N A W A C - Field Study Discussion

[Airdale]

Roger that! We are blessed. Hope that doesn't violate the proscription on discussing religion. 

[Guest]

While I admire my skeptic colleague from Alaska for many reasons, I think he and other skeptics miss the boat when they argue that Bigfoot advocacy is nothing but fraud and lies for profit.

I do think he is correct to point out that Area X is not the Congo. Sure, it is dense. But only those who are acclimated to Bigfoot lore will find the area remote enough to have kept its secret from the world, as we are half-way through 2013.

As to the density of flora in Area X. How do giant, broad-bodied apes navigate through such foliage without forging trailways and leaving abundant hair (red, black, white/gray) to be discovered?

[Guest]

Magic. Probably. 

OK, seriously, probably the same way other animals are able to traverse the foliage without having all their hair ripped from their bodies. 

 

And magic.

[Guest]

I've actually been on both roads that alaskaloner posted pictures of.  Highway 1 is a gorgeous drive.  The brutal rock covered hill you have to hike up wasn't the most fun I've ever had, but I think the views from on top are worth it.  Trying to cross 6032 when the river is going strong isn't exactly what I would consider "pedestrian", but I suppose that depends on your definition of the word.  Crossing in low water on a 2-wheeled vehicle can certainly be done, but not necessarily smart.  The end of that road (and it doesn't connect over to the Pashubbe Trailhead like Google Maps says it does) is a sweet camping spot that I've been to a couple of times.

 

Anyways, I wasn't a part of the NAWAC back then so I didn't think about taking pictures of the forest roads/trails that were too beat up, washed out, rocky, or steep to go down in a 2-wheel drive jeep cherokee so I could prove to internet skeptics that some roads aren't as well maintained as 6032 is.  Sorry I don't have any pictures of those.  To be fair, several of the roads are fairly passable as long as you have some kind of jeep/truck with enough clearance to get over the rocks and ruts.  Also, I can only speak about the quality of the roads on the Oklahoma side as I haven't been in the Arkansas section of the Ouachita National Forest.

 

On the flip side, bipto is completely right about the "jungle" aspect.  Parts of the forest are more clear, especially up on the top of ridgelines and so forth.  But a lot of the forest would be almost inaccessible on foot if it were not for maintained foot trails.  Visibility can be extremely low, depending on the area.  In addition to dense foliage, some areas can be very steep and rocky.  It's perfectly fine to claim that the Ouachitas are not the Congo.  But it ain't no picnic either.

 

ShadoAngel  - when you were framing the researchers having no financial interest you overlooked the tax-deductable financial incentive.  Gosh, inadvertently, right?   I would like to be able to write off all my gas, travel, food, etc. for any number of things I do recreationally.   Wow, what a bonus deal!   Write off all the equipment I buy too!   It looks to me like going to Las Vegas would produce just as much evidence so making my Vegas trips a tax-deductable charitable contribution has all the same merit.  Same thing here - in the interest of honest full disclosure this financial benefit should be pointed out when you are claiming there is no financial benefit to these recreational trips.

@alaskaloner: I did not overlook it.  There is no financial benefit to taking part in any of the NAWAC field events.  Every time any member goes out, they lose money.  Bipto does not leave for a few weeks and then come up with more money than he had when he left.  Neither do I.

 

A financial incentive is something that earns you income.  At the most you could claim that the non-profit organization setup simply makes driving/flying across country to spend a weeks at a time away from families in the humid blazing heat at the heart of a tick/snake infested jungle cost ever so slightly less than it would otherwise.

 

For some members, like myself, itemizing deductions does not lower my tax burden more than the standard deduction does so all the money I donate to charitable organizations (like my WorldVision kids) or non-profits (like the NAWAC) earns me exactly zero benefit comes tax time.

 

Lastly, I actually never said there was absolutely no financial benefit.  What I said was that the NAWAC is not a money making machine.  So what I said was true.

[norseman]

While I admire my skeptic colleague from Alaska for many reasons, I think he and other skeptics miss the boat when they argue that Bigfoot advocacy is nothing but fraud and lies for profit.

I do think he is correct to point out that Area X is not the Congo. Sure, it is dense. But only those who are acclimated to Bigfoot lore will find the area remote enough to have kept its secret from the world, as we are half-way through 2013.

As to the density of flora in Area X. How do giant, broad-bodied apes navigate through such foliage without forging trailways and leaving abundant hair (red, black, white/gray) to be discovered?

