Jump to content
DugasCajun

I believe a healthy discussion of Federal Agencies/DOI is warrented

Recommended Posts

DugasCajun

I first must apologize for blowing up another thread, believe me, it has affected me.

On that note, and with full transparency, I am a medium level research scientist within the USGS/DOI.

 

Here is my thinking, I ask of any one who has any relevant knowledge of their experience within DOI, please come forward.

 

I will start

I work for the USGS. Lead NWI habitat mapper/USFW for all of the Gulf Coast, in todays terms that is like the last of the stage coach wheel repair men, I am a dying breed.

We get our operational money from USCOE, USFW, NOAA , ect.    Why, because they have their own regulatory obligations to consider...

Consider this.

USFW, here is Louisiana, they have their refugees to run, I have seen them, they weed eat, they dig, they drive tractors, grade roads, no capacity to do a study.

NPS, They live to manage their parks, and are staffed by employees who are just passing through just to gain rank and manage their parks, I so respect them, I would love to be part of them

USGS, The agency I am part of....We are non regulatory, we are free to study anything, that is the reason USFS, NPS pays us to do studies, habitat studies, change over time ect, bc we are not driven down by regulatory restraints . They shift monies to us to do the studies, they are basically our customer. 

 

USGS.....we have a sister center in Florida who studies manatees, bear, possible cougar, they are better set up than us.  We here in LA are about wetland loss/gain, restoration studies

 

In the state of Louisiana, the best candidate is the Louisiana Fish and Wildlife, they have experience with tagging, collaring black bears.  Us, no way, we have the moxy to do this sort of work.

The best our center would be capable of is tagging a turtle.  But we are just one Center.  But DOI is OUT....I suspect Dept of AG is more of an avenue.

 

Anyway, I am here to answer any questions reqarding this subject, but must warn you, USGS, is not a candidate

 

Edited by DugasCajun
Clarity and grammer
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kiwakwe

Thanks for the offer Dugas Cajun, that's good info. Agencies and red tape scare the hell outta me but hiflier will be all over this!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

You're correct, K, they don't scare me in the slightest. I'd like to ask you, DugasCajun, if you know whether or not any state Game Wardens have ever sent anything to the USFW lab in Ashland, OR for study. I ask because the Ashland lab only accepts samples from Law Enforcement channels. I guess I'm curious if samples are only accepted if they are linked to a crime? The reason being that Dr. Brian Sykes was there to elicit the labs help during his alleged Yeti sample studies. This isn't a trick question because so far everything I've said is public knowledge. If anything I'm just trying to establish how consistent the Ashland lab is to its policy of only accepting LEO samples and data. If need be I can post a link for the Dr. Sykes visit there.

 

And thank you for being open to questions from members here. Agency compartmentalization can be convenient or inconvenient depending on who's asking the questions ;) so I will follow by asking if the fine field office in Florida has tagged a skunk ape :) 

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DugasCajun

Hiflier is more than welcome here to ask away, I am an open but limited book, I respect him fully.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

Thank you, DC, I respect you fully as well. I can fathom your limitations and so will respect them as well. I met with a PhD in animal behavior and genetics this past week and am getting a picture that e-DNA may not be as forthcoming as I would have hoped. I do know that state F&W pursue the technology so I'm not ready to give up on it yet although the DNA sequences may simply be to fragmented for a positive determination for Sasquatch. Especially if we suspect that its DNA is so close to we Humans. I have more research and work to do on that subject for sure.

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DugasCajun

Hiflier, we are an not a regulatory agency, if USFS deems it worthy, then USGS would be all over it.

 

Here is the deal.............USGS is a non regulatory agency, meaning we can explore creatures on the moon..............................if the funding is there... USFS, NPS, they need jusification to fund us...........when that jusification is met, funding comes to us in the form of discrecinary funds, meaning we can pursue their agenda, based on their priorties. 

We have really no say in this, god could come on earth, but we would still need to have OMB , departmential approval before we even left the building, \

 

look, there is NO conspiracy within DOI, Now, Dept of AG, out of my league

 

 

Think about it.

