WHY DO THE FEDS WANT BIGFOOT TO REMAIN UNDCOMENTED & MYTHICAL?

[georgerm]

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?

 

 

Edited September 16 by georgerm
more detail

[Backdoc]

The Fed's view of Bigfoot is a lot like my view of my neighbor's tree.  Until it falls on my roof, I don't consider it or think about it.

 

To the extent they might have concerns AFTER the fact I don't see one overriding government concern.

 

You mention various considerations which might come into play.  But they are not going to come into play until they need to come into play.

 

Look at what our government did on a known creature:  The Condor.   

 

At no time did all lumbar industry shut down because of the condor.  Obviously when they knew the condor numbers were going down, they took many actions.

The Bald Eagle was in trouble.  That known animal was on the endangered list.  Then, the government took many actions.  Today the bald eagle is pretty common thankfully.  At no time did they limit or stop fishing, tree cutting, and so on.  They did have big time fines and possible jail time for killing a bald eagle.  I am not saying they didn't have any restrictions.   But the whole world didn't stop.

 

 

We can see what the government would concern itself with and how it would base on some real-world examples.  I really doubt the government knows bigfoot is real.   Just like the condor, bald eagle or any other example I admit the government would take SOME action.  I just doubt the logging industry and others would suddenly come to an end.    Sure, a more dangerous animal might increase limitations of what the public could and couldn't do.  i have to think even with bears, people are able to still go into the woods.

 

 

 

[Bonehead74]

What if they know bigfoot are human? That would open a HUGE can of worms.

[TD-40]

Partly because of the major complications that would come with having to designate the species as Endangered, which would mean having to seal off large swaths of land for their protection. And when they realize all the areas they live in, then imagine the politics of it all.

 

And which federal agency would be in charge of ownership or managing the species? Look at what transpired after they found the carcass of 'Kennewick Man'. Even the Army Corps of Engineers got involved and wouldn't cooperate with the public, the state, or other federal agencies. It was a disaster. Now take that example and multiply it by 10,000 with a newly discovered and recognized primate all over North America.

 

Seriously though, read the story of what happened with 'Kennewick Man'. It's a good starter for all things federal dysfunction.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/kennewick-man-finally-freed-share-his-secrets-180952462/

 

I have changed my mind and no longer want the US federal government to recognize or manage the species. What an awful mess that would be. Just leave it alone.

Edited September 17 by TD-40

[georgerm]

On 9/16/2026 at 7:45 PM, TD-40 said:

Partly because of the major complications that would come with having to designate the species as Endangered, which would mean having to seal off large swaths of land for their protection. And when they realize all the areas they live in, then imagine the politics of it all.

 

And which federal agency would be in charge of ownership or managing the species? Look at what transpired after they found the carcass of 'Kennewick Man'. Even the Army Corps of Engineers got involved and wouldn't cooperate with the public, the state, or other federal agencies. It was a disaster. Now take that example and multiply it by 10,000 with a newly discovered and recognized primate all over North America.

 

Seriously though, read the story of what happened with 'Kennewick Man'. It's a good starter for all things federal dysfunction.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/kennewick-man-finally-freed-share-his-secrets-180952462/

 

I have changed my mind and no longer want the US federal government to recognize or manage the species. What an awful mess that would be. Just leave it alone.

The forest service should manage bigfoot, so logging, hunting and bigfoot are ruled by law and protected. It can be done with some determination. The Kennewick man was an archaeological problem and bigfoot is a biological and forest issue and the forest service has many wildlife biologist who can handle protection of a new species. They need to get off their rear ends and do it. 

[Huntster]

31 minutes ago, georgerm said:

The forest service should manage bigfoot, so logging, hunting and bigfoot are ruled by law and protected...........

 

I think they already do. My hunting regulations in Alaska specifically prohibit the hunting of any "animal" that is not specifically listed with an open season. Granted, that is a state regulation, but hunting on federal lands here sometimes include more restrictions, especially hunting methods and access restrictions. There are some reports of hunters shooting a Bigfoot, the are rare and tend to be in years long past.

[georgerm]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

I think they already do. My hunting regulations in Alaska specifically prohibit the hunting of any "animal" that is not specifically listed with an open season. Granted, that is a state regulation, but hunting on federal lands here sometimes include more restrictions, especially hunting methods and access restrictions. There are some reports of hunters shooting a Bigfoot, the are rare and tend to be in years long past.

Thanks for the reply Huntster and the Forest Service does not recognize bigfoot as being a living animal, and they call it mythical creature. It's probably against the law to shoot any animal that is not shown in any state or federal hunting regulations. Do you remember the Justin Smeja case where he supposedly shot and killed a bigfoot in California. Seems like he got in trouble with the law. Maybe someone on the forum can explain what happened. 

Edited Thursday at 08:40 PM by georgerm

[Huntster]

19 hours ago, georgerm said:

.........Do you remember the Justin Smeja case where he supposedly shot and killed a bigfoot in California. Seems like he got in trouble with the law. Maybe someone on the forum can explain what happened. 

