Responding to Jeremy Wells:
“Flatfoot and Tenderfoot are from slang.”
So is Bigfoot.

“fore feet is actually two words to pluralize the singular forefoot.”
I doubt that. What dictionary were you consulting? My Random House dictionary gives it as one word. Googling for “forefeet” yields 159,000 hits; “fore feet” and “fore-feet” yield only 72,100 hits. (In detail, “fore feet” = 72,100, but that includes 30% “fore-feet” (based on counting the first 50 items), so only 50,470 hits were of “fore feet” without the hyphen. So “fore foot” is used 17% of the time, “forefoot” 7% of the time, and “forefoot” (my preference) 76%.)

“it seems to trend for plants and animals is to use either “foot” as both plural and singular …”
I don’t think that the items that the dictionary failed to give plurals for can be considered to pluralize with “-foot.” For instance, I looked at the first 150 entries for “fanfoot –football –team” and found no entries that were plural. What words do you pluralize by using “-foot”?

“… or to pluralize creatures as ‘foots’. ‘Feet’ is more often used in informal or electoral usage (i.e. flatfeet/flatfoots, Blackfeet/Blackfoot) or when actually referencing the limbs (fore feet, clubfeet).”
Good observation. Furthermore, I’ve found that this tendency applies to the items I listed for which no plural was given in my dictionary. Besides Bigfoot (which is the point at issue and can’t be used as evidence), these were: fanfoot, cocksfoot, lobfoot, padfoot, and outfoot. (The latter is a verb and shouldn’t have been included, so I don’t discuss it further.) In order to get an idea of how these four were pluralized in practice, I Googled for versions ending in –foots vs. –feet. My findings were:

fanfoots—1, fanfeet—0 (out of only nine uses total)
lobfoot—no plural usages; however, for the variant spelling lobefoots there are many uses, but lobefeet is relatively rare
cocksfoots—is the preferred plural for cocksfoot.
padfoots—is twice as common as padfeet.

“From this list, I would say that, when/if the animal is identified, the proper name for a group of the creatures would be either ‘bigfoot’ (i.e. a family of bigfoot) …”
I disagree, as I noted in my response to your “trend” sentence above.

“… or the more awkward, but not without precedent, ‘bigfoots.’”
You’ve convinced me that Bigfoots is preferable to Bigfeet. This is the first rational case I’ve seen for the term. (And I was the one who handed you the ammo you needed!)

However, your phrase “if the animal is identified” contains a hidden assumption, namely that it IS an animal. What if, as Bayanov and some others believe, they’re more man than animal? Then they may want to have the last word in what they’re called. One of the leading manlike characteristics is contrariness. (If you haven’t observed this yet, you haven’t been a Bigfooter for long.) Therefore, the mere fact that WE have called them “Bigfoots” may make THEM prefer “Bigfeet.” That may be the final turn of the screw!

But I do find it an interesting question…

In your answer we can see the division between those who report on the field, and those engaged in researching cryptids, I guess.

That would mean a person studying the correlation between sightings reports and general population dynamics for a similar, known species, would be just as much a cryptozoologist as the person who treks out into the mountains to try and capture that evasive photograph!

(Did someone say ‘faith’ or ‘belief’?)

Perhaps a few people should lock heads and draft the world’s first cryptozoology course? It would essentially be a combination of applied biology (population dynamics, statistics, habitat/ecology, with specializations into specific fields such as aquatic, mountainous or forested environments) and forensics science (including DNA and video analyses and social studies – to be skilled in analysing eyewitness accounts).

You could even mix in a good dose of outdoor skills such as wilderness navigation and first aid, and low-impact bushwalking.

Why stop there? Project planning, scheduling, budgeting and fund raising are all viable subjects!

Oh dear. Ok. Now I’m getting too big for my boots. Or beet.

If you write a blog, as I do, you have to write tons of summary statements to encapsulate what you are trying to convey in your posting. I was attempting a fun play-on-words and play-on-attitude with my “inside and outside, the field” phrasology. I was both joking about the kinds of “fieldwork” of cryptozoology, and the insiders-outsiders in the media who try to report on cryptozoology, our “field,” and how they use whatever words that they may wish to employ. Of course, there is a jargon of cryptozoology, and it has nothing to do with degrees, academic, or coursework. I was merely playing with this wordsmith, as a metaphor of what seemed to be happening in this discussion of which words to use. Perhaps the delivery was too subtle. Perhaps you don’t know I do this all the time?