DOI

NPS, they just manage their parks, no capacity or labs to handle a body

USFW, manage their refuges, no capacity either

USGS, we are more Chemistry based, ecological based, we are not up to studying large creatures

 

Likely canidate here in LA, LA Fish and Wild Life.

If someone dropped a body off at our USGS Center, the admin would freak out, the limited knowledge scientists in house would call our local university 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

Okay, I can understand your and the USG's position. So, the hard question. No DOI conspiracy even though Department of Agriculture is an unknown. In either case, conspiracy notwithstanding, does the DOI know about Sasquatch even if there is no official indication of hiding the fact? In other words is the DOI only an organization office that oversees, managerially speaking, the other departments such as yours, the D of A, the NPS, USFS, USFW, BLM, and whatever else? Because if that's the case then the DOI may know NOTHING outside of managing the various duties assigned to its department heads. In either case I do agree that the Department of Agriculture may be the next tier under the DOI that monitors the other aforementioned agencies.

 

I guess if there can be established a sort of departmental operational "tree" then it may be a little clearer for knowing where the Sasquatch buck, so to speak, may stop. Sounds like it's the Department of Agriculture (national forests). And too, the state agencies could be the gold mine as far as knowledge of what lives within their boundaries.

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NorthWind
BFF Donor
12 hours ago, hiflier said:

 In either case I do agree that the Department of Agriculture may be the next tier under the DOI that monitors the other aforementioned agencies.

 

I guess if there can be established a sort of departmental operational "tree" then it may be a little clearer for knowing where the Sasquatch buck, so to speak, may stop. Sounds like it's the Department of Agriculture (national forests). And too, the state agencies could be the gold mine as far as knowledge of what lives within their boundaries.

 

Hmm, perhaps the EPA? 16:50 - ish

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vinchyfoot
13 hours ago, Kiwakwe said:

Thanks for the offer Dugas Cajun, that's good info. Agencies and red tape scare the hell outta me but hiflier will be all over this!

 

 

Most of my interactions with the Forestry Service have been pretty friendly. Just my experience, others may vary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

 

I think its cases like this that push the conspiracy theory narrative. Green Berets armed patrols in the middle of the search? The FBI doesnt follow up on reports of bears packing children on their shoulder? With a mile of Dennis disappearing?

 

Its odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
georgerm
BFF Donor
21 hours ago, DugasCajun said:

I first must apologize for blowing up another thread, believe me, it has affected me.

On that note, and with full transparency, I am a medium level research scientist within the USGS/DOI.

 

Here is my thinking, I ask of any one who has any relevant knowledge of their experience within DOI, please come forward.

 

I will start

I work for the USGS. Lead NWI habitat mapper/USFW for all of the Gulf Coast, in todays terms that is like the last of the stage coach wheel repair men, I am a dying breed.

We get our operational money from USCOE, USFW, NOAA , ect.    Why, because they have their own regulatory obligations to consider...

Consider this.

USFW, here is Louisiana, they have their refugees to run, I have seen them, they weed eat, they dig, they drive tractors, grade roads, no capacity to do a study.

NPS, They live to manage their parks, and are staffed by employees who are just passing through just to gain rank and manage their parks, I so respect them, I would love to be part of them

USGS, The agency I am part of....We are non regulatory, we are free to study anything, that is the reason USFS, NPS pays us to do studies, habitat studies, change over time ect, bc we are not driven down by regulatory restraints . They shift monies to us to do the studies, they are basically our customer. 

 

USGS.....we have a sister center in Florida who studies manatees, bear, possible cougar, they are better set up than us.  We here in LA are about wetland loss/gain, restoration studies

 

In the state of Louisiana, the best candidate is the Louisiana Fish and Wildlife, they have experience with tagging, collaring black bears.  Us, no way, we have the moxy to do this sort of work.

The best our center would be capable of is tagging a turtle.  But we are just one Center.  But DOI is OUT....I suspect Dept of AG is more of an avenue.

