Population Pockets

[Guest DWA]

I have spoke with several other witnesses over the years around this valley who claim they have saw one. South of Eagle near Sylvan Lakes in 2009, I believe. Cutting down a Christmas tree, beginning of December in a snowstorm. Both she and her BF saw it in the Aspens above them.

Right there, RIGHT THERE, that is the coolest bigfoot report I ever heard. Who would need anything else?

[Guest COGrizzly]

^^^ Haha! Yessir, one of my favorites as well! The amount of detail is off the hook, as they say.

[Guest kfoster]

A bunch, thousands, of inexperienced campers and the like use Rocky Mountain National Park each year, which is where one would expect those inexperienced in the outdoors to misidentify a bear as a bigfoot or get all scared some night and make up a bigfoot story in their minds. It seems devoid of sasquatch sightings by the neophyte campers there. However, not far to the south in the Lost Creek Wilderness, I have a number of sightings by very experienced professional outdoorsman, and also some track finds by them. Not the type of men to misidentify a bear as a bigfoot. If bigfoot is not real, then why would professional outdoorsmen misidentify bears or make up a story and why would the inexperienced camper not misidentify a bear or not make up the bigfoot stories? Logic dictates that if bigfoot is not real, then the most stories of sightings would come from where the most people go to make up the stories or make misidentifications, such as exactly within Rocky Mountain National Park. The lack of sightings there is logically some proof that bigfoot is not a fabrication or misidentification. One has to have a logical reason for the lack of sightings in Rocky Mountain National Park by neophytes and a group of sightings in a nearby more rarely visited area of wilderness by outdoor professionals.

If bigfoot were not real, then a map of the sightings of it would resemble a map of use of forests by humans, as there would be more humans in those areas over time to make up the stories or be mistaken about what they saw. Such is not the case.

Professional outdoorsmen represent a very small portion of the overall population of humans visiting Colorado forests or the general population of Colorado itself. Yet by percentage they have the highest incidence of sightings of sasquatch in that state. Either professional hunting guides lie at a phenominally higher rate than the general population or they are worse at wildlife identification than the general population of forest users. One of those must be true if sasquatch is only a myth, if one has any use of mental logic whatsoever.

Between the Pikes Peak area and the Lost Creek Wilderness, a sasquatch days hike apart, I have two very clear daylight sightings listed for professional Colorado hunting guides. Jeff Dysinger, at my pleading, let his sighting go public, simply because he was in the process of moving out of state anyway and didnt figure it would hurt his guiding career. Jeff's sighting was crystal clear, daytime, morning, sasquatch in the open taking in the sun in an area not much used by any humans, sitting beside a beaver pond minding it's own business. Jeff was between 100 and 125 yards away and above the sunning squatch on the cold morning and watching it through binoculars that I wish I could afford. The sasquatch watched by Jeff seemed very interested in the bull elk bugling in the area that Jeff was also pursuing. Jeff was doing his annual elk hunt for himself, bow in hand. I have no doubt that he saw exactly what he described to me in the many, many conversations I had with him afterward. The other sighting by a professional hunting guide occurred just about 20 miles to the north of Dysingers sighting. This sighting was made by, let me call him Ed, who is still a hunting guide in Colorado and does not want his name publicized. Ed was also doing a personal hunt for bull elk, bugling (the sounds bull elk use during their mating season to inspire the females and intimidate their rival males), from a hidden location on the edge of a small meadow where he could get a shot at any responding bull elk. Ed's sasquatch was evidently responding to the bugling sounds made by Ed, as he was hearing it approach the meadow while he was buging. Fully expecting a bull elk to appear on the trail he was watching, instead out steps a "massive 8 foot tall gorilla-looking man-like creature, walking fully like a man, with black and brown hair covering it's body and weighing at least as much as a large bull elk". Ed not only saw it, he saw it in full daylight and from only 30 yards away. I must also interject that bowhunters know distances, because we have to know the distance to objects to complete our shot. We actually step off distances prior to getting into our hidden locations. Ed was not lieing to me and he is not lieing to you. Perhaps Ed will let his personal sighting go public with his name attached when he hangs up his bow and quits guiding to feed his family. It is the pure skeptics that keep Ed from letting his sighting be publisized with his name attached.

