Jump to content
BigTreeWalker

Update on Olympic Project nest sites

Recommended Posts

SWWASAS

I disagree about transparency.   I have issues with methodology of both the Olympic Project and the BFRO.    With adventure tourism and herds of people involved with both, it certainly muddies the water too as to what their objectives are.  .   Derek knows me by sight.    The main rub I have with both organizations,  is that given the period of time they have both been in existence,  myself and others like me have had more success with BF in a far shorter period of time.   Both have ignored attempts on my part at contact.   I attempted to show my infrasound findings to the Ellis, the sound guy at the Olympic project, at the suggestion of Jeff Meldrum, and Ellis basically brushed me off in person.     Too many of these people are grandstanding, beating their own drum on the conference circuit,  and ignoring science all around them.   They apparently do not know or care if someone, doing things differently, has had success.  Quite frankly I think the Conference Lecture circuit has done more damage than good by creating experts where there are none. Sour grapes I know, but they have created the environment not me.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
45 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

Quite frankly I think the Conference Lecture circuit has done more damage than good by creating experts where there are none

 

^^ This. QFT but it is good nonetheless that more folks can hear what others have tried, success or failure, and experienced. My issues with conferences though are similar, especially when other interests hook their economic wagons up to them. But then getting folks to spend money on something that has no smoking gun is as old as the hills. Each to their own of course because it still comes down to a personal choice about whether or not one will attend conferences. The 'expert' aspect is all about using Sasquatch as a reference to what one experiences in the field. Sometimes newbies don't know what is normal and what is not in field research. It's the process of elimination that we are always left with which isn't a bad way to go as long as one stays grounded in their investigations of what they think are abnormalities in the wild. In that regard people do learn some helpful things from speakers as long as the speakers themselves are well-grounded.

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
On 4/3/2018 at 10:36 AM, BobbyO said:

 

But it's this stuff that's the interesting part, and this runs pretty consistent through the entire Klamath Watershed, consistent enough anyway for me to spend a lot of time on it.

 

This screen shot is from the Lower Klamath Zone, our data.

 

BFF Sample.jpg

 

 

Wow. 

 

My first impression isvthat these nests are not on the main tributaries, and they are likely too high in elevation for anadromous fish to travel to to spawn. Thus, the nest makers are walking down the creek to the mouth at the tributary to fish.

 

Secondly, those locations are so high that they are the last to green up in spring, and the first to die down in fall. Thus, their usage is likely during the warmest part of the year.

 

My question:

 

Are these nest locations in pockets of old growth that escaped the chainsaws?

 

Analysing the Bluff Creek area on Google Earth, it is easy to see the pockets of land that are old growth as well as areas that were likely the first to be cut in the late 1950's and early 1960's. Some of these old growth pockets are headwater gulches; short "valleys" of about a mile or so in length rising @ 1000' to 1500' in elevation from the main tributaries, like Bluff Creek and it's forks. If these nest finds are primarily in old growth, or in second growth of at least 50 years of age, that narrows down the search location and timing quite well...........all that would be left would be the method of "capture".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
2 hours ago, Huntster said:

Are these nest locations in pockets of old growth that escaped the chainsaws?

 

Analysing the Bluff Creek area on Google Earth, it is easy to see the pockets of land that are old growth as well as areas that were likely the first to be cut in the late 1950's and early 1960's. Some of these old growth pockets are headwater gulches; short "valleys" of about a mile or so in length rising @ 1000' to 1500' in elevation from the main tributaries, like Bluff Creek and it's forks. If these nest finds are primarily in old growth, or in second growth of at least 50 years of age, that narrows down the search location and timing quite well...........all that would be left would be the method of "capture".

 

Give this a listen if you have time. It may answer some of your questions. 

 

On the shoulders of giants - episode 4, which can be found here: http://thomassteenburg.com/

 

It is an excellent, very recent interview with Steven Streufert of the Bluff Creek Project.

 

Lots of great information on the area as it was in the past and how it is now.

 

He also discusses their ongoing year round trail cam project there etc.

Edited by OldMort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor

Thanks! I'll be listening to it today.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot
BFF Donor
3 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

How cool!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Here is the chance to see if the government knows about BF.      One of the Neon sites is in my former research area.  Get the job and see if you have to sign a non disclosure statement.   I found a BF footprint so close to the NEON site that I could have thrown a rock from the find to the NEON site.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot
BFF Donor
43 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

Here is the chance to see if the government knows about BF.      One of the Neon sites is in my former research area.  Get the job and see if you have to sign a non disclosure statement.   I found a BF footprint so close to the NEON site that I could have thrown a rock from the find to the NEON site.  

