Is the US government actively trying to make the Sasquatch race extinct?

[Huntster]

3 hours ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

........Of course, as soon as someone puts up a fence and says "STAY OUT OF THOSE WOODS" it pretty much guarantees that someone is going to jump that fence to see what is on the other side.

 

And, of course, that works both ways. Government can't keep the sasquatches inside their "reservations", either physically or morally. Government learned that the hard way with tribes of various ethnic homo sapiens.

 

The most efficient way to not deal with a problem is simply to deny that said problem exists. That becomes exponentially easier if that problem rarely presents itself, both because it rarely occurs and it intentionally avoids you. 

 

But even denying the existence of sasquatches doesn't prevent government from setting habitat aside for them indirectly. Knowing that these creatures thrive best and wish to be away from us,, simply creating wilderness areas within our forest lands under other pretenses achieves the goal. There is no need to officially call such an area The Sasquatch Heaven Wilderness when calling it The Indian Heaven Wilderness Area............

[ShadowBorn]

4 hours ago, Huntster said:

The most efficient way to not deal with a problem is simply to deny that said problem exists.

Or get rid of it. 

[SWWASAS]

7 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

And, of course, that works both ways. Government can't keep the sasquatches inside their "reservations", either physically or morally. Government learned that the hard way with tribes of various ethnic homo sapiens.

 

The most efficient way to not deal with a problem is simply to deny that said problem exists. That becomes exponentially easier if that problem rarely presents itself, both because it rarely occurs and it intentionally avoids you. 

 

But even denying the existence of sasquatches doesn't prevent government from setting habitat aside for them indirectly. Knowing that these creatures thrive best and wish to be away from us,, simply creating wilderness areas within our forest lands under other pretenses achieves the goal. There is no need to officially call such an area The Sasquatch Heaven Wilderness when calling it The Indian Heaven Wilderness Area............

I have looked at the various wilderness areas in Washington State from the air and quite frankly cannot figure out why some were designated Wilderness in the first place.     Sometimes chunks of land near them are far more interesting.    Indian Heaven is one of those.   I have wondered if they are simply BF hotspots and by the wilderness designation,   logging is avoided,  road travel does not happen,  and only a few backpackers make it in there every year.     Back packers are easily avoided by resident BF and even if seen,   the backpacker probably would just think it cool that they saw one.     I have even wondered if the prohibition of low flights over the wilderness area is more to keep something from being seen from the air than bother a few backpackers who probably are bored with the trail anyway.  

[BlackRockBigfoot]

1 minute ago, SWWASAS said:

I have looked at the various wilderness areas in Washington State from the air and quite frankly cannot figure out why some were designated Wilderness in the first place.     Sometimes chunks of land near them are far more interesting.    Indian Heaven is one of those.   I have wondered if they are simply BF hotspots and by the wilderness designation,   logging is avoided,  road travel does not happen,  and only a few backpackers make it in there every year.     Back packers are easily avoided by resident BF and even if seen,   the backpacker probably would just think it cool that they saw one.     I have even wondered if the prohibition of low flights over the wilderness area is more to keep something from being seen from the air than bother a few backpackers who probably are bored with the trail anyway.  

Good post!

[norseman]

3 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

I have looked at the various wilderness areas in Washington State from the air and quite frankly cannot figure out why some were designated Wilderness in the first place.     Sometimes chunks of land near them are far more interesting.    Indian Heaven is one of those.   I have wondered if they are simply BF hotspots and by the wilderness designation,   logging is avoided,  road travel does not happen,  and only a few backpackers make it in there every year.     Back packers are easily avoided by resident BF and even if seen,   the backpacker probably would just think it cool that they saw one.     I have even wondered if the prohibition of low flights over the wilderness area is more to keep something from being seen from the air than bother a few backpackers who probably are bored with the trail anyway.  

Depends on the wilderness.

 

The Selway and the Frank have backcountry airstrips.

[Huntster]

4 hours ago, ShadowBorn said:

Or get rid of it. 

 

Usually, that is the tactic government must take, because most problems are large and growing. Not so with sasquatchery. Slow to reproduce, probably below population viability for quite some time now, and both able to and desiring to avoid humanity and retreat into the most wild and difficult terrain, all government has to do is the incredibly cheap option of denying their existence and wait fir their extinction. The creation of wilderness areas both satisfies a segment of our population and helps creates habitat for all kinds of wildlife that is able to escape the growing footprint of mankind, including the sasquatches.

