Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?

[Guest Crowlogic]

If it is not a threat to you why are you here Crow?    What do you care about enough to hang around a forum dedicated to something you don't believe exists?

Because it is a great window into the workings of fallacy and myth of course.  

[BigTreeWalker]

Cryptic, yes logging in temperate evergreen forest has increased. But as I said it doesn't remove habit for larger animals. What does that is urban sprawl and development. Although as Fararcher stated, that does provide other opportunities for animals that can take advantage of it. What we should be worried about is the loss of the best CO2 scrubbers this earth produces. As a result of our shortsightedness, insect infestation and fire are also wrecking havoc on these same forests.

Yes we will probably become extinct together.

[hiflier]

...What does happen is bigfooters create layer upon layer of hypothesis in order to keep their game in play...

Hmmm....a dilemma. Yessireeeebob. A right perplexin' co-nundrum. Now lessee if there's a solution to such a state of affairs for the poor Sasquatch proponents. Uh, NOPE! No solution that I can see. Then what is to be done here? Wait...I know!....You leave and leave everyone to play their "game" is peace. Yep, that seems like a perfectly simple way to settle an issue that you are definitely banging your head against. You've made zero headway anyway and have repeated the same mantras day in and day out to no avail. But if you choose to NOT go away then bang away 'til the cows come home. Hint: ya gotta a long wait 'cause there ain't no cows. Yep. A long wait indeed  

Edited April 25, 2016 by hiflier

[ShadowBorn]

I have seen forest cut down and at first was so against, until I saw renewed animal life. It did not matter if it was insects or birds, and even deer. It all played a part in their regrowth of the enviorment. It is really cool , how in two years of clear cutting can effect the out come of wild life. Life seems to produce no matter how we effect the enviorment.

 

For myself nature is in a way cool, in how it manages it self. It has it's ways of self controls and yet we can effect it not, cause nature will work around it. Another neat factor. We might not live long , but nature will with out us.  It is our inventions that destroys. A sad part of our kind, that the more we learn the more we hurt nature. Sometimes science can be a cruel animal, Yes? Thats if you want to call science as a collective a animal. ( Metaphorically ). Like mans start of fire by seeing lightening strike tree. Who knows? maybe it is true. We have the brains , they do not. But they are close.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

(physical brains) are not a sign of intelligence.

 

The communities that are destroyed do not grow back quickly.

 

The 600 year old tree, the associated animals that live in and around it.

 

The root system symbiosis with soil organisms, etc. 

 

And the Bigfoot living in the cave under it.

 

That will take a thousand years.

[BigTreeWalker]

If you think old growth forest is important to bigfoot, then you should head to Washington State. It still has over 3.5 million acres of old growth. Mostly in national parks and national forests.

However, with all the sighting reports of bigfoot not in old growth forests it's doubtful it is a necessity for its existence. Almost all private land is covered with second or third growth now and has been for the last 40 years or more.

[georgerm]

 

 

SWWASSASQUATCH has brought up an excellent point.  We're ripping down the forests faster than they regrow.  Yet this isn't going to affect bigfoot population?  That reeks of the perpetual movement of the bigfoot goalposts that is another way of saying it's an excuse to rationalize the the existence of the thing.   However part of that rationalization is that bigfoot is more than an animal and possessing intelligence.  Well it has no known culture, no known tool use, no known use of fire and no known language.   So how is this an intelligent creature?  How is this going to be an adaptable creature?  Cut down all the forests on Borneo and let's see how the Orangs fare.  We can do the same thing to the Mountain Gorilla and see how it goes for them. 

 

Then there is the territorial  imperative bigfoot are claimed to maintain.  Man they don't like it when folks come around even when those folks are a benign  friend of the bigfoot contingent.  So the still in forest clan welcome the refugees of the clan vacating the latest clearcut and super clan emerges.  Where there was 100 is now 200.  It should make it easier to find the buggars yes?  There should be increasingly more evidence of every kind in those extra populated zones.  There should be unexplained lessening of certain game and yes bodies and or burial areas.  If there a bigfoot territorial war are the victors going to bury the losers?  That will make them far more like us and when you get that close to us you've got a few of our tricks like fire.  But none of this happens and none of it has ever happened.   What does happen is bigfooters create layer upon layer of hypothesis in order to keep their game in play.  Bigfoot is neither smart or dumb or us or them.  Bigfoot is whatever the believer needs it to be.

