Would Sasquatch Discovery Impact Sighting Reports?

[hiflier]

I agree, it would be a minor irritation, but would anyone really pay any attention? I don't think reports, true or false, will matter much when sensible people are thinking more about the plight of the Bigfoot populations once their existence has been established. Some worry greatly about the plight of the creatures now but proof of their existence may bring the subject more to the forefront, and on a wider scale. Habitat concerns might become more critical but where it would lead us, or what it would lead us to conclude, could affect much in the way we look at our environment as a whole. The term "tree hugger" has always been used to leave a sour taste in the minds of the general public concerning people that have worked through action to save the forests from development and encroachment. Maybe that sour taste will go away and a new generally accepted respect for more actively preserving Nature's wild places will take hold.

Edited February 19, 2022 by hiflier

[Foxhill]

24 minutes ago, hiflier said:

I agree, it would be a minor irritation, but would anyone really pay any attention? I don't think reports, true or false, will matter much when sensible people are thinking more about the plight of the Bigfoot populations once their existence has been established. Some worry greatly about the plight of the creatures now but proof of their existence may bring the subject more to the forefront, and on a wider scale. Habitat concerns might become more critical but where it would lead us, or what it would lead us to conclude, could affect much in the way we look at our environment as a whole. The term "tree hugger" has always been used to leave a sour taste in the minds of the general public concerning people that have worked through action to save the forests from development and encroachment. Maybe that sour taste will go away and a new generally accepted respect for more actively preserving Nature's wild places will take hold.

What would have to change, they live side by side with us in all environments over hundreds/thousands of years, in complete obscurity, never one documented case of ever injuring anyone and not one shred of scientifically verifiable evidence, up to the point of discovery. 

 Seems like they are doing just fine.  

[Doug]

As a hunter, being increasingly locked out of my traditional hunting grounds of 45 years has been very frustrating. My inability to hike in more than 3miles anymore, further frustrates me when it comes to public land and national forests. Public land is very crowded the first 5 miles in my area. Concentrating people in an ever tightening circle or charging money to enter beyond the means of the average person is what is beginning to happen in the area I have always enjoyed. The point is that it will effect the outdoor businesses. Oregon ( my home of 57 years) was once a rich state with rich counties enjoying low taxes because of the timber industry and agriculture. Now that is not the case. Some spotted owls, a few other birds, a few amphibians and a turtle or two that most Oregonians have never seen put an end to that. Would it effect the mining industry, hunting, hiking, kayaking, camping. etc.? Yes it would. Possibly negatively on some, maybe positively on others.

[Hoekler73]

I think reports would increase with verification, in part because I believe a large portion of sightings are not reported due to a fear of ridicule. Once it is common knowledge that Sasquatch are a reality more people would come forward and tell their stories.

[Doug]

When it comes to preserving natures wild places, the question of how humans negatively affect the sasquatch specifically or how they will in a future setting, would have to be addressed. Would humans affect the sasquatch more so than other wildlife so much that additional areas would need to be restricted from use by humans in any other capacity other than limited guided tours? If the discovery of the sasquatch increases tourism and brings them in by droves, would that make the sasquatch even more stressed? How many sasquatches have to inhabit how much land before we close it off? This is a very complicated situation that may affect millions of peoples lives directly or indirectly. Then again, it may not make much of difference to anyone other than those who are interested in sasquatches or the discovery is squelched and suppressed by the powers that be.

[hiflier]

15 minutes ago, Foxhill said:

What would have to change, they live side by side with us in all environments over hundreds/thousands of years, in complete obscurity, never one documented case of ever injuring anyone and not one shred of scientifically verifiable evidence, up to the point of discovery. 

 Seems like they are doing just fine.  

 

And that may very well be true today. But discovery isn't about today, Foxhill. It's about tomorrow. Discovery is about tomorrow and the decades beyond. And that's the point as we lose around 6,000 acres A DAY to land that is repurposed for other activities. This is unsustainable which means that animal populations are on a timer. Check the stats on what has gone extinct just in the last fifty years. The Sasquatch is the proxy for the much larger issues that we are facing. Greed doesn't stop, development doesn't stop, and loss of open space will not stop. As Doug said:

24 minutes ago, Doug said:

Oregon ( my home of 57 years) was once a rich state with rich counties enjoying low taxes because of the timber industry and agriculture. Now that is not the case. Some spotted owls, a few other birds, a few amphibians and a turtle or two that most Oregonians have never seen put an end to that. Would it effect the mining industry, hunting, hiking, kayaking, camping. etc.? Yes it would. Possibly negatively on some, maybe positively on others.

