Habituation As A Concept.

[indiefoot]

Just for the sake of this question, let's assume that Sasquatchs are closely related to Homo Sapien..... with genetically insignificant differences.

Hypothetically, what kind of rights as an indigenous people would that give them?

[Guest]

For example, if I told you all that I've been sleeping with sasquatches for the past decade.

Wow they are short on women in Alaska.

[Guest]

Just for the sake of this question, let's assume that Sasquatchs are closely related to Homo Sapien..... with genetically insignificant differences.

Hypothetically, what kind of rights as an indigenous people would that give them?

Morally, the same rights as other people. Legally, whatever rights the Courts said they were entitled to. This brings up the perfect motive for "The Government" to ignore the existence of them until it is completely unavoidable. The disruption to commerce and resource allocation would be huge if swaths of land were set aside for them.

And in my opinion, they might not agree with the policies enacted by the government. It has been my experience that governments world wide take a dim view of groups in their jurisdiction who do not recognise the authority of said government, and refuse to come under it's rule.

[Huntster]

Suppose you say that you have been hearing them, & occasionally seeing one, or parts of one for a few years, but lately you have only been hearing & not seeing them at all. You mention that they sometimes come up at night & toss a rock on the roof, whistle, or bump the house, but not often. You also stress over & over that you are not an habituator, you don't sleep or dine with them, & repeated (expensive) efforts to get proof have all failed, & you don't have the answers to all their questions.

Well, I guess I'd do what you're doing and state it.

Proof is demanded although you have already said that you have no proof.

Well, I'm not having such encounters, so I guess I'm not as frustrated as I could be. But let me give you an analogy to the situation you present:

While moose are very common around here, they're rarely in my yard.

But I'll get one or maybe even two every year.

I've learned when, too. And I've learned why, and that they're just moving through. So, if I was hearing sasquatches, and/or seeing other evidence as well, I'd be looking for patterns so that I could get better at "finding" them.

Finally, you show some of the small amount of evidence that you have painstakingly collected.

I encountered sasquatch trace evidence once in my entire life, and I didn't even have a camera, not to mention casting material. Nor would I. It took two or three days just to walk in to this place.

You don't show the best first, because you want to see what the reaction will be. You're probably glad you didn't because you & your evidence are met with contempt & ridicule by almost everybody that sees/hears it. The voices of the few who recognize it for what it is are drowned out by the others.

Screw those guys.

Then as soon as the uproar dies down a little, the demand for more begins. It is insinuated that you are probably lying, & you are repeatedly told how incompetent & selfish you are because you haven't met your obligation to science & everybody on BFF.

Would you feel like you owed it to anybody to fork over anything else you might have? If you would, you are a lot better person than I am, because I don't have the slightest desire to.

That is why, if I felt like you did, I wouldn't bring claims here without some kind of evidence. Somebody habituating with these creatures would have to let the whole thing out of the bag, or keep it completely secret. And even if they kept it secret for a while, eventually they either need to reveal what they know (with strong evidence, if not proof) in order for their experiences and learning to have value, or it dies with the co-habitator.

[Guest]

Hypothetically, what kind of rights as an indigenous people would that give them?

That is the single funniest thing I have EVER read on these forums.......

I think you got it right with "hypothetical rights"

[Sasfooty]

That is why, if I felt like you did, I wouldn't bring claims here without some kind of evidence.

Mentioning a piece of evidence is what started it all, & I showed quite a bit of other evidence...tracks in the snow, the avatar, numerous vocals, & another picture or two. So it wasn't without any evidence.

Somebody habituating with these creatures would have to let the whole thing out of the bag, or keep it completely secret. And even if they kept it secret for a while, eventually they either need to reveal what they know (with strong evidence, if not proof) in order for their experiences and learning to have value, or it dies with the co-habitator.

I guess this doesn't apply to me since I'm not "habituating".

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Indeed, just as eventually a carcass is required for the obvious need for a necropsy to learn about the creatures physiology.

What intrigues me most about what Fenris is referring to is whether or not cohabitation can occur on a long term or repeated basis without it becoming "leaked". More, even if cohabitation is successfully conducted in several places and/or for a long term, and it is done by somebody with enough scientific background/experience to successfully record "what these creatures do, eat, where they sleep, how they procreate (monogamy, polygamy, take pot luck, etc.), level of intelligence, language, culture, child raising practices, shelter building, coping with seasons, tool use, rate of aging, metabolism, ability to move around etc", what good does any of that do unless and until it is released to the appropriate people (and thus the public), thereby proving the existence of the creature?

For example, if I told you all that I've been sleeping with sasquatches for the past decade, and I have all the answers to your questions, but refuse to provide proof of their existence because I think that humanity will treat them poorly, who's going to believe me, and thus, what good does all that information do?

