Hi guys....somewhat new member here, but long time Sasquatch enthusiast and hunter. One of the driving reasons I am searching for convincing proof of this creature is my love of the forests here in the PNW. I feel that if a large hairy primate is found to be residing in these forests...and somebody with a VERY big name like Goodall could get behind it, it could start a huge wave of forest conservation. Look at the circus around the panda...an animal with arguably much smaller range. Or consider the Koala!! Stuffed animals!
What do you guys think? And thanks for the opportunity to post here!

I think you're probably right....although the logging companies wouldn't be too happy about it and would fight it to the death. A couple years ago I heard a guy relate a story about a friend of his who worked in logging, who told the guy that workers like him were specifically told to NOT discuss anything sasquatch-related, and never to report a sighting.

Don't know how true that is, and if it's true, how widely that unofficial policy is practiced... but that's one industry that would freak if bf's existence were to be proven.

We have to have some logging done to keep the forest stable. I'm sure there is ENOUGH laws on the books to protect the forest!

Belle

Gotta agree with Belle.......and....i wonder about the term "forest conservation"....Thumper seems to imply that our forests aren't "renewable"......i've lived and worked in our national forests...for logging companies and the U.S.F.S......and know some of what was done...right and wrong......locking them up isn't the right answer......bigfoot or no bigfoot......and i don't think we need any more laws to manage our forests in a responsible way......

Are you being sarcastic? I'm honestly not sure.

I do think that if Sasquatch were proven to exist in the PNW, it would be a great thing for everyone except those whose livelihoods depend on logging, as logging would then be tied up in legal wrangling over the protection of Sasquatch habitat.

-robo

At one time, some peoples livelihood depended on buggy whip sales. I'm sure the buggy whip manufacturers/salesmen had an uproar when the Model T was invented.

situations change, jobs follow.

If I were in the logging industry, I'd be eyeballing investments in hemp, before Canadian farmers snake us in a very lucrative market.

Oh! I thought 'cannibis' hemp...never mind!

I can not see how things would change. They survived this long w/o habitat protection.
I could imagine the anti everything crowd using bf as a poster child.

Call me an 'anti-everythingist', but i think that's a rather blithley optimistic view you have there. Just because something isn't extinct yet doesn't mean that it's doing well. Should we wait until day the BF reports stop, as has happened for many known species, and then scratch our heads and say "what happened?"?


-robo

Forests always regenerate even when clear cutting is involved, (i speak from experience) what do you think happen's after a forest fire...everything stops growing? Its a natural process the soil need's it to refertilize and clear cutting isnt as widespread as it used to be, company's now opt alot more for selective cutting.
I remember an adicdote that id like to share on this subject...during the mid 80's when i was cutting for a north west ontario company(i must of been 18 at the time), me and my teamate stumbled onto an old logging camp that must of been used during the 50's...the old camp was moss covered and only about 4'high but probably 8' when it was fonctional, im saying this cause we found old Pioneer chain-saw parts underneath the moss...the grand-father ones that you could twist the blade,anyways mature second growth tree's were growing right in the middle of this old camp...just geos to show ya, if you dont pour concrete over it and build houses it will grow back

My first job, out of high school was working in the woods, setting chokers. (I later became a "Timber Faller.") Working in the woods was something I wanted to do! The thought of being a part of a heritage that carved its way through the Pacific North West seemed... well... very romantic to me I suppose.

Within 2 years of me becoming a logger, somebody found a little owl that supposedly only lived in Virgin Timber. A bunch of bed wetters', wearing "Birkenstocks", were suddenly telling the folks in Salem (Oregon's Capitol) that the spotted owl would become extinct if we didn't stop "ALL" logging! Many good men (and a few tough women) lost their jobs to a little bird!

Looking at my entire career flash before my eyes was not an easy thing to do... but my Father reminded me that "Only those who adapt... will survive". I considered the spotted owl issue to be the preverbal "writing on the wall", and I began to pursue other avenues of employment.

The little town that I was living in became a hot issue for the local press. This was due largely because there were so many of the town's folk "crying" that they would have to roll up the streets, if the "tree huggers" shut down the woods!!! I wasn't sure what was gong to happened to my sleepy little community... but I moved forward with my life and never looked back to the logging industry.

Several years latter, I found myself working in Wisconsin. Things were doing well for me, and many of the locals would often make comments to me about the "Idiots in Oregon who would allow a small bird destroy the livelihoods of many hard working families". I simply told them that I really didn't know what was going to happen to Oregon's economy.

When I flew back home to Oregon, I was pleased to find out that Oregon had not fallen into the ocean, (because of the environmental issues,) and that our aircraft actually had a place to land! Once on the ground... I returned to my sleepy little town and noticed new housing and business developments! Only a few log trucks meandered down the highway... and the logs they carried were much smaller. (I remember a time when a log truck could only carry (1) one log at a time!)

So... what happened?