 

Small animals all, and none are ever accused of either being Homo, our cousins, a missing link, or any other some such thing. But a very large, hairy, biped that isn't allowed to see the public light of day? Yeah, there's a very strong and potentially disastrous reason that that hasn't been allowed to happen. That the creature, in the official sense, is technically unrecognized across the board, but not said to not exist.

 

[hiflier]

27 minutes ago, Doug said:

When it comes to preserving natures wild places, the question of how humans negatively affect the sasquatch specifically or how they will in a future setting, would have to be addressed. Would humans affect the sasquatch more so than other wildlife so much that additional areas would need to be restricted from use by humans in any other capacity other than limited guided tours? If the discovery of the sasquatch increases tourism and brings them in by droves, would that make the sasquatch even more stressed? How many sasquatches have to inhabit how much land before we close it off? This is a very complicated situation that may affect millions of peoples lives directly or indirectly. Then again, it may not make much of difference to anyone other than those who are interested in sasquatches or the discovery is squelched and suppressed by the powers that be.

 

Yeah, this is just a great post. As I said somewhere on the first page, it's complicated. Anyone reading through this thread will hopefully see that not only is it complicated but that the complications are quite numerous, both huge and small. I thought this topic might help people dig into their brains a bit and really look at this in areas of their own lifestyles, personal philosophies, interests in all things natural and otherwise and maybe understand a bit better just what verifying Bigfoot's existence might mean. "Oh, look. Bigfoot remains." "Oh, look. Bigfoot DNA." That would only be the beginning of an extremely enormous Bigfoot snowball eventually coming down the mountain. On a very tiny scale, though. Where does that leave a researcher who is out in the field who has the aim, and goal, of publicly proving this creature exists? Anything to be said about that?

Edited February 19, 2022 by hiflier

[hiflier]

This may be a good time to take a break and tell you about a dream I had just last night. This is a true story, I did have this dream. It was as vivid as watching a movie in color as I always dream in color. I myself was not in this dream, I was only the watcher. For some reason, and don't ask me why, it involved one of our esteemed members, JKH. And remember this is a purely fictional story, being only a dream and all. But everything looked real: The sample locations, the lab settings, the people...everything. And all in living color with dialogue and other sounds....pretty amazing really since I usually don't remember my dreams a few seconds after waking up.

 

In the dream, JKH had an elderly family member who was a retired geneticist, and knowing JKH's interest in Bigfoot, said that if JKH ever had any environmental samples that needed testing that he would drop everything and run the tests. Well, as it happened, JKH had collected a water sample in a jar and brought it to this family member who, as promised, ran the test. What was found were a lot of normal animals along with what the geneticist only described as being odd sequences. When pressed by JKH as to what the sequences were, the geneticist again merely replied, "Odd" but asked JKH to go out and get another sample which JKH obligingly did. But the sample was taken at a different water source and, after testing, was told that the "odd" sequences were absent and so the first sample must have just been a fluke.

 

JKH told the geneticist that the sample came from a different source and so was asked to go back out to the original location and take another water sample. The testing was repeated with the second sample from the original source and it was found that the odd sequences were again present and that they matched perfectly with the very first sample's results. JKH then told the family member that a Dr. HV Hart had been assessing some samples and the geneticist and Dr. Hart eventually connected and sent each other their data results. They separately went through each others data and discovered that the odd sequences found in JKH's samples were an exact match for the anomalous sequences in Dr. Hart's samples.....and then I woke up

 

HEY! LOOK AT THAT! I derailed my own topic

 

 

Edited February 19, 2022 by hiflier

[Foxhill]

53 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

And that may very well be true today. But discovery isn't about today, Foxhill. It's about tomorrow. Discovery is about tomorrow and the decades beyond. And that's the point as we lose around 6,000 acres A DAY to land that is repurposed for other activities. This is unsustainable which means that animal populations are on a timer. Check the stats on what has gone extinct just in the last fifty years. The Sasquatch is the proxy for the much larger issues that we are facing. Greed doesn't stop, development doesn't stop, and loss of open space will not stop. As Doug said:

 

Small animals all, and none are ever accused of either being Homo, our cousins, a missing link, or any other some such thing. But a very large, hairy, biped that isn't allowed to see the public light of day? Yeah, there's a very strong and potentially disastrous reason that that hasn't been allowed to happen. That the creature, in the official sense, is technically unrecognized across the board, but not said to not exist.

 

Not at all, you seem to be ignoring the history of the flora and fauna destruction of the continental US the past 200-300 years. The suggestion that a giant monkey man survived this to current times or retreated and then repopulated those areas undetected is absurd, but fun to talk about. 

