Leaderboard

Well, I have two historical newspaper articles that were scheduled to come out later, but I just changed that to 1 minute after midnight. Apparently, once I set them for delayed publication, I can't change it back to "publish immediately." Be sure to check in first thing tomorrow (or later today for those in time zones further west) at https://bigfootforums.com/forum/203-more-historical-newspaper-archives/.

If I was young and loaded with money.................... that would be a great adventure. I would hire some zoologist, a camp buckaroo, a medic and go for the discovery in East Africa! I think an Australopithecus is running around in the jungle there!

So it looks like there were human living and killing Mastodons 130,000 years ago located in the California area which is astonishing.

The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management rule over federal forest lands with a primary goal of providing lumber for the nation's building industry and for sustaining a large work force. They have hired top wildlife biologist, yet bigfoot remains a mythical creature. They also know that if bigfoot becomes a scientifically proven primate species, large areas of present and future timber production will probably be shut down in the same manner as what happened with the Spotted Owl but at a much larger scale. Is there a reasonable solution for this potential problem or should there be no effort to prove bigfoot as a new species?

Sasquatch is an Ape and so are Homo Sapiens. And Apes are smart, very smart in the animal kingdom. Gorillas, Orangs and Chimps all can be taught and use sign language. They all exhibit some form of tool use. But as you say? Subtle differences in morphology and behavior lead to big differences over time. This species was so so close to us but didn’t make it. We out competed them. I think Sasquatch is still here because it didn’t choose to compete with us. It’s related to us but it’s a much more distant a cousin than say a Neanderthal. IMHO.

Maybe, maybe not. This seems rooted in ape camp thinking .. rooted in a notion that sasquatch acts on instinct rather than culture or intelligence. Think about what we think we know about physical differences that lead to behaviors that avoid conflict, things like diurnal vs nocturnal, gracile vs robust, near bald vs hairy, running under hot sun across open plains vs walking nights on frozen mountains and the relative foot adaptations for each, about the need for tools and fire vs lack of those needs. Maybe that isn't limited to biology, maybe it extends to deliberate behavior selections that minimize conflict. Mind you, I can't prove it does, but I don't think we can safely assume it does not. "Religion", be it formal or be it mere human assumption of uniqueness / specialness, may tell some folks this can't be true but that's all it is .. assumption. If there is a baby in this bathwater we need to keep it all, not make random guesses and throw out parts which might indeed have the baby in them.

I agree. It's like grizzly bears and wolves co-existing with large populations of humans. If we aren't willing to accept human and livestock losses, it won't be happening successfully.

I think it’s never ending cycles of overlap. If they yield to us the “good ground”? I don’t think their numbers could be high coexisting with us. This may not have always been the case. The Cerutti mastodon find is pre Homo Sapiens in my opinion. They may have had full reign of the new world until we showed up. What we see now is pockets of survivors from the Homo Sapiens apocalypse? Just a thought. And it didn’t just happen here. It happened to many species in our genus in Africa, Asia and Europe. Homo Sapiens are the last man standing.

Very possible. But also with how we treat each other? It may not make a lick of difference. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/world/americas/brazil-miners-amapa.html

That's why it's key to determine their genus after discovery. There is currently no other living species within the homo genus recognized as extant. But if one is discovered, presto!: another human species exists. Their legal status then gets negotiated and legally established worldwide by Science, the lawyers, the anthropologists, and the United Nations. *Hmmmmmm..........maybe it would be better for all if they remain mythical, huh?.......*

If it is classified as in the genus Homo, it would be *human*, so killing one would be *homicide*. But remember, more primitive bipedal apes (Australopithecus, Ardipithecus, Sahelanthropus, Oreopithecus, Danuvius, etc) lived at least several millions of years ago. The earliest homo species was 2.5 million years ago. It is definitely homicide, but not necessarily murder. Murder is defined as an illegal and intentional homicide. Self defense is a legal justification for homicide. But if a sasquatch decides to kill a man? It is almost certainly not possible to legally prosecute the sasquatch for murder if he is also a wild animal.

Does the forest service deal in delusions, myths, and magic, making bigfoot disappear in a cloud of smoke? After getting my bachelor's degree in park planning and Landscape Architecture from the U or Oregon, Bigfoot was never discussed. I worked in the main office of the Rogue River National Forest during 1974 and 1975 centered in Medford, Oregon. We never spoke about bigfoot even though it was filmed in 1967. Some of our workers who drove the back roads to manage timber sales probably saw bigfoot and it could have been a tabu subject. We had biologist in the main office, and they probably didn't see any bigfoots. I was born in Oregon and spent lots of time in the forest and never saw or spoke of bigfoot. We had suboffices all over about 30 to 60 miles out in the timbered lands. The Forest Service is divided into what they call Forest which are huge areas for logging and parks that are controlled from these locations. We were centered in Medford, Oregon and the next forest was about an hour's drive away in Grants Pass. It took me a year to design a major RV park and campground along the Applegate River then I got into helping design major logging clear cuts. I would drive the major highways of our forest in Oregon and mark large forested to be logged on the map. Again, didn't see a bigfoot. I marked large swaths of Forest Service timber for logging that tourist COULDN'T SEE from the highway. We called these UNSEEN AREAS. Can you see the big deception forming? The foresters would take this map and design clear cuts in these unseen areas that were not seen by tourist giving the illusion that the whole forest was timbered. This is the big delusion and keeping Oregon green was the motto. The big delusion now is bigfoot is a MYTH. Tourist could only see half of the mountains since the back side was out of view and clear cut down to the last tree. I was so disappointed and bumed out, that I quit after a few months of "seen area mapping." At that time, we never discussed bigfoot and the foresters never mentioned bigfoot. After 13 years went by, I finally saw a bigfoot and can't keep the critter off my mind. The forest service still calls it a myth and I don't know if they are still creating the delusion of "seen area mapping."

They have "official" position. From AI: Two joke entries on their official page have been pulled. See my screenshot and try them yourself. I can tell you as a former Army official that had I posted a joke on an official Army webpage, I would have been fried in deep fat. I'll pass on talking with the Forest Service. They're either clueless or intentionally redirecting interest.

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 believe these creatures are nomadic, and they utilize HUGE areas. This is part of why anti-discovery is desired by government. "Protecting" an entire region for a nomadic species would be traumatic to humanity. Many people already live in these areas. An example of such a species would be barren grounds caribou like the Nelchina or Fortymile caribou herds. These are huge areas, very few people live within these areas, and caribou are a hunted species, yet wildlife managers are still confronted with a myriad of challenges managing these herds. If we're talking about a non-game species that is at extremely low population density, it would be a huge, expensive, and intrusive management challenge. Better just to look the other way, and assist everybody else to look that way, too.......... One of the best examples of sasquatch "home" reports came from the Albert Ostman story. He claimed that the sasquatch family (his word) that held him hostage lived in a several acre area surrounded by steep cliffs and a single, narrow opening that had a spring or small brook and overhanging rock projections under which they built their sleeping nests for protection from rain. The species appears to reproduce like Homo sapiens, so that rearing their few young takes years, which is supported by their species low density and slow growing (or even declining) situation. Most public lands in North America already have significant access restrictions. It's not like the pre-automobile era when access by horseback allowed reaching even in near impossible corners of the wilderness. Motor vehicle access is limited to established roadways, and even then, government utilizes gates to restrict access for myriad reasons. Even access by foot or horseback requires permits. Access restrictions offer solitude for sasquatches.