Somewhere in-between the yelling and the screaming between the "Loggers' and the Conservationist"... something kinda neat happened. The logging was not stopped all together... but rather, they now like to use the terms, "Forest Beatification Practice", and "Select Logging Forest Management". Simply put... it means that only select trees can be cut, and in only selected areas. The local Mills had to adapt, and become creative with their machinery, to accommodate the smaller trees, and to produce less wasted wood from what trees they did get. New businesses sprang up to accommodate the new timber industery, and men and women, who were willing to adapt, went back to work.

I spoke with an old friend who "adapted" to a changing logging industry. He said that I should have stayed in it! (I'm glad I didn't!) He explained that once you know how to work within the new logging "arena"... there is still good money to be made! BUT!!!... you have to adapt!!! Yes!... the forests are truly America's renewable resource... you just have to use a little wisdom in your approach when considering a career in the timber industery!

If Sasquatch was found and proven to be real... there would once again be "change" in the way the public views how the forests should be managed. (And... as you already know, most people hate change!) I'm sure we would see many restrictions that we are not accustomed to, and at first... they may be really hard to swallow. Coming from a family that was supported by the logging industry... I have to say that (so far..) the changes that have been made have been good ones.

Yes!... you can still find that poor old logger on the evening news with the tear in his eyes saying how he has lost everything. (I think in the Mid-West... you call them "Farmers") I hate to see these images just as much as the next man. Unemployment, due to environmental fanatics is a hard pill to swallow. (I know!) But, if there is one thing I have discovered about myself, it is this... I can not save every logger who refuses to adapt. I can only adapt myself and look towards the future!

Have a great day!

Donnie

OH!!!... by the way! They have now learned that the spotted owl does not live solely in Virgin Timber!!! In fact... they have actually been "spotted" in the high desert, roosting in sage brush! (Well... who would have ever guessed that would have happened?)

Great post, Donnie

I don't know but i haven't seen a connection to trees and sas. he's spotted in a variety of habitat. they haven't been cutting old grown in quite some time now. they have been cutting second & third growth. tree farms. deer bear elk rabbits ect all thrive in it more than big timbered areas. since sas is often found in these tree farms. he must not have any problems either. good cover, lots of food. stoping cutting in tree farms makes no sence at all. these tree farms provide good access for hunting ,fishing ,camping. i'm out there all the time. the way it's layed out is good for just about any kind of wildlife out there. theres timber patches,clearcut areas, reprod. it all serves a purpose. with the amount of land the timber companys owns , dnr property and national forest. it adds up to a lot. put the timber companys out of work. whats that going to do. there aren't going to sit on land thats not going to make them any money. what been going on around here is they have been selling their land off to the real estate companys who develope. and thats whats destroying the forests. the enviromentalist have been buddying up to the timber companys to come up with a plan that keeps the land green and not covered over with asphalt. proveing sas. exists would probably keep them from cutting old growth. witch they more than likely won't be cutting much if any ever again . i'm quite certain the timber companys know their there(sas)as the goverment also dose. and where there at. when I look at bfro reports.
and compare it to land that has been lock up tight. the dates of the reports sure seem to match when it was locked up. their is several very large areas that was once opened for hunting and has been turn in to wilderness areas. or areas that have been locked as long as i can remember. I have been hunting close to it and have been stop by game wardens and ask 20 questions. this has happened many times. looking over the hunting regs. they show area522 in cowlitz& skamania co. as being closed to all hunting and traping. makes no sence! this is a good area. its also high on sas. sightings. I have been trying to figure this out. what i think is we are being jerked off!

Hi guys, I did not mean to step on anyones toes by implying I was solely for "forest conservation". I am actually a big proponent of forest management in the logging sense. I come from a long line of Hard Rock Miners and know how vital jobs like these that rely on natures bounty are. Loggers also like to take walks and camp in the woods just as any of us do. The truth is that recent studies have shown that Real estate DEVELOPMENT causes TEN TIMES the loss of forest here in the PNW that logging does. That is why a bunch of recent sightings of bigfoot have occured in what we call the cascade foothills in the midst of these new housing developments that are fastly approaching the base of the mountains. These housing developments never allow for any forests...anymore. Most logging in this area replaces what they cut. You all can see the difference.

Forests will always need to be managed as long as humans live, work and play in them. NEVER FORGET...you can log in spotted owl habitat, selectively, but they can't BUILD there. Thats what perhaps the proof of sasquatch can begin to accomplish. The recognition that human encroachment could threaten the mightiest beast in our forests. A creature I know is there, watching us eat our silly little picnics, and watching us get lost in the woods and have to be plucked up by rescue helicopters.
I now realize my thread wasnt as clear as I wished....and to make myself very clear for all of you who suspect I am too much a greenie.
LOGGING IS A VERY RESPECTABLE LIVING!!!

Hows that?

Thumper,

I don't think for one moment that you have stepped on any toes nor do I think that you have made yourself sound like a "Greenie". You have actually brought up a question that has been asked a thousand times before...

"If they would do this over a spotted owl... what would they do if they discovered Bigfoot?"

"Forest or Prairie?" I don't think it matters. If they found Bigfoot living in the rock out in the Arizona desert, there would be the special interest groups that would want to ban all human recreation and activity in "THAT" area. Even if it could be proven that Bigfoot had been thriving in that area despite man's encroachment... changes would take place in how the general public viewed the proper management of those silly rocks.

