If it’s there, could it be a bear?
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (PeerRef)
Abstract
It has been suggested that the American black bear ( Ursus americanus ) may be responsible for a significant number of purported sightings of an alleged unknown species of hominid in North America. Previous analyses have identified correlation between ‘sasquatch’ or ‘bigfoot’ sightings and black bear populations in the Pacific Northwest using ecological niche models and simple models of expected animal sightings. The present study expands the analysis to the entire US and Canada by regressing sasquatch sightings on bear populations in each state/province while adjusting for human population and forest area in a generalized linear model. Sasquatch sightings were statistically significantly associated with bear populations such that, on the average, every 1, 000 bear increase in the bear population is associated with a 4% (95% CI: 1%–7%) increase in sasquatch sightings. Thus, as black bear populations increase, sasquatch sightings are expected to increase also. On the average, across all states and provinces in 2006, after controlling for human population and forest area, there were approximately 5, 000 bears per sasquatch sighting. Based on statistical considerations, it is likely that many supposed sasquatch are really misidentified known forms. If bigfoot is there, it may be a bear.
Article activity feed
-
-
Author response
To: Julie Sheldon
I thank Julie Sheldon for their thoughtful consideration of the manuscript.
Sheldon notes that the Introduction did not provide much information on black bears. In the revision, I have massively expanded the Introduction to cover the physiology and morphology of the black bear; its habitats, diet, and behaviour; natural history; and human- bear interactions. As suggested, I have also compared these black bear characteristics to reported sasquatch characteristics, considering the possibility that sasquatch sightings correlate with black bears (either because they are the same animals or distinct animals with overlapping characteristics including habitat). Because I have had to expand the Introduction following both Sheldon’s and Raveendran’s suggestions, the Introduction is now quite long, which I hope …
Author response
To: Julie Sheldon
I thank Julie Sheldon for their thoughtful consideration of the manuscript.
Sheldon notes that the Introduction did not provide much information on black bears. In the revision, I have massively expanded the Introduction to cover the physiology and morphology of the black bear; its habitats, diet, and behaviour; natural history; and human- bear interactions. As suggested, I have also compared these black bear characteristics to reported sasquatch characteristics, considering the possibility that sasquatch sightings correlate with black bears (either because they are the same animals or distinct animals with overlapping characteristics including habitat). Because I have had to expand the Introduction following both Sheldon’s and Raveendran’s suggestions, the Introduction is now quite long, which I hope the reviewers can forgive. Sheldon noted in particular the primarily forest habitat of bears. I think this is especially important, and I received a suggestion from another reader to control for forest area in the model. Accordingly, I have replaced the variable for land area in each state/province with forest area in each state/province.
Furthermore, Sheldon noted that most of the bear population estimates were rather dated (from 2001), with others being more recent but being sourced variously from state department resources, conservation societies, and biologists and conservationists quoted in media articles. Sheldon suggested that an updated resource would improve the manuscript. To implement Sheldon’s suggestion, I performed a literature search for such a resource. To the best of my knowledge, the most recent, peer-reviewed, publicly-available single source for bear population estimates is Spencer et al., 2007 (DOI: 10.2192/1537- 6176(2007)18[217:HARTHB]2.0.CO;2), which provides estimates across US states and Canadian provinces for 2006. These data, collected from a survey of North American wildlife agencies, are still relatively dated, but represent the best improvement over the previous data I could find. Following Sheldon’s suggestion, I replaced the previous data from Hristienko and McDonald with the new, more consistent and more recent Spencer et al. data, and I have discarded the estimates from media articles etcetera. Note also that the estimates provided in Hristienko and McDonald were more approximate (i.e., ranges were given) whereas the new estimates given in Spencer et al. are more precise. If the author knows of a more precise and up to date resource than Spencer et al., I would be happy to update the analyses further. However, in this regard I have reached the limit of my art.
