Caenus Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 38 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said: There is little consequence to "investing" in IBWP research. You find one, no big deal. There is monumental consequence to finding a sasquatch. It would affect mass areas of land which will have to be set aside for habitat and protection. It would scare 90% of the people who recreate in the woods out of the woods, as they would not want to go where the real king kong lives. It would also cost immeasurable sums to monitor and protect them. Logging would be shut down in those areas as well. All-in-all, it would be a large financial outlay and the government at both the federal and state level would have to dedicate tremendous resources they don't have. There is no incentive for the government to have a sasquatch officially found. To the contrary, there are large financial reasons to keep it swept under the rug. I'd bet dollars to donuts that Federal and state park rangers are under strict instruction to keep a lid on anything they see or of credible reports given to them. Exactly the issue I am running into here.
hiflier Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 50 minutes ago, Caenus said: I'd bet dollars to donuts that Federal and state park rangers are under strict instruction to keep a lid on anything they see or of credible reports given to them. Department of Agriculture. Same department that owns the Dept. of Agriculture truck that Claudia Ackley claimed was following her in her home town which then sped off when she photographed it. Or was that particular incident just happenstance that the truck was there and acted the way that it did? Probably just coincidence but there are photos and yes, it certainly was a Dept. Of Agriculture truck.
wiiawiwb Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 Not sure why you crossed out state authorities. The state park rangers are probably the ones with more feet on the ground and more attuned to what is really happening in the woods that we research in. It would be the state rangers, rather than Federal, that would get a phone call from frightened campers or hikers about what they saw or encountered. Having said that, I'm not quite sure how much time they actually spend looking for footprints, following up on reports, or being out there in the darkest hours of night trying to hear and see things. I know in my state, the park rangers are spread very thin and are chasing down reports of loud campers, poaching, stopping hunters to talk with them and check licenses, following up on injured animals, and many more things on their checklist. The last thing they have time or probably inclination to do is chase down someone who said they saw a footprint, heard a growl, or witnessed a tall, dark, shadowy figure around their campsite. 1
Huntster Posted October 7, 2018 Author Posted October 7, 2018 10 hours ago, wiiawiwb said: ....... It would scare 90% of the people who recreate in the woods out of the woods, as they would not want to go where the real king kong lives........ Personally, I think that right there would be the #1 reason why the existence of sasquatch should be proclaimed loudly from the rooftops. ......I'd bet dollars to donuts that Federal and state park rangers are under strict instruction to keep a lid on anything they see or of credible reports given to them. I am coming to believe that as well.
Huntster Posted October 7, 2018 Author Posted October 7, 2018 1 hour ago, wiiawiwb said: .........The state park rangers are probably the ones with more feet on the ground and more attuned to what is really happening in the woods that we research in. It would be the state rangers, rather than Federal, that would get a phone call from frightened campers or hikers about what they saw or encountered. Having said that, I'm not quite sure how much time they actually spend looking for footprints, following up on reports, or being out there in the darkest hours of night trying to hear and see things......... In Alaska, it would be Area Biologists and their staff who would be most attuned to and get the calls on any sasquatch activity. There have been several reports where they have been brought to strong trace and physical evidence, and the reports have indicated their wonder at it. Even more remarkable to me is the reluctance to talk about sasquatchery by locals who live in hotspots. One of Mrs. Huntster’s cousins and his family lived in Sasquatch Hotspot Central on Prince of Wales Island for many years, and at a family gathering, I asked him of the phenomenon. Both of his sons immediately shot their dad intense looks as he gave me the standard statement of the many reports and native legend and lore of the area, but did not reveal any personal experience of his own, but I felt by their body language that they know. I didn’t press, but I wonder why they did not talk more freely. He has since passed away, but one son still lives in the area, and maybe one day he will talk with me about it.
hiflier Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, wiiawiwb said: Not sure why you crossed out state authorities. The state park rangers are probably the ones with more feet on the ground and more attuned to what is really happening in the woods that we research in Because I was talking about Department of Agriculture which oversees Federal (National) Parks. State parks are typically overseen by each state's Department of Natural Resources. I was only making that distinction in the case of Claudia Ackley. She had her claimed Sasquatch sighting on a trail in an unincorporated area of the San Bernardino Mountains National Forest called Blue Jay- so it was Federal which would be under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture. Kind of makes me think the lawsuit is misplaced in her suing of the State of California? Maybe she should be suing the Department of Agriculture instead? Edited October 7, 2018 by hiflier
Huntster Posted October 8, 2018 Author Posted October 8, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, hiflier said: .......Kind of makes me think the lawsuit is misplaced in her suing of the State of California? Maybe she should be suing the Department of Agriculture instead? While USFS would be at least partially responsible for habitat management, the responsibility for biological recognition, study, and management would rest with state fish and wildlife departments, and secondarily (and, unfortunately, increasingly more primarily) on federal lands, the USFWS. Those are the folks who need to admit that these creatures exist, at least initially. If these creatures are then determined to be of the Homo genus, everything changes, and changes in huge, huge ways, and the future is then up in the air. It would almost be as monumental as if little green men landed on the White House lawn in a flying saucer. Edited October 8, 2018 by Huntster 1
hiflier Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 24 minutes ago, Huntster said: It would almost be as monumental as if little green men landed on the White House lawn in a flying saucer Could not agree more. The stakes regarding discovery are incredibly high. But the question in my mind has always been whether or not those stakes are so high as to allow a species, especially THAT species, to go silently extinct BEFORE its 'official' discovery.
Huntster Posted October 8, 2018 Author Posted October 8, 2018 1 hour ago, hiflier said: ........But the question in my mind has always been whether or not those stakes are so high as to allow a species, especially THAT species, to go silently extinct BEFORE its 'official' discovery. In an era when our government is justifying all kinds of stuff to save, for example, polar bears, when polar bear numbers are higher than ever, and simultaneously letting hominids go extinct intentionally, would be the biggest crime since Christ walked among us. Even if not intentional and is simply negligent, the crime remains just as evil.
hiflier Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, Huntster said: Even if not intentional and is simply negligent, the crime remains just as evil. This is why I have been working for these past few years on some way to get as many people involved in getting as close to an inevitable discovery as possible. I do not have the answer to that. The SRN to date is as close to something that anyone can be involved in as I have come with. Because whatever it is that might work has to be easy enough for almost anyone to do. I have pushed for looking for a carcass or dead body in the early Spring. For many that is a difficult thing to do if the only places to viably look are places that are remote and difficult to access. I still think that Spring is the best time but the SRN can be done year round and only requires some locally organized search party who drives around with some kind of image capturing device or devices as soon after a Class A sighting as possible. Is it perfect? Nope. Foolproof? Nope. But does it have the potential of getting hundreds if not thousands of people into an active search? Yeah, it has that potential and only time will tell if the idea takes hold and more and more people get involved. Yep. Wishful thinking but who knows what may come of it. Maybe someone will come up with a much better method? I certainly hope they do because official public discovery of a large North American Primate is such that, beyond luck, it will require a large, consistent effort by many. All the current individuals and groups out looking says so. But those folks and groups could use some help and the SRN is a good way to have that kind support. Someone could be deep inside the White Mountains of New Hampshire only to have a Sasquatch sighted in someone's back yard in Carroll County. In such a case the SRN could be the local safety net. I don't so far know of another method that would have potentially better or faster coverage. That said I will stop bring the idea onto other threads outside of its own. My apologies to all. Edited October 8, 2018 by hiflier
norseman Posted October 8, 2018 Admin Posted October 8, 2018 I have seen shady stuff concerning state biologists before. Concerning Cougar numbers..... but also Wolf and Grizzly bears too. Ive also seen ranchers losing 100 year old family grazing alottments because of supposed Bull Trout habitat. The same fish they paid their fathers 50 years ago a bounty for! Political games are played with wildlife and the land. I have seen it. Forget Bigfoot.... So yes I have a healthy distrust for wildlife and forest agencies.
