Forums

One of our own forum members!👏🏻    

For a concrete example, the area near Hobson's  Horn, a mountain in SW Oregon, burned in 2002.    Prior to that, part was still old growth forest.    I hunted it in 2014 and got a deer.   It had regrown to clumps of brush about chest height with gaps between.   There were many fire-hardened snags fallen into the brush.    It was easy to see the ground in the gaps and watch animals walk through them.   It's 2026 now.   I was back there in 2025.    The brush has not grown significantly taller since 2014.   The clear spaces have closed in some.       Another part of the same ridge which connects Hobson's Horn and Silver Peak "hosts" the Silver Peak trail.   This burned in 1987's "Silver Fire".   It has grown back a little more but from a distance it is still fairly bare with clumpy brush because there is not much water for most of the year and, being in designated federal wilderness, there is no reforestation activity at all.   I don't see any natural re-growth of pre-fire species .. douglas fir .. yet.    I wouldn't expect to see much improvement for the next 150-200 years.   USFS / contractors have done some replanting.    These are monoculture "super trees" meant to put on the most cellulose in the least amount of time to prepare for logging and they are not doing well because it is truly too dry for them.    They're stunted, some are dying because they are too weak from lack of water to out-run disease and pests.   I think something will come back, some portion of them, in maybe 100-125 years, if there is no fire forcing a restart, but they will not be the original trees with the original genetics.   Another location, across the main divide toward the Rogue, burned in .. I think it was 1970 or 1971.    It has grown back to alder (not the original species there) and heavy brush.    The alder is 30-50 feet high in places.   There are some cedar / spruce and a very tiny smattering of douglas fir returning but they are 20 feet tall or less.   It will be another 25 years, minimum, and more likely 50+, before they are tall enough to begin to choke out the alder and return to pre-burn forest conditions.    As long as there isn't another fire, it'll be roughly 100 years between the last fire there and a return to similar-ish conditions.   It doesn't mean those areas won't support wildlife.   As Norseman points out, that early/middle age forest supports animals .. in fact, it may provide more edibles per acre than mature forest.       Much of the old growth left where I grew up .. well, there are 2 kinds.    The increase in humidity has allowed some younger trees to reach proportions you'd expect only of pretty ancient forest.    Cores of those trees sometimes show growth rings approaching 1 inch across.    THen there are the truly old trees, mostly found in sheltered canyons which were surrounded by very dry ridges in older times, and some of those can run 400 - 500 years old or more.   If you think about it, even under the most ideal conditions .. no intervening "resets" from fire, etc .. if the original trees took 400-500 years to grow, then their replacements are also going to take 400-500 years to grow.

Grass comes back quick. With in a year.   Brush comes back 3-5 years.   Trees will take 5-10 years.   For hunting a hot area in the west is typically 2-3 years after a fire. Ungulates love all the new foilage.    But I own part of a burn that is still noticeable 50 years after the fire. Dead snags, shorter trees and lots of brush. It needs the brush sprayed and replanted.     

We do not have proof of bigfoot.   We have evidence for the existence of bigfoot.    The difference matters greatly.    The absolute and unavoidable "math" is this: we will not have PROOF of bigfoot until modern science accepts the existence of bigfoot.   These are exactly identical.      We have some pretty cool evidence.   Some is easy enough to dismiss even if it is incorrect to do so, some is pretty hard to rationally dismiss even if a scoftic would do so.   

What proof do we have of the existence of bigfoot other than the Patterson Gimlin film, foot prints, hair samples, or reports of bigfoots being seen around UFOs. There is a report from Canada that I will try and find of a bigfoot shot by a hunter outside of a small Canadian town in one of the middle providences. All of these reports play a role in nailing down the existence of bigfoot but a live bigfoot is needed or the sad proof of a bigfoot being shot and brought in by a hunter. There is another report of a live infant bigfoot named Jacko who was found along railroad tracks in Canada? Read a report about Jacko below.   “The Jacko hoax was a Canadian newspaper story about a gorilla supposedly caught near Yale, British Columbia in 1884. The story, titled "What is it?, A strange creature captured above Yale. A British Columbia Gorilla", appeared in the British Columbia newspaper the Daily Colonist on July 4, 1884. The original newspaper article describes "Jacko" as a gorilla and not a Sasquatch. However, the "Jacko" story has been used by Bigfoot advocates as evidence for the existence of Sasquatch.”   Why are we having so much trouble in proving the existence of bigfoot by producing a live specimen or a deceased bigfoot that was old and died or shot by a hunter? We have evidence of practically every animal living on planet Earth but not bigfoot? What's it going to take?