Guest Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 drew- a couple of things to note about BF and studies in California. In Calif. the DF&W does not studt BF because so far it does not exsist (so they say).For BF to be considered for study PROOF has to be examined nad verified by the Commission. Staffers for the commosoin have made it perfectly clear to me that they will only recieve PROOF of BF in the form of undenieable clear footage of BF within the state and a peer-reviewed DNA report with photos of said samples for presentation to the study panel. They haven't told me that an emergency study (population) and other relevant studies can be done without proof so I am assuming not, haven't asked that question. Their are series of Administative law office protocal that is enacted before monies can be accessed for studies before proof. So tjis sort of tells us where we are at in Ca. in short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Some animals see the infra red illumination of a game cam. This is common knowledge amongst those who pursue huge trophy Whitetail bucks. But there is only one critter out there that is able to tell the others where to avoid them. I am sure they can see an illuminated area 100 yards away. A young one may make a mistake [Jacobs] or an adult following an Elk trail in the daytime encountering the camera for the 1st time when the illumination is obscured by daylight. The attached example is from a hunting forum. Taken by a "creeped out" skeptic. Someone on this forum said they follow the elk. Wise man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbear Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 the "why no game camera photos?" question is a very difficult one to answer for me, even if BF are super stealth surely one has to slip up sooner or later, right? A great documentary (not BF related) but I feel still gives an idea of the extremes you have to go through to capture elusive creatures on film is Siberian Tiger Quest. I watched it on Netflix, thought it was great for many reasons, one of them being the guys endurance and dedication (Sooyong Park) Spending months alone in poor conditions in small spaces with little food or water ect... crazy! Recruit him to find BF, I wonder if he had any strange encounters while filming tigers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 (edited) RE: Notes/questions regarding the OP. The GPTF is of course a privately fund, volunteer group. Apparently the States of Washington & Oregon (who regulate hunting in the NF) have no rules/regs against baiting animals to photograph them. (Dang! If baiting was legal in the Ouachita NF, heck we might have a posed BF photo grinning and eating a sugar-cured ham.) Until 1980 the groups relationship with the DOI & DOA was chilly. Then in 1980: "In a sign of the evolution of the relationship between the Task Force and the Forest Service, GPNF Supervisor Claire Lavendel accepts the Bigfoot Award at the Task Force’s membership event for the significant positive impact she has had in the area." ( Huh?) Quote Katakaze: "Unfortunately, with all the Bigfoots that are supposed to be there, they aren't showing up on park cameras. This is strange if giant apes are there considering higher primates appear on game cameras no different from any other animal." And how in blue blazes do you know that? Do you seriously believe the GPTF would release a copy of photo of a BF if they had one. If so why? Can you imagine how many tens of thousands of people - including those working for the DOI, DOA, the timber industry mining industries-would LOVE that. The ridicule heaped upon PG film would pale in comparison to any photo they released. The GPTF no doubt know about BF, and they know which side of their toast is buttered. Feral humans is probably not on there approved list of carnivores. Edited December 31, 2013 by Branco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted December 31, 2013 Author Share Posted December 31, 2013 Yeah, they have shots of a single wolverine. Where are the shots of the rest? Despite what the experts say, there has been a population of wolverines in the Oregon Cascades for decades. They are not commonly seen, but people have been consistently doing so for ever. Why only one on film, and the same one at that? 17x7 Not one but three separate wolverines documented and caught on game cams in Oregon. DNA recovered and tested confirming origin of the animals... Wolverines found in Oregon Even mild-mannered scientists get excited. Audrey Magoun, a 35-year veteran of field biological research, made a discovery so unexpected she says, “I have to admit I literally skipped down the mountain trail coming home, saying, ‘Yahoo! Yahoo!’ all the way down.â€Magoun had just confirmed the first wolverine in recorded history in northeastern Oregon. “I was just exhilarated,†she says. She had tricked the wolverine into taking a picture of itself. With the remote trail camera in hand, she headed home to look at the pictures on a large computer screen. There she got an even bigger surprise; the camera had snapped photos of not one but two male wolverines. Magoun adds, “I was as shocked as anybody.