguero” [ant bear]. (Pfefferkorn 1949:107)

There were, of course, only two species of bear in the Province of Sonora during the eighteenth century. The “cinnamon bear” was almost certainly the grizzly (Ursus arctos horriblis), a species few people realize once existed at such southerly latitudes.

Much of Pfefferkorn’s book features information related by indigenous tribal members. In relating descriptions of bear depredations, Pfefferkorn may have inadvertently recorded some of the earliest accounts of sasquatch interactions with humans. It is likely that, as he noted the following Indian reports, he presumed they were talking about grizzly bear activity, as did Brown in The Grizzly in the Southwest. That certainly appears to be the case in the first sentence. However, it is also possible that the creature described by some of the Indians in the remainder of the passage was the sasquatch, not the predominantly diurnal grizzly bear.



Pfefferkorn wrote:

Bears are a special menace to stock raising, for they eat many a calf, and, if no smaller prey falls into their clutches, they will attack even horses, cows, and oxen. They delight especially in eating maize as long as it is still tender and soft. Woe to the field if a hungry bear breaks into it at night. He eats as much as he can and makes off with as much as he can grasp and carry in his mighty arms. In so doing he ruins even more of the field by breaking it down and treading upon it. The inhabitants of the country assert that a bear defends himself by throwing stones when one attempts to chase him away and that a stone hurled from his paws comes with much greater force than one thrown from the hand of the strongest man. This seems the more remarkable because the bear is supposed to throw the stones backwards. (Pfefferkorn 1949: 106-107)

Such comments may seem incongruous for a highly educated man who traveled widely and lived for years in bear country. Pfefferkorn had earlier described seeing a grizzly bear while he was on a journey. His Indian guide attempted to kill it, but the bear, wounded by his pursuer, killed the man instead. With this kind of personal experience, it seems odd that Pfefferkorn would think (or insinuate) the same species was capable of walking bipedally so as to carry off large quantities of corn “in his mighty arms” and to be able to throw rocks more forcefully than “the hand of the strongest man.” Is it possible that Pfefferkorn, while confident in the inherent truthfulness of his Indian collaborators, secretly harbored doubts that the Indians had accurately identified the nocturnal rock throwing visitors to their cornfields?

While the supporting evidence is, admittedly, extremely limited, and the proposition speculative, I propose the possibility that Father Pfefferkorn heard some descriptions of sasquatch observations and activity that have been credited for centuries to the grizzly bear.

References
Brown, D. E. (1985). The Grizzly in the Southwest. Univ. of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Pp. 16-18.
Pfefferkorn, I. (1949). Sonora—a description of the province. Translated and annotated by Theodore Treutlein, from the 1875 German edition. Univ. of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Pp. 106-108.

*This article was originally posted on the TBRC website and is reproduced here with permission.

Cryptid Caution Concerning Cameras?

Below is an article written by my good friends, and fellow TBRC members, Daryl Colyer and Alton Higgins regarding the surprising wariness of coyotes around game cameras and how this trait might cause us to rethink how we attempt to go about getting a photo of other elusive and/or rare animals like the sasquatch. It is good stuff. I hope you enjoy it.


Cryptid Caution Concerning Cameras?

By Alton Higgins and Daryl Colyer

Since April 2006 the TBRC has maintained camera traps placed in areas noted for sasquatch activity. Our stated hypothesis was that sasquatches could not know what cameras were and should have no more reason to avoid them than any other species. The fact that dogged scientific research efforts the world over were experiencing success in documenting endangered animals served to encourage confidence in the strategy, despite the overwhelming odds when considering the vastness of the habitat and the probable rarity of the target species.

The cameras were placed in as close to wilderness conditions as it is possible to find in East Texas and the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas and Oklahoma, and six months or more often passed between visits to the long-life units. As photos accumulated into the thousands, TBRC researchers noted what seemed to be an odd fact: one of the most abundant large species, the coyote (Canis latrans), was represented in just a tiny fraction of the pictures, less than one half of one percent. Baiting the traps with scent lures did not make a difference. Then, in the early part of this year, we ran across a journal article addressing this very issue which gave us considerable cause to reevaluate and reconsider our hypothesis regarding the plausibility of cognitive camera-trap avoidance by sasquatches. Succinctly, we no longer rule out the possibility that the sasquatch purposely avoids camera-traps in remote wilderness environments.



