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.

'Drumming' Chimps and the Wood Knocking Connection

Thwok! Thwok!

The sound of wood on wood or rock on rock echoes through the woods. Those who hear the sounds usually ignore them and write them off as nothing more than the activity of overzealous woodpeckers. Most never really take note of the knocks at all and consider them just a normal sound sometimes heard in the forests of North America.

Thwok!

Another knocking sound echoes through the forest. This time the sound originates from a different location. Again, if the sound is noticed at all, it would elicit little more than a shrug of the shoulders from most. Campers, hikers, hunters and the like are usually deeply engaged in their activity of choice and never stop to think about what animal of the deep woods would be capable of banging a stick or rock against a tree trunk. If the question ever did cross their minds, they would realize there is only one answer to the question: there are none.

None that have been recognized by science, anyway.

For untold years, people living, working or spending time in the most remote and heavily forested regions of the world have reported hearing strange knocking, banging and clanging emanating from deep woods where it can be safely assumed there are no human beings. If humans can be ruled out, what else could be responsible for these sounds? Hands are required to pick up a stick or rock and bang it against a tree trunk. Not paws, hands, a conclusion most people find quite unnerving.

None other than Theodore Roosevelt himself was unnerved when he experienced the strange knocking phenomenon while paddling and charting the Amazon tributary known only as the River of Doubt in 1913-14. The trip was difficult and miserable. The morale of Roosevelt and his party was deeply affected by the strange noises that seemed to follow them down the river. Candice Millard, author of The River of Doubt: Theodore Roosevelt’s Darkest Journey, compared the sounds the former President and his men heard to sounds described by British Naturalist Henry Walter Bates in the mid 1800’s while he was exploring the same region. Bates described many odd jungle sounds but one in particular caught my attention.

Bates wrote, “Sometimes a sound is heard like the clang of an iron bar against a hard, hollow tree, or a piercing cry rends the air: these are not repeated and the succeeding silence tends to heighten the unpleasant impression which they make on the mind.”

While the words above were not Roosevelt’s, they described closely sounds he, and the rest of the men heard many times during the rainy season of 1914. The words used by Bates to describe what he heard sound startlingly like descriptors used by hunters, campers, hikers, and naturalists from all over the globe who have heard knocks, clangs, howls, and screams they cannot attribute to any known animal. Clearly, these sounds have been reported by a very long time. What could they mean?

“Wood knocking” as the phenomenon is often called, is something sasquatch enthusiasts and researchers have been intrigued with for decades. Odd knocks, sometimes accompanied by strange howls, grunts and growls have been reported in association with alleged wood ape activity/sightings many times. Others have reported having had rocks thrown at them, their cabins or tents and seeing vegetation shaken violently soon before or after knocks or clacks are heard. For years, mainstream scientists dismissed these claims as being too fantastic to possibly be true. With each passing year, however, the behaviors reported for so long by alleged wood ape witnesses seem to fall less into the category of the fantastic and more along the lines of accepted and observed great ape behaviors. It has now been established that great apes do drum or beat on trees. If the North American wood ape is an undiscovered species of great ape, as I believe it to be, it would not seem too far-fetched to posit that they, too, would engage in this knocking/drumming behavior.

The first question to ask is why do great apes, any of them, engage in this drumming or knocking behavior? Many interested in such things surmised that these sounds might somehow be associated with food gathering activities. A 2009 article published in the International Journal of Primatology reported on the discovery that chimpanzees living in the jungles of the Republic of Congo actually crafted clubs from branches to pound the nests of bees in order to gain access to the honey found therein. Primatologists have long been aware that chimps love honey and will go to great lengths to get at it. Previous studies have noted how these apes fashion and shape sticks to dip into or pry open nests. However, until now, no one knew just how far chimpanzees would go to gain access to this honey. Dr. Crickette Sanz, of the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, said, “It seems these chimps in central Africa have developed more sophisticated techniques for getting at the honey than populations in eastern and western Africa – maybe it is some kind of regional feature.” He added, “These nests are tough to get into – they can be at the top of the forest canopy, at the end of a branch – and the chimps will go up there and hang at all sorts of precarious angles to get to the honey, using these clubs in any way that they can to access it.” Video footage, taken over four years of observation by the researchers, shows the chimpanzees pounding these concrete hard nests 1,000 to 1,500 times. Researchers observed some chimps take well over 1,000 swings in the morning, stop and rest several hours, and then return in the afternoon to take another 1,000, or so, swings before finally breaking through and gaining access to the sweet honey. It is possible that at least some of the knocks heard in the forests of North America could be associated with food gathering activities as well. Members of the North American Wood Ape Conservancy have heard not only wood knocking (the sound of wood striking wood) in their main area of study but what is often described as rock clacking as well.

It was long assumed by members that this rock clacking (the sound of two rocks banging together) was simply another method used to accomplish the same goal, whatever that might be, as that of wood knocking. Food gathering as a possible reason for the phenomenon came to the forefront when several “nut cracking stations” were located along a rock strewn creek bed lined by huge hickory and black walnut trees. These stations consisted of brick-sized "hammer" rocks sitting atop larger rocks. The pulverized remains of hickory nuts and their shells were found on the tops of the larger rocks and stuck to the bottoms of the brick-sized rocks. Additionally, the ground around the bottom of the large rocks was found to be littered with what seemed like an abnormally high number of nut shells. Oddly, one station was littered with hickory nut remains despite the fact that there were no hickory trees within several hundred yards, seemingly, indicating that the nuts were transported to that particular spot solely for the purpose of cracking them open. Chimpanzees have been filmed engaging in this very activity.



