The Researchers And The Choice.

[NathanFooter]

 Why do some field researchers hold back their findings and or say they wish the sasquatch to remain undiscovered ?

 

 Myself being a field researcher, I have asked my self this question hundreds of times and I am very confused and rather disturbed on the reasons I have heard.   

 

  I have heard the following ,, they are doing fine on their own ,, - ,, we do not deserve to know ,, - ,, not my place ,,.

 

 In my opinion these reasons makes no sense at all or are completely wrong, the expansive { unbroken } forest is being reduced and we push housing districts out into the forest deeper every year, we are having accounts come out that sasquatch are going for dumpsters and trash and thus producing more issues between us and them.

 

 The suitable habitat is being broken up and resources are being taken, in my mind discovery will push for habitats being preserved and the species it's self.  We have protected and held ground for other species to better the populations, the sasquatch certainly deserves the same.

 

 Where do you stand and why ?

[hiflier]

Hello NathanFooter,

First one to the finish line gets the money. The general denial in official circles could be a bit more sinister however.

Edited December 30, 2013 by hiflier

[Guest]

Total disaster.

 

BF does not want to be discovered. The only issue I have with them is the kidnapping of various peoples. That could be curtailed somewhat with interactive action groups possible, but to what extent is unknown.

 

Humans are stupid, too stupid to know about a giant anthro-pod living in the forest, and the 411 stuff would come out and be a total disaster.

Dang dirty humans.

 

Since when and what are humans going to stop overpopulating America? What is going to stop this? Nothing is going to stop human encroachment except some sort of population control, etc. I've been there, I've tried, its only gotten worse in the last 20 years or so.

Then your going to say: BTW, there is a big rear ended hair thing that kidnaps people living in the forests of America in every state. Have fun on your next family outing, camping trip, girl scout camp, etc etc...

 

Let sleeping dogs lie.

 

IF I find a body part, its (hopefully) going to some anonymous collector in Japan after they do the DNA. I'll post the pics here in a couple years after. Dealing with that will be tricky of course.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Wag

[norseman]

Why do some field researchers hold back their findings and or say they wish the sasquatch to remain undiscovered ?

Myself being a field researcher, I have asked my self this question hundreds of times and I am very confused and rather disturbed on the reasons I have heard.

I have heard the following ,, they are doing fine on their own ,, - ,, we do not deserve to know ,, - ,, not my place ,,.

In my opinion these reasons makes no sense at all or are completely wrong, the expansive { unbroken } forest is being reduced and we push housing districts out into the forest deeper every year, we are having accounts come out that sasquatch are going for dumpsters and trash and thus producing more issues between us and them.

The suitable habitat is being broken up and resources are being taken, in my mind discovery will push for habitats being preserved and the species it's self. We have protected and held ground for other species to better the populations, the sasquatch certainly deserves the same.

Where do you stand and why ?

This is exactly my sentiments about the anti kill crowd!

[Guest]

LoL -Bad Human- there ya go Nate! Why unleash 10's of thousands? Anyway, your gonna need a body, and Big Bro seems to step in if Big Foots don't. And if I get a body, its going to Japan (or China?)

[BobbyO]

To answer your question Nathan.

Vanity, insecurity, ego and the desire to be the ones to show the world one of the most incredible secrets there is which would then actually make them somebody for probably the only time in their lives.

[Guest]

I tend to think Bigfoots doing alright without help. but i couldn't say for sure. it couldn't hurt to have their own reservation. Cliff said the vietnamese have only 19 reports of wildmen and they have land the government deemed as Wild Man sanctuary .

Edited December 30, 2013 by ItsAsquatch

[Guest]

BBF members- here we go agian with the kill vs no-kill topic to forward the exsistance of BF. My opinion does not amount to a hill of beans and that's OK with me because the protocals set in place for crptids are in place and I have taken the time to battle it out on this forum time and time agian with the conclution that people are going to do what they want to do anyways and I am not payed to make that judgement call. Best thing I can do is to ask people to call the Dept of Interior DF&W agency ask for yourself about their recommended mandates for states in these situations. John Bingernail and many other members of the acadamia(?) have pointyed out that a body is not nessesary and if you take the time to educate yourself you will find that a DNA study is needed. You turn in a dead body and it gets lost in time. Or you do you give possesion of a body to(unreported)BTW. I relize that differant states adopt their own policies anyways, just saying you need to check out the legal aspects before leaning on your own opinion or logic; it may suprise. 

[southernyahoo]

I'm sure some researchers find it pointless to put alot of their findings in public because the whole premise is largely regarded as speculative at best, and they don't wish to debate with others the veracity of their evidence or the significance of it. Much of it cannot be shown to come directly from a bigfoot even though the circumstances and provenance compells them as individuals. Much of the data researchers can generate is viewed as potentially contaminated by either witnesses being victums of a hoax or the witnesses and researchers both are hoaxers or have misidentified things in their data or evidence. The researchers are seen as either.... your nuts, your gullible, your lying, your seeking attention, or your playing keep away with the supreme knowledge. There's always some angle to attack it.

 

So maybe they just aren't as certain about their findings and can't fully support their convictions.

 

I think BF is likely real and could benefit more from people being educated about them and their existence, but protecting their habitat is probably not as hard as you might expect when they live and thrive in diverse environments. We probably are pushing them out of some places but not likely wiping out all their habitat. Much of the habitat we call wooded land is regrowth. So the attitude that they are doing ok serves it's purpose until one is found dead and proven. When proven, we'll probably see that preserves only preserve's the trees while BF still roams where ever it wants much like the rest of the wildlife.

[Guest WesT]

Hi Nathan,

 

you touched on some good issues. I'll start out by saying the forest people were here when we got here and will more than likely be here after were gone. It's true we harvest the trees from the forest, but it's also true that because of that it's created a larger diversity of habitats that they can exploit. The USFS and state forestry services seem to be doing a good job of managing the wildlife areas. But if the creature is confirmed then it would surely cause them some major headaches, not to mention lost revenue.  

 

So what do we do in the event of confimation? There are already protected federal and state forests for all the animals to live, so why set aside a place just for them when they don't recognize our boundries anyways? I say we maintain the status quo but that's just me.

 

Do I want it to be confirmed? That depends on what day you ask me....  lol

[indiefoot]

I know they are really out there, I know that they should have been classified long before now.

 

Unless someone is hiding a body, it would seem the OP is a moot point. Nothing I have hidden away is going to make a difference.

 

P.S. Not everyone considers themselves a researcher.

Edited December 30, 2013 by indiefoot

[Guest]

SY- Some of your points in MHO are valid. However any talk about setting land aside for BF is IMO pointless. How can you contain a 500 ld. bi-ped? I just think that a free -roam policy is the right approach. This might put government regulators in conflict with propery owners/insurance interests etc. but setting land aside, no. BTW have you seen how much public land there is in Ca? I liked your point about researchers not putting their evidence out for public display and also many governmental entities do not like having a look at the "proof" after the public is given a look; it puts pressure on them and is unethical in their eyes to answer to any public opinions; they are only interested in the FACTS not public opinion. Public opinion is on good for ballot issues, you have to remember we are dealing with appointed (in Ca. anyways) beaureacrats if anyone is seeking new public comments for suggestions to the commission(s). 

[Guest DWA]

Sasquatch research right now is an amateur pursuit, with everything good (cheap!) and bad (all kinds of varying motivations!) about it.

 

There are a lot of people who look at what happens to other species when science confirms them, which usually requires a dead body and almost invariably leads to other dead bodies, lots of them.  That bothers them, and they just don't want to see it repeated.  Then there are others who relish mystery and see the disappearance of that mystery - which, count on it, won't happen - as a Bad Thing. 

 

(So many people think actually finding bigfoot will be the end.  It will be the Big Bang, barely the beginning.)

 

I can't address all of them.  I'm also not sure that we can save the sasquatch from the lesser angels of our nature.  Our natural niche seems to be:  taker of everything else's niche.  But count on it, that is happening to sasquatch, unconfirmed or not.  It simply has an infinitesimally smaller chance of happening if we as a species know sasquatch is there.  Just to me, now.

 

As to those who think that scientific poking and prodding are unseemly and would rather the sasquatch die out wild and free and unknown, I guess I just paraphrase David Quammen:  I'm not down for a policy of passive euthanasia in the name of "death with dignity."  The sasquatch is not a terminal victim of lymphoma; the sasquatch's condition has yet to be diagnosed.  It is his privilege to help mankind endure by lifting his heart, and ours to help him if we possibly can.

Edited December 30, 2013 by DWA

[Bonehead74]

Why are we so conceited to believe that we know what's best when we can't even reach a consensus on what they are (or if they are)?

[Guest]

John bingernail?