 

No, we are not talking about the Congo, in the SE US.......... But a couple of points I'd like to make. The mountain gorilla lives in a 100 x 300 mile range within the Congo. The adjoining forests from the middle of Missouri to the Gulf coast (North/South axis) and from E. Texas to the Mississippi river (East/West axis) is roughly 600 x 300 miles. But then again, the plight of the mountain gorilla is human encroachment, and not just the bush meat trade, but slash and burn farming practices and human populations. Same goes for the Orang in Borneo and palm oil plantations.

 

At least from a habitat POV, I don't think it's a stretch at all. Skeptics point to lack of physical proof and lack of fossil record evidence and they definitely have the right to do so.......it doesn't help proponents at all. But it's not impossible.

 

But in the Macro view? The Canadian shield forest and adjoining forests that cascade down through the US? Smash the whole Congo basin in size, and not just the part that the mountain Gorillas live in, it's not even comparable. And 90 percent of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of the US border. Again, improbable but certainly not impossible. I think we tend to see Africa as an exotic place, and North America not so much, it's a jaded view because we live in the more populated places in it.

 

Also, concerning hair, I'm positive that foliage rips hairs away, but finding them in the undergrowth is another matter. If it was me, I would tend to look for hair on barbed wire fence lines if there are any in the vicinity. That's about the only place I notice deer hair caught that's easily seen.

[norseman]

 

Generally speaking a 501c non profit organization is set up that way so that other people can donate to a group and get a tax break

 

And so we don't have to pay tax on money we make, right. Individual donations are tax-deductible but then you don't have the money anymore. That doesn't seem to align with the Alaskan's implications of NAWAC members gaining financially from our endeavors. Pretty much all the donations to the group and the modest amount we earn from our conference go to buying big-ticket items such as cameras, night vision, and thermals or get reinvested in the next conference. A money-making machine we are not. 

 

 

And by federal tax law you cannot be a money making machine. Sure, members could draw a wage out of the non profit organization if there is enough money to do that. And the non profit organization can pay for fuel, lodging, food, gear whatever. But you cannot by law make a profit, which could then be distributed as dividends to stock holders. The money raised or donated to you has to be reapplied towards the organization's goals stated in the 501c. 

 

Even if you were to market NAWAC products, like hats or shirts, the proceeds from those sales have to go back into the 501c and spent accordingly.

 

We can go poke around other non profits like the WWF:

 

http://worldwildlife.org/

 

This organization has employee's, benefits packages, and a operating expense, you can go into their financial section and see how much is spent on various overhead, as well as what they spend on conservation. 

 

Albeit I'm sure their budget is a tad larger than yours!

[Guest]

I find it oddly amusing that several folks now have gotten their panties all bunched up over the supposed conspiracy that a handful of hobbyists might possibly be writing off odds and ends as tax deductible. Goldman Sachs paid less than 1% tax on their gross revenue last year. Most major corporations use offshore tax accounts to shelter income, and all such tax laws are selectively enforced to exclude the only people you really should be upset about. Do you know ANYONE who is self employed? I can guarantee you that they would be skirting more tax liabilities than the entirety of NAWAC would be, even if your conspiracy theories were true. 

 

In the grand scheme of things, I'm not going to lose sleep tonight because of the thought that Bipto may have listed a pair of binoculars or camping gear as tax deductible. Geez, of all the things to worry about.........

 

We need a seperate exclusive thread where folks can accuse NAWAC of hunting hikers, and abusing the tax system so they can save a few bucks on camping gear.

[Guest]

Albeit I'm sure their budget is a tad larger than yours!

 

If you define "tad" and "nearly infinitely so" then yes!

[the parkie]

Is clothing tax deductible? If I spent a few weeks in Area X I could possibly claim back six figures in soiled underpants.

[Guest DWA]

 

While I admire my skeptic colleague from Alaska for many reasons, I think he and other skeptics miss the boat when they argue that Bigfoot advocacy is nothing but fraud and lies for profit.

I do think he is correct to point out that Area X is not the Congo. Sure, it is dense. But only those who are acclimated to Bigfoot lore will find the area remote enough to have kept its secret from the world, as we are half-way through 2013.

As to the density of flora in Area X. How do giant, broad-bodied apes navigate through such foliage without forging trailways and leaving abundant hair (red, black, white/gray) to be discovered?

 

No, we are not talking about the Congo, in the SE US.......... But a couple of points I'd like to make. The mountain gorilla lives in a 100 x 300 mile range within the Congo. The adjoining forests from the middle of Missouri to the Gulf coast (North/South axis) and from E. Texas to the Mississippi river (East/West axis) is roughly 600 x 300 miles. But then again, the plight of the mountain gorilla is human encroachment, and not just the bush meat trade, but slash and burn farming practices and human populations. Same goes for the Orang in Borneo and palm oil plantations.