Whether it be the hardwood Forests of Upper Michigan, the Swamps of Southern America, the Great Plains of the Mid West, or the Rain Forests of Western Oregon and Washington... If Sasquatch was discovered in any one of these places, there would be an onslaught of special interest groups using Sasquatch as their leverage point to push their own agendas.

Unfortunately, in many situations, the outfall from these special interest groups have an adverse effect the general, hard working, 9 to 5 working public. Changes are made... and the only real survivors are those who can adapt. If they can do it with a little bird... they will sure do it with a thousand pound monkey!

Again!... I don't think that you have stepped on any toes! You have merely mentioned a subject that has already been asked over a thousand times before, here in the Pacific North West. And, who knows!... maybe someday they will find Sasquatch living near one of your hard rock mines, and you may find yourself asking the same questions we asked ourselves here in the Pacific North West.

Ultimatately, the real question is this... "Will you adapt?"

GREAT TOPIC!!!

Have a great day!!!

Donnie

Thats what IM afraid of!!

The mountain ridge in which we have been working in, is heavily posted with No Tresspassing signs. So that gives us a realitivly small area to work in (with permission from that land owner) leagally. The last thing we want to do is piss off private property owners. That just makes it bad for everyone who like to be outdoors.

If some envirosuperstar were to lobby to shut down all suspected BF habitat. Then only a select few(the government) would have authority to grant access to those areas.
Be careful of what you wish for.



Thought I'd add. They have also been seen nesting in K-mart signs.

Look, Stop reading more into something that isn't THERE! You have a NASTY habit of doing that!


I was just staying we don't need BF to put more laws on the books!

Belle

[quote=Medic 410,Feb 27 2004, 08:05 AM]
OH!!!... by the way! They have now learned that the spotted owl does not live solely in Virgin Timber!!! In fact... they have actually been "spotted" in the high desert, roosting in sage brush! (Well... who would have ever guessed that would have happened?)   [/QUOTE]

Thought I'd add. They have also been seen nesting in K-mart signs. [/quote]
[COLOR=blue]Please cite references for these statements? Would like to know where you read this.

Keep in mind there are many different species of owl, some look very much like many other owls that are not endangered. If you know your owls you know the difference. Also, it is not just habitat that affects populations but nesting areas and food and water sources. These owls may be seen perched a number of places, but to raise young and to survive in general they need protected areas where they can nest and readily find food.

Keep in mind to that many biologists can be paid to say whatever for whomever. Many are reputable and go by their data. But some, whether paid by logging companies or by environmental groups can be influenced to omit or add information that is not relevant.

If any of you have read Farley Mowat's book "Never Cry Wolf" can read an example of how a biologist was paid by our government to study wolves....what they wanted him to come back with was information stating that the wolves were wiping out the moose populations....instead how found the wolves were feeding mostly on mice.....he told the government this......and was fired...they got some other biologist to blame the wolves and they've been killing wolves ever since.

Getting to the truth of a matter requires diligence. If you really want to know the truth.....do the research. It's the same with BF...don't take what other people say as fact...look into the issue yourself. If you just want to mimic the party line...and dismiss anything that goes against your preconcieved opinions, then just read what other people say...but pay attention to who they work for and what the agenda really is. If I see a study published...I find out who funded the study...that can tell you a lot about people's motivations. People may have all kinds of opinions on whether or not the spotted owl is being protected to lock up forests or put people out of work. It could also be because the birds really need to be protected. The biologists with integrity only go by their raw data based on observation.

Before the Bald Eagle was listed as endangered...it took a while to discover the problem. Biologists had to find out why they were not reproducing well. Same with Peregrines, Hawks and other raptors. They found the chemical DDT built up in the birds systems through the food chain. From insects that were eaten by the fish and smaller birds that the raptors and hawks fed on. The concentration of DDT caused a malfunction in how they eggshells were formed making them too weak to withstand the pressure of the adult sitting on them. The eggs broke. Biologists found broken eggshells. Scientific deduction led to the discovery.

Is anyone going to tell me the whole thing was a ruse to shut down the production of DDT in this country??? To put pesticide manufacturers out of a job? Don't worry...the chemical companies are still making money...they just sell it to other countries who don't have strict environmental laws so they can screw up their ecosystems.

Ya know I must be crazy..I've had about 6 or seven different jobs throughout my life....I really didn't realize I'm supposed to have the same job my Daddy had and my Grand daddy...oh wait..they had different jobs too...hmmm. Oh and my brothers and sisters all have different jobs...whoa...what a concept. [COLOR=blue]

Sosha has a point. Data manipulation and falsification are not uncommon among all sides in many debates. It takes discipline and a certain amount of expertise to ferret out accurate and relevant data and put aside the preconceived notions. And money does talk when it comes to buying experts, but the money is not limited to timber interests.