Animals living in the Nature Conservancy’s Dye Creek Preserve, located in the foothills of the Cascade Range in California, were studied to better understand coyote wariness. The preserve was closed to the public and, as described by the authors, “Coyotes on the preserve were not hunted and generally represented an unexploited population.” Remarkably, results indicated that the dominant coyotes, the alphas, were never photographed inside their territories during the three-year study. This was not the result of animal departures; Alphas continued to stay in their territories while avoiding the cameras. Betas and transient coyotes—thirty-eight individuals in all—were successfully photo-captured.

The authors noted that, “Alphas are probably the only coyotes that are truly territorial in terms of defending and fully exploiting their space.” They regularly traverse their entire territories. These animals “actively tracked human activity within their territories and presumably gained information about camera stations as they were being set up.” They “were cautious of camera stations because of their association with humans and not simply because they were novel.” Such observations and the related data oblige us to reconsider our views regarding the predicted apathy of sasquatches to camera traps.

The TBRC mission does not include photographing coyotes; we are after a much more elusive animal. Regardless of the opinion one may favor regarding the cognitive capabilities of sasquatches, it stands to reason that if certain coyotes living in near pristine environments exhibit an innate aversion to human objects, then it is indeed conceivable that Operation Forest Vigil camera traps, placed as they are in exposed positions, may be thwarting the documentation of more than just coyotes.
This kind of avoidance behavior may not be characteristic of the sasquatch, but it represents a biologically feasible problem, and it is one that can be addressed. Revisiting feasible camera placement strategies may only shift the odds for success by a fraction, but every potential advantage, no matter how small, should be pursued.



One of the difficulties faced by the TBRC’s Operation Forest Vigil camera teams is presented by the American black bear (Ursus americanus). Unlike coyotes, black bears exhibit great interest in deployed camera traps, as discussed in the Camera Trap Vandals article available at the TBRC web site. After suffering the loss of thousands of dollars worth of equipment, the TBRC was forced to employ customized heavy-duty steel protective boxes for each of the cameras. In addition to making the deployment of cameras in remote areas much more labor intensive, the added security equipment made the units even more visually conspicuous. Of course, this was not seen as a research impediment at the time. However, with regard to the possibility that prominent camera trap setups might serve to ward off wary species in wilderness settings, this represents an obvious challenge.

Because of the incredibly acute olfactory abilities of bears, simply hiding camera traps without the bulky protective steel boxes is not seen as a practical option. However, it may be possible to redesign the boxes to be more compact and to attach to trees with lag bolts, a course of action the TBRC is currently pursuing.
Smaller camera traps would facilitate concealment. Most of the cameras used by the TBRC are made by Reconyx. While Reconyx makes the most highly rated game cameras on the market, they are not particularly compact. Comparative research of the capabilities of Reconyx with some of the smaller brands now available, perhaps in side-by-side field trials, needs to be conducted.



Based on the experiences of the scientists studying coyote wariness, camera traps should be deployed as quickly and quietly as possible. When combined with the need for protection from bear damage, this is no easy task. Safe and secure does not go hand in hand with quick and quiet. Regular relocation of cameras may also be a strategy to consider employing. If the activities of camera placement/maintenance teams are detected by resident animals, the camera may be rendered essentially ineffective at that location.

Short of placing cameras inside of trees or camouflaging with natural materials such as bark, which would probably be torn off by inquisitive bears, the protective camera boxes need to be camouflaged in ways that are compatible with the bark of native trees. Ideally, sharp edges and angles could be replaced with more natural looking rounded angles and sloping sides to better blend in with the contours of tree trunks. Another possibility would be to deploy camera traps in the ground or in rocks. Even placement of small trees with camera traps housed in them might make for an undetectable setup.

