Would Sasquatch Discovery Impact Revenues?

[hiflier]

15 minutes ago, CelticKevin said:

.......They just don't want to open a can of worms.

 

HAH! Can of worms? It's looking more like a boxcar full of Grizzlies

[MIB]

2 hours ago, CelticKevin said:

So yes, I would say that yes, the government in aware of them

 

I see a difference between certain people employed in the public sector knowing about bigfoot and "government" being aware of them.

 

MIB

[CelticKevin]

4 hours ago, norseman said:

Any ideas on why that is?

Sure. It goes right back to my original post about logging and development. 

[norseman]

39 minutes ago, CelticKevin said:

Sure. It goes right back to my original post about logging and development. 

Not sure I agree. Or I’m not understanding your position.

 

A Bigfoot discovery would be a spotted owl x 100000. It’s a environmentalist dream come true. Most of the USFS has gone down this road. Most logging happens on state and private ground now where I am.

 

So the USFS should be shouting Bigfoot from the rooftops, to ensure this trend continues indefinitely IMO. It’s a big stick in their Arsenal that is not being utilized.

 

My personal belief is that the Missing 411 cases are what they are worried about.

 

Ummm hey Mr. Public, we kinda neglected to tell you about a giant primate that may be snatching your kids and grandma from campgrounds…… yahhh so…… sorry bout that! Don’t forget to buy that park pass! And check out the gift shop! 

 

It’s a lawsuit nightmare. It’s also kinda like UFO’s I think. They don’t want to admit that UFO’s operate in our airspace with impunity and they have no control. Bigfoot operates in our national forests and parks and they have no control.

[wiiawiwb]

6 hours ago, MIB said:

 

I see a difference between certain people employed in the public sector knowing about bigfoot and "government" being aware of them.

 

MIB

 

What do you see as the difference?

[Huntster]

9 hours ago, MIB said:

I see a difference between certain people employed in the public sector knowing about bigfoot and "government" being aware of them.

 

Agreed, even if that goes as far as Lyle Laverty as Secretary of the Interior.

[Huntster]

12 hours ago, CelticKevin said:

.......One told me they have forms they have to fill out...quietly....when a BF is reported........

 

This is documentation. Finding one of these forms, even if not filled out, would be "evidence". My guess would be that if true, this would be a regional or park/forest specific deal, not nation wide.

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

This is documentation. Finding one of these forms, even if not filled out, would be "evidence". My guess would be that if true, this would be a regional or park/forest specific deal, not nation wide.

 

My understanding from a member in early discussions was that the local state parks and such don't keep any records of reported Bigfoot activity on site. They take in the reports but what they do with them afterwards is an unknown. As a point, when someone says, "We don't keep records of that," it's not necessarily saying that records are discarded of destroyed. It just means they probably wouldn't have any on hand to produce should someone ask to see them. So, they are stored off site? They are passed upwards to administrators? They are stored at state DNR agencies of state bureaus of parks and lands? They are passed on up to federal entities? They are placed on a computer or in a database and the hard copies no longer exist?

 

One thing I have become even more than ever, and that's a stickler for words either in print or spoken. Such as "We don't recognize the Sasquatch as a species," which I've brought up several times as to what is that statement is really telling us in the realm of the existence/non-existence debate? Oh, not much.

[Huntster]

25 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

My understanding from a member in early discussions was that the local state parks and such don't keep any records of reported Bigfoot activity on site. They take in the reports but what they do with them afterwards is an unknown. As a point, when someone says, "We don't keep records of that," it's not necessarily saying that records are discarded of destroyed. It just means they probably wouldn't have any on hand to produce should someone ask to see them. So, they are stored off site? They are passed upwards to administrators? They are stored at state DNR agencies of state bureaus of parks and lands? They are passed on up to federal entities? They are placed on a computer or in a database and the hard copies no longer exist?........

 

They can and should be held accountable on precisely what they do with reports from the public on sightings, encounters, and interactions. If any documents are created at all, they're a public record.

[hiflier]

And just how is anyone going to hold them accountable? I mean, who is going to do that? Who is going to tell them to produce Sasquatch reports when they say they don't keep them? What if someone has the follow up question, "Why don't you keep them?" or "What do you actually DO with such records?" Because people are fearful, Huntster, that's why. Or they assume that with no records kept that it's the end of the road and assume the records no longer exist so there's no sense in pursing the subject?

 

Like the guy at a state park that I was camping at telling me, "There ain't none," when I asked if he was allowed to talk about Sasquatch. What does one do with that?

 

Edited December 8, 2021 by hiflier

[norseman]

32 minutes ago, hiflier said:

And just how is anyone going to hold them accountable? I mean, who is going to do that? Who is going to tell them to produce Sasquatch reports when they say they don't keep them? What if someone has the follow up question, "Why don't you keep them?" or "What do you actually DO with such records?" Because people are fearful, Huntster, that's why. Or they assume that with no records kept that it's the end of the road and assume the records no longer exist so there's no sense in pursing the subject?

 

Like the guy at a state park that I was camping at telling me, "There ain't none," when I asked if he was allowed to talk about Sasquatch. What does one do with that?

 

Do not take this personal. But remember when you were beating people up because they would not join you in calling or writing government officials about Bigfoot?

 

It seems you have come to the realization with the rest of us as to how fruitless of an endeavor that is.

 

There is only one way forward. Physical evidence. They will crack under the strain of physical evidence. 
 

I know you have been placing your bets on DNA. But if the government can twist, threaten and silence witnesses? What do you think they can do with a DNA lab? Same thing with one phone call. Lose the sample or call it a bear. Whatever.

 

What do you think happened here? Did Scientists see something they were not suppose to see?

