Would Sasquatch Discovery Impact Revenues?

[hiflier]

Great post, Norseman. Thanks for setting me straight. You're right, it has apparently been done. I've known those stories so don't know why they didn't enter my thoughts when I composed my post. Just wasn't thinking I guess. If it should really happen and one gets intentionally taken down a a voucher specimen the "then what" kicks in. Hopefully everything has been lined up ahead of time for the follow through.

[Huntster]

39 minutes ago, hiflier said:

........Hopefully everything has been lined up ahead of time for the follow through.

 

1) Getting the carcass to the right guy.......but who would that be? Meldrum? Media?

2) How to get it there, especially if it's across a border like Canada or Alaska.

[hiflier]

That would be up to whatever the shooter thinks or has planned. Staying covert in all aspects? Good. Bringing it here? nnnnnnot so much.

 

Seems to me I remember a small book around here somewhere that goes into that some?

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by hiflier

[Twist]

Do I believe the government knows about BF, yes.    Do I believe there is a large conspiracy theory to cover them up, nope.   Sure there is a deny deny deny policy but it doesn’t include black SUV’s, helicopters, and flashy light memory devices.   IMO, the fact that they are low in population, cover a large territory, and primarily reside in  cover takes care of most of the issues.   

[hiflier]

But then that's all assuming that the people involved in taking one down can somehow avoid detection. If these creature have been known about for how long? They are not escaping being monitored. If you were the government wouldn't you want to know where any such risks to your revenue flow are residing" I sure wood, especially if I had the resources and capabilities to do so. It would no doubt place a different and certainly higher level of guarding against this creature either being discovered or ending up where its presence would jeopardize my flow of revenue. And with technology the way it is today, I would stand a much better chance at thwarting any efforts to expose the creature to the public.

Edited December 6, 2021 by hiflier

[hiflier]

3 minutes ago, Twist said:

IMO, the fact that they are low in population, cover a large territory, and primarily reside in  cover takes care of most of the issues.

 

Yes that does help. So I take it you don't think any government people are out there deploying Neuralizers.

[hiflier]

14 minutes ago, Twist said:

Sure there is a deny deny deny policy but it doesn’t include black SUV’s, helicopters, and flashy light memory devices.

 

But I do think that on occasion a Sasquatch ends up in the "wrong" place and that dark vehicles do handle the interloper in one fashion of another. Basically because they have no choice but to do so.

Edited December 6, 2021 by hiflier

[hiflier]

A follow up to that is that if they don't handle the situation then deny, deny, deny falls apart. Besides, government doesn't outright deny the existence of the Sasquatch. State by state it is simply claimed to be an "unrecognized" species which, as I've said before, is technically quite different than saying the thing doesn't exist.

Edited December 6, 2021 by hiflier

[Twist]

I’m sure there are situations where the government has handled a BF situation but I do not believe it’s part of a BF task force so to say.   It’s probably such a rare event that it’s handled on a case by case situation as needed.   
 

Their best course of action is probably discredit most things BF and steer it in the direction of folklore and myth.  Let the public enjoy it as entertainment and think the hardcore folks as kooks.  

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, Twist said:

I’m sure there are situations where the government has handled a BF situation but I do not believe it’s part of a BF task force so to say.   It’s probably such a rare event that it’s handled on a case by case situation as needed.   
 

Their best course of action is probably discredit most things BF and steer it in the direction of folklore and myth.  Let the public enjoy it as entertainment and think the hardcore folks as kooks.  

 

Yep, and plussed for that one.

[NCBFr]

3 hours ago, Twist said:

Do I believe the government knows about BF, yes.    Do I believe there is a large conspiracy theory to cover them up, nope.   Sure there is a deny deny deny policy but it doesn’t include black SUV’s, helicopters, and flashy light memory devices.   IMO, the fact that they are low in population, cover a large territory, and primarily reside in  cover takes care of most of the issues.   

 

It appears Sheriffs in BF abundant territories know about them and think of them basically as a nuisance and do what they can to ignore them while protecting their people without directly getting involved.  Fish and Game/Dept Interior do have an enforcement group that I believe acts to protect the species at just about all costs and can seam like men in black, especially in situations where humans were attacked or at extreme risk.   

[Huntster]

35 minutes ago, NCBFr said:

........Fish and Game/Dept Interior do have an enforcement group that I believe acts to protect the species at just about all costs and can seam like men in black, especially in situations where humans were attacked or at extreme risk.   

 

Some state fish and game biologists and administrators have to be in in an organized effort to downplay discovery. Obviously sone states have more activity and some have little to none. Also, as here in Alaska, wildlife biologists operating in Game Management Units 1 & 2 are most likely to actually come across evidence, and other management areas would not, so biologists from areas with no activity would likely be skeptical (to say the least), which would inspire a biologist looking at a nest to keep his mouth shut for the benefit of his career. This is essentially what Lyle Laverty did..........mostly. He did get noted as an interested individual during the Bluff Creek years, but was clearly not seeking fame and fortune.

[NCBFr]

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Some state fish and game biologists and administrators have to be in in an organized effort to downplay discovery. Obviously sone states have more activity and some have little to none. Also, as here in Alaska, wildlife biologists operating in Game Management Units 1 & 2 are most likely to actually come across evidence, and other management areas would not, so biologists from areas with no activity would likely be skeptical (to say the least), which would inspire a biologist looking at a nest to keep his mouth shut for the benefit of his career. This is essentially what Lyle Laverty did..........mostly. He did get noted as an interested individual during the Bluff Creek years, but was clearly not seeking fame and fortune.

 

People should check out this story if they think Fish and Game will not stop at anything to protect a species that is not suppose to exist in an area (not BF).

https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=694361530922438

 

[norseman]

2 hours ago, NCBFr said:

 

People should check out this story if they think Fish and Game will not stop at anything to protect a species that is not suppose to exist in an area (not BF).

https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=694361530922438

 

This has been going on for a long time. They cook the books to meet their agenda. They are lying thugs.

[hiflier]

But I can also see why F&W didn't want to scare the members of the public, or have them thinking about it too much.

 

Now. Why would I say such a thing? Because the thing killed THREE horses and a dog. For what? Just to have a little snack because it was hungry??!!? I don't know what anyone thinks but even lions in Africa only take down one animal to feast on. This was FOUR counting the dog. That must have bee some kind of fast attack, right? Probably corralled together? But one would think that if one went down in violence then at least one or two horses would have bolted, or moved off to a corner, even if the dog stayed to challenge the attacker. No one said what kind of dog it was.

 

But here's the thing, that incident sure looks like there could have MORE than just one predator at work. The F&W Game Wardens maybe took one look at the scene and took that into consideration. Because I don't see how one predator did all of that so deadly and fast. Maybe it wasn't that fast? Either way how did the wild animal manage to slay all four? The bigger question would be "WHY" when one animal, even if it was the dog, would have been enough of a meal. Something tells me that that's why F&W told the Sheriff to tone down his notice for cautioning the public. Because that was too savage a slaying even for a hungry wild animal. Hopefully that has crossed the mind of someone in that area or the Sheriff himself.

Edited December 7, 2021 by hiflier