Hunster, that reminds me of an old Ky story:

Once upon a time they’s a man layin’ out, and he went to a cave. And he was layin’ out in there and the Yeahoh come and throwed a deer in to him — something would come every day and throw a deer into him, and leave out. On time that Yeahoh come and got down in there wuth him and not long after that she had a kid. Then one time he took a notion to leave her and he would go to leave and she wouldn’t let him go. She’d make him come back. A-finally he got out and he got on a ship going to cross the waters. And he got started and rode off and left her. And she stood there and hollered and screamed after him. And when she seen he’d got away from her and she couldn’t go, why she tore the baby in two and throwed one half in after him.

—Told by Nancy McDaniel of Big Leatherfoot Creek, Perry County, KY to folktale collector Leonard Roberts, who published it under the title “The Origin of Man†in South From Hell-fer-Sartin (1955).

I think it also speaks to what indiefoot said earlier about cohabitation, but in this case it was the real sence of the word. Chris B.

[Guest vilnoori]

Just for the sake of this question, let's assume that Sasquatchs are closely related to Homo Sapien..... with genetically insignificant differences.

Hypothetically, what kind of rights as an indigenous people would that give them?

Every right that you or I have. Born in America, or born in Canada, Canadian citizen/American citizen and all the rights. It would be murder to kill them.

[Branco]

In the 9th post, Jodie asked: "Can you define what you mean by habituation." When this was discussed in another thread, Saskeptic gave a good definition. But, each time habituation is discussed, there appears to be some confusion and discord because the term is often used to apply to other situations. I would like to ask that the members who are commenting on this thread read the report referenced in the link below, and tell me if it is, or is not, a "habituation" situation.

http://www.alabamabigfoot.com/bigfoot/reports/RFPreport62.html

[Guest vilnoori]

I suspect the answer lies in the poo myself......

LOL yes, if it is fresh enough! However I suppose there might be raw meat from other animals in the poo too, I think it could be a complicated thing to get a good DNA sample that way.

I think fresh blood would be awesome, hair samples are very good, too.

One good source of ancient DNA is molar teeth. The blood inside them is protected, they are hard and the DNA inside is preserved for a long time. How about sasquatch junior's teeth when he loses them? Teeth are also a good way to look at aging and isotope analysis can show what they ate, where they resided, things like that.

[Guest ajciani]

It seems we are working on two different issues concerning habituation here:

• Whether or not bigfoots reside in a particular area for a prolonged period.
  
• The reasons various people have for claiming consistent and prolonged sightings (and even interactions) with the animals in the same locality, but are short on proof.
  

For my own take, I will discuss the later, as it may or may not be evidence of the former.

There are three possible reasons for people to claim habituation.

1. The same bigfoots are frequenting the area, or even occupying the area.
   
2. Bigfoots (not necessarily the same ones) are occasionally in the area, seen once or twice every few years, and human imagination has filled in the gaps.
   
3. There are no bigfoots; it's a hoax or pure delusion.
   

A lack of evidence makes sense for Numbers 2 and 3. Obviously, if there are no bigfoots, there is no evidence. If the bigfoots are infrequent visitors, then the success of obtaining evidence includes the low probability that the animals are in the area.

It is Number 1 which causes the greatest concern for a lack of evidence. If there is a high probability that bigfoots are in a small area, then evidence should be readily obtained. When faced with a lack of evidence, it is very natural to conclude that you are in reality dealing with Numbers 2 or 3. This is where the interrogation and state of mind of the property owner is extremely important.

The owner claims to have evidence, but really does not.

This is the absolute worst situation you can find yourself in. The owner is presenting pictures, videos, sound recordings, artifacts or other things that they claim to be of or resulted from bigfoots, but they are all misses. You have to determine whether this evidence could have been poorly acquired material of a real bigfoot, or if the owner is seeing bigfoots in every shadow. This can also be the absolute worst situation to wade through. Chances are that the owner has already had some other "researcher" look at the evidence, and that "researcher" has created or reinforced the mistaken belief that their evidence is "good", or even of a bigfoot at all. The situation usually requires a great deal of tact. The owner will usually latch onto their 2 pixel bigfoot. To the owner, it is an important photograph validating the unbelievable things they have seen, but to the researcher, it is nothing more than 2 pixels. The worst part, is that the owner will often be fully aware that it is 2 pixels, but will continue to present it as evidence anyway.

The owner has no evidence, but has tried (or not) to get some.

