Guest DWA Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 (edited) Human intent really isn't a factor in habituation. Animal intent is. The result is all that counts. Think about it. People tossing bread to ducks and geese. Or feeding marmots at overlooks. Are they 'engaging in a habituation exercise'? No. They're feeding the **** birds. It's fun! It's the parks folks that have to tell them: um, people? You're habituating these animals. Will you be here this winter when he comes looking for you...? Bigfoot habituators may be doing it on purpose. The animal always is. Edited June 2, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 (edited) Depends on what context you seek a definition..among us enthusiasts I think many say it well above. To anthropologists in large primate studies it means observing in close proximity with the subject often aware, but "habituated," or familiarized enough to the observer, to accept and ignore them in large part. They hope (surmise!?) those observations are relatively "real" behaviors . Goodall refused to respond to hand gestures etc to the chimps to not insert herself as it got friendly...and yet also used bait early on....today that crowd is much more disciplined in observation....and she even says she did "wrong" ahhh... With cultural anthropologists today of human peoples, it's almost hands off entirely if they are "undiscovered," as we witness in the Amazon.most recently....there are just too many horror stories from contact with well meaning scientists to these cultures..from disease to cultural collapse (just knowing that society technology exists outside is tough for some...how we might collapse if ETs landed and said hey...we can do such and such..Ok see ya later! enjoy your faiths and culture!) . So, I do think if we ever get to any official agency recognition, laws....it may be hands off for all...forbidden to feed as wildlife laws do in many counties any wildlife.... or? As some feel, maybe we can figure out how to habituate BFs safely....maybe remote technologies will play a role for observation...but baits I doubt will...unless? Perhaps, if BFs are deemed capable of such discernment and choice? Informed consent? How could they? I do not advocate the feeding/interaction, and do also....it depends (I think some home owners found it improved their own comfort level to do so and I recognize a property owner's rights/concerns as higher than those of us on public lands..).... and there isn't enough data yet..it may be all of this concern is for naught....but still, the most conservative approach.., habituation through presence and observation, but not food/interaction? How hard to do with BFs?! (remote technology...what about Skyping? oops it's interactive) !!! I also think of when "gleaning' was protected by law for the poor, the foragers of humanity...so perhaps some subtle sharing is appropriate...don't take all your fruit from those trees, or worry about an egg or two, or even an old hen if dire circumstances? When I started I didn't think they were real...(the gifting part varied wildly over the four years) ..., so not until I was far down this gifting path did I really get it...I can only say I did try to keep it healthy, and always returned to pick up any litter...not a good defense really....or is it? I also felt at times these BFs had been making use of campground favors for years....but, I was very aware of possibly corrupting their lives..in ways I could not measure...so I quit that part eventually...but for a small treat...nothing with real calories... and we'll see.... I do know I will return again......but really feel that effort should not be repeated..and yet? How can I say that when I did and no official body or institution will even address witnesses, much less these issues.........or this research..sans Meldrum..and that's as far as I can tell "on the side" to his employment.. Is it an inherently worse model in this situation than say tracking..or camera traps, howling, wood knocking, really all of our activities short of just observation? (I said trail cams b/c I believe they obviously interrupt normal patterns of foraging and hunting based on all the "messing" that goes on with them). Edited June 2, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 (edited) another really important difference in this situation is, BFs seem to already make use of our foods and know about our culture in ways we don't theirs, and successfully elude us, or seemingly make a choice of what human to approach ...so even if without analytical understanding of our culture/technology they have been dealing with it for a long time, and must pass down some cultural norm...stay hidden, but taking that salmon is OK....? If that is the case, well then...we have "trade," ongoing for centuries..haha.. ... just not enough data for me...and I have backed off some earlier views, or changed as the information changed, and I don't think the strict Anthro view is necessarily "right" b/c it is an existing model, and there are no Anthropologists to take the charge (the biologists are happy to response call, bait, or camera trap, track, even kill... animals anyway)...in this this state of disbelief and frenzy to solve......it's a tough problem all around, Sasquatch. Edited June 2, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 i think it's having a bigfoot on your property but not sharing any evidence of it. Or not having a Bigfoot on your property and sharing stories about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted June 2, 2013 Moderator Share Posted June 2, 2013 AH - I think you're pointing at something