Are Hikers, Campers, And Hunters Pushing Bf To Its Limits?

[ThePhaige]

The government is not interested in protection... to the contrary and (in many peoples view and understanding) would like for them to be disappeared completely. Science also wishes to not acknowledge them. This is not a localized to the US. This situation it is a global view. It has been discussed by many​,​that if anything​,​they should have been satisfactorily discouraged through fear to avoid human contact for the sake of their ongoing existence but yet they continue to pop up despite attempts ​at​ forced​ subservience. Kind of like a little reminder kind if thing IMO. I dont think we even know their limits to know if they have been pushed to any degree one way or the other.

Now I dont personally support any of it, the hunting, the protection, the acknowledgment etc. I support just leaving them well alone. Those who know about them know about them and those who don't cant seem to handle it so well in many cases anyway​​. So for that there is good reason. I know there are those who want them to be our friends and some who wish them to be like pets, or spiritual brothers or whatever, and I totally understand all of that. Ive been on all sides of this believe me, but at the end of the day there are more things misunderstood about what and whom they are than are understood (mainly by the masses). It seems that anyone who has tried to bring fame to themselves in this field are either eviscerated or go or are called insane, anyone who even gets too close is pushed back farther by forces that seem almost impenetrable. 

​ ​

How they are perceived and handled by those in power is a completely different set of criteria. These are not just some generic undiscovered animal, there are more people in positions of power that know exactly

​ the profound nature of​ what they are and have been dealing with it for a long long time. How successfully or unsuccessfully it has been dealt with is not known and one would need to know how that success is defined to even make a guess.  They cannot and will not easily be allowed to be recognized. There is a great deal more effort going into concealment than into the uncovering and that's just facts as seen through observable action​​. I say just leave them be, if you have an encounter then you have an encounter and leave it at that. Find people to talk with about it and let it go at that. my 3 cents

[Guest Cervelo]

That IS a romantic notion, Cervelo, you're right -- and it came right out of your romantic head.

Nobody has said that there's a "Bigfoot army massing in the woods waiting to take us out." Only you have said that.

All that people have said is that a Bigfoot who has been shot at can get extremely grumpy, so you might want to think twice about shooting at one.

Awwwww thanks Leaf haven't been called romantic in sometime and never on this site that's for sure!

That's certainly the implication of the thread...is Biggie getting all feed up with us worriesome hunters, campers and hikers....based on my experience don't worry folks your safe in the woods!

Your chances of a Bigfoot encounter are right up there with....maybe a Sharknado IMO, unless of course you have little experience in the woods and a really good imagination then it's all but guaranteed!

Well apparently if you follow the NAWAC/Bipto thread those Bigfoot's have just kept coming back for years to be shot at....maybe the ones he's dealing with just aren't as smart as the ones others folks are having regular contact with.

I'm hoping for a Bigfoot army or Zombie apocalypse but I think the odds are about the same for both maybe a little edge to the Zombies.

Imonocan, JDL, and Branco: Those are beautiful thoughts, beautifully expressed. Thanks for sharing them. And thanks, georgerm, for raising the questions that gave rise to them.

Now that's romantic!

Edited August 13, 2013 by Cervelo

[Guest Darrell]

^Great, now BFF is turning into a dating site, lol. I guess it was inevitable since guys who live in their mom's basements need love too!

[georgerm]

 

They are adaptable and opportunistic, living in many environments and taking advantage of all available food sources.  And they often live on the fringes of our civilization, drawn to us by the food sources we generate and perhaps a few other things.  So I doubt that we are placing stress on their population by continuing to produce food sources for them to take advantage of, or by occasionally forcing them to relocate to another habitat in which they seem able to thrive.  In fact, their rotational nomadic pattern seems to be one of their defining characteristics.

 

Respect is always a good thing, but I don't think we are putting any more stress on them than at any other time in history, and I think that a community of farmers aware of bigfoot, and vigilantly protecting their edibles against bigfoot encroachment, would put more stress on bigfoot than all the hikers, campers, and hunters that encroach on their habitat.