My fifth of a nickle on the logging issue--selective cutting can be good for the health of the forest. Small scale clear cutting can be good for species diversity, because margins are very active habitats. We do need to maintain some old growth. The absence of it is probably why we lost the ivory billed woodpecker. Massive clear cutting is usually ecologically unhealthy. Soil compaction by some of the huge logging machinery used today is problematic. And herbicide drenched single species pine plantations are the worst of all--little better than Times Square as wildlife habitat. Just where my interpretation of what I believe to be valid data leads me....

-Vern

Just an observation:
I had to laugh at myself. After reading Sosha's post I went on to the next one and it was almost an optical illusion. Her font (and length of post I think) makes everything else look SO small. I even checked to see if Vern's post was of the board's typical font size. Yep, it was just me.

Sorry..I didn't mean for my font to be that big..sometimes this font selection thingy doesn't work...and I prefer blue and I got black...go figure...I hope it works this time*sigh*

Anyway...in regards to BF, because he as a species is so elusive...studying him would be a bear...errr I mean a BF...lol...it's just really hard to study an animal that you cannot see. We have information from people all over the country but...even verifying reports of mountain lions in known habitat can be problematic. I don't think anyone wants a species to go extinct, but it's when people start perceiving inconveniences because of the protections that people get riled up.

One time when I was hiking...I watched a whole family of people cut across a switchback trail..I'm sure they thought a shortcut didn't matter...most people don't. But many people had already been cutting across this area and they made a trail. I caught up to the family and casually mentioned the shortcut and they laughed and asked me if it was bad for them to do that. I just explained that a switchback trail is designed for a reason and one of those reasons is erosion control because any time you remove vegetation from and area you allow water to run down and create a dainage which will eventually undercut and could compromise the existing trail...even cause landslides and all kinds of erosion problems. I showed them an area where this had happened. They had no idea. They apologized profusely....and I just said that now that they know they could share their knowledge with others they see. They could have told me to go jump in the lake and mind my own business...but they just didn't know and felt bad after they found out. I believe most people are like this....they just don't know the hows and whys of things and so they assume things.....they had no idea the harm they were creating....just as many people who cut down trees for a living are not thinking they are damaging anything else. They are just trying to make a living. But when you find out the how what you do affects other things...and you know the consequences of your actions and there is harm being done....yet you ignore it because you don't like the inconvenience or you just plain don't care...that is what I have a problem with.

I am very saddened about the fate of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker. I would have loved to photograph one in the wild. Now that seems impossible. They are a really majestic looking woodpecker....Woody Woodpecker I think was based on them. The closest we have here I believe is the Pileated Woodpecker? I also would like to photograph one of those...I have seen them from a distance...but they are rare.

I understand that some people don't give a damn about birds....however they make my life more enjoyable...

If anyone is interested here are some links to an interesting article on spotted owls:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...fmb-0506101.php


Also interesting info on identifying Ivory Billed Woodpeckers and Pileated Woodpeckers:

http://www.neotropicalbirdclub.org/feature...ga03/ivory.html

http://www.cryptokeeper.com/ivory.htm

sosha
i have nerver ran into a situation where you could cut any tree down you felt like. its no different than building a house. you have to draw up what you intend to do. there studies that have to be submitted. permits to acquire. and if you cut a little over the line. there are large fines they can get. any damage that has been done was from the early days of clear cutting entire regions. you mentioned erosion control. that would be one of the reasons logging companys are required to leave the mess they always leave. that and the slash gives something back to the soil. I know there are people that would like to see logging stop and we need people that push back to keep companys from running out of control. I just had to repley to your post cause you don't sound like you give loggers any credit for anything. the people I have met from logging are people who love working out doors. there not doing it because they don't know that there destroying anything. they cut what has been scheduled. logging was one of my many jobs. I would still be doing it if their was any money to be made. construction pays 2 to 3 times the money but is claiming a whole lotta land. i've seen the puget sound area absolutely explode in the last 30 years. thats the real killer!

Sosha,

You have brought of several excellent points!!!

First off.. let me say that at times my sarcasm has been confused with "Belligerence & Discontent". So... try to understand that I at times have a very sarcastic approach to "daily matters". I guess its just my way of trying to keep things light.

For a very short while, I was one of those raving Loggers who wanted to find the first "Bed Wetting, Pinko Communistic, Tree Hugger" and string them up in the nearest tree... Thus providing better roosting for our lovely Spotted Owls! (YES!!! I'm being a little sarcastic here! ) But then my Father got a hold of me and told me to settle down. Even though (at the time) most of the Willamette Valley was supported in some manner by the timber industry, and most of the residents would be effected in some way or another, my Father still stated some of the same things you have just mentioned. I considered my Father to have been a wise man... so I listened. Ultimately... I adapted to a changing world full of "inconveniences". I am a better man for it, and I think that in the long run... our forests are also better for the changes that took place.

"Data Manipulation." I have use the term "Special Interest Groups" on several occasions... And, in many cases, Weyerhaeuser itself is the "Special Interest Group". I know a Biologist for Weyerhaeuser (who is on the pay roll) and is considered to be the top in her field. And even though Oregon's Blacktail deer population is on the decline, and many are suffering from a "hair loss" condition, (Julie) is still a big proponent of spraying with helicopters a chemical to thwart off the Gypsy Moth from the fir trees. If anybody should know the dangers of pesticides... Julie should know... and yet she still publicly defends the use of this chemical. (I don't know the name of it.)

