Believer57 Posted February 5, 2021 Author Share Posted February 5, 2021 19 minutes ago, NCBFr said: They need water, areas with low human population density but high game density, and large areas to roam. Yes, one thing that Ken Walker said has always stuck in my mind. BFs can't carry water like humans so they must always follow the creeks, rivers, and other waterways. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, NCBFr said: The problem is these areas are the hardest to reach That's why the BF's go there. I think the passive, and obvious, message that they're sending to us is abundantly clear. We're just not listening to it. Or worse, just ignoring it. We're being shown by them what is best for them. Maybe someday...... Edited February 5, 2021 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiiawiwb Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 4 hours ago, hiflier said: Utilize the thousands of trails, forestry roads, and secondary roads that already run through habitats, and the thousands of already established primitive campsites. Many already do this and still there are sighting reports and encounters of all kinds day and night. How many times have people said they weren't ready for that perfect photo or video, or even audio, when their encounters occurred, or that road crossing happened. But if they were, then we'd have tons of images and videos just form people being in normal places. A footprint along a road or trail is just as good as one three miles in. No remote footprints, and they are indeed found, has led to proof so far. Those prints say the same thing as prints that are more local- that a BF was there but is no longer. And then active areas that are newly discovered go dormant. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put all of this together with the experiences at the nesting sites to figure out what's going on. The common denominator is that our presence isn't appreciated. even areas that people say are continually active and shows signs of presence haven't produced much of anything. I truly think that deep research into habitat is counterproductive. A recent study miles into remote locations north of British Columbia deployed hundreds of camera traps over many square kilometers and caught just about every animal one could thing of- except the one we're interested in. I will bring in some data and maps on that in a little while. I'd also like to talk more about the purpose of the study. You're a very astute guy Hiflier, and I value your opinion, talent, and efforts, but I'm not sure we agree on this issue. Certainly, one would think that less intrusion is better than more intrusion. I'm just not convinced, at this point, that efforts of the few who do venture farther and deeper have, or has had, a negative impact on them. I fully acknowledge I could wrong about this and will keep an open mind as I travel alone in the backcountry. I'm a no-kill, do-no-harm advocate of sasquatch and would back off in a nanosecond if I was convinced it was truly detrimental to them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 Living up here near forest an having been in the artic watershed you would be amazed that large animals such as moose can thrive and hide in this environment. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, wiiawiwb said: You're a very astute guy Hiflier, and I value your opinion, talent, and efforts, but I'm not sure we agree on this issue. Certainly, one would think that less intrusion is better than more intrusion. I'm just not convinced, at this point, that efforts of the few who do venture farther and deeper have, or has had, a negative impact on them. I fully acknowledge I could wrong about this and will keep an open mind as I travel alone in the backcountry. I'm a no-kill, do-no-harm advocate of sasquatch and would back off in a nanosecond if I was convinced it was truly detrimental to them. Thank you for the kind words, wiiawiwb, and one can only appreciate what you've said regarding having an open mind to consider your sensitivity toward you fellow creatures in wild. Believe me, I do trust that researchers that conduct investigations in remote areas both truly enjoy being there for many reasons and are mindful of of being as benign a presence as possible. Thank you for getting that, not that you weren't aware of it before now. We are a part of Nature and as such, do have a right to be immersed in it. I love it as well. It's really a balancing act on our part since us being out there is a choice where the creatures that live there....well....they live there. As long as someone is treating their home as they would like their own to be treated then all is well. Yes, it's a fine point, but it's one I try to be mindful of in any decision to venture deep. More and more over the years I have backed off. Today I feel there are enough folks and activity out there that I don't need to be adding to it when my chances of experiencing a Sasquatch may be just as good. If they want to see a Human, I think they will find ME. I have changed a lot once I read and listened to podcasts about the nesting sites. If they are, or were birthing places then there is a need for when and where they are constructed. If they are built by Sasquatches then they've had to move on. Kind of sad when one considers the possible use of those structures in that they may be being built in a time of need. My hope is that if more are found that whoever finds them leaves the area immediately and never goes back. There is enough to study with what's already been discovered. Disrupting more would be a tragedy. Kind of off-topic since the nests aren't really in open areas so I apologize. And thank you for being patient with