 

Ultimately, when our culture reawakens to their factual existence I don't think things will change too much for them.  It'll change far more things for us.

 

 

My hopes are you are correct, but I don't think so.  Look at what's happened to the other wild animal populations.

[LeafTalker]

I don't think there are any basements in the wilderness, where Cervelo spends a lot of time hiking and exploring and observing and learning things most of us wouldn't be able to absorb if we lived a thousand lifetimes. 

 

About who things will change for: I agree that a reawakening (I like that "re" part) to their existence will change more for us than for them. But in case those changes (if they happen) inspire fear in some people, it would be good for us to have strengthened the respect muscle in ourselves, so that we have something better -- more useful -- to offer people, in place of the fear.

[Guest crabshack]

And what if it is mr bigfoot that is pushing hikers, campers, and hunters to their limits.

 

What gives you the right to insist that the woods belong to them?

[JDL]

My hopes are you are correct, but I don't think so.  Look at what's happened to the other wild animal populations.

 

Honestly, I'm not the least bit worried about their future.  The wild animal populations most likely to die off are those that are overly specialized in terms of the habitat that they can occupy, food sources they can exploit, conditions under which they can procreate, and other limitations.  Bigfoot, have few limitations in these respects and are well above animal intelligence.  As a species, they seem to be doing fine.

 

The biggest threat I would anticipate for them might be the spread of a disease to which they are susceptible.  I once found, and haven't been able to find since, an account by a native American elder recorded by his granddaughter stating that the bigfoot population was even more devastated by the introduction of European diseases in the 1500's than the native Americans were.  In his words, they stopped seeing bigfoot for so long that they believed that the bigfoot had completely died out.

 

By now we have to assume that their population has had the same exposures and acquired the same resistances that we have (through indirect contact from shared food sources, i.e. garbage, etc.), but it is conceivable that a new pandemic that decimates us would also decimate them.  This would be the true threat to them by having us in their environment, but it is likely moot, because they also spend time in our environment.

[Guest Darrell]

^But is this even possible? We know animals can carry stuff that is harmful to humans but can it work the other way?

[Branco]

My hopes are you are correct, but I don't think so.  Look at what's happened to the other wild animal populations.

Over sixty years ago in our State, a large male cougar was killed in the western part of the state. It was reportedly the last resident cougar. There are now cougar in most every area of the state. Our G & F Commission says the only free-ranging cougar are those that were "pets" and turned loose when they grew too large for the "owners" to handle. Of course that is BS, but most people who spend very little time in the outdoors buy that hogwash because it comforts them when they do venture out in the boonies. (It is interesting to me that most Cougar and Bigfoot sightings come from the same general areas, and Cougar are reported publicly more often that Bigfoot. Until the last few decades, witnesses seldom reported a Bigfoot encounter or sighting publicly.)

 

In the 40's and 50's, deer were scarce as hen's teeth in most of the state. There is now deer all over the state; too many in many areas, including areas within cities and towns. Feral hogs which were once limited mostly to the southern half of the state have now spread over most of the state - with the help of witless hunters who carried them into the Ozark & Ouachita Mountains and turned them loose so they could hunt them and their offspring. In the 40's & 50's there were hardly any coyotes. Armadillos or road-runners were unheard of in most areas. All three are now found state-wide. An over-abundance now of coyotes, - along with the ever-growing population of bobcat, red & grey fox and raccoon have decimated the turkey and quail populations. 

 

It is true that what the old timers called "spotted cats", actually ocelot, are now apparently extinct in the state. (Hopefully there are few left somewhere in the mountains in which they were last seen in the early 50's.)

 

Native wolves appear to have been wiped out fifty or sixty years ago. (I saw my last one in about 1958. It had been killed by a rancher in the Ouachita Mountains.) Grey wolves are reportedly being reintroduced into a few places in the east and west sections of the state. They were reportedly obtained by the G&F C from Yellowstone. Elk have also been re-introduced and spreading.