I let my name be attached to the subject because I don't care what skeptics or other idiots think. Use logic as to why two professional guides just to the south of Rocky Mountain National Park have seen sasquatch while sneaking around in Camo, paying attention to wind direction, hiding, being quiet, hunting in good elk areas, hunting where few other people go to avoid having their hunt messed up, and no neophyte campers in RMNP are seeing the same thing. Men who become hunting guides do it because they are successful in their hunts and are great outdoorsman. They do it because they want to share their knowledge with others and maybe make a meager living by doing what they like. That is why they are reluctanct to come forward publicly, because they don't want to put their meager but very enjoyed careers in jeapordy. Why would they lie to you, as they have nothing to gain from it, but much to lose if they are viewed negatively by the public. They also now fear that if sasquatch is deemed to be extant that the Federal Government will close the area to all hunting. I am currently running into this big-time with some of the guides and outfitters I am talking to Colorado about sasquatch and about grizzly bears. Imagine you are Joe the Outfitter and your hunting area where you take paying clients is within the South San Juan Wilderness. You have large amounts of money invested in horses, tack, tents, wranglers and such and are dependant upon getting our clients a big bull elk or a nice mule deer. Now imagine that sasquatch or grizzlies are deemed officially extant right there where you have official rights to take those paying clients, your bread and butter to feed your family. In that area of Colorado, I am now running into extreme resistance from them to share info with me in regards to grizzlies, sasquatch or wolves. They have realized the consequences of their open mouths now and even if one of them shot a grizzly or a sasquatch by accident, you and I and no offiicial would ever hear about it, I am 100% sure. I know those people down there. They call it, "shoot, shovel, and shutup". I'm lucky to have got from the hunting guides what I have got. I don't suppose I will get any more from them, no matter what happens or how close a sasquatch gets to them. Not that sightings by them and their clients will stop, only that they don't want the Feds to know about any grizzlies or sasquatch in their areas. Kind of like what happened with logging entities in the Pacific Northwest in the 70's till now. Shut up or you are fired. Why do you think Ray Wallace tried to say he was hoaxing all the tracks across the west? To him, sasquatch was a threat to his income, like a barred owl. Wallace made some stupid wooden feet that didn't even really match any known real casts of sasquatch tracks and yet the fricking idiot media are all agoogle that Wallace was the one who made all of them. Give me a break.

What happens to CDOW income from elk and deer hunting permits if sasquatch is deemed extant in Colorado? How does it effect their own state funded jobs dependant upon those permits? Does CDOW worry about Federal actions within the state of Colorado? Though the very management being done by CDOW to try to ensure a good wild ungulate population for hunting also ensures a good population of them for the extant predators, the problem is when the federal government gets involved it is excessive and allknowing, unfortunately it is also allknowingly wrong. Local managers are much better, such as CDOW itself. Why would CDOW want the USFWS/EPA involved in any decisions? USFWS/EPA are desk bound managers of things they have no idea on for the most part. I have been on committees with them in a professional manner and know this sad fact. Some are okay in USFWS, most have no clue, and it is getting worse annually. EPA is completely clueless of late and only after a paycheck paid by you the taxpayer. I was chosen for some committees on wildlife subjects because of my knowledge of such subjects, and can speak to the fact because of working with local, state and federal officials on those subjects of management. CDOW seems to be doing a good job, but maybe protecting itself and the state of Colorado on some subjects, as I suppose they deem appropriate. Some subjects just not talked openly about for a reason. Just like the hunting guides and their employer outfitters are getting more quiet all the time. Trust me on the guide and outfitter thing, as I have it from the horses mouth on that subject. The CDOW reluctance to bring up the subject of sasquatch or grizzlies in Colorado is more subjective, but I did have contacts within that steered me toward some of those conclusions. Shoot, shovel and shutup, or we are screwed. I am facinated by sasquatch and it's very real tracks and likely very real sightings by LEO and professional outdoorsman too much to shut up, shoot or shovel. Care for the forest, leave some space, log in moderation and watch the wonderful ungulate habitat regrow in logging areas, watch forest fire areas regrow into wonderful habitat, build in human spaces and not in sasquatch spaces, don't give out too many or too few deer and elk permits, learn from your wildlife management mistakes, and keep some space for sasquatch, please.