 

The two least effective skeptical arguments are the ones from lack of sufficient habitat and lack of sufficient food.  People tend to forget that roving bands, with many members, of a pretty large primate used to find food easily ...and that in a lot of places there's more food now than there was when Native Americans were foraging for it.

 

I think we tend to see Africa as an exotic place, and North America not so much, it's a jaded view because we live in the more populated places in it.

 

To me this is at least part of the good reason we don't have scientific documentation.  We just can't buy the concept of primates in the temperate zone, other than us (and despite the fact that, well, there are, even today).  And we have so effectively sealed ourselves off from the outdoors that we honestly think there's almost none left...and nothing could be further from the truth.  Mountain lion, moose, deer, turkey, coyote, bear and wolf aren't exactly expanding their range walking down city streets.

 

Also, concerning hair, I'm positive that foliage rips hairs away, but finding them in the undergrowth is another matter. If it was me, I would tend to look for hair on barbed wire fence lines if there are any in the vicinity. That's about the only place I notice deer hair caught that's easily seen.

 

When I see animal hair in the woods is when I come across where one died.  And that is it.  And that ain't often.

 

[Cotter]

I see some comments that are made and I think of a couple options.

It appears that some comments are made by folks that have NEVER set foot in a true backcountry situation, some comments are being made by folks that may have experienced the backcountry, but then are painting with broad brush strokes what all backcountry is like.....

 

I've been through areas in the Appalachians, Ozarks, Boundary Waters, Rocky Mountains, and the PNW.  What I do know is that within all of those areas are places that can be easily hiked through, and places that if you can make 1000' in 1 hour, you are doing a good job.  Ecosystems can be quite diverse, and just over the next hill, or through the next valley, you can be in what appears to be a completely different place.

[Guest DWA]

^^^Exactly; and I (and probably you) can add a lot more places I've been to that list.

 

Some of the easiest walking I have ever done has been in Alaska; some of the hardest has been in Virginia.

 

Like that.

[WSA]

The closest backcountry walking I've ever done, measured in air miles, to where I understand area X to be, was in Arkansas, along the Buffalo River. In August. Don't do it, is all I can say. Well, do it if you are in your 20's and can't help yourself. Jimmy-bad forest, that.

 

On roughly the same line of presumed latitude, I've done lots of walking in N. Alabama, with tons of hours in the Bankhead Forest, Sipsey Wilderness. Nothing remotely easy about country like that...old mountain ranges worn to nubs by constant pounding of water, and it is the closest you'll find to temperate rainforest in the U.S. outside of the PNW.  And they are too hot and sticky in Summer to ever really imagine. The words "lush" and "fecund" were invented to describe terrain like this. You just don't go anywhere quickly, and the Sipsey is the one area, after decades of walking in the wild, where I unwittingly walked in a circle. I have no problem imagining similar conditions in Area X.   

 

I would just be of the opinion that any conclusions about the NAWAC's ability to work/study/travel and observe fauna in Area X that do not factor in a first-hand understanding of the conditions on the ground in that area are omitting a crucial piece of information. If you look at some of the videos that have been posted here, showing the area of operations, you can get some sense of it. But you need to try and sleep on the ground, in nightime temps of 80+ degrees (probably close to the dew point too) with katydids ratcheting all night, redbugs biting your crotch and your summerweight sleeping bag sticking to your deet saturated body to really have any idea. 

 

And not to discount the comments of those who have driven through this area and are familiar with the secondary roads. I'm sure they are accurate, but unless I'm misunderstanding, they don't know where Bipto's group is actually operating, so they would not be able to accurately predict how accessible the area is by vehicle, from all sides. 

[Guest DWA]

^^^I did the circle thing in WV once.  In the East, there is no shortage of places it can be done; there is in fact a super-surplus of them.

 

I would just be of the opinion that any conclusions about the NAWAC's ability to work/study/travel and observe fauna in Area X that do not factor in a first-hand understanding of the conditions on the ground in that area are omitting a crucial piece of information. If you look at some of the videos that have been posted here, showing the area of operations, you can get some sense of it. But you need to try and sleep on the ground, in nightime temps of 80+ degrees (probably close to the dew point too) with katydids ratcheting all night, redbugs biting your crotch and your summerweight sleeping bag sticking to your deet saturated body to really have any idea. 

And let me second that, and say that, for the sheer dripping why-did-I-done-thisness of it, if your experience is all in the West, your experience is Little League.

 

One of the main reasons we easterners hike out there is to be comfortable for a change.

[WSA]

 

 

"One of the main reasons we easterners hike out there is to be comfortable for a change."

 

 

How true that DWA?  I well remember the first time I hiked above the timberline. I was positively giddy, and being able to finally hike in short pants? Whoa, that was a watershed moment for a guy who lived with a permanent poison ivy rash most of the warm months.