Sasquatch In The Modern Era

[hiflier]

The past twenty years have seen incredible advances in monitoring and surveillance both terrestrially and beyond. What does this mean to a small but widely distributed population of Sasquatches? What does it mean for Bigfoot researchers who for the most part have lower-tier consumer grade surveillance devices? What does it mean for Sasquatch discovery or knowledge in the upper echelons of science and government?

 

What would be the results of military grade surveillance? Would such surveillance capabilities have picked up Sasquatches and other animals moving in numbers away from the recent areas affected by wildfires? And even if there were no wildfires, there has frequently been comments regarding forestry road closures being possibly linked to Sasquatch activity. If so does it indicate that electronic surveillance works? That it is indeed being used to keep the public along with field researchers away from Sasquatch activity due to natural roaming in the quest for food or mates? Has anyone noticed seasonal road or area closures that happen on a seasonal basis which may support such roaming?

 

And since we are in this era of much higher and more precise monitoring would any such closure programs be the reason few, if any, creatures end up being recorded on our relatively lower level devices? Because I have a sneaking hunch that, in this day and age, key alpha Sasquatches have been tagged with miniature transponders which has made keeping us away from the majority of them, as in where they stay along with their nesting and birthing sites, much easier. I am gradually beginning to understand better just how easy it would be to monitor these creatures with high tech tools methods that are commonly unavailable to the public. In this new world of surveillance "collaring", while still being used, isn't really necessary. Ear tags are probably not even necessary. But I can see tiny transmitters installed by devices similar to tranquilizer guns being the tracking method of choice.

 

All it would take over the years is one creature successfully tagged to find more and then the program would pyramid out from there to eventually track most if not all of say, less than 10,000 individuals. Even a quarter of that number that get tagged would have an impact. It could at least show where and when resource harvesting would have the least amount of impact on the survival of the species. Win-Win. It would be the best way to keep some lucky researcher from finding one and possibly result in ALL resource extraction activities, and other activities that are more recreational, from the threat of a chance discovery grinding everything to a halt.

 

If one thinks about this some, then a similar conclusion to what I have may be reached: That this kind of a monitoring program, should it exist, which I seriously think it does, may not be such a bad thing....the floor is open.  

 

 

Edited October 29, 2020 by hiflier

[hiflier]

There's are a lot of questions being asked in the OP. The easiest thing to do would be to pick just one or two that might best relate to what you know, suspect, or have experienced. Mind you, this doesn't have to go down any conspiracy roads, but if it helps anyone look deeper into current surveillance capabilities, which I'm sure even major corporations possess today, then a better picture of what a Bigfoot researcher might expect to find, or NOT find, in the field may emerge. Such as https://gritdaily.com/an-inside-look-at-the-technologies-protecting-our-nations-forests/

 

"The forestry sector is also using DNA testing to chart biodiversity within forest ecosystems. For example, DNA sampling from vernal pools tells researchers how many species exist in a certain location and helps them make better decisions for the health of the forest.

Abusow explains, 'We have to understand where we can harvest trees because some of these vernal pools are really rich in biodiversity. It could be turtles at risk, or frogs, or different species that need special consideration.'”

Edited October 30, 2020 by hiflier

[Wolfjewel]

They can check a sample of the water in vernal pools for DNA diversity? Really? And to think I slogged thru mud and sometimes old snow to get to vernal pools so I could net an obligate species like fairy shrimp or wood frog eggs! Actually I enjoyed it, and certified several vernal pools for state (Mass.) preservation in the 1990s. This new DNA thing must have developed at warp speed!

[MIB]

14 hours ago, hiflier said:

Has anyone noticed seasonal road or area closures that happen on a seasonal basis which may support such roaming?

 

I'd say "no".    We have seasonal road closures in my area but they have other, better explanations.   They may, secondarily and incidentally, keep people out of areas when they are most active, but that is not the primary purpose.    I can think of three specific closures.

 

1) During general cascade elk season, many of the roads in the area I hunt are temporarily closed from a couple days before elk season to the day after elk season.   This is known as "green dot" closure because the roads that are still legal to drive are marked with prominent green dots on the signs.    The "through roads" which connect to other roads are generally open, those which dead end somewhere are generally closed .. unless they go to a designated campground which is still open.

