Leaderboard

No. I simply asked you a question, because yanno.......your the expert on the US Fish and Game. Is it illegal to harass Bigfoot? Is it illegal to bait Bigfoot with zagnut bars? (many many states have baiting laws) Is it illegal to enter their nesting sites? Is it illegal to use electronic callers to sound blast to them? (many states have restrictions on electronic callers) Your whole assertion is ridiculous. On any given episode of "Finding Bigfoot" a Fish and Game officer could probably write them about 20 tickets.........that is until he finds out that they are chasing fairies around in the woods. In which case he is going to get back into his rig.......giggle profusely, call it in to dispatch, and they can giggle some more together..............

I have a few problems with this scenario. If he was concerned with charges in the past, then why not now? If he had shot a human, there is no statute of limitations. If he is worried about finding a body, anyone who knows the location or was a witness would then be held as complicit and prosecuted also. I doubt that they would stay quiet rather than tell what they know. I have heard about the break in of his house, but who do we have to corroborate this story? I tried to find anything on line about it, and came up empty. If in fact his house was broken into, how do we know it wasn't an inside job for some reason. Maybe to do away with or "contaminate" the said evidence. There's just too much that doesn't add up at this point.

GK - I suspect, but my "proof" is obviously weak for now, that BF is a mountain "ape", WE are the plains "ape". Compare relative foot structures as specializations, as darwin's finches specialized, for different terrain to keep our two kinds from competing directly. MIB

Your flawed in your belief that elk were only a plains animal to begin with. but its a common misconception. certain sub species lived on the plains to be sure, but the now extinct eastern elk alwsys lived in the eastern woodland. and the roosevelt still lives in pacnw forests today. they were not forced their by white hunters, they always lived there

The bear number is presumably reasonably accurate at 733,000. You've then guessed 10,000 for sasquatch. All your maths is simply going round in a circle to come back to the ratio of 73:1 between these two numbers. As this is wholly dependent on a guess of 10,000, any value it has is solely dependent the accuracy of that guess. You have effectively said "I guess there are 73 times fewer sasquatch than bears, therefore there are 73 times as many bears as saquatch."

I"m on it!!!!!

I've been a serious amateur photographer since 1965, and have taken more photos in the last ten years since going digital than in the previous 38. I believe one of the problems, particularly with still photos on cell and many other dedicated cameras, even high end units, is the fact that there are no eye level viewfinders (EVF's). It is much more difficult to frame and focus on an LCD screen held at arms length than through a decent viewfinder, with the camera steadied against your face, especially on a moving subject. It is virtually impossible to find an entry level point and shoot with an EVF, and most of the new compact mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras have one available only as an expensive option, if at all. And many people that own cameras with an EVF still hold it at arms length. I guess it's a generational thing. Also, once you exceed the optical zoom range, the image gets pixellated very rapidly and I don't know of any cell camera with any optical zoom capability. I took the two elk photos with a 5 MP Canon S2IS equipped with a 12 power optical zoom, my first somewhat serious digital purchased in 2005. It was what used to be called a bridge camera with many of the functions of a DSLR, including a resemblance to one, but still possessing an image sensor about half the size of a postage stamp. I belly crawled into position wearing a digital camo coverall and boonie hat and had the camera draped with digital camo fabric. Both were taken in October, a year apart, after 6:00 PM with fading light, manual esposure, f4.5 and 1/60 sec. shutter speed, ISO 100 and maximum 12x zoom. Out of several dozen taken each day, these were among the best although most were sharp. But as Pat mentioned, some focused on a pine branch or clump of brush that were close with the background blurred. The third photo was taken with the same camera at a 2009 airshow in Helena, Montana, of the USAF Thunderbirds. Out of some 300 shots of jet aircraft flying that day, this is one of a handful that was really worth printing. Long story short, even if prepared and using good gear that you are familiar with, getting a sharp photo or video of an unexpected subject visible only for seconds takes a degree of luck. I would reference the PGF. Getting that money shot with a cell or inexpensive point and shoot, while in a state of near shock, is going to take a degree of luck verging on miraculous (hope that doesn't violate the policy prohibiting religious discussion).