me, especially you, wiiawiwb. Edited February 5, 2021 by hiflier 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted February 6, 2021 Share Posted February 6, 2021 Having lived in and walked in these areas I know that big animals can hide very well> Even in what we would regard as sub arctic scrub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 7, 2021 Admin Share Posted February 7, 2021 On 2/5/2021 at 11:56 AM, John B said: Living up here near forest an having been in the artic watershed you would be amazed that large animals such as moose can thrive and hide in this environment. Coming from NE Washington I was utterly baffled when I saw my first Moose in North Dakota. None of it looked like home. And yet there they were. I’ve heard talk that Moose have moved into the Columbia basin south of us. Which looks a lot like North Dakota. Evidently there is enough leafy woody stuff to keep them happy in the bottoms between the farm fields. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted February 7, 2021 Share Posted February 7, 2021 Moose love swamps as feeding areas. There also seems to be a match between Elk habitat and Sasquatch. They have to eat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxhill Posted February 7, 2021 BFF Patron Share Posted February 7, 2021 On 2/4/2021 at 10:46 AM, Believer57 said: Hi, I was wondering why field researchers are going to all these extreme remote locations in the Pacific Northwest to look for Bigfoot when they are showing up in every state, at people’s houses, and simply crossing an open cut line in the woods…sometimes during daytime! They show up in much warmer climates than trekking through Nordegg in the winter months. So, why do we go so far into the wilderness to find Bigfoot when they come to us in the open fields or just over a hill? Granted, not all researchers do this. For example, the NAWAC uses a designated location, like Area X, and has a much better climate to work with. I linked some videos below as examples of Bigfoot coming out in an open area. Is it pure luck? Is it simply where the researcher lives? Is it better to use long range viewing devices during the day than tree knocks or howls during the night? I welcome your comments and experiences... Possible Bigfoot? 1-28-2021 The Sinks Sasquatch Lone Peak Bigfoot Video Rocky Mountain Bigfoot Footage from 1962 I'd suggest to you that very few "researchers" are no more than a couple of miles from the vehicle they drove to the "remote" wilderness research site. The fact that more reports come in from very unremote sites is a pretty good indication of what your dealing with. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiiawiwb Posted February 7, 2021 Share Posted February 7, 2021 The location of their vehicle doesn't determine the remoteness of their sasquatching area. If someone left human population 2 miles behind them, got on a jeep trail and drove another 3 miles with no civilization anywhere around, that person's starting point is 5 miles from civilization. It is already remote. If they hike or backpack in another 4+ miles, they're nearly 10 miles from humans. I call that very remote. What is your source that confirms most reports come from "unremote" sites or is it speculation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxhill Posted February 7, 2021 BFF Patron Share Posted February 7, 2021 4 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said: The location of their vehicle doesn't determine the remoteness of their sasquatching area. If someone left human population 2 miles behind them, got on a jeep trail and drove another 3 miles with no civilization anywhere around, that person's starting point is 5 miles from civilization. It is already remote. If they hike or backpack in another 4+ miles, they're nearly 10 miles from humans. I call that very remote. What is your source that confirms most reports come from "unremote" sites or is it speculation? Well I guess your definition of remote and mine differ......I don't believe there are to many places in the continental US that you are more than 30 miles from a road. Where did I say "most reports come from unremote sites"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 7, 2021 Admin Share Posted February 7, 2021 47 minutes ago, Foxhill said: Well I guess your definition of remote and mine differ......I don't believe there are to many places in the continental US that you are more than 30 miles from a road. Where did I say "most reports come from unremote sites"? Ive been 50 miles from my horse trailer in the Frank Church Wilderness by TRAIL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxhill Posted February 7, 2021 BFF Patron Share Posted February 7, 2021 1 minute ago, norseman said: Ive been 50 miles from my horse trailer in the Frank Church Wilderness by TRAIL. UH HUH sure you have, I believe everything I read on the internet. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 7, 2021 Admin Share Posted February 7, 2021 Just now, Foxhill said: UH HUH sure you have, I believe everything I read on the internet. Stoddard creek trail head to the Chamberlain airstrip. You can do the math. Albeit the pack bridge collapsed a couple of years ago over the Salmon river. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Believer57 Posted February 7, 2021 Author Share Posted February 7, 2021 (edited) My original question was based on considering a remote area to be like the Sierra Nevada range, Nordegg, Radian, the Yukon, etc. Some folks have to ditch their trucks and use ATVs. I picture in my mind the old films of Ron Morehead trekking into the wilderness with pack mules. Edited February 7, 2021 by Believer57 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts