Would Sasquatch Discovery Impact Sighting Reports?

[hiflier]

The title of this thread speaks for itself. Does anyone think reports would increase, decrease, or otherwise be affected in any way? Would reports coming in that are fabricated by hoaxers increase or decrease? Might there be a potential to overwhelm the report "system" that includes websites other than the BFF, such as the BFRO and other organizations that invite people to submit their reports? Would honest reporting jump if people found out they weren't crazy and could say "I told you so" to their friends, family members, and co-workers? Would local groups suddenly see a jump in people wanting them to come investigate there experiences or encounters?

 

Would opinions on the size of the Bigfoot population in North America be affected? Other ideas for how things might or might not change are welcome to include larger entities such as state and local government institutions like Park Service, Forestry Service, and Fish and Wildlife? The floor is open....    

[MIB]

You pose a good question .. several of them.   

 

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

Does anyone think reports would increase, decrease, or otherwise be affected in any way?

 

I think the number of reports would increase.   

 

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

Would reports coming in that are fabricated by hoaxers increase or decrease?

 

I suspect there would be less perceived value to the hoaxer in hoaxing so if anything, I think it would decrease.    (Example: where's the "gotcha" in faking the existence of green crayons if green crayons really exist?)

 

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

Might there be a potential to overwhelm the report "system" that includes websites other than the BFF, such as the BFRO and other organizations that invite people to submit their reports?

 

This could indeed be an issue for those running bigfoot related web sites.   You may recall that during the Ketchum "stuff", even the BFF had to lock down access to existing members only to keep the web servers, etc from being overwhelmed as people searched the 'net for info about bigfoot.    To stay up yet publicly accessible, a number of sites will have to expand server capacity.

 

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

Would honest reporting jump if people found out they weren't crazy and could say "I told you so" to their friends, family members, and co-workers?

 

I perceive these as 2 separate questions.   

 

First, regarding reporting, when Finding Bigfoot, for example, hit the air (or cable :)) waves, report volume increased.   It was not all new reports, it was reports of older events people had not previously filed .. either to avoid ridicule or simply because they didn't know where to file their report or even that filing a report was a thing.   So yes, I think simply by increasing awareness, there would be an increase in honest reports.   

 

Second, I don't think "I told you so" would drive an increase in reporting, rather, I think it would drive an increase in queries against the various groups' databases.   That's where the substance backing up "see, I told you" is to be found, not in increased reporting.

 

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

Would local groups suddenly see a jump in people wanting them to come investigate there experiences or encounters?

 

Probably.   Yes.   Almost certainly.

 

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

Would opinions on the size of the Bigfoot population in North America be affected?

 

In a sense.   There are some opinions I think are just "bat guano crazy."   I suspect the existence of more solid evidence would drive some of the more outlandish opinions into hiding leaving those opinions seemingly more aligned with whatever science we have at the moment in the forefront.

 

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

Other ideas for how things might or might not change are welcome to include larger entities such as state and local government institutions like Park Service, Forestry Service, and Fish and Wildlife?

 

That's hard to say.   I think it depends on the public whim of the moment .. on whatever already has momentum defining the canvas that the discovery picture gets painted on.    That .. current? .. shifts with public views / attention / interest of the moment.    

 

Building on your question, I wonder about those things and whether the answers are different in the short run vs the long run.    I could see a major fuss coming out of discovery but I don't know that it would last.   We, collectively, don't have much attention span, especially when the issue seems half a continent away vs the thing in our personal back yard that we have to deal with daily.   

 

For me it's hard to predict how, or even whether, it affects resource extraction industries in the long run, or whether it affects conservation efforts in the long run.   I definitely see short run pressures, I just don't know whether they persist after the initial clamor.     My instinct is they fade out but I recognize the possibility that I have it backwards, that there's a sort of positive feedback loop, and the impacts instead grow almost boundlessly.  

 

I think an aspect .. sort of unpredictable / uncontrollable .. depends on what sasquatch prove to be biologically.   How close they truly are to us.    It could change the impacts completely.  Could change which agencies have anything to say about it completely.   And so on.

 

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

The floor is open....

 

Thanks for a very insightful set of questions.

 

MIB

[hiflier]

Thank you for your compliment, your thoughts, and the way that you organized and separated out your answers to the OP. Your comments are most valuable in both their scope and in making a pretty fair delineation between short term and long term possible effects. One thing I could say, after giving things some thought would be the ripples across the internet as a whole both nationally and internationally. In a specific sense, simply in the media whether it's long term or short. I see no doubt that both cable as well as web news outlets will carry not only the revelation, but also opinion and Bigfoot celebrities along with scientific talking heads will become in demand for interviews.

 

I see science forums, outlets that disseminate scientific discovery and innovation, and science blogs all have their dialogue shift. That would include anthropology sites and blogs, Human evolution sites and blogs and so many other related disciplines such as genetics. Probably all of the hunting Forums in the US and beyond. Of course, this would have to depend on if the discovery has been an open book that has been peer reviewed and verified. Something that I truly think will happen.

 

I guess I don't have to mention what skeptics Forums and blogs might have to say to something that is scientifically proved to exist and scientifically accepted as fact. It boggles my mind to think that one Sasquatch, or some kind of verifiable physical evidence of it existence, could potentially cast such a large net on the world. I guess one question would be would one person or one group that brought in the evidence be at all ready to the notoriety of being the one or ones responsible for the wave that would change and affect so much?

 

And what about what might happen here on the BFF? THAT would be a pretty good discussion in and of itself.

 

Edited February 18, 2022 by hiflier

[Tylo]

I agree with MIB.  I think old reports would surface and new reports added.  What bothers me about the current reporting scene is that reports coming from "certain" people are valued more than other reports for the most part.  You don't need to have a PHD., LEO, military, forestry experience to have sightings/events.  Not to mention a chunk of information deemed too odd to report.  I actually like reading/hearing about everything that may be connected to Sasquatch.  It helps me a great deal.  I have no doubt more reports are out there and people are reticent to tell their stories.

[hiflier]

Yes, and even the old reports would seem new to us. But do you thing there would also be an influx wave of new members who sign up for info on the discovery, to ask their questions, as well as offer their sighting experiences? Outside of the BFRO, who says they do not have the personnel as it is to handle all of the stuff that comes in, the next in line could very well be THIS Forum. There are a handful of members here who stepped up to say they would investigate a report in their area, or somewhat near them, if it could be determined that the encounter really happened. But I could see them being buried in new reports as might be the BFF in general. But that just this site and the BFRO.

 

It doesn't take all that many Sasquatches, say, over a thirty year period to generate a lot of public sightings. And since right now there's not much in the way of data to tell us whether or not that the same Sasquatch is responsible for 50 unknown reports that suddenly surface that had been previously unreported. That said, is this thread worth considering when it comes to the point when discovery, after being scientifically verified, hits the public? We, don't know when discovery will happen, of course, but people are getting smarter and technologies are getting better and public awareness right now is sailing pretty high if every John and Jane are owning a Bigfoot bottle opener of other some such trinket. TV news, believe it or not has done it's part in keeping the subject active, snickering and eye rolling or not. IMHO, discovery could be a real fiasco in the fullest sense of the word.

 

Oh, and there's more......much, much more. For one thing, I would be able to hang up my Sasquatch DNA snow sampling scoops and believe me, doing that would only account for a tiny speck on the elephant's ear of citizen science Sasquatch research.

[Tylo]

To me, it would be a relief if more reports surfaced.  I want ALL of the experiences associated with Sasquatch, though.  I'm not sure reports always need to have an investigator/vetting.  I would think some people would just want to tell their experience and be done with it.  It really can be too unsettling for people. 