 

2) In much the same area, we have temporary closures in spring, usually end June 30.   These keep motor vehicles out of elk calving areas thus increasing elk calf survival rates.    This particular kind of closure might have some positive impact on bigfoots since there are quite a few local reports of them preying on new-born elk calves, an easy lunch, and it fairly effectively keeps people out of the areas.    Walk-in is still legal, but usually it's a long walk on fairly steep roads without much to do when you get there, so it reduces incidental traffic considerably.

 

3) Closer to the coast, some area roads are closed to reduce the spread of Port Orford Cedar root rot, a fungal disease that has been shown to be spread by transfer of mud from one area to another on vehicle tires.     One of my favorite four-wheeling areas is closed to motorized entry during the wet season for this reason.    The environmental (thus economic) impacts of Port Orford Cedar root rot are pretty serious in some spots and minimizing the spread of the disease is critical.    Those are spots I would somewhat expect to find sasquatch during the closer season because they are middle/low elevation, mostly below snow, where deer and elk move when the high country is snowed in.  

 

I don't think, in any of these instances, keeping people out of bigfoot "habitat" is a consideration .. AT ALL .. regarding the closures.

 

Another example, almost a counter-example, is closure of municipal watersheds.    We have two watersheds with closures of sorts.   One is closed year around to motor vehicles except for "official duties" and certain contractors like the crews thinning the area for wildfire mitigation.   It is open to walk-in, horse, and mountain bike access year around.   The other allows vehicle travel on specific roads which are fenced to keep illegal offroaders out of the city drinking water.   It, too, is mostly open to foot traffic.     Given the amount of "unofficial reports" of bigfoot activity in both, if any areas I can think of would be completely closed to keep people from seeing the bigfoots, those two would be at the very top of the list.

 

So obviously I have picked a single example from within your post to address, I think if anything like that were happening, my area, which is functionally contiguous with the Klamath area, Bluff Creek (PG film site, etc), it would happen here .. and I don't see any indications of it.    Each closure I can think of can be justified biologically / ecologically for reasons that do not need sasquatch.   In fact, though I generally oppose closures, I can think of places that should be closed which are not, and which really ought to be closed if sasquatch were in any way a consideration.   

 

So far as tracking them, at least in the Pacific Northwest, I think that gets into the realms of fantasy and delusion.   It can't be done without locals knowing it is being done.   Gov't does not have the ability / opportunity to operate in secrecy in the field here, there are always citizen eyes in the woods ... always.   It makes a good story for the gullible but it ain't happening.

 

MIB

Edited October 30, 2020 by MIB

[hiflier]

@Wolfjewel Yeah, using DNA technology in the field has been progressively improving for around the last 20-25 years. These days it's pretty good as a tool for targeting either a single species or multiple species across the board and way less invasive.

 

@MIB Pretty cool post MIB, and very informative, too.

 

39 minutes ago, MIB said:

In much the same area, we have temporary closures in spring, usually end June 30.   These keep motor vehicles out of elk calving areas thus increasing elk calf survival rates.    This particular kind of closure might have some positive impact on bigfoots since there are quite a few local reports of them preying on new-born elk calves, an easy lunch, and it fairly effectively keeps people out of the areas.

 

One can pull up quite a bit of discussion on this Forum regarding the Bigfoots birthing in the spring as well. I always keep the nesting sights and their apparent time of construction in the forefront of my thinking whenever this subject come up.

 

41 minutes ago, MIB said:

So obviously I have picked a single example from within your post to address....

 

And that's the correct approach for breaking down the several issues brought up in the OP  

[Foxhill]

Lack of military grade technology will yield the same results that have been produced so far. It's always been something ........ the woods are to vast, not enough boots on the ground, need better technology, Bigfeets are super rare, stealthy, strong, smart, stinky, blah blah blah all excuses imo.

 

 But the discussion is valid, what if someone were to finance a Bigfoot project, you name the price, you've got 6 months to produce a body. If you fail...... you pay back all money spent plus 10%. If you succeed the backer owns all rights to everything and you'll get 10% of the profits.

 

 While I don't think you'll be kitted out with military tech, you'll get to go on a dream shopping spree, but you will definitely be on the hook for your convictions.

 So what would it take to prove that Bigfoots real? What would that set up look like and cost....any body up to the challenge? 

