Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[norseman]

That is exactly what I wanted you to say............thank you.

So logically speaking by your own admission, we need a type specimen before we can take any photo of a unknown species seriously.

In other news;

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/22/feds-weigh-reintroducing-grizzlies-in-washington/?page=all

Federal authorities listed the grizzly bear as threatened in the lower 48 states in 1975 and ultimately designated five areas in Washington, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to focus on boosting the population.

A small population of grizzlies exists in Washington’s Selkirk Mountains, and the park service says the animals have been seen recently in the Cascades north of the Canadian border. But they haven’t been seen in the Washington Cascades in years.

Officials have been looking hard, too. In the past three years, they’ve set up “hair-snare†traps - basically bait surrounded by stretches of barbed wire that snag samples of a bear’s hair - in about one-third of the North Cascades region. The traps have produced many samples of black bear hair, as confirmed by DNA tests, but no grizzly hair, said Bob Everitt, northwest Washington regional director of the state Fish and Wildlife Department.

“It doesn’t mean there aren’t grizzly bears, but it sure suggests they’re pretty rare,†Everitt said.

------------------------------------

So here again, they have not detected Grizzly bears in the north Cascades but leave the door open to their existence there.

Edited October 22, 2015 by norseman

[Guest DWA]

A true scientist takes evidence pointing in a specific direction seriously.  It does not have to be proof.

[dmaker]

"So logically speaking by your own admission, we need a type specimen before we can take any photo of a unknown species seriously."

 

 

Again, Norse. The topic of this thread was why there were no photos to come out of CCP even alleging to be of bigfeets? Not whether or not those photos should be taken seriously. Why do you keep missing/ignoring that point?

[dmaker]

"A true scientist takes evidence pointing in a specific direction seriously.  It does not have to be proof."   DWA

 

If I come across a true scientist here, I will bear that in mind. I could, of course, counter argue that the evidence does point in a specific direction--social construct.  But this thread is not meant to be an argument about existence, despite your efforts to derail and turn every single thread into that same discussion over and over and over again.  Please try to stay on topic.

Edited October 22, 2015 by dmaker

[norseman]

"So logically speaking by your own admission, we need a type specimen before we can take any photo of a unknown species seriously."

 

 

Again, Norse. The topic of this thread was why there were no photos to come out of CCP even alleging to be of bigfeets? Not whether or not those photos should be taken seriously. Why do you keep missing/ignoring that point?

Go back and read twists post. He opened the door on proponents not producing media. Which is false.

And I have given you two articles in which experts have no evidence of wolves or grizzly but will not say for certain IF the species resides in th Cascades. If a grizzly bear can exist without detection in the cascades, why not Bigfoot?

[Guest DWA]

No reason.  In fact, with everyone just knowing it's not real...far easier.  There could be ten times more bigfoot than grizzly - in Glacier National Park! - and we wouldn't know.

 

Just like the resident scoftics to argue past the point and act like it's the point...long after being lectured that *we aren't seeing the bigfoot pictures.*  For obvious reasons.

-------------------------
We set two cameras, facing different directions, at a site along a meandering stream near a large, mid-elevation meadow system on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest to target grey wolves. There are no confirmed grey wolf detections on the GPNF yet though we regularly receive anecdotal sightings. We anticipate the grey wolf will re-inhabit the southern Washington Cascades one day if it has not returned to the area already. At the station, we had regular coyote visitors as well as a herd of elk, and our first owl detections. Over the past seven years, we have documented almost every wildlife species in the Cascades.
------------------------

They admit that Gray wolves COULD be in the Gifford Pinchot NF, with out their cameras detecting them, yes?

They say - in so many words! - that anecdotes, the hobgoblin of small minds, *are the sum total and basis* of their harboring the possibility that the wolf has "returned to the area already."

 

To anyone who took Logic 00-Kindergarten, there is no difference simply because scientists accept the wolf as real.  NO.  There is NOT.  Unless you need to go back to school, and I don't mean graduate school.

Edited October 22, 2015 by DWA

[WSA]

The only reason Kit started this thread to begin with was certainly not to seriously entertain ANY explanation  as to the absence of BF photos on those game cameras OTHER THAN the unstated (but well understood)premise that THEY CAN'T BE THERE, BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST. 57 pages later, it really has not progressed past this original purpose.  

 

Now dmaker has picked up and continues to bait all comers who think this is seriously about any debatable (from his point of view) reason for their being a lack of BF photos on those cameras.  

 

That is what we're doing here, as we all should know.  It is another pointless exist/doesn't exist thread.  It has degenerated the usual circular discussion of what is evidence, and what is not, to discussing how the lack of evidence in a particular location has anything meaningful to tell us. It only provides to our resident denialists a platform to keep stating, without actually stating it,  the case for the non-existence of BF.  

Edited October 23, 2015 by chelefoot

[Guest DWA]

^^^Which case they have none.

 

As I said, this one was pointless...57 pages ago.

[dmaker]

 

"So logically speaking by your own admission, we need a type specimen before we can take any photo of a unknown species seriously."

 

 

Again, Norse. The topic of this thread was why there were no photos to come out of CCP even alleging to be of bigfeets? Not whether or not those photos should be taken seriously. Why do you keep missing/ignoring that point?

Go back and read twists post. He opened the door on proponents not producing media. Which is false.

And I have given you two articles in which experts have no evidence of wolves or grizzly but will not say for certain IF the species resides in th Cascades. If a grizzly bear can exist without detection in the cascades, why not Bigfoot?

 

Bigfoot seems to be able to live everywhere without detection.

No reason.  In fact, with everyone just knowing it's not real...far easier.  There could be ten times more bigfoot than grizzly - in Glacier National Park! - and we wouldn't know.

 

Just like the resident scoftics to argue past the point and act like it's the point...long after being lectured that *we aren't seeing the bigfoot pictures.*  For obvious reasons.

-------------------------

We set two cameras, facing different directions, at a site along a meandering stream near a large, mid-elevation meadow system on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest to target grey wolves. There are no confirmed grey wolf detections on the GPNF yet though we regularly receive anecdotal sightings. We anticipate the grey wolf will re-inhabit the southern Washington Cascades one day if it has not returned to the area already. At the station, we had regular coyote visitors as well as a herd of elk, and our first owl detections. Over the past seven years, we have documented almost every wildlife species in the Cascades.

------------------------

They admit that Gray wolves COULD be in the Gifford Pinchot NF, with out their cameras detecting them, yes?

They say - in so many words! - that anecdotes, the hobgoblin of small minds, *are the sum total and basis* of their harboring the possibility that the wolf has "returned to the area already."

 

To anyone who took Logic 00-Kindergarten, there is no difference simply because scientists accept the wolf as real.  NO.  There is NOT.  Unless you need to go back to school, and I don't mean graduate school.

Sum total and basis? It does not say that anywhere in the quote. They anticipate the grey wolf will return. It says nothing about because anecdotes. I would imagine that prediction is based on actual science, not conspiracy theories and anecdotes.  But in your world, that stuff passes for actual science, so I can see where you would be confused.

Edited October 22, 2015 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Um, nope, it says anecdotes are why, in every bit so much words.  What else are they going on, shadows in their granola?

 

As.I.SAID.  Time to shove dirt over this one.

[dmaker]

It does not say that, in any words.  I would imagine they are going on what they know about animal behavior. 

[BigTreeWalker]

Being one who has submitted a wolf report in the GPNF I can assure you that they do occasionally show up there. The evidence is there that animals do know the cams are there. Bears are curious about them, deer and coyotes look directly at them. Cats seem to ignore them. We can then deduce that BF knows they are there and simply choose to avoid them.

This year I spotted a camera on a tree about 70yds away across a meadow. It wasn't a Plotwatcher so it didn't get any pictures of us. I did get a picture of it.

The CCP camera traps are visibly human constructs. We are making more assumptions that BF can't recognize such one way or another.

[Guest DWA]

^^^Exactly.  We have evidence that coyotes know and avoid camera traps.  (Now watch somebody give us 50 cams of coyotes.  Somebody who didn't read the study.)

 

It is as ridiculous to assume that sasquatch don't or can't deliberately avoid cam traps as it is to assume they are human.

It is ridiculous, in science, to assume.  Scientists don't...which should be your marker whether some Ph.D is *really* a scientist or just a glorified techie.

[norseman]

Dmaker wrote:

Bigfoot seems to be able to live everywhere without detection.

----------------------------------------

And what does that tell you?

1) They never existed.

2) They existed but went extinct.

3) They hang on by their finger nails.

I would be in your camp if not for my own experience big D. But with nothing abnormal to go off of in 35 or so years? It may be gone at least in my area.

I look forward to being proved wrong or someone from another part of the US or Canada to bag one and shove it down a scientists throat.

I vascilate between 2 and 3.

[Guest DWA]

Sorry, but eyewitness encounters and *forensic evidence* which is what footprints are?

 

= DETECTION.

Edited October 23, 2015 by DWA