Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest Kane2002

What Is Killing Off The Sasquatch? Yoicks! Could It Be Us?

77 posts in this topic

Of course, I don’t know if our diseases are transferable to the BF. My own wife says no. But then, she is a non-believer.

If looking at the great ape populations is any indicator?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10979848

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We at WASRT have 3 very large research area's... We have been concentrating on research area 1 which has been very active in the last year... we have seen differing sized prints to indicate what one would call a breeding group... if you have a breeding group then you have stability and/or growth... This is coming off a 2 year light winter scenerio where the young and the old have a greater chance of survival without succumbing to the elements... Now we are having a harsher winter here in the PNW and studies will determine how the groups fared this winter in the late winter and early spring

I think your right, if you have a breeding group in your research area that's very good news. But unfortunately we cannot tell by one research area the overall health of the population in north America.

To answer the racist remark, I don't know what you speak of, I did not mention nor did I read any form of racism at all...

I was referring to this statement you made:

Or is this leading to White Man is horrible and is the scourge of the earth conversation

For the record......I don't think white men are horrible. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well for what it is worth, the disease issue is a multifactorial problem. Viruses mutate at exponential rates and new diseases evolve everyday with or without human help. As people and animals migrate new species will be exposed to diseases for which they have no immunity. It's not just bigfoot and the rest of the world's wildlife you have to worry about, we are equally as vulnerable to this, and always have been. That's why we have very good immune systems. Just like the children in Calcutta, bigfoot's immune systems are probably better than ours since they don't use antibacterial soaps and cleansers.

Viruses, like flu, jump species about every 16 years and there is nothing you can do about that. Microorganisms that have been locked in those ice floes for thousands of years are now free to circulate and mutate in our water sheds. Well ice floes have been melting and refreezing for eons to some degree and we aren't dead yet. No matter how you want to view it, we are a part of the ecology of this planet. No matter what we do, we will have an impact of some kind on the environment and creatures will either survive or die, including ourselves.

Rather than wasting time and money on trying to figure out if we are the problem the answer is obvious. To lessen our impact on the environment, for good or bad, the ultimate in going green is to make cheap, convenient, and affordable birth control available for the world. So every time you use a birth control method in the future, just think, your doing it to save bigfoot whether he needs it or not.:D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well. Canada's population of sasquatches doesn't seem to have suffered at all. Indeed I could probably take someone to look for sasquatch tracks and find one if I had a weekend and good weather. There are so many choices in this location to look. Canada has such a low population that we are still importing people just to have enough labour force. So I don't feel bad at all for having had 4 kids instead of the regulation 2.5 or whatever. Hey, its an improvement on my grandparents, they had 15 kids. Well actually 16, but one baby died. Since all of them have been good citizens, productive to Canadian society, never cost the country anything (4 uncles are millionaires in fact) and have been for the main part contractors and farmers helping to develop the West I think it was a very good thing that they were born. If you factor in the fact that my mom trained to be a nurse and went over to a 3rd world country to help people there for a decade in her life I think my grandma's contribution to the world's welfare was quite a positive one, all told.

If you look at the actual amount of land that is out there, especially here in Canada, we have loads of room for more people. Its a fallacy that the world is overpopulated. We just have to get smarter about how we use resources, and learn to replace what we use up. Personally I think the elimination of war would be a much more positive thing than all the good environmentalism has done for us. Perhaps we simply need to go back to the basics of the values of our forefathers, who hated to waste anything, and never used plastic, and burned or buried their own garbage. They had huge gardens, planted trees, and farmed. They kept a wide range of animals and plants and used time honoured manuring, smart farming practice, instead of huge agribuz monocultures dependent on fertilizers and pesticides. That kind of thing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the discussion about logging and even clear cutting forests amusing, as so far as the damage inflicted on nature, and the critters that live in it.

One of the main problems of the human perspective is that we see and form opinions based on the short term, considering at best our lives will last 80-100 years....

The area where I grew up, and live today, is a small town in upstate NY, that is called "Deposit".... why? Because, for about 150 years, it was the log-deposit as the area was at the exact spot where the east and west branches of the Delaware river meet, so the logs were stored, then floated down the Delaware to areas of civilization.