I spoke with her about 6 months ago concerning several articles that I had read, stating that new evidence was pointing towards a link between the Hair Loss in the Blacktail deer, and the Pesticides used on the forests by big corporations. She simply looked away from me and quietly said, "Yeh... It doesn't look good does it?" I KNOW that she understands the truth behind these chemicals! But... a $150,000.00 a year salary is a pretty big incentive for a single mother to continue here support a North West timber giant. But, Now we're talking about politics and greed aren't we... If a "well meaning" Special Interest group wanted to unleash their venom on a group on individual... the Biology community has plenty of candidates that need to be beaten about the head and neck!

So... who were the good folks who wrote the articles condemning the use of the pesticides? They are the ethical Biologists that you spoke of in your earlier post. Who is in defense of the use of this same Pesticide?... More Biologists! This is why many individuals, here in the Pacific North West, no longer put a whole lot of weight in what a Biologist states as fact. Many individuals see Biologists as "Just another Politician" who is easily swayed by the fickle winds of the all mighty dollar. You really don't know if your talking with an ethical Biologist... or a Biologist with "Special Interests". How is the common man or women to know? The Bible says that "You will know a man or women by theirs fruits" (Paraphrased!) Time... is probably one of the best ways to see which Biologist is on the "Up & Up" and who is just up for themselves. Unfortunately... sometimes "time" runs out and it may be to late to protect a certain species.

On occasion, a few outstanding individuals step forward in an attempt to make a difference. As a bird enthusiast yourself, I'm sure you're aware of plight of the "Swainson's Hawk". Because of one man's efforts, the use of an organophosphate, monocrotophos (Avian Toxin) has been banned in many of Argentina's known wintering grounds for the Swainson's Hawk. The chemical was used by farmers to control grasshoppers in the arid land. The problem was discovered by and American who flew down to Argentina to try and figure out why so few Swainson's Hawks were returning to their summer range here in America. It is said that the type of Avion Toxin used was so toxic, that many Swainson's Hawk's were found with grass hoppers still in their beaks. Once the problem was identified, a solution was brought before the farmers. The farmers acted quickly and the Argentine government followed suit!

Fantastic success story... all because of one concerned individual. But... If this same American had approached the Argentine farmers with the attitude that "they" (the farmers') would have to quit farming for the sake of the birds... he would have been run out of town, and the Swainson's Hawk could very well likely be on the endangered species list today. It was the WAY that this American provided the information to the farmers, while at the same time offering a solution to the problem.

People are only human! When you tell a man or woman that they must give up their lively hood for a bird... (or a Sasquatch) you are going to find that people are going to dig in their heels and refuse to budge on the issue. Its not viewed as an "inconvenience"... to the logger, farmer, miner, ect... ect... it is the thought that there is a group of people who would place an animal or a bird over the needs of humans. Even though (realistically) it IS just an "inconvenience." This is why I continue to say "ADAPT".

I do not know of a single logger, who wants to see ANY animal or bird become extinct. "Maybe the "Yellow Jacket"... I would love to see the Yellow Jacket go extinct. Or maybe the mosquito!" (Yes!... I'm being sarcastic again... well... sort of! ) But you're asking for a fight when you tell him that his needs are less than that of an owls. (Which... unless your completely inept at identifying owls... the spotted owl is one of the easiest owls to identify.) Give a man a way out... or a SOLUTION... and once he or she understands the ramifications of his or her continued practices and or ways, most individuals will take the option out. (Just like your hiker friends did!) Unfortunately... there will ALWAYS be those few individual who really don't "Give A Dam!" These are the individuals who become a problem for ALL of society!

Making my transitions in life to adapt to life's little "inconveniences" has brought me to a point in which I look forward to change. "Change" isn't always easy... but it is an opportunity to make things better... its sort of like having a "Do Over" in life. If Bigfoot was located in a particular area... drastic changes would be made. And... you would end up with at least two very different groups of people who would have their own perspective on how the situation should be handled. In the end... I think the change would be better for both society and for the forests, swamps, grass lands, ect... ect... I believe that the Pacific North West is a better place to live in the aftermath of the spotted owl issue... but it sure wasn't easy! At least... not at first.

Nothead,

Excellent point!

I use to live on Bainbridge Island, and your right... the growth is absolutely staggering! Logging (which is governed by the Biologists and professional Land Managers, through timber sales, and permits.) is far less destructive than the uninhibited growth by caused by urban development! (I miss fishing the Skagit!)

Have a great day!

Donnie

First off, Donnie welcome aboard, it's always an occasion
to celebrate when someone with a head on their shoulders
comes to the board. Very insightful posts, and appreciated...

To both Vern and Donnie, should our paths cross, first beer
is on me. First toast is for Donnie, Wei Drong Ji...

I'm sorry. I guess i have a tendency to interpret some things you write as tongue-in-cheek when they are actually not.

Sorry.

Donnie,

Thank you for your post! I love the way you think! You and I think alike more so than not. I am very sorry about your biologist friend....maybe one say when she is brave enough to go against the paycheck she will take a stand. But...money talks loud unfortunately.

I pretty much agree with everything you said...when I was younger I was much more idealistic than I am now...hmm imagine that...but as you wise up you learn something...compromising for the greater good...I've heard people whine and moan about Ducks Unlimited teaming with the Nature Conservancy buying land together that would establish a preserve for all kinds of birds. I was very happy about it...but many people weren't because they saw it as a "sleeping with the enemy" sort of thing. Some people cannot get over their predjudices. They lash out without even thinking things through. It is sort of a kneejerk paranoia thing that I personally really try to avoid. But misunderstandings do occur. People can get so married to an idea they don't want to even see the other side.

As sort of an example of the statement you brought up about giving up livelihoods:...in the field I am in...there is a lot of emotions...when you work with animals...you can't help but start to see them as individuals. We have elephants...both Asians and Africans...our Africans were raised from babies..they have never been on chains...they have never been hit. Now the Asians we aquired from a zoo and a circus. These animals show stereotypic behavior...this is where they bob their heads up and down...sway from side to side and rock from side to side. No doubt many of you have seen this behavior in elephants in both circuses and zoos. We have done a laborious amount of painstaking research into this behavior....and...we have never seen this type of behavior exhibited by any wild elephants. Likwise pacing behavior in big cats and bears is associated with pent up stress and is a reaction to being confined....many zoos now try to practice "behavioral enrichment" to try to dissuade animals from this stereotypic behavior....it really begins to bother keepers after a while because they know it is stress related. Many animal behaviorists and biologists who know this problem will tell you that once it begins and has been going on for a while...it is hard to get the animals to stop this behavior when they get stressed...it is sort of like an autistic behavior thing.

Our elephants from the circus and zoo do it less when they are in their new facility and can wander around with no chains....but it is weird...if they are prevented from going into the barn when they want to or going out when they want to...they start it again. This seems to be something they do to deal with the inability to have free will or to make a choice. Choices are very important to humans....free will is very important to us too. Take that away...we aren't so happy. Is it a leap to say animals have the same reaction??? Some people might say it is...but when you look at these animals and see how they behave...it is amazing.

Now think of all the animals in circuses and zoos that bang their heads or sway and rock....(One circus guy told me that the baby elephant bobbing his head up and down was doing it for circulation of the blood) Is it acceptable to keep them contained in such a way that induces this behavior? many organizations complained about this behavior and then zoos started increasing the size of their habitats...providing more things for the animals to play with...it helps...but it doesn't get rid of the behavior. So what do we do? People say we need zoos...do we need circuses? Okay do we need circuses with animals in them?? Do we really need to see the elephants standing on their heads? Is this educational? If we get rid of circuses all those people are out of jobs...that is what we are really after right?...No of course not...but this is what people like me are always accused of and it diverts attention away from the real problem which is....where do wild animals belong? Where do elephants belong? I understand that people want to see them....just as we want to see a BF....but then we get...well...greedy...we want to see them whenever we want....so we take them out of the wild and put them in cages. I really really have a hard time with this. It is what I am afraid will happen to BF if we find him....because it just seems that people don't often think of what is best for the animal...it is what we want...and we want it now.

I don't ever wish to harm or cause discomfort to another human being....but when we have the ability to use our brains to figure out the solution to a problem and we don't because of a paycheck or because and institution is a "tradition" that is archaic and unhealthy...well...I just wonder what is going on. In my field I don't get much of a paycheck...I do what I do because...it feels right to me. Because I don't like to see any animal suffer...I go by my own conscience...many people...just don't seem to have a conscience...or you have to dig deep to find it.

sosha,

It sounds like you have a very special job indeed! As far as my friend who works for money... I MEAN "Weyerhaeuser" She is only one of a thousand. The day she wises up, is the day she loses her job, and someone else takes her place.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in your position, you have the ability to, first hand, see the results of "cause and effect" with animals? With your job and interests, you are in position in which "Solutions" can be conceived for existing problems. If Bigfoot is ever proven to be real, there exists a very high probability that he / she will be pursued under the convenient name of "science"... and neatly packaged within the confinements of "Conservation and Protection".

A literal "Pandora's Box" will be opened, and Biologists like my friend will be called upon to "Logically, Develop the Means to Study, and Protect a New Species". Weyerhaeuser is already paying "Julie" $150,000.00 annually... how fast would she and others like her jump at a higher paying job, sanctioned by the government, (complete with Government benefits,) in the name of research? Would their prescribed interests really be in the best interest of Bigfoot?

There is a term I like to use. It is called, "Management by Crisis". Once you have the proverbial "Tiger by the Tail"... what do you do next???!!! Once the Government's sanctioned entities are in charge of deciding what to do with Bigfoot and it's habitat... (which will ultimately effect the general public) who will be the ones to temper their decisions with practical "Solutions" developed through years of hands on experience and research of "Cause and Effect"? (Whether it is with Elephants, Wolves, Tigers, Cougars ect... ect...) I can't!... I already have a job. My job is to move trains safely from one place to another. What "Practical" experience can "I". or many others like me give to a science community who can be easily swayed by money?