 

 

[hiflier]

With all due respect (and thank you, those are great graphics), those images represent virgin forests only. But even so, and I'm not making this up, the second, third, and forth generation growths are being pushed back more and more in the name of progress and development for Human habitation and other Human activities. Will Sasquatch discovery stop all that? Probably not, but maybe it could at least get such expansion down to a slower rate.

[Foxhill]

41 minutes ago, hiflier said:

With all due respect (and thank you, those are great graphics), those images represent virgin forests only. But even so, and I'm not making this up, the second, third, and forth generation growths are being pushed back more and more in the name of progress and development for Human habitation and other Human activities. Will Sasquatch discovery stop all that? Probably not, but maybe it could at least get such expansion down to a slower rate.

 

While you seem to dismiss the graphic, but then use the example of third/fourth generation growth seems to be a little odd, but you do you.

 The suggestion of Bigfeets being able to survive the near deforestation east of the Mississippi, while virtually anything else above 30lbs was brought to near extinction, would indicate to me Bigfeets have an extraordinary capability to adapt to changing environments.

 It would seem their discovery would require very little adjustment or impact on human activity.   

[Doug]

50 minutes ago, hiflier said:

third, and forth generation growths are being pushed back more and more

Along with this, second, third and fourth generation growths, when managed by timber companies especially and man in general such as government agencies, offer very little in from of wildlife sustainability. I read an extensive study in a black tailed deer biology textbook used in one or more Universities in Oregon, that black tailed deer in managed timber lands, are very under nourished due to habitat loss. I thought how can that be? Well as it turns out, a clearcut is made, it is sprayed for may years to de-foliage it until the replanted trees reach a certain size. It is at this point the deer find it desirable and does bring forth twins and triplets. The population grows, however, so do the trees and fast! The trees overtake the vegetation and leaves the deer with little to eat. The experimentation involved in reaching this conclusion was very eye opening. So, using this as a guide and I think we can apply this to other ungulates as well as other animals in general, as the book showed and classified the fast growing replanted trees and spraying of vegetation as habitat loss rather than gain, the wildlife is hit hard from all angles.

[Doug]

The study also conclude that animals flourish in forests of mixed age and black tailed deer and elk did best in clearcuts that had ample vegetation and old growth forests which have a large amount of understory vegetation. The intermediate part of growth cycle offed little in the way of food, but offer much in the way of cover. If our Oregonian sasquatches get a good portion of their calories from deer and vegetation, I would think that these variables should be considered in their overall wellbeing and may offer clues as to has happened to them, much like the other wildlife that seem to be waning. The areas I have had encounters held clearcuts, second, growth timber and old growth timber all in the same vicinity of each other.

Edited February 19, 2022 by Doug

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Discovery will end the mystery for me. Subsequently ending the fascination. 

Then we move on for conservation and protection. I support it, but once the mystery is solved either way.

I am not an animal activist hence little or no interest. 

Bottom line, I like unsolved mysteries. 

Edited February 19, 2022 by Patterson-Gimlin

[hiflier]

I don't dismiss the graphic at all. But it's a virgin forest graphic. We have more forest now than we've had in the past. a net 18 million more acres in the last 30 years. It isn't the size of the forest and woodland though, it's the type of usage. Woodland on Google Earth looks great until one zooms in and sees houses and other structures deep in remote rural areas. It isn't just solid uninterrupted habitat. New homes and developments and older ones are sprinkled everywhere deep inside what from certain view elevations looks like uninterrupted habitats. and it isn't cluster housing, it's paved roads with widely spaced residences. A generalization? Yes. True for the most part but sub-suburban sprawl is real and continuing.

 

And as Doug has pointed out from studying, there is an impact with the kinds of habitats that result from accepted harvesting practices. It changes the land dynamic for supporting wildlife. There is a cycle where it's not good, good for a while, and then not good again. Do such studies, or the reasons for them, make a difference, I cannot answer that. Plenty of food, water, safe havens, and non intrusion by Humans, though, isn't a bad combination as long as a given habitat can sustain those requirements indefinitely. And I haven't even brought up the devastation left behind after very large wildfire, or which there have been many just in the last 10 years alone.

 

These are only facets of the thread's topic of discussion regarding a possible shift in the number of reports if discovery happens. But the present conditions described in these last few posts could change, even gradually, if Bigfoot was verified as an extant non-Human North American primate. And what's to stop that from happening? Which, by itself, is another dynamic that could be in play from a researcher/discoverer's point of view. And even if there was a surge in the submission of older reports, if Bigfoots are removed from around more Human inhabited areas and either dispatched, or taken to more remote areas, the number of new reports may actually decline.

 

23 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Bottom line, I like unsolved mysteries.

 

OOOO BABY! You and me both. And this is a good'n

Edited February 19, 2022 by hiflier