--- title: "They Added One Dropdown Option. Reports Tripled In Nine Weeks." dek: "Eleven years of submissions, read against the form's own version history. A contractor added one menu item in March 2019 to match a neighbouring state. Free-text reports of the same animal, in the same counties, did not move." kind: analysis (Analysis) desk: Cryptids author: Sal Brindisi and Dev Rajagopal (fictional) published: 2026-08-18T09:00:00Z url: https://theyburied.com/article/the-flap-was-a-dropdown tags: Bigfoot, wildlife agencies, public records, reporting effort, Oregon genre: satire status: fiction — nothing in this story happened; every person, source and document is invented --- # They Added One Dropdown Option. Reports Tripled In Nine Weeks. *Eleven years of submissions, read against the form's own version history. A contractor added one menu item in March 2019 to match a neighbouring state. Free-text reports of the same animal, in the same counties, did not move.* The commit is four lines long. It was pushed at 15:42 on 14 March 2019 by a contractor closing a ticket, and it added one string to a list. Nine weeks later, monthly submissions reporting that animal had gone from a mean of fourteen to a mean of forty-seven. They stayed there for thirty-two months. In November 2021 the option was taken out during a site redesign, and the mean fell to sixteen. Free-text reports describing the same animal, in the same eleven counties, did not move in either direction. Not up in 2019. Not down in 2021. > **Figure:** Two ways of saying the same thing, over eleven years — see https://theyburied.com/article/the-flap-was-a-dropdown ## The ticket The ticket text is nineteen words: *Parity with WA form — add species options we're missing. See attached screenshot. Low priority.* It was raised by a programme assistant at the agency who had been sent a link to the neighbouring state's public reporting page and noticed the two lists were different. Devon Achterberg-Rios wrote the change. He works for the vendor that maintains the form, has never been to any of the eleven counties, and had to be told twice why we were calling. "I don't have an opinion about the animal," he said. "I had a ticket, and there were four options on it." The other three were *Rocky Mountain elk (unconfirmed)*, *melanistic bobcat*, and *feral swine*. > I don't have an opinion about the animal. I had a ticket, and there were four options on it. > > — Devon Achterberg-Rios ## What the menu did The agency released every submission the form has taken since it went live: 41,806 rows, in two tranches, under the state public records act. Before March 2019 there was no category for this animal. A person who wanted to report one had to choose *Other — not listed* and then type a description into a box. Fourteen a month took that trouble. After March 2019 they could choose it from a list, in one click, and say nothing else at all. Forty-seven a month did, and sixty-one per cent of those left the description box empty, because the menu had already said it for them. ## The thing that stayed still We coded the free-text field. Two coders, working blind to each other, marked every submission from 2015 to 2026 that described a large upright hair-covered animal, whatever category the submitter had picked. They agreed on 94 per cent of cases; the disagreements are published. That series has a mean of 8.6 reports a month before the change, 8.9 while the option existed, and 9.1 after it was removed. The animal did not arrive in 2019. It did not leave in 2021. A menu item did, and we can date both events to the minute. ## The two papers A 2022 paper treats the 2019–2021 window as a genuine temporal and spatial cluster. A 2023 paper in a regional wildlife journal reads a northward shift of 68 kilometres out of the same window. Neither set of authors was told the form had changed. Nobody withheld it. Nobody thought to mention it, because nobody at the agency thought of the form as an instrument — it was a web page, maintained under a support contract, by people who were not asked. The 68-kilometre shift is driven by two northern counties. In April 2019 the agency's outreach officer put a link to the reporting form in a county newsletter that goes to about 9,000 households in those two counties. That is a second instrument effect, from a second document nobody archived, and we found it by accident. Dr. Solveig Trevanion-Baptiste, who wrote the 2022 paper, has rerun it. Her reply is printed at the foot of this page, entire, at her insistence and at more than twice the length we offered her. It is the most useful thing on this page and it is not friendly to us. ## What a form is Her central objection is fair and this desk accepts it. There is no purer version of these data sitting behind the form. The form is how the reports exist. Calling its behaviour an artefact implies a clean signal underneath, and there isn't one. But the