Hopefully, the Government will turn to the known "Problem Solvers". Those few individuals with the knack of developing "Solutions" for the benefit for not only the animals they are studying, but solutions that will also benefit millions of Registered Voters.... I MEANT TO SAY... "Families". Yes!... the Government's decision to chose the known "Problem Solvers" would be heavily influenced by those who can solve problems in such a manner that the "Solution" will create a favorable outlook from the voting populace. (Have I mentioned "Politics and Greed" yet?)

You are in a unique position, and obviously have a great job. I'm sure it is a job that many (like myself) would love to be involved in. Do you think that your real world, practical experience could be focused to benefit Sasquatch? Does anyone else on this forum have the skills that can be focused and used for the benefit of Sasquatch? If so... sharpen your skills! I'm hoping "that" day, and the changes that will surely follow suit, will come soon!

Have a great day!

Donnie

Donnie,

What I know is...captivity for animals is not the ideal situation for them. People have argued that in captivity animals are safe from disease...bullets...etc. Not really...they suffer from diseases in captivity, (cancer and cysts) they suffer from bullets (Ringling Brothers tiger trainer shot and killed a tiger after it attacked his brother)..and how many elephants have been shot and killed while in captivity...shoot in the old days they used to hang them! (visit roadsideamerica.com and click on Pet Cemetary and you'll see what I am talking about).

Anyway...I don't think you can ever give an animal in captivity the space it needs. We try...but...we have limitations. We aquired 2300 acres in Northern Cali to provide more space...but...you still have to put cages around them...you still have to contain them.

I have seen great advances in the world of zoos over the years...most of these changes were brought about as a result of activism. Until you complain about something....everyone keeps doing things the same way...when you ask why..they say..."because we were trained this way". Zoos are built to allow easy clean up and maintenance...so everything is concrete. In the wilds animals do not live on concrete. Bears do particularly bad in captivity....bears like to wander for miles, they like to stop and tears stumps apart looking for bugs and things to eat...they like to lay in the grass and sleep...they like to eat a variety of things just like people do. Many animals in captivity get fed the same thing...zoo food..a premade mixture of nutrient awful smelling crap...monkeys get monkey pellets...Purina made all the zoo food...pellets for this..pellets for that....all compact easily stored and easy to clean up when it came out. Today you will find many zoos pass on the pellets because they have learned that animals love fresh vegetables and fruits and sometimes even sweet treats and sometimes they hide them in places so the animals have to look for their food. Makes it a little more fun.

Imagine being in a room....you can look outside...you have tv..videogames...anything you want...a place to sleep...a bathroom...and your food is delivered 3 times a day...(Imagine if it was the same thing every day)..you have all you could want...but you can never ever leave that room. How would you feel about that?

Okay...do animals feel? I say YES! What I have observed leads me to believe so. But...it is just my observations...along with some others.

If Bigfoot is caught and put in a zoo for study...which would probably happen...it will not benefit him or his species in the slightest as far as I am concerned. Why do I say this? Tigers in the wild are doing poorly...despite a huge population residing in captivity...actually there are more tigers in Texas than are in the wild. How are wild bears doing? How are Grizzly bears doing? How are Wolves doing? How are primates doing? How about the Giant Panda????

Zoos breed their animals in captivity to benefit themselves and other zoos...it does nothing for the animals in the wild. Saving animals in the wild means preserving their habitat. That does mean locking up huge tracts of land to No development. That does mean thinking about the future to insure viable populations of species. I don't think locking up huge tracts of land will make humans become extinct...but it may save many animals from such a fate.

People have demonstrated that they can live anywhere...houses can be built of fiberglass...steel...glass...mud....all kinds of things other than wood. Cars can run on other things besides gasoline. But...it takes people wanting these alternatives to create a demand before these things are made available.

People study things ad nauseum...where does it lead us? What good will a study of Bigfoot reveal? That he lives in the woods and is seldom seen? That he must live on nuts and berries? That he exists? People who have seen him know he exists...when I see one I will know too. Maybe I will get a picture and I will show some people and they'll say..."that's nice...want to go shopping?" or "is that real or fake?"....I know it would be real but...if no one else does so what? The point is people have to care about the woods and what is in there to begin with and a lot of people don't. and they aren't going to care whether or not BF is real or not. They look at trees and see redwood decking or a house on a hill....it's all about them. If a tree blocks their view of the ocean...they salt the tree.. or they cut down many trees to get a better view of the river(yes this has happened more times than I care to know)

How do you get people to care about nature or about anything in nature be it the trees...the streams..the animals? You have to give them a personal connection to it...perhaps if BF were proven real...that would be the connection....I have no idea...perhaps I sound really cynical about people...I don't mean to be...it's just that I am surrounded by caged animals because of people's selfishness. I'd rather all these animals were in the wild doing their thing. But they can't be because someone put them in a cage. Someone bred them as a pet...or as a distraction to the real world. People ask me all the time....why would someone want a tiger as a pet? Because it is different and they think it is cool and it makes them seem cool...I dunno. Then the tiger eats their dog or worse and suddenly it's not so cool anymore...