Some of these actions can be implemented more quickly than others. Even if the sasquatch is indifferent towards game cameras, these changes would make the deployment of cameras faster and easier, while further reducing the chances of losing expensive equipment in the event that units are discovered by people. Having said that, it does seem reasonable to proffer that if we can significantly increase our photo-captures of coyotes—with a likely continental population into the millions—then we can enhance our odds of photo-capturing the sasquatch, which many argue has a population of a few thousand at best.

*Originally posted on the TBRC website and reproduced here with permission.

Reference
Sequin, E.S., Jaeger, M.M., Brussard, P.F., & Barrett, R.H. (2003). Wariness of coyotes to camera traps relative to social status and territory boundaries. USDA National Wildlife Research Center, Staff Publications. University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Can. J. Zool. 81: 2015-2025.

A Second Review: "Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide"

I asked TBRC Chairman Alton Higgins to write a review of the recent History Channel program "Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide." He was kind enough to do just that. His review is thoughtful and right on point. It seems I was not the only one unimpressed by the program. Check out Alton's review below:


Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide
A Second Point of View
by Alton Higgins
3 February 2011

Perhaps we should have taken a clue from the use of our favorite perpetually persecuted sasquatch (of Jack Link’s Beef Jerky fame) to publicize “Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide,” shown 2 February 2011 on the History cable channel. Despite the involvement of a distinguished cast of scientists, the only “definitive” thing about this latest foray into squatchploitation was that it shouldn’t be taken much more seriously than a humorous jerky commercial.



Well, perhaps that is a wee bit harsh, but when my wife, who is generally apathetic concerning bigfooty things, sat there groaning and arguing at the television, I figured the producers had probably missed the mark with more folks than this sometimes jaded enthusiast.

The first impression that struck me in watching the program was a sense of déjà vu. Was the MonsterQuest marathon from earlier in the day still running? The tone, pacing, music, structure, use of reenactments, etc., really echoed MonsterQuest’s campy formulaic style.

Unfortunately, “The Definitive Guide” needed content more than it needed style.

It’s not that the program was bereft of information. In the fashion of the MonsterQuest series it so resembled, the producers managed to squeeze thirty minutes worth of content into two hours. Unfortunately, little of the information was new, and the original opinions proffered by the distinguished scientists were weak, if not laughable.

The panel of scientists included geochronologist Jack Rink, who has studied Gigantopithecus fossils; Anna Nekaris, bringing extensive field research studying nocturnal primates to the table; taxonomist and fossil primate expert William Sellars; Ian Redmond, a tropical field biologist who spent years studying mountain gorillas with Dian Fossey; and Jeff Meldrum, an associate professor of anatomy and anthropology with expertise in the foot morphology and locomotion of monkeys, apes and hominids. The supporting cast included field biologist John Mionczynski and U.S. Forest Service anthropologist Kathy Strain.

There were some things about “The Definitive Guide” that I enjoyed. Beautiful mountain vistas graced the program throughout, and I thought the dozen plus sighting reenactments were done well. Near the beginning of the program I was pleased to hear the narrator affirm, “Something is out there, but what?” It was also refreshing to see a few new faces from the scientific community willing to grant the sasquatch phenomenon and the question of unknown hominids some time and open-minded deliberation.

Unfortunately, and predictably, not all the discussion appeared to be carefully considered. For example, cursory reviews and perfunctory dismissals characterized the team’s “analysis” of the records of bipedal primates in Florida and “the Patterson film” (as they called it) from 1967. If a child had suggested that Florida witnesses were probably confusing escaped pet orangutans or chimpanzees for large bipedal
primates, one might smile in amusement at the suggestion, but the zany idea is supposed to be taken seriously if it’s offered by a group of scientists. I suppose it applies equally to reported sightings in Texas and throughout the south.

In like manner, the documentary’s Patterson/Gimlin film treatment was unconscionably superficial. In response to Meldrum’s measured comments regarding the subject filmed by Patterson and Gimlin, Sellars shoots back with, “It shrieks at me ‘man in suit.’ I mean, it really does!” Rather than include a discussion regarding the merits of the argument that a homemade cowhide suit could demonstrate the features exhibited in the film, the program’s editors chose to add subjective and irrelevant criticism from
a Mike McLeod, said to be a journalist.

