Things-in-the-woods: you’re right. But I guess I can see why this sort of inquiry isn’t going on. People are hoping somebody ELSE comes up with the evidence. Archeology is tough enough as is; usually there’s some idea of what you’ll find (and that you’ll find it) when you start looking. Don’t know why the evidence isn’t at that tipping point yet, although I have my guesses. But it doesn’t appear to be.

richard_from_idaho: You need to bring some friends out there! Idaho is one of the most sparsely populated states. That’s gonna cut into your sightings right there. Not like the habitat doesn’t exist. But not like the animal is gonna come to the fringes of that habitat where people can see it too often, either.

I admit a clear bias: I want the animal to exist. But the proof has to be there to convince me. Real people with no fame lust or axes to grind seeing this animal and looking for it give me the hope (bias) that the evidence (science) points to something real.

I mean I have this tendency to go on about Krantz, Bindernagel, Meldrum, Swindler, Goodall, Schaller…and not Kathy. (OK, gimme a little break; it’s a long list to reiterate…:-D)

This is a shining example of one of the true scientists that’s working on this. Part-time. In fact, the number of real scientists “dabbling” in the sasquatch probably ought to be included among the pieces of compelling evidence in favor! (Although I’m sure Kathy would disagree, being one of them.)

Thanks, Kathy. Strength to your arm!

(And her husband is yet more refutation of the common refrain, how come a hunter hasn’t shot one? Most hunters know better.)

As an archaeologist myself, I can’t help thinking we are neglecting one of our best possible sources of information and evidence- that is, really digging for bigfoot.

If, as many bigfoot stories and reports say, these creatures spend at least part of their time in caves, then archaeological excavation of caves would seem to be a sensible way to try and recover physical evidence. I seem to remember at least one report of someone coming across an ill bigfoot in a cave (anyone remember that and have a reference for it?).

It is well known in prehistoric contexts that the best sites for finding skeletal evidence (for instance of the Neanderthals) is in caves, precisely because the bodies are typically protected from the elements. If bigfoot exists there must be some skeletal evidence somewhere and our best bet would be in caves or rockshelters.

Having said all that, the fact that many such excavations of caves have been carried out in the context of native American archeology, and yet have not produced any bigfoot remains only adds fuel to the skeptics’ fires.