My only issue is with your assertion that Washington State has the best potential sasquatch habitat.

The number of reports, I am convinced, is an artifact of two things: popular focus fed by media reports, and a generally bigfoot-friendly attitude fed by a large Native population and a non-native population reading the media reports. Not saying the reports aren’t genuine; just that people might have a greater tendency there to report what they see.

Meanwhile, sightings and other evidence across the continent – from TX to FL to VA to ME to OH and PA – equal the PNW evidence in quality and may actually owe themselves to better habitat, as John Bindernagel, a former PNW-only booster, realized when he visited the East and Midwest to check out reports. Richer vegetative forage; a superabundance of deer (and stray dogs and cats); and more agriculture (including more livestock, contrary to popular belief). There is no more inherent reason to mistrust these reports than any to come out of Washington.

I’d agree with you, of course, about a strong collaborative effort, no matter where it’s applied. The closest we are coming right now, and it’s close but no cigar, yet, is actually in OK, where the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy’s efforts haven’t generated proof yet, but have generated virtually 100% researcher sightings, much other evidence of the kind long compellingly associated with sasquatch, and confirmation for all researchers of behavior (wood-knocking) that all previously considered doubtful at best.

I know some of these folks personally. Alton Higgins, for one, is identifiable as an extremely serious scientist from a distance of approximately 500 yards.

They ain’t chasing unicorns.

And then there’s the matter of where the Sun’s science editor acquired this sole hair. What proof do we have it was even found in Russia? What proof does Emma Little have it was found at one of the Russian sites and not simply plucked off the floor of some zoo in Moscow? And given we’re told it’s left innumerable traces all over the show why only one hair?

And isn’t it a tweaky bit odd if the hair’d been a local bear’s this story as an explanation would’ve died before it had a chance to develop legs but because it’s an anomalous bear’s somehow that explains everything?

Normally creatures raised by circuses have a poor history of surviving in the wild so it’s remarkable this bear’s managed to survive for three years in a terrain populated by considerably larger native bears.

Luckily though because it’s a different colour and third smaller than local bears Russian hunters take one look and flee for their very lives.

“Rare”? You can tell this was written by some boob from the UK. Ursus americanus, the common black bear, is found in nearly every state in the union and throughout Canada. My home state of NH has an estimated population of @5,000 bears. The neighboring state of Maine has a population of @23,000.

although people are seeing something right?

I mean if they’re not used to seeing that type of bear, since its not native… then that could be a reason they dont know wtf they’re seeing…. possibly?

but to me, at the end of the day, the onus is on those who insist it is real to provide evidence that says undeniably that this thing is real.

we need to raise the level of what type of proof is accepted. Until that happens, most of the stuff we see is crappy at best.

I hold out some hope for a creature in Southeast Asia.