Food gathering purposes may account for some knocking, drumming or clacking noises heard but this explanation does not seem to fit the bill some of, if not most of, the time when these sounds are heard. Many knocks are solitary in nature. In other words, only one or two loud knocks are heard at a time. Sometimes, these knocks are repeated at intervals ranging from a few minutes to an hour. At other times, a knock is heard and is followed by another knock coming from an entirely different location in short order, seemingly, indicating the presence of multiple individuals. These types of knocks are heard much more often than the repetitive, often rhythmic, banging that might be associated with food gathering activities and lend credence to the opinion held by many that these sounds are a form of communication between members of the species. A recent study of chimpanzees headed up by psychologist Katie Slocombe of the University of York seems to support the idea that drumming and knocking, often in association with pant hoots, is indeed a form of communication.

Slocombe and her colleagues studied a group of 13 male chimpanzees in the Budongo Forest Reserve in Uganda. The goal was to find out why some chimps drummed and hooted some of the time and drummed without vocalizing at others. The study also sought to find whether drumming rhythms were individually distinctive. The scientists studied 293 instances of drumming and/or hooting and came to some interesting conclusions.

“The sound they create makes it ideal for long distance communication,” said Dr. Slocombe. “We think drums help coordinate movement and grouping patterns, so advertising to others your location when traveling may entice others to join you, and other chimps may pant hoot and drum back, which may influence where the caller decides to travel to.” Dr. Slocombe summed up the study by stating, “We conclude that drumming patterns may act as individually distinctive long-distance signals that, together with pant hoot vocalizations, function to coordinate the movement and spacing of dispersed individuals within a community.”

If, indeed, an undiscovered great ape lives in the most rugged, remote and inaccessible areas of our continent, the ability to communicate over long distances would be key to survival. Whether the knocks heard in the forests of North America represent the efforts of an individual seeking a mate, food gathering activities, aggressive warnings to interlopers or the leader of a clan keeping track of and directing the movements of family members, can only be speculated upon at this time. Depending on the circumstances, any of these possibilities could be the motivation for a particular knock or series of knocks. I do believe the correlation between the wood knocks of North America and the drumming behavior of the Ugandan chimpanzees described by Dr. Slocombe is obvious.

It is true that, to my knowledge, no one has ever witnessed a wood ape striking a tree with a branch or banging two rocks together. My own experiences, and those of my fellow NAWAC members, have led me to conclude that not only do these animals exist, they engage in the wood knocking/drumming behavior described so often, by so many, across North America and the world. Proof? No, not yet; however, the anecdotal evidence continues to pile up and is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

Thwok! Thwok!

The next time you are spending time in the wilderness pay attention to the sounds of the forest. Something might be sending you a message


References:

Millard, Candice. "The Living Jungle." River of Doubt: Theodore Roosevelt's Darkest Journey. New York: Doubleday, 2005. 156-157. Print.

Morelle, Rebecca. "'Armed' Chimps Go Wild for Honey." BBC News. 18 Mar. 2009. Web. 31 Jan. 2015. .

Tenofsky, Russell. "Chimpanzees Use Rhythmic Drumming to Communicate." Nonhuman Rights Project. 26 Jan. 2015. Web. 31 Jan. 2015. .

Gorillas Use Odor to Communicate in the Wild

“The smell was just awful, like something had died.”

“That smell almost knocked me over. I swear I wanted to vomit.”

“It smelled sort of like a wet dog, but much worse; a very sour, pungent odor. Terrible.”

The quotes above all come from people who claim to have had a close encounter with a wood ape or sasquatch. Anyone with even a casual interest in the bigfoot phenomenon has heard about the terrible smell associated with these creatures. Terms like “sour” and “wet garbage” are often used to describe the overpowering odor. Yet, there are many other witnesses who claim the same types of encounters at close range that report having smelled nothing at all. Why would some of these animals emit a horribly foul odor while others would not?

It has long been known that gorillas have scent glands that emit a foul smelling odor whenever these great apes are under duress or excited. It has been posited by many that the sasquatch is likely a close relative of the known great apes, as it exhibits many classic behaviors that have been observed in these large primates. Bluff charges, chest beating, shaking trees and vegetation, snapping limbs off trees, rock throwing and other known great ape intimidation tactics have been reported by witnesses. Too, the most common description of the physical appearance of the North American wood ape correlates closely to the appearance of the known great apes. Hair-covered, colors ranging from black to reddish, extremely long arms, barrel-chested, extremely thick necks and sagittal crests are described on a regular basis. All that to say, it seems to be well established that the sasquatch exhibits many of the same behaviors and physical attributes of the known great apes. With that being the case, it doesn’t seem too much of a stretch to hypothesize that the North American wood ape may also share some of the same internal anatomical features as well. Scent glands may be one such feature.

The mere presence of scent glands would not, however, explain why some wood apes, seemingly under duress, exude a putrid odor while others, in very similar circumstances, do not. It seems this is a question primate researchers have asked themselves in regard to gorillas as well. The results of a 12-month study conducted by the University of Stirling in Scotland may provide some answers.

Co-authors of the study, Phyllis Lee and Michelle Klailova, both psychologists at the University of Stirling, observed a male silverback lowland gorilla (Gorilla gorilla) named Makumba in his native habitat within the Central African Republic rainforest for one year and reached some interesting conclusions. First, gorillas can, and do, communicate with each other using scent. Second, the ability to emit scent is, at least partially, under the conscious control of the individual. Evidence suggests that Makumba could turn on or shut off his scent depending on circumstances.