Permit me a brief detour. Science should be about evaluating data and examining evidence. I hope Professor Sellars (and others who share his opinion) will someday reconsider his peremptory pronouncements and pursue some puzzling problems pertaining to the Patterson/Gimlin film. That’s what science boils down to: asking simple questions. To get him and others who share his critical perspective started, I propose a straightforward query. Can you find a gorilla costume from the 1960s (I’ll even throw in the decades from the 70s to the present) that clearly shows a gluteal cleft and the attachment of the trapezius and latissimus dorsi muscles to the spine? These features are plainly visible in gorillas, and they clearly show in the creature filmed by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. End of detour.



Another investigative technique that “The Definitive Guide” barely touched was the use of detection dogs. I have spoken with Meldrum and Mionczynski about this novel avenue of research, and I feel that their insight and experiences could have made for some captivating television.

One of the issues upon which the panel seemed divided concerned the matter of witness testimony. Anna Nekaris, for example, expressed on a couple of occasions her confidence in such accounts. “I believe very much in what local people say,” Nekaris stated, “and if local people tell me something is there, I have a suspicion it may be, even if I haven’t seen it.” I got the impression, however, that the panel as a whole found tales coming from the inhabitants of third-world regions regarding man-beasts of various sorts more compelling than similar accounts originating from countries like, say, the USA or Canada.

Through a presumably rigorous report-winnowing and habitat analysis process the panel deduced the existence of several global “hotspots” of activity that could have some basis in reality. This is all well and good, but it’s surely misleading to casual viewers who may not realize that these areas have long been identified and associated with large bipedal primates. I did think the panel made some reasonable deductions in proposing that the yeti, mande burung, and yeren all represent the same species, the likely descendents of Gigantopithecus. I also think it’s safe to presume that this was not an issue upon which Loren Coleman, who prefers to think in terms of present-day multiplicities of elusive unknown hominoids (even in North America) was consulted!

Speaking of Coleman, he was apparently (I’m guessing) the source of the so-called “Myakka Ape” photos briefly flashed on screen. Their inclusion was an embarrassment to the program, which had enough problems as it was, and served as evidence that the producers did an inadequate job of researching their subject. In a 2004 article, based on conference presentations from 2003, I laid out a number of reasons why I believed those photos should be discounted. The fact that the Myakka affair was given any heed, “even after quite explicit evidence has shown it to be a hoax,” as Jeff Meldrum wrote in 2004, is frustrating.

The program did do an adequate job summarizing recent fossil discoveries and establishing the fact that for millions of years many species of large primates shared the same landscapes. If Homo sapiens is Earth’s only remaining bipedal primate, that is the exception to the pattern of the past, as noted by Meldrum. Regarding the presence of such a bipedal primate in North America, which was the main focus of the program, the panel addressed three possibilities: giant ape, ancient human, and modern
human.

While sitting firmly in the ape camp myself, I did find the ancient human theory interesting, though not very convincing. Homo heidelbergensis was a large and muscular hominin. This species used tools, hunted, and exhibited other forms of social behavior. As Meldrum pointed out, if the North American sasquatch is the descendent of H. heidelbergensis, it is odd that the species would forego the advantages of cultural development to pursue an even more primitive lifestyle.

I was surprised by the program’s inclusion of a related topic regarding an “ancient human” basis for the sasquatch phenomenon, that of hybrids. Many of us, I suppose, have heard these stories of unfortunate women, sex-crazed wildmen, and their doomed offspring. This appears to be a widespread mythos among native North American cultures, even extending to Central America, and it has proven to be a popular subject for dime novels and low-budget movies for many years. However, in the absence of any
corroborative evidence, I don’t think speculations based on such legends or beliefs warrant consideration in empirical, as opposed to social, science discussions.



Perhaps the silliest idea of all those presented was Jack Rink’s. (I wonder if he’s considered starting a jerky business with a Gigantopithecus brand mascot?) He suggested that bigfoot sightings could be explained as glimpses by witnesses of Squamish Indians following the traditions of shamanistic training and initiations. (Is Rink a covert acolyte of M.K. Davis?) The discovery of simple stone tools “in out of
the way places” was proposed as supportive evidence.

Regarding this “out of the way” idea, I remember hiking and hunting with my dad in (what appeared to me to be) some extremely “out of the way” places in Arizona. Once while hiking through a seemingly God-forsaken narrow canyon in the Superstition Mountains we noticed, by sheer chance, a tiny adobe cliff dwelling built in a cleft positioned high on the canyon wall. As we scrabbled our way slowly up to the spot I remember thinking, “Why would anyone chose to live in such a place?” We found it
apparently undisturbed, and we left it that way. I had the same thought on another occasion when we climbed up a desert mesa while hunting javelina. It was a tough climb, rocky and thorny, but when we reached the top we found, much to my surprise, a veritable field of broken pottery and matates. There were no trees, no water, no soil for farming, yet it was plain to see that the area had been inhabited. My point is, just because a place seems “out of the way” to our modern sensibilities doesn’t mean it would have been avoided in the past. Finding stone scrapers in seemingly odd places in British Columbia should not be seen as evidence supporting a modern human explanation for bigfoot sightings. Ian Redmond and Kathy Strain quickly quashed the quirky theory that “The Definitive Guide” spent far too much time developing, just as I have spent too much time discussing it.

Another silly part of the program was the description of bigfoot investigator Cindy Dosen as a research expert, or words to that effect, and the trip she led into the woods with Ian Redmond. The distinguished Redmond, easily the most experienced field man and the most prominent “Definitive Guide” panel member, must have felt at least a little discomfited as he was directed in his scenes and asked to comment about the possibility of sasquatch stick structures. As for Dosen, she probably didn’t describe
herself as an “expert” at anything, but the narrator’s use of the term brings up a sore point often discussed by bigfoot enthusiasts with regard to scientists, if I may digress once again.

In a strange dichotomy, members of “the bigfoot community” (whatever that is) often complain that members of the scientific community pay scant attention to the bigfoot phenomenon, at least publicly. At the same time, those who do are often ostracized or criticized because the “expert” label is often affixed to them (even if this is done by others, not themselves). I have no problem with describing the scientists involved with “The Definitive Guide” as experts in their fields, and each is in a position to commentauthoritatively on different aspects of the presumptive natural history of the sasquatch and other hairy hominoids. Blithely dismissing the opinions of a scientist, especially if the opinions are thoroughly considered and within the scientist’s purview, just because the scientist has never seen or claimed to have seen a sasquatch, amounts to little more than playground-level gamesmanship, in my opinion.
Cindy Dosen may have been chased by a bigfoot, but that doesn’t make her an expert at bigfoot vocalizations (the producers should have provided an analysis of the recorded vocalizations) or an expert field researcher any more than I can claim to be a comet expert just because I’ve seen a couple of them.

I suppose I could nitpick “The Definitive Guide” for days, but a few troubling taradiddles deserve at least a brief mention. For example, the team concluded that a “massive surge” of reported bigfoot sightings was triggered by the Patterson/Gimlin film when it seems just as likely that increasingly widespread access to communication and information during that time period is similarly responsible. On a related point, the team seemed to believe that, outside of the Pacific Northwest, there was “almost
no previous history” of reported sightings in North America when, in fact, there are thousands of such reports (not to mention the ubiquitous legends of native cultures) extending back hundreds of years, as documented in a couple of compendiums on the subject.

The “Bili Ape” was identified as a new species of great ape, recently discovered in Africa, but my understanding is that its DNA is identical to that of the local subspecies of chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii. In my opinion, this should not have been used as a way of trying to establish that large primate species, such as the sasquatch and others mentioned in the program, remained to be discovered and documented.