I have seen many old photographs and accounts that are FACT... that the area I live in was clear cut, from the bottoms of the mountains to the tops, millions of acres... and yet today these areas are heavily forested- much more so than they were 150-200 years ago.

About 12 or 13 years ago, a Tornado (yes a tornado in NY) tore through our area up and down over mountains- completely flattening and twisting all of the timber that was in its path. At the time it happened- it was unbelievable and awe inspiring sight- to see an entire side of a mountain with a swath several hundred yards wide of every tree blown over, or twisted off at about 15 feet from the ground. Alas, today- just 12 or 13 years later, you can barely see (looks like an old scar) where the tornado went through, because there are so many saplings and young trees coming up to replace those that fell.

The property my grandparents owned- a 135 acre old farm that used to be a combination woods and several very large fields that my grandfather used to brush-hog every summer to keep nature at bay... Fifteen years later (since he passed away and thus stopped brush-hogging), those fields are gone! Swallowed up by nature and re-claimed as young forest. There are saplings and young maples (maple is the predominant hardwood in my area) growing through-out what used to be a field you could mow with a flail mower or brush-hog.

This is not an argument for logging- it's a suggestion that many people underestimate Nature's resilience and ability to bounce back (on a massive scale).

How does this fit into the sasquatch discussion- I believe them to be somewhat nomadic. I believe they will move from place to place- to either follow the food source if the area they're in doesnt support a healthy population of their "critter-du-jour", or they will move on when confronted with danger, or a perceived "negative" in their neighborhood.

If theres land that's being cleared for logging, or being cleared and having new homes constructed on it- I believe the "big-guys" (and gals) will just move on.

When you start to look at and consider the millions upon millions of acres of wilderness that border areas where logging or human habitation are occuring- it doesnt strike me that we would be having much of an impact on their existence. There's lots of room for them to move about, and steer clear of humans.

I personally do not think that humans are having much of an impact on Sasquatch's ability to exist. I also do not think we're having nearly as much of an impact on Nature (our World) as we think... That's not too say we should throw caution to the wind and just embrace the "drill baby drill" mentality- far from it in fact, but I agree that many of the loudest voices in the environmental crowd's have their own agenda, and its not always the touchy feely, make you feel warm all over stuff they'd like for you to believe.

Ok... that's my two cents anyway...

Art

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not an argument for logging- it's a suggestion that many people underestimate Nature's resilience and ability to bounce back (on a massive scale).

I agree with that, but I would also like to point out that human's could wreck their own habitat to the point of extinction. And mother nature will scrap us off the bottom of her shoe and move on with things. It's just unfortunate that we could be dragging many species along with us.

But in the big BIG picture, mass extinction provides new opportunity for other species, such as mammals like ourselves after the KT extinction. Who knows what species could be digging up our bones 50 million years from now.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Art, well stated.

I am bowing out of this conversation..I am sure nothing I can say will change anyone's mind and I won't be changing mine unless my own research merits change. We can go back and forth, but to be totally honest, that just irritates the living crap out me until I say something that will get me banned.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Somebody mentioned Black bear, yes Black bear are doing very well coping with global warming and human expansion. But on the flip side of the coin Polar bears are endangered.

Polar bear numbers are just fine:

The polar bear is found in the Arctic Circle and adjacent land masses. Due to the absence of human development in its remote habitat, it retains more of its original range than any other extant carnivore.[23]......... In Nunavut, some Inuit have reported increases in bear sightings around human settlements in recent years, leading to a belief that populations are increasing. Scientists have responded by noting that hungry bears may be congregating around human settlements, leading to the illusion that populations are higher than they actually are.[27] The Polar Bear Specialist Group of the IUCN takes the position that "estimates of subpopulation size or sustainable harvest levels should not be made solely on the basis of traditional ecological knowledge without supporting scientific studies."[28]

Of the 19 recognized polar bear subpopulations, 8 are declining, 3 are stable, 1 is increasing, and 7 have insufficient data.[6][24]

Maybe we'll soon see the "science" get tested?

But the bottom line is without scientific recognition and study, we simply have no idea what the population is doing.

Gotta' agree with that.

Too bad "science" has no intention whatsoever to "recognize" or "study" the phenomenon.

We do not even have a understanding of what the species needs in order to survive.