It has long been known that gorillas communicate with several different types of vocalizations but they were not thought to communicate by projecting scents. There are numerous reasons for this assumption. Chief among these reasons is the size of the brain region dedicated for the sense of smell has shrunk during the course primate evolution. Also, primates lack a vomeronasal organ, a sensor that detects pheromones emitted by other animals. This combination of factors makes primates much more dependent on senses other than smell, most notably the sense of vision. Despite these facts, gorilla researchers such as Dian Fossey have long reported that each individual gorilla has a unique, and rather pungent, musky smell. It begged the question, if gorillas do not communicate by scent then why do they have these glands that emit such a strong odor? What was the purpose?

Lee and Klailova selected Makumba, a dominant male with an established harem and territory to study. The researchers observed the big silverback as he went about the business of tending to his females and fending off competitors. It was noted that Makumba broadcast his scent when he encountered other male gorillas that he may have seen as a potential threat.

“It was as if he was saying I am strong, powerful and here, protecting my females and babies,” Lee said.

This particular observation was not anything particularly new. It fit the model of a gorilla that was under duress, be it fear or anger, broadcasting his scent. What was potentially ground breaking was the fact that Makumba did not always broadcast his scent when other males encroached upon his territory, making it very possible that he was in conscious control of his scent glands. When other potentially threatening silverbacks came near, Makumba would abruptly shut off his scent.

“We think he was then trying not to tell the other male where and who he was,” said Lee.

Additional observations by the team seemed to back up the idea that Makumba was in control of when, and how strongly, he would broadcast his scent. According to Lee, Makumba’s scent would change depending on the situation.

“Makumba’s smell changed depending on the situation, such as whether the youngest baby was nearby or with its mother, whether his female harem mates were around and which stranger gorillas lurked about,” Lee said.

Indeed, it seemed the big silverback was able to directly influence the behaviors and activities of other gorillas by broadcasting his scent. It appeared to the researchers that Makumba was using odor as a modifiable form of social communication, where context-specific chemical signals directed the social behavior of other gorillas.

The fact that Makumba could so quickly turn this scent on and off in subtly different social contexts led the researchers to conclude that the ability to broadcast scent was, at least to some degree, under conscious control and not merely an automatic response to fear or arousal. It also strongly suggests that scent plays a far more important role in the lives of primates than originally thought. The authors of the study suggested this ability to communicate via scent may be especially useful in Central African forests, where limited visibility may necessitate increased reliance on other senses.

Mireya Mayor, a primatologist with the Centre ValBio at Stonybrook University in New York, who was not involved with the study, called the findings of Lee and Klailova “mind-boggling” due to the fact that primates rely so much less on their sense of smell than other animals.

“The most surprising part,” Mayor said, “is that they are able to suppress and consciously control scent.” She added, “But though it seems strange to imagine consciously dialing body odor up or down, humans can consciously control basic physiological processes such as heart rate, and humans are genetically quite close to gorillas.”

The question now is what, if anything, does this study have to do with the sasquatch?

As has been mentioned previously, many people claiming to have had encounters with North America’s great ape report a terrible odor in association with their sightings. When witnesses attempt to describe the smell, words like pungent, musky and sour are often used. Not coincidentally, in my opinion, these are the same descriptors used by gorilla researchers when they describe the odor broadcast by male silverbacks. Primatologist Mireya Mayor was right when she said that humans are genetically quite close to gorillas. Assuming the sasquatch is a real flesh and blood animal, it must be genetically close to gorillas and the other great apes as well. It is, therefore, not illogical to hypothesize that these creatures might possess scent glands like some of their great ape cousins. The excretions of these glands could very well explain the awful smell so often attributed to these creatures.

Terrible smells, however, are not always reported by alleged wood ape witnesses. Often, no smell at all is noticed at the time of a sighting, even if it took place in very close proximity to the animal. Other witnesses have described a wide range of scents ranging from a vaguely equine-like odor to an almost pleasant earthy smell. The lack of any smell at all has often been explained away those interested in the phenomenon by several different theories.

“The witness must not have been close enough to the animal.”

“The witness was so traumatized by what they were seeing that they didn’t notice the smell.”

“The witness must have been upwind from the sasquatch.”

“Bigfoot only emit odor when they are surprised or frightened. If there was no odor, the animal must have been aware of the presence of the witness the whole time.”

These, and a myriad of other circumstances, could certainly explain at least some of the times a discernible odor is absent during an encounter. They cannot, however, explain the other more subtle and varied scents described by witnesses. That is where the results of the University of Stirling study truly come into play. If apes can consciously control when they broadcast their scent, and to what degree, then it is possible the sasquatch could do so as well. If so, it could go a long way toward explaining the various scents, or total lack thereof, witnesses continue to report. Powerful, overpowering sour odors when broadcast could be territorial warnings for invaders to stay out. They could also be a way for a dominant male to let the members of his troupe know where he was or that intruders are in the area. More subtle scents could be “business as usual” communications between family units who are not always within site of one another in the dense forests and wetlands in which they are most often reported to live.

I, and many of my fellow NAWAC members, have experienced a wide range of scents in our quest to document these animals. There have been times when it almost feels like you walk into a wall, the smell is so bad, but within moments it is gone completely. I have often wondered how a smell that is so powerful can be there to such a strong degree one moment and then completely gone just seconds later. Did the animal move away? If Lee and Klailova are right, and gorillas can consciously control when, and to what degree, they broadcast their scent, and if the sasquatch does have scent glands similar to those of gorillas, and if they can control them in the same manner, then the answer could simply be the animal “turned off” his scent. It may not have moved off at all and may, in fact, still be very close but is, from an olfactory point of view, undetectable.

Admittedly, much of what I have discussed here is speculative in nature. At this time no one can say for sure what anatomical features wood apes possess or whether they are closer to humans or apes on the evolutionary scale. It continues to fascinate me, however, that the more we learn about the behavior and anatomy of great apes, the more plausible certain alleged sasquatch behaviors and reported encounters with them become.