†Later, another camera captured images of a third wolverine. She'd found three wolverines in her first season of research since moving to Oregon, making discoveries that had eluded the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW) for decades. http://www.newsregister.com/article?articleTitle=wolverines-found-in-oregon--1382723656--10004-- 34 game cameras over two years, bobcats, cougars, wolves, flying squirrels, elk, marten, bear, wolverines... And no Bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted December 31, 2013 Author Share Posted December 31, 2013 Quote Katakaze: "Unfortunately, with all the Bigfoots that are supposed to be there, they aren't showing up on park cameras. This is strange if giant apes are there considering higher primates appear on game cameras no different from any other animal." And how in blue blazes do you know that? Because they do... Do you seriously believe the GPTF would release a copy of photo of a BF if they had one. If so why? Can you imagine how many tens of thousands of people - including those working for the DOI, DOA, the timber industry mining industries-would LOVE that. The ridicule heaped upon PG film would pale in comparison to any photo they released. The GPTF no doubt know about BF, and they know which side of their toast is buttered. Feral humans is probably not on there approved list of carnivores. Conspiracy theories. Rad. The Gifford Pinchot Task Force's mission is conservation, forest, fish and wildlife restoration. Finding Bigfoot and recording it on camera would hinder that how? the "why no game camera photos?" question is a very difficult one to answer for me, even if BF are super stealth surely one has to slip up sooner or later, right? A great documentary (not BF related) but I feel still gives an idea of the extremes you have to go through to capture elusive creatures on film is Siberian Tiger Quest. I watched it on Netflix, thought it was great for many reasons, one of them being the guys endurance and dedication (Sooyong Park) Spending months alone in poor conditions in small spaces with little food or water ect... crazy! Recruit him to find BF, I wonder if he had any strange encounters while filming tigers? Awesome documentary... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 They don't. They see them, they hear them, they find tracks, they shut up and keep their jobs. And a number of them have reported just that, anonymously of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted December 31, 2013 Admin Share Posted December 31, 2013 (edited) Kit, The crux of the whole issue is would you believe a photo if you saw it? We have good photo evidence of Sasquatch, in the fact that it's not a bear or some other animal walking in the frame. But how do we know it's not a man in a suit? How will we ever know for sure? Physical evidence is the only way. Btw, welcome back. Edited December 31, 2013 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 (edited) Quote Kit: "The Gifford Pinchot Task Force's mission is conservation, forest, fish and wildlife restoration. Finding Bigfoot and recording it on camera would hinder that how?"The fact they "found" Bigfoot and recorded it on camera would not at all hinder their "mission". Publishing a definitive photo or video of a Bigfoot for all the world to see without the consent of the DOI and the DOA would end their project. Period. The federal government - and all those entities that depend on the resources of national lands for their financial success - have no interest in having to deal with the repercussions of having the creatures existence on federal lands revealed. They are considered neither fish nor wildlife by the state or federal government because they are feral, primitive humans and the photographic images would confirm that. Consequentially, the two states that control the hunting of game animals in GP cannot establish rules or regulations for their protection. (They are already protected; murder is murder.) If such documented photos/videos were released the DOI and DOA would have only one alternative; designate huge areas inside the GP as absolute refuges for the Bigfoot, restricting access by modern humans. Unless such action was taken, the GP would be overrun by people from all over the world attempting to see, hear, photograph or hand feed them. (No rules against attempting to feed or befriend homeless people.) Without making the area a refuge - and with "us" humans kept out, the distinct possibility that conflict between the "tourist" and the "residence" would likely occur. How would the feds handle that? (Summary execution or trial?)If you don't think the U.S. government is capable and experienced in conspiracies designed to withhold information from the public which "it" feels is in "its" best interest to do so; a rude awakening is hopefully in your future, With 775 reported BF encounters reported from Washington and Oregon in just the past few years to one BF research group, and the world's foremost animal DNA lab