In other words, we’ll probably be able to decide what to call it (the species) or them (the individuals) or them (the various species) on a case by case basis during identification. When I think back to my years of plant taxonomy, I still chuckle at how many times the most common of weeds was named differently with the Latin binomial system. And when it comes to common names, we’d throw up our hands. Ironweed was a Eupatorium on one side of the mountain but it was assigned to an Asclepias on the other side of the hill. And how many different plants are called indigos? When it comes to animals, it may not be as widespread, but c’mon, science cannot, try as they might, limit the imagination, tradition, and downright stubbornness of humans. When my grandfather called a skunk a polecat, I knew a polecat when I smelled one.

Goody, goody, I’ve been waiting to ask the question:

“What constitutes being ‘inside’ the field as opposed to ‘outside’?” I mean, I haven’t seen a “Bachelor of Science (Cryptozoology)” anywhere!

3 total–Plural is “feet”: Blackfeet, forefeet, clubfeet.

4 total–Plural is “foots”: finfoots, coltsfoots, goosefoots, spadefoots.

6 total–Plural not indicated in dictionary: Bigfoot (capitalized in the dictionary FWIW), fanfoot, cocksfoot, lobfoot, outfoot, padfoot.”

So thanks for all the “foot” words
But, on these “foot/feet” words, let’s just do some more break-down.

Flatfoot and Tenderfoot are from slang.

Crowfoot, when referring to a type of plant, is pluarlized “foots” but when referring to a medeival weapon or a nautical term for stitching awning, is called crowfeet.

With the three pluralized “feet” fore feet is actually two words to pluralize the singular forefoot (front foot of a quadruped), clubfeet is the plural of clubfoot, a congenital disorder, and Blackfeet, well that one has already been dealt with ad nauseum.

The “foots” pluaralization for plants continues with coltsfoot, and goosefoot and expands to animals with finfoot and spadefoot (a bird and a toad respectively)

By this standard, the plural of Bigfoot would be “Bigfoots” which, as noted, just feels awkward.

So let us look at the non-specified, where the plural and singular form can, apparently, be the same or have an s added or what have you (hey, there is no rule). Here, in addition to “Bigfoot”, we see you list fanfoot, both a type of gecko and a genus of moth, cocksfoot, a plant, lobfoot I could not find, but LOBEfoot, which I did find, is a bird with lobate toes, outfoot, which means to outrun or outwalk (go faster than), and finally padfoot, which I could not find in my dictionary, but as any 12 year old can tell you, is a nickname for Sirius Black in the Harry Potter books, used in reference to his padded wolf feet.

So, looking at this, it seems to trend for plants and animals is to use either “foot” as both plural and singular, or to pluralize creatures as “foots”. “Feet” is more often used in informal or electoral usage (i.e. flatfeet/flatfoots, Blackfeet/Blackfoot) or when actually referencing the limbs (fore feet, clubfeet).
From this list, I would say that, when/if the animal is identified, the proper name for a group of the creatures would be either “bigfoot” (i.e. a family of bigfoot) or the more awkward, but not without precedent, “bigfoots”.
Therefore it would be proper to say “All bigfoot have big feet.” Or to follow the finfoot/spadefoot model and say “All bigfoots have big feet.”
But it is not acceptable in standard North American usage to say “All bigfeet have big feet.”

Bigfoot is just as specific to NApes, but it just doesn’t sound like a good name. Too silly

That’s just my taste. I’ve been reading cryptozoological material & Forteana since I was about 7 or 8, so I must have picked this usage up from the generality. The Bords are great, I have a few of their books, but no one is going by a British researcher as an expert on Mr Napes, most people would look to researchers like Loren who have been ‘on site’ more often, to define accurate terms.

I will make this bet, I will live to see the day when anthropologists consult with Mr. Coleman to determine the correct scientific name for the North American Bipedal Ape.