Sources:

Ghose, Tia. "Gorillas Use Stinky B.O. to Say 'Back Off'." LiveScience, 9 July 2014. Web. 17 July 2014. .

PLOS. "Odor communication in wild gorillas: Wild gorillas signal using odor." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 9 July 2014. .

Gorilla Practical Jokes and the Sasquatch Parallel

I’m providing a link below to a video entitled Gorilla Pranks Zoo Workers. I would have liked to embed the video here for easier viewing but that option was not enabled on YouTube. So, please humor me and take a look at the clip here.

The 27-second video clip features a large silverback gorilla throwing a piece of sod at zoo workers who are going about their business in an adjacent enclosure. The big male casually makes his way to an area where the turf is loose, digs out a piece, and then quickly moves toward the workers using his momentum to make a powerful overhand throw. The people shooting the video get quite a kick out of this behavior and their laughter is audible as the gorilla quickly flees the scene after chucking the piece of turf. There isn’t much doubt that this is a clip suitable for America’s Funniest Videos. It is, indeed, humorous.

I think there is more to be learned from it, however.

First, notice how the big silverback stops far short of the patch of ground that is not covered in grass. Granted, the big fella has very long arms but it would have been easier to get to and pull up the piece of sod had he gotten a bit closer. Could this be an effort to not leave trace evidence of his presence (tracks)? Chimpanzees are known to cover their tracks. This implies that the great apes have a sense of self-awareness far greater than that of most animals. Could this gorilla be making a concerted effort to avoid leaving signs of his presence at the “scene of the crime?” Maybe. I’m reminded a bit of some of the circumstances surrounding the collection of the Skookum cast. The cast is thought to be of a body print of a sasquatch by many and was taken from a muddy elk wallow in Skamania County, Washington that had been baited with fruit. You can get more detail on the Skookum cast here. While controversial, many feel this cast is one of the very best pieces of physical evidence ever collected that points to the sasquatch being a real flesh and blood animal.



According to the theory, the sasquatch actually lay down in order to reach out and grab the fruit in the middle of the mud hole. Why? It would have been very easy for the animal to simply take a step into the wallow and grab the bait. The only thing that really makes sense is that the creature was doing its very best to avoid leaving footprints. The long arms often described by sasquatch witnesses, not unlike the arms on the silverback in the video, would have helped in this endeavor. One might argue that this behavior would not make much sense for an animal that lives its life in a zoo. Instincts are quite powerful, however, and animals continue to do what they are born to do even in zoos.

The second thing that really struck me was how the gorilla threw the sod. To say it was a true overhand motion would not be accurate but, to put it in baseball terms, it was at least a three-quarter motion. Many have seen monkeys and chimps toss rocks, limbs, nuts, etc. in a clumsy underhanded motion. To see a non-human primate throw an object in a powerful overhand manner is pretty special. Rock and limb throwing is a behavior that has often been attributed to sasquatches. Often, these projectiles have been hurled at a high velocity. Skeptics have argued that only humans can throw objects in such a manner. This video would seem to suggest otherwise. While the silverback’s motion is not as fluid as that of a human throwing a baseball, he effectively uses a running start to build momentum and, thus, velocity on his throw. Imagine instead of a clump of dirt and grass it had been a softball-sized rock thrown at this velocity. It could have caused some damage. I have been in remote locations when rocks and sticks have been thrown. Sometimes people have been the targets and other times vehicles, cabins, or other objects have been in the line of fire. If one can acknowledge the possibility the sasquatch actually exists, then it shouldn’t be too far of a stretch to think it would engage in this sort of activity. One curious aspect to all of this is that, while objects have landed very near me and other people I know, nobody has ever actually been hit. Inanimate objects, on the other hand, routinely take a beating. Are sasquatches inaccurate throwers or, to the contrary, quite accurate. Are the objects thrown in the directions of humans meant as a warning? Do they miss humans on purpose and differentiate between living beings and inanimate objects? If so, it hints that these creatures are actually very accurate when throwing objects. Could this aid them in hunting? As usual, there are many, many more questions than answers.



The final behavior exhibited by the silverback in the video that we might be able to learn something from is how he flees immediately after making his throw. He doesn’t even wait for the sod to land before he is on the run. This, much like the act of avoiding leaving tracks, is instinctual. He did not want to be seen by the targets of his throw. Now, he isn’t really fooling anyone, as the zoo workers know who lives in the enclosure next door; however, he doesn’t know that or, likely, care. The gorilla is following his instincts and getting out of Dodge after doing something that would draw eyes to his location. Again, there would seem to be a correlation to this behavior and that of sasquatches who engage in rock and stick throwing in the most remote corners of North America. Think about it. When an object lands near you the first thing that happens is that your eyes go to where the object landed. Only after this do you turn your head to look in the direction from which the object came. If the sasquatch behaves like the gorilla in the clip then it would already be retreating to a concealed spot before any object it throws hits the ground. Add to this that the sasquatch is thought to be larger than a mountain gorilla and capable of bipedal movement and you have an animal that could likely throw objects from longer distances. This being the case, you would have almost zero chance to catch one of these creatures in the act.

All of this is speculation, of course, but that is pretty much all we can do for now. I do feel strongly that my theories are not wild or baseless. All my thoughts are based on physical descriptions of the sasquatch given to us by witnesses, known and observed great ape behaviors, and personal experiences. I think the only way my speculations sound foolish is if you cannot or will not accept the possibility that the sasquatch exists. If that is your position then it likely doesn’t matter what sort of argument I, or anyone else, presents.

Not having that bias, I see more and more parallels between known great ape behaviors and those attributed to the sasquatch by witnesses.