Overall, I have to say that I got the impression that the documentary was just too hurried in its production. A couple of us in the TBRC had extended conversations with a producer about possibly participating in the filming of the show, but it was almost a “right now” situation and schedules, made more complex with a flight to Canada as part of the mix, could not be worked out. I don’t think participation by one or two of our members would have made any difference in the quality of the final result, and I don’t fault any members of the team of scientists. Involvement in these kinds of projects is always unpredictable; they had no way of knowing if the result was going to resemble MonsterQuest on steroids, a BBC nature documentary narrated by David Attenborough, or something in-between. At least the subject was treated in a serious manner. There were no tongue-in-cheek comments from the narrator or condescending comments from smug critics, as is too often the case in bigfoot-related programming.
We can be thankful for that.

My final comments concern my first bit of apprehension upon hearing of the program, specifically, the “Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide” title assigned to it. This told me that whoever was at the helm of the documentary lacked a true scientific perspective regarding scientific knowledge and the processes used to learn about the world around us. No scientific explanations are fixed, set in stone, definitive. All knowledge is tentative, subject to change. Challenging the ideas, results, theories, evidence, and etc. of other scientists is a big part of what drives scientists and makes science fun. Sure, some scientists learn things that help mankind in one way or another, but most pursue arcane topics out of an unrelenting sense of curiosity and the joy that comes from discovering something new.

“Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide” will not go down in the annals of television as one of the best bigfoot- related documentaries, much less as having established anything definitively. However, I do hope that the scientists involved, upon reflecting on the experience, develop an increasing level of openness to that which goes against convention. If that is a result, then “Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide” will have
garnered a degree of success that goes beyond television ratings or generally critical reviews.

References

ABC News Online. 29 June 2006. Mystery apes are chubby chimps, zoologists find. http://is.gd/L12hrk

Arment, Chad. 2006. The Historical Bigfoot. Coachwhip Publications. 348 pp.

Higgins, Alton. 2004. Evaluating Purported Sasquatch Photographic Evidence. http://is.gd/kV5nhw

Meldrum, Jeff. 2004. Book Review: Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in America. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.18, No. 3, pp. 521-523.

Strain, Kathy. 2008. Giants, Cannibals & Monsters: Bigfoot in Native Culture. Hancock House Publishing. 288 pp.

California Thylacine?: Addendum

Bill Warren, the gentleman who purchased what may be the pelt of the ostensibly extinct thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus) has sent a brief response to the article, written by TBRC Chairman Alton Higgins, entitled "California Thylacine?" and posted here on this site back on November 22, 2010.



You can access the article here or just hit the "guest blogger" label in the right margin to review the original post. In the article, Higgins posits that the pelt Mr. Warren has purchased is actually that of a zebra duiker (Cephalophus zebra), a small (9-20 kg) antelope that lives in the dense forests of West Africa. The zebra duiker is a spectacularly colored and marked animal and is listed as endangered. Alton did a very nice job of comparing the available photos of Mr. Warren's pelt to those of photos of zebra duikers as well as to known photos of thylacines.



Higgins, while not completely ruling out that the pelt is thylacine in origin, came to the conclusion that the skin is most likely that of the zebra duiker. He wasn't alone in reaching that conclusion. A gentleman identifying himself as a Col. Bailey from Tasmania wrote in and said, "You are so right. This is indeed the pelt of the Zebra duiker from Sierre Leone. The striking similarity to the thylacine pelt has previously lead many astray." This Col. Bailey claimed to have been involved in the analysis of the Emmerich photos, alleged to be of a thylacine, as well. To be fair, I have no idea if this gentleman is who he claims to be as this message was left as a comment to the original article. So take it for what it is.

A gentleman identifying himself as Bill Warren left the following comment today: "I am Bill Warren and I have written reports from various experts on the Tasmanian tiger and they agree my skin is a Tasmanian Tiger. The stripes on my skin are shorter than a duiker. My skin is much longer. My skin is soft when you run your hand against the grain." Again, to be consistent, I have no idea if this is in fact the real Bill Warren. I have reason to doubt it is not either so, again, take it for what it is. I replied, as you can see in the comments section below the original post, that I hope he is right and the pelt is that of a thylacine. I did ask if he had made the skin available for DNA testing and if any museums or universities had stepped up to help make this happen.



