Modern Researchers Are Bypassing Traditional Academia

[Guest Sallaranda]

Yeah. Pisses me off. More, I just can't understand what they can possibly get out of such a foolish endeavor. Fifteen minutes of attention can't be worth the rest of your life being known as a cheat and...............well, I can't use the word anymore. The mods will spank me.

I'm interested in what word you have censored here. I can think of at least a dozen that I could use. Regardless, I'm with you on that one. They are becoming part of the problem, not part of the solution.

You may be right. I spend lots of time in the woods alone, but not in good coastal, montane, sasquatch habitat. But I do understand the unity one can achieve with Creation when alone out there for a while. And I suspect sasquatches may become less wary of a person who is out there alone and not acting in a threatening manner.

But, with that written, such a person is not likely to be one to then capture or kill the creature to satisfy the demands of the skeptics and denialists of the Earth, either, are they?

I hate to let my imagination and fantasies run too wild, but I've always pictured myself shaking hands with the beast and plucking a hair from it or something. Obviously it's not realistic, but I think it speaks to the idea that evidence can be summoned without killing or capturing the beast.

The line that I bolded from your quote is one that speaks very highly to my own beliefs. Humans are animals like any other. I think it's quite miraculous to watch animals of other species existing together, frolicking together, etc. However, as soon as a human is near all the animals disperse. Understandable, I suppose, since man by nature is a hunter. However, I think there is a unity with nature than can still be achieved on the individual level with enough patience and effort.

Edited February 18, 2011 by Sallaranda

[Huntster]

I hate to let my imagination and fantasies run too wild, but I've always pictured myself shaking hands with the beast and plucking a hair from it or something. Obviously it's not realistic, but I think it speaks to the idea that evidence can be summoned without killing or capturing the beast.

Having debated with skeptics and denialists on a few different forums for several years now, it has become painfully clear (and I do mean painfully) that hair, scat, photos, "dna", etc, will not solve this mystery. Indeed, I doubt science as an industry will ever get involved in a meaningful way unless and until a full carcass (not even a large skeleton will do) is delivered to their doorstep with pretty pink bows on it.

Sorry. Call me a skeptic.

And I suspect sasquatches may become less wary of a person who is out there alone and not acting in a threatening manner.

The line that I bolded from your quote is one that speaks very highly to my own beliefs. Humans are animals like any other. I think it's quite miraculous to watch animals of other species existing together, frolicking together, etc. However, as soon as a human is near all the animals disperse. Understandable, I suppose, since man by nature is a hunter. However, I think there is a unity with nature than can still be achieved on the individual level with enough patience and effort.

By far the best college class I ever took was at the University of Alaska Anchorage, and it was called "Approaching Wildlife", or something like that. It was offered through the School of Arts, Photography. I don't think it's offered anymore. The instructor (an old railroad friend of mine) has long since retired.

He taught how to approach animals (specifically ungulates........doing predators was just too dangerous for the university to allow) without spooking them. It is absolutely amazing how close one can get to Dall sheep, caribou, deer, etc just by behaving in certain ways; staying on hands and knees, not staring at the animals, slow, indirect approaches, long pauses, etc. We had groups of people within reach of grazing Dall sheep many times. I've used the techniques to approach so closely to individual wolves that I could almost reach out and pet them like dogs.

I had a handgun every time, too..........

[Guest Sallaranda]

Having debated with skeptics and denialists on a few different forums for several years now, it has become painfully clear (and I do mean painfully) that hair, scat, photos, "dna", etc, will not solve this mystery. Indeed, I doubt science as an industry will ever get involved in a meaningful way unless and until a full carcass (not even a large skeleton will do) is delivered to their doorstep with pretty pink bows on it.

Sorry. Call me a skeptic.

I'm skeptical too, but if I think you were to spend weeks out in the wilderness with a Sasquatch and take hours upon hours of film of it. Come back with hair samples, perhaps scat samples, and just do a full documentary of your experience it would be very persuasive. Perhaps I am still young and naive.

By far the best college class I ever took was at the University of Alaska Anchorage, and it was called "Approaching Wildlife", or something like that. It was offered through the School of Arts, Photography. I don't think it's offered anymore. The instructor (an old railroad friend of mine) has long since retired.

He taught how to approach animals (specifically ungulates........doing predators was just too dangerous for the university to allow) without spooking them. It is absolutely amazing how close one can get to Dall sheep, caribou, deer, etc just by behaving in certain ways; staying on hands and knees, not staring at the animals, slow, indirect approaches, long pauses, etc. We had groups of people within reach of grazing Dall sheep many times. I've used the techniques to approach so closely to individual wolves that I could almost reach out and pet them like dogs.

I had a handgun every time, too..........

