Olympic Peninsula Nesting Area Update

[SWWASAS]

17 hours ago, Branco said:

 

Yes there is. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has a unique Animal Forensic Laboratory in Ashland, Oregon. It is the only one like it in the world. It is devoted to and for the protection of fish and wildlife both here in the U.S. and most other countries of the world. Odd they established that lab in that location. Just a few miles from the famous "Bigfoot Trap". When the Feds are forced to 'fess up, that's where the message will come from.

 

Of course, all the USAF flight crews that had their survival training at the areas in Washington state were made aware of Sasquatch in those areas; they were issued maps with images and listed the critters as part of the wildlife likely to be seen by trainees. Many did. 

When I went to Air Force survival training at Fairchild  Air Force Base, WA no mention was made of BF at all.   That could have changed since that was a long time ago,    but it was not mentioned when I was there.   Perhaps it is a good thing I did not know about BF at that point.    Knowing about bears in Northern WA is bad enough.    I would be interested in hearing from Security Police at Joint Base McCord / Lewis near Olympia.        From reports BF are frequently sighted on base.    I think at some point the military became aware of BF.    Just when I have no idea.     Perhaps it was because of places like McCord/ Lewis where initially the military thought that BF were human intruders roaming around on base.     When you have what amounts to a security breech,   the military has no choice but investigate and assess the risk.  

Edited June 1, 2017 by SWWASAS

[Twist]

^ When you went to training did they mention other wildlife you would encounter? 

[norseman]

 

[MIB]

48 minutes ago, scottv said:

The lab is explicitly for wildlife crime, hence the word "forensics". They also identify species based on morphology of samples not just DNA. I don't think bigfoot had anything to do with choosing it's location. Maybe they just thought it was a nice place to live? Years ago I had a phone interview for a position there but was not selected. Supposed to be a great place to work.

 

Right.  So ... what was the purported crime necessary for them to have been involved in Sykes' study?   They very definitely were.   'twas them that determined there was no identifiable blood in Smeja's boots .. among other things.   That was written up in Sykes' book as well as presented in the TV special.   So ... why the deviation, why the exception?

 

MIB

 

[SWWASAS]

Yes,  we were told how to deal with bears, cougars,   and other predators.     BF was not mentioned.     I did the training,  in  1974 as I remember.  

 

 

MIB you ever run into anyone that works at the lab?   

Edited June 1, 2017 by SWWASAS

[Guest DWA]

I may not be right on this, but I thought that the printed advice to trainees came out in 1975.  Let me see if I can find it.

 

Wait...I might be thinking about this...

http://bigfootlore.blogspot.com/2013/02/1975-environmental-atlas-for-washington.html

But the traininee advice Branco talks about is something about which I have read.  I'd have to look up the specific ref, though.

Edited June 1, 2017 by DWA

[scottv]

I don't know. If a law enforcement requested it then I guess they would. Would CA fish and game request something like that to make sure it wasn't a bear out of season or an endangered species? I think there are other, more reasonable (my opinion), explanations than vast government cover up.

[SWWASAS]

The focus of the training was simple survival after bailout and escape and evasion.    Most of us figured rightly that guys with guns whose country we just bombed,   were more dangerous in the woods than bears etc.    That still holds true for me in the woods today.  

Edited June 1, 2017 by SWWASAS

[dmaker]

2 hours ago, Branco said:

Well. it certainly wasn't "tongue in cheek" to the trainees who saw Sasquatch going about their business while they were going about theirs.

 

I understand the lab has assisted in the DNA confirmation of new species found in this and other countries.

 

Kind'a think they may have given Dr. Sykes a little heads up & advice when he visited that lab a time or two before he revealed his findings. If Dr. Sykes had actually found that the DNA of that one sample from the USA was from a relic hominid, his testing would have violated regulations established in response to a Presidential Memo issued by Obama while Dr. K's work was ongoing. Had he declared the sample from the "cross breed bear" showed it was really a Sasquatch, that Memo and the scientific community would have discredited him and his work. by hook or crook.