  

 

[norseman]

9 minutes ago, Foxhill said:

Lack of military grade technology will yield the same results that have been produced so far. It's always been something ........ the woods are to vast, not enough boots on the ground, need better technology, Bigfeets are super rare, stealthy, strong, smart, stinky, blah blah blah all excuses imo.

 

 But the discussion is valid, what if someone were to finance a Bigfoot project, you name the price, you've got 6 months to produce a body. If you fail...... you pay back all money spent plus 10%. If you succeed the backer owns all rights to everything and you'll get 10% of the profits.

 

 While I don't think you'll be kitted out with military tech, you'll get to go on a dream shopping spree, but you will definitely be on the hook for your convictions.

 So what would it take to prove that Bigfoots real? What would that set up look like and cost....any body up to the challenge? 

  

 

A large network of hunters and outdoorsmen willing to take the shot. Low tech and grass roots. Nothing more. It’s a game of odds. 
 

Washington did this with cougars. After banning hound hunting.  They sell a cougar tag folded into a big game pkg. (deer, bear and elk) 99% of hunters never see a cougar. But 1% get lucky. It’s a strategy and it’s effective.

 

Look at BFRO sighting reports. A family driving forest roads to go on a picnic see a Bigfoot cross the road in front of them. If the family was armed with a satisfactory rifle and a axe? Game over. How many hundreds of these reports get filed every year?

[Foxhill]

40 minutes ago, norseman said:

A large network of hunters and outdoorsmen willing to take the shot. Low tech and grass roots. Nothing more. It’s a game of odds. 
 

Washington did this with cougars. After banning hound hunting.  They sell a cougar tag folded into a big game pkg. (deer, bear and elk) 99% of hunters never see a cougar. But 1% get lucky. It’s a strategy and it’s effective.

 

Look at BFRO sighting reports. A family driving forest roads to go on a picnic see a Bigfoot cross the road in front of them. If the family was armed with a satisfactory rifle and a axe? Game over. How many hundreds of these reports get filed every year?

 

Are you suggesting there aren't or haven't been a large number of hunters/outdoorsmen out and about over the last 200-300 yrs willing to take the shot?

 

Not sure how the cougar analogy is a strategy that applies to Bigfeet hunting please elaborate.

 

Yeah BFRO never heard of it LOL.....Bigfeets continent wide distribution but still nothing, just more stories, they are good evidence of a social construct/myth making but nothing more.

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, Foxhill said:

But the discussion is valid, what if someone were to finance a Bigfoot project, you name the price, you've got 6 months to produce a body. If you fail...... you pay back all money spent plus 10%. If you succeed the backer owns all rights to everything and you'll get 10% of the profits.

 

Historically, that's already been done, and done more than once. What I'm suggesting in the OP, assuming the creature is real (there's good reason to think so), is that high tech monitoring helps to keep the creature isolated from Humans. Not by controlling the creatures themselves but by controlling our access to them by knowing where they are. If not wishing the Sasquatch to become publicly proven is the goal then monitoring where they are could result in creating buffer zones that restrict Human access.

 

I'm not saying this is the case but I still it's worth some discussion, because how would we know one way or the other? If revenue from resource harvesting is to be maintained without interruption, wildfires not withstanding, then what might be instituted as a program to mitigate discovery? Because IMHO, proof of the existence a beast should have happened  long, long time ago. I'm not saying this to in any way mean that Sasquatch doesn't, therefore, exist. Skeptics use that argument, not me. Because I don't think it's all that cut and dried.

 

The OP is couched in the thinking that Sasquatch DOES exist. And so does extremely high surveillance capability. I'm bringing up the concept of using that surveillance capability to steer Humans away from the habitats that contain the creatures- even on a revolving basis depending on the creature's archetypal habits of where it goes in order to sustain itself as a species. 

Edited October 30, 2020 by hiflier

[norseman]

39 minutes ago, Foxhill said:

 

Are you suggesting there aren't or haven't been a large number of hunters/outdoorsmen out and about over the last 200-300 yrs willing to take the shot?

 

Not sure how the cougar analogy is a strategy that applies to Bigfeet hunting please elaborate.

 

Yeah BFRO never heard of it LOL.....Bigfeets continent wide distribution but still nothing, just more stories, they are good evidence of a social construct/myth making but nothing more.