Most Recent European Great Ape Discovered; Provides Clues to the Adaptability of the Great Ape Diet

According to an article on the Science Daily website, a team of scientists from Germany, Bulgaria, and France have discovered a 7 million year old hominid molar that proves that great apes survived much later in Europe than had been thought.

The tooth, a pre-molar, of a hominid was discovered near the Bulgarian town of Chirpan and proves that great apes were present in Europe until 7 million years ago. This is 2 million years later than anyone previously believed. Scientists from the Bulgarian Academy of Science, the French Centre national de la Recherche Scientifique, and the Senckenberg Center for Human Evolution and Paleoenvironment at the University of Tubingen teamed up on the project and share credit for this discovery which may cause some major changes in how the timeline of hominid evolution is viewed.



Scientists have long thought that great apes went extinct in Europe approximately 9 million years ago due to changing climactic and environmental conditions. The gradual change of European ecosystems from thick jungles and evergreen forests to a savannah-like landscape with a seasonal climate was thought to be too much for apes, who were heavily dependent on fruit, to survive. This newly discovered pre-molar, identified as hominid based on morphology and the thickness of the enamel, was discovered in fossiliferous sands estimated to be 7 million years old. Whatever this European great ape was, it post-dates the Ouranopithecus macedonensis fossils, found in Greece, by 2.2 million years.

Scientists found other animals in the fossil bearing level of sediment that one would expect to find in a savannah environment. The fossilized remains of elephants, giraffes, gazelles, antelopes, rhinos, and sabre-toothed cats were all found in the strata with the hominid tooth. The discovery strongly suggests that European hominids were able to adapt to the environmental changes far more easily than previously suspected. This hypothesis is backed up further by analysis of the tooth’s masticatory surface under an electron microscope. This analysis revealed that the Bulgarian hominid had partaken of some rough and abrasive foods like grass, seeds, and nuts. This diet would make the Bulgarian ape’s feeding behavior very similar to that of later African hominids like the australopithecids who survived up until about 4 million years ago.

The article, which you can access here, goes on to share some thoughts about where the origins of humans might actually lie. Scientists have long thought that human evolution took place exclusively in Africa and that humans migrated to other continents from there. Evidence is beginning to pile up that point to a significant part of human evolution taking place in Europe and western Asia. What really caught my eye, however, was the final statement in the article which says in part, “…both investigations document an at least 10 million year lasting population of great apes in Europe and a significant evolution from fruit-eaters to harder object feeders.”

Followers of this site likely can guess where I’m going next. If the great apes of Europe were able to successfully adapt to a pretty substantial change in climate and transition from feeding almost exclusively on fruit to eating all manner of rougher foods, why couldn't a great ape that had migrated to North America do the same? The short answer, in my opinion, is that they could...and did. Many will concede the point that it is possible for an ape to subsist on rougher foods than fruit but few think it is possible that it could have happened here in North America, much less the bottom-lands of the south. The environment, the thinking goes, simply is not rich enough to support a population of large apes. The seeming paucity of food on our continent has long been one of the primary objections by mainstream scientists to the possible existence of the sasquatch. Great apes simply could not survive on the types of food found here, they claim.



Sasquatch researchers have long argued that our continent is rich in food-stuff and that there is an abundance of edibles that could sustain a population of large primates. Pine nuts, hickory nuts, acorns, various algaes (black algae) and fungi (mushrooms), greenbriar, various tubers, berries, many types of seeds, and the like are all abundant. This is especially true of the bottom-lands of the American south. Wildlife biologist Dr. John Bindernagel, who visited east Texas 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 southern forests would almost certainly require smaller home ranges than in northern coniferous forests. Anecdotal evidence also strongly suggests that America’s great ape is omnivorous. When you add items like small mammals, deer, shellfish, insects, frogs, grubs, worms, fish, eggs, and birds to the menu, you have a veritable buffet in the forests and bottoms of the south.

It would seem disingenuous to claim there is not an adequate enough food supply in North America to support a large primate when the continent has shown it is capable of supporting animals the size of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) and the black bear (Ursus americanus), not to mention a large number of Native American tribes, some of whom lived in what would seem to be very inhospitable regions, for thousands of years. When that is taken into consideration, to still claim there is not enough food to sustain a small population of large primates is ludicrous. One could argue the evidence needed to prove the sasquatch is real beyond the shadow of a doubt is lacking. That is something I can understand and will gladly discuss. To simply dismiss the possibility of a North American primate outright due to the “fact” that there is nothing for it to eat, however, is ridiculous and indicates laziness on the part of any who take that stand. Don't believe me? Just do a quick Google search on edible North American plants and see what you come up with. Anyone who argues that there isn't enough food for an animal the size of the sasquatch to subsist on simply has not done their homework.

But, you may ask, didn't black bears disappear from the Ark-La-Tex-Oma region? Doesn't that show the area can't sustain a population of large omnivores? No, it does not. Black bears were extirpated by human hunters and did not disappear due to any environmental factors. Take a look below at a passage from a paper written by TBRC members Alton Higgins and Daryl Colyer that addresses this very point:

"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."

The discovery of a Bulgarian hominid that survived in the savannah grasslands of Europe until 7 million years ago strongly implies that great apes have the ability to eat all manner of items and can adapt more easily and faster than anyone previously suspected to a variety of ecosystems and habitats. If the great apes of Europe could adapt to a seasonal climate and rougher diet, why could an ape that had migrated to North America not do the same?


Sources:

Universitaet Tübingen. "Most recent European great ape discovered." ScienceDaily, 13 Jan. 2012. Web. 15 Jan. 2012.

Daryl Colyer and Alton Higgins. "Bigfoot/Sasquatch Sightings: Correlations to Annual Rainfall Totals, Waterways, Human Population Densities and Black Bear Habitat Zones." TBRC Featured Articles. Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy.