in Jackson County Oregon, and thousands of National Forest personnel in those two states, one would suspect the existence of BF would be as well known to those government employees as they are to the hunters in those states and other area with populations of the creatures. But on the other hand, hunters don't have to worry about loosing their jobs when they reports seeing the things.Branco, on 30 Dec 2013 - 9:51 PM, said: Quote Katakaze:"Unfortunately, with all the Bigfoots that are supposed to be there, they aren't showing up on park cameras. This is strange if giant apes are there considering higher primates appear on game cameras no different from any other animal."And how in blue blazes do you know that? Kit"s Response: Because they do...So BF DOES show up on park Cameras??? Where are the photo? Edited December 31, 2013 by Branco 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 (edited) Because they do... *Image removed Conspiracy theories. Rad. The Gifford Pinchot Task Force's mission is conservation, forest, fish and wildlife restoration. Finding Bigfoot and recording it on camera would hinder that how? Awesome documentary... *Video removed (see post above to view) The tiger video was really great! Thanks for posting that! I can't help think that if you asked guys like that if they ever saw a bf they would laugh and say there's no such thing. Then you ask a city warrior who goes out on weekends and stays on trails and they'll tell you they've seen several. t. Edited December 31, 2013 by chelefoot Removed quoted images/video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 The tiger video was really great! Thanks for posting that! I can't help think that if you asked guys like that if they ever saw a bf they would laugh and say there's no such thing. I can't help but think that I've never heard of any professional wildlife photographers ever attempting to get footage of a BF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Urkelbot Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 The fact that no game trail or forest service survey has picked up Bigfoot should lead to the following conclusions. 1. No Bigfoot in the area 2. So rare it just hasn't occurred yet by probability 3. Bigfoot doesn't exist Instead it's always magic powers; infrasound, psycic abilities, infrared vision. Or government conspiracy lots and lots of government conspiracy because Bigfoot is just to extreme for multiple governments to let out of the bag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted January 1, 2014 SSR Team Share Posted January 1, 2014 Kit, The crux of the whole issue is would you believe a photo if you saw it? We have good photo evidence of Sasquatch, in the fact that it's not a bear or some other animal walking in the frame. But how do we know it's not a man in a suit? How will we ever know for sure? Physical evidence is the only way. Btw, welcome back. Exactly this. I said to recently to Cervelo in the Tar Pit. Certain people have an already formed bias so there is simply no point whatsoever, in my opinion, of talking to them about the subject as the boas not only completely skews any real reasoning, but makes any legitimate open minded argument impossible which is massively frustrating as the skewed and bias mindset i talk of, is in fact completely wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 (edited) BobbyO- do not know about other states, but in California the DF&W mandates the protection of ALL fish and Wildlife. One party needs to remember though (agian in Ca.) to follow the protocals in presenting it's public recommendations by having all the required proof sets in place or the commission will gladly show you the door in a very polite manner. Also it is important to remember that we are dealing with appointed life time term beaurucrats that do not like people out of place telling them how to do their job. It is my susspicion that governmental entities have proof, in Ca. anyways, so unless you can match what they already have your presentation will probably not go anywhere. With that said, I agree with you on the statement that the governmental entities do not want to have public recognition of BF; of course unless you have all the required proof taken in the mandated process, and in a manner establihed by the Administrative Law Office and in advance to get an audience with the commission at the public forum dates for recommendations. Lot of prodocal involved.One stumbling block is the Insurance lobbists vs the public safety issue. IMHO which amounts to a hill of beans, and for insurance reasons the Ca. DF&W commision will make it as hard as possible unless you have all your t's crossed and your I's dotted before you approach the board. Edited January 1, 2014 by ptangier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 I can't help but think that I've never heard of any professional wildlife photographers ever attempting to get footage of a BF. Larry, maybe that's what's needed? Someone willing to spend 3 months in a hole as a human trail cam. t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts