Looking for Bigfoot in Open Areas

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Foxhill said:

Cool toys.....doesn't really seem relative but if you think that makes you an expert on logging industry in America...good for you!

 

Where did I say anything about eradication of anything, due to logging? 

 

Where did I say anything about anything not existing because of logging?

 

I'm not sure why you want to put words in my mouth, but I'd appreciate if you would stop, maybe buy less cool toys and do as I suggested to the OP and do a little research on logging in the US.

Its ok to be wrong, but most embarrassing when you double down IMO. 

If I’m misrepresenting your position that “Bigfoot cannot exist because humans have logged North America for 200 years and have found nothing new over 5 lbs”? 
 

I highly suggest you explain your theory further. So that we can try to understand your logic.

 

I’m not really sure how working in the timber industry is laughable in your eyes? Are you looking for a forester with a bachelors degree? The CEO of Weyerhaeuser? What expert are you looking for? Who is qualified in your eyes?

 

I will explain my position further. Here is a Google satellite image from British Columbia directly north of my house. British Columbia is being logged currently at a much faster rate than the USA. Notice all the clear cuts. Or “cut blocks” as our neighbors to the north would call them. It’s visible from space. But also notice all of the timber not touched in between those clear cuts. Bigfoot supposedly is a bipedal primate. We are not dealing with an Orangutan that cannot live on the forest floor. They cannot live in a clear cut. They live in the canopy of a forest. A terrestrial primate is simply going to walk over the ridge at the first sign of logging activity in their area. An Orangutan is going to move tree to tree until it is trapped. Like a fish trapped in a mud puddle separated by the main river. Clear cuts are also rotated around in 40-60 year cycles? The forest is in a constant state of regrowth. By the time they are ready to log the in between areas? The clear cuts have stands in them 60-80 feet tall.

 

Now another thing to consider is this. Known animals like Elk and Moose LOVE clear cuts. They also love burns. Because of all the tender leafy under story that pops up with the removal of the canopy. Others? Like Woodland Caribou? Cannot survive. In winter they stay up high and with 20 feet of snow? A clear cut is a virtual wasteland to them. They eat the mosses and lichens that grow on old growth trees. Which are easily tall enough to exist above the snow level.

 

What does this mean for a terrestrial primate? Well, we can only guess. I would assume it would like the stuff Moose and Elk like. Versus stuff a Caribou likes. And if it hunts ungulates? It’s going to go where they are.

 

In fact Cougar have been found on the east coast that came from South Dakota. So things with legs travel afar. Even in one life time.

 

So please excuse my confusion where Logging = No cryptids is some hard and fast rule.

 

 

[Kiwakwe]

On 2/7/2021 at 12:06 PM, Foxhill said:

 The fact that more reports come in from very unremote sites is a pretty good indication of what your dealing with.

I think I'm also missing your general point in this thread and I'm not exactly sure what the tail end of this sentence is getting at, maybe you could clarify, but I assume you've figured that if no one is in said remote site, they can't have an encounter nor file a report.

[Wooly Booger]

The wilderness areas of the Pacific Northwest are vast. There is certainly enough habitat and food available to support a breeding population of large, omnivorous primates. British Columbia for instance has more square miles of wilderness than there are people living there. Most of the population in Canada are situated in settlements along the U.S. border. Beyond that is mostly wilderness. Much of which remains virtually unexplored to this very day. To suggest that a species yet unclassified by science could not remain hidden in the Pacific Northwest represents the pinnacle of hubris. 

 

More than 200 years of eyewitness accounts combined with many more centuries of Native American and First Nation legends suggest something is out there. It is in fact far more unlikely to assume that this entire phenomenon is the result of more than two centuries of hoaxing and misidentification than it is to suggest that North America is home to a breeding population of an as yet species of unclassified bipedal primate. 

 

Just my two cents worth. 

Edited February 9, 2021 by Wooly Booger

[hiflier]

52 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

It is in fact far more unlikely to assume that this entire phenomenon is the result of more than two centuries of hoaxing and misidentification than it is to suggest that North America is home to a breeding population of an as yet species of unclassified bipedal primate.

 

A species that large and mobile should be dropping DNA all over the place. Scientist that run biodiversity studies are either ignoring the sometimes odd data they're collecting, or they aren't getting any data. If some samples show primate DNA but it isn't from a Great Ape, as that would be pretty much impossible to find in North America, then the only alternative is Human DNA, right? It makes me wonder about the methodology being used. I really doubt that the type of sampling and testing can even distinguish the difference between two closely related species, like what Humans and Sasquatches are suspected to be. To make those kinds of distinctions, a completely different kind of protocol needs to be deployed.

