Sasquatch FAQ Series: Do Wood Apes Avoid Game Cameras?

With thousands of game cameras out there, if bigfoot is real, why are there no pictures?

The question above is one I have heard countless times over the years. Make no mistake, it is a fair question and I have no problem with anyone who asks it. On the surface, the fact that no clear and conclusive photos have been captured via game camera would seem to indicate that the wood ape does not exist. The real answer as to why game cameras have failed to get the “money shot,” however, may not be quite so simple. As seems to be the case with almost everything related to the sasquatch enigma, the truth may be more nuanced and layered than one might expect.

In 2003, a team from the University of Nebraska published a paper titled Wariness of Coyotes to Camera Traps Relative to Social Status and Territory Boundaries. The paper detailed an aversion that Alpha coyotes seemed to have regarding game cameras. The study took place in the Dye Creek Preserve in the foothills of the Cascade Mountains of California which was closed to the public. The authors thought the coyote population in this area would make good subjects for their study due to their extremely limited exposure to humans. “Coyotes on the preserve were not hunted and generally represented an unexploited population,” the authors wrote. The results of their study were fascinating.

The study found that the dominant coyotes, the Alphas, were never photographed inside their territories during the three years the game cameras were in place. Not one time. The authors concluded that this was not due to the animals having left the area as Betas and transient coyotes, thirty-eight in all, were successfully photographed by the cameras and Alphas were observed via more traditional means in their territories. Instead, the authors felt the lack of photos of the Alphas had to do with an increased level of awareness and caution on the part of the dominant pack members. “Alphas are probably the only coyotes that are truly territorial in terms of defending and fully exploiting their space,” the authors said. The Alphas regularly traversed their entire territories and “actively tracked human activity within their territories and presumably gained information about camera stations as they were being set up.” The final conclusion was the Alphas “were cautious of camera stations because of their association with humans and not simply because they were novel.”

The conclusion that Alpha coyotes avoided game cameras because they associated them with humans is one that has real ramifications for those attempting to gain photographic evidence of the wood ape by the use of such devices. The NAWAC conducted a large-scale camera-trapping project dubbed Operation Forest Vigil from 2006 – 2011. Despite hundreds of man hours and thousands of dollars spent on the effort, no definitive photos of the target species were captured. The thinking was that apes might avoid the cameras for a few days or weeks after their initial deployment, but get used to them over time. The lack of results and the findings of the University of Nebraska biologists caused the group to reconsider that opinion and the project. If the apes were avoiding the cameras due to associating them with humans and not because they were something new and out of place – like the Alpha coyotes in the University of Nebraska study – then the group was very likely wasting its time and money. 

Coyotes are one thing, apes are another. How can we be sure that apes are as wary of cameras as Alpha coyotes? A recent study conducted by the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology shed some light on that question. According to a paper published in March of 2019, an international team of researchers placed cameras in ape-populated forests in Africa in an effort to learn how wild apes would react to these unfamiliar objects. Responses varied by species, and even among individuals within the same species, but one thing was consistent throughout: the apes definitely noticed the cameras.

“Our goal was to see how chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas react to unfamiliar objects in the wild since novel object experiments are often used in comparative psychology research, and we wanted to know if there were any differences among the three great apes,” said primatologist Ammi Kalan. “We were specifically surprised by the differences in reactions we observed between the chimps and bonobos. Since they are sister species and share a lot of the same genetic makeup, we expected them to act similarly to the camera, but this wasn’t the case.” The chimps, though they noticed the cameras, seemed uninterested, for the most part. The bonobos, on the other hand, were stressed by the devices. “The bonobos appeared to be much more troubled by the camera traps; they were hesitant to approach and would actively keep their distance from them,” said Kalan.

The experiment pointed out the necessity of researchers to consider how animals will respond to unfamiliar monitoring equipment – I would include audio recording devices under this umbrella, too –in their natural habitats. The variation in behavior from species to species towards unfamiliar objects placed in their environment “might be problematic when trying to collect accurate monitoring data,” said Kalan. In other words, there may be no such thing as truly passive observation. The mere presence of a camera or a recorder may alter the behavior of the target species.

