See-Te-Cah NC Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Mod Statement: This discussion has devolved into insulting banter that needs to stop now. Also remember that the discussion of politics isn't allowed, and in some instances can be seen as trolling the membership should the commentary alarm, provoke or antagonize. Also, if your post disappears from the forum, do not repost it. It's under Mod Review. Please don't make it necessary to close the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 (edited) Conspiracies are a fact, they are a reality and to argue otherwise is just ridiculous. Just as this constantly emerging political correctness cult that has emerged... Calling names might shut up some, but not all. The aim is to silence the louder voices from rocking the boat. There is nothing new under the sun and no new tactics in the debate realm either. Where there are groups of people there are always conditions where 2 or more collude together for a common goal or agenda. conspiracy [kuhn-spir-uh-see] noun, plural conspiracies. 1.the act of conspiring 2.an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. 3.a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government. 4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. 5.any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. Larry....solid links there sir, this is something everyone should be considering and concerned about Edited March 2, 2014 by ThePhaige Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Crowlogic- Well that is assuming that land would be put away for them.What about establishing a free roam policy for BF? Many large game animals enjoy free-roam. There are a few problems with free-roam however namely insurance mitigation for private land owners(which in my opinion would be neglegable and what if the general public encounters these creatures on publicly held lands like parks or BLM. Alsomany studies would have to take place if and when BF were verified and classified. I was a little confused on your statement about where WE fit in, I think its all about where THEY fit in. If BF is found to be no more human than a chimpanze per say and were classified and regarded as an animal that is one thing(actually several things), but if the BF were to be found as very close to Homo Sapiens DNA wise then a whole lot of other (differant) studies would be initiated and applications to how close they are to legal personage would need to be determined. a lot of differant sets of assumptions still at this stage, IMO of course. I subscribe to the idea that if they still exist it is in very small numbers. Perhaps a couple of hundred. It is not unlike the Monarch butterfly wintering groves. A small area protected for the preservation of a species. It should be possible to preserve the local habitat where they are. Could be just a couple of mountain passes or valleys. So preservation could consist of preserving 1/25th of an entire forest or alpine forest range. I firmly believe that if the DNA of a Sasquatch could be reliable analyzed it would put them well in the hominid primate family. Not every thought discipline subscribes to other animals being directly connected to humans. So in order to maintain a certain status quo nothing known is ever released. I see them as in the PNW not nation wide in spite of the sightings contrary. A wide spread population of numbers in the thousands is far to many not to be discovered. Therefore a small secretive localized population makes more sense to my way of thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Crowlogic- yeah, OK. Now lets assume that 1/25 of the state park system is put away for BF. So how do you suppose containing such a large creatue in that area. From all reports it makes sense that BF is a roaming nomadic creature following food sourses not nessesarily staying in one spot year round. as far as how close a BF is to homo sapiens, I am not sure one way or the other, but if they are then wouldn't containment be like how the europeans treated the First Nation Peoples, containing them in reservations. Food for thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lightheart Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 I personally do not believe that they are containable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 ^^^ I totally agree with you, and their numbers are greatly underestimated. IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lightheart Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Agreed totally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted March 3, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 3, 2014 I personally do not believe that they are containable. I had to plus that. You can't contain what you can't find. I think ptangier's concept of a free roam policy is the only option we have any chance of implementing successfully. The issue I have with it is he's still looking at it from the perspective of fish and wildlife, a wildlife management perspective, rather than looking at them as primitive people free to go where they wish. Semantics is important, which agency takes the lead of managing US in our interaction with them is going to be important. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lightheart Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Yes the semantics are very important. i think that right now Fish and Wildlife are taking a role in trying to keep us separate. As in clearing out a buffer zone near trails. Torching the underbrush cover areas near viewing towers, overlooks etc. Even torching the access paths to those areas as a kind of behavioral conditioning. i think that these are some things that are currently being attempted. I think they think they are dealing with mere animals. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 I think they think they are dealing with mere animals. LOL Nah. USFW knows exactly what they're dealing with, lightheart. They've known for decades. And they've done a very good job of keeping it that way..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Interesting … Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Lightheart, I agree with you 100%. The area that I had consistent activity in 2013 was next to a section of NF that had just had a "controlled" burn. I have been thinking about this a lot and feel it is not coincidence. The FS could be doing this to drive them from an area or as a buffer from a popular hiking/camping area. I also think that our "control" of fire is a big reason that we humans are feared by BF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 I think control burns have more to do with preservation of our forests than they do with containing Bigfoot or any other animal. This practice has been in use for a long time and is a simple method for containing the spread of wild fire, as well as clearing land for habitat or agriculture. Once the burn is over, animals will cross over the burned areas with no concern. I don't think this would slow down a Bigfoot or any other animal for that matter. No doubt they're scared of fire but what animal isn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Well IMO they prefer cover, and aren't half such a worry when they can't get you surrounded. I have the perception that there's far less reporting of flanking behaviour in the open, they just wanna head back for the wood line, apart maybe from atypical rogues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted February 20, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) Related to this I am seeing something that seems to be a pattern with the Washington DNR. My first research contact was on a mountain at the edge of human development in Clark County. This area had been BF active with multiple sighting and vocalization reports since the 1990s. Little or no logging. Logging started and now the mountain itself has been about 60% logged. Logging started on the NW habituated side and moved over the top to the East. Curiously the logging ran right over very active hiking trails with no effort to take them into consideration. Well I thought that was probably it for logging but then started seeing the tree survey markings on trees. But it seemed that they left a corridor of trees, heading off the mountain off to the East away from humans, down to an area at the foot of the mountain, where I had started having BF contact. The area suddenly got very active. Again this corridor seemed to have nothing to do with the multiuse recreational trails which ended up in the clear cut areas. They logged right over them. Logging started taking big zones of trees down with clear cut but there was a big corridor of cover that was not logged which pointed East. One particular area where I had my zapping encounter had signs posted that it was a designated special habitat area. I have never seen those signs anyplace else. Things were stable for a couple of years, then clear cutting started that ran right up to the posted special habitat area. That was left alone and logging completely surrounded the area except for, you probably guessed, a corridor of trees left, heading off to the East. With that logging BF activity in the area stopped. I floundered around trying to figure out where the BF went. Going here and there but never exploring the area just East of my last contact area. My last time out, I spent some time looking at USGS maps and decided to check out an area just East of my last active area. I had never been in there as the only open road in is posted no trespassing. I found a blocked of with boulders, logging road, near the road posted no trespassing and hiked on foot. Not knowing what to expect other than what I had seen on Google Earth. Sure enough pointed right at the area where I had a couple of years of BF contact was a narrow finger of forested cover pointed right back towards my previous contact area to the West. This densely wooded area leads around through some timbered drainage, with active creeks, behind the area posted no trespassing, and is a corridor leading off to the East, off into Skamania County. Suddenly light bulb came on, and the pattern hit me. The DNR seems to be herding the BF who have lived in the area for probably 100s of years off to the East, away from hiking trails, homes being built at the edge of the woods, and away from human habitation. If I did not have the continuous experience in the area lasting years and just visited casually, the pattern would not have been as obvious. But it seems to be a pattern to leave a corridor of tree cover heading East. Coincidence? Maybe. But if I knew BF was in the area, wanted to log the area, and encourage them to move East, into the uninhabited areas to the East, that is how I would do it. At this point, within a few years, I fully expect those fingers of forest cover that have not been logged will be logged and completely cut off BF that have moved East from returning due to lack of cover. Edited February 20, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts