Much like the field it covers, the Bigfoot FAQ is a continual work in progress. Since it is constantly revised and expanded, it is easily the most fluid part of the BIP site. Note that the FAQ is not just the opinion of one person, but attempts to reflect the consensus opinion of top investigators and researchers, sometimes in their own words. If there is no consensus on a topic, the FAQ will attempt to present as many of the competing theories as practical. If there's a questions you've frequently asked regarding sasquatch, or if you'd like to comment on the FAQ, please head over to the FAQ forum topic on the Bigfoot Forums.

What is Bigfoot? (top)

“Bigfoot was a journalistic term generated in the middle of the last century during a rash of sightings in Northern California; its use is not unreasonable since the species has proportionally much bigger feet than those of human beings and, furthermore, the word has come to be recognized widely. A goodly selection of fanciful terms have been used by pioneers and later non-native inhabitants of North America for the occasional published and repeated encounters with sasquatches.” (Fahrenbach, 2002)

“The term sasquatch, for the North American primate under consideration in this website, is an anglicized derivative of the word "Sésquac", meaning "wild man". The original word, in the Stó:lõ dialect of the Halkomelem language, is used by the Coast Salish Indians of the Fraser Valley and parts of Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Indian tribes across North America have a total of more than sixty different terms for the sasquatch.

“…there is overwhelming evidence indicating that the sasquatch is indeed a great ape, similar in it’s anatomy, ecology, and behavior to the great apes of Africa and Asia.” (Bindernagel, page 32, 1998)

Last revised 10 August 2004

What is the best evidence to support the existence of bigfoot? (top)

“Physical evidence is found every month in various areas across the country. Distinct tracks that do not match other animal tracks, hairs that match each other but no known wild animals, and large scats that could not be made by any known species, are all "physical evidence." (Fahrenbach, 2002)

“The presence of both fore and hind tracks is a characteristic of a bear trail; all tracks of a sasquatch trail are 'hind' feet, just as with a human trail.” (Bindernagel, p. 49)

Feces -

Hair - photographic (still as well as movies and video.)

Last revised 10 August 2004

If bigfoot is a real animal, then why haven't we found any dead ones? (top)

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

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

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

Fossils or preserved bones of wood apes may exist in the Americas, but they will be exceedingly rare, because these animals are rare to begin with, and only a tiny fraction of that population will die in locations and soils that will preserve bones somehow. Odds are slim at best that any bones (which are normally fragmentary) will be found, collected and identified unless a focused effort is made to look for them. Until efforts are made in many places, over a long period of time, no one should be scratching their head wondering why "we" don't have any physical remains.” (Fahrenbach, 2002)

Last revised 10 August 2004

Why hasn't a hunter shot one yet? (top)

“The short answer: Because hunters don't hunt for these animals.” (Fahrenbach, 2002)

There are reports of hunters shooting at sasquatch, and even apocryphal stories of hunters killing sasquatch. To date, however, no body has been recovered and made available to science.

Last revised 10 August 2004

With many people owning video cameras nowadays, why hasn't someone filmed one? (top)

“Other than the famed "Patterson Film" (see FAQ below), very little good camera footage of bigfoot exists.   A few have shown up recently. A brief bit with Anna Marie Goddard on "Hard Copy" from northern California, another anonymously sent clip we call the "Snow Walker" footage, and a few videos from Ohio.

Along with the Patterson footage there are a handful of short, blurry film clips that may depict real sasquatches. Neither the Patterson footage, nor any of these other lesser clips, possesses the quality that viewers have come to expect from commercial wildlife footage. Skeptics point to the scarcity of the photographic evidence. No skeptic has ever been able to debunk the footage that is available, but it's easy for a sedentary skeptic to sit back and assert that there should be more.

Over the past few decades televised wildlife documentaries have significantly altered popular perceptions about wildlife photography. Many people have come to assume that any terrestrial animal can be located, followed and filmed in the wild by professional cameramen without much difficulty. With that in mind it is hard for the general public to accept that a large animal species in North America could consistently elude wildlife photographers. These perceptions seem logical enough, but most people are simply uninformed about the elements involved.

