Would Sasquatch Discovery Impact Revenues?

[hiflier]

Been thinking. The argument (and I was, and still am, a part of it) about Sasquatch discovery has been that it would have a tremendous impact on the flow of revenues from the resource industry, tourism and other recreational activities. And granted, there is a lot of revenue to be had. But since we don't really know how those activities have affected Sasquatch populations, can we be certain that there is harm being done? Beyond uprooting them and causing their movement into other areas that is. 

[Huntster]

23 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Been thinking........

 

Oh, oh......... 

[norseman]

52 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Been thinking. The argument (and I was, and still am, a part of it) about Sasquatch discovery has been that it would have a tremendous impact on the flow of revenues from the resource industry, tourism and other recreational activities. And granted, there is a lot of revenue to be had. But since we don't really know how those activities have affected Sasquatch populations, can we be certain that there is harm being done? Beyond uprooting them and causing their movement into other areas that is. 

We dont know what we don’t know. 
 

But we can extrapolate from other large omnivores, like the Grizzly bear in the lower 48. From the brink of extinction in the 1960’s they are now starting to thrive. So much so that some states are looking at taking them off the endangered species list. But are they back to their former range size and number? No. And probably never will be because of the human population in the west.

 

The major question is? What if they are not thriving? What if they are going extinct? Without species recognition what tools do we have to reverse it? Zero. They might as well be pixies and gnomes as far as funding, biology and policy is concerned.

 

[hiflier]

55 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Oh, oh......... 

 

HAH! Got that right Huntster, another ride 

[hiflier]

28 minutes ago, norseman said:

The major question is? What if they are not thriving? What if they are going extinct? Without species recognition what tools do we have to reverse it? Zero. They might as well be pixies and gnomes as far as funding, biology and policy is concerned.

 

Major question is right. So this thread isn't saying stop looking for them or for proof 'cause as you say, we don't what we don't know. The point is: could a legal argument be made to continue doing what Humans are doing with regard to habitat because there are not a pile of Bigfoot bodies lying in the wake of progress? One would think that SOMEONE's conscience would be bothering them if these magnificent creature were known to be suffering.

 

The other matter is are they moving out of areas that Humans move into for whatever purpose or are they herded out through subtle intrusion, intimidation, or other methods to get them away from an area? As in miles away. This all goes to the point that I'm pretty sure that creature's, or a group's where abouts is a known quantity. Because that is something I don't doubt for a minute.

Edited December 4, 2021 by hiflier

[CelticKevin]

Well, I would have to say yes in my opinion.
Coming from a "mill town" that was devastated by a withering economy and environmental interests, I've seen what happens when logging is curtailed and huge tracts of harvestable forest land is left idle. One needs only look at the Spotted Owl and the actions taken to preserve it. If a body of a BF was found or brought forth, you'd see a panic in the aforementioned industries. Those utilizing forests and wildlands would be instantly under legal threat by conservation groups and others to cease and desist all activity. The federal government would be forced to intervene and do study after study to determine the Sasquatch range, population, behavior, etc. Everything "discovered" by "citizen scientists" would be ignored and large amounts of tax dollars would go into these studies. Eventually a compromise would be reached to enable usage and harvesting but your timber industry would be again severely reduced. Imagine as well if the BF were determined to be endangered. What a s+++show this would produce. This is just one reason I'm sure the USFS and the Federal and State governments know but doesn't pursue any formal inquiry. 

Recreational users of ATV, snowmobiles, etc would find many favorite places blocked off (legally) as it may disturb nesting Squatches. If a BF is determined to be in the area of a resort, or a family unit, it wouldn't be unexpected for the humans to be told to relocate. There would be such a slow moving grind to any development of resorts or residences as the backlog of environmental impact studies would overwhelm the system. And not just here in the PNW, but everywhere a sighting has occurred. It's quite possible that a NIMBY who didn't want you to build a cabin in the woods could tell the land use boards they saw a sasquatch and delay your project for years waiting for a determination. And believe you me, LUBA doesn't ever move very fast between studies and public hearings. Hunters would probably be under even more scrutiny as trophy hunters would be out in force to bag a bigfoot and thus, the USFS and BLM would increase enforcement and patrol and that means increased fees for the average law abiding hunter. Conflicts would arise over land that was previously available for hunting and fishing but now are closed due to study or bigfoot habituation.

