Why can't we find and study Bigfoot?

[Huntster]

18 minutes ago, Foxhill said:

 The quarry, so what special skill set does a bigfoot hunter have that lets say a deer hunter doesn't?

 

1) Outstanding intelligence (as in "information"; high density of reports)

2) A whole bunch of time to blow.......like years

3) A good plan on evidence extraction and delivery to a goid authority

4) A good understanding of the history of sasquatchery, and what that means to your goals (what are you tryin pg to achieve, and why)

5) A good legal plan if your goal is a dead specimen

6) Night vision equipment

7) All the ordinary gear that a grizzly bear hunter would have, including a hunting partner

 

All that written, the odds of success would be similar to and as dangerous as okapi hunting in DRC; even if you got one, your life will likely go to Hell in a handbasket afterwards.

Edited January 12, 2020 by Huntster

[Foxhill]

8 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

1) Outstanding intelligence (as in "information"; high density of reports)

2) A whole bunch of time to blow.......like years

3) A good plan on evidence extraction and delivery to a goid authority

4) A good understanding of the history of sasquatchery, and what that means to your goals (what are you tryin pg to achieve, and why)

5) A good legal plan if your goal is a dead specimen

6) Night vision equipment

7) All the ordinary gear that a grizzly bear hunter would have, including a hunting partner

 

All that written, the odds of success would be similar to and as dangerous as okapi hunting in DRC; even if you got one, your life will likely go to Hell in a handbasket afterwards.

   So its your belief that in the centuries of hunting on the U.S. continent, (with the exception of the tech) that no one has possessed these qualities has run into Bigfoot? 

Edited January 12, 2020 by Foxhill

[hiflier]

41 minutes ago, Foxhill said:

.....so what special skill set does a bigfoot hunter have.....

 

The same as with any other objective in hunting.....knowledge and study as well as paying attention to those who have gone before.

[Foxhill]

9 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

The same as with any other objective in hunting.....knowledge and study as well as paying attention to those who have gone before.

So in your opinion there is no difference between a Bigfoot hunter and a deer hunter? What would be the special bigfoot hunting knowledge that those that have gone before and failed so miserable at the goal be? 

Edited January 12, 2020 by Foxhill

[Huntster]

23 minutes ago, Foxhill said:

   So its your belief that in the centuries of hunting on the U.S. continent, (with the exception of the tech) that no one has possessed these qualities has run into Bigfoot? 

 

No, as I've written, thousands upon thousands of people have "run into" a sasquatch.

 

What has not yet occurred (to our collective knowledge, at least) is one of those encounters resulting in widespread acceptance of their existence with the authorities and those others who refuse to accept their existence.

1 minute ago, Foxhill said:

So in your opinion there is no difference between a Bigfoot hunter and a deer hunter?......

 

In a general sense, no. In a specialized sense, yes. A deer hunt differs significantly from brown bear hunt or a pheasant hunt, but it is all hunting, even though the tactics, hunting area, firearm, ammo, etc differ.

[Foxhill]

2 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

No, as I've written, thousands upon thousands of people have "run into" a sasquatch.

 

What has not yet occurred (to our collective knowledge, at least) is one of those encounters resulting in widespread acceptance of their existence with the authorities and those others who refuse to accept their existence.

 Have claimed to run into Bigfoot, which I guess is really the problem it never gets beyond a unsupportable claim at this point. 

[Huntster]

2 minutes ago, Foxhill said:

 Have claimed to run into Bigfoot, which I guess is really the problem it never gets beyond a unsupportable claim at this point. 

 

The unsupported claim is only a problem for certain people.  Not so much to others.

[Foxhill]

1 minute ago, Huntster said:

 

The unsupported claim is only a problem for certain people.  Not so much to others.

 

Its not a problem for me nor should it be for anyone, its just a fact. 

[georgerm]

30 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

No, as I've written, thousands upon thousands of people have "run into" a sasquatch.

 

What has not yet occurred (to our collective knowledge, at least) is one of those encounters resulting in widespread acceptance of their existence with the authorities and those others who refuse to accept their existence.

 

This is the original question that we started with, what is it about bigfoot that no one has been able to find the critter to film or to bring in a deceased one? What is it about the hairy man that the so called bigfoot hunters that have packed their rifles around and every time failed to blast one? Is it something we are doing wrong? We get better technology each year too. We have tons of really good hunters but so far each failed to bring in a bigfoot. What is the reason why bigfoot evades us each time? 

Edited January 12, 2020 by georgerm
improve

[hiflier]

27 minutes ago, Foxhill said:

So in your opinion there is no difference between a Bigfoot hunter and a deer hunter?

 

With all due respect, you're kind of repeating the question. Very basically, a hunter is a hunter. Period. It's the quarry that is different. So the kind of knowledge and research done should reflect that. Deer and Sasquatch are different. The kind of sign they leave is different. Mainly because their body types and capabilities are different. If everyone had the exact specifics of how to grass a Sasquatch, it would have been done long ago. The number of deer are in the seven figure category. Sasquatch is thought to be in the four figure category. But even that low figure wouldn't allow it to evade e-DNA sampling which is why I've been pushing so hard on using the technology.