Copulation Calls in Chimpanzees and the Possible Sasquatch Connection

I ran across an interesting abstract on the website of the International Journal of Primatology recently. The abstract, written by Simon William Townsend, Tobias Deschner, and Klaus Zuberbuhler, is entitled Copulation Calls in Female Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) Convey Identity but Do Not Accurately Reflect Fertility. Not the most exciting title in the world but an interesting abstract, nonetheless.

The abstract centers around the copulation calls of female chimpanzees. Copulation calls, it is pointed out, are a relatively common feature of female primate behavior. It is generally thought that these calls are an advertisement of female receptivity and also serve to incite male-to-male competition for the affections of said receptive female. Most of the research on primate copulation calls has focused on various small monkey species and not on any of the great apes. This particular study sought to remedy that situation and the results were interesting.

The authors point out that the little previous research that focused on chimpanzee copulation calls suggests estrous females call to avoid monopolization by a single male and to minimize competition from other females. For their study, the authors examined the acoustic structure of the calls of six adult female chimpanzees. In total they recorded and studied 71 separate copulation call bouts from these six individuals living in the Budongo Forest of Uganda. The researchers failed to find any acoustic differences in the calls given by the female chimpanzees based on whether or not they were made during fertile or non-fertile periods. However, what they did find were repeated encoded identity cues of each calling female. The authors constructed a couple of different hypothesis based on the data analyzed but the final line of the abstract is what interested me the most. It reads, “Owing to the low visibility conditions associated with chimpanzees natural forest habitat and their dispersed social system, providing identity cues may be of particular biological relevance for these nonhuman primates.”



Being who I am, after reading this abstract, I began to ponder on how this information might relate to North America’s great ape. People have long reported screams, howls, grunts, and growls from some of the most inaccessible and isolated areas of the country that they cannot attribute to any known species. These inhospitable areas where the sasquatch is reportedly seen and heard from time to time could easily be described as having low visibility conditions due to incredibly dense foliage, not unlike the habitat of the chimpanzees observed by the authors of this study. It would seem logical to assume that in order to communicate with other members of the species across this thickly wooded habitat the sasquatch would have had to develop a variety of vocalizations or calls similar to those used by chimpanzees.

The most famous call attributed to the sasquatch is usually called the Ohio howl. The Ohio howl was recorded in Columbiana County, Ohio back in 1994 by Matt Moneymaker and Jamie Watson. The call originated from an area not too far from the Ohio River. You can hear the Ohio howl by clicking here. It is true that it cannot be absolutely proven that a sasquatch is the howler in this clip. What is true is that I’ve heard this very same howl on several occasions in the deep woods of East Texas. Whatever was howling in Ohio seems to have kin in Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas. A variety of other strange calls, screams, grunts, growls, whistles, whoops, and mumblings have been recorded that seem to defy conventional explanation. The BFRO website has a nice library featuring a variety of these calls. I would encourage you to visit the site and take a listen. It is very interesting.



It is possible that sasquatches are mainly solitary but, if so, they must come together from time to time if for not other reason than to mate. Could the strange simian-like howls reported for decades be copulation calls? What about the other strange noises attributed to the sasquatch? Do they convey cues to the identity of the caller? The great apes make a wide variety of noises that convey a great many different messages. Check out this library of chimpanzee vocalizations at the Jane Goodall Institute website for some examples of this. If one accepts the premise that the sasquatch could exist, then it is not unreasonable to assume it actually vocalizes at times like the other great apes. In fact, it would be far more surprising if they did not vocalize in some manner.

As mentioned above, sasquatches are considered to be mainly solitary by most due to the fact that sightings of multiple individuals are rarely reported by witnesses; however, recent experiences in the field have led me to believe that these animals might be more social than most people think. My observations, and those of my fellow TBRC members, seem to indicate that these animals may very well live in small groups. Whether these groups are true family units with a male, female, and offspring or in troupes or clans remains to be seen. While such claims are rare, small clans and family groups of sasquatches have been reported in the past. One need only to review the reports of Albert Ostman, Muchalat Harry, and Fred Beck as a reminder that such claims have occurred. If true, does living in small groups lend itself to more or less verbal communication?



I have been guilty of dismissing a lot of audio recordings featuring calls and other noises that were said to be bigfoot in origin. Recent experiences along with a growing understanding of great ape behaviors have me rethinking my conclusions on some of these recordings. I stand by my opinion that audio recordings alone will never be enough to prove the existence of the sasquatch but the wide array of noises and calls associated with this creature really don’t seem to be too different than those associated with the known great apes. Again, assuming the sasquatch to be a living species, it would be far more surprising if they did not vocalize in the some of the ways witnesses have described.

Are these strange calls, thought to be sasquatch in origin, copulation calls? Challenges to territorial interlopers? Do these calls contain cues to the identity of individuals? All questions with no answers at this point. Let’s hope we can get this species documented so that we can begin delving into these questions.

Bipedal Chimp Photo

Here is a photo of a chimp strolling about in a bipedal fashion.


The photo was originally published on Jane Goodall's Facebook page.

Notice just how massive the shoulders, arms, and chest are on this animal. This chimp is likely about five feet tall in this upright position. Can you imagine seeing something like this, only two feet taller and proportionately more massive, strolling across a remote forest road, pipeline cut right-of-way, or even into your camp?

The photo captures an undeniably alien scene. Apes are just not supposed to walk this way. I think it strikes a primal chord in us. I believe this is the reason many refuse to even consider the possibility the sasquatch is a living species. It is just too creepy for many to handle.

Just my two cents...

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

The Resilience of Primates

A new study, published in the Nov. 30 issue of American Naturalist, shows that primates are less susceptible to environmental ups and downs, particularly changes in rainfall, than other animals.