I really don't have too much more to submit on forums. I might submit some of the sculptures I have done on the Patterson subject at some point, as it is interesting to anatomists and such.

If you want a close encounter and are brave, get off trail as far as possible, but learn how to use both compass and gps unit first to get back home. Not just a failure prone gps unit. Learn to orienteer by compass first if going miles off trail. Plop a tent down in a sasquatch bedroom there, but don't say I didn't warn you about the possible ramifications. I've seen their incredible enormous tracks first hand and heard the power of their voice and can say in trutth that I fear them in some places and situations. You may not know what you are dealing with. The will do what they have to do to survive, and you might be in the way. Real nature is not bambi. In real nature a pack of coyotes eat a bleating fawn deer while it is still struggling for life, as I have seen with my own eyes. Real nature means that a few boar black bears see you as food, not as a human. Real nature means that some sow black bears will feel you are a threat to her cubs and take you out if you get close. Sasquatch too is part of real nature. Take caution, as they are not just figments of ones imagination at times. Just want you to be safe, but also want you to find real nature and come back to tell of it.

[Guest DWA]

kfoster: watch that whole logic thing, you'll hurt some people's heads.

As John Green put it: it's funny how people's imaginations dry up in areas receiving less than 17 inches annual rainfall.

[Guest]

Thank you, kfoster.

Now that I am old and long in the tooth, it is good to find a kindred spirit.

Thank you for sharing, clarifying, advocating, explaining, illuminating,

I am glad for men like you, glad you are here to speak to us and for us.

You do it well, from your knowledge and experience, with wisdom and

compassion.

You have much to share, should you choose to do so here. In the meantime,

know that there are some here who hear your message and will carry it

forward.

RH

[norseman]

Yep, the Colville Forest is out that way i believe which is another million plus acres, and the Salmo Priest Wilderness is within it i believe. Norseman will confirm.

Pend Orielle there too.

The State is heaving with decent habitat.

The Salmo Priest Wilderness is split by the Colville NF and the Kaniksu NF with the Kaniksu going into Idaho and NW Montana, with the Colville running west towards the Okanogan NF.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kdxbPVaB0Qs/TWM8rHyuguI/AAAAAAAAA8E/qPwsNnmdEFw/s1600/WashingtonStateMap.jpg

The largest continuous forest in Washington state is the Cascade/Olympic western forest. Interestingly the arid Okanogan valley somewhat splits the northern Wa forest into west and east. The blues to the south look like an island on a Washington map but they are not. They actually connect with NE Wa forests by way of Idaho, as the Columbia plateau stops just inside the Idaho line. If anyone has ever driven from Lewiston Idaho up the Clearwater river to Orofino Idaho I bet they quickly noticed the change in fauna. It would be a similar drive if you left Wenatchee Wa and drove up the Wenatchee river towards Leavenworth Wa. The sagebrush disappears and mountains and trees start.

What excites me about the Selkirks is the vast ecosystem they belong to that most Americans cannot see because it lays in Canada. This ecosystem is called the Inland Temperate Rainforest.

http://www.conservationnw.org/what-we-do/british-columbiahttp://www.conservationnw.org/what-we-do/british-columbia

If Sasquatch are truly attracted to areas of higher than average rainfall? The ITR in my opinion is the BEST place to look in the intermountain west. And this is why I concentrate most of my efforts in the Selkirk mountains. The region is also much less populated than the western Washington rainforest and much more remote. I have heard the arguments both ways about how remote (or not) Sasquatch likes his habitat. I for one would rather simply deal with remote areas that do not make a whole lot of sense for the hoaxer. I'm also pro kill which means that I want to avoid hoaxers at all costs for obvious reasons.

I would estimate the NE forests of Washington probably do not contain more than 10 Sasquatch at any given time with travel corridors going both north into British Columbia and east into Idaho and Montana. But probably not much south of Spokane county, as the Columbia plateau dominates all the way from there to the Blue mountains.

Keep in mind that the Selkirks are home to roughly 50 Woodland Caribou.........I've lived here almost my whole life and have never seen one. In fact out of everyone I know I only know of one person actually seeing one. And out of that same friends and family network I only know of one person that has seen a Sasquatch. So I could be possibly conservative with my Squatch number. There could actually be more around (up to 50) like the Woodland Caribou, without people having more sightings.