[MIB]

13 hours ago, Huntster said:

That's a rather incomplete list of things a wilderness designation bans, but it still serves to illustrate how "set aside" it truly is. Yes, transportation is pretty much limited to ones feet, and perhaps horses. That in itself limits just about everything else.

 

It is the one that matters.    Perhaps it is not a "thing" in your social circles so you're not as attuned to the sheer number of people out there hiking.    Off trail, on trail, peak-bagging, etc.   There is NOWHERE, other than those couple of municipal watersheds, that I know of where you will not occasionally encounter people.    If land is being set aside to keep people from encountering bigfoots ... where is it?  

1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

have looked at the various wilderness areas in Washington State from the air and quite frankly cannot figure out why some were designated Wilderness in the first place.

 

Wilderness designation is via a political process.    Some areas that are shouldn't be, some areas that aren't should be.   It depends on the political aspirations of the people involved.    It also depends on who owns / manages the particular piece of land and prior uses for that land.   Some may not be obvious from the air.   Existence of strategic minerals might keep a place that would seem a good candidate off the list.    Etc.  Sometimes it takes a bit of research, not just imagining and supposing, to get to the bottom of it.   That can be risky because you might bring someone's attention to an area that you'd rather was not set aside and find it set aside just because you stirred the bees' nest.   

[Huntster]

1 minute ago, MIB said:

........Perhaps it is not a "thing" in your social circles so you're not as attuned to the sheer number of people out there hiking.    Off trail, on trail, peak-bagging, etc.   There is NOWHERE, other than those couple of municipal watersheds, that I know of where you will not occasionally encounter people........

 

It's not a thing here. It is exceedingly easy to simply walk from downtown Anchorage for a long, summer day (20 hours), lay down, and simply disappear off the face of the Earth. One can go anywhere in a few hours and be alone for days or weeks.......or forever......., and the only other sign of humanity being the almost inescapable aircraft flying overhead. Even the aircraft can be successfully avoided if one tries.

 

That is partially why I believe that sasquatches are becoming more rare in the southern part of its range. Like the family of sasquatches in the Bluff Creek area circa 1950-1975, as human activity increased, they eventually left and headed to parts unknown. Over the past century, I believe the species has increasingly both died out and abandoned areas as the human population has increased, and they are more prevalent in the more quiet areas of central Canada.

 

......   If land is being set aside to keep people from encountering bigfoots ... where is it?

 

It doesn't officially exist, and I never claimed it did. For the very reason you cite about the increasing footprint of homo sapiens, government is creating more and more areas set aside for ALL of wildlife, habitat, flora, and now even the weather is cited, and sasquatches are included in that even if not intentionally. Such preservation acts are already both controversial and opposed by a significant part of society. The mere mention of doing so for sasquatches would be the kiss of death for the effort.

[ShadowBorn]

10 hours ago, Huntster said:

Usually, that is the tactic government must take, because most problems are large and growing. Not so with sasquatchery. Slow to reproduce, probably below population viability for quite some time now, and both able to and desiring to avoid humanity and retreat into the most wild and difficult terrain, all government has to do is the incredibly cheap option of denying their existence and wait fir their extinction. The creation of wilderness areas both satisfies a segment of our population and helps creates habitat for all kinds of wildlife that is able to escape the growing footprint of mankind, including the sasquatches.

Most likely course of action for these creatures is. That they are being pushed beyond human contact which is way better then extinction or murdering off some ancient tribes of unknown humans. I would hope for the Gov to push them to places that are out of reach of human activity. Where only their kind can survive the harsh wilderness. To know that they are being killed to extinction would be a shame to who we are as human beings. Yet have not some already have ?.

[BobbyO]

18 hours ago, norseman said:

Depends on the wilderness.

 

The Selway and the Frank have backcountry airstrips.

 

That Frank is absolutely huge in comparison to Indian Heaven for example though right Norse ?

 

Extremely tough to move around in too so airstrips absolutely needed.

 

I'd love to visit it one day.

[norseman]

5 hours ago, BobbyO said:

 

That Frank is absolutely huge in comparison to Indian Heaven for example though right Norse ?

 

Extremely tough to move around in too so airstrips absolutely needed.

 

I'd love to visit it one day.

It’s the largest wilderness in the lower 48. Over 2 million acres.

 

But the Bob Marshall is huge as well. But they don’t allow airstrips and they don’t allow jet boats in the river.

 

Idaho has a different vibe. And how it bleeds through with the USFS is beyond me. The Feds are usually lock and step. 
 

I prefer the use of back country strips and jet boats. I’m not a purist. I think ALL people should be able to access federal lands. Not just the young and fit.

[MIB]

On 4/26/2020 at 11:31 AM, Huntster said:

It doesn't officially exist, and I never claimed it did.

 

I was actually answering georgerm's post, not yours, however ... if it is "set aside", that is deliberate action, and has to be done officially.    It is not "set aside" if nobody happens to go there, it is only "set aside" if nobody is legally ALLOWED to go there.   There are more people in more Wilderness (I'm using the big W to indicate federal designation under the Wilderness Act of 1964 rather than the sloppy "assumed to be wild because it isn't paved" view of many city slickers I run into) now than ever before because the gear is ever more forgiving requiring less skill plus media attention drawing interest.  

 

So again, show me a class of areas of land set aside where humans are excluded by law.    I will tell you that you can't.   There are areas where the public isn't allowed ... military bases, watersheds ... but there are people in those locations who have a business need to be there.    There are no sasquatch set-asides.   "Period."   If you know otherwise, share it.  Be specific.  No semantic games.   Show me where no humans are legally allowed.   Should be easy enough if there are such places.

 

MIB

[SWWASAS]

Other than the cost of maintenance I wonder if there is a push to close forest service roads just to make some areas more difficult to access.   There are some really interesting places that I have found from the air but I cannot figure out how to get in there without 20 or 30 mile of bush whacking through dense forest.    What really makes me crazy is destroying roads by huge ditches and boulders when one would think that the Forest Service might want to use them to get fire equipment in to some areas.  

[Huntster]

6 hours ago, MIB said:

.........There are more people in more Wilderness (I'm using the big W to indicate federal designation under the Wilderness Act of 1964 rather than the sloppy "assumed to be wild because it isn't paved" view of many city slickers I run into) now than ever before because the gear is ever more forgiving requiring less skill plus media attention drawing interest.........

 

It is true that the Wilderness areas are more crowded than ever, but in a nation whose homo sapien population went from 76 million in 1900 to 282 million in 2000, and now 331 million (that's a 17% leap in just 20 years.........49 million souls, many millions more than the entire population of Canada), it should be expected that every nook and cranny of the nation will have some yahoo setting up a camp and recording it on YouTube to share with the unwashed in the cities. That's why people want to create more and more Wilderness designated areas.

 

That's also why I theorize that the few sasquatches left in the West are being pushed north into greener, more mountainous, and less populated pastures. No Wilderness (that's capital "W") designations needed. They're seeking wilderness, not Wilderness.

 

But even in areas of the continent where the wriggling masses of humanity rarely go (pretty much anywhere @ 300 miles north of the U.S./Canadian border), there are Wilderness areas (again, that's a capital "W") aplenty. And while you are allowed to go there, if you do, you win't see people there, especially since there's no hunting. Oh, yeah, every once in a while a Timothy Treadwell type will be found in some lonely bay or valley, but he won't be there long, and there will then be a looooooong span of time before another bush plane flies by.

 

.........So again, show me a class of areas of land set aside where humans are excluded by law.    I will tell you that you can't.   There are areas where the public isn't allowed ... military bases, watersheds ... but there are people in those locations who have a business need to be there.    There are no sasquatch set-asides.   "Period."   If you know otherwise, share it.  Be specific.  No semantic games.   Show me where no humans are legally allowed.   Should be easy enough if there are such places.

 

Correct. There are no sasquatch set-asides. And if I'm correct that sasquatches are of the genus homo, you'd better pray that they remain undiscovered, because if they get discovered, the set-asides will be called "reservations", and the only "people" in them will be the sasquatches and the BIA, or other such officials. 

[norseman]

3 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

Other than the cost of maintenance I wonder if there is a push to close forest service roads just to make some areas more difficult to access.   There are some really interesting places that I have found from the air but I cannot figure out how to get in there without 20 or 30 mile of bush whacking through dense forest.    What really makes me crazy is destroying roads by huge ditches and boulders when one would think that the Forest Service might want to use them to get fire equipment in to some areas.  

We call those “Kelly humps”.

 

And it was your tax dollars that built the road.... and then they physically block you from using it. It’s criminal.

 

If the area is too sensitive for a road? Then don’t build it in the first place.