Many researchers, me among them, have long held the belief that wood apes avoid camera traps. Do not misunderstand, I do not think an ape knows what a camera does and makes a conscious effort to avoid having its picture taken. That is foolishness. I do, however, think it is possible – likely even – that these wood apes associate cameras with humans. If they understand, even on an extremely rudimentary level, that humans are generally bad news, and if they are more bonobo-like than chimpanzee-like in their sensitivity to foreign objects in there environment, then they are likely going to go to great pains to avoid anything to do with them; that would include camera traps.

Despite this belief, I am still a proponent of the use of game cameras. I feel short of a hunter taking a specimen or a road-kill type of scenario, cameras remain our best chance of documenting the species. I also feel that despite the challenges, a large-scale camera project sponsored by a well-funded group with sufficient resources just might be able to capture the evidence desired. What must be understood is that just hanging a camera on a stake or a tree is not going to be good enough when the quarry is something as intelligent as a great ape. New and novel techniques will need to be utilized to have any chance of success. Another reason I remain a proponent of game cameras is that these creatures are not infallible. They do make the occasional mistake. Researchers can do the wrong thing, be too loud, fail to camouflage their cameras, etc. day after day for years. That is okay; there is always tomorrow. The wood ape has to be perfect every day in order to permanently avoid detection. That is simply not possible, not even for an animal as furtive and elusive as the sasquatch. One mistake. That is all it will take for the discovery of the millennium to be made. The question really is not whether or not the wood ape will make a mistake; one will. The question is will there be anyone or a monitoring device present to capitalize on said mistake?

If you are the type to get into discussions over cryptozoological-related matters – and you likely are considering you are reading this – file the findings of the University of Nebraska biologists and the researchers of the Max Planck Institute away for future conversations. The question of why no photos have been captured by game cameras is bound to come up eventually. Along with the most common response – and quite a valid one, in my opinion – stating that most game cameras are pointed at deer feeders that are not too deep into the woods, bring up the possibility, backed by scientific studies, that some animals simply avoid cameras due to their association with humans. You will come across as well-read, reasonable, and intelligent.

You will also be right.

Sources:

“Wild African Ape Reactions to Novel Camera Traps.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 14 Mar. 2019, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190314111015.htm.

Sequin, E.S, et al. “Wariness of Coyotes to Camera Traps Relative to Social Status and Territory Boundaries.” Digital Commons @ University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications, Mar. 2003, digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/190-cryptidcaution&httpsredir=1&article=1227&context=icwdm_usdanwrc.

Higgins, Alton, and Daryl Colder. “Cryptid Caution Concerning Cameras?” Cryptid Caution Concerning Cameras?, woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/190-cryptidcaution.

Sasquatch FAQ: What is Bigfoot?

What is bigfoot? It is one of the most frequently asked question out there when it comes to topic of the sasquatch. The debate on just exactly what this creature might be is currently raging with white-hot intensity within the small niche of society interested in such things. Is it an ape? Might it be some sort of primitive human? A spiritual being of some sort? Nothing more than a myth? What is it?

Most people who believe the species actually exists fall into one of two camps. They either think the sasquatch is an ape of some sort or a primitive human. For now, let’s forget about from what, or whom, if you prefer, this creature descended. Gigantopithicus blackii? Homo erectus? Homo heidelbergensis? Neanderthals? All questions for another day. For now, let’s simply concentrate on the much broader issue of whether the sasquatch is some sort of ape or primitive human. Before we get too deep we will have to answer what seems like a simple question. What exactly is it that makes us human?

The answer to this question is not nearly as simple as you might initially believe. Live Science recently published a brief list entitled The Top 10 Things That Make Humans Special that might help us with this question. The list includes the use of speech, nakedness, extraordinary brains, use of clothing, and the mastery of fire as being defining characteristics of humans. Let’s start with these points and take them one at a time.

The ability of humans to speak and use language is due in part to physiology. The larynx sits lower in the throat of humans than it does in the great apes. Humans also possess a descended hyoid bone, a horseshoe-shaped bone, below the tongue, which is not attached to any other bones. This allows humans to articulate a wide variety of sounds, which, in turn, allows us to form words. The ability to articulate many words led to the development of language. To say there is no evidence at all that the sasquatch might have some sort of rudimentary building blocks of language might not be completely accurate. The TBRC captured some very intriguing audio last summer during Operation Endurance. While the audio is quite unlike anything I’ve ever heard it does not suggest true language to me. I’ve never heard any credible, and that is the key term here, accounts of sasquatches “speaking.” Communicating? Yes. Speaking? No. The ability to communicate via a true language is something that, so far as we know, only humans do.