 

 

 

 

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

Do not take this personal. But remember when you were beating people up because they would not join you in calling or writing government officials about Bigfoot?

 

Yep, and that why this isn't about that. This a discussion aimed at clearing up the picture on where we stand in the picture. Or better yet clearing up the picture itself on why we aren't privy to any information about any official position on the creature. All that can be done is to look at peripheral things to pull back the veil of what appears to be a program in place for handling nuisance creatures and why even such a program might be deemed necessary.

 

Sure, we know what happens to nuisance bears and other animals, but is there such a thing as a nuisance Sasquatch? Reports would say that there is, and so this thread is to pull away that curtain and understand , or at least try to understand, the reasons for secrecy. Or even why the secrecy is generally seen as being successful. Because If that is the case, then anyone even bringing in a body will see nothing but failure when it gets announced that the body was really only the body of a bear. Why anyone would think that if DNA can be swept aside so easily that a body couldn't be swept away as well.

 

If labs are told hands off any samples that are brought in, then what makes anyone think that bringing in a body would fare any better than a Dyer hoax? So only DNA testing will always fail? A body will always fail as well. This thread is to help folks really understand what it is that they are dealing with......and why. Because one would think that a nuisance Sasquatch somewhere would have been shot or otherwise dealt with by someone OTHER than some official overlord.

 

Because a "bear" outcome, in my humble opinion, WOULD be the only outcome. If a lab's DNA results get slammed, then a "bear" brought in that was mistaken for a Bigfoot would be the foregone conclusion. If DNA brought in always gets announced as bear DNA, then a body brought in will result in the same announcement: "Sorry folks, not a Bigfoot body, it was a bear." Because what lab, facility, taxidermist, or anything else is going to be believed once the media get a hold of it?   

Edited December 8, 2021 by hiflier

[CelticKevin]

On 12/7/2021 at 11:50 PM, norseman said:

Not sure I agree. Or I’m not understanding your position.

 

A Bigfoot discovery would be a spotted owl x 100000. It’s a environmentalist dream come true. Most of the USFS has gone down this road. Most logging happens on state and private ground now where I am.

 

So the USFS should be shouting Bigfoot from the rooftops, to ensure this trend continues indefinitely IMO. It’s a big stick in their Arsenal that is not being utilized.

 

My personal belief is that the Missing 411 cases are what they are worried about.

 

Ummm hey Mr. Public, we kinda neglected to tell you about a giant primate that may be snatching your kids and grandma from campgrounds…… yahhh so…… sorry bout that! Don’t forget to buy that park pass! And check out the gift shop! 

 

It’s a lawsuit nightmare. It’s also kinda like UFO’s I think. They don’t want to admit that UFO’s operate in our airspace with impunity and they have no control. Bigfoot operates in our national forests and parks and they have no control.

The spotted owl comparison was part of my previous post I was referring to. No, the USFS doesn't want another spotted owl fiasco anymore than the loggers do. The lawsuits are financially draining on both sides. And yes, you do make an excellent point comparing to ufos...imagine the outcry and further distrust if they openly admitted they know these creatures exist and where/how to find them. As for interactions that may suggest your uncle was BF kibble when the elk and deer populations were down...yeah, there is a few more hearings and studies they don't want. It was and is my impression from the USFS folks i deal with that BF is a subject that they will discuss amongst themselves but in public must dissuade or be vague about it. Besides, budgeting is tight as it is....do you really think the congress would allow a USFS Division of Sasquatch Studies and Protection? I think they all DREAD the say as it wil lmean an increased workload and public relation nightmares. 

I honestly think in today's climate, even if a body was produced half of the politicos would deny it still and call it a hoax anyway.

[hiflier]

52 minutes ago, CelticKevin said:

....do you really think the congress would allow a USFS Division of Sasquatch Studies and Protection? I think they all DREAD the say as it wil lmean an increased workload and public relation nightmares. 

I honestly think in today's climate, even if a body was produced half of the politicos would deny it still and call it a hoax anyway.

 

But that's what I've been trying to get across, because, IMHO, it would have been foolish to NOT have had something like that already in place. But I do agree that a body would disappear in the cloud of whatever cover story gets generated.

[norseman]

2 hours ago, CelticKevin said:

The spotted owl comparison was part of my previous post I was referring to. No, the USFS doesn't want another spotted owl fiasco anymore than the loggers do. The lawsuits are financially draining on both sides. And yes, you do make an excellent point comparing to ufos...imagine the outcry and further distrust if they openly admitted they know these creatures exist and where/how to find them. As for interactions that may suggest your uncle was BF kibble when the elk and deer populations were down...yeah, there is a few more hearings and studies they don't want. It was and is my impression from the USFS folks i deal with that BF is a subject that they will discuss amongst themselves but in public must dissuade or be vague about it. Besides, budgeting is tight as it is....do you really think the congress would allow a USFS Division of Sasquatch Studies and Protection? I think they all DREAD the say as it wil lmean an increased workload and public relation nightmares. 

I honestly think in today's climate, even if a body was produced half of the politicos would deny it still and call it a hoax anyway.

I call bull.

 

They are stealing water rights right now over Bull trout. They are eating up rancher profits with the reintroduction of wolves. Look what’s going on down in the Klamath. 
 

The federal government uses the endangered species act like a big club against anything that stands in their way. Despite the fact that their Dams have destroyed 80-90% of the native spawning runs. Or the fact that they paid bounties on Wolves and Bull Trout in the middle of the last century. Or that the Hanford nuclear reservation leeches radiation into the Columbia river.

 

But they have no qualms about shutting down your water rights to irrigate your alfalfa field, to feed your livestock through the winter.

 

They should LOVE a giant primate roaming the west…. So because they pull the old “swamp gas” routine?
 

Tells me there is something else going on.