hiflier Posted January 18, 2014 Author Posted January 18, 2014 Hello Cervelo, You know as well as anyone else there is no documentation to be had that the public is aware of. Only anecdotes and there are plenty of those in spades. But it's not enough is it. To me there are at least six entities that would know though. The Bureau of Land Management, the Border Patrol, the logging industry, the forest fire brigades as in the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho, the Department of the Interior, The National Forestry Service, and the department of National Fisheries and Wildlife. Uh, wait a minute.....That's seven LOL. There's more. I've said I think there already a type specimen but that not for this thread. AND it's only because of how I think about things. I take it then that you're of the opinion that looking for a dead Sasquatch is a waste of time? Any more so than looking for a live one?
hiflier Posted January 18, 2014 Author Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) Hello salubrius, Acknowledgement is not burial. It's bereavement. And a fossil CAN be created in very short order depending on conditions, as in limestone caves. I agree it doesn't take long for Nature to do it's work though. And it's good thing too, or else we'd be buried under miles of bones But as flip as this sounds (and I don't mean for it to be) that has little to do with the idea of looking for remains in any state of decay and by whatever means at anyone's disposal. I understand chances are not good. Search parties looking for persons who have been missing only a few hours or days can turn up nothing. I'm not saying the idea is faultless. The very first thing to consider is existence in the first place afterall. I only present it as an alternative to running a Sasquatch to ground by all other methods tried. I've never heard or read of ANYONE going out to only look for a deceased Sasquatch. AND I'm trying to offer reasons why it can be done at a minimal cost to those wishing to think along those lines. I will be going out to look for signs and tracks and other evidence to include talking with locals in the near future. It's my first time doing so. During that time I will be trying this idea out with two other individuals. WITH the bear spray We will be looking for pits, holes in the ground, and other things similar. Primitive peoples did use deep holes for burials. Who knows, maybe Chimps do too but I'm sure it's been thought of already. Edited January 18, 2014 by hiflier
BC witness Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Looking for remains is certainly a logical part of the overall search for hard evidence, but don't expect quick success. My own experience, covering roughly 2,000 days in the bush, over a 50 year period, has shown that carcasses don't last very long in the wild forests of BC. In that time I've found the remains of only 4 large animals. Two of those were nearly complete skeletons, one of a cow, the other a bighorn sheep. The other 2 were bodies, or parts thereof, one a moose, shot out of season, and left to rot, and the other a recently killed deer, under a pile of brush, which my nose lead me to. Since there were both cougar and grizzly in the area, both of which cover kills on occasion, I left the site rather quickly. :-0 When out searching for a body, keep alert for scavengers as pointers to the location. The moose I mention above was found by noticing a coyote fleeing the area as I approached, and the deer was brought to my attention by a raven sentry alerting the others that I was near. Ravens and crows are seen and heard often over the site of gut piles left when hunters field dress game kills. They are frequently circling the sky over the kill before the hunter is finished the job!
hiflier Posted January 18, 2014 Author Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) Hello BCWitness, Your post content is a perfect match to the topic. Well said, and thanks for the tips and advice you've passed along regarding observing scavengers. Question for you: Were these discoveries of an incidental nature? I didn't get the impression that you were purposefully looking for these remains but had more or less happened upon them. If true then it brings home the point that as long as people aren't actually out looking for dead Sasquatch then Nature will have time to take it's course without discovery. Edited January 18, 2014 by hiflier
Guest Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 I only know of the one report of the BF head in the river bank, the guy was going to go get it, but it was too deep. I mapped it out (roughly) but that was in the 80's, so any bone would be long gone, or the Forest service would have read the report and found it a long time ago. That being said, first one I find is going to Japan, and the $$$ is going in my pocket, and no one will know about it. Just not really up on making big money deals with possibly shady Japanese businessmen. Is that safe?
BC witness Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Yes, hiflier, all of those finds were incedental to other activities, hunting in the case of the moose, deer, and cow remains, and fishing at a lake just below treeline, while hiking around the shore, when I found the sheep skeleton. I think that being alert to everything around you, including sounds and smells, while afield, is very important, both for your enjoyment, and in some cases, for your very safety.
hiflier Posted January 18, 2014 Author Posted January 18, 2014 Hello BC Witness, Two words: BEAR SPRAY. Another question please? Would bear spray work on those nasty little chipmunks that tear into my camp unannounced and steal the lettuce out of my sandwich?