Crucially, Sheldon points out that the dates of the bear population data and saquatch sightings did not match (as previously noted in the limitations section of the Discussion). This is an important point, because as Sheldon notes, having accurate data are important for the goal of the study. Sheldon makes the excellent suggestion to restrict the bear and sasquatch data to the same time period. To improve the validity of the analysis, I have implemented Sheldon’s suggestion of date-matching the data. As noted above, the updated bear population data correspond to 2006. Thus, I have restricted the sasquatch sightings to just those made in 2006 (this was a rather painstaking process because the BFRO web database is not sorted by time nor is it downloadable). Likewise, I have updated the human population and forest area estimates to correspond to 2006 (or close).
Sheldon also laments that the Discussion section was short and did not argue in support of the findings of the study. I agree with Sheldon and regret not having elaborated in the Discussion. To this end, I have expanded the Discussion in various respects including arguments for the strengths of the manuscript. Finally, Sheldon noted that in some areas, the choropleth maps did not line up, e.g. there are apparently many sasquatch sightings in Florida but fewer bears (relative to some other states). This is also an important point, and I am grateful that Sheldon raised it. The reason for the apparent mismatch is because a simple comparison of the bears map and bigfoot map does not take into account the confounding by human population and forest area (as Sheldon notes, there is a high concentration of humans in Flordia, and hence many human- bear encounters). I have completely rewritten the paragraph in the Results section on these maps to better explain them, as requested by Sheldon. Following Sheldon’s suggestion, I have used Florida as an example in this paragraph.
I thank Sheldon once again for thoughtfully reviewing the manuscript, and I hope that the changes I have made are satisfactory, and that the reviewer feels that the manuscript may now be verified without reservations. I believe that the manuscript has been greatly improved by Sheldon’s review. Accordingly, I have added Sheldon to the Acknowledgements section of the manuscript.
Reviewer response: I have read through the updated manuscript and response letter. I have no further revisions to suggest and can recommend accepting the paper.
Decision changed: Verified
To: Rahul Raveendran
I also thank Rahul Raveendran for their comprehensive review of the manuscript.
Raveendran suggested that in the Introduction, more details are required about hominology. At Raveendran’s suggestion, I have thoroughly revised the Introduction to provide more explanation of the history and methods of hominology by citing the works of Bayanov and others. Because I have had to expand the Introduction following both Raveendran’s and Sheldon’s suggestions, the Introduction is now quite long, which I hope the reviewers can forgive. Raveendran also noted that the Introduction was missing a chronological flow from paragraph to paragraph. In the revision, I have restructed the entire Introduction to improve the narrative flow overall.
Additionally, Raveendran requested that I expand upon the couple of sentences in the manuscript which identified the American black bear as a likely candidate for many purported sasquatch sightings. Accordingly, I have developed this section into a much larger paragraph including additional references. The paragraph on the previously-published analyses by Blight and Lozier et al. has also been separated into two paragraphs, now with methodological details (including the fundamentals of ecological niche modelling), and these paragraphs have been re-written to properly convey the meaning, as suggested by Raveendran.
The final paragraph of the Introduction was also revised so that the approach taken to execute the study is now stated clearly along with the hypothesis.
Raveendran noted that parts of the Methods section of the manuscript lacked lucidity and were therefore difficult to understand. I agree that the Methods section was unnecessarily convoluted and apologise for the confusion. Following Raveendran’s suggestions, I have completely rewritten and simplified the Methods section to improve the readability.
Concerning the Results section, Raveendran suggested that this be rewritten with a view to make everyone who reads the article understand the results properly. Similar to the Methods section, I have completely rewritten, and massively simplified, the Results as suggested.
Similar to Sheldon’s review above, Raveendran noted that there are mismatches between the sasquatch sighting map and black bear map, for example in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) area. As explained above, the reason for the apparent mismatch is because a simple comparison of the bears map and bigfoot map does not take into account the confounding by human population and forest area. It is this mismatch which necessitates a model that controls for such confounding. Raveendran is right to note that my discussion of the PNW in this regard was not clear, therefore, I have removed the sentences on the PNW and completely reworked the paragaph on the choropleth maps to make all of this clearer.