 

Anyway, I am here to answer any questions reqarding this subject, but must warn you, USGS, is not a candidate

 

 

 

 

When I worked for the RRNF (Rogue River National Forest) around 1975, logging was going full steam ahead. When flying over in a plane, half of the timber was already logged off and it looked like bare squares of logged land mixed with green squares of standing timber. Today things have changed and most of the timber has grown back. The BLM (Bureau of Land Management)

land separates private land from RRNF land. I spent may hours in the RRNF land and it's prime Sasquatch habitat. I sometimes wonder if some government agency has ordered the RRNF to set aside land for decoy animals and bigfoot is the intended creature, and this is only known by DOI officials located in the head office? 

 

Notice it makes easy reading when abbreviations are spelled out. 

 

The 1994 Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) amended the planning documents of nineteen National Forests and seven Bureau of Land Management Districts. It includes extensive standards and guidelines, including land allocations that comprise a comprehensive ecosystem management strategy. Read more on the NWFP Information Center & Library   

 

Click the links and it's strange the link is discontinued?   

 

 

 

Northwind this possible fiction story rings untrue and can any bigfooters explain why?  I don't want to derail the topic so I will start a new thread where you can reply. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
22 minutes ago, georgerm said:

 

 

 

When I worked for the RRNF (Rogue River National Forest) around 1975, logging was going full steam ahead. When flying over in a plane, half of the timber was already logged off and it looked like bare squares of logged land mixed with green squares of standing timber. Today things have changed and most of the timber has grown back. The BLM (Bureau of Land Management)

land separates private land from RRNF land. I spent may hours in the RRNF land and it's prime Sasquatch habitat. I sometimes wonder if some government agency has ordered the RRNF to set aside land for decoy animals and bigfoot is the intended creature, and this is only known by DOI officials located in the head office? 

 

Notice it makes easy reading when abbreviations are spelled out. 

 

The 1994 Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) amended the planning documents of nineteen National Forests and seven Bureau of Land Management Districts. It includes extensive standards and guidelines, including land allocations that comprise a comprehensive ecosystem management strategy. Read more on the NWFP Information Center & Library   

 

Click the links and it's strange the link is discontinued?   

 

 

 

Northwind this possible fiction story rings untrue and can any bigfooters explain why?  I don't want to derail the topic so I will start a new thread where you can reply. 

 

 

 

Sure, start the thread. A reminder though: preferable to have BF or Sasquatch in the thread title in order to keep the thread on the General Forum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Forest_Plan

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
BFF Donor
13 hours ago, georgerm said:

Northwind this possible fiction story rings untrue and can any bigfooters explain why?

 

The thing that makes me most skeptical is it came from PacWest Bigfoot.    Hoax after hoax after hoax.    :(:(  

 

MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NorthWind
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

The thing that makes me most skeptical is it came from PacWest Bigfoot.    Hoax after hoax after hoax.    :(:(  

 

MIB

Yep, I know. But I thought I would throw it out there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
On 1/26/2020 at 8:13 PM, hiflier said:

..........if you know whether or not any state Game Wardens have ever sent anything to the USFW lab in Ashland, OR for study. I ask because the Ashland lab only accepts samples from Law Enforcement channels. I guess I'm curious if samples are only accepted if they are linked to a crime? The reason being that Dr. Brian Sykes was there to elicit the labs help during his alleged Yeti sample studies. This isn't a trick question because so far everything I've said is public knowledge. If anything I'm just trying to establish how consistent the Ashland lab is to its policy of only accepting LEO samples and data........

 

Rob Alley documented the Eric Muench nest find on POW Island. The local ADFG Area Biologist was brought to the site by the Native landowners. Hair samples were recovered. The biologist sent them to the state crime lab for analysis.

 

Think about that for a moment. Where else is the biologist going to send it without dedicated funds otherwise? 

 

And who is going to be performing that analysis at the lab? A biologist? An anthropologist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...