 

Without going into too much here, though, deer are not a threat to the US economy. Sasquatch discovery on the other hand would have a huge impact on the economy. That said there is a lot more to hunting a Sasquatch then simply hunting a Sasquatch. One has to weigh why such a creature has not been OFFICIALLY and/or SCIENTIFICALLY  recognized. My own F&W, even though they stated a null hypothesis, told me in a phone conversation that they are not sure the creature doesn't exist. If that's the case I see no effort on their part to go out and look for one....you know...just in case they do  IOf they did then I would guess they might have as much difficulty finding one as we do. Unless of course, some agency has already done that but "for some strange reason" hasn't seen it fit to tell anyone.

Edited January 12, 2020 by hiflier

[NathanFooter]

23 minutes ago, Foxhill said:

 The quarry, so what special skill set does a bigfoot hunter have that lets say a deer hunter doesn't?

 

 Yes, I do discount the majority of folks , they are targeting/ focusing on something that is nothing like the Sasquatch.   When a deer hunter is out in the wild, he is focused on locating and dispatching deer, not watching for the Loch Ness monster, it is not real in in perception so anything related is likely something else.   It takes overt and in your face interaction or sign to gain consideration regarding sign from a well 40+ year hunter/guide.

 

If you want to talk about a biologist or someone under governmental pay then I can easily point to a tough sell where job security faces nobility.   I know of several biologists, forest managers and park rangers that have had experiences but they fear the consequences of even open discussion behind their name. John Mionczynski is a great example, he was told to drop the topic or be looking for a new line of work. 

 

 That being said, I have been offered information from people that have found explainable sign or encounters but these tend to be people that spend an unusual  amount of time in the  wilderness ( more than 140 days a year ).  Many of these people have a very hard time reporting their events and even when they do, they can't fully wrap their head around it enough to decide that Sasquatch could explain the situation. Many times they tell a friend or relative who contacts me and I reach out to them, there is rarely a light-bulb moment where they turn and decide to invest in Sasquatch pursuit. Peter Byrne and Robert W. Morgan are the only examples I can thing of that have done something similar to what you suggest, should they have had the capability and technology we have today then they perhaps would have made ground.

 

 Many skills are missing, a deer hunter is following an animal of known behavior the he can study.   Deer hunters ( I am also a deer hunter, both rifle and bow ) target transitions looking for thickets/swamps along trails in areas of high caloric volume in the form of agriculture access.  Deer are concerned of a very general form of ambush from cougar at a high point and by canines from bedding locations.  These are known behaviors that are capitalized upon in the time of the breeding cycle of ungulates.   We know basically zip about sasquatch lifestyle but they surely know loads about ours, this is not apples to apples here. 

 

 Deer are not actively concerned about humans and their intentions, they also do not plan like higher primates.  Think of this in chess terms. Sasquatch seem to take human behavior into account ( reports demonstrate )  as I pointed out in my point - 2 about intelligence.  In primates you have to consider your body language, general activity, method of entry, method of attraction to not appear as a trap and also collect an extraordinary amount of information to find the proper location at the right time to encounter the species of interest.  Look at Jane Goodall if you need an example, she even had her field operations paid for with no real family responsibility or exterior job to part her field time and it took years to just even get close enough to get photos of chimps.

 

 To answer your last question  - No, not one informed soul with a high degree of focus has been able to put the level of time, resources and commitment on Sasquatch that Jane Goodall did with chimps ( not even on the same playing field as Sasquatch anyway ).    I pray often for the day that I should have such a chance.

[Foxhill]

2 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

With all due respect, you're kind of repeating the question. Very basically, a hunter is a hunter. Period. It's the quarry that is different. So the kind of knowledge and research done should reflect that. Deer and Sasquatch are different. The kind of sign they leave is different. Mainly because their body types and capabilities are different. If everyone had the exact specifics of how to grass a Sasquatch, it would have been done long ago. The number of deer are in the seven figure category. Sasquatch is thought to be in the four figure category.

 

Without going into too much, deer are not a threat to the US economy. Sasquatch discovery on the other hand would have a huge impact on the economy. That said there is a lot more to hunting a Sasquatch then simply hunting a Sasquatch. One has to weigh why such a creature has not been OFFICIALLY and/or SCIENTIFICALLY  recognized. My own F&W, even though they stated a null hypothesis, told me in a phone conversation that they are not sure the creature doesn't exist. If that's the case I see no effort on their part to go out and look for one....you know...just in case they do  IOf they did then I would guess they might have as much difficulty finding one as we do. Unless of course, some agency has already done that but "for some strange reason" has seen it fit to not tell anyone.

Absolutely I'm repeating the question LOL for obvious reasons the answers are kinda fuzzy and don't really address the question but I do appreciate your attempts.

 A threat to the US economy now you've lost me but maybe start a thread on that one, Id quite enjoy that!

[hiflier]

13 minutes ago, Foxhill said:

A threat to the US economy now you've lost me but maybe start a thread on that one, Id quite enjoy that!

 

There are several threads already. And I've argued the point many times. Sasquatch discovery would make the Spotted Owl fiasco of the early 1980's look like a tea party. Would discovery threaten resource harvesting, tourism, hunting, snowmobiling ATV's all other forms of development and habitat intrusions and use? You betcha! My estimate is between two and three trillion dollars annually in lost revenue. It would be economically devastating. On the other hand, if Sasquatch was announced as NOT exiting, then revenue form the Bigfoot business side would see annual losses in the low billions. 

 

This is why no one in any official capacity could ever say 'yes' or 'no' to existence. There would be no financial upside to either- only financial loss. In that regard? We're stuck fast in the middle not knowing which side of the coin has the most power (government controls both) to make sure the status quo remains....the status quo. And that's kind of it in a nutshell.

Edited January 12, 2020 by hiflier

[Foxhill]

26 minutes ago, NathanFooter said:

 

 Yes, I do discount the majority of folks , they are targeting/ focusing on something that is nothing like the Sasquatch.   When a deer hunter is out in the wild, he is focused on locating and dispatching deer, not watching for the Loch Ness monster, it is not real in in perception so anything related is likely something else.   It takes overt and in your face interaction or sign to gain consideration regarding sign from a well 40+ year hunter/guide.

 

If you want to talk about a biologist or someone under governmental pay then I can easily point to a tough sell where job security faces nobility.   I know of several biologists, forest managers and park rangers that have had experiences but they fear the consequences of even open discussion behind their name. John Mionczynski is a great example, he was told to drop the topic or be looking for a new line of work. 

 

 That being said, I have been offered information from people that have found explainable sign or encounters but these tend to be people that spend an unusual  amount of time in the  wilderness ( more than 140 days a year ).  Many of these people have a very hard time reporting their events and even when they do, they can't fully wrap their head around it enough to decide that Sasquatch could explain the situation. Many times they tell a friend or relative who contacts me and I reach out to them, there is rarely a light-bulb moment where they turn and decide to invest in Sasquatch pursuit. Peter Byrne and Robert W. Morgan are the only examples I can thing of that have done something similar to what you suggest, should they have had the capability and technology we have today then they perhaps would have made ground.

 

 Many skills are missing, a deer hunter is following an animal of known behavior the he can study.   Deer hunters ( I am also a deer hunter, both rifle and bow ) target transitions looking for thickets/swamps along trails in areas of high caloric volume in the form of agriculture access.  Deer are concerned of a very general form of ambush from cougar at a high point and by canines from bedding locations.  These are known behaviors that are capitalized upon in the time of the breeding cycle of ungulates.   We know basically zip about sasquatch lifestyle but they surely know loads about ours, this is not apples to apples here. 

 

 Deer are not actively concerned about humans and their intentions, they also do not plan like higher primates.  Think of this in chess terms. Sasquatch seem to take human behavior into account ( reports demonstrate )  as I pointed out in my point - 2 about intelligence.  In primates you have to consider your body language, general activity, method of entry, method of attraction to not appear as a trap and also collect an extraordinary amount of information to find the proper location at the right time to encounter the species of interest.  Look at Jane Goodall if you need an example, she even had her field operations paid for with no real family responsibility or exterior job to part her field time and it took years to just even get close enough to get photos of chimps.

 

 To answer your last question  - No, not one informed soul with a high degree of focus has been able to put the level of time, resources and commitment on Sasquatch that Jane Goodall did with chimps ( not even on the same playing field as Sasquatch anyway ).    I pray often for the day that I should have such a chance.

 

I do appreciate your response, but there would be very little difference in hunting a deer/ bigfoot . Your Jane Goodall comparison doesn't work, all she had to do is show up, first you have to prove Bigfoot exists the money will follow no doubt. You got the cart before the horse, a species is never going to be declared to exists on reports. Your conjecture about behavior is just a logical conclusion based on the failure to produce any verifiable results. How to move the ball forward, all I can tell you is do something different folks, but declaring bigfoot the ninja of the forest won't work. 

Edited January 12, 2020 by Foxhill

[Huntster]

48 minutes ago, Foxhill said:

Its not a problem for me nor should it be for anyone, its just a fact. 

 

People have problems with every fact under the sun. For example, you can point out the fact that somebody is male or female, and a great dispute can break out about that fact. Ridiculous? Of course. Yet there it is.

48 minutes ago, georgerm said:

This is the original question that we started with, what is it about bigfoot that no one has been able to find the critter to film or to bring in a deceased one?.......

 

They have been filmed, and it is claimed that they have been killed. I can understand why the dead ones were not "brought in". I think the primary reason for that has been fear.

 

........

What is it about the hairy man that the so called bigfoot hunters that have packed their rifles around and every time failed to blast one?.......

 

Most are taught that killing men is morally wrong. The hair really isn't much of a factor in that moral teaching.

 

.........Is it something we are doing wrong?......

 

It might be something we're doing right.

 

........What is the reason why bigfoot evades us each time?

 

They're rare, they're smart, and there are few hunting them.