Reframing the Bear Misidentification Debate

American Black Bear (Ursus americanus) Photo Credit - Mykola Swarnyk via Wikimedia Commons.

            For those of us who believe in the existence of Bigfoot, skepticism is nothing new. Various explanations have been floated—ranging from hoaxes to misidentified wildlife—but what about the growing body of evidence suggesting that Bigfoot really is out there?

             In A Critical Examination of the Bear Misidentification Claim made by Floe Foxon, I delve into the argument set forth by Floe Foxon’s 2024 paper, Bigfoot: If It’s There, Could It Be a Bear?, which proposes that most sightings are simply black bear misidentifications.

           While there’s no question bears can be confused for other creatures under poor conditions, and may account for some misidentifications, my analysis highlights where Foxon’s approach falls short and why we need to take seriously the evidence that Bigfoot may indeed be a living, as-yet undocumented hominid.

How the Bear Theory Falls Short

1. Data Gaps:
   Foxon leans heavily on a single year of bear population estimates (2006). Such a narrow window ignores ever-shifting black bear demographics, habitat changes, and conservation efforts. Relying on outdated or incomplete data can create an inflated impression that bears perfectly align with Bigfoot sighting hotbeds.
2. Regional Mismatches:
   Some states with significant Bigfoot sightings—like Texas, Ohio, and Florida—don’t have extensive black bear populations. Florida’s “Skunk Ape” has been reported in marshy Everglade regions where bears are relatively rare. Ohio has a long history of robust Sasquatch encounters despite only modest bear presence.
3. Confirmation Bias:
   By focusing on bears as the primary culprit, Foxon effectively dismisses other explanations or evidence that simply doesn’t match the black bear profile. This narrow view can lead researchers to disregard legitimate sightings in “bear-poor” states or to downplay physical evidence—such as footprints with dermal ridges or eyewitness descriptions that don’t match typical bear behavior.

---

The Evidence for Bigfoot’s Existence

Open-minded researchers point to a range of data supporting the notion of a genuine, undiscovered hominid species in North America:

1. Footprints with Unique Morphology
   Footprint casts often show details like toes with evident flexion and dermal ridges that differ significantly from any known bear paw shape. These footprints frequently appear in remote, hard-to-access regions, making intentional hoaxes less likely.
2. Hair Samples and Possible DNA
   Over the years, hair samples have been tested by various labs. While some are inconclusive or match known animals, a few defy easy classification. Even though the science is ongoing and no definitive “Bigfoot DNA” has yet been isolated, these anomalies warrant further study rather than immediate dismissal.
3. Historical and Cultural Accounts (Anecdotal Evidence)
   Indigenous tribes throughout North America have long-standing traditions of large, hairy hominids inhabiting forested regions. The continuity of these stories—predating modern pop culture—supports the idea that Bigfoot could indeed be more than myth.
4. Witness Evidence and Recordings 
   Many witnesses describe upright, ape-like figures that move in ways atypical for a bear. Alleged audio recordings  capture vocalizations that some experts have difficulty attributing to known wildlife. While witness evidence isn’t necessarily conclusive on its own, the sheer volume of consistent eyewitness reports, with consistent primate behavioral descriptions, across different regions and eras adds weight.
5. Ecological Plausibility
   Some primatologists and anthropologists argue that a relic hominid could exist in the vast, densely forested areas of the Pacific Northwest and other remote regions. The fact that it hasn’t been fully documented does not, in itself, disprove its existence—large, elusive species have evaded definitive classification before (consider the Okapi, once deemed mythical until it was scientifically recognized).

Why Bear-Based Explanations Aren’t Enough

• Overlooking Inconvenient Sightings: Foxon’s bear hypothesis fails to accommodate large numbers of sightings in areas with low or non-existent black bear populations.
• Ignoring Other Large Mammals: There are other animals—like elk, moose, or even feral hogs—that might also complicate wildlife identifications, but none so easily explains the consistent humanoid shape and behavior that Bigfoot witnesses describe.
• Dismissing Compelling Clues: Physical evidence—from footprints to alleged DNA—cannot be explained by bears alone. Strict reliance on the bear theory can lead researchers to ignore or ridicule data that points to an unknown primate.

A More Holistic Research Path

Instead of attributing every sighting to bears, researchers should:

• Incorporate Multi-Year Data: Examine trends in bear populations over time, not just a single static snapshot.
• Account for Regional Variations: Properly investigate locations where bears are uncommon; examine if sightings are consistent with bear-like features or if they suggest a unique phenomenon.
• Engage in Rigorous Fieldwork: Collect and analyze footprints, audio, video, hair, and other trace evidence to see if it deviates from known species.
• Balance Skepticism with Open Inquiry: Avoid dismissing unusual findings prematurely. Skepticism is healthy, but it should not shut the door on genuinely unexplained phenomena.

Researchers have long argued that Bigfoot represents more than wishful thinking or misidentified wildlife. A Critical Examination of the Bear Misidentification Claim made by Floe Foxon underscores the importance of thorough, open-minded research. While black bears undoubtedly contribute to some mistaken sightings, the consistent sightings in low-bear regions, coupled with compelling physical and cultural evidence, indicate there’s more to the story than the “it’s all bears” narrative.

 In my latest paper, A Critical Examination of the Bear Misidentification Claim made by Floe Foxon, I take a closer look at the popular assumption that black bear sightings account for the majority of Bigfoot reports. Floe Foxon’s 2024 study attempted to present a compelling argument linking Sasquatch encounters with black bear populations, yet my research uncovers notable inconsistencies and outliers—especially in regions with few bears.

By spotlighting these discrepancies and calling for a broader, data-driven approach, I hope to add depth and nuance to the ongoing discussion about Bigfoot’s potential existence. 

As researchers, if we maintain a robust and unbiased scientific approach, we stand a chance at uncovering the truth behind one of the greatest mysteries of all time! ​

Your browser does not support viewing this document. Click here to download the document.