 

I'm afraid it won't happen because too many people would be terrified and stay away from parks/nature and too many would try to hunt/kill them and injure other humans while trying.   I can imagine droves of hunters trying to bag a Sasquatch.

[hiflier]

Well, hunters have already been out there and for years. And since the creature isn't recognized there's no motivation to place a moratorium on hunting them as it would tip people off that they do in fact exist. As it is, not being on a list a animals that are valid for hunting, the laws protecting them are as in place as they are going to be. so one of the issues linked to discovery might be closing down areas normally open to hunting that overlap with habitat. But that couldn't happen unless there was a verified creature presence. In a way that would let the public and the more discerning BF researchers know that government could indeed locate these populations all along. And, that they probably knew about them and where they were, but they would make the program of doing this "search" seem like some kind of new thing instituted because of this "new" discovery.

 

These creatures are big, roam around, build nests, have young, forage, swim, drink water, leave tracks, leave DNA, leave scat, howl, knock on trees, and that's not all. And they've been conducting these kinds of behaviors for hundreds if not thousands of years.....but government doesn't KNOW about them. That whole concept just makes me laugh. Of course government knows about them. In that regard, discovery might not be very much fun for, say, the outfir that handles our national parks and forests: the Department of Agriculture.

 

And speaking of me hanging up my snow scoops, what about the rest of the Bigfootforum's researchers? And not just the BFF's researchers but Bigfoot researchers everywhere likeNAWAC and the BFRO, along with their expedition programs and other groups that conduct expeditions. And then there are the soloists who go in remote places alone? What about them? Would any of that still be tolerated in a new climate of Bigfoot discovery? These are not small matters.

[Doug]

If proven to exist, it would never be legal to kill one by hunters. The legal system, when it comes to hunting, is very strict and regulated. Poachers illegally out to kill something is unfortunately another story.

[hiflier]

It's illegal now. But there's more hunting area in North America at present than there might be after the Sasquatch is scientifically verified. And on top of that, instead of F&W agencies in every state currently not recognizing the species, ALL F&W agencies will be forced to recognize the species. It may also mean that science will eventually record their own audio of howls and tree knocks or at least study the audio tracks currently available through our researchers. It may be the quickest way for science to get a handle on possibly locating Sasquatch habitat...or proximity to Human occupied areas, rural and otherwise, as well as on reservation land.

 

Makes me wonder if an official admission of knowing about these creatures and/or an official apology would be in the offing. Doubt it, but nice to think about anyway So discovery isn't just about resource harvesting, tourism, and and other industries. That's a pretty big picture but entire picture is a much bigger than that. And as they say all politics are local, I think the same thing can be said for Sasquatch discovery. It will affect people down to the local level in many ways- including the dialogue here on this Form and probably a shift in the researching activities that we discuss here nearly every day: the 411's, proper guns for take down or defense, research gear, devices, following tracks, casting tracks, going to conferences, Dr, Meldrum, the ground nests, DNA, the SSR, the PGF, and so much else here that is Bigfoot related.

 

As I've been venturing out looking for my trackway in snow this whole thread has been forming from the thoughts I've had during my quiet times in the field and my weekly  drives to and from locations. It has just taken me a while to gather all of the separate elements and points into a cohesive picture worth presenting. At least I hope it's worth presenting.

Edited February 19, 2022 by hiflier

[Doug]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

It's illegal now.

How does the procuring of a physical type specimen fit into this statement?

[hiflier]

It's complicated. Try shooting an eagle covertly and drop it onto the doorstep of a university or other facility for study and see what happens. Now try to do that with a 600 lbs. hairy biped. I honestly do not think people realize that for something like a Sasquatch, because it is so rare, someone in authority is and has been keeping an eye on it. Especially if making sure it never gets discovered is job one. This is some serious stuff. VERY serious. I look at poaching as referring to animals one tries to kill secretly to bring home- not as a way to have science study it.

 

Some years ago I had a Cooper's hawk fly into someone's window and break its neck. I called the local Audubon to see if they wanted it and they said yes. Then they said I couldn't touch it or have it in my possession without their permission some they okayed my transporting it to them. Had I not asked and got caught with it- even if I was bringing it to them? Heavy fine! If I just brought it home? Poaching....with potentially worse consequences. So never mind shooting a Bigfoot, even having a piece of one would be a disaster if one was ever caught. Even delivering a piece to a lab for testing is a taking a tremendous legal risk. And there would be NO guarantees that the outcome would result in the announcement that Sasquatches were real. Can you imagine some head of a reputable lab sitting on that sample. The announcement alone would ruin the lab and the labs owner.

 

Someone shooting one and taking the specimen, whole or in part, is only the beginning. And they may think it's worth the heavy risk to do so. But the lab people will probably think differently since thy don't have the authority to accept the remains of a rare or endangered species without authorization, whether the species is recognized or not. It is a highly dangerous move up every step of the ladder. And in today's climate of surveillance and the heightened capability to monitor animals, I truly doubt anyone would get anything out of the woods, in whole or in part. Especially if it's a Sasquatch. What happens in the woods is one thing. What happens between the woods and the lab is another. And what happens AT the lab is yet another. And I shudder to think what happens AFTER the lab.

 

But I'm mainly interested it what may happen here on the BFF should discovery occur- which it will. I just think it happening by way of a physical specimen is next to zero. At least as far as we discuss it- even regarding finding a dead one. It is a highly risky and dangerous undertaking that has serious repercussions built in. If a university or F&W discover a dead one, which I think has probably already happened, and maybe more than once, then we more than likely would never hear about it.

 

Edited February 19, 2022 by hiflier

[Tylo]

If you are talking about how it would affect the BFF, I do think it would have high traffic.  Those who are curious and want to know what to look for and it would probably get more reports.  I saw How To Hunt's first Bigfoot video when he posted it and it exploded after that.  The comments usually have people telling their stories.  People want to tell their stories in a fairly safe environment, of course it can be like an echo chamber which is not always good. His channel is helping some people with PTSD by just being able to tell their story.  Of course, nobody really knows who/what they are dealing with.

[hiflier]

Do you think once the creature's existence is verified by science that most people's curiosity would be satisfied and people would come here and onto other Forums to finally tell of their encounters? Second question might be would those that are currently searching for the creature, no longer needing to assure themselves that Bigfoot would still go out searching? Maybe just to have a personal experience for themselves?

[hiflier]

The bottom line is I am out to discover evidence that can be verified by science that this creature exists. And then make the results public. Period. But ALL of my comments in this thread so far have been running around in my brain these past few months. And on top of all of that there are the reports about nuisance Sasquatches being removed by who knows who. It's a LOT to consider even when only out to collect samples that may possibly contain the creature's DNA. The whole thing has been weighing down heavily, not only on my motivation to stay the course, but also on my resolve in light of the potential enormity concerning the fallout discovery could bring on. How deep would the ripple go? Simply on the consumer supply side, from new tires and shocks for ATV's to that new soap dish someone wants for their camper, to what extent would manufacturing and livelihoods be affected?

 

This would be above and beyond anything like the various resource extraction industries. Discovery sounds like a very cool, and even a romantic endeavor but, in reality, could carry a very heavy burden indeed. This world, and North America in particular, has a very interwoven economy where things depend on other things to keep flowing smoothly. So far that has been the case for a society that has been running without being hindered by the truth about Bigfoot. What happens when the truth comes out? And what happens to the person, or persons, initially responsible for that truth coming out? In that sense then, would a scientific lab facility fair better than the person, or persons, that procured the sample and brought it to the lab? Or would no one care because disovery initially would be so amazing?

[Foxhill]

The sighting reports would bump up somewhat, new attention seekers would pile on with their fabrications, the misidentifications would increase as well.