We must realize that not everyone is going to have the same skill or equipment as ourselves. It is easy to talk about IR and thermal cameras, night vision equipment, and high-end game cameras when your research group has a good money pool, but this equipment is specialized and expensive. There is no reason that someone should make such an investment to satisfy our curiosity. Setting it up also requires a fair amount of skill, which the property owner is not necessarily going to have. Also, if some amount of ingenuity needs to be employed to hide cameras from the bigfoots, that complicates things further. If an owner wants to share their bigfoots, then they will contact a research group. Hopefully, they will contact a good group first, before some "researcher" tells them that their 2 pixels are a bigfoot.

[Guest]

In the 9th post, Jodie asked: "Can you define what you mean by habituation." When this was discussed in another thread, Saskeptic gave a good definition. But, each time habituation is discussed, there appears to be some confusion and discord because the term is often used to apply to other situations. I would like to ask that the members who are commenting on this thread read the report referenced in the link below, and tell me if it is, or is not, a "habituation" situation.

http://www.alabamabigfoot.com/bigfoot/reports/RFPreport62.html

Of course, the term habituation is misused frequently concerning bigfoot encounters.

Lets' just say for, argument's sake, the property owner really does have bigfoot on or crossing his property. I believe the situation in this report indicates that the bigfoot are trying to habituate the owners of the property.

The bigfoot were there first. The property owner moved onto the bigfoots property.

I believe that bigfoot stay and crisscross specific areas that they may consider "home", and they have to put up with humans "trespassing" on their area. The creatures have probably been there for many years/generations.

Basically, there is nothing the human property owner can do about it, short of leveling the entire wooded area around his property, thereby eliminating the bigfoots home turf, and causing the creatures to move on to another area.

So, the situation in my mind would be that it is some sort of habituation situation, however it is the bigfoot trying to habituate the humans.

[bipedalist]

In the 9th post, Jodie asked: "Can you define what you mean by habituation." When this was discussed in another thread, Saskeptic gave a good definition. But, each time habituation is discussed, there appears to be some confusion and discord because the term is often used to apply to other situations. I would like to ask that the members who are commenting on this thread read the report referenced in the link below, and tell me if it is, or is not, a "habituation" situation.

http://www.alabamabi...FPreport62.html

I would say this situation is a habituation only in that the owners were engaged in the habit of feeding wild animals (on outward appearance if there accounting is truthful). If they fully well suspected that they were feeding an unknown primate or hominid and continued to do so I would then think that BF habituation was occurring as I have understood it. To take it a step further, if they had been sound recording or setting up gamecams, hair traps and other such devices I would then feel they had taken the corner and were setting up for habituation. Once they began finding a couple human shaped footprints or bootprints the wheels must have been turning. I'm only surprised they were not awakened by animal cries and moans unless the animals were killed elsewhere and deposited at their door (which it sounds like they weren't even though somebody or something was obviously picking up dogs and moving them around if somebody found a dog in a sheep pen that had no access way). I would imagine they had to keep some form of windows open in that area in late May due to heat. They must have heard alot.

[Guest]

The situation in the Alabama report sounds like a human habituation. It is more like the bigfoot is "habituated" to having people in the area.A human may or may not be aware that Bigfoot is in the area. The Bigfoot either ignores the human's presence or avoids them completely in their designated territory but doesn't leave. They tolerate the human's presence.

A Bigfoot habituation is where the Bigfoot seeks the human's company by trying to draw attention to itself, gradually getting bolder. To me, Sasfooty's situation sounds like a human habituation that is a Bigfoot habituation in the development stages because they are looking in her windows and getting on the roof, trying to get her attention. It may not go any further than that, but it sounds like they are trying to make contact of some kind, or did in the past.

Mike's situation is also a Bigfoot habituation that started as a human habituation. He went into Enoch's territory, Mike pursued him and Enoch simply tolerated his presence at first, this subsequently progressed to a Bigfoot habituation as Enoch got interested in Mike. The relationship is on Enoch's terms now.

[Branco]

Of course, the term habituation is misused frequently concerning bigfoot encounters.

Lets' just say for, argument's sake, the property owner really does have bigfoot on or crossing his property. I believe the situation in this report indicates that the bigfoot are trying to habituate the owners of the property.

The bigfoot were there first. The property owner moved onto the bigfoots property.

I believe that bigfoot stay and crisscross specific areas that they may consider "home", and they have to put up with humans "trespassing" on their area. The creatures have probably been there for many years/generations.

Basically, there is nothing the human property owner can do about it, short of leveling the entire wooded area around his property, thereby eliminating the bigfoots home turf, and causing the creatures to move on to another area.

So, the situation in my mind would be that it is some sort of habituation situation, however it is the bigfoot trying to habituate the humans.

You are 100% percent, dead-on, right. Habituation is an ill-defined and often misused term.