The 2025 Bigfoot DNA Study: Results from a Decade of Sample Collection

In early September 2025, the consolidated results of a decade-long North American Bigfoot DNA collection effort were published in a peer-reviewed paper in the journal Royal Society Open Science. The study, the most comprehensive genetic investigation of putative Bigfoot/Sasquatch evidence since the 2014 Sykes survey, examined 273 samples submitted by field investigators, witnesses, and cooperating cryptozoological organizations from across the United States and Canada. The findings, as the authors acknowledged with what one reviewer called “characteristic restraint,” produced no DNA sequences attributable to an unknown primate species. The paper nonetheless represented a significant contribution to the ongoing effort to subject cryptozoological evidence to mainstream scientific methods, and its careful treatment of the submitted samples produced findings of interest to mammalian biology, indigenous oral history, and the scientific evaluation of cryptid reports.

Background and Methodology

The study had its origins in a 2014 effort by a consortium of researchers and field organizations to address what its principal investigator, Dr. Charlotte Lindqvist of the University at Buffalo and her collaborators, described as the persistent absence of rigorous genetic data in the broader Bigfoot literature. Earlier DNA studies, including the 2013 Ketchum paper and the 2014 Sykes survey, had each generated significant controversy — the Ketchum paper for its publication outside the mainstream peer-reviewed system and the conclusions it drew from data the broader genetics community regarded as inadequately presented, and the Sykes survey for its more cautious null findings, which had been criticized by some Bigfoot researchers as a foregone conclusion of the sampling methodology used.

The 2025 study sought to address the methodological criticisms of both prior efforts. Sample collection was conducted through partnerships with organizations including the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO), the North American Wood Ape Conservancy, and several regional research groups, with explicit protocols for chain of custody, contamination prevention, and metadata documentation. Submissions were accepted only when accompanied by detailed records of the circumstances of collection, photographic documentation of the sampling site, and contemporaneous witness statements where applicable. The samples spanned a wide geographic range, with the heaviest concentrations from the Pacific Northwest, the Appalachian region, and the Great Lakes states.

Analysis was conducted at the University at Buffalo and at the genomic laboratories of two collaborating institutions, using mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequencing protocols developed for forensic and conservation genetics. The protocols were specifically chosen for their ability to detect and identify samples even when degraded or contaminated, and the analytic pipeline included controls for the most common forms of cross-contamination that had complicated earlier studies.

The Findings

The paper’s central finding, presented in the abstract and elaborated through the body of the text, was that the 273 samples produced DNA sequences identifiable to thirty-six known mammalian species, including black bear, brown bear, deer, elk, coyote, raccoon, opossum, mountain goat, and various rodents and small carnivores. A meaningful number of samples also produced human DNA sequences, attributable to the witnesses, collectors, or laboratory personnel who had handled the samples in collection or processing — an outcome consistent with the routine challenges of biological sample collection in the field.

No samples produced sequences inconsistent with known species or attributable to an unidentified primate. The analytic pipeline included specific tests for primate sequences that did not match known great apes or other primates, and these tests returned negative across all samples. The authors noted, with appropriate methodological caution, that the absence of unknown primate DNA in the submitted samples did not constitute proof that no unknown primate exists in the surveyed regions, but did represent the most extensive and methodologically rigorous test of the hypothesis that had been conducted to date.

The paper did, however, contain findings of interest beyond the central null result. Several samples produced DNA sequences indicating the presence of black bears with unusual coat coloration patterns, including instances of leucism and substantial black-bear hybridization with other bear populations that the authors suggested might explain a meaningful subset of unusual ursid sightings reported in the broader Bigfoot literature. A small number of samples produced sequences consistent with feral or hybrid canid populations whose presence had not been previously documented in the relevant regions. The paper argued that these findings, while not addressing the central Bigfoot question, were of independent value to mammalian biology and conservation.

Reception in the Cryptozoological Community

The publication of the 2025 study produced a varied reception in the cryptozoological community. Among researchers who had long argued for the application of mainstream scientific methods to Bigfoot reports, the paper was welcomed as a meaningful contribution and as a model for future investigations. The willingness of major field organizations to participate in the sample collection, the publication of the results in a respected mainstream journal, and the methodological transparency of the analysis were all described as positive developments in the field.

Among researchers who hold to the existence of a North American great ape, the reception was more critical. Several argued that the study’s null findings reflected limitations of the sample collection methodology rather than the absence of the underlying creature, citing the difficulty of obtaining samples that have not been compromised by environmental exposure or animal disturbance, the small fraction of reported encounters that produce physical material, and the possibility that the sampling regions did not adequately cover the most active habitats. The paper’s authors acknowledged these concerns in the discussion section and called for continued sample collection under improved protocols.

Researchers from the Patterson-Gimlin tradition — those whose work draws primarily on the body of eyewitness accounts and physical evidence such as footprints — argued that the genetic question, while important, was only one of several lines of evidence that should be considered. The 2025 study, on this view, did not address the broader case for the existence of an unknown North American primate but only the specific question of whether the available DNA samples included sequences from such a creature.

A Methodological Inflection Point

Beyond its specific findings, the 2025 study marks a meaningful inflection point in the scientific evaluation of cryptozoological claims. The combination of mainstream institutional sponsorship, transparent methodology, peer-reviewed publication, and partnership with field organizations represents a model that, if replicated for other cryptids and other categories of anomalous evidence, could substantially raise the empirical standards of the broader field. The same model is currently being explored in connection with recent Pennsylvania Bigfoot reports and the Ohio flap of March 2026, and a follow-up sample-collection campaign is reportedly planned for the 2026 field season under similar protocols.

The 2025 paper does not close the question of Bigfoot’s existence; the authors are explicit that no single study could do so. What it does is establish a benchmark of methodological rigor that future investigations, whether they confirm or refute the underlying claim, will be expected to meet. In a field that has long been characterized by the gap between popular belief and scientific scrutiny, that benchmark is itself a development of considerable significance.

Sources

• Royal Society Open Science — Publishing venue for the 2025 paper
• Wikipedia: Bigfoot
• North American Wood Ape Conservancy — Partner organization for sample collection