BC witness Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) The effectiveness of bear spray on chipmunks would depend on their taste for essence of pepper on lettuce, I think. As for it's use on bears, it would be very dependent on circumstances. When I faced a charging grizzly, having inadvertantly come too close to his dinner of moose guts, I was very glad to be carrying a 30-06 rather than a can of mace! My 3rd round dropped him in full charge at about 20 feet, which is probably the furthest that any bear spray would start to have any effect, and that's assuming that the wind is in the right direction. If the bear and the wind are both coming from the same direction, there is only one outcome; you get sprayed, and the bear gets lunch. BTW, I bought a 300 Win. Magnum right after that trip. Hikers in bear country are told to carry bear spray, and wear bells to alert bears of their presence. The common joke around here is that you can tell the difference between black bear scat and grizzly scat by the presence of bells and the smell of pepper in the grizzly scat. Edited January 18, 2014 by BC witness
Guest DWA Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 hiflier: yes to everything you said. (Something isn't working between me and cutting/pasting OR quoting on this computer. Just this site. Hmmmmm.) Again: ANYTING devoted is better than nothing. Hiking on the alert, shoot, even scenic driving on the alert. Alley's Raincoast Sasquatch alone has a number of accidental finds that didn't make it into the hands of scientists but were quite compelling from the witnesses' standpoints. (And to me, if all is as reported.) A couple of folks that just stopped at a place for a bit to get out of the car found something anomalous. If one of these finds had been made by an individual with the means and desire to, in a couple of cases, get over the other folks' objections to even putting the thing in the bed of the pickup, we might know a heck of a lot more than we do right now. I would even say, and I guess this got lost in my reservations, that for anyone just Being In The Woods, the most likely contribution to make is the one made by carefully scrutinizing the ground - in more detail when/wherever one gets the chance.
hiflier Posted January 18, 2014 Author Posted January 18, 2014 Hello BC Witness, Yep. On all of it. When I first heard of bear spray back when? My first thought was wind. Hoo Boy. That is not my idea of saying "Git !"
hiflier Posted January 18, 2014 Author Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) Hello DWA, Good points there. I should read The Raincoast thing sometime. I've seen it mentioned often so thanks for the reminder. And you're right there, anything anyone can do moves the subject forward. Even just driving around like you say. You know as well as I do that thinking Sasquatch exists is not science. But if one does think it to be real then there are scientific things that can be done to move toward proof. That would be the ideal situation. Those of like mind arrive at methods of implementing investigations and then carry out those investigations to the best of one's ability. Then report back results, discuss refinements, and discuss new strategies. It's good enough for NAWAC it oughta be good enough for here. Afterall, this membership body geographically covers a lot of territory. Much could be accomplished IMO. But in the meantime? I can look for dead Sasquatch. No harm, no foul. Easy, especially for a guy my age. Head, hand and foot; head, hand and foot. I'll just keep thinking that. Head, hand and foot......... Edited January 18, 2014 by hiflier
Terry Posted January 19, 2014 Posted January 19, 2014 I would say for sure it would be from old age if in fact there were such a creature. Most animals in the wild that are born white, and it happens in many species, don't live too long. They just can't conform to how their particular species blend in to their surroundings and the young are usually taken quite quickly. t.
hiflier Posted January 19, 2014 Author Posted January 19, 2014 (edited) Hello Terry, That's an interesting comment. It sounds logical too. Is this akin to albinos having perhaps too many recessive genes? I've read that that trait lends more to an individual possessing a more sensitive biological make up,whether Human or not. Is your area active? If so would you ever think to go out for the sole purpose of looking for a deceased Sasquatch? My thinking is that if any happen to die grey they will be extremely difficult to see, even if only dead for say a day or two; never mind six months. Being winter, a body would not perhaps decompose in the same time frame as the from the middle of Spring to Autumn. Predators would be a problem but maybe not the hibernating kind. Bones might be found as snow melts off. Edited January 19, 2014 by hiflier
Guest DWA Posted January 19, 2014 Posted January 19, 2014 Hey hiflier, the biggest misconception in science is only scientists can do it. Not true. The scientific method is open to everyone. Particularly when the degreed have in the main abandoned the field.
hiflier Posted January 19, 2014 Author Posted January 19, 2014 Hello DWA ^^ True this. If there are closet researchers in the subject they're not saying much. I just can't help having the thought that it's because they already know. Otherwise it makes no sense. I have a diatribe of sorts that I wrote but could only post it in the Tar Pit. Let me know if you want to meet there. And yes, the scientific method is open to all. The only issue with it would be the ones trying to fit the data to support a belief. It just doesn't fly. Evidence is evidence. Vetting it from a computer is hogwash. It HAS to be done in the field.
Recommended Posts