Wow, I'd love to experience a course like that. Also, the same effect can be achieved simply by petting a timid dog, or by making an overly aggressive dog comfortable with you. I recall as a child having a friend who's dog was scared of men. Her brother had abused the dog quite badly for years, so the dog was always aggressive towards males. She implored me not to attempt to pet it because I would most certainly get bit. Within 15 minutes I had the dog lying down contently allowing me to stroke its head. Her and her whole family were simply in shock and awe when they saw it. Really anyone with patience, care, and consideration can practice this technique on any level with wild animals. It's something I'm very interested in, and something I plan on researching further at the University level. It's also something I imagine can be applied to searching for Bigfoot.

[Huntster]

I think you were to spend weeks out in the wilderness with a Sasquatch and take hours upon hours of film of it. Come back with hair samples, perhaps scat samples, and just do a full documentary of your experience it would be very persuasive. Perhaps I am still young and naive.

Spending weeks with a sasquatch or family of sasquatches would be a really tough experience. I'm sure I'm too old for such stuff now. I'm too used to a comfortable camp these days. In order to spend such time with an omnivore like a sasquatch, you'd have to move with them. You'd have to be really "light". In cool, rainy country. Hypothermia might be a problem.

The Ostman story is by far the best story of a person spending time with sasquatches, and I think that was just a few days. Too bad he didn't have a modern video camera. Even then, I can hear the skeptics and denialists condemn such a film. I really believe that denialism has no limits.

Wow, I'd love to experience a course like that. Also, the same effect can be achieved simply by petting a timid dog, or by making an overly aggressive dog comfortable with you. I recall as a child having a friend who's dog was scared of men. Her brother had abused the dog quite badly for years, so the dog was always aggressive towards males. She implored me not to attempt to pet it because I would most certainly get bit. Within 15 minutes I had the dog lying down contently allowing me to stroke its head. Her and her whole family were simply in shock and awe when they saw it.

My family adopted a dog who had been abused by a man. She was both afraid of and aggressive toward men. But it was mere days before she was very comfortable with both my son and I, and even my brother-in-law (remarkable, because most other animals hates him). She remained rather untrusting toward strange men for a few years, but now appears to have completely recovered from her trauma. She has turned out to be one of the most loving dogs we've ever had.

Really anyone with patience, care, and consideration can practice this technique on any level with wild animals. It's something I'm very interested in, and something I plan on researching further at the University level. It's also something I imagine can be applied to searching for Bigfoot.

I believe you're correct. Such behavior works with most creatures.

Even man.

[Guest]

For the record, my bet with Huntster involves me flying up to Alaska and treating him (and Mrs. Huntster, of course) to a prime rib dinner if and when we finally get the body of a bigfoot. I can't guarantee it would happen immediately upon discovery, but it would be a terrific opportunity to convince Mrs. Saskeptic that the time was nigh for our family to shell out some serious coin for a long-awaited Alaskan experience.

While it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Huntster had some actual crow waiting in his freezer for me, I assume most of it I would be figurative and I'd be prepared to clean my plate!

[Guest]

Of course not. It highly suggests that the 1978 report was accurate, and the attempt to deny the 1978 report suggests yet more official denial and buck passing that we have all become so accustomed to.

I don't think it is highly suggestive. Remember, hundreds of people have submitted photos of demonstrably non-cougars to their wildlife agencies, claiming up and down they are cougars in those photos. Now imagine all the people who think they saw one and don't have a photo. Some tiny fraction of people might actually have witnessed cougars while some enormous fraction only thought they did and were mistaken. There's no way to tell which fraction includes the hypothetical 1978 account.

[Drew]

You should make sure Huntster takes you Salmon fishing or something. And why Prime Rib, and not Moose or something?

[Guest fenris]

Police are inundated by false reports all the time, both mistaken as well as intentional hoaxes. They still investigate crime. Daily. If not each and every report, they certainly do most, and they're held to that by the public.

I fail to see why government biologists are not held to the same standard.

The very fact that the state was actually investigating such sightings is good to hear. Similar kudos to the Air Force for investigating UFO reports.

Have any states or the USFWS done so with regard to sasquatch reports? Ever? Anywhere?

So do the police, and exponentially more so.

They still investigate and respond to crimes.

Please point out a single official wildlife management agency that has done so with regard to sasquatchery.

I can appreciate that. I use the same weasel words here and on other forums because of the lawyer-like skeptics and denialists. If you don't use such words, they will gleefully turn your point into a semantic game. Been there. Done that. For years.

Back to the point.

Does that mean that the initial reports were wrong, or were they correct all along?

What does that tell you?

In the case of sasquatchery, since officialdom is not investigating reports, it would be embarrassing backtracking.

Considering the likelihood that we're discussing a very rare creature, and possibly endangered, this "backtracking" (after years of heels-in-the-dirt behavior) could be considered even more than negligent.

Are you sure you aren't a lawyer?

Correct. But it would be exceedingly easy to show that official wildlife management agencies in the locale where norseman shot the sasquatch failed to investigate multiple previous reports of sasquatch, easy to show that they never investigated any reports of sasquatch, easy to demonstrate that science as an industry refused to investigate sasquatch, easy to prove that many within science ridiculed the possible existance of sasquatch, and as such, easy to convince a jury of mass irresponsibility among official wildlife managers to appropriately investigate the phenomenon before norseman broke their silly rules and shot the damned thing, dragged it out of the woods, and rubbed their stuck-up noses in it's stinking carcass.

With relation to the cougar angle, I was in one of those "They're not here states" when I saw one, the ranger the next day told "the other story" and became much more concerned about liability at that point. Point is, in that case, it's about politics and funding, they don't want to acknowledge the cougar presence because they would ahve to be declared endangered within the state and theres apparently a federal mandate to provide funding to protect the species at that point. So, if they don't admit they're there they dont have to pay up. It doesn't mean they are not there. My state has a timber wolf presence as well thats only admitted to off the record.

[Guest]

You should make sure Huntster takes you Salmon fishing or something. And why Prime Rib, and not Moose or something?

Have you had a good prime rib lately? I think Huntster chose that because he gets moose all the time, kind of like Pierre Bear for those of you out there with little kids and those delightful Richard Scary books . . .

(minced moose meat!)

[Guest]

the ranger the next day told "the other story" and became much more concerned about liability at that point.

I'm sure this is something state wildlife agencies worry about with respect to cougars reclaiming former areas of their distribution, and I wouldn't expect the agencies to take out full page ads advertising their suspicions that cougars had returned to certain areas. But as long as people keep sending in photos of house cats to support their claims, there's no real pressure on the agencies to act on those claims. The "good" news is that cougars are pretty easily determined to exist in areas they frequent, through spoor, kills, and the fact that they tend not to be too savvy around highways and rail lines . . . or game cameras, apparently.

[Guest fenris]

That's the way I always saw this from you, and I'm glad you finally admitted it.

This is a Holy War for you and **** anyone that gets in your way!

Yeppers, and... for saskeptic, not always... but there are times when you sound lets say a wee bit overly academic. But far be it from me to stop you two, I find your exchanges quite entertaining. Carry on.

Edited February 18, 2011 by fenris

[Guest fenris]

Yeah. Pisses me off. More, I just can't understand what they can possibly get out of such a foolish endeavor. Fifteen minutes of attention can't be worth the rest of your life being known as a cheat and...............well, I can't use the word anymore.

I will agree with you on your use of the word "attention", but maybe with a slightly different interpretation of it's use. Maybe relevance is the better usage for me. As in, there is a segment of the footery universe that has been around longer than fifteen minutes and clearly feel the need to be "relevant".

[Huntster]

While it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Huntster had some actual crow waiting in his freezer for me, I assume most of it I would be figurative and I'd be prepared to clean my plate!

Well, well: Your statement made me open up my beloved Alaska Hunting Regulations for a check. Sure enough, and unlike sasquatch, crow is listed, so I may hunt it. Page 126:

Crow

Units 1-9 and 15: Five per day; however, a bird may only be taken if used for food or clothing, and no bird or part of a bird may be sold or offered for sale...................................no closed season

Nonresidents.....................................no open season

This poses an interesting dilemma: If I take a crow for the purpose of food (even if such food is primarily ceremonial), and the intended eater is a nonresident (who cannot legally take the crow himself) and cannot stomach it, have I broken the law, since in the spirit of the ceremony, I should not eat it?

I think I need to consult with the Board of Game and some Native elders on this critical question.............

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 17 February 2011 - 06:36 PM, said:

Of course not. It highly suggests that the 1978 report was accurate, and the attempt to deny the 1978 report suggests yet more official denial and buck passing that we have all become so accustomed to.

I don't think it is highly suggestive. Remember, hundreds of people have submitted photos of demonstrably non-cougars to their wildlife agencies, claiming up and down they are cougars in those photos. Now imagine all the people who think they saw one and don't have a photo. Some tiny fraction of people might actually have witnessed cougars while some enormous fraction only thought they did and were mistaken. There's no way to tell which fraction includes the hypothetical 1978 account.

Fair enough. How about if I rephrase?:

It certainly suggests that the 1978 report may have been accurate, and the attempt to deny the 1978 report suggests yet more official denial and buck passing that we have all become so accustomed to.

Please reply. This is a valuable exercise in "weasel words" for all to learn from..............

[Huntster]

You should make sure Huntster takes you Salmon fishing or something.

Salmon fishing, halibut fishing, rockfish fishing, bear hunting, moose hunting,..............whatever is in season.

Ice fishing...................?

And why Prime Rib, and not Moose or something?

He buys the prime rib at the finest Anchorage restaurant. I then serve Mrs. Huntster's finest moose/caribou roast the next day...............along with some foul fowl?................