Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[Guest]

The GP Task Force and Cascades Carnivore Project have 42 camera stations strategically placed throughout the Gifford Pinchot National Forest which have been there since 2008.

On what basis were they "strategically placed"? Was care taken to ensure a viable sampling of remote areas as well as human-accessable ones?

They could locate a single wolverine they named Wildy living on Mt. Adams.

Lucky them...how long did it take to get the giant squid on film? DECADES of a lot more intensive effort than this. And there are likely a LOT more giant squid than BF.

They have researchers on the ground scouring for signs of mammal activity.

Researchers limited in the amount and type of ground they can cover.

Of the nine carnivore species surveyed, the average latency to first detection was 13.7 days. That's the time elapsed between setup of survey stations and first detection of a mammal species.

Bully for them too.

42 cameras in the best possible habitat for wildlife since 2008 and not a shred of evidence for Bigfoot. Bigfoot has to eat just like any other species, so why aren't they being detected when all other large predators are being detected, right down to one lone wandering wolverine?

Proof that those caught on film are "all"?

I think it's quite safe to say that since 2008, there have been no Bigfoots in the vicinity of Mt. Adams, Mt. St. Helens, Indian Heaven, and the Goat Rock Wilderness - the main CCP and GF Task Force monitoring areas.

No, it's safe to say that: 1) they probably haven't been caught on game cameras and 2)the possibility that they may have been but the photos withheld cannot be ruled out either.

Why can't Bigfoots dumpster dive? By all means they should. However, suggesting that we seriously have Bigfoots dumpster diving in North America and remaining an uncatalogued species is an absurdity no less ridiculous than Bigfoots popping in and out of our dimension.

Why? They're not considered "catalogued" now, and we have copious evidence that they exist.

The argument for why no Bigfoots show up on GPNF monitoring stations is that they would recognize the stations as somehow a threat to them and leave the food and stay well away from them. Yet you are at the same time supporting the reports of Bigfoots coming right smack into the middle of human civilization and getting into our garbage.

If/when the circumstances are right they MAY approach human civilization. The one or ones hanging out around my friend's house in the mid-lat 00s were probably drawn in by a water source.

The picture below is from the dumpster diving Bigfoot report in Illinois...

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=28568

You may be thinking no problem, there's some handy woods access. Wrong. Check the Google map of the area...

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&biw=1276&bih=627&q=e%20myrtle%20st%20fulton%20illinois&wrapid=tlif130448080618411&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl

That alleged sighting of a Bigfoot hitting a dumpster is 7 blocks from Memorial Stadium in the city of Canton, Ohio. Try zooming out. The notion that an undiscovered species of giant bipedal ape would be that far into human civilization is utterly gonzo.

Animals pop up in weird places sometimes. Even if you want to rule that one "too out there for taste", that doesn't dismiss other accounts under different circumstances (like the WA report).

As per usual, you cherry pick the items of evidence that in your opinion makes your side look right, and dismiss all the others.

[Drew]

As per usual, you cherry pick the items of evidence that in your opinion makes your side look right, and dismiss all the others.

Can you define all the other evidence?

I think Kit and Saskeptic were simply saying that if Bigfoot exists in that particular range, it would have been caught on a camera.

What evidence was presented that they dismissed? Bigfoot supposedly being able to detect cameras is not evidence.

It is like me saying that a mothership transmits the location of the cameras to the bigfoots, and thus, they know where the cameras are.

Neither one is a reason bigfoot is not caught on camera.

[Guest]

Nonsense. I most certainly can use reports I don't believe in to invalidate illogical notions about Bigfoot. The vastness/remoteness argument about Bigfoot is hooey. It's not the way Bigfoot is reported. And if most sightings not being true is the only scenario for you that keeps Bigfoot away from game cams, then I think you would thereby acknowledge that at least since 2008 we can reasonably conclude that there are no Bigfoots in the Mt. Adams, Mt. St. Helens, Indian Heaven, and Goat Rocks Wilderness areas.

If all you want to do is test the voracity of the BFRO database for that specific area, then maybe you have a point. But you may not reasonably conclude anything unless you can validate the reports. But I thought this was about whether bigfoot exists. So...how much land do you think you've covered in all the hiking you have ever done? Someone that says the vastness/remoteness argument is hooey has zero concept of the depth of wilderness. For a taste, do a fly-over in Google Earth at 1:500 scale and see how much ground you cover in a few days. You would need a few hundred thousand people chained together to close in on a moving target in the PNW alone.

You're not alone tho, even Wildlife Biologists that work in the field think they have classified every possible living creature in the woods, except for that damned elusive Woodpecker.

If you are going to determine which Bigfoot reports are true and which are not, I'd love to see if you can improve on the BFRO's method of determining what is legitimately a valid Bigfoot report and what is not. According to BFRO investigators, the end of E Myrtle St an Canton, Illinois and the King County nursing home in Washington are Bigfoot territory.

I'm not determining which reports are true, you are. Your premise is that they are ALL true, including the dumpster diving BF. How on earth can you do that when you think 100% are false? My only claim is that since we don't know which reports are true, we can't claim there is a conflict why game cams haven't captured one. Tell me how that is not a false premise.

If this is actually about validating the BFRO database, then I have to disagree with you. They probably aren't all legit.

[Guest]

His name is Wildy, Mt. Adams is his turf, and he's a dude...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ABF3PIVkKQE/S4Ro7m-qTYI/AAAAAAAAAmg/DmQVV96xqLc/s1600-h/Nam+GULO.jpg

They got eight hair samples from him. His movements are documented in the Forest Carnivore Monitoring on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest: Year 1 and 2 Progress Report that you can have a look at here...

http://cascadescarnivoreproject.blogspot.com/2010_03_01_archive.html

He's a star for the conservation efforts of the GP Task Force and the CCP. Imagine if they had video like this that was real...

Since you Skeptics shoot down every trail cam image that is proffered, you have some nerve asking for trail cam images now.

[Guest]

I see game, set, and match to Kitakaze in this thread. The only explanation for the lack of bigfoots documented via this project is that there haven't been any bigfoots in the project area since 2008.

So let it be written...so let it be done!

[Guest]

My only claim is that since we don't know which reports are true,

Why assume any of them are true?

. . . we can't claim there is a conflict why game cams haven't captured one.

To assess the likelihood of capture on a game camera, we need to begin with a premise of what and where bigfoots are. If the premise is that bigfoots are transparent, then we would not expect them to be captured on a game cam. If the premise is that bigfoots are opaque but their distribution does not include the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, then we would not expect them to have been captured on the cameras as part of this carnivore survey project. We could assume that bigfoots are opaque, occur in the study area, but are not attracted to the bait at the camera traps. We could assume that bigfoots are opaque, in the study area, have a hankering for gifts of free meat, but are somehow able to avoid being photographed.

So how about we all get on the same page regarding what and where bigfoots are before evaluating the likelihood that one would be captured on a game cam in the GPNF? I'll start:

Premise:

"Bigfoot" is a three-dimensional, opaque, carbon-based life form in the order Primates. There is a small population of these creatures in the Pacific Northwest region of North America that occurs in primarily forested, mountainous terrain. They eat, sleep, poop, mate, and raise offspring.

What shall we add/subtract to that premise before continuing?

[Guest]

Why assume any of them are true?

I don't. But my hunch is that most are false. Kit thinks dumpster diving bigfoots should have been captured on a security cam by now. Just maybe those ones are false. How do you know whether you can include those ones in your argument?

To assess the likelihood of capture on a game camera, we need to begin with a premise of what and where bigfoots are. If the premise is that bigfoots are transparent, then we would not expect them to be captured on a game cam. If the premise is that bigfoots are opaque but their distribution does not include the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, then we would not expect them to have been captured on the cameras as part of this carnivore survey project. We could assume that bigfoots are opaque, occur in the study area, but are not attracted to the bait at the camera traps. We could assume that bigfoots are opaque, in the study area, have a hankering for gifts of free meat, but are somehow able to avoid being photographed.

Transparent bigfoot. Yeah, that must be it. Kit's premise was that the number of reports suggest that the density of bigfoots is such that one would have been captured on a game cam by now. So shouldn't we assess this premise by examining the likelihood that the reports are accurate..before using the premise to speculate whether bigfoot are real?

So how about we all get on the same page regarding what and where bigfoots are before evaluating the likelihood that one would be captured on a game cam in the GPNF? I'll start:

Premise:

"Bigfoot" is a three-dimensional, opaque, carbon-based life form in the order Primates. There is a small population of these creatures in the Pacific Northwest region of North America that occurs in primarily forested, mountainous terrain. They eat, sleep, poop, mate, and raise offspring.

What shall we add/subtract to that premise before continuing?

Sounds good. Ok then, based on that premise, why aren't they being captured on game cams? Low numbers, vast habitat, perhaps? If not, why and how do you rule this out? Is it because it's hooey?

[Guest]

As one who has not ruled out the possibility of bf, I am finding it troubling that no one has been able to capture an image via camera trap. With increasing numbers of these types of devices out in the woods, the likely hood of capturing a good image (if bf exists)is increasing. That is one reason I am highly skepical of those who have the "Money Shot" and are awaiting the right time to release. If someone productes a money shot from a camera trap, then your money shot is not longer the money shot.

Time will tell.

[Drew]

Sounds good. Ok then, based on that premise, why aren't they being captured on game cams? Low numbers, vast habitat, perhaps? If not, why and how do you rule this out? Is it because it's hooey?

The obvious answer is: There aren't any Bigfoot.

It is not unphotographable because of any innate powers, or other attributes, it is unphotographable because it does not exist.