Nakedness refers to the seeming absence of hair, at least compared to our great ape cousins, on humans. Our “nakedness” makes us truly unique in the animal kingdom. We don’t have a thick coat of hair or fur and also lack feathers and/or scales. We are quite different in appearance from everything else out there. The truth is that, on average, a square inch of human skin contains just as many hair-producing follicles as other primates – sometimes more. The difference is that our hair is pretty puny. It is significantly thinner, shorter, and lighter than the hairs found on our great ape cousins whose coats are made up of much sturdier stuff. This “nakedness” is an undeniably unique characteristic of humans.

Another characteristic that separates humans from all other species is their truly extraordinary brain. This characteristic, more than any other, puts up a clear barrier between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. Our brain only weighs in at about 3 lbs. when fully mature. On average that is only about 2-3% of an adult human’s body weight. Yet this incredible organ provides us with the ability to reason, compose music, think in the abstract, understand and use mathematics, comprehend cause and effect, anticipate outcomes, and literally thousands upon thousands of other things. There are numerous other species out there that are incredibly intelligent. Dolphins, pigs, the great apes, and others fit this bill but humans are the undisputed intelligence champions of the planet. Our brain clearly makes us different than any other species.

Humans make and wear clothing. Animals do not. Period. This is one point that really is just that simple. The nakedness of humans has already been addressed. The lack of a warm coat of hair or fur made the development of clothing and absolute necessity if the species were to spread and survive in many regions of the planet. It is true that some tribes living in equatorial regions wear little to no clothing. The need for it just isn’t there. However, I would point out that these tribes do “accessorize,” if you will. They adorn themselves with necklaces, bracelets, anklets, ear and nose rings. I would argue these decorative adornments fall under the same general umbrella as clothing. Animals do not adorn themselves in these ways. No animal, even in temperate regions where humans have to clothe themselves in order to survive, fashions and wears clothing or other adornments. It simply does not happen. Only humans wear clothes and/or adornments.

Among all the species on this earth, only humans have the ability to use and control fire. The mastery of fire, in my opinion, helped our unique and powerful brains develop. Once humans controlled fire, predators could be kept at bay and the night was no longer a time to cower in fear simply waiting for the sun to rise. This meant something new occurred: leisure time. Without the fear of being attacked in the night, humans had the opportunity to sit and ponder the many mysteries of this world, star gaze, and dream up new and increasingly fantastic inventions. Fire also kept humans warm and allowed them to populate colder climates. In addition, fire gave humans the ability to cook food. Many scientists feel that this ability to cook food directly influenced human evolution and appearance. Since cooked food is easier to eat and process, over time, tooth and gut sizes in humans were reduced. Truly, the mastery of fire is one of the most significant differences between humans and any other animal.

As you can see, the characteristics noted above seem to clearly separate the human from the sasquatch. To be fair, the Live Science list does include some characteristics that the sasquatch is reported to share with people. Upright posture/ bipedalism, and hands with an opposable thumb, for example. These two shared characteristics might give one pause when considering whether the sasquatch is an ape or a human; however, one of these two “shared” traits really isn’t shared too closely at all. You might be surprised to learn that humans are not the only animals to possess opposable thumbs. Most of the primates do, as a matter of fact. The important difference is that humans have the ability to bring their thumbs all the way across the hand to the ring and little fingers. Humans can also flex the ring and little fingers toward the base of the thumb. This ability is unique to humans and gives us a powerful grip and an exceptional amount of dexterity with which we can hold and manipulate tools and other objects. Of everything on this particular list, only the upright posture and bipedal method of locomotion is shared between humans and the sasquatch.

TBRC members have long discussed this issue and touched upon many of these same points. My good friend, Daryl Colyer, recently added his thoughts to the Live Science list. They are as follows:

“We also possess a curious ability to record abstract thoughts using a complex series of written, carved, or pressed symbols. Using this form of permanently recorded communication, a human being who lived hundreds or even thousands of years ago can pass along his or her thoughts to those of us who now live in the twenty-first century.

