The study showed that "the predicted distribution of Sasquatch appears similar to that which might be expected for other large mammals of western North America, including the American black bear, sightings of which are thought to be sometimes confused as Bigfoot encounters."

The researchers pointed out that although they attempted to study only those cases of Bigfoot sightings that would appear to be distinct from encounters with black bears, their distribution patterns are too similar to ignore.

"We selected records for which physical specimens were available, allowing us to reasonably assume that black bears were not misidentified, and for which site localities could be georeferenced to a named place at minimum," concluded the researchers. "Although it is possible that Sasquatch and U. americanus share such remarkably similar bioclimatic requirements, we nonetheless suspect that many Bigfoot sightings are, in fact, of black bears."

Ultimately, the team hoped to highlight the questionability of forming strong opinions regarding the behavior of an animal based on largely anecdotal data.

"The point of this paper has been to point out how very sensible-looking, well-performing ENMs can be constructed from questionable observation data," said the study.

The researchers were careful not to come out in favor of or against research of Bigfoot, but instead urge caution when attempting to recreate the habits of unknown animals.

"We stress that our aim here is not to disparage the value of literature records or public specimen databases, or to discourage the use of species distribution modelling, but rather to encourage careful scrutiny of specimen records prior to their use in ENMs."