 

 

 

What presidential memo?

[MIB]

56 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

MIB you ever run into anyone that works at the lab?  

 

Not yet.  Some time when I have a week day off, I'm going to go knock on the door.

 

41 minutes ago, scottv said:

I don't know. If a law enforcement requested it then I guess they would. Would CA fish and game request something like that to make sure it wasn't a bear out of season or an endangered species? I think there are other, more reasonable (my opinion), explanations than vast government cover up.

 

If that is the case, there was no indication in either the book or TV documentary.   This appeared to be done strictly via Sykes himself.

 

Truth is not dictated by our belief in it's reasonableness.   At best it should be the other way around, but even that is not always the case.  

 

MIB

[Twist]

2 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

Yes,  we were told how to deal with bears, cougars,   and other predators.     BF was not mentioned.     I did the training,  in  1974 as I remember.  

 

 

MIB you ever run into anyone that works at the lab?   

 

Thanks for the response and thanks for serving.  We all get to do things like search / research BF due to sacrifices from folks such as your self.  

Edited June 2, 2017 by Twist

[norseman]

22 hours ago, dmaker said:

I'm  sorry you did not like my response. But perhaps you need to rethink the utility of approaching a government agency and demanding an official statement on sasquatch. I can tell you right now what the answer will be, and what the community response would be. The answer, if one was even offered, would be, no we do not believe that bigfoot exists. How could it be  otherwise? There is no physical evidence for the existence of bigfoot, anywhere, so of course any responsible government agency would respond responsibly with, we do not believe bigfoot to exist. If they responded at all. They would never respond with an all encompassing proclamation that bigfoot does not exist, or does exist. . They would simply say there is no evidence at this time to conclude that bigfoot exists. Fine. How does the move the meter one way or the other? It does not.

 

Proponents will cry conspiracy theory and claim that there is evidence but that it is being suppressed. And that the response is evidence of such. It's a no win situation with a ridiculous premise. The government, or whatever federal agency you wish to entreat, is not in the business of confirming species. Never have been. Your idea is terribly flawed from the start.

 

Do you believe there to be some department of the government that deals with species confirmation? I'm sorry, but there is not. 

 

 

Hold on. In the US government there is such an entity. They sell permits and regulate Universities who are doing field research. And set policy on species study and recovery efforts, enforce the endangered species act etc.....

 

https://www.fws.gov/?ref=logo

 

They would be the organization to pester for all non game related species. Game species, hunting and fishing, etc is managed by the states.

 

 

[dmaker]

Please point to the section of their mandate that states they determine whether a species exists or not. Is that not mostly done via peer review? 

 

From wiki:

 

" A species description is a formal description of a newly discovered species, usually in the form of a scientific paper "

Edited June 2, 2017 by dmaker

[Branco]

13 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

Hold on. In the US government there is such an entity. They sell permits and regulate Universities who are doing field research. And set policy on species study and recovery efforts, enforce the endangered species act etc.....

 

https://www.fws.gov/?ref=logo

 

They would be the organization to pester for all non game related species. Game species, hunting and fishing, etc is managed by the states.

 

And the lab obtains forensic evidence and their personnel testify in cases of violations of state, federal and other countries G & F laws in which those entities don't have the resources or the qualified staff and equipment to do it themselves.

 

[norseman]

57 minutes ago, dmaker said:

Please point to the section of their mandate that states they determine whether a species exists or not. Is that not mostly done via peer review? 

 

From wiki:

 

" A species description is a formal description of a newly discovered species, usually in the form of a scientific paper "

 

Yes. Correct.

 

But the university has to buy the research permits to go do the research and if a species is discovered, the USFW will set the appropriate classifications and management strategy.

 

They are working very closely with scientists.

 

https://www.fws.gov/science/peer_review_agenda.html