hiflier Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 (edited) As long as policies are aimed at dollar amounts by those who deem how and where those dollar amounts get spent then there will be misgivings. When it comes to a thing like a Sasquatch its reality can never be exposed to the public at large. But with enough boots-on-the-ground resources thrown at the issue then its reality would become inevitable. The elephant in the room then becomes to what extent do people really want Sasquatch to become a public and scientific reality, and what amount of time or effort would they be willing to invest? It wouldn't take much time or effort from anyone really as long as there are a large number of people involved to that end. But then again, a lucky encounter could settle everything in short order. The past 50+ years says one can't rely simply on someone getting lucky out there- though it could happen that way. Edited October 8, 2018 by hiflier
MIB Posted October 9, 2018 Moderator Posted October 9, 2018 On 10/8/2018 at 8:35 AM, norseman said: Political games are played with wildlife and the land. I have seen it. Forget Bigfoot.... So yes I have a healthy distrust for wildlife and forest agencies. Oh, I absolutely agree. However, regarding bigfoot, I do not believe there is a widespread conspiracy among gov't employees of various sorts to keep bigfoot under wraps. What incentive could be offered, what threat could be made, to keep every single one of upwards of 100,000 potential whistle-blowers quiet? You'd have to have something that appealed with equal effectiveness to those who think the public has a right to know, preservationists, those who think we need to wipe out the bigfoots, people who are just looking for fame for being the discoverer ... all those possible motives have to be silenced under one umbrella. I don't see it. Norseman .. what could be offered to entice you to remain silent if you had absolute proof? Hiflier .. what about you? Anyone else in the conversation? If you had proof, what could be offered or what could be threatened to silence you? It is inconvenient for the conspiracy theorists, but it has to be considered. How could such a conspiracy exist, what could it offer / threaten, and how could the conspiracy itself remain veiled yet affect so many people so effectively? MIB 2
hiflier Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 22 minutes ago, MIB said: what could be offered to entice you to remain silent if you had absolute proof? Hiflier .. what about you? IDK. National Security? To be possibly read as economic security in this case. But it will be a long, long time before anyone comes knocking on my door because I am not anywhere NEAR close to discovery and probably never will be. But I think I WOULD blow the whistle anyway given the chance. But in order to do so any discovery must be carefully handled and I have thought long and hard over these past five years about how to go about that 'handling'.
norseman Posted October 9, 2018 Admin Posted October 9, 2018 1 hour ago, MIB said: Oh, I absolutely agree. However, regarding bigfoot, I do not believe there is a widespread conspiracy among gov't employees of various sorts to keep bigfoot under wraps. What incentive could be offered, what threat could be made, to keep every single one of upwards of 100,000 potential whistle-blowers quiet? You'd have to have something that appealed with equal effectiveness to those who think the public has a right to know, preservationists, those who think we need to wipe out the bigfoots, people who are just looking for fame for being the discoverer ... all those possible motives have to be silenced under one umbrella. I don't see it. Norseman .. what could be offered to entice you to remain silent if you had absolute proof? Hiflier .. what about you? Anyone else in the conversation? If you had proof, what could be offered or what could be threatened to silence you? It is inconvenient for the conspiracy theorists, but it has to be considered. How could such a conspiracy exist, what could it offer / threaten, and how could the conspiracy itself remain veiled yet affect so many people so effectively? MIB I never said there was one. In fact there have been numerous FS employees who have come forward. Paul Freeman? Etc? But if the government was threatening my family with bodily harm? I would keep quiet.......absolutely. Not saying that's happening...... just saying thats what it would take.
Recommended Posts