practical point stands, and it is small and dull and fixable. Eleven years of a public instrument changed at least fourteen times — we counted the commits — and not one of those versions was archived by the agency that owns it. The only reason this story exists is that the vendor happened to keep its repository public. The agency's public information officer confirmed, in writing, that no dated copy of any version of the form has ever been kept. There is a whole literature resting on a web page that nobody was watching, maintained by a man who closed the ticket, went home, and does not remember doing it. ## Sources (invented) - The agency's public wildlife-report system — full submission export, 2015–2026, Obtained under the state public records act — Requested January 2026; released in two tranches as 41,806 rows with the free-text field intact (2026) - The vendor's source repository for the form, Public version control, open since 2016 — Cloned; 1,190 commits read in date order; the relevant diff is four lines (February 2026) - Devon Achterberg-Rios, Contract developer; wrote the change — Interviewed by telephone twice; walked us through his own commit on a screen share (March 2026) - Dr. Solveig Trevanion-Baptiste, Quantitative ecologist; co-author of the 2022 paper — Sent the full analysis and the raw export eleven days before publication; replied at length in writing (April–May 2026) - The agency's public information officer, Answered written questions on the record — Written questions 3 March 2026; answered 24 March (March 2026) ## What we could not confirm - Whether any of the extra reports are of a real animal. A menu category records what a person picked from a list. It cannot record what they saw, and this desk has never once been able to close that gap. - How much of the November 2021 fall belongs to the dropdown alone. The same redesign moved the site to a new address and replaced the map picker. We can attribute the fall to the redesign; we cannot cleanly attribute it to one line of it. - Whether the 2023 range-shift paper survives. We asked its authors for their code. One replied that it is on a laptop that no longer starts; the other has not replied to three letters. ## Right of reply **Dr. Solveig Trevanion-Baptiste, quantitative ecologist** (Replied 3 May 2026. She asked that it be printed entire or not at all. Printed entire and unedited.): > Your finding is correct and your framing is wrong, and I am going to spend most of this on the second thing, because the first takes one line. > > Yes. The option was added in March 2019 and removed in November 2021, and no, nobody told me. I learned it from your reporter's e-mail. I have rerun the 2022 analysis with the instrument period as a covariate and I will publish the result whichever way it falls. As of this week the spatial term survives and the temporal term does not, which means half of what you think you have knocked down is still standing and the other half is genuinely gone. > > Now the framing. > > You have written this as though the instrument were contaminated and the science therefore void. Every observational dataset in my field is a record of what people found it easy to report. Nobody working in this area believes a sighting report is a sighting. We believe it is a report, and we spend our careers modelling the difference, and we call the difference reporting effort, and it is not a scandal, it is the job. > > What is genuinely new in your piece — and I want to be exact, because it is worth more than the rest of it — is the timestamp. I have argued about reporting effort for fifteen years with nothing to point at. You can point at a commit. You can say the words 'fifteen forty-two, the fourteenth of March, by a man closing a ticket'. Nobody has ever been able to put a minute on a change in reporting effort before. I will be citing that for the rest of my working life. > > But then you call the cluster an artefact. An artefact of what? Of a form. The form is how these data exist. There is no cleaner version of them sitting behind it, waiting. You are describing the only instrument there is and calling its behaviour an error. > > The correction is not to throw the cluster away. It is to archive the instrument. No agency in this country keeps a dated copy of its own public reporting page. I have written to two of them this month asking for exactly that. Both said they would look into it. Neither has a mechanism, a budget line, or a person whose job it is. > > One complaint, and then I am finished. You gave me eleven days and offered me five hundred words on a finding about my own paper. I have taken more than five hundred. You said you would print it entire. I am holding you to it. --- They Buried is a satirical newspaper. Every story, source, document and person in it is invented. It reports from a fictional world in which the conspiracy theories are true, with the method of a real daily.