Researchers from the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center (NESCent) in Durham, North Carolina looked at, literally, decades of data on birth and death rates for seven different primate species. The species examined were muriqui monkeys and capuchin monkeys in Central and South America, yellow baboons, blue monkeys, chimpanzees, and gorillas from the African Continent, and sifakas, a type of lemur, in Madagascar.

The collection of this much data was a monumental effort. Seven different research teams working around the world monitored the births, lives, and deaths of thousands of individual daily for more than 25 years. The researchers used a new database developed by the NESCent, to compile and cross-reference the data in an effort to find similarities between the species.

"Wild animals deal with a world that is unpredictable from year to year," said the lead author of the study, Bill Morris. The Duke biologist added, "The weather can change a lot; there can be years with plenty of food and years of famine."

The 25 years of data covered both good years and bad and seems to have run long enough to make the data scientifically valid. What the researchers found was interesting. Year to year survival rates of primates proved to be more stable than survival rates of other animals. The primate data was compared to that of two-dozen species of birds, reptiles, and mammals.



The co-author of the study Karen Strier , an anthropologist as the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said that primates possess some key traits that enable them to make seasonal adjustments to their diets.

"For one thing, they're social," said Strier. The fact that primates live in groups allows them to share information with each other. This shared information allows them to be more effective in locating sources of food and water during lean times.

Another, and perhaps even more important, trait that allows primates to survive better than other species during times when food-stuff is scarce is the ability to eat a wide variety of food items. Monkeys and apes will eat leaves, grasses, fruits, flowers, bark, and seeds. In short, unlike many other animals, they are generalists when it comes to their diet. This is a huge advantage over species that have specialized diets. When their favorite foods are in short supply, primates can adapt and eat something else. The article then goes on to hypothesize that similar traits may have helped early humans survive environmental ups and downs.



Could the study have any relevance to the sasquatch? Possibly. The fact is that nobody really knows how sasquatches live, socialize, or eat; however, we do have some anecdotal witness reports that could allow for educated guesses.

The first trait mentioned that the study points to as having given primates an advantage in surviving environmental ups and downs is their social nature. Multiple animals working cooperatively to spread out, scout, and forage over a large area makes finding suitable food and water much easier. I will be the first to admit that most sasquatch sightings are of a single individual. There are; however, sightings of multiple animals reported. Pairs, family units, and even twenty plus individuals (see "The Tale of Muchalat Harry" in the "Sasquatch Classics" archive) have been reported. The fact is we just don't know how sasquatches interact. Do they spread out during the day and "go home" at night? Do the females and/or young stay in one general area while males hunt/forage? We just don't know. The fact that the number of sightings of single animals dwarfs the number of reports featuring multiple animals would point to the sasquatch being a mostly solitary animal. But who is to say that when an individual animal is sighted it isn't out scouting or foraging for it's family unit?

Honestly, I was more interested in reading about how the broad diet of primates helped them survive tough times. It makes sense if you think about it. The more varied the diet of a given animal the better the chances said animal will find something to sustain itself. Specialization in diet is one reason species like the giant panda of China and the koala of Australia find themselves in trouble. It has even worked against humans in the past. For a prime example of how a specialized way of life, including diet, negatively impacted a people one need look no farther than the strategy used by the military during the Indian wars fought between the U.S. Government and the Native Americans that inhabited the Great Plains of North America in the mid to late 1800s. These tribes were expert horsemen and warriors. They were highly mobile, intelligent, and fierce. They proved to be more than a match for the U.S. Army. They had one weakness, however. That weakness was their near total dependence on their horses and the buffalo (American bison to be truly accurate). U.S. military strategists, after suffering several humiliating defeats, like the Battle of Little Big Horn, decided to do more than just engage the tribes directly. They would remove the very things these tribes needed for survival; their horses and the buffalo. Army scouts began swooping down on Indian encampments and, instead of engaging the braves, shot all the horses. Meanwhile, buffalo hunters were hired to kill as many buffalo as possible. An all out slaughter ensued. It wasn't long before fierce tribes like the Kiowa, Comanche, and Sioux were brought to the point of starvation. In a shockingly short amount of time the great horse culture of the plains was gone and the American bison was on the brink of extinction. Specialization helped the Native Americans of the Great Plains become very successful for hundreds of years but it proved to be their undoing in the end. Such is the possible fate of species that are overly dependent on one food source. If the food source disappears, for whatever reason, the species is likely to disappear as well.



It is encouraging that this study shows most primates are not overly dependent on one food source. It has long been theorized that the sasquatch is omnivorous and has a diet similar to that of bears. If so, they may be doing just fine as the river bottoms, forests, and swamps of Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma are incredibly rich in food sources. Populations of black bear have exploded in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. The bears are beginning to make significant headway in East Texas as well. If the sasquatch does have a highly varied diet like that of black bears then the chances of the species surviving increase dramatically.

Primates continue to surprise us with their intelligence and resilience. Each study that comes out seems to reveal something remarkable or validates claims about primates, particularly great apes, that were once deemed outlandish. If the sasquatch is indeed real then it is undoubtedly a primate (the debate over whether it is human or ape is one for another day). As such, it is among the most intelligent and resourceful creatures on the planet. This is good news if we are talking about the survival of the species. It is; however, going to make it that much tougher on the few who seek to document them.

Sources: National Evolutionary Synthesis Center (NESCent) (2010, December 2). Primates are more resilient than other animals to environmental ups and downs. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 13, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com¬ /releases/2010/12/101201124347.htm

Chimpanzees Outwitting Poachers in Africa

I recently ran across an interesting article on the BBC website that really caught my attention. The author, Matt Walker, gives us a look into some pretty amazing behaviors being exhibited by wild chimpanzees in Guinea. Read the full article here.