 

Sounds like you are volunteering. You could get the job and then back out shortly after starting/signing.

 

No way they can contract you, and hold you to it, as a temp employee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigTreeWalker

The Olympic Project had an update on the nest sites last weekend at the Squatchfest, in Longview/Kelso. Shane Corson and Derek Randles shared what they've been doing. The original nests are beginning to disappear back into the forest. The elevation in the area is less than a 1000'. (There seemed the be a little misunderstanding with the above posts about the Klamath area. The nests are on the Olympic Peninsula.) 

Derek and Shane decided to build a nest by hand to see how long it took and what it would actually take to build something similar. I think they said it took them under an hour. But one conclusion they came to is that it takes hands to do it. There were also support branches around the edges of the original nests to help them retain their shape. So there is some learned skill used in building them. In fact there was a small nest near the originals built off the ground in the huckleberry bushes. This is similar to what gorillas do to teach their young the process of nest building. 

It tends to rule out bears. For which there is evidence that they don't build nests anything like these. They simply rake together a pile of bark, sticks or leaves. I have seen bear beds myself.

It doesn't rule out humans. But access is limited and it is trespassing without permission. They are continuing to search the area on other ridges for more nests. They are also making some creative camera traps that would play on bigfoot's documented curiosity toward humans. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor
12 hours ago, BigTreeWalker said:

But access is limited and it is trespassing without permission

 

BigTree,

 

Most of the Olympic Peninsula is a National Park, no?  and the rest is probably state parks and forests...

 

firefox_2019-01-30_23-41-47.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
18 minutes ago, gigantor said:

.......Most of the Olympic Peninsula is a National Park, no?  and the rest is probably state parks and forests......

 

Lots of Indian land along the coast west of the park, and lots of timber corporation land south of the park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigTreeWalker

Yes there is lots of private timber land all around the park. Most at the lower elevations stated for the nest sites. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Donor

Hell, trespassing to so. apps. settlers around park land is nothing, that is not going to keep things from happening, just like any kind of poaching that can occur, it will, if there is a will, regardless of penalties. 

 

The saddest realization I ever had moving to  the PNW for part-time is that they cut the hell out of everything right up to the park boundaries. 

 

Yes, I know both sides of that discussion, it is in my genome, as I had  PNW settlers and loggers on my maternal side that were name-sake for a town in WA state. 

On 1/17/2019 at 6:36 AM, Huntster said:

 

Wow. 

 

My first impression isvthat these nests are not on the main tributaries, and they are likely too high in elevation for anadromous fish to travel to to spawn. Thus, the nest makers are walking down the creek to the mouth at the tributary to fish.

 

Secondly, those locations are so high that they are the last to green up in spring, and the first to die down in fall. Thus, their usage is likely during the warmest part of the year.

 

My question:

 

Are these nest locations in pockets of old growth that escaped the chainsaws?

 

Analysing the Bluff Creek area on Google Earth, it is easy to see the pockets of land that are old growth as well as areas that were likely the first to be cut in the late 1950's and early 1960's. Some of these old growth pockets are headwater gulches; short "valleys" of about a mile or so in length rising @ 1000' to 1500' in elevation from the main tributaries, like Bluff Creek and it's forks. If these nest finds are primarily in old growth, or in second growth of at least 50 years of age, that narrows down the search location and timing quite well...........all that would be left would be the method of "capture".

 

Rick Noll made the connections of BF to watersheds many moons ago, check the archives for Noll and watersheds, he used to be a mod and a member

Edited by bipedalist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
8 hours ago, bipedalist said:

.........The saddest realization I ever had moving to  the PNW for part-time is that they cut the hell out of everything right up to the park boundaries.........

 

Yup. On Prince of Wales Island today, one can see the boundaries to Native lands for miles from a high vantage point.

 

........

Rick Noll made the connections of BF to watersheds many moons ago, check the archives for Noll and watersheds, he used to be a mod and a member.

 

In my opinion, Nolls few words were gold. He has virtually disappearred after the Skookum Cast affair, and I wonder if it's because of disgust with the skeptic industry or it's because he's quietly living with a family of sasquatches somewhere documenting their behaviors.  Of the two possibilities, I strongly suspect the latter.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×