 

Scientists by and large usually cast a wide net in order to register as many different kinds of animals as possible. Like in the WA nests' samples. It was a metabarcoding protocol which picked up everything: bear, deer, elk, raccoon, birds, squirrels, etc. The problem, I have learned, is that if Humans and Sasquatches are closely related Like maybe 50% closer to us than Chimpanzees are) then metabarcoding might not be the method to use for showing BF existence. But it's still a method that almost every scientist uses. For example, a scientist might not use metabacoding to determine closely related lemmings living within a region, but it will tell a scientist that lemmings are present.

Edited February 9, 2021 by hiflier

[BlackRockBigfoot]

53 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

The wilderness areas of the Pacific Northwest are vast. There is certainly enough habitat and food available to support a breeding population of large, omnivorous primates. British Columbia for instance has more square miles of wilderness than there are people living there. Most of the population in Canada are situated in settlements along the U.S. border. Beyond that is mostly wilderness. Much of which remains virtually unexplored to this very day. To suggest that a species yet unclassified by science could not remain hidden in the Pacific Northwest represents the pinnacle of hubris. 

 

More than 200 years of eyewitness accounts combined with many more centuries of Native American and First Nation legends suggest something is out there. It is in fact far more unlikely to assume that this entire phenomenon is the result of more than two centuries of hoaxing and misidentification than it is to suggest that North America is home to a breeding population of an as yet species of unclassified bipedal primate. 

 

Just my two cents worth. 

Great post.

[John B]

There are still large areas of North America, Siberia and Asia that have yet to see a human.

[Somerset]

10 minutes ago, John B said:

There are still large areas of North America, Siberia and Asia that have yet to see a human.

I wonder if that is still true?

[BobbyO]

On 2/5/2021 at 3:31 AM, hiflier said:

 

One person in remote Sasquatch territory is too many,. Think about it, what if it was you who wanted the safety of a remote area for you and your family and a stranger showed up? What would be your first reaction? And not just a stranger but a completely different kind of stranger? Day or night?

 

When the Olympic Project found the first nesting site it was apparently active as a couple of nests still had fresh greenery attached. What happened? And then the recent discovery last year with nests half constructed. What happened? Shane Corson said he heard what sounded like something bipedal walk away as he approached. He suspected that he had interrupted the nest building activity. I really doubt anything went back after that intrusion. We need to learn and understand this, especially since the lesson is so recent. If after this someone is bothered a hair, just think how bothered the Sasquatch is, or any other animal for that matter.

 

I don't mean to be harsh or critical here, but there comes a point where our own sensitivity to Nature needs to be rebooted.

 

You do bring up a good point and a point that i have heard Shane talk about himself on different occasions both publicly and privately where the morality of ongoing research in this specific location is concerned, and especially in an area where it is thought of to be a possible nursing/birthing type of area. 

 

Maybe this cough cough new account ' @highlander ' can chime in ? 

[BobbyO]

Great thread this.

 

I give Foxhill two days, max ! 

[hiflier]

Thank you BobbyO. I can't even imaging the follow up dialogue in the Olympic Project after the reported second discovery's activities. I do think there's some deeper, more sensitive consideration going on there. You know, animals in Nature are tough because they have to be, but Nature itself is fragile. And I truly think that just like plants and trees that reclaim an area Human once worked, Nature will come to us if we give it time. The issue I keep turning over is that for the most part, we always view Sasquatch as a full grown creature without to much said about the 2-6 year olds and younger. Ther's no doubt that Humans, wildfires, drought and all manner of hardship uproot the young as well. It's important to have safe birthing places, in that regard Sasquatch already has one thing going against it: it's size. Keeping safely hidden isn't as easy as the creature makes it look. After an encounter it may take hours or days for the creature to relax and feel okay again, never mind the Human witnesses.

 

This isn't easy stuff to think about but our relationship with the Sasquatch my be far more intertwined and important than we realize. We will eventually prove its reality, and how we do that may be either have a high or low impact on the creature- it's our choice to make. I think a lower impact will help us succeed in proving the creature real. Who knows, maybe one day they'll throw someone a bone....literally

Edited February 10, 2021 by hiflier

[Doug]

All but one of my encounters happened within less than a mile from active logging sites.