Living in the PacNW all my life, the first thing that strikes me as a problem is that we have destroyed our fisheries.

Sorry to hear that.

The fisheries are great here:

The Alaskan salmon fishery was saved due to strict mitigation measures and the implementation of policies. Alaska's successful conservation of their salmon resources is reflected in recent healthy and abundant salmon runs. Currently, the harvest in Alaska represents about 80% of the total wild-caught North American harvest of salmon, harvests from Canada representing about 15%, and harvests from Pacific Northwest states representing about 5%
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polar bear numbers are just fine:

Maybe we'll soon see the "science" get tested?

Gotta' agree with that.

Too bad "science" has no intention whatsoever to "recognize" or "study" the phenomenon.

We do not even have a understanding of what the species needs in order to survive.

Sorry to hear that.

The fisheries are great here:

Huntster did you read those articles you cited? I'll pm you if you want, but I won't discuss GW or polar bears any further in this thread out of respect of our mod's wishes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the camp the BF population is holding it's own and maybe increasing in certain states. Prey animals also have been increasing due to some degree by non-native introductions. Russian hogs being one example, non-migratory geese another and Asian Carp are still a big ? as far as BF preditation. There have always been climate fluxuations and localized climatic swings.

A fast reference is Mangiani's map of sightings. Another is to collect all sightings from about the 50's to 2011 and plot out population trends. Even factoring in a transient number of BF individuals,land developement, you'll see pockets of increased BF activity. Either they don't care they're visible or the suckers are breeding.

Due to the gradual increase in sightings numbers it may be inferred despite infant mortality, there do seem to be more of them.

Using the anology of deer collisions/ insurance statistics in factoring by local states in deer tags, increased sightings by locality of BF (factoring in land-use changes) should statistically support a reasonable assumption of increased BF population.

Looking at other apex predators in a region should trend you towards the same hypothisis. Actually that may be why the sightings increase in a area, as there are more bear, coyotes, wolves BF may be pushed around. Same goes for geographic areas experiencing flooding or drought.Bringing previously hidden BF into sight

just saying.....

BTW Polar Bears are adapting, Pizzley's

http://eyeonthearctic.rcinet.ca/ for whom ever is interested.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the fact that I think the species is on the increase in at least some of its range/distribution, I think there are things to consider

regarding population stability. Diseases are an interesting aspect that could weigh heavily potentially. This could also be a factor in habitat.. since some trees are incapable of handling certain diseases/parasites.. Its possible that some areas may suffer via the forests from anything that might range from a blight to gypsy moths. Unless its an incredible wide expansive amount of damage done, with their mobility, I doubt it would cause a drop in

population status.

Edited by treeknocker
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

didn't see the Mod request before I posted...sorry...

Edited by Mulder
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey chicken little... Is the sky really falling or are some just really over reacting to bad/tainted info.... Cmon folks man will never beat Mother Nature... Never no matter how hard we try.... Mother Nature can, will, and has cleaned this planet several times from what ever species was living on it at that time.... And will do it again in time, like death it is inevitable, no matter what we do...

Are we losing the killer Polar Bears or are we saving seal's... I can't remember there has been so many cause's, thank god man is here to help....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in a rural area in Snohomish County, WA. An area of 5 and 10 acre plots. I will accept the loss of habitat as a factor in the demise of Sasquatch. However I do not believe that the BF population is increasing. If so why are they so shy? Why don’t we see them on a regular basis? We don’t hunt, trap, eat or stuff them for our mantle. Why are they so afraid of us?

Think of this, in the parks and animal refuges deer will become very tame. In places they can become a nuisance. Like my wife’s rose garden. Black Bear here in WA are more readily seen then in recent years. Like the one who came in and wiped out my two colonies of honeybees. After 32 years a Bear came by and got my bees, ticked me off. The coyotes almost wiped out my small herd of sheep until I was forced to sell the sheep. So these three examples, deer, bear, and coyote all that have been hunted, trapped, eaten and killed on our roads; are becoming more noticed, and more prevalent than ever before. The question is, are they increasing in numbers? Or are they just becoming more hungry, less afraid of us?

Here is the deal as I see it; there are fewer hunters today than in years past. Ask your fish and game people. Most hunters are older; we don’t get around as much as before. The young guys/gals aren’t picking it up like the past. Almost no trapping permitted. Hunting with hounds is all but banned. We keep building and pushing into the last wild areas in the County and State. So the wildlife that live out there are discovering they don’t have to worry about us as much as they used to. The picking is easier around our homes. The lawns, birdfeeders, third and fourth growth timber provide more browse for deer and bear. Don’t let your cat out at night or a coyote will have an easy meal. Good coyote.

Since these animals who have been hunted regularly are losing their fear of us why haven’t the Sasquatch? Why don’t we see them on a regular basis? Have we ever done anything to hurt them? My wife says, “we don’t see them because there aren’t any.†I say, “we don’t see them because there are **** few.†The big question is why? They don’t have any predators. What is killing them off? They should have a normal growth and population increase.

Not meaning to be confrontational, but to those who think there are a lot of Sasquatch, prove it, show us ONE. Bring in some good footprints and photos. I am waiting. By the way, Please correct me if I am wrong on this but I have heard Skamania County, WA has a standing offer of $10,000, for a Sasquatch dead or alive.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skamania County Ordinance

Ordinance No. 69-01

Be it hereby ordained by the Board of County Commissioners of Skamania County:

Whereas, there is evidence to indicate the possible existence in Skamania County of a nocturnal primate mammal variously described as an ape-like creature or a sub-species of Homo Sapiens; and

Whereas, both legend and purported recent sightings and spoor support this possibility, and

Whereas, this creature is generally and commonly known as a "Sasquatch", "Yeti", "Bigfoot", or "Giant Hairy ape", and has resulted in an influx of scientific investigators as well as casual hunters, many armed with lethal weapons, and

Whereas, the absence of specific laws covering the taking of specimens encourages laxity in the use of firearms and other deadly devices and poses a clear and present threat to the safety and well-being of persons living or traveling within the boundaries of Skamania County as well as to the creatures themselves,

Therefore be it resolved that any premeditated, wilful and wanton slaying of such creature shall be deemed a felony punishable by a fine not to exceed Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) and/or imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed Five (5) years.

Be it further resolved that the situation existing constitutes an emergency and as such this ordinance is effective immediately.

ADOPTED this 1st day of April, 1969.

The above ordinance was partially repealed and amended in 1984 by Ordinance 1984-2:

The ordinance was amended to make the crime a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in the county jail and/or a $1000 fine.

The new ordinance also created a million-acre refuge within the County.

Board of Commissioners of Skamania County

I think you may be thinking of the $10,000.00 fine for harming a creature, it's not a reward for bringing one in. Looks like it was amended to a $1000.00 fine now though. I wonder why the fine was lowered? Anyway, I'd be more worried about the WA state Protection Act below. It doesn't matter what county you're in, if you're in WA state the Act below applies and it barks of a $100,000.00 fine, yikes. Chris B.

Undiscovered Species Protection Act

Whereas, there is evidence to indicate the possible existence of an undiscovered species a primate mammal variously described as Bigfoot, Sasquatch, an ape-like creature or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens; and

Whereas, reported recent and past sightings, research by anthropologist, Primatologist, biologist, forensic experts, cryptozooligst, independent organizations, private individuals and the famous chimpanzee researcher Jane Goodall support this possibility, and

Whereas, the absence of specific laws covering the slaying , taking, trapping or harassing of said specimens encourages laxity in the use of firearms and other deadly devices and poses a clear and present threat to the safety and well-being of persons living or traveling within the boundaries of the creatures habitat as well as to the creatures themselves,

Whereas ,For the safety of all , the carrying or dispersing of firearms requires a sense of responsibility to all surrounding individuals and animals . It is the shooters full responsibility to correctly identify the species before the taking of aim and or the killing of a species, therefore ignorance will not absolve the shooter of said charges.

Whereas , be it resolved that any premeditated, willful and wanton slaying harassing or any malicious activities upon such creature shall be deemed a felony punishable by a fine not to exceed One hundred Thousand Dollars ($100.0000) and/or imprisonment, not to exceed ten (10) years

Whereas in the event of the slaying or capture of said creature any and all (moneys) proceeds and revenues shall be donated to a state college for future studies and or the protection of said creatures. The rights and physical possession to the said creature shall also be immediately donated to a state college, for further studies.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0