While elk hunting in the Selkirks just recently we did get to see both Griz and Wolf tracks within 100 yards of camp. We were camped up LeClerc creek just south of Monumental mountain for those of you interested in google earthing the region. This region is very thick with a lot of western red cedar in the creek bottoms opening up to fir, larch, pine forests in the higher elevations. And it gives me hope that I may again get to see Squatch tracks in my life time...........

[norseman]

I propose that sasquatch habitat is the opposite of what ancestrel humans have used and lived in for millenia. That is why we still have some of them. We are naked, lovers of open spaces, lovers of daylight, get cold easily, are small and fragile They are huge and well covered with hair, prone to heat stress, lovers of dense cover, much less gregarious, always know where they are located, avoid open areas for living or travel, lover the dark and hate the light of day, and on and on. Human niche and sasquatch niche are opposite for living off the land. Humans are made for persistance hunting on the more terrestrial open areas of the earth. Humans are hunters by nature and by history. Sasquatch are hunters by nature and by history, so we had to survive in two entirely different environs. What brings us together to startle each of us at times is that the prey species we prefer enjoy life at the edge of both of our environs. We generally avoid sasquatch habitat as humans when hiking through the mountains, as we use the more open drainages for travel, not the deep forest where we have to step over deadfalls every few feet or so. We travel human trails almost exclusively by habit and you can bet that sasquatch know where every human trail is located and even when most likely that humans will be using them. In my opinion, sasquatch are so good at patterning the daily and seasonal movements of their prey species that they are also extremely keen at patterning the movements of humans on a daily and seasonal level.

The best way to find sasquatch habitat is to map out where humans live and travel by road or human foot-trails and subtract that from your map. Then subtract another 1/2 mile in all directions from those areas you have just mapped. Then subract all habitat with vegetative cover less than 10 feet tall from your map. Then subtract all areas with cover more than 10 feet tall, but that are not more than 1/2 mile wide, such as tree cover along drainages spilling out onto the plains of eastern Colorado. Subtract all areas of high heat in summertime, though some may be used in winter (remember that very large animals are prone to heat stress). Human housing additions in full forest areas are not good for sasquatch. Humans building in those areas will also eventually wish they hadn't when forest fires come along. Fires and logging are good for ungulates in the Rockies, when the logging is done in moderation and allowed to regrow to that height required for cover. Some of the best ungulate habitat for hunting for them by humans and sasquatch are in those areas of regrowth from fire or regrowth from logging, though humans retire to their open areas and sasquatch retire to their heavy cover areas after the hunt.

Even the cattle and sheep of humans do not venture into sasquatch bedding habitat, though they are all through he edges of it, just as we are wandering around the edges. Overlaying a topo map with a birds eye google earth map and seeing where humans travel and where real forest is located can give you a great idea of where sasquatch can live, once one knows they are our opposites. Put dots on the map as far from any area you have subtracted to find core areas of sasquatch, i.e. their nursery bedding areas. Home sweet home. Just like your home. Safe from harm.

Squatch have to come to the edges of their bedding habitat for hunting, just as we go the the edges of our bedding habitat for hunting. We meet at the edges sometimes, by accident. I am convinced, no simple guessing, that sasquatch know more about our habits than we know about theirs. That is the way their brains are tuned. It is all about patterning movements for them. They may not use fire, or need hunting tools, but they are far from stupid. They are mentally sharp the way they have to be mentally sharp. They may only have the braincase the size of a gorilla, according to the anatomy sculptures I am doing on the Patterson film subject, but don't underestimate their woodsavy and humansavy. I've always said that a puma with the brain of a chimpanzee would still be an undiscovered animal. Squatch are better than that, I propose. Grizzlies are extremely stupid by comparison to a chimpanzee or even a puma, but still may be extant in Colorado, being detected officially every 30-50 years or so. Talk about inbreeding.

There is some discussion on inbreeding by science and by sasquatcheers. I have studied the subject somewhat and think no one knows the truth of the full matter. It is still a "far from known science" the exact results of such bottlenecks, even if some in science may make bold claims on the negative influence of the genetic consequences. I know of a case where a human brother and sister bred and produced 5 offspring, 2 were severely mentally disabled, 1 was moderately mentally disabled and 2 were top of their class mentally. Actually the two that were top of the class mentally were really, really mentally sharp, beyond normal. I grew up with those persons in fact. What's up with that??? In my opinion, God makes a way.

As far as the braincase of a sasquatch being smaller apparently than human and in a pattern completely different than we have, in regards to intelligence, forget the idea that bigger is better in many cases. Squatch are smart the way they have to be smart. Survival, survival, survival. When a coronal mass ejection of the sun takes out all of your electricity for years and you have to survive no fuel, and try to find food for yourself and offspring, who wins? Sasquatch will have a real advantage over you. Who is smart and who is stupid?

A couple of thoughts,

1) Humans populate every place on the planet.......including deep dark forests and jungles. Look at the Salish coastal tribes of the Pacific NW, they inhabited a virtual carpet of tall evergreen trees until the white man came and started cutting them all down. The Salish from what I've read were much less afraid of the forests than they were of the mountains. It wasn't that you were entering the forest that meant danger instead it was that you were CLIMBING too high in the forest and getting dangerously close to timberline. The danger was above them............not as much around them.

2) Sasquatch will never have an advantage over us.........we as humans are smarter which means we use fire and tools and are more prolific as a species. This holds just as true now as when the stone age Salish inhabited my region 1000 years ago. They fished the best fishing spots, picked berries in the best berry patches, camped in the best camping spots and hunted in the best hunting spots. Did the two bump into each other? Sure. But it was the solitary nomadic Sasquatch that gave ground to the tribe, and not the other way around, with a few exceptions.........

3) I think we can best describe each species niche very simply by dividing them into nocturnal and non nocturnal species. You did touch on this a bit but I really think this is the elephant in the room. Sasquatch among the Salish is well understood to come out at night........ You didn't go down to the river at night to swim, or fetch water. You stayed close to the tribe and close to fire at night. Even more than elevation, I think that is the defining separation between us. And not so much the density of forest at all.

Lastly I want to add that I hardly ever walk a trail...........and as a boy I thoroughly enjoyed seeking out and playing in the densest forests I could find. The more root systems and fallen logs I could crawl into and make little forts with the better. I never felt the foreboding that many people feel with "black" forests........ And I enjoy them to this very day. But I've read that elk will seek out areas away from roads to stay away from hunting pressure. And I do not doubt that this sort of logic COULD be also true with Squatch.........although to read some its as if they instead seek it out. I dont subscribe to this line of reasoning otherwise we would see alot more of them

[Guest JenJen of Oldstones]

Right there, RIGHT THERE, that is the coolest bigfoot report I ever heard. Who would need anything else?

Can you provide a link to the report? I'm dying to read it!

[Guest DWA]

Can you provide a link to the report? I'm dying to read it!

I hope CO Griz can, 'cause I sure can't! I just thought that the juxtaposition of cutting down the Christmas tree, snow and bigfoot was unbeatable!

[Guest BastetsCat]

To me the irony or closing public lands for any use based on BF being proven is silly. It could happen, but how many thousands of years have they already been there? Still we have no body, no really good photos, no shining examples of witness that convince the masses....

Bigfoot seems able to protect itself.

Short of a squad of Army rangers or a whole dispatch of National Gaurd or something like that...and maybe not even then, they seem to be able to avoid being captured. They obviously are able to reproduce and there is still obviously enough space for them to be successful in doing what it is that they do.

I should hope that People realize that. I should hope that People don't get stupid about habitat and the like. The forest is meant to be enjoyed and thus far has not in my opinion had an impact on them as far as People using it goes. As witnessed by the one that KFoster thinks walked the Eagle river from Gypsum to Eagle. They have crossed lived around and wandered the two towns likely since before there were towns. The best part is that the towns have sprung up and grown....BF is still there! The forests where they live (?) are filling with people yet the BF are still there.

[norseman]

To me the irony or closing public lands for any use based on BF being proven is silly. It could happen, but how many thousands of years have they already been there? Still we have no body, no really good photos, no shining examples of witness that convince the masses....

Bigfoot seems able to protect itself.