Raveendran suggested that the Discussion should be improved. Following Raveendran’s suggestions, I have re-written the sentence beginnning “The present study...”; discussed the results in more detail (both with reference to the works cited in the Introduction and with reference to conservation science); and have made better links to the previously-published reports by Lozier et al. and by Blight.
Finally, I have added citations to the Methods section to substantiante the methodological framework of this study with the support of previous conservation biology studies that have used the same or similar model design (negative binomial regression).
I appreciate Raveendran’s assessment that the manuscript required thorough revisions, and I hope that I was able to address the concerns raised by Raveendran in their review, and that the reviewer feels that the manuscript may now be verified without reservations. Like with Sheldon’s review above, I believe that the manuscript has been greatly improved by
Raveendran’s review. Accordingly, I have also added Raveendran to the Acknowledgements section of the manuscript.
Reviewer response: The manuscript is vastly improved. The author has taken considerable efforts to revise it. I have added very minor suggestions for the author to consider. I appreciate the author's sincere effort.
Decision changed: Verified
-
-
Peer review report
Title: If it’s there, could it be a bear?
version: 2
Referee: Rahul Raveendran
Institution: Biodiversity Institute, University of Kansas
email: rahulravi777@gmail.com
General assessment
The manuscript needs to be revised thoroughly.
Essential revisions that are required to verify the manuscript
I feel that the introduction can be a little more elaborative. My suggestions are as follows:
• In the first paragraph, the author can give more details about ‘hominology’ by citing the works of Dmitry Bayanov. This is to give a historical account of ‘hominid research’ to the readers who are unfamiliar to this topic.
• Second paragraph has information related to the ‘misdeeds’ of the ‘proponents of hominology’. According to me, there must be continuous flow of information from paragraph to paragraph. Currently, I do not …
Peer review report
Title: If it’s there, could it be a bear?
version: 2
Referee: Rahul Raveendran
Institution: Biodiversity Institute, University of Kansas
email: rahulravi777@gmail.com
General assessment
The manuscript needs to be revised thoroughly.
Essential revisions that are required to verify the manuscript
I feel that the introduction can be a little more elaborative. My suggestions are as follows:
• In the first paragraph, the author can give more details about ‘hominology’ by citing the works of Dmitry Bayanov. This is to give a historical account of ‘hominid research’ to the readers who are unfamiliar to this topic.
• Second paragraph has information related to the ‘misdeeds’ of the ‘proponents of hominology’. According to me, there must be continuous flow of information from paragraph to paragraph. Currently, I do not see a proper chronological flow of details in 1st and 2nd paragraph. I request the learned author to check this in such a way that 1st para must provide details about ‘hominids’, ‘hominology’, and the 2nd para must give the scientific explanation about these ‘controversial findings’.
• Line numbers 43-44: This paragraph must be expanded, and possibly include more information about ‘American black bear’ being misrecognized as ‘bigfoot sightings’ with references. If available, provide details regarding the molecular/clinical test results (i.e., references).
• A separate paragraph has to be incorporated to detail the methods adopted by scientists/researchers to link the population density of American black bear and bigfoot sightings.
• Line numbers 49-51: The sentence “No positive correlation between……a small proportion of all sightings” has to be re-written as I think that it does not convey its meaning properly.
• Provide the fundamentals of ecological niche modeling. How such a concept can be adopted in this sort of a study with a strong emphasis on the results of Lozier et al. (2009) would be helpful for the readers.
• In the last paragraph of the introduction, although not in detail, the author should state clearly the approach that was taken to execute the study. For example, details related to the chosen statistical methods with references. And state your hypothesis clearly.
Materials and Methods
• Line numbers 67-77: Please make these sentences more lucid. I feel that this paragraph lacks coherence.
• Line numbers 90-94: Please make these sentences more understandable.
• Line numbers 113-116: Please re-write these sentences to make them more understandable. Results
• Line numbers 121-123: The article states that both the sasquatch sighting and black bear population maps are strongly coloured in the Pacific Northwest area……”. BUT, in PNW, I do not think that bigfoot sightings in British Columbia are proportional to the black bear population.