 

 

You are making some good points. Many of your points were answered by others but still there is the nagging question. Why don't more of those who spend most of the year or 8 hours a day in the woods such as log truck drivers, loggers, timber cruisers, forest service people and road builders see BF more often? My guess is most haven't. We need to poll them such as I have done on a small scale. My guess is a few will privately tell you they saw BF. This method has provided me with five testimonies by what I would consider reliable people.

 

Logging is opening the woods more and more with roads, and clear cuts so BF should be seen more often and so should cougars. I've never seen a cougar, probably one BF, a few bears, and no bobcats for the last 50 years of driving Oregon roads at night, or hiking and fishing during the day. Does this mean they are not there?

 

We should be done talking with you since you have little interest in science but a huge desire to irritate. Please don't respond to Crow and continue to derail this thread. He will be reported.

Edited April 26, 2016 by georgerm

[georgerm]

If you think old growth forest is important to bigfoot, then you should head to Washington State. It still has over 3.5 million acres of old growth. Mostly in national parks and national forests.

However, with all the sighting reports of bigfoot not in old growth forests it's doubtful it is a necessity for its existence. Almost all private land is covered with second or third growth now and has been for the last 40 years or more.

 

 

Brush grows after clear cuts. Can BF hide better in brush or open timberland? Private timber land owners are now gating off their land to keep road hunter out.

 

The problem for BF is being sprayed with Round Up several times a year. This is a problem for us too, since it's working its way into the ground and surface water.

[BigTreeWalker]

I have discussed that gating and permit only issue with SWWSP. I would say that the private timber companies are actually, unintentionally creating refuges. As I mentioned before, our presence in the woods probably has more of a detrimental affect on bigfoot as well as other animals than all the logging.

It is also reported that yes bigfoot does hide in brush that we wouldn't think of penetrating. As do deer, which are very good example of animals utilizing available cover. If bigfoot can't survive in available cover how do you explain all the reports from the midwestern states? I don't usually weigh in on that question because I can understand how they can survive in the PNW. If you've spent much time hunting any of the various animals you should be able to understand how they can coexist with logging operations. Some animals even coexist quite well with development which does eat up habitat.

The pesticides and herbicides you mentioned are probably the biggest problem with current logging practices. Because as I said it affects the food sources for all animals. It has become necessary because the timber companies are still stuck on the desire to grow huge monoculture tracts of forest. It's more profitable for them.

A very good indicator of the health of our forests is how the deer and elk populations are faring. If their populations are decreasing, then so would the apex predators. That's an indicator that could be correlated with bigfoot populations. Even if you want bigfoot to be strictly vegetarian, it is still a good indicator. Either they are eating the deer and elk or they are eating the same things they are. (Probably closer to a bear diet but I already gave the numbers for black bear in Washington State.) That is from a biologist's viewpoint.

[georgerm]

Humans also add additional benefit to a relict species that hasn't been mentioned.

 

Agriculture here, there, and yonder, of items such as corn, orchards, and even farm animals provide a source of sustenance.  Read a lot of reports of finding these things feeding in a cornfield or an orchard.

 

In some areas of the Pacific Northwest, cattle ranchers in the Summer will turn their cattle loose in the mountains to graze on the rich grasses and flowers that grow most everywhere, and when it starts to cool off, the cattle will start coming back down, and they'll be gathered and returned to fenced areas for the winter.

 

And they'll lose several cattle every Summer.  To what?  Anybody's guess.  But a cow or two is a lot of meat.  A lot of meat.

 

good points.  Can someone find reports relating to FarArchers statement?

 

This is how BF survives in open areas that have corn, wheat, cows and other farm products growing. BF has plenty of food to pick from. BF must find some kind of cover near by that are usually river beds full of brush or mountain sides. Seems like where a deer can survive, so can BF.

 

Why are more farmers not aware of BF feeding off their crops?

 

Would it add to the science of BF to create a 5 question sheet for loggers, ranchers, hunter clubs, road builders, and others to fill out anonymously? The sheet would pose questions as to BF sightings.  Would this help determine BF populations.

[SWWASAS]

As BTW mentioned it is difficult in my area to range much without blundering into privately owned forest land.   Presence in those areas is discouraged to put it mildly and in actuality,  you are under the threat of trespass with all the signage.     They tolerate hunters during deer season as a public relations effort but that means from a practical standpoint,  only employees are in those areas most of the year out of deer season.      So what we have are huge mostly private tracts of land that for all practical purposes  a BF preserve.    

 

Farmers are very aware of crop loss and accept it as just part of their situation.    Stock loss is common in some parts of the country especially where wolves are active.         Deer are usually the problem with crops and loss of corn to deer would probably be hard to tell the difference from loss to BF.    

 

Loggers are not going support any survey about bigfoot.    They lump bigfoot researchers into the same category as tree huggers and spotted owl advocates who are anti logging.    Several of our forum members have had run ins with loggers and they are very hostile to bigfoot research which has the potential to kill their livelihood should BF existence be established.     Road builders?    Not only are there prohibitions in cutting new roads into public forest, but existing roads are being blocked off and decommissioned.   I am not talking about a locked metal gate but 4 foot ditches, usually two, are dug across the roads, and huge boulders are moved into place preventing driving around the moats.    In the last 10 years, I have seen active and well used roads blocked this way preventing access to public forest.            Log truck drivers might be a source of sighting information but you would have to find independents who do not work directly for logging companies.     I have been told that logging companies have put the word out, that if their employees have a sighting, and talk about it or report it, they will be fired on the spot.   I want to verify that but have not had the opportunity to do that.       

Edited April 27, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[BigTreeWalker]

Talking about unintentional bigfoot refuges. Here's a big one: Portland's Bull Run watershed. It covers over 100 square miles and is a limited access area.

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/water/29784

"The entire watershed has been managed under increasing levels of protection since it was established as a Forest Reserve in 1892. In 2001 the protection boundary was extended by federal law, and both the watershed and the protected buffer lands are known as the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit (BRWMU). No unauthorized public entry is allowed inside the BRWMU and all land management activities are limited to only those necessary to protect water quality and operate the water supply and hydroelectric power facilities."

It has less access than set aside wilderness areas do.

[WSA]

BF Science has not so much stalled, but it continues to buck a quintessential human need to find comfort in the evidence not found, to help discount evidence that has been found.  That, and the overarching need to identify the narrative and reach a conclusion. We see it a lot here, and you know it is coming when the statement begins with something like, "Over 50 years of BF research and what has it shown...?"  Well, the person typing things of that kind most certainly has no interest in looking closely at what has been shown to date. That person wants a tidy narrative, and has extreme discomfort when not given one on the timetable they've created for others to meet.  (This, I should add, is what drives those on the other side of the question to propose ever more outlandish explanations of what BF is, and what it is capable of)

 

In one sense, science thrives on the need to create a narrative explanation of observed phenomena, of course. But science is advanced (or not) by those practicing science, who also happen to be human. A human timeline is often completely unsuited to scientific exploration of this kind, where the narrative is elusive and the prospect of "Ah-HA!" resolution is always in doubt.  When an attempt is made, and it is perceived as a failure because it doesn't supply the Ah-HA! resolution, the human mind tends to reach for another narrative, which is typically, "This is all a sham, folklore and a myth."

 

I've long said, the stomach for his kind of search is best found in the ability to keep an open question suspended for as long as it takes, even for a time outside of yours on earth, and the ability to resist grasping at a convenient narrative...one you'll be seduced by and one you have to sandbag against. You have to be able to constantly remind yourself that you don't know, and be o.k. with that. Until you are dead, if that is how long it takes.

Edited April 27, 2016 by WSA

[JDL]

Maybe it's just my own perception, but as a general comment I perceive that the quality of dialogue on this forum has improved recently.

Edited April 28, 2016 by JDL

[Incorrigible1]

Including telepathic communication?