Short of a squad of Army rangers or a whole dispatch of National Gaurd or something like that...and maybe not even then, they seem to be able to avoid being captured. They obviously are able to reproduce and there is still obviously enough space for them to be successful in doing what it is that they do.

I should hope that People realize that. I should hope that People don't get stupid about habitat and the like. The forest is meant to be enjoyed and thus far has not in my opinion had an impact on them as far as People using it goes. As witnessed by the one that KFoster thinks walked the Eagle river from Gypsum to Eagle. They have crossed lived around and wandered the two towns likely since before there were towns. The best part is that the towns have sprung up and grown....BF is still there! The forests where they live (?) are filling with people yet the BF are still there.

Define "any use"............cuz there is a vast difference between strip mining and mountain biking.

And Bigfoot cannot defend himself..........he cannot protect the fish he eats from pollution or dams. He cannot protect his habitat from freeways, pit mines or clear cuts........unless he has a voice.

You say it's no big deal that people are coming in and building houses where Squatch are, because they are still there. The funny thing about killing something softly is that it might all look all right on the outside........but over the course of a long period of time? It's very likely those houses will NEGATIVELY effect the population.

Look at other rare and elusive creatures that are threatened by humans such as the Grizzly bear, Lynx and Wolverine. Do they need large tracts of wilderness area to hunt, reproduce and propagate? Absolutely.

Obviously we do not know enough about Sasquatch and their habitat...........but then that brings us full circle in the debate doesn't it?

[Guest BastetsCat]

Norseman.

If you are talking as I am about Wilderness, national Forest, BLM, and the like then there is not going to be strip mining, or houses or ect. There are going to be hiking camping 4x4 horses and hunting. Same as it is right now. I am of the opinion that they are there and there is a healthy population of them in the area.

In forty years, my lifetime approximatley the valley I live in has grown substanially. Though it has been populated since the late 1800's. I live near Vail Colorado who is celebrating it's 50th anniversary this year. I have lived here most of my life, and come from a homesteading family that staked a claim on the top of a creek bed on the left fork, end of the road. They were not the first here so they took what they could get. That was my grandfather, his brother got a better place on the other side of the mountain. The brothers ran a sawmill on what is now Beaver Creek mountain (a ski resort).

Up until Vail there wasn't much here but farming and ranching, now it is a playground for the rich. It has gone from being a spattering of small towns with a railroad line to almost one continuous civilization that stretches through the valley from the west side of Vail Pass to the Glenwood Canyon. Elevation around Vail is 8150 in the village. Elevation in Gypsum is around 6500.

This is a valley it has the Gore creek running into the Eagle River through Vail. It has the Eagle River running all the way to Dotsero where it adds to the Colorado river. With many streams and creeks feeding both.

The mountains around this area on all sides are still choke full of wildlife. There are still mountain lions and bears, Raptors like Eagles and Hawks, ample foxes and coyotes. Deer and Elk populations bring in hunters.

For a seriously intelligent creature like a BF, who I have personally seen as often in and around town over the years and who is still reported in the mountains I do not see human populations to be a problem. I have never heard of one being hit and killed on an interstate though people have been often enough. Thinking of a drunk man around the town of Avon that was playing tag with cars in the interstate years ago. I don't think that they apprieciated the deer fence that stretches the I70 corridor now, but maybe they do, because it causes a back log og deer and Elk on both sides of the interstate in the winter. They seem to not mind walking around houses and frankly looking right into the windows, maybe eating the squash out of the garden even.

Further north there is a bigger problem for them in my opinion. The Gore Forest is dead. The trees were wiped out by pine beetles. Standing deadwood...it needs to be logged and the new trees need a chance to grow. The whole area could go up in a single lightning strike.

I think instead of closing areas, it should be considered that it is our responsibility to manage. Logging and hunting do just that and are both important for the environment.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Further north there is a bigger problem for them in my opinion. The Gore Forest is dead. The trees were wiped out by pine beetles. Standing deadwood...it needs to be logged and the new trees need a chance to grow. The whole area could go up in a single lightning strike.

These stands of dead timber may become great resources for grubs in the coming years.