I've said in other contexts. When it comes to bigfoot, our existing paradigms are insufficient. Wildlife management doesn't work when dealing with "people." We have a horrific track record working with indigenous peoples and I don't think we've made any improvements. Too many people ready to exploit for personal gain. I don't know if you can habituate people. IF that is possible, they are habituating us, not the other way around, despite our arrogant assumptions to the contrary. THEY hold the cards. THEY don't offer closer interaction until we jump through their hoops, not the other way around. We should really ponder who is in control of this habituation. What we should really ponder, though, is what their intentions are in the long run. I don't have a full blown definition of habituation. Regardless of where it happens, when the bigfoots seem to recognize specific people at a specific location and interact with them selectively ... something is going on. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Saskeptic pointed out a distinct difference in another thread regarding cougars. Male cougars can have ranges up to 1000 miles so not having a breeding population in a specfic area is not an indication that the animal isn't there at all. Of course I know he won't appreciate that I twisted his analogy into a pro bigfoot slant, but it's possible that bigfoot could have an equally large range. If bigfoot has some kind of long distance range then is he habituated to this huge area and human presence or just doing his thing as any opportunistic species might? Something taking gifts could be other animals or people, it doesn't mean that bigfoot took what you offered. I know that's hard for some proponents to accept but unless you see what took the gift you are only guessing. That is the crux of the problem from my perspective. I saw something, I'm pretty sure it was bigfoot, therefore I think bigfoot exists, but I'm not sure everything attributed to bigfoot is real including habituation stories. There isn't much you can extrapolate regarding typical behavior for bigfoot based on brief sightings. That happens to be the case with the majority of what we read in sighting reports. ALL sightings, including my own, remain unsubstantiated. It seems pointless to try to judge the validity of habituation stories, much less distinguish the difference between habitation versus habituation when the basic information is missing to make that distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted June 4, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted June 4, 2013 (edited) Habituation occurs when one group or individual attempts to modify the behavior of another group or individual through repetition of a particular stimulus or behavior. Location wouldn't seem to be a factor. To some extent I disagree with you Indie, I know that my 18 months or so intensive "infestation" was as a direct result of a having a property where access could be circuitous without crossing roads with forested cover which guaranteed undiscovered easy access to the location (not that it happens all the time or that they particularly care as long as they have a powerline ROA). Had that not been the case, I do not believe I would have been blessed with a) the intensity of experience I had and bee) the length of the experience and c) the audio that I happened to get lucky capturing which seals it for me. Now some can say location has nothing to do with it..... and maybe that works for you. Edited June 4, 2013 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Dog Posted June 4, 2013 Author Share Posted June 4, 2013 Or maybe the Sasquatch are habituating the humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 (edited) Some of them (not all) are purposefully making contact with humans. Edited June 6, 2013 by LarryP Please don't quote the post directly preceding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Indie's definition is one of the best I've seen. That's what they do, & they do it very patiently & as Larry said, very purposefully. Time doesn't seem to be a factor, they just keep on until something works for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 I've given some thought to this and think a single simple definition is likely best. Perhaps it could be this. Bigfoot habituation : A scenario that includes a specific place where both humans and the elusory cryptid known as Bigfoot or Sasquatch are reported to have repeated close interactions that would seem to be more frequent than haphazard encounters and for reasons not completely understood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted June 4, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted June 4, 2013 (edited) Location, location, location LOL Didn't say I disagreed with all of Indie's definition, just the exclusionary part that location is irrelevant, when it comes to BF NOT SO. And SY I think you get it. Edited June 4, 2013 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 My thought is that habituation can occur at a state park campground, it doesn't have to be at someone's home. I have tried to habituate them to my showing up with a camera at a resting place that I discovered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 (edited) Showing up with a camera is not going to work. Edited June 6, 2013 by LarryP Please don't quote the post directly preceding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 I know precisely what I'd call Habituating a Sasquatch, but I can't type it here or I'd get another ban warning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts