Why Is It Easier To Find Large Animals In Third World Jungles Compared To North American Forests?

[Guest Darrell]

I know this story has literally nothing to do with looking for SASSY, but it does show how easy it is for an animal as HUGE as a full grown BULL ELEPHANT to stay hidden in his own environment.

 

 

Im a big fan of African and Indian hunting also and have a large collection of older books on the subject. Some are classics.  But the point is, as hard is it is to sometimes find these animals, they are regularly found, studied, filmed in HD quality, hunted, and killed (sometimes almost to extinction). The same with NA game here. Its not that hard to observe bear, elk and moose here in NE Washington and N. Idaho where I live (except for during hunting season, lol). None of which seems to apply to bigfoot.

[Guest DWA]

Well, show me one place where dozens of hunters meet on a regular basis to discuss strategies for killing sasquatch, based on what is known for certain about sasquatch...and I'll show you a specimen within the month if not the week.

 

Everything else we kill we've been killing for thousands of years, because people who have information on them are believed, and listened to.

[Guest Darrell]

^So the reason we have'nt killed one yet is nobody believes the information that is taken as fact by proponents? And when everybody gets together and believes one will finally be shot? Naw, im not buying that. But who knows, it worked for Peter Pan right?

[Guest]

Well, show me one place where dozens of hunters meet on a regular basis to discuss strategies for killing sasquatch, based on what is known for certain about sasquatch...and I'll show you a specimen within the month if not the week.

 

Everything else we kill we've been killing for thousands of years, because people who have information on them are believed, and listened to.

this sounds absurd

[Guest DWA]

And any minute you are going to tell me how the hell you came up with that.

[Guest]

Can we really not get a group of hunters from this board to try that idea?

hasn't the NAWAC done that exact plan over the last two years?

Edited August 31, 2013 by mbh

[Guest DWA]

Yep.

 

And most of them have seen one.

 

It's a bit of a move from that to crystal-clear video or shooting one.

 

None of us got to see how humans learned to hunt deer or elephants or bears.  Bet that was messy too.

[Guest Darrell]

^Ya but I bet homo wasnt around very long before he actually killed something to eat. Now we have been on this rock for quite a while, and if we buy into the Ketchum dogma that bigfoot has been here 15,000 years, so dont you think if they were real we would have been killing them for a while? So if they were really here how did we forget to hunt them? As Arnold said in "Predator": If it bleeds we can kill it".

 

And to re-address the OP's question, Its not easier to find large animals in the worlds jungles than it is in NA. Its hard work to find them anywhere.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Darrell

[Guest]

Yep.

 

And most of them have seen one.

 

It's a bit of a move from that to crystal-clear video or shooting one.

 

None of us got to see how humans learned to hunt deer or elephants or bears.  Bet that was messy too.

huh?

You said we would have a body within a month. Is it a specimen or just a sighting, because those are drastically different things.

[Guest DWA]

I said, IF we had the kind of information sharing that we do with the animals that people regularly hunt.

 

The only reason hunters and fishermen are successful is that they are trading on generations - frequently uncounted generations - of experience of the hunters and fishermen that came before them.  How can you trade on this experience when nothing accumulates; when no one is comparing notes; when every single sighting or other piece of evidence is torn apart, the person relating it made to feel like a fool; and all of these thousands of encounters add up, essentially, to zero?

 

People don't just walk into the woods and find things.  They find (1) the things that don't run from them, i.e. the habituated, or (2) nothing.

 

(And then there are the fleeting encounters that lucky people have with something elusive...and no one believes them.)

 

Until people treat sasquatch encounters with the curiosity they demand, and start testing and accumulating information on these animals and their movements, people going into the woods to find them will find, well, nothing.

 

NAWAC is successful because they are working with cumulative experience.  So what does everybody do?  Go to the Operation Persistence and NAWAC Field Research threads and find out.  "Um, you didn't see that."

 

Oh.  OK.

^Ya but I bet homo wasnt around very long before he actually killed something to eat. Now we have been on this rock for quite a while, and if we buy into the Ketchum dogma that bigfoot has been here 15,000 years, so dont you think if they were real we would have been killing them for a while? So if they were really here how did we forget to hunt them? As Arnold said in "Predator": If it bleeds we can kill it".

 

And to re-address the OP's question, Its not easier to find large animals in the worlds jungles than it is in NA. Its hard work to find them anywhere.

If we deny it...then whether it bleeds or not (oh:  the evidence says it does), then as far as most of us are concerned...it doesn't exist.

 

The assumption that "we would have been..." doesn't seem to wash.  Because we haven't been.  That most emphatically does nothing to make the evidence go away.  But it does much to keep serious consideration of the evidence from ever happening.

 

It IS hard work.  Which, with this animal, is simply not being done.

 

Simple as that.

[Guest]

I said, IF we had the kind of information sharing that we do with the animals that people regularly hunt.

.

okay, I understand

your original post seemed to imply something else

Edited August 31, 2013 by mbh

[Guest]

I haven't read every post in this thread, so forgive me if this has already been pointed out:

 

In regards to BF, the question is not "why is it so hard to find".  The fact that we have hundreds of eyewitness testimonies, cast tracks, etc demonstrates that.

 

The real question being implied by the questioners is: why is it so hard to document BF in a manner that the scientific establishment will choose to accept.

 

It isn't our fault if science isn't following it's own creed and looking at the evidence rather than inventing reasons to ignore it.

[Guest]

That is a better way to word the question.

In defense of the scientist (who seem to be characterized negatively as a group a lot around here), I would probably be very hesitant to jump into any field of study so plagued with hoaxes and extremely colorful individuals.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Scientific standards can't be lowered to a point where anecdotes are acceptable as proof of a species. So it's not really about how many sightings there are. It's about which one actually happened or which footprint is actually real. There could be millions of sightings and track-ways, but in the end it's all futile evidence when not a single one can be proven to be the real deal. 

[Guest]

yup

that's a big fat problem as well