On the other side of the coin, you'd have a swell of Bigfoot tours where you and 50 close friends can get on a mini-bus as the khaki clad, pith helmeted guide drives you through the woods regaling you with Sasquatch lore. Chances are you won't see one as they are very elusive, but its all about the chase right? And you can "Bag a Bigfoot" in their giftshop, get a t-shirt, and have your photo taken with a guy in a gorilla suit for $10. Heck, you might be able to "sponsor" a Squatch for only $20 a month where you will get a blurry photo of "your" BF, updates on any sightings, and your cash goes to feed them as the guides put apples and peanut butter in your BF's location. Lawyers would be raking it in hand over fist during the ensuing cases of protection, land use, merchandising, and exclusive media rights. Also, i think if a body was produced and suddenly they are "real", tons of evidence that lay hidden for fear of ridicule will come forth. You may actually get CLEAR photos as folks aren't afraid of being called crazy now. 

Edited December 4, 2021 by CelticKevin

[hiflier]

One way to think about it might be to see how many encounters have occurred in an area AFTER it has been logged. Do road sightings happen AFTER a new road is laid in. Do encounters still occur AFTER a new development has been built?

 

I doubt much activity happens during these kinds of operations but Encounters that I've read do seem to occur in such areas after the dust settles.

[CelticKevin]

2 minutes ago, hiflier said:

One way to think about it might be to see how many encounters have occurred in an area AFTER it has been logged. Do road sightings happen AFTER a new road is laid in. Do encounters still occur AFTER a new development has been built?

 

I doubt much activity happens during these kinds of operations but Encounters that I've read do seem to occur in such areas after the dust settles.

Why wouldn't they keep going? Deer, coyotes, and mountain lions keep encroaching into developed areas scavenging off of garbage and pets. Wildlife crossings have to be made under new highways to keep them from getting creamed by cars. It's their habitat and they are used to being there. They adapt to us and learn to glean what they can from us. Plus, I've read quite a few incidents of folks who have "visitors" for years when they move in.

[hiflier]

6 minutes ago, CelticKevin said:

The federal government would be forced to intervene and do study after study to determine the Sasquatch range, population, behavior, etc. Everything "discovered" by "citizen scientists" would be ignored and large amounts of tax dollars would go into these studies. Eventually a compromise would be reached to enable usage and harvesting......

 

Thank you, one of my more subtle points here is that I'm convinced that this stuff has already been orchestrated. Because I don't think agencies of whatever alphabet title want to see these creatures hurt or disappear. But they also know that because of their nature of being highly reclusive, it doesn't take much to get them to relocate. Of course, if one subscribes to the standard seasonal cycles of most animals then the best time to get them to move would be early June-September. Fall being mating, winter being hunkering down, with some being pregnant, and Spring being the birthing season. If Human progress starts to push them around some then it may be no wonder that the creatures show up at campgrounds and at road crossings, etc. during the summer months. 

 

Could a researcher wishing to prove their existence take advantage of such a dynamic should it be real? I mean, would the perimeter for several miles around a timber harvesting operation be a good place to look for evidence? Or have a sighting?

[hiflier]

6 minutes ago, CelticKevin said:

Why wouldn't they keep going? Deer, coyotes, and mountain lions keep encroaching into developed areas scavenging off of garbage and pets. Wildlife crossings have to be made under new highways to keep them from getting creamed by cars. It's their habitat and they are used to being there. They adapt to us and learn to glean what they can from us. Plus, I've read quite a few incidents of folks who have "visitors" for years when they move in.

 

Yep, good point. I think we've all heard of resident creatures hanging around. Might it depend on the level of upheaval the terrain endures? Little changes aren't very disruptive, Big changes are and can last for years before things quiet down again. What would be the chances for discovery if researchers had advanced knowledge that an area where they knew sightings had historically occurred was about to undergo a major change? Like a new highway was in the planning stage and going in several years from now. Or a new mall, or a golf course? Or a new lakeside resort?

Edited December 4, 2021 by hiflier

[CelticKevin]

5 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Yep, good point. I think we've all heard of resident creatures hanging around. Might it depend on the level of upheaval the terrain endures? Little changes aren't very disruptive, Big changes are and can last for years before things quiet down again.

I would think it would depend greatly on the amount of upheaval, yes. If you brought in the heavy equipment and stripped and flattened a few acres, they would fall back to the cover and observe and then move on to get away from the stench and noise and lack of resources. But a home or small cabin in a wee area....nah...they'd stick around.