As with the odds of a random hunter killing a sasquatch, there are many unique and unusual factors to consider when evaluating the odds of a random photographer obtaining photos or films of a sasquatch. We will use the term "random photographer" to describe someone who is not specifically looking for a sasquatch, but who may find himself in a position to photograph or videotape one because he is carrying a camera with him. A random photographer's odds must be analyzed differently than the odds of someone who specifically looking for a sasquatch. We will first discuss the odds of a random photographer, before discussing the odds of a "sasquatch photographer."

The vast majority of people who carry cameras or camcorders with them in forests are tourists and vacationers. They are usually not professional wildlife photographers. Tourists and vacationers are usually found in places where there are lots of other tourists and vacationers around. This class of photographer rarely gets far away from the crowd. They can be found en mass along the maintained trails and roads in places Yosemite, Yellowstone, and the Grand Canyon. The adventurous nature tourist may occasionally throw on a backpack and join a smaller group headed to a less crowded location. These trips still happen along marked trails or down rivers that get relatively consistent human traffic. Safety concerns keep most backpackers close to marked and maintained trails. Only the more experienced backpackers venture along infrequently used trails, and even the most experienced backpackers stick to some kind of a trail when venturing into a dense forest. Elusive forest animals, on the other hand, do not stick to maintained trails. A large forest animal does not need to be super intelligent to know the routes used by other animals, especially humans. If a bear or mountain lion travels along a trail frequented by humans, it will normally use the trail at night when it is less likely to have a surprise encounter. In those rare instances where a surprise encounter occurs along a trail, the animal will slip back into the woods within a few seconds, usually before a backpacker can get a camera ready to shoot a single frame.

Most nature tourists, even backpackers, carry cameras mainly for the purpose of photographing themselves, their fellow travelers and landscape views. They've brought along their camera to preserve the memory of their vacation, not to photograph a quick moving animal. Thus they usually don't carry their cameras in their hands until they are at a place where they know they are going to take a photograph. Nature tourists and backpackers almost always carry their cameras securely inside their backpacks. It usually takes more than a minute for the average tourist to take off the backpack, fish the camera out of the bag, deal with the lens cap, try to focus the camera, find the subject in the view finder, and take the shot.

The mere desire to photograph a large, dangerous-looking wild animal always depends on the comfort level of the tourist. Photographing a group of large hungry polar bears poses no threat when the tourist is seated safely inside a large heated bus that is designed specifically for the purpose of thwarting large hungry polar bears. Similarly, photographing "park bears" eating from a garbage dump in Yellowstone is not an uncomfortable situation because lots of other people are also standing around taking pictures. The situation is totally different when a backpacker observes a large, dangerous-looking animal while hiking through a forest. A confrontation with a bear or mountain lion in a forest can be a frightening experience even if the animal turns and runs away. When a confrontation occurs the observer is usually much more concerned about his own safety than whether he should pull out a camera and take photos. A surprise, fleeting confrontation with a sasquatch would trigger the same sort of fears, along with a lot of amazement and bewilderment, and the combined effect of these emotional reactions would push the camera near the bottom of the priority list for the first few minutes.

For a sasquatch to be an easy target for photographers, it would have to be out in the open, in daylight, and in a place where there are humans around. Reports indicate that sasquatches prefer to remain in thick forests, venturing out only after nightfall, and they seem to feel very vulnerable if observed by humans. The odds of a random person photographing a sasquatch are therefore poor, because those opportunities are exceedingly rare, especially in daylight.       

The odds of a "sasquatch photographer" have to be analyzed differently. A sasquatch photographer is more prepared to handle the surprise of an encounter because he has likely played out the situation in his mind several times over. He knows the sasquatch may dash off quickly, so the camera is more handy. He may even have a night-vision attachment for his camera. Even with these advantages a sasquatch photographer still faces several daunting hindrances.

Before addressing the major hindrances, it's important to note that there aren't many sasquatch photographers who actually get into the field on a regular basis. The skeptic assumes there must be hundreds, or at least dozens, of people who are consistently in the field trying to photograph sasquatches. In reality, the number of people in North America who are frequently out in the field trying to photograph sasquatches may be less than three (3) at the present time. The number of people in North America who are permanently in the field trying to photograph a sasquatch is zero (0). Only a dozen or so "bigfooters" actually get into the field a few times each year.