I would also add our predilection for surrounding ourselves, adorning ourselves, and our abodes, with tactile objects, or “stuff.” Whether it’s necklaces, spears, photos, or computers, we’ve always had our stuff. In the most ancient of burials, it is not uncommon to find objects with the deceased that he or she valued while still alive.”

I can honestly say that, while I’ve seen, heard, and smelled some very strange things during my time searching for evidence that would prove the sasquatch exists, I’ve never, ever come across anything that would lead me to the conclusion that they are some sort of primitive human. Not once. Neither have I experienced anything, or had a witness report to me, any observed behavior or characteristic of a more esoteric nature. While no one can say with any degree of certainty as to what these creatures are, and be very wary of anyone who claims they can, I feel strongly that they are animals and not some kind of forest person. The one characteristic they seem to fully share with us, upright posture/bipedal locomotion, is not enough to convince me they are anything other than animals.

I will conclude with another thought from Daryl Colyer who sums this whole thing up succinctly:

“Ponder on these things should any of you have an inclination to consider the sasquatch as some form of forest-dwelling hermetic human that has become detached from greater human civilization. As a species, the sasquatch has a very long way to go before it reaches the level of behavior, cognizance, and intelligence that is even near that of humanity.”

I think that is dead on.

Sasquatch FAQ: Why Has A Hunter Never Taken One?

I received an email last week that brought this question up again. It is one of the 3-4 most commonly asked questions whenever I talk to people about the reality of the sasquatch. Below is the email, with the sender’s name removed in order to protect his/her privacy:

"I believe in bigfoot. There is something that bothers me though. There is an incident recounted on your (TBRC) site where a hunter saw a bigfoot picking up apples. He had him in his scope at 150 yards for two minutes. Why didn't this result in a kill ? Why do we not have any kills to support the other evidence?"

It is a good question. It is also a question that has as many different answers as there are hunters who have claimed to have had this opportunity. I will touch on the reasons given most often by hunters who have claimed to have found themselves in this situation.

One thing Ive heard often is that they just didn't know what they were seeing. As I'm sure most of you out there realize, hunters are not indiscriminate killers who go around shooting up the woods like crazy people (despite what many in our society think). Rather, they are trained to never fire unless they can positively identify what they are targeting. If a hunter sees a bipedal upright figure walking, especially during low-light conditions, it is only natural that they assume they are looking at another person. Many have asked, “Hunters are required to wear a certain amount of orange. If there is no orange on the figure why not pull the trigger?” It is true that hunters are required to wear orange in most locales; however, if you think every one of them actually does, you would be sorely mistaken. Firing at an upright figure just because it doesn’t appear to be wearing orange is a recipe for tragedy and most hunters just will not do it. They will hesitate in an effort to positively identify what they are seeing. By the time the hunter realizes exactly what he is seeing, often, the opportunity to take a shot is gone.



Another thing I've heard from several hunters is that they were not confident they had enough fire-power to take down the animal. The "I didn't think I had enough gun," statement is not an unusual refrain. They feared that they would only wound the creature, which would create a dangerous scenario for them. An animal, any animal, is never more dangerous than when it is hurt. They decided the weapon they were carrying might not be enough to finish the animal off and passed on the shot. I’m not sure if this is actually true or not. I’ve always believed shot placement is far more important than the caliber used. Admittedly, I’ve never been in this position so that is easy for me to say. I think it is more of a psychological hurdle that hunters who’ve found themselves in this position have been unable to clear. The average white-tailed buck weighs between 130-300 lbs. Does are smaller with an average weight between 90-200 lbs. Deer in Texas, and the south in general, trend toward the lower end of those estimates (see Bergmann's Rule). That being the case, a hunter who unexpectedly finds himself staring at a sasquatch many times more massive than the buck he hoped to see might, quite understandably, feel he did not have enough gun to take the animal down.

Other hunters have stated that they feared there might be more than one of the creatures in the vicinity. They were afraid that if there was a mate in the brush somewhere nearby it might not take kindly to the shooting of its partner. The hunters feared reprisal. They have said things along the lines of, "It was a pretty good walk back to the truck," and "I was going to have to come out of that tree stand at some point," as reasons why they passed on the shot. This may be the most valid of the reasons most commonly given by hunters who have not pulled the trigger. I’ve come to believe that these animals are often not alone. I’ve experienced some incidents recently that seem to confirm that (more on that soon). Indeed, more than one hunter who has told me he had a sasquatch in his sights soon spotted or heard a second creature after deciding against firing.



One other thing I've heard is that once sighted in the hunter found the sasquatch to be so human-looking that they just couldn't make themselves pull the trigger. When pressed on what it was specifically that made the sasquatch appear human, most have simply referred to the way the animal moved. They mention that it was standing up or walking, "like a man would." A few have claimed that they got a look at the face and felt it was not a typical animal. These hunters often struggle when asked to describe exactly what it was about the creature that made them feel that way. Again, I think that the shock of seeing something bipedal and walking like a person would be enough to convince almost anyone that this might not be an animal but a person of some sort. It is another one of those psychological hurdles. If it walks like a man, moves like a man, or stands up like a man it must be a man despite other characteristics that clearly make it different (covered in hair, extraordinary size, etc.). It is just the way we think.

While all of the above is true there are several incidents where hunters have claimed they did take a shot. Some of these stories are dubious at best, the story of a man going by the name of “Buggs” comes to mind, but some seem credible. Regardless, none have produced a body to this point. This is one of the very facts that those who dismiss the possibility of the sasquatch use in their arguments. I feel there are many solid counter-points to this argument but cannot completely satisfy the critics or, at times, myself as to why these scenarios have never, not even once, produced a body.

I'm not sure that you will find these explanations as to why a hunter has never taken a sasquatch to be completely satisfying. I'm not sure I do either but it is easy to second-guess these hunters when you haven't been in their shoes, I suppose. In any case, these are the things I've heard from hunters who claim to have been in this situation. It is what it is.

Make of it what you will…

Sasquatch FAQ: How Do They Survive Harsh Winter Conditions?

One of the questions often asked by those who are skeptical that a large primate like the sasquatch could exist in the more remote forests and mountainous regions of our planet is, "How could they possibly survive the severe winters in the temperate regions they are said to inhabit?" I've seen the question more often of late as the massive winter storms that have blanketed up to three quarters of our country in snow and ice the last several weeks have reminded us just how brutal winter can be.

So, what is the answer? Assuming the sasquatch exists, how does it survive harsh winter conditions when sub-freezing temperatures are common and food is scarce? The question itself, in my opinion, is flawed. Merely asking the question may be a result of we, as people, assigning human-like traits and, thus, frailties, to a species of animal. Nobody wonders how deer, cougars, moose, etc. survive the winter. The fact that the sasquatch is reputed to be bipedal, I believe, affects how we think about it. Even so, there may be clues as to how the sasquatch might be able to endure incredibly cold climates, at least for a time, found by studying how other animals manage to do it.

For example, a recent study conducted by the Research Institute of Wildlife Ecology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, and published online by the journal Functional Ecology, shows that sunbathing, or basking, in sub-zero temperatures is an important part of the winter survival strategy of the Alpine ibex (Capra ibex). The study asks the same question mentioned above. How, when temperatures plummet and food becomes scarce, do large non-hibernating mammals, cope in winter? In an effort to find the answer the group outfitted a number of wild Alpine ibex with sensors for measuring heart rate (which is a good indicator of energy expenditure), temperature in the stomach (a solid point from which to get a true body temperature reading), and locomotor activity. The group monitored the ibex for a period of two years while also recording the varying climactic factors during that span. The results were interesting and a bit surprising.



The first finding was that the ibex actually lowered their heart and metabolic rates significantly during the winter. By doing so the ibex used less energy and burned fewer calories, which allowed them to cope with the natural shortages of food during the cold months. The decrease in heart rate was found to be greater than the difference that might be expected by lower activities and/or lower body temperatures. This indicates the ibex have some other mechanism for conserving energy. Scientists do not yet understand what that mechanism is or how it works.

So, the ibex were able to sustain themselves on less food by somehow lowering their heart and metabolic rates but how are they able keep warm without extra calories to burn? The body temperatures of the ibex did fluctuate during the day. As might be expected, the lowest temperature readings were recorded around sunrise, after an entire night of bitter cold, and the highest temperatures were recorded in the late afternoon. These temperature fluctuations proved to be much greater in winter than in the warmer summer months. During the winter months the ibex would bask in sunlit areas until mid-day to help increase their core body temperature. Normal locomotor activities did not really begin until the body temperature of these animals peaked in the early afternoon. During the morning, these animals hardly moved at all. The only significant movement to take place prior to mid-afternoon was when the ibex moved from their night time bedding areas to the nearest sunny spot.

Basking is a well known and oft observed behavior used by reptiles and some small mammals, like the rock hyrax (Procavia capensis), but was not thought to be used to any large extent by bigger mammals. This study seems to dispel that notion. Indeed, Walter Arnold, one of the lead scientists involved in the study said, "The ability to take advantage of external sources of heat may be common to all mammals." He added, "It may form part of our heritage from reptiles, enabling us to conserve body reserves during periods when food is scarce."



In a nutshell, what the study says to me is that the ibex studied were able to lower their energy needs during the coldest months of winter by reducing their metabolic rates. This would reduce the amount of nutrition needed to survive which is definitely a plus during the winter months when food-stuff is much more scarce. The ibex were able to overcome the lack of calories and help maintain their body heat by taking advantage of the only available external source of heat...the sun. The conventional thinking, that additional calories are needed to maintain body heat in winter, seems to be off base when it comes to this species.

These results seem to compliment the results of a study conducted by Washington University, St. Louis, which documented an incredibly low daily energy expenditure by captive orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). You can read my entire post on this study here but it reads in part:

Dr. Pontzer and his team studied the daily energy expenditure of these great apes for two weeks and discovered an extremely low rate of energy use not previously observed in primates. The results seem to dovetail nicely with the slow growth and reproductive rates of orangutans. Dr. Pontzer speculated that this low metabolic rate might be an adaptation in response to severe food shortages in the orangutan's native habitats. It is pointed out that the rainforests of Southeast Asia, Borneo, and Sumatra all go through periods where the availability of ripe fruit, the orangutan staple, drops drastically. The study suggests that orangutans have adapted over time to become the ultimate low-energy specialists, decreasing their level of activity, and thus, the number of calories required to function, to avoid starving during these forest cycles when food is scarce.

Granted, the orangutan study focused on great apes that live in tropical environments and don't have to worry about generating enough body heat to survive harsh winters but I feel the fact that they possess a mechanism that seems to kick in during times when food is scarce to lower their energy needs could be a significant clue as to how the sasquatch might survive during times when food is scarce and the weather turns cold. The ibex study points to other large mammals having this same ability.

I think there are certainly other factors that should be considered when it comes to how the sasquatch might survive harsh winters and periods of time when food is hard to come by. Sasquatches may very well move from higher elevations when the coldest winter months arrive. I'm not sure I buy into any sort of full-fledged migration covering hundreds of miles but who knows? Another thing to consider are the implications of Bergmann's Rule which, to vastly oversimplify, implies that animals with great bulk and size are better equipped to deal with cold and harsh climates. I could go on but you get the idea.

To wrap it all up, it is important not to "humanize" the sasquatch. Don't assign the species the same frailties that would make it difficult for us to survive in brutal conditions to them. The debate on whether they are some sort of great ape or a primitive human is moot here. Be they human or ape they are made of much hardier stuff than we Homo sapiens. It is very possible that they possess some internal mechanism, like the orangutan and the ibex, which allows them to lower their metabolic rates and activities to such a point that they can survive on very little food for long periods of time. They may not need an abundance of winter calories to survive the cold after all.

As for basking in the sun to help raise body temperature, well, it makes sense to me. This species is said to exist in extremely remote locales and likely has very few natural enemies. So, sitting in a small clearing or on a rocky outcrop that is receiving direct sunlight would not put them at a large risk of predation or of being seen by humans. The fact they are covered with hair would help camouflage them even in an open area. Again, we must remember that they are not like us. They would not stand out starkly against their surroundings like a human wearing hunter's orange. If there is no real danger of discovery in sunning themselves for a while then I can't imagine why the species would not do it. I know when camping in cold weather I will move my camp chair through out the day to stay in sunny spots. This basking would be the equivalent of that behavior.

Winter may not be a time of plenty for sasquatches in temperate locations but the fact that sightings of these creatures have continued unabated for centuries tells us that they have figured out a way to deal with it just fine.

Source: Veterinärmedizinische Universität Wien (2011, February 1). Basking in the sun: How large mammals survive winter in the mountains. ScienceDaily. Retrieved February 14, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2011/02/110201083936.htm