 

There are about four millions acres of land in the state which are owned and controlled by the federal and state government. Much of it is suitable habitat for all of the animals mentioned above. In one particular area in the southeast corner of the state, the Dept of Agriculture is buying 3,400 acres of farmland along a delta river to restore it to its original hardwood bottoms condition. It is very interesting that this undertaking is near a National Wildlife Refuge & Sanctuary, and a series of State WMA's that in combination with adjoining privately timberland, is believed to be within the foraging range of the most dense population of Bigfoot  per land area in the state. The sanctuary does allow limited hunting of duck and small game that can be taken with .22 rifles or shotguns with pellets sized for duck hunting, but, from my reading of the R & R's, no calls of any type may be used. Outside the set hunting seasons, no human traffic is allowed.  

 

Bottom line appears to be that all over the country the Feds and States are doing what they think is necessary to provide habitat for even the critters they don't want to talk about yet. When they are forced to face the truth publicly; they will simply say they knew about them and did what they could to protect them without alarming the public, or disrupting the timber and mining industries.

[ShadowBorn]

Had to attach the file,

Although I agree with some of your document,I do not agree that they can be homocidal at all. If this was true alot of us would not be here at all to allow us to talk about them. Sure they do have behavior that we do not fully understand and nor we ever will, but in some ways they are us as we are them. For us to live in their domain would take years to learn on how to survive the way that they do. Even though that we at one time did live their way,our bodies are not condtion to live that way now. Our tresspassing means nothing to them and they have learned to cope with us in the way that they live. They have done more to clear their ways with us that they have learned that agressiveness is not the way of passage with us. That agressiveness only leads to a path of being hunted with us. Their peacefull solution is to remain hidden and beyond sight. They have no need for our protection nor will they ever look for it.  They are not Monkeys,nor apes,but a part of us.

[JDL]

^But is this even possible? We know animals can carry stuff that is harmful to humans but can it work the other way?

 

Yes, it is referred to as reverse zoonosis or anthroponosis.  The H1N1 virus acquired a mix of pig, avian, and human DNA, indicating the range of species susceptible to it.  MRSA has been transmitted to chickens from humans, as have various strains of E-Coli.  Kids and dogs can swap viruses.  And then there are the more disgusting means of transmission and the diseases that go along with such activity.

 

Actually, though, I looked at the possible susceptibility of bigfoot to human disease as an indicator of how closely they may be related to us.

Edited August 14, 2013 by JDL

[georgerm]

Although I agree with some of your document,I do not agree that they can be homocidal at all.

 

When shot

 

If this was true alot of us would not be here at all to allow us to talk about them. Sure they do have behavior that we do not fully understand and nor we ever will, but in some ways they are us as we are them. For us to live in their domain would take years to learn on how to survive the way that they do. Even though that we at one time did live their way,our bodies are not condtion to live that way now. Our tresspassing means nothing to them and they have learned to cope with us in the way that they live. Depends on how close to the den or female with kids.

 

 

They have done more to clear their ways with us that they have learned that agressiveness is not the way of passage with us. That agressiveness only leads to a path of being hunted with us. Their peacefull solution is to remain hidden and beyond sight. Agree

 

They have no need for our protection nor will they ever look for it.  Can't agree.

 

 

They are not Monkeys,nor apes,but a part of us.

[TD-40]

If humans are pushing Bf to its limits, I wonder if we will start hearing about violent encounters.

[MIB]

I don't think we're pushing BF to any limits.   I think that's interpretation, not observation.    It's important to know where the line between the two lies.   It seems pretty obvious in some situations (habituation, for instance) they're as actively (though very selectively) seeking us out as we are actively seeking them.   It is hard to know with certainty whether that apparent change is real or merely reflects a cultural shift in what we choose to report.

 

The list of questions grows seemingly without end while the list of apparently certain answers is actually shrinking as new observations challenge the old conclusions.  

 

MIB

[Guest]

That IS a romantic notion, Cervelo, you're right -- and it came right out of your romantic head.

 

Nobody has said that there's a "Bigfoot army massing in the woods waiting to take us out." Only you have said that. 

 

All that people have said is that a Bigfoot who has been shot at can get extremely grumpy, so you might want to think twice about shooting at one.

 

Ya, I hear they run in circles and beat up camera men.