The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 51 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Bigfoot: If it's there, could it be a bear?
Open accessAbstract
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 a 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 modelling sasquatch sightings and 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 bear increase in the bear population is associated with a ( CI: –) increase in sasquatch sightings. Thus, as black bear populations increase, sasquatch sightings are expected to increase. On average, across all states and provinces in 2006, after controlling for human population and forest area, there were approximately 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 could be a bear.
Overview
CoChat Summary
TL;DR
A generalized linear model across US states and Canadian provinces in 2006 found sasquatch sightings were positively associated with American black bear populations after adjusting for human population and forest area. The authors suggest many purported sasquatch sightings may be misidentified black bears, though the study is correlational and not designed to prove sasquatch existence.
Key findings
- Every 1000-bear increase in the black bear population was associated with a 4% increase in sasquatch sightings (95% CI: 1–7%).
- On average across all states/provinces in 2006, after controlling for human population and forest area, there were approximately 5000 bears per sasquatch sighting.
- A likelihood ratio test comparing the full model with a nested model excluding bear population was statistically significant: 8.76 on one degree of freedom (P = 0.003).
- Human population was positively associated with sasquatch sightings (P < 0.0001), while forest area was negatively associated (P < 0.05); the intercept was not statistically significant.
Methods
- Data were assembled for US states and Canadian provinces for 2006: black bear populations from Spencer et al. (2007), sasquatch sighting reports from the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization database, human population from the US Census Bureau and Statistics Canada, and forest area from the USDA Forest Service and NRCan Canadian Forest Service. Four US states and four Canadian provinces missing bear population data were excluded.
- A generalized linear model with negative binomial errors and a log link modelled sasquatch sighting counts as a function of black bear population, human population, and forest area.
- The bear effect was tested with a likelihood ratio test against a nested model without bear population; analyses were performed in Python with Statsmodels and related packages.
Limitations
- Stated in the paper: residual confounding is possible from factors other than bear population, human population, and forest area; humans may also be misidentified as sasquatch; sightings occur in states with no known breeding black bears; the positive intercept was not statistically significant; bear population and forest area were collinear; the model had relatively high RMSE and evident heteroscedasticity, so coefficient estimates may be imprecise; and the model is only a local approximation.
- Stated in the paper: the study does not prove that all sasquatch sightings are bear sightings, nor was it designed to do so.
- Evident from the text: the analysis is observational and correlational, uses self-reported BFRO sighting data, is limited to 2006, and cannot establish causation.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 Valid · 1 Not valid · 34 Not checked · 40 Own results and interpretations
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On average, across all states and provinces in 2006, after controlling for human population and forest area, there were approximately 5000 bears per sasquatch sighting.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“On average, across all states and provinces in 2006, after controlling for human population and forest area, there were approximately 5000 bears per sasquatch sighting”
§ Bigfoot: If it's there, could it be a bear? > Abstract
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption not shown here.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sasquatch sightings were statistically significantly associated with bear populations such that, on the average, every 1000 bear increase in the bear population is associated with a 4% (95% CI: 1-7%) increase in sasquatch sightings.”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“In this model, black bear population was associated with sasquatch sightings such that, on average, every 1000 bear increase in the bear population is associated with a 4% (95% CI: 1-7%) increase in sasquatch sightings.”
§ Bigfoot: If it's there, could it be a bear? > Abstract
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption not shown here.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The RMSE of the model ( 24) was high relative to the number of bigfoot sightings in 2006 in each state/province (range: 0-21).”
§ Bigfoot: If it's there, could it be a bear? > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption not shown here.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“black bear population and forest area were significantly correlated.”
§ Bigfoot: If it's there, could it be a bear? > Discussion
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The intercept parameter was not statistically significant.”
