Twist Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 If someone such as Norse does get lucky and bags a Sasquatch and science acknowledges it, that in no way makes BF easier to hunt. According to reports it already exists in most of N.America where hunters are currently active. Would it still not be just as elusive as it is now? Also, while poaching happens everywhere, comparing the type of poaching going on in Asia or Africa is a little different than here in the US. 2
wiiawiwb Posted July 28, 2017 Posted July 28, 2017 What it will do is geometrically increase the number of hunters looking for their prize. The woods will be abound with sasquatch hunters. The sheer number alone, which we've never seen heretofore, will result in their decimation.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 28, 2017 Posted July 28, 2017 (edited) If only it were anywhere near that easy; we wouldn't be having debates over existence right now The reality is that one can spend their entire life trying to hunt one down without ever once seeing a glimpse of them. They're that elusive, but at the same time, widespread and common enough that they won't disappear as a result of nature or human activities Edited July 28, 2017 by OntarioSquatch
Patterson-Gimlin Posted July 28, 2017 Posted July 28, 2017 That does seem quite contradictory. Elusive and widespread. It seems to me that if they did in fact exist that they would be few in numbers ,but enough of them to survive with a breeding population . Driven to the dark forests by the threat of modern man, technology and what is commonly called progress. 1
gigantor Posted July 30, 2017 Admin Posted July 30, 2017 On 7/28/2017 at 0:20 AM, Patterson-Gimlin said: It seems to me that if they did in fact exist that they would be few in numbers ,but enough of them to survive with a breeding population . Driven to the dark forests by the threat of modern man, technology and what is commonly called progress. I agree completely. I think that if BF exists, it is in very small numbers in very remote locations. 1
norseman Posted July 30, 2017 Admin Author Posted July 30, 2017 On 7/27/2017 at 8:58 PM, wiiawiwb said: What it will do is geometrically increase the number of hunters looking for their prize. The woods will be abound with sasquatch hunters. The sheer number alone, which we've never seen heretofore, will result in their decimation. Concrete and steel have already done what you fear the most. 2
wiiawiwb Posted July 30, 2017 Posted July 30, 2017 I'm not worried about human development. It's progress is slow particularly because many states have environmental impact laws that do not allow significant deforestation. The forests are vast. The Pacific Northwest states of Washington and Oregon are about 39% forested. By comparison, the Northeast states of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont are all more than 75% forested with Maine almost 90%. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Aboveground_Woody_Biomass_in_the_United_States_2011.jpg 1
norseman Posted July 31, 2017 Admin Author Posted July 31, 2017 And I wonder why they have environmental impact laws? To protect endangered species and it's habitat, right? Examples, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_spotted_owl https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/pacific-salmon You have now completely painted yourself into a corner....... The problem is? Is that here in the Pacific NW, we have mowed down some of the biggest old growth forests on the continent long before the endangered species act was ever a thought. Worse yet....they didn't replant in many areas. They paved it and put in 7/11's, housing tracts and golf courses. The second link specifically lists development as a main threat for salmon. The fight is far from over....and if Sasquatch was on The endangered species list? It would be a HUGE voice in this fight over natural resources. You bring up the NE US, if things are clicking along over there? Awesome! My experience comes from the PacNW. 2
Martin Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 There is barely a trace of virgin forest anywhere in the congenital US. 2
wiiawiwb Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 19 hours ago, norseman said: And I wonder why they have environmental impact laws? To protect endangered species and it's habitat, right? Examples, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_spotted_owl https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/pacific-salmon You have now completely painted yourself into a corner....... The problem is? Is that here in the Pacific NW, we have mowed down some of the biggest old growth forests on the continent long before the endangered species act was ever a thought. Worse yet....they didn't replant in many areas. They paved it and put in 7/11's, housing tracts and golf courses. The second link specifically lists development as a main threat for salmon. The fight is far from over....and if Sasquatch was on The endangered species list? It would be a HUGE voice in this fight over natural resources. You bring up the NE US, if things are clicking along over there? Awesome! My experience comes from the PacNW. Norse...you think I painted myself into a corner? Wow! You've never my original question about naming one creature, any creature, that was better off after human involvement than before. You keep avoiding that question.
Twist Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 It's easy to point out animals that in the past have suffered from human intervention. When speaking of modern times however, in the US especially, animal protection is pretty effective. 1
norseman Posted August 1, 2017 Admin Author Posted August 1, 2017 1 hour ago, wiiawiwb said: Norse...you think I painted myself into a corner? Wow! You've never my original question about naming one creature, any creature, that was better off after human involvement than before. You keep avoiding that question. No. Im in full agreement with you. Its just that your question is not germane to the topic at hand. You see the government protection of forests as important in the modern world. And yet you do not see government protection of species as important now. Your position is now untenable, yes.....your in a corner.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 Wildlife restoration as a way of making up for historical damage certainly works if done properly. There are a plethora of examples of successful restorations, but, I don't believe any of this is truly relevant to bigfoot/sasquatch as far as humanity is concerned. Researchers should first figure out exactly what Sasquatch are. Only after that do I think we'll have productive discussions on "Sasquatch" conservation
norseman Posted August 1, 2017 Admin Author Posted August 1, 2017 The ONLY way to truly KNOW what Sasquatch are? Is to harvest one in the name of science. If that happened? Then we could use the full force of conservation, just like we do with any other rare species. But until that day comes, they will never have any consideration in a environmental impact study. Hopefully they have parallel needs to other large endangered omnivores, like a Grizzly bear. And can piggyback off of them to make sure needs are met. Problem is that Grizzly bear recovery areas are pretty sparse in the west.
BC witness Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 Norseman, I watched a very interesting doc. called "Wild Ways" yesterday. The entire premise of the multi jurisdictional effort being attempted, is to provide an unrestricted passage way from Yellowstone all the way to the arctic coast, along the Rockies, for Grizzlies, and a multitude of other wildlife to freely travel that corridor. The route is through lots of private land, reserves, and crosses a number of major highways and rail lines, but over and underpasses are being built to cross those barriers, and changes in type and location of ranch fencing will help in those areas of private land being crossed. Some of this work is already done, and much more is being negotiated with landowners and first nations, who seem to be all for it. It seems promising.
Recommended Posts