It is pretty commonly known that chimpanzees, as well as other great ape, are facing increased pressure from poachers due to the high demand for "bush meat" in parts of Africa. Snare traps are the most commonly used tool to capture the targeted species and it seems chimpanzees are beginning to recognize this technique and are fighting back the best way they know how.

Primatologist Gaku Ohashi and Professor Tetsuro Matsuzawa observed wild chimpanzees disabling snares traps. The discovery was made by accident as the team was following a group of the apes living in the jungles near Bossou, Guinea to observe their social structure and behaviors. More incredible still is that the chimps seemed to be actively seeking out the snares with the express purpose of disabling them.



According to the article, snare injuries to chimpanzees are common at many sites across East and West Africa; however, that is not the case with the chimps being observed in the Bossou region. This was deemed very curious as these chimpanzees live near human settlements where poachers are abundant. Now, it seems, we know why. Ohashi and Matsuzawa of the Primate Research Institute of Kyoto University, Japan, observed five male chimps, both juvenile and adult, attempting to break or deactivate snares. Twice the chimps were successful in ruining the traps set for them.



It may be helpful to understand how these snare traps work. According to the article, a typical snare consists of a loop of iron wire connected by a vine rope to an arched stick, often a sapling. The sapling puts tension on the rope and once an animal passes through the wire loop the trap springs, the sapling straightens, and the wire tightens around the leg or neck of the animal. The snares are indiscriminate killers, catching and killing whatever species come into contact with them. The male chimpanzees of Bossou seem to be working on getting rid of these traps themselves.

"They seemed to know which parts of the snares are dangerous and which are not," Ohashi said. In an article for the journal Primates, the researchers recounted six different instances where male chimps were observed trying to deactivate snares. Most of the time, the chimps grabbed the sapling and simply shook it until the trap broke. In each case, the apes avoided touching the dangerous wire loop.

The observations of these primatologists bring up an interesting question. How did the chimps learn to deactivate these traps? It has long been assumed that chimpanzees learn by trial and error. This doesn't seem to fit here; however, as an error would likely prove to be fatal. The observations suggest these great apes are capable of learning by observing events.

"The observations indicate that chimpanzees can learn some manners without trial and error," said Ohashi.

In addition, the behaviors learned are being passed down to younger chimpanzees. The researchers watched as an older male deactivated a snare while a juvenile male watched intently from a safe distance.



Snares continue to pose a major threat to great apes in Africa as chimps in other regions have not yet figured out how to deactivate traps set for them by poachers. Why this particular group is so far ahead of the curve is subject to speculation.

As always, whenever a discovery that reveals the exceptional intelligence level and/or problem-solving abilities of a known great ape species is made I ponder how it might possibly relate to the quest to document the sasquatch. If the sasquatch is at least as intelligent as the known great apes, but fewer in number, the challenge facing us becomes obvious. Are sasquatches intentionally avoiding and/or disabling the North American version of an ape trap? I am, of course, speaking of game cameras.

A long-standing point of contention among researchers is whether or not game cameras, or camera traps, have a realistic chance of documenting this elusive species. Some believe that sasquatches know what cameras are and what they do and so avoid them. I think that is complete malarkey. While I don't believe that the species has any idea what a camera does, what could be true is that sasquatches associate them with people, just as the chimpanzees of Guinea associate snares with poachers. If sasquatches have an aversion to humans, as I believe they do, then they would likely have an aversion to cameras set out by humans as well. While these camera "traps" are a far cry from the deadly snares of the African jungles, it is possible they put sasquatches on high alert. Again, I don't think these creatures have any idea what these cameras do but if they understand humans are responsible for the presence of these alien devices that may be all they need to know. If so, those of us who seek the "discovery photo" are going to have to start thinking more outside the box as far as how to best camouflage and hide these cameras.



Avoidance of the cameras would be the likeliest behavior but it isn't too far-fetched to think a sasquatch might attempt to disable one if it is perceived as a threat. I don't mean that they are going to steal batteries or memory cards, somehow knowing the function of the camera, to prevent discovery. Rather, I mean they might simply destroy the camera. There are many cases of game cameras going missing. Usually, and rightfully so, other humans are assumed to be responsible. This is certainly the correct explanation most of the time; however, there are instances when this just doesn't seem likely. Sometimes cameras in incredibly remote locales disappear. Could the sasquatch be responsible? Other times cameras are found smashed to bits. My experiences with the TBRC have shown me that black bears are most often responsible for these incidents. While this is a logical explanation in some places, Southeast Oklahoma, for example, it would be a bit more of a stretch in some other areas where bears are absent or very rare. Any animal will become aggressive if it feels threatened or if it's territory is infringed upon. Cameras could be seen as both a threat, due to their association with humans, and as an unwelcome interloper.

I do not want to sound like camera trapping is futile. To the contrary, I still feel it is the best chance, short of a hunter taking a specimen or a road-kill type scenario, that we have of documenting the species. I also feel, despite the challenges involved, the reason we don't have definitive photographic evidence already is due to the fact that there has not been a sufficiently large and well-funded attempt made to capture said evidence to date. I believe that sooner or later, we will get the photograph we seek. We may have to vary our techniques, locations, etc. as putting an uncamouflaged camera on a stake or tree may not be good enough to fool a creature as intelligent as a great ape. However, it just takes one animal making one mistake to give us what we need. Unlike the chimpanzees of Africa who, if they make a mistake, can lose their lives to a poacher's trap the sasquatch that eventually makes a mistake and is "trapped" via a camera may very well end up saving his/her entire species.

Let's hope that "mistake" happens soon.