[Madison5716]

On 2/7/2021 at 5:57 PM, wiiawiwb said:

Have you found early Spring to be a productive time with increased activity?

 

 

Only been doing this for two years now. Hard to figure with only a little data. But I'd say, for print finds, that all the rainy season, when the reservoirs are emptied, is good. But our sighting was in July! So, who knows? I don't. We just keep going out, repeatedly and consistently, and follow up on leads.

 

A certain pattern emerges. Cover, food and water, of course, are required. But I leave room for their curiosity and find areas of conflict in the woods interesting  - housing pushing into rural areas, people getting back into areas where we usually don't go, or being there at unusual times (like a rural road, but at midnight!). 

 

Ask me again in 10 years.

[Wooly Booger]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

 

A species that large and mobile should be dropping DNA all over the place. Scientist that run biodiversity studies are either ignoring the sometimes odd data they're collecting, or they aren't getting any data. If some samples show primate DNA but it isn't from a Great Ape, as that would be pretty much impossible to find in North America, then the only alternative is Human DNA, right? It makes me wonder about the methodology being used. I really doubt that the type of sampling and testing can even distinguish the difference between two closely related species, like what Humans and Sasquatches are suspected to be. To make those kinds of distinctions, a completely different kind of protocol needs to be deployed.

 

Scientists by and large usually cast a wide net in order to register as many different kinds of animals as possible. Like in the WA nests' samples. It was a metabarcoding protocol which picked up everything: bear, deer, elk, raccoon, birds, squirrels, etc. The problem, I have learned, is that if Humans and Sasquatches are closely related Like maybe 50% closer to us than Chimpanzees are) then metabarcoding might not be the method to use for showing BF existence. But it's still a method that almost every scientist uses. For example, a scientist might not use metabacoding to determine closely related lemmings living within a region, but it will tell a scientist that lemmings are present.

And therein lies the problem.  Humans DNA and ape DNA are very similar, chimpanzees for instance share 98.8% of their DNA with humans.  If Sasquatches exist, then it is very possible that they share even more DNA with humans.  If analyses of alleged Sasquatch DNA are any indication, then this would indeed appear to be the case.  After several days of an apparent Sasquatch attack on a remote fishing cabin in northern Ontario, the terrified fisherman placed a nail studded board near the entrance.  Sure enough the attacker stepped on the board, and the DNA was sent back to a lab for analysis.  It came back as an unknown primate, not quite ape and not quite human.  The incident and the DNA analysis were aired on an episode of Monster Quest quite a few years ago.  These results if taken at face value would seem to suggest that Sasquatch and human DNA are very similar.  This would certainly make DNA analysis highly problematic for documenting the existence of this species.

 

Personally I don't believe in killing a Sasquatch to prove that they exist.  I always go into the woods armed, but this is strictly for defensive reasons.  These animals seem to be apex predators, and I am not going to take any chances.  The next most efficient method of documenting the species would seem to be through the use of trail cams.  But based upon my research anyway, it seems that they avoid these most likely because they know they don't belong in their environment and accordingly keep their distance from these.  As I am sure you are aware, there is also speculation that these animals can see Infrared.  Since we know very little about these animals, this cannot be entirely ruled out either.  

[Madison5716]

6 hours ago, Wooly Booger said:

The wilderness areas of the Pacific Northwest are vast. There is certainly enough habitat and food available to support a breeding population of large, omnivorous primates.

 

Agreed, Wooly Booger. Every time NorthWind and I head way out, we are humbled by the vast forests. 

 

What is more amazing? Those forests at NIGHT, when there are no humans anywhere but in their homes, cabins, trailers and tents. It's a whole different place, and their habitat increases when you figure all the places they can access in the dark that they won't consider in daylight.

[Wooly Booger]

18 minutes ago, Madison5716 said:

 

Agreed, Wooly Booger. Every time NorthWind and I head way out, we are humbled by the vast forests. 

 

What is more amazing? Those forests at NIGHT, when there are no humans anywhere but in their homes, cabins, trailers and tents. It's a whole different place, and their habitat increases when you figure all the places they can access in the dark that they won't consider in daylight.

The forest is certainly amazing.  There are many places for an elusive animal to hide that would make discovery difficult.  My fiance and I are planning an excursion in northern Maine this summer.  We are going to camp out for a few days and hopefully collect some evidence. I will keep everyone informed.