Bigfoot and Bears - Is Evidence Conflicting?

Many websites and discussion forums present information from their membership within their pages and posts that are by and large claimed as evidence of the presence of Bigfoot. Dissemination of information as taken by a membership as factual is a huge disservice to those looking for “factual” information concerning this topic and the evidence presented when in the most simple of terms is not evidence of Bigfoot but evidence of a common animal such as Black Bear.

Mainly, many are discouraged from challenging this “evidence” as presented and as such, is left as is, thus implying an acceptance that it is, in fact, “evidence” of Bigfoot activity.

It has been my experience that the large majority of evidence presented is “misidentification” of common animals within the area of such claims. As such, it appears that many presenting such claims of said evidence are not knowledgeable about the area’s in question, nor do they understand the common and not so common animals present, let alone the common and not so common behaviors of these “Known” animals. In all essence it appears that people that call themselves “Researchers”, do very little if any actual “Research”, and present findings from short jaunts into area’s with which they are somewhat familiar yet unfamiliar concerning the common animals found there and to further expound, do little if any investigation outside of the perimeter of the so called find(s) to determine what animals have been present in the area.

I have found personally that I am unable to stand by and see this occur without presenting to the best of my ability, evidence of one common animal to most of the United States; the “Black Bear”. When discussing the power and size of items presented as Bigfoot evidence, it is without a doubt, the most common heard dissertation, it wasn’t a bear. How does the presenter factually know that? How much background work has been done to ensure by no shadow of a doubt that the so called “Bigfoot” evidence submitted was not simply a common Black Bear.

Many have presented evidence of Tracks that by all definitions are simply ungulate or bovine slide marks, scuffs in the ground, double steps by other animals and bear, and really are simply rain/weather produced water run off collection areas. I live in a high black bear population area and in the last 20 years have found numerous (too many to count) bear scats and yet, in almost all scat finds there are generally NO bear tracks. Hundreds of bears, thousands of scats and a handful of Black Bear Tracks.

The substrate must be conducive to tracks. The Black Bear has large padded feet that distribute it’s weight and in all regards could be implied to another animal such as a “Bigfoot” in terms of soft padding of significant size, weight distribution and a simple lack of leaving tracks unless in specific types of substrates such as: dusty soft road surfaces, sand and mud. In the pictures below of Bear Tracks (taken by myself 2008), you can see if you care to look, that bear double step, bear leave hair on tree’s and they also leave sign of hair around their track impression, bear leave claw marks (not always as evident) and bears have ridges and scars evident in their tracks.