[Guest BastetsCat]

Absolutley they could, there are benifits to every thing. Upsides and downsides. I am talkinng about a huge area though. I can't even begin to explain how devestatingly huge the dead tree spread is. They were red two years ago when I lived up there, they are mostly grey now. It is being logged somewhat. The efforts should have been underway years ago. It has affected the deer and elk poulations and every other animal that lived in that forest. I can not even assume that BF would do well there at this point.

In this area around Toponas as a reference, there are antelope, moose, and wolverine...added into the normal mix of what you think of as Colorado wildlife. I lived on the south side of King Mountain and had a good view of Castle Peak from my living room window. Always held my breath when the lighting storms got going because I lived pretty close to where that forest was.

[norseman]

Norseman.

If you are talking as I am about Wilderness, national Forest, BLM, and the like then there is not going to be strip mining, or houses or ect. There are going to be hiking camping 4x4 horses and hunting. Same as it is right now. I am of the opinion that they are there and there is a healthy population of them in the area.

In forty years, my lifetime approximatley the valley I live in has grown substanially. Though it has been populated since the late 1800's. I live near Vail Colorado who is celebrating it's 50th anniversary this year. I have lived here most of my life, and come from a homesteading family that staked a claim on the top of a creek bed on the left fork, end of the road. They were not the first here so they took what they could get. That was my grandfather, his brother got a better place on the other side of the mountain. The brothers ran a sawmill on what is now Beaver Creek mountain (a ski resort).

Up until Vail there wasn't much here but farming and ranching, now it is a playground for the rich. It has gone from being a spattering of small towns with a railroad line to almost one continuous civilization that stretches through the valley from the west side of Vail Pass to the Glenwood Canyon. Elevation around Vail is 8150 in the village. Elevation in Gypsum is around 6500.

This is a valley it has the Gore creek running into the Eagle River through Vail. It has the Eagle River running all the way to Dotsero where it adds to the Colorado river. With many streams and creeks feeding both.

The mountains around this area on all sides are still choke full of wildlife. There are still mountain lions and bears, Raptors like Eagles and Hawks, ample foxes and coyotes. Deer and Elk populations bring in hunters.

For a seriously intelligent creature like a BF, who I have personally seen as often in and around town over the years and who is still reported in the mountains I do not see human populations to be a problem. I have never heard of one being hit and killed on an interstate though people have been often enough. Thinking of a drunk man around the town of Avon that was playing tag with cars in the interstate years ago. I don't think that they apprieciated the deer fence that stretches the I70 corridor now, but maybe they do, because it causes a back log og deer and Elk on both sides of the interstate in the winter. They seem to not mind walking around houses and frankly looking right into the windows, maybe eating the squash out of the garden even.

Further north there is a bigger problem for them in my opinion. The Gore Forest is dead. The trees were wiped out by pine beetles. Standing deadwood...it needs to be logged and the new trees need a chance to grow. The whole area could go up in a single lightning strike.

I think instead of closing areas, it should be considered that it is our responsibility to manage. Logging and hunting do just that and are both important for the environment.

Bud, you and I are on the same page! I understand the Federal big stick and what it can do to us little guys. But by the same token I'm working in the Bakken oil field right now and have seen the other side of the coin. As well as companies like Forest Capital back home raping ground and not replanting and giving back.

I would never advocate shutting down any ground to recreational use because of it being Squatch habitat............wouldn't do it. But with bigger projects such as road building, logging, mining, dam building, etc? It would be up to the biologists to take a look at the project and make sure it wasn't negatively impacting the species.

For example, in our north woods up here in E. Washington, N. Idaho and W. Montana logging is very good for deer and elk.......it creates browse for them. The problem is is that for Woodland Caribou? It kills them. Here is why........the Caribou don't come down when snow gets deep and as the snow gets 20-30 feet deep if you have clear cutted an area you have created a virtual desert for them. Not enough vegetation sticks through the snow for them to browse and they die. Elk and Deer are not endangered but the Caribou is and so there fore they best manage the forest in certain national forests that best facilitate them............and that's OK, I'm good with that.

You can still hunt, fish, ride your horse, camp and even drive atvs within the Caribou conservation zone. They just don't log there like they once did.

It's these conservation considerations that Sasquatch DOESN'T receive because it's not a real animal according to science.......and that's a real shame.