[hiflier]

Just now, CelticKevin said:

I would think it would depend greatly on the amount of upheaval, yes. If you brought in the heavy equipment and stripped and flattened a few acres, they would fall back to the cover and observe and then move on to get away from the stench and noise and lack of resources. But a home or small cabin in a wee area....nah...they'd stick around.

 

Agreed. People working on houses and farms do report seeing them. Strip mall construction, not so much? Even so, when the young grow up enough to be on their own and start branching out what happens when they come upon a group that has vacated an area in the last year of so because a new ski resort was going in on the mountain? Or the new ski mobile trail that now cuts across the hundred-year-old path to the lake or running water? I doubt, in that case, that a study was done regarding impacts on fauna but, no doubt, studies ARE done for the larger projects and for harvesting. If the hairy guy is part of that study then it may not always be left up to the hairy guy to decide where to go. Being able to monitor the creature would be important for many reasons. And I do seriously think that these creatures are monitored.

[wiiawiwb]

I see parents with young children hiking all of the time. If sasquatches were formally discovered, moms from coast to coast and border to border will decide they and their children are not stepping foot into any area where King Kong lives. Most families with kids would disappear from the forests of North America. Frankly, if my nieces and nephews are a fair barometer, a lot of young adult hikers and backpackers would hang up their hiking shoes as well.

[hiflier]

And that could be where the education begins. Would the chances of encountering the Sasquatch be greater than, equal to, or less than encountering a bear? Dr. Meldrum estimated that there was one Sasquatch for every ten bears. Both are shy of Humans. But you're right in one respect, if hunters fear the woods after seeing one of these creatures then would everyone else fear them, too? Some apparently do, but some don't. Why would a hunter who sees one give up hunting but a BF researcher who has seen one not only wish to keep going, but do so by going solo and even more remote? Remote enough that the risk of an encounter could escalate into a self defense situation? Literally forcing the Sasquatch into making a critical decision?

 

To get back to topic, does anyone think that government knows enough about these creatures to manage them? Or know that they DON'T have to manage them as they manage themselves by disappearing from, loud, intrusive activities? Might government know that numbers are either dwindling, remaining steady, or growing? And does government covertly intervene should a forced upheaval inadvertently send one or a few of these creatures in the wrong direction? Like more toward denser Human populations or small towns? Because I think that if these creatures and their families reside in an area slated for revenue generation, how would anyone know in which direction they might evacuate? How would an agency channel or control where the creatures head out too. If these creatures are out there then these are important questions to consider.

 

 

[hiflier]

I'm going through all of this because I truly think that the WHOLE picture needs to make sense. These are loose ends that need to be tied up because it isn't just about Bigfoot researchers being in the field looking for evidence, trying to have a sighting, casting prints, and recording audio, it's much bigger than that. If these creatures are left to meander around on their own when Humans go into an area to extract resources then the risk for discovery becomes a larger factor. These creatures may be territorial and not know every inch of a hundred thousand square miles when they hit the trail because we have decided to harvest an area of timber.

 

Wildfires simply cannot get these animals on the move along with everything else and not end up proving their own existence during their flight. For how many decades? Fires are numerous and happen every year and some are huge. The law of averages would say that the chances of one or a group being seen by Humans who live either in a fire zone or around it would be treated to a pretty incredible sight if a family of Sasquatches suddenly came out of the woods on their property. What are the chances that a creature, or a bunch of creatures never get seen? I would say it's pretty low. If these things are in BC, WA, OR, CA, ID, MT, CO, MN, MO, MI, FL, NH, ME, NY, AZ, NV, to name a few and elsewhere? Then why wouldn't the government know and have a plan for managing public knowledge?

 

The points of interest brought up in this thread, as I mentioned, have to fit the larger picture and make sense. When added up together, after everything researchers have, and have done, for the past few decades, WHY are we still searching? I think it's because we're thinking too small and not including the things that need to answer what looks like a reasonably obvious situation. That situation being that government MUST be playing a larger roll than we think it is. That it isn't passive but active, and pro-active, in its management of these creatures. To the point where corralling a loose one who strays too close to populated areas, and results in local reports coming in, gets taken care of, either by extermination or relocation. IOW, the large, dark, unmarked vehicles show up and a quick and efficient extraction takes place. Do reports of such incidents not exist?

Edited December 5, 2021 by hiflier