Mr. Warren, if you are reading this, I would like to say again that I, and I think I can safely speak for Alton Higgins as well, hope you did find the skin of a thylacine. It would be a spectacular find. The points you mention about the pelt being larger than a duiker, the stripes being shorter than those of a duiker, and the texture being different could all be valid but, obviously, you have the advantage as neither I, nor Mr. Higgins, have had the opportunity to inspect the pelt in person. Higgin's assessment of the pelt was made on comparison of photographs only. I would be glad to publish some or all of the written reports you possess from scientists who have examined the pelt. It could go a long way toward removing the doubts that persist out there.

California Thylacine?

The story of a man named Bill Warren, who claims to have purchased the pelt of a thylacine at a garage sale, has caught the eye of TBRC Chairman Alton Higgins. Read Alton's thoughts on this story below:

California Thylacine?
Alton Higgins, 20 November 2010

One ostensibly extinct animal that I'm very interested in is the Tasmanian tiger, or thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus), an apex marsupial predator (Figure 1). As indicated by the name, the species lived on the island of Tasmania, but it was also found on the Australian mainland, although it appears that the species was approaching extinction on the continent prior to European settlement. Personally, I think a few still survive in the most remote reaches of Tasmania.



Recently a story came out about a guy, Bill Warren, who says he bought a thylacine pelt for $5 at a California yard sale. If true, it could be a very valuable remnant artifact of a tragically persecuted species (Figure 2).



When I first saw the pictures of the find I was pretty excited, but the more I looked at the skin the more I wondered if it was something else. The folks at the Centre for Fortean Zoology and others suggested that the hide should be compared to that of a zebra duiker (Cephalophus zebra), a small (9-20 kg) antelope living in the dense forests of west Africa and one of the world’s most distinctively colored mammals (Figure 3).



I attempted to match a museum zebra duiker skin to a photograph of a live zebra duiker to see how well they compared in terms of the striping patterns (Figure 4). Based on the color of the museum skin, it looks like it has undergone some foxing, but the stripes aligned closely, as would be expected. The primary possible difference is that the museum skin appears to have an extra stripe in the shoulder area.



The mystery skin was also compared with the photograph of a live zebra duiker (Figure 5).



Finally, the mystery skin is shown side by side with the museum skin (Figure 6).


Figure 6. The mystery skin compared to a zebra duiker skin (right side of image).

In each of these comparisons, in my opinion, the putative thylacine skin appeared to correlate closely with the zebra duiker museum skin and the photograph of a living zebra duiker, lending credence to suggestions that the skin in question is not that of a thylacine.

A few years ago I was involved with trying to determine if the Emmerich photos taken in Tasmania were those of a thylacine. As part of that effort I examined patterns of thylacine stripes and observed that the initial position of stripes along the spine were very consistent, at least among the individual thylacine photographs available on the Internet (Figure 7). In attempts to perform a similar comparison, I was not able to achieve a satisfactory match between the mystery skin stripes and those available for examination in known thylacine photos.



Based on stripe pattern comparisons alone, I’d have to posit that the skin purchased by Bill Warren is probably that of a zebra duiker rather than a thylacine. Another factor to consider is that of the tendency of thylacine stripes to stay bold across the rump and onto the tail, as opposed to the characteristic of zebra duiker stripes to become less prominent towards the tail. While skin from the tail area of the mystery skin is missing, if it is indeed that of a thylacine, what is present matches the expected pattern of the zebra duiker.

The zebra duiker is classified as a threatened species. I’m sure any number of natural history museums would be happy to have it in their collection. If the skin is indeed that of a thylacine, interest will be even greater. Hopefully Mr. Warren will allow definitive testing to be conducted on the pelt. If nothing else, this whole episode has demonstrated that “cryptids” of various stripes can indeed pop up in unexpected places.

References
Hargrove, Dorian. Fallbrook Man Catches Tasmanian Tiger by the Tail. San Diego Reader. Nov. 12, 2010. http://sandiegoreader.com/news/2010/nov/12/fallbrook-man-catches-tasmanian-tiger-tail/