Rarely does a sasquatch photographer remain in the field for more than a few days at a time. Everyone on the sasquatch field research scene today has a day job. There are no paid positions in sasquatch field research. As surprising as it may sound, no television wildlife production company or wildlife magazine has ever put a professional wildlife photographer in the field for more than a few days in an attempt to obtain footage. When production companies have produced programs dealing with sasquatches they've always ended up focusing their attention on sasquatch researchers and theorists, rather than trying to get their own footage of sasquatches. Part of the problem is that most production companies don't have the luxury of planning for a long-term projects with uncertain odds of success. It's always easier to spend a few days or weeks tagging along with folks who call themselves sasquatch researchers, interviewing those people, showing the stock footage and asking the cliche' questions. TV producers are not investors. They do not take long-term risks. They have to come up with a practical plan to produce a program by a given deadline. Sasquatches, for better or worse, do not lend themselves to that kind of short-term media planning.

One practical long-term plan for a sasquatch photographer would be to follow up on recent reports, pin-pointing promising areas to patrol on horseback at least a few times a year for several days at a time. Sasquatch photographers almost never have the time or resources to conduct these kinds of repeated, extended horse packing trips. In fact, the last pair of guys who actually did this over the course of a few years were Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. They approached the challenge from this angle because their jobs were seasonal, they were experienced backwoods hunters, and they had access to horses. Patterson and Gimlin also had a decent communication network in the Pacific Northwest. The stayed abreast of the most recent sightings and track finds in Northern California, Oregon and Washington. In 1967 lots of tracks started turning up in Northern California's Bluff Creek area as new roads were being bulldozed for logging. Tracks were found along the new roads and then down in the creek bed. Patterson and Gimlin got wind of the track finds and set out on horseback for several days along the creek. On horseback they could travel long distances each day and easily patrol areas rarely seen by humans.

The creek bed was more open in late 1967. Earlier that year a major storm had caused massive flooding in Northern California. As a result, the creek bed of Bluff Creek had little more than sand bars, mud flats, and flood debris in many places. For several months after the floods, animals had to venture out in the open and walk across the mud and sand to get to water. This would have been an important contributing factor for why so many tracks were found that year, and it was obviously an important factor allowing Patterson to film the sasquatch as it retreated from the water's edge back to the treeline. Today the location looks very different from the way it appeared in the 1967. Trees and brush have grown back with a vengeance in the creek bottom. If Patterson and Gimlin's ride took place today they wouldn't be able to see the figure from where they first spotted it, nor would they have an unobstructed view of it as it walked back into the tall trees.

The hindrances faced by a sasquatch photographer stem mainly from the elusive habits of the creatures. Almost any other type of terrestrial animal (land animal) is easier to locate and photograph not only because there are more of them, but also because they are in more predictable locations. Sasquatches are nomadic, nocturnal to some degree, and extremely wary of humans. Their food requirements and social structure may force them to migrate from place to place on a frequent basis and in an unpredictable pattern. Other large forest dwelling animals such as wolves, cougars and bears have much more predictable territories. Within those territories they can be baited, darted, carted to a field production area, then photographed continuously within a fenced perimeter, which has been constructed in their natural habitat. This technique makes it easier for the cameraman to locate the subject day after day for filming, and it creates the impression that the cameraman has skillfully approached the wild subject and can follow it consistently through unrestricted habitat as it hunts, feeds and reproduces. Much of wildlife videography is "staged" this way.

The nocturnal habits of sasquatches create a substantial hindrance to a photographer. The lighting problem makes the effort much more costly because it requires expensive night-vision equipment and/or infrared illumination to circumvent. Illuminating a sasquatch with a bright light apparently doesn't have the mesmerizing effect it has with deer. The few sasquatch researchers who claimed to have briefly spotlighted a sasquatch say it only lasted a few seconds, and they weren't given a second opportunity. Sasquatches apparently do not like having lights shined in their eyes. They won't attack people who illuminate them, but they will retreat quickly into the brush and leave the immediate vicinity.

Last revised 10 August 2004

How many Sasquatch are there?  Is the population diminishing? (top)

“Total numbers for the species in North America have been estimated by various approaches to be from a few thousand up to 10,000. By comparison, black bears number between 650,000 and 700,000 in North America.” (Fahrenbach, 2002)

“Very few or a population of at least 2,000 individuals. A population that size would yield a healthy population with enough genetic variation in the gene pool to prevent strange recessive genes from being expressed in the progeny. Rene Dahinden once commented that in the early 1960's around Bluff Creek, California, he found tracks all the time, thousands of tracks. Nowadays, tracks are seldom found. Perhaps the population of bigfeet has been reduced greatly over the last 30 years, or perhaps   the bigfeet have learned how to hide their tracks much better.” – /WWilliams/BigfootFAQ.html, 19??

Last revised 10 August 2004

What is the geographic range of Bigfoot? (top)

There have been reported sightings in every state, but the predominate range of Bigfoot appears to be the wooded mountains of Northern California up through Oregon, Washington, and extending into British Columbia.

“The sasquatch is distributed across the North American continent, from high northern latitudes in Alaska and the Yukon to occasional sightings near river courses and forests in New Mexico and Texas. Their highest concentration appears to lie in Washington, Oregon and northern California, although the chances of potentially more sightings in the wilds of Canada are lessened by the lower human population density.” (Fahrenbach, 2002)

“Unknown. Reports of bigfoot-like beings come from the world around. Sighting reports and footprint finds have occurred in 49 of 50 the United States (not Hawaii), and all ten provinces in Canada. Reports of similar creatures are found in the Himalayas (the Yeti), Australia (the Yowie), The Pamirs, the Caucasus, and the Ural Mountains in Russia, (the Almas and Almasty) the Tien Shan Mountains in China (the Yeren), mountains in Ireland, the island of Sumatra in Indonesia (Orang Pendak), South America (Loys's Ape) and Africa. Anecdotal data suggests the range is at least the North American continent and one can speculate that related species could be distributed world wide.” (W. Williams, 19??)

Last revised 10 August 2004

Do they migrate? (top)

“Migration patterns, if they exist at all, have not been established other than possible vertical movement to escape severe winter conditions at higher altitude.” (Fanhrenbach, 2002)

Last revised 10 August 2004

What is their activity cycle like? (top)

Last revised 10 August 2004

What do they eat? (top)

“The sasquatch is an omnivore with a substantial carnivorous component to its diet. They have been observed directly to eat leaves, berries, fruits, roots, aquatic plants and other vegetable matter, catch fish, dig up clams or ground squirrels, and prey on poultry, deer, elk and bear. In addition, they eat other odd items, such as young evergreen shoots, crayfish, road kill, meat or fish from human storage sites, hunter-killed game animals (these sometimes snatched in front of the hunter), and occasional garbage. They take an occasional livestock animal, but not with sufficient frequency as to produce organized persecution.

They appear to kill large prey animals by a blow with the fist, rock or stick or by twisting their necks, sometimes to the point of decapitation. Liver and other internal organs are their first targets. The remaining meat is sometimes stored on the ground under a haphazard shelter of sticks or lifted into tree forks above ground. No compelling evidence exists that they store food in any substantial way beyond this; only rarely has a sasquatch been observed carrying a fish some distance from its origin, or a deer, presumably into hiding.

Caloric requirements per gram of living matter decrease as a function of total mass of the animal. Nonetheless, the nutritional needs of an average sasquatch can be calculated to amount to about 5,000 calories per day. This amount can only be fulfilled by rather constant searching for food and especially by intermittent predation. Sasquatches have been seen both with substantial girth as well as looking decidedly skinny.” (Fahrenbach, 2002)

Last revised 10 August 2004

Are there Bigfoot "homes/houses?" (top)

“Some beds attributed to sasquatches clearly entailed a certain amount of construction and may be more properly described as nests. It is sometimes suggested that sasquatches may den in hollow trees or caves , or use them for shelter.” (Bindernagel, 1998)

Last revised 10 August 2004

Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Jerry Reidel for assistance in compiling the original version of the FAQ published 10 August 2004.