Forums

As Norseman states, Washington State's RZ zones are important programs which enhances the fish and wildlife industry along with outdoor activities such as hiking, photography, and fish production. The RZ zones are located where creeks pass through Washington State Forest and federal lands. We may have them in Oregon. The RZ zones sound like a good idea since trees are not cut and logged within 50' of a certain sized creek which keeps fish habitat healthy and nature's animals such as beavers, weasels, and bigfoots can travel the banks of the creeks without drawing unwanted recognition. This forest buffer area also prevents logs from being yarded or hauled up hills and across creeks to the landing where logs are loaded onto trucks. This practice destroys animal and plant habitats and makes hiking less enjoyable. When tree cover is maintained along creeks, the sunshine is blocked so the water doesn't heat up, grow algae, and kill fish such as bullheads, trout, and spawning steelhead or salmon. Hikers are attracted to forest trails with tree cover and along creeks where wildlife can be observed. It may cost more to log these areas where creek buffers are located yet many taxpayers are willing to pay more for lumber so hiking trails can follow forested creeks which enhances the hiking industry. The commercial salmon industry is also enhanced because salmon smolts survive better in shaded, cool water.  and they return to the ocean where they supply fish for the food industry. RZ zones enhance society's need for outdoor recreation, wildlife and lumber.

A few bigfoots in America are lucky since there is still plenty of undeveloped land such as many areas of Alaska and a few states below Canada. The bigfoots in these areas can avoid interacting with humans if they choose to do so and carry on their daily lives without seeing humans. The bigfoots in other states seem to depend on humans since there are reports of them taking cows, raiding chicken coops, or showing up at night on rural properties. Even though there is plenty of wilderness for them, some congregate on developed property which seems to attract some Sasquatches. Mavbe these Sasquatches have been pushed out of the wilderness by dominant Sasquatch families, and they depend on rural folks for their food and shelter. We just don't have the answers to these questions since we haven't allocated funds to do quality unintrusive studies of bigfoots. Maybe we should develop better ways to determine how we can help sustain bigfoot populations if needed. Many of us cringe when we see animal species going extinct and feel guilty for not doing more to protect a species. We just haven't developed adequate methods to study bigfoot populations so we can determine if their populations are stable or do we need special methods to ensure bigfoots can raise families and keep stable populations?     The picture below shows me in my drift boat exploring bigfoot's habitat on the Rogue River of Oregon.    

I think you guys would have RZ areas in logging operations down there.   https://www.wfpa.org/aquatic-habitat/riparian-buffer-zones/

Sasquatches probably looked at native Americans more favorably since they had a low impact on their environment and the creatures were probably not afraid once they became used to living around the native Americans. This cohesiveness probably varied from tribe to tribe and more hostile tribes may have been averse to enjoying the company of bigfoots. The same applies in reverse with family groups of bigfoots who did not trust humans so it's difficult to know the relationship between the two groups. The relationship between modern humans and bigfoots today is probably far worse than when native Americans were dominate. Modern humans today have built the Forest Service that doesn't even recognize bigfoot probably due to admitting there is a bigfoot would amount to territory protection and vast reductions in logging if environmental groups demand extreme Sasquatch land protection.

My beliefs, like everybody else's,  are subject to change as evidence and theories sway them. No worries about differences! I don't take offense.     Well, frankly, it seems to me that the lives of sasquatches are more humane the less they interact with us. My Dad actually got me started on this consideration when I was still a teen by advocating that they should be left alone. Indeed, the same is true of Homo sapiens tribes and ethnicities living in remote areas who don't want to have anything to do with the rest of us. As an Alaskan, living in a huge state with a tiny population, I understand the desire to live apart from the world of man as much as possible and comfortable. That's why I'm here.   And if folks who rarely to never visit wild areas accept sasquatches as only mythical, but still enjoy movies like Harry and the Hendersons as comedy and Jack Link commercials as entertaining, aren't their lives enriched regarding wilderness wildlife?     But haven't we already done all that?     That seems a bit intrusive to me. Sasquatches appear to prefer solitude, and they appear quite capable of achieving it without our help.     This is a very valid concern. Government secrecy about sasquatchery lends little to no confidence that the species is not going extinct. I guess I'm willing to trust them rather than open it up to all of humanity, which looks to me to be the kiss of death for the species.