gigantor Posted May 1, 2014 Admin Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) According to the land use inventory, there is plenty of protected real estate owned by the feds alone so that it's not a problem. Notice that developed land was 6% of the US inventory in 2003. This does not include Canada. I haven't looked at the latest land census, but even if it has grown to 10%, which is doubtful, there is plenty of room. The argument that BF doesn't have enough land to live in is just bs. Not the case at all. ---------- I found the latest land use census, it's from 2007. Developed land is still 6%. There is less cropland (-1%) and more water land (+1%). Edited May 1, 2014 by gigantor
Guest DWA Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Bigfoot skeptics must hate getting smacked around by pie charts. Meldrum & Standing = smh. Every advocate it seems gets frustrated enough with the flat-earth mainstream attitude to go off the deep end just to see how it feels. Or something.
Drew Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 It's about access. There is no place in this National forest area that is more than 2 miles from an access road.
Cotter Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Are ATV trails considered to be access roads? Is it common for ATV'ers to park along a trail and go hiking? Are all trails accessible year round?
MIB Posted May 1, 2014 Moderator Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) What's the problem with being less than 2 miles from a road? I assume you're familiar with reports of BF crossing roads? You do realize what that says about that particular BF's proximity to a road at that moment, right? I assume you're are of BF reports from campgrounds ... most of those are on roads, too. (I could say the same thing about WalMart parking lots.) There are reports from folks homes. Guess what ... homes are generally on roads, too. In fact, the vast majority of BF reports are from near or on roads. So ... what point are you trying to make? What assumptions go with it? And do they stand up under examination? MIB Edited May 1, 2014 by MIB
Guest DWA Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) ^^^I'll never get over the excuses that basically go, people see them, which is impossible, so they don't exist. If they do - and the evidence says they do - people see them, and they see them the same places they do other animals. Which is: mostly, along or very near roads. Edited May 1, 2014 by DWA
georgerm Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 It's about access. There is no place in this National forest area that is more than 2 miles from an access road. In Oregon, many private logging companies are gating off their roads which many times are needed to access BLM and Forest Service Land. We drove a BLM road and egressed by a new route only to find it gated, so we had to drive miles back to get out. This policy is good for BF but bad for us that day. I want what's good for BF. Presently private timber companies spray the forest with herbacides a few years after clear cutting to kill the 'weed trees' such as Red Alder. This is bad for BF since recently some homes were over sprayed and the residents are still sick.
Drew Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Im just saying, with the recent expansion of forests, there is far greater access to those forest lands than there was. Audobon cataloged basically every mammal in North America, and he had no Access roads. The scope of what we are talking about is brought down into 4 square mile plots.
Guest DWA Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 ^^^In which people are seeing sasquatch, fairly often. Not too surprising: 1) Internet access 2) TV connection with internet access 3) More roads, more hunters, hikers, mushroom pickers, fishermen, geologists, etc. ...more sightings reported. Logical progression.
Guest Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Any update on Old Grey? I suspect he's still patrolling the OK/AR border in the Oauchitas. There's hasn't been a clear sighting since last summer. The cover is pretty much all gone in the winter, so we assume they keep their distance.
Cotter Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 The scope of what we are talking about is brought down into 4 square mile plots. Which, when looking at current ongoing BF discovery operations, indicate they (the BF) have the upper hand. Remember all those people and resources looking for that lost boy (who, one would assume would WANT to be found)? How long did it take to find him? 4 square miles is a lot of land.
ShadowBorn Posted May 1, 2014 Moderator Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) And yet they are capable of staying hidden even in those 4 square miles of land.( The Bigfoots ) Without a trace until they want to be known of their presence. Strange right! Bibto Yes you are right, they do not need our protection since they have been doing it right by themselves for a long time. As far as land management goes we are pushing them out of their lands further north to harsher environments. Where they can learn to adept since this is what they are good at. They understand on how to survive and man to them is just the taking of their land. Edited May 1, 2014 by ShadowBorn
georgerm Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Im just saying, with the recent expansion of forests, there is far greater access to those forest lands than there was. Audobon cataloged basically every mammal in North America, and he had no Access roads. The scope of what we are talking about is brought down into 4 square mile plots. It's sad but true that roads seems to go every where. Those roads are there in Oregon because logging companies paid for them and yes they cover most of the private land and much of the federal lands. The attached picture shows so called remote, prime BF habitat in SW Oregon. The logging is being done on private lands that border federal lands.
dmaker Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 There's hasn't been a clear sighting since last summer. The cover is pretty much all gone in the winter, so we assume they keep their distance. Have you tried hunting them in the winter?
Recommended Posts