When someone claims habituation and is asked "WHY DON'T YOU PHOTOGRAPH IT?"

The answers include:

'I don't want to scare it away'

'It will know if I put a camera out'

The answer NEVER includes:

'I did, here is the photo'

[17x7]

One in WA, two in OR, and one in CA. Long term observation, photographing, DNA testing such as the one male wolverine in the Sierra mountains.

Wildlife biology is not voodoo...

Several more than two in Oregon. Not documented on film, but numerous credible reports of them in Central and S. Oregon for years.

17x7

[Guest]

But my hunch is that most are false. Kit thinks dumpster diving bigfoots should have been captured on a security cam by now. Just maybe those ones are false.

Maybe the dumpster divers are the true ones? Why rule those out before you'd rule out the ones reported from wilderness areas?

How do you know whether you can include those ones in your argument?

You try to get some consensus on the bigfoot premise from the people proposing that there's such a thing as bigfoot. One way to do that is to use the premise of the BFRO. According to the bigfoot experts there, the accounts that have been included in their database have been thoroughly investigated. The BFRO certainly subscribes to the "bigfoots sometimes dumpster dive" premise, and I see it as perfectly reasonable for Kitakaze to address that premise with his example. If that premise is not widely accepted in the larger bigfoot community, it's not Kitakaze's responsibility to further refine it, it's up to that community to come to some alternate consensus.

Sounds good. Ok then, based on that premise, why aren't they being captured on game cams? Low numbers, vast habitat, perhaps? If not, why and how do you rule this out? Is it because it's hooey?

Whoa, slow down cowboy. My premise was merely the starting point. Shouldn't we wait for folks to chime in to modify that premise? For example, there are some BFF folks who think bigfoot is restricted to the PNW, some who think it lives in their backyards in the southern U.S., some who think it's an omnivore, some who see it as an apex predator, some who see it as Native American tribe, some who see it as a bipedal gorilla . . . Shouldn't we try to get some consensus if, according to you, we shouldn't use the BFRO's (false) premise for this discussion?

[Guest Lesmore]

OK, let's think it through...

1) How does a Bigfoot living in the wild learn what a camera trap is?

Maybe BF swipes copies of Popular Photography ?

[kitakaze]

The subject of that video IS real. As in a real chimp named Oliver.

Oliver is nasty...

[Guest]

Maybe the dumpster divers are the true ones? Why rule those out before you'd rule out the ones reported from wilderness areas?

That's my point. This isn't about exclusion, it's about inclusion. Don't you see the problem with this premise? How can you possibly correlate the frequency of reports to game cams? This is fallacious logic. It's like claiming if the reports are true then they can't be true. Doesn't make sense.

In fact the reports are irrelevant regarding the density of bigfoot, wouldn't you agree? Didn't you ask why I would consider any report true?

You try to get some consensus on the bigfoot premise from the people proposing that there's such a thing as bigfoot. One way to do that is to use the premise of the BFRO. According to the bigfoot experts there, the accounts that have been included in their database have been thoroughly investigated. The BFRO certainly subscribes to the "bigfoots sometimes dumpster dive" premise, and I see it as perfectly reasonable for Kitakaze to address that premise with his example. If that premise is not widely accepted in the larger bigfoot community, it's not Kitakaze's responsibility to further refine it, it's up to that community to come to some alternate consensus.

Argumentum ad populum. A consensus proves nothing. And proponents can't set the guidelines for report inclusion any more than Kit can.

Whoa, slow down cowboy. My premise was merely the starting point. Shouldn't we wait for folks to chime in to modify that premise? For example, there are some BFF folks who think bigfoot is restricted to the PNW, some who think it lives in their backyards in the southern U.S., some who think it's an omnivore, some who see it as an apex predator, some who see it as Native American tribe, some who see it as a bipedal gorilla . . . Shouldn't we try to get some consensus if, according to you, we shouldn't use the BFRO's (false) premise for this discussion?

Why wait? You thought Kit's false premise was ok. I think you have the cart before the horse here. Make a statement re bigfoot and game cams based on a premise. People will chime in if the premise isn't kosher. It doesn't need to be ridiculously complicated. It just can't be false. That's all.

[southernyahoo]

As one who has not ruled out the possibility of bf, I am finding it troubling that no one has been able to capture an image via camera trap. With increasing numbers of these types of devices out in the woods, the likely hood of capturing a good image (if bf exists)is increasing. That is one reason I am highly skepical of those who have the "Money Shot" and are awaiting the right time to release. If someone productes a money shot from a camera trap, then your money shot is not longer the money shot.

Time will tell.

Maybe it's not about the money. Truth is there are few people who will know when they are looking at a real picture of a real bigfoot. A person might sit on their real picture because they know they would be thrown in with the hoaxers. There is no standard to validate them. Video is better, but there had better be a majior difference in the anatomy.