Leaderboard

No one seems to appreciate the humor in my previous post and I think some think I was serious. Seriously, while GPS tracking may be technically possible it would have to be some sort of implant technology because I cannot see a BF tolerating a collar around its neck. They don't even like game cameras attached to trees and rip them down. Also a collar would have been reported by human witnesses by now. I am not aware of any such reports. Implant or placement of a collar means you have to sedate a BF to do it. No easy task. So the likelihood of more than just a few being sedated and implanted seems very unlikely to me. Tracking a large population seems nearly impossible because of how hard they are to locate in the first place. Certainly airborne surveillance with military grade FLIR would help make that happen but an adult BF is not going to be an easy subject to deal with. And implants or collars need new batteries now and then too. So you have to keep finding, sedating, and changing out the implants or collars to maintain a population of GPS tagged BF. If that kind of thing were being done, I think we would be seeing a significant amount of military activity tasked to do that. I am deep in BF country, and other than one experience with a strange helicopter operation, I have not seen anything going on like that. A military helicopter can be heard for miles. Ground ops are quieter but that involves vehicles for insertion and extraction, and a subject that is two or three times faster on foot than a human does not lend itself to ground locate, sedate, and tag operations. So even ground ops would be evident and seem out of place. And if a BF steps in front of a logging truck and is killed while wearing a GPS collar or implant, so much for government deniability. No body except the government GPS tags anything. For those reasons I do not think GPS tagging of more than a few could have been done.

The difference is that the "proponents" often do not assign exact definition to what they saw, they simply say it was something they had not encountered before and wasn't a bear, man, etc. The skeptics (many of them, at any rate) have 'figured it all out' by default, since they KNOW the animal does not exist. Their minds are closed. Those who have sighted it do not often explicitly say "yes, that was a relic hominid" or a Sasquatch or whatever...they just know they saw something unusual.

I've arrived at the conclusion that it isn't just the bigfoot proponents that "have it all figured out".

One day, whilst sitting in a duckblind with my son, we were discussing dudes that postured themselves as duckhunters yet they couldn't Identify birds (by species) on the wing, couldn't call ducks and were lousy at trying to shoot a duck. Kinda like a lot of so-called BF hunters. BTW, got Ignore List yet?

Well I think we all draw the line at a different point then calling them cultured and refined, Sykes conclusion of Zana was that she was a subspecies of human, and that she fit very well descriptions of the Almasty. His original search was to find a relic Neanderthal, but it led him to discover a novel human specie just the same, this a strain of an ancient west african, but no human today matches Zana's ancestry. The story of her strength, her ability to outrun horses, swim raging rivers, go naked in even the coldest time of year, preferring to be outside sleeping in a hole she dug, never once uttering or copying a known syllable, she was indeed a different breed, just as her son Quits skull fell outside the range of homo sapian. It is indeed a discovery that relic species of humans can exist, and that certainly is by all indications what we are talking about with Sasquatch here. That being said, we must treat the matter with an open mind, wild as they might be, they very well might be considered part human, though I feel that descriptions of the Almasty always pointed to a more modern relic than Sasquatch, and that Sasquatch descriptions seem to fall between human and ape, and sometime more one than the other. Which should give us all pause in thinking we know what we are talking about.

I don't expect it's in your plans then to go straight to a law enforcement agency with your ugh...."specimen" right? I mean, why have any contingency for losing it to some "higher authority" if there's zero chance that it's not an animal? So long as it's not proven to exist, there is no crime right? It's not about feelings Norse, I really wish you could get past the petty attacks on the no-kill mindset and start to understand the mechanism that keeps bigfoot unproven. It's not because people haven't ever shot at one or that they've never been hit by a vehicle. You can't have it both ways either, if they are where they are reported, there's more than enough of them to have fallen in our laps by now, so just because those who see them as human-like enough to not shoot, haven't brought you a specimen, it's definitely not on their hands that it's not proven today. It's either because they present too many problems in the process of aknowledgement listing and protecting them and their environment, or they are paranormal entities that shouldn't be dealt with as wildlife to start with.

Nor do I for anyone that pursues killing something w/o any working knowledge of their quarry. My experience (Louisiana Hunt) documents what can happen when ignorance meets egotistical greed. Thankfully, I was able to learn from this event and begin the process to realization that simply killing something when knowledge of what the target may or may not be is very limited or nonexistent, is flat wrong on multiple fronts. NAWAC's model has been used as a reference to buttress a position justifying the killing of one. IMO, given their reputation for publishing claims and getting belligerent when questioned as well as their own published "shooting incidents" makes using them as a foundation for one's belief system as an idol with definite clay feet.