 

Indeed, I do.

 

First of all, if my memory serves me correctly, the feds did not get involved at all, even though the incident occurred in a National Forest. The only official response was from California Fish and Wildlife.

Secondly, The official response came subtle and rather late in the game. The department waited until the online furor was well established and Smeja and his partner had posted quite a bit of "testimony". Finally, they showed up at his door. We can safely assume they had checked both men out against their records and knew if they did or did not have the proper licenses and permits to harvest a bear, and if they'd either had past brushes with the law. Then their investigation began like so many do these days with a visit and questions with primarily serve as a perjury trap. I'm also quite confident that after talking with the men, they paid a visit to the site.  

[georgerm]

On 10/1/2026 at 11:50 AM, Huntster said:

 

I think they already do. My hunting regulations in Alaska specifically prohibit the hunting of any "animal" that is not specifically listed with an open season. Granted, that is a state regulation, but hunting on federal lands here sometimes include more restrictions, especially hunting methods and access restrictions. There are some reports of hunters shooting a Bigfoot, the are rare and tend to be in years long past.

Nice to hear from you way up in Alaska. It's probably best to keep bigfoot restrictons that way but there is a downside to the law. If bigfoot shooting was open game for only one dead bigfoot then a dead bigfoot would help prove the species. Once one bigfoot is taken and the law can then change to have big fines for killing one. Somebody has to bring one in or proving its existence will take way too long. Alaska would be a good area to find one and bring it in for proof. Once it's proven it will be easier to protect. 

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, georgerm said:

.......... Once it's proven it will be easier to protect. 

 

That's what many believe, but I believe that laws to protect them are only necessary after they're proven to exist. As long as they remain a myth, they're safe from there vast majority of mankind. The occasional accidental shooting like this is always possible, even after discovery:

 

 https://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=9552

[georgerm]

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

That's what many believe, but I believe that laws to protect them are only necessary after they're proven to exist. As long as they remain a myth, they're safe from there vast majority of mankind. The occasional accidental shooting like this is always possible, even after discovery:

 

 https://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=9552

Yes, I agree that after they are proven to exist, they need strict laws protecting them from being shot. If their nesting area is discovered should these areas have limited access by hunters and loggers?  How many acres should have limited access? Thanks for finding that report from Canada and I have been looking for it.

[Huntster]

11 hours ago, georgerm said:

......... If their nesting area is discovered should these areas have limited access by hunters and loggers?  How many acres should have limited access?............

 

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.

[georgerm]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

 

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. 

 

 

Very well written reply and thanks. I hope my reply is not contrary to your beliefs. 

 

If federal government and mainly the Forest Service took an active role to discover Sasquatch and to protect its precise habitat then possibly bigfoot's lives could be more humane and our lives would be richer with forest filled with wildlife. The problem is to locate Sasquatch's nesting area as Albert Ostman accomplished by accident. We have grown into a huge and powerful country, and it seems humane to study and to make room for animals that get caught in the wheels of progress. We are smart enough to grow our economy and protect animal's habitats at the same time. The greatness of a country can be determined by how well it takes care of its people, and the welfare of animals yet manage logging, hunting and mining so nature's animals can live in managed numbers too. So how do we take care and protect bigfoot? We first need to use the evidence we already have to prove its existence then we need to hire a small army of biologist and Eagle Scouts to roam, camp in the woods, and secretly find bigfoot's nesting sites so we can keep tourist, hunters and loggers at a reasonable distance away from the nesting sites. It's a tall order to fill and possibly our effort may enable bigfoot to live a better life and may prevent the possible extinction of bigfoot.  

 

[Huntster]

51 minutes ago, georgerm said:

Very well written reply and thanks. I hope my reply is not contrary to your beliefs..........

 

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.

 

Quote

........If federal government and mainly the Forest Service took an active role to discover Sasquatch and to protect its precise habitat then possibly bigfoot's lives could be more humane and our lives would be richer with forest filled with wildlife..........

 

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?

 

Quote

........We have grown into a huge and powerful country, and it seems humane to study and to make room for animals that get caught in the wheels of progress.We are smart enough to grow our economy and protect animal's habitats at the same time. The greatness of a country can be determined by how well it takes care of its people, and the welfare of animals yet manage logging, hunting and mining so nature's animals can live in managed numbers too............

 

But haven't we already done all that?

 

Quote

......... So how do we take care and protect bigfoot? We first need to use the evidence we already have to prove its existence then we need to hire a small army of biologist and Eagle Scouts to roam, camp in the woods, and secretly find bigfoot's nesting sites so we can keep tourist, hunters and loggers at a reasonable distance away from the nesting sites.........

 

That seems a bit intrusive to me. Sasquatches appear to prefer solitude, and they appear quite capable of achieving it without our help.

 

Quote

..........our effort may enable bigfoot to live a better life and may prevent the possible extinction of bigfoot.  

 

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.