• Presentation of results is a bit confusing for me. I would suggest to rewrite the results with a view to make everyone who reads this article understands the results properly.
Discussion
• Discussion must be vastly improved
a) It is difficult to understand the very first sentence of the discussion that starts with “The present study regressed ………………..”. Please re-write it.
b) Results of the present study should be discussed in detail, linking previous published reports.
c) The models employed must be discussed in detail with the support of previous reports to substantiate the conceptual correctness of the methodological framework.
Decision
Requires revisions: Major revisions are suggested.
-
Peer review report
Title: If it’s there, could it be a bear?
version: 2
Referee: Julie Sheldon
Institution: University of Tennessee
email: jsheldo3@tennessee.edu
ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2813-3027
General assessment
This manuscript is a collection of statistical analyses attempting to show that sasquatch sightings correlate with black bear populations, and humans may be mistaking black bears for sasquatch.
The author effectively introduces the topic, provides adequate background on sasquatch, but does not provide much on black bear populations, natural history, or human-bear interactions.
The author performs several statistical tests to support the findings. I am not a statistician, but the tests seem valid. The data used for the statistical analyses, however, are not ideal. The resource (Hristienko and McDonald) provided …
Peer review report
Title: If it’s there, could it be a bear?
version: 2
Referee: Julie Sheldon
Institution: University of Tennessee
email: jsheldo3@tennessee.edu
ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2813-3027
General assessment
This manuscript is a collection of statistical analyses attempting to show that sasquatch sightings correlate with black bear populations, and humans may be mistaking black bears for sasquatch.
The author effectively introduces the topic, provides adequate background on sasquatch, but does not provide much on black bear populations, natural history, or human-bear interactions.
The author performs several statistical tests to support the findings. I am not a statistician, but the tests seem valid. The data used for the statistical analyses, however, are not ideal. The resource (Hristienko and McDonald) provided for obtaining black bear populations was published in 2007 and the data was from 2001 via “subjective extrapolations” and “expert opinions”. Thus, this resource is outdated and suboptimal as black bear populations have changed over time. A more updated resource with more scientific methods in data collection would improve this manuscript since having as accurate as possible bear population estimates is very important for the goal of this study. The author notes this briefly in the limitations. If the human population and sasquatch sighting data matched up with the dates of bear population estimates, it would be more valid (just outdated), but there are no date ranges of human or sasquatch data provided in the manuscript.
In the results, the maps of bigfoot sightings and black bear population do not appear to correlate visually, which downplays the value of the statistical analysis. The stats should support the visual data and vice versa if the study is sound. Perhaps more updated bear population data will improve this.
The discussion is short and briefly brings up important points that can invalidate the study without much discussion or argument supporting the findings of this study.
Essential revisions that are required to verify the manuscript
I recommend the following to improve the manuscript enough to consider it valid:
Date-match the bear population, human population, and bigfoot sightings to improve the validity of the data analysis. One way to do this is to use data from the same 10-year period only.
Improve the sources of bear population information.
Expand the discussion to include reasons and ideas the maps don’t line up like the statistical analyses do – ie bears in Florida and the southeast.
Other suggestions to improve the manuscript
I recommend provide some information on black bear population/natural history in the introduction – ie what sort of habitats do black bears live in. Consider the possibility that sasquatch sightings may correlate with a type of habitat (ie forest), which happen to also correlate with black bear habitat. This may support the idea that sasquatch sightings are bears, or that sasquatch also likes to live in similar habitats as bears.
The author reports that black bears are not prominent in Florida; however, there are > 4,000 black bears bears in Florida, that are reportedly large, and it may be worth considering this as a reason for the concentration of sasquatch sightings in Florida as seen on the map. More accurate black bear data as discussed above may help improve this aspect. Experientially, there is also a high concentration of black bears in the southeastern US, where there is also a high concentration of humans and human-bear encounters. The author does not discuss this along with the number of sasquatch sightings in this region as seen on the map.
Decision
Verified with reservations: The content is academically sound but has shortcomings that could be improved by further studies and/or minor revisions.
-
-