§ Bigfoot: If it's there, could it be a bear? > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
29 more claims
Create a free account to see all 75 claims and to verify the 15 references still open.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 21
- It may state two separate claims as one. 28
Citations
Cites
Do not log‐transform count data
O’Hara, R. B., & Kotze, D. J. (2010) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.2041-210x.2010.00021.x · Cited by 1,268
McKinley, D. C., Miller-Rushing, A. J., Ballard, H. L., Bonney, R., Brown, H., Cook-Patton, S. C., Evans, D. M., French, R. A., Parrish, J. K., Phillips, T. B., et al. (2017) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.015 · Cited by 1,142
Want to model a species niche? A step-by-step guideline on correlative ecological niche modelling
Sillero, N., Arenas-Castro, S., Enriquez‐Urzelai, U., Vale, C. G., Sousa-Guedes, D., Martínez-Freiría, F., Real, R., & Barbosa, A. M. (2021) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2021.109671 · Cited by 456
Miller, D. A., Nichols, J. D., McClintock, B. T., Grant, E. H. C., Bailey, L. L., & Weir, L. A. (2011) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/10-1396.1 · Cited by 391
Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance
Jope, K. L., & Herrero, S. (1986) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3801928 · Cited by 352
Hristienko, H., & McDonald, J. E. (2007) · Ursus · doi:10.2192/1537-6176(2007)18[72:gitsca]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 181
Pearce, J., & Ferrier, S. (2001) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/s0006-3207(00)00139-7 · Cited by 165
Lozier, J. D., Aniello, P., & Hickerson, M. J. (2009) · Journal of Biogeography · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2009.02152.x · Cited by 133
Power of the people: A review of citizen science programs for conservation
MacPhail, V. J., & Colla, S. R. (2020) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108739 · Cited by 128
Acevedo, P., Quirós-Fernández, F., Casal, J., & Vicente, J. (2013) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.019 · Cited by 102
Research works printed but not linked: 24
- Baird D., 1989, Sasquatch footprints: A proposed method of fabrication, Cryptozoology, 8, 43
- Beer A.‐J., 2004, Encyclopedia of north American mammals
- Brown G., 1993, Great bear almanac
- Burton J. A., 1998, Guide to mammals of North America
- Cachel S., 1985, Sole pads and dermatoglyphics of the elk wallow footprints, Cryptozoology, 4, 45
- Colarusso J., 1983, Further notes on the role of folklore in hominology, Cryptozoology, 2, 90
- Foxon F.(2023a).bioRxiv.https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.01.14.524058v1 · doi:10.1101/2023.01.14.524058v1
- Foxon F.(2023b).bioRxiv.https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.01.14.524058v2 · doi:10.1101/2023.01.14.524058v2
- Freeland D., 1989, Alleged pore structure in Sasquatch (Bigfoot) footprints, Skeptical Inquirer, 13, 273
- Green J. W., 2006, Sasquatch: The apes among us
- Gujarati D. N., 2009, Basic econometrics
- Hart H. V., 2016, Not finding bigfoot in DNA, The Journal of Cryptozoology, 4, 39
- Heuvelmans B., 1984, The birth and early history of cryptozoology, Cryptozoology, 3, 1
- King J. E., 1983, Attitudes of biological limnologists and oceanographers toward supposed unknown animals in Loch Ness, Cryptozoology, 2, 98
- Krantz G. S., 1983, Anatomy and dermatoglyphics of three sasquatch footprints, Cryptozoology, 2, 53
- Krantz G. S., 2019, Bigfoot sasquatch evidence: The anthropologist speaks out
- Meldrum J., 2007, Sasquatch: Legend meets science
- Munns B., 2013, Analysis integrity of the patterson-gimlin film image, The Relict Hominoid Inquiry, 2, 41
- Munns W., 2014, When Roger Met Patty
- Nickell J., 2013, Bigfoot lookalikes: Tracking hairy man-beasts, Skeptical Inquirer, 37, 12
- Sanderson I. T., 1967, Abominable snowmen: Legend come to life
- Somer L.(1989).Sasquatch Evidence: Scientific and Social Implications Symposium. Eight annual membership meeting International Society of Cryptozoology June 24–25 1989 Washington State University Pullman Washington.
- Strain K. M., 2012, Mayak datat: The hairy man pictographs, Relict Hominoid Inquiry, 1, 1
- Winn E. B., 1991, Physical and morphological analysis of samples of fiber purported to be sasquatch hair, Cryptozoology, 10, 55
Cited by
The Moa the Merrier: Resolving when the Dinornithiformes went extinct
Foxon, F. (2024) · Belgian journal of zoology · doi:10.26496/bjz.2024.114 · Cited by 3
Self-citationConformal prediction quantifies the uncertainty of species distribution models
Poisot, T. (2026) · Advances in ecological research/Advances in Ecological Research · doi:10.1016/bs.aecr.2026.03.001 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Foxon, F.
- Affiliations
- Folk Zoology Society Pittsburgh PA USA
- Corresponding author
- Foxon, Floe
- ORCID
- Foxon, Floe
- Venue
- Journal of Zoology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2024-01-13
- Volume
- 323
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-8
- ISSN
- 0952-8369 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-7998
- OpenAlex
- W4390838000
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 0.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- dx.doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Zoology (publishedVersion)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecological Modeling › Species Distribution and Climate Change
- Keywords
- Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Ursus americanus, misidentification, Pacific Northwest, human populations, forest land
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-14, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-14 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bigfoot: If it's there, could it be a bear? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/jzo.13148
- The paper
- Foxon, F. (2024). Bigfoot: If it's there, could it be a bear? Journal of Zoology. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.13148
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
