Would Sasquatch Discovery Impact Revenues?

[Huntster]

18 minutes ago, norseman said:

.......They are strict as all git out and don’t turn a blind eye..........

 

The overarching guideline is simple:

 

Keep as many people out as possible, and register/permit those you let in.

 

Some units/parks/forests/locations are more restrictive than others of the same official designation or classification, and that is usually due to an aggressive superintendent. 

[hiflier]

Or an aggressive something else...

[CelticKevin]

2 hours ago, norseman said:

In my experience? They are strict as all git out and don’t turn a blind eye.

 

https://apnews.com/article/7ed1e6953f245d2e1a64720c987a7aa3

 

I did volunteer work as well with the Back Country Horsemen. If they could kick us out despite us packing out their garbage, and fixing their log cabin, and cutting out their trail? They would….. The gal we worked for was a sweetheart don’t get me wrong.  But a mule can do way more damage to the flora than an E bike.

 

Truthfully I don’t think they want anyone in there. And by the looks of the trails in our wilderness areas they are abandoning them.

Abandoning them...thats probably true. Our volunteer group disbanded because the guy who directed us could never get funding for materials (we ourselves crafted most of the signage for trails) and was big on saying "maybe next year I can talk to so and so about getting you guys funds for supplies", we received conflicting "orders" on just about every project we were slated to do (we removed an old livestock watering tank one week and was told to put it back the next as they may want to use it for wildlife only for them to remove it a month later), and when we told them we just couldnt keep this up....they basically said "o.k...bye!" To our knowledge, nobody is maintaining the area we worked on now and it shows. It's also the reason I doubt very seriously if i ever volunteer in such a capacity again.

[hiflier]

Too many egos stirring the soup. And that's just maintenance. Think what would happen if a Sasquatch or two (or more) were known to frequent the area. What would they do if a Sasquatch was reported to be scaring campers? Handle it themselves or would they have other protocols in place? For instance on that audio, Bigfoot Knocks in Maine, where the knock sounds were recorded from around 1am to sunrise. I edited the recording down to five and a half minutes just to get rid of the empty spaces on the recording. And then I  started to count the number of knocks. By halfway through the edited recording I had lost count at over 50 knocks. What would rangers think of that?

Edited December 11, 2021 by hiflier

[Huntster]

5 hours ago, hiflier said:

Or an aggressive something else...

 

Not really. The Timothy Treadwell story proves that. The Katmai National Park Superintendent at the time (Deb Liggett) should have been prosecuted for letting Treadwell break every park rule in the book for 13 years with impunity.

[Huntster]

4 hours ago, hiflier said:

.......Think what would happen if a Sasquatch or two (or more) were known to frequent the area. What would they do if a Sasquatch was reported to be scaring campers? Handle it themselves or would they have other protocols in place?........

 

They discover Port Orford Cedar Root Disease in the area and close it to all visitors so somebody doesn't step in it and track it all over Mother Nature's forest carpet elsewhere. Then you let the old forest service roads go to Hell, and you've effectively created a sanctuary for the creatures. No grand conspiracy needed. It's science at its finest at work. A gaggle of college educated botanists are put to "work" managing the potential crisis, mostly just parroting End-of-the-World warnings, making color maps of their progress, and other such scientific studies and displays.

[Hoekler73]

Honestly, one might make a case that the discovery of a species like sasquatch would have an impact on multiple areas of society.

 

As often mentioned, there could be a negative economic impact on outdoor industries from logging, to camping and tourism.

 

The discovery would also have a possible impact on many fields of scientific research, who would have to reevaluate evolutionary theories.

 

There could also be repercussions in the religious community. (With man being created in God's image, many would have questions and a possible crisis of faith)

 

If the species was found to be related to homo sapient, there would also quickly arise a question about human rights as well.

 

Ultimately, there could many reasons why the discovery of a species like Sasquatch  would not be in the best interest of many factions of society. Loss of revenue would only be one impact on our way of life.

[hiflier]

To sum up, the itemized points below generally, and with out deep detail, put across my thoughts on the state of things in this modern day of surveillance capabilities and animal management. This specifically relates to the Sasquatch dynamic vs. revenue security where the Sasquatch crosses paths with resource harvesting and recreational activities. I could also include simple natural wanderings of the creature but focuses more on a somewhat forced eviction due to natural or man-made upheavals within habitat. Seasonal movements could be included but appear to be more sparse and so don't carry the same weight of outside pressure of other, more dramatic, factors:

 

1) Sasquatch are being monitored on the ground as well as from space.

2) They are being intentionally moved around with increased Human activities such as timbering. Perhaps with even with small controlled burns if wind direction supports it.

3) The creature is imperfect enough to be sighted, and so where they go after large Human intrusions must be channeled.

4) Occasionally a Sasquatch slips through the net and gets reported too often by witnesses in a certain area as it forages to survive.

5) The information of Sasquatch incursions near people or populated areas gets passed up to authorities.

6) An operation gets deployed to remove one or more creatures either by heavy tranquilizing and relocation, or by dispatching it outright and removing the carcass.

7) This is done as a black ops, night or day (preferably at night) but can be covered up in the media as removing a nuisance bear. Or a SAR operation to find an overdue hiker, or airlift an injured hiker or hunter.

8) Shooting a voucher specimen, or having DNA tested, will result in either confiscation of the body at the place it was delivered, claiming it was a bear, or by negating DNA results by saying it was bear DNA.

 

     

[hiflier]

4 minutes ago, Hoekler73 said:

There could also be repercussions in the religious community. (With man being created in God's image, many would have questions and a possible crisis of faith)

 

That the only thing in your post that I could say I disagree with. It has been a point that has been brought may times over the years. Because none of the Great Apes have even been accused of being created in some divine image, I would have to say that the Sasquatch could, and probably would, be easily, and summarily, dismissed into that category.

