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

[MIB]

On 4/27/2020 at 6:29 PM, Huntster said:

 

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.

 

Definitely "plus-worthy". 

 

With qualifications.   I think that the comparative ruggednesses creates a gradient with some places likely to attract proportionally more additional people than others.    I think there are variations in propensity to take pictures for others' consumption also affected by the gradients of difficulty.  

 

I did not realize there was no hunting .. must be Canada you are talking about?    The federal Wilderness Areas in Oregon are all open to hunting, no different than national forest.   Our National Parks are not open to hunt in but the Wilderness Areas are.   In fact, they're my preferred locations.    Or are there US wilderness areas in Alaska that don't allow hunting?   I'd like to know more if that is the case.  (Thanks in advance.)

 

On 4/27/2020 at 6:29 PM, Huntster said:

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. 

 

No argument at all from me.    That's exactly my suspicion and the problems I predict stemming from "discovery."   That's why I'm not a proponent of official discovery.  

 

MIB

 

 

 

[hiflier]

But if speculating that numbers are low because they are dying out then what other recourse is there?

[MIB]

14 minutes ago, hiflier said:

But if speculating that numbers are low because they are dying out then what other recourse is there?

 

I'm not speculating that, but if I were, and if I believed they were just a dumb animal, I would agree with you.   I don't, I don't, and I don't. 

 

MIB

[hiflier]

In turn, agree that they are not just dumb animals. A far as their dying out? Since we have nothing to compare things to, we don't know beyond looking at the frequency, or lack of frequency, in the number of reports. I think the last few decades have seen more people in the woods so, on that basis, it would seem reports are down. Unless our presence out there is really driving them deeper, which I think is part of the dynamic, then one could speculate that their numbers are fewer than say 50 years ago.

 

That would be at least one generation of Sasquatches. One would think that by looking at other large creatures that, if left alone, Sasquatch numbers should naturally be increasing. On the surface, that doesn't appear to be the case. Maybe we SHOULD be leaving them alone and move out of their habitats instead of researching deeper? It will be interesting to see if anything changes between last March and a few more months from now. Autumn could perhaps see some higher activity since fewer folks have been doing much in the way of trekking very far into the woods. Even something like less pressure from academia and tourism could produce changes in the forest atmosphere for wild creature habitats.

Edited April 29, 2020 by hiflier

[MIB]

1 minute ago, hiflier said:

On the surface, that doesn't appear to be the case. 

 

I don't agree with that, either.    I see no rationally supportable basis to claim there are more, or there are less, or there are the same number.   So I won't.   I will say "we don't know".   Along with that, I'll say anyone claiming anything specific about increase, decrease, or steady numbers of sasquatches is pulling garbage out of thin air.   The ONLY correct, supportable answer is "we don't know."

 

MIB

[ShadowBorn]

4 hours ago, hiflier said:

In turn, agree that they are not just dumb animals. A far as their dying out? Since we have nothing to compare things to, we don't know beyond looking at the frequency, or lack of frequency, in the number of reports. I think the last few decades have seen more people in the woods so, on that basis, it would seem reports are down. Unless our presence out there is really driving them deeper, which I think is part of the dynamic, then one could speculate that their numbers are fewer than say 50 years ago.

We just need to look at the grizzly and how they almost died off. Now they are coming back. The other creature that is not talked about a lot is the wolverine . There really are not that many sightings of them and yet they are there roaming long distance. There was one sighted here Michigan and was later found dead. But grizzly's are great wonders and travel great distances. So who is to say what these creatures do when human encroach on them.  

 

But do we have any real data if the Fish and wild life do study these creatures with out our knowledge? I mean they study every other animal population that roams our forest.  So who is to say that they do not run into these creatures when they do studies on other animals in our National Forest. You have to bet that they do keep track of them when they do run into them. If there is a population of them then you must think that the fish and wild life knows about it. But why would they tell anyone about them ? The only reason that they would not say Is that : " There is not a need to know " . A folder with the word written in red letters " CLASSIFIED " . For those who have seen these creatures in the GOV might have even signed a NDA . But I am only speculating. This might be why you might never get the answers that you are looking for @hiflier . But you never know you might get lucky and find some one out there who is finely ready to talk. You know a deathbed confession that has nothing to loose.

 

 

[Huntster]

8 hours ago, MIB said:

..........I did not realize there was no hunting .. must be Canada you are talking about?    The federal Wilderness Areas in Oregon are all open to hunting, no different than national forest.   Our National Parks are not open to hunt in but the Wilderness Areas are.   In fact, they're my preferred locations.    Or are there US wilderness areas in Alaska that don't allow hunting?   I'd like to know more if that is the case.  (Thanks in advance.)..........

 

Actually, you can hunt.......if you can get there. And in Alaska (unlike other wilderness areas) most of the 21 designated wilderness areas (18.6 million acres........totaling an area larger than West Virginia) allow aircraft landings on water or gravel bars, but that's pretty much the only way to get there, unless you use a dogsled.

 

It used to be pretty easy to find an air taxi operator for a reasonable price. Then in @ the late '80's, they got real picky on who they would take where. If you were a hinter, they might not take you to an area because the hunting guides would be unhappy, and the guides were good for lots of business. That's one of the reasons why I thought the air taxi operator who took Timothy Treadwell out to Kaflia Bay on a regular basis should have had a fire lit under his fanny. He had a reputation for balking at bear hunters on the Peninsula, but the damera yahoo who was breaking the law in a national park was good, easy, non-consumptive money.

8 hours ago, hiflier said:

But if speculating that numbers are low because they are dying out then what other recourse is there?

 

Hope you get to see one before they're gone.

[Huntster]

7 hours ago, hiflier said:

.........A far as their dying out? Since we have nothing to compare things to, we don't know beyond looking at the frequency, or lack of frequency, in the number of reports..........

 

I think the estimated figure of 5,000 sasquatches continent wide is the maximum number based upon report density and the fact that one has yet to be killed and recovered. That figure represents a population at or near the minimum for viability. 

 

I just got The Nature of the Beast by Bryan Sykes in the mail yesterday. One of the first chapters is called The Last Neanderthal. He writes of how they died out. It was an eye opener for me. He wanted to write a fictional book, with a basis in science, on the topic, and that is part of the reason he is interested in sasquatchery. 

 

Frankly, I doubt they can last another couple of centuries.