Do you read Bigfoot history? Bauman story? Mt. St. Helens miners? Teddy Roosevelt? Nahanni valley? The bay of death?

The history is thus. People have shot at these things. No one has ever recovered a Bigfoot body. And sometimes the body that is recovered is their own.

 

It could be just ghost stories. But in some cases men are found without a head. Or in the case of the 411 books? Never recovered.

 

When they are looking for a black hole, it’s impossible to detect it by looking right at it. You have to look at the distortions on the periphery. We don’t have a physical specimen to look at but if a large hominid still existed in our wilderness? What would we expect to find in evidence left behind? What other species takes a head as a prize? Timothy Treadwell was eaten by a brown bear. All that was left of him WAS his head and his spine. Very humanistic trait.

 

====

 

Cougar analogy.

 

Hounds are expensive to raise and train. Then you have expensive tracking collars and tracking handsets. You have 4x4 vehicles set up to house the dogs and cast and recover them. As well as a strike platform for detection. Plus snowmobiles or atvs to help follow the chase. A lot of experience and knowledge to train and use hounds too.

 

Very expensive, precise, scalpel like approach. If a cougar is treed? The hounds men can look at age, sex, offspring, etc. and choose to either harvest or let it go.

 

OR

 

Just sell boot hunters a cougar tag with their deer and elk tag. 100,000’s of em. No experience needed. See a cougar and shoot it. Success rate will be way lower than houndsmen. But who cares?

=====

 

Im not a fan of the BFRO either. But your missing the point. Assuming normal everyday people are seeing these creatures? It’s a luck thing. None of these people are “researchers” with thermal and callers and dental resin. They are not specialized. 
 

Today, now. We could be mobilizing “boot hunters” to take a whack at Bigfoot. Denisovans were discovered with a pinkie bone. It won’t take much.

 

[norseman]

58 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Historically, that's already been done, and done more than once. What I'm suggesting in the OP, assuming the creature is real (there's good reason to think so), is that high tech monitoring helps to keep the creature isolated from Humans. Not by controlling the creatures themselves but by controlling our access to them by knowing where they are. If not wishing the Sasquatch to become publicly proven is the goal then monitoring where they are could result in creating buffer zones that restrict Human access.

 

I'm not saying this is the case but I still it's worth some discussion, because how would we know one way or the other? If revenue from resource harvesting is to be maintained without interruption, wildfires not withstanding, then what might be instituted as a program to mitigate discovery? Because IMHO, proof of the existence a beast should have happened  long, long time ago. I'm not saying this to in any way mean that Sasquatch doesn't, therefore, exist. Skeptics use that argument, not me. Because I don't think it's all that cut and dried.

 

The OP is couched in the thinking that Sasquatch DOES exist. And so does extremely high surveillance capability. I'm bringing up the concept of using that surveillance capability to steer Humans away from the habitats that contain the creatures- even on a revolving basis depending on the creature's archetypal habits of where it goes in order to sustain itself as a species. 

Have you looked at Project Grendel lately?

[hiflier]

2 minutes ago, norseman said:

Have you looked at Project Grendel lately?

 

I have not. But I will.

 

As far as boot hunters, there are areas off limit to hunters at times. Or at least their vehicles. I don't think what I'm talking about is far fetched. I do seriously think that Humans in wild places, or wanting to go into wild places, are steered awy and around sensitive areas for a various list of reasons. I'm just putting out there that Sasquatch presence in an area, for whatever purpose they are there, are being shielded from Humans through knowledge of where they are. And that that knowledge is acquired by deploying highly sophisticated sensors and monitoring devices- and maybe even transponders. Neither of which I propose is out of the question. If those methods are used congruently then even better. And since animals go wherever they want, whenever they want, and Humans go wherever they want, whenever they want, the easiest to control are the Humans by restricting places as off limits- either for definite or arbitrary reasons.

 

Sasquatch is serious business. Discovery would not be good. I could see millions or billions of dollars spent controlling access to active Sasquatch locations in order to make many more millions or billions of dollars in revenue. But because animals will go wherever they want whenever they want, an occasional road crossing or sighting would have to inevitably happen. I'm proposing that such occurrences would happen more often if there wasn't a program to keep the majority of the creatures away from us.

 

 

Edited October 30, 2020 by hiflier

[MIB]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

I do seriously think that Humans in wild places, or wanting to go into wild places, are steered awy and around sensitive areas for a various list of reasons.

 

I'm .. skeptical .. ish.     There are only 2 things that stop me if I want to go somewhere, first is excess snow, the second is active forest fire.  

 

... have you ever looked at fire patterns across years?   How the burn scars, individually innocent-looking, when taken together seem to form a pattern which leaves old places with good cover for travel bare and open forcing a choice between crossing significant open space or traveling 10s of miles to go around?    Just .. a thought.

[Foxhill]

3 hours ago, norseman said:

Do you read Bigfoot history? Bauman story? Mt. St. Helens miners? Teddy Roosevelt? Nahanni valley? The bay of death?

The history is thus. People have shot at these things. No one has ever recovered a Bigfoot body. And sometimes the body that is recovered is their own.

 

It could be just ghost stories. But in some cases men are found without a head. Or in the case of the 411 books? Never recovered.

 

When they are looking for a black hole, it’s impossible to detect it by looking right at it. You have to look at the distortions on the periphery. We don’t have a physical specimen to look at but if a large hominid still existed in our wilderness? What would we expect to find in evidence left behind? What other species takes a head as a prize? Timothy Treadwell was eaten by a brown bear. All that was left of him WAS his head and his spine. Very humanistic trait.

 

====

 

Cougar analogy.

 

Hounds are expensive to raise and train. Then you have expensive tracking collars and tracking handsets. You have 4x4 vehicles set up to house the dogs and cast and recover them. As well as a strike platform for detection. Plus snowmobiles or atvs to help follow the chase. A lot of experience and knowledge to train and use hounds too.

 

Very expensive, precise, scalpel like approach. If a cougar is treed? The hounds men can look at age, sex, offspring, etc. and choose to either harvest or let it go.

 

OR

 

Just sell boot hunters a cougar tag with their deer and elk tag. 100,000’s of em. No experience needed. See a cougar and shoot it. Success rate will be way lower than houndsmen. But who cares?

=====

 

Im not a fan of the BFRO either. But your missing the point. Assuming normal everyday people are seeing these creatures? It’s a luck thing. None of these people are “researchers” with thermal and callers and dental resin. They are not specialized. 
 

Today, now. We could be mobilizing “boot hunters” to take a whack at Bigfoot. Denisovans were discovered with a pinkie bone. It won’t take much.

 

Sorry there is no Bigfoot history, just cool stories and yes I've read many cool stories with nothing that would indicate that anything like a giant monkey man running around anywhere in the US but it is fun to imagine.

 

Still not following your cougar hunt analogy, unless of course your suggesting its easy to produce a Bigfoot if they are everywhere...which I'd agree with completely, it should be unless of course they just don't exist.

 

No I'm not missing the point BFRO is nothing but internet reporting of cool stories, which are most likely nothing but misidentification, fabrications ect.  

 

No its not a luck thing any animal can be patterned and harvested, you've got people and groups claiming up to ten years of Bigfoot showing up like clockwork but they can't even produce one decent pic.... you may have jumped the shark on that one Norse.   

 

Edited October 30, 2020 by Foxhill

[hiflier]

28 minutes ago, MIB said:

... have you ever looked at fire patterns across years?   How the burn scars, individually innocent-looking, when taken together seem to form a pattern which leaves old places with good cover for travel bare and open forcing a choice between crossing significant open space or traveling 10s of miles to go around?    Just .. a thought

 

As long as you're bringing that up, might that be part of a larger scheme to leave better ways to monitor Human movement? I've noticed, as have others, that trees are severely cut back from major highways as well as secondary roads. And then there are federal funds doled out (DHS?) to open up intersections by installing cameras, removing encroaching tree canopies and putting in sidewalks that end 50 yards and go nowhere from those intersections.

 

Open spaces left behind from fires that cut lines of green cover may be intentional or not depending on one's viewpoint. But since this is about Sasquatch surveillance would such practices be a method of isolating populations or movement? If so, would it be to hasten extinction? Or simply force the creatures into the open, even at night to do studies that may have been impossible or to costly before? It's a pretty harsh approach if that's the case. But, I can see how it would serve to be able to monitor newly separated islands of vegetation with fewer hidden ways escape routes.

Edited October 30, 2020 by hiflier