Guest Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Why am i typing in kgb visitor on youtube. I wNt to see a bigfoot
NathanFooter Posted January 3, 2014 Author Posted January 3, 2014 Hi Nathan, I agree with your sentiments, but in my opinion the only protection the BF need is a law making it a federal offense to kill one. One,misconception you're laboring under, though, is that their habitat is shrinking rapidly. In point of fact, there is more forested land now than there was in the last half of the 19th century and has remained stable since 1900. http://forestry.about.com/library/bl_us_forest_acre_trend.htm I was referring to unbroken forest lands { no roads, trails or regular human movement }, true remote forest is becoming less common. We have more total forested land coverage now but not true vast and wild landscape.
Guest Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 (edited) Why am i typing in kgb visitor on youtube. I wNt to see a bigfoot Its just as good, but need another name for visitor. Problem with unbroken forest area is that 20 years ago, there was way more environmentally oriented people involved in trying to provide for open space. Then the Sierra club was paid 100 MILLION dollars not to talk about illegal immigration. Now the country is being flooded, and people, as in my area, are flowing out of all the crowded states and soiling the nicer areas. Being politically active is the only thing you can do. If people know about BF, the forest won't be protected because they don't 'need' unbroken tracks of forest if we know they exist. And now we 'know' they exist. Big boo-boo. You have just defeated your purpose by exposing BF. You have just opened up a swimming pool full of worms. $60.00 total there Nathan. Now you don't need a therm. Hows the Japanese language training coming along? Edited January 3, 2014 by Wag
Guest Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 I was referring to unbroken forest lands { no roads, trails or regular human movement }, true remote forest is becoming less common. We have more total forested land coverage now but not true vast and wild landscape. Sorry Nathan, but that is indeed a misconception, that true remote forest is becoming less common. In fact, most of it is remote and not accessed by humans at all. If there is a forest road, and rarely used hiking trails.. how often is that used during a squatch's normal activity, and does that really matter at all ? Does the occasional road sighting or human presence near a forest road or recreation area even disturb these creatures, or do they come in from the Vast remote stretches to get entertained by humans ? Who really knows, for that matter ? The only protection they should ever need, is to continue to preserve their habitat on the vast public lands.. which IS being done. Not much can be done about private land development. If they ever are officially "discovered" by the mainstream.. That is when the real trouble for them, will start.. IMO. At present, I don't think BF reality TV is going to save them.. that's for sure.
hiflier Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 (edited) Hello imonacan, ...If they ever are officially "discovered" by the mainstream.... I don't think anyone really knows this but EVERY INDIVIDUAL WORD of that sentence says so much. Key word there is: "officially". "They" could have ten cadavers already but "officailly" they wouldn't exist. I'm seriously beginning to think that that is the truth of it now. Anything more on that point will just have to go to the Tar Pit. Edited January 4, 2014 by hiflier
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 I agree with you 100%, as I too find it appalling to think that data/information is being withheld from the rest of the community. The only way I can fathom someone doing such a thing is that they do not view the field of sasquatch research as being a legitimate scientific field, and thus they see no reason to release any of their findings. Or, on the same note, they do not view what they are doing as a scientific endeavour, and thus they do not see the need to release any information or data that they have accumulated. Or maybe they just don't know how to release it, or even what they've got. Those reasons are more understandable to me than simply being selfish, although I can sort of understand why one may do something like that. I mean consider the field in general, if it is a "field." There are people in the field who are solely focused on making money, and who have no genuine desire to further what is known about sasquatch. Knowing there are those people out there, is a person justified in withholding what they know, because they do not wish for these non-scientifically minded people to have that information? I think that, regardless of whether it is right or wrong, I can understand the reasoning. But for many people, sort of like you already mentioned, it does not go that deep. There is a simpler and less noble reason behind the withholding of data, and that I cannot abide. But, here is what I think could be done to hopefully remedy the situation a bit... If there were a way for researchers to submit certain types of data, sort of like some central system, then perhaps more people will be inclined to share what they know. But then there is the problem of sifting through the information for accuracy, which is virtually impossible. One can do what the BFRO does, and contact each submitter individually, but even that is no guarantee that the submitter data is accurate, although it may help a bit. I just think that if there were some way that researchers didn't have to expend tons of extra effort to put something out for which there is little to no thanks, they may be more inclined to do so. The range of data that various researchers may have will be staggering imo, because there is no systematic way to put down information. And on top of that, whoever is releasing the material must then explain to everyone what they are looking at, and that takes a bit of effort, and not everyone is so selfless that they would do such a thing. I guess my point is that we maybe could help the situation somehow- I am just not sure how, lol. And regarding the loss of sasquatch habitat, I also agree with you. I have mentioned before that even those who believe sasquatch would be better left to themselves must realize that a day will come when the sasquatch population exceeds the population limit. This will occur first in certain regions, before spreading all over North America. I don't know how long it will take, but I believe it will happen without a federal measure to protect these animals. But I also believe the sasquatch population is increasing relatively dramatically, which not everyone agrees with. I don't have much data to back that up, considering that an increase in sightings does not necessarily translate into there being more sasquatch in an area, since there are other factors which could cause sightings to increase. So for those who believe they are somehow protecting these animals by not telling what they know, I think you are hurting them in the long run, and I do not agree with such a decision. But even those who are in a position to release evidence must realize that the discovery of the species is not likely to come about from such a generous offer, therefore they also may not have much incentive to release anything. I still believe however, that in the name of science, such information should be released. Even if no one was grateful, which is virtually impossible, and even though some will scoff, it is something that I believe should be done, if someone is sitting on information or evidence.
Recommended Posts