[CelticKevin]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

To sum up, the itemized points below generally, and with out deep detail, put across my thoughts on the state of things in this modern day of surveillance capabilities and animal management. This specifically relates to the Sasquatch dynamic vs. revenue security where the Sasquatch crosses paths with resource harvesting and recreational activities. I could also include simple natural wanderings of the creature but focuses more on a somewhat forced eviction due to natural or man-made upheavals within habitat. Seasonal movements could be included but appear to be more sparse and so don't carry the same weight of outside pressure of other, more dramatic, factors:

 

1) Sasquatch are being monitored on the ground as well as from space.

2) They are being intentionally moved around with increased Human activities such as timbering. Perhaps with even with small controlled burns if wind direction supports it.

3) The creature is imperfect enough to be sighted, and so where they go after large Human intrusions must be channeled.

4) Occasionally a Sasquatch slips through the net and gets reported too often by witnesses in a certain area as it forages to survive.

5) The information of Sasquatch incursions near people or populated areas gets passed up to authorities.

6) An operation gets deployed to remove one or more creatures either by heavy tranquilizing and relocation, or by dispatching it outright and removing the carcass.

7) This is done as a black ops, night or day (preferably at night) but can be covered up in the media as removing a nuisance bear. Or a SAR operation to find an overdue hiker, or airlift an injured hiker or hunter.

8) Shooting a voucher specimen, or having DNA tested, will result in either confiscation of the body at the place it was delivered, claiming it was a bear, or by negating DNA results by saying it was bear DNA.

 

     

So I'm assuming you believe the story that the feds removed several injured and dead BF from the Mt. St. Helen's area after the eruptions?

[hiflier]

Can't "believe" much of anything without proof. That's not how I operate. For instance, today I'm heading for an overnight to find physical proof. But I DO think that more recent reports of Sasquatch removal hold more water for the reasons I've been putting forth. There is a lot more encroachment and development in the last few decades and Google Earth shows the amount of timbering in the same time period. Equating sightings and encounters with wildfire histories would be a monumental task for anyone, but I think there would also be a correlation there. The key to my hypothesis on extraction of "nuisance" Sasquatches is based mostly on the heightened monitoring/surveillance capabilities of agencies in the past 15 years. Add  that up with everything else and it puts a greater, more ominous spin on revenue protection.

[Hoekler73]

17 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

That the only thing in your post that I could say I disagree with. It has been a point that has been brought may times over the years. Because none of the Great Apes have even been accused of being created in some divine image, I would have to say that the Sasquatch could, and probably would, be easily, and summarily, dismissed into that category.

The only way human rights would become an issue would be if Sasquatch was found to be a relative of man, rather than an ape or other non-human primate. I included this in my summation purely because many in the community believe they are a people rather than an animal.

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Hoekler73 said:

The only way human rights would become an issue would be if Sasquatch was found to be a relative of man, rather than an ape or other non-human primate. I included this in my summation purely because many in the community believe they are a people rather than an animal.

Humans ARE Apes scientifically speaking.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

 

And there is talk about trying to extend Human rights to fellow species of Apes.

 

https://www.nonhumanrights.org/blog/the-need-for-chimpanzee-rights/

 

It’s inconceivable that a bipedal ape man is not going to get some sort of special consideration. No matter where it falls on the primate tree.

 

Its not a direct Human ancestor, thats for sure. No matter. If they are pushing to recognize Chimps as Humans? Thats a mighty wide loop and would certainly encompass Bigfoot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hoekler73]

26 minutes ago, norseman said:

Humans ARE Apes scientifically speaking.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

 

And there is talk about trying to extend Human rights to fellow species of Apes.

 

https://www.nonhumanrights.org/blog/the-need-for-chimpanzee-rights/

 

It’s inconceivable that a bipedal ape man is not going to get some sort of special consideration. No matter where it falls on the primate tree.

 

Its not a direct Human ancestor, thats for sure. No matter. If they are pushing to recognize Chimps as Humans? Thats a mighty wide loop and would certainly encompass Bigfoot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valid point... with the push to grant some animals rights as sentient beings, it could quickly become relevant after a discovery scenario involving a species such as sasquatch.

 

...and as you mention, Humans are classified as one of the great Apes.

 

• Great Apes, containing the orang-utans, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans

Ape features

Apes (including humans) possess the same general features that all primates share but they differ from other primates in a number of distinctive ways.

Features that separate the apes from other groups of primates include:

• a brain that is larger and more complex than other primates
• distinctive molar teeth in the lower jaw which have a ‘Y5’ pattern (five cusps or raised bumps arranged in a Y-shape)
• a shoulder and arm structure that enables the arms to freely rotate around the shoulder
• a ribcage that forms a wide but shallow chest
• an appendix
• no external tail

 

https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/humans-are-apes-great-apes/

 

The push for rights to be given to all sentient beings will certainly effect any discovery made of this type of intelligent creature.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/12/animals-to-be-formally-recognised-as-sentient-beings-in-uk-law

Edited December 12, 2021 by Hoekler73
add url links

[Madison5716]

On 12/7/2021 at 6:36 PM, CelticKevin said:

And two mentioned that if one wanted to have a good chance of seeing "them", you should try Cascade Lakes Hwy. So as I say, I've no doubt the feds know. They just don't want to open a can of worms.

 

We've been down thataway. There's activity along there. Casual hikers and such have no idea... and I think it's a good thing that they are clueless. Let them enjoy their wilderness and let those who know, search more. To each his own.