Last updated on February 20th, 2021 at 10:36 am<\/p>
As anyone with more than a passing interest in the subject knows, of the many books addressing the sasquatch phenomenon, few have been written by Ph.D.\u2019s, much less Ph.D.\u2019s who accept the possibility of a species of great ape inhabiting North America. So it was with great anticipation that I looked forward to the release of one of those rare tomes, written in this case by wildlife biologist John Bindernagel, a man of unimpeachable character and exemplary qualifications.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Dr. John Bindernagel kindly sent me an advance copy of The Discovery of the Sasquatch: Reconciling Culture, History, and Science in the Discovery Process<\/i><\/a> in early October. The first thing I noticed was the back of the book where I read testimonials from Jane Goodall, Vernon Reynolds, and George Schaller, along with sasquatch research mainstays Jeff Meldrum and John Green. The names of some of the others cited elsewhere in the book for involvement as reviewers, contributors, etc., caught me off guard, knowing their preference for anonymity regarding an interest in sasquatch research. My guess is that this willingness to be identified with Discovery<\/i> reflects the admiration many have for the author.<\/p>\n The six-page forward, written by Leila Hadj-Chikh, was a pleasant surprise; I thought she did a commendable job. Notably, Hadj-Chikh candidly aligns herself with the small number of scientists who \u201cregard [the sasquatch] as a biological reality.\u201d I have to wonder what effect, if any, Bindernagel\u2019s book had on her decision to identify herself in this way\u2014if it helped her to see herself from a historical perspective as a player in the often-sluggish process of shifting paradigms. In any event, it seems clear from reading the Acknowledgements that Hadj-Chikh worked closely with Bindernagel and contributed, perhaps significantly, to the development of his ideas.<\/p>\n The book is laid out in six parts. Titles of the twenty-one chapters and comprehensive outlines of content, along with chapter summaries, are available online and need not be repeated here. I have intentionally avoided reading the chapter summaries so as not to influence my comments.<\/p>\n Part I, in two very brief chapters, summarizes the conventional perspectives long employed by historians and scientists from various fields regarding references to sasquatch-like creatures. The second chapter, one of my favorites, clearly and concisely describes the \u201cdiscovery\u201d quandary in a way every scientist should appreciate. While I would have preferred the inclusion at this point of some examples from the history of science pertaining to the difficulties produced by new discoveries\u2014Hadj-Chikh discusses one example in the Foreward, and other examples are touched on in later chapters\u2014I believe the decision not to do so was calculated, based on his intended readership, who we can presume are familiar with pertinent examples from their own fields of study.<\/p>\n As indicated by Dr. Bindernagel in prior correspondence, from the outset Discovery<\/i> sets a decidedly academic tone, written with the scientific community as the target audience, as opposed to something geared to the general public. His clear objective is to set forth and contrast the often-conflicting ideals and mores influencing the scientific community, specifically as regards the tension created between philosophical perspectives versus societal conventions upon the presentation of ideas that lie outside of accepted views. I think it is important to keep these distinctions in mind as one considers the book\u2019s content and the author\u2019s approach to the subject.<\/p>\n In Part II categories of evidence are presented. Bindernagel does not attempt a comprehensive review of every conceivable aspect of sasquatch lore, sightings, biology, etc. Rather, he puts forth specific classic arguments employed by scientists to dismiss the possible existence of a North American ape, and then marshals sets of particulars, examples of significant evidence, or even single examples, to counter the objections. Anyone marginally familiar with the wealth of sasquatch-related information available online and in numerous books on the subject will realize that Bindernagel could have been written volumes regarding categories of evidence, but that was not his purpose. This is not to suggest that Discovery<\/i> is merely a redirected rehash of currently available lore. I think it likely that interesting and delightful nuggets of new\u2014or at least unfamiliar\u2014evidence, compelling ideas and arguments, and little-known information await discovery by the reader, scientist and jaded sasquatch investigator alike.<\/p>\n There are, however, a few hitches as well.<\/p>\n In Chapter 5 of Part II, Bindernagel briefly delves into the evidentiary category of recent accounts. Surprisingly, this chapter was a disappointment to me. A handful of Canadian reports, deemed by Bindernagel to be credible and representing detailed extended observations, are presented, along with a description of Canadian journalist John Green\u2019s database. Unfortunately, the whole of North American sightings is displayed in a political map indicating, by means of shading, the general distribution of sightings (for Canada and the U.S.). It is dreadfully outdated and misleading.<\/p>\n The distribution of reports figure caption states that \u201c2002 data\u201d were used; presumably this means sighting reports were used from the years preceding and including 2002. Certainly more recent data are available from sources every bit as reliable as those compiled by John Green. Updating the data, which I hope to see in the next edition of the book, is a definite need. As it is, one would have to conclude that more sasquatch reports originate from, say, Oklahoma, where I live, than Texas, which is definitely not the case, or the figure could be interpreted as indicating that Ohio is comparable to British Columbia and the Pacific Coast states in terms of habitat quality or sasquatch distribution.<\/p>\n Ideally, I would also hope to see a more physiognomic approach to mapping sighting distributions in the next edition. This would better serve to illustrate the strong correlations that exist between sasquatch sightings and ecological factors. While Bindernagel does discuss such relationships, the use of a political map to indicate distribution produces the erroneous impression that sasquatch sightings are evenly distributed across Texas and Oklahoma, to use a familiar example, when in fact something like ninety percent of the sightings originate in the far eastern margins of those states where rainfall and forest cover is greatest (and human populations are low). See the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy\u2019s Report Explorer<\/a> for an excellent presentation of the non-random distribution of sasquatch sightings. Similar relationships exist for many other states.<\/p>\n In discussing the reports distribution map (Figure 5.5), Bindernagel makes an odd statement: \u201cWestern states and provinces are recognized as supporting large populations of certain large mammals, especially grizzly bears<\/i>, but also ungulates such as elk\u2026.\u201d [Emphasis mine] Perhaps this is a typographical error that can be corrected in the next edition. Certainly black bears are common and widespread, but the same cannot be said for grizzly bears, whose range is a tiny fraction of what it was a century ago, and whose disjunct population in the forty-eight conterminous states numbers in the hundreds.<\/p>\n In Chapter 6 the author discusses tracks and other physical evidence. I thought the track-related material was very good, but the remainder of the chapter contributed little of value, in my opinion, with regard to the objective of convincing skeptical or even open-minded scientists that evidence worthy of consideration exists or has been documented.<\/p>\n The tree twist evidence, for example, illustrated with six photos in Chapter 6, is weak at best, and may only serve to further encourage amateur investigators to focus on this supposed sign of activity. Curiously, the most compelling artifact that I know of indicating a sapling possibly twisted by a sasquatch was only described in the Notes section at the end of the book. I have seen this piece of evidence, which is in the possession of Henner Fahrenbach, and you can clearly see what appear to be compression marks or bruises\u2014for lack of a better term\u2014in the smooth bark where large hands appear to have grabbed the sapling above and below the twisted section. On a positive note, Bindernagel did not address the highly disputable issue of limb markers, teepees made from limbs or trees, etc.<\/p>\n