Studying animals in their natural habitats yeilds more valuable information than can be had in captivity in my opinion. Putting something in a jar or a cage and studying it...helps people understand something in a captive environment...not how that animal interacts with it's real environment...what it eats...how it survives...

There is a jellyfish that exits in only the deepest parts of the ocean where the pressure is intense...they used the deep sea submersible to capture the jellyfish and bring it to the surface....the minute they opened the container the jellyfish disintegrated..yeilding nothing to study....they realized that this creature was conditioned to withstand great pressure...and without it on the surface it just disintegrates. Well, how are they going to study such a creature.

If we are going to bring an animal into captivity we should do it right....give it it's wild surroundings so that it doesn't know it is in a cage. If we capture a BF... we should have a huge enclosure with trees and dirt and natural food sources....a pool with running water....everything we think it needs...this would hopefully lessen the stress it would be under if you surround it with familiar things.

I hate cages...I have to work around them every day....but I hate them.Sorry this is long...lol!

Nothed,

I am sure what you say is true. But many people do not think they need to abide by such restrictions.

When Julia Hill came down off the Redwood tree Luna...there was all this publicity surrounding her. But...she had a message which was very simple...it was just about not cutting down every tree....maybe trying to find alternatives...not trying to put people out of jobs...but trying to save what little Redwoods there are....how many people have actually seen a redwood tree...how many people even know that is where their redwood decks come from? The tree Julia Hill sat in to make her point is hundreds of years old. Should we cut it down just cause we can?

Well....someone tried to. After it was agreed the tree would not be cut down...After she came down....over the Thanksgiving holiday when no one was around someone went up and sawed through that old redwood tree named "luna". Sawed it near in half. Sawed through it enough to create a big problem...

Why would someone do that? It could not have been one person...those trees need at least two people...two people who wanted to make the point that they could saw down any tree they wanted when they wanted too....guess that was their statement....

But instead of alienating everyone...it served to unite to opposing forces....the people who were cutting the trees down suddenly started figuring out how to save this tree....they all got together with all sides and came up with a plan to save the tree from the high winds...they installed brackets...huge ones..over the cut to stabilize the tree.

So whatever the idiots who cut the tree wanted to prove...they succeeded in making themselves the target of an intense hunt to find out who did it...and they got two opposing forces to come together to save one tree....funny isn't it?? The tree may still die....but then again it may not....here are pictures of it

http://www.wtvl.net/fen/tmw_latewinter2001...egally_cut.html


People aren't always nice and fair.....

sosha,

VERY ENLIGHTENING!!! (By the way, my German Shepard "Kodi" has very strong emotions, and feelings!... especially towards our cat "P.C." )

So... now I'll throw a questing out to you... The large enclosure you spoke of... the one in which Bigfoot would be housed, in the event that one was captured and studied. The large enclosure seems like it would be more of a "Band-Aid" than a solution. (I'm not suggesting that your "Solution" is the large enclosure,) Now that the Government has spent millions of my tax dollars tracking one down to catch, and or kill it... what do you do with a 1000 pound monkey? (Again... "Wildlife Management, by Crisis" )

They would study it, and would discover some "Truly, Ground Breaking Evidence". Evidence like, Bigfoot enjoys his privacy, eats food, drinks water, does not like human contact, defecates in the woods, ect... ect... How could officials properly study such an animal? Doesn't a male cougar have a range of about 40 miles? (I'm curious what a mountain gorilla's range is...)

Without telling every Hunter, Fisherman, Hiker / Backpacker, and Outdoor Enthusiast, to stay out of the woods "For the sake of Sasquatch"... what solution is there that has the least amount of impact for both Sasquatch and Humans... and yet yields the most "helpful" information that will benefit Humans, Sasquatch, and it's Habitat?

If Bigfoot is ever proved beyond a shadow of a doubt... I feel very confident that a very similar question will be asked by someone with a lot of money... whether it be the "U.S. Government"... or "Weyerhaeuser". Their money will speak loudly to those who want to listen. Maybe it will be my friend "Julie" who is asked this question... maybe it will be you!

What is the "SOLUTION?"

Just something to think about!

Have a great day!

Donnie

I'm glad you didn't 'apologize' for that. Some of us here have the same approach even though it's not always 'appreciated'.

Oooh! Oooh!
I know how to do that!

Sarcasm ? Here ? ...

OK Jim...quit being sarcastic!!!

Donnie....this is fun!

Okay...well...no doubt if one is captured scientists will want to study it...I would say...if they have to...and one is captured...to put him in an environment that would be less stressful...surrounded by trees and familiar things...I went to an exhibit at the State Fair once and in the horticultural exhibit they had a beautiful Redwood forest setting complete with a waterfall! It felt like you were in the middle of the redwoods. It was really neat. Even the ground was that soft redwood duff. I'm thinking and environment like that with cameras and stuff so the BF could be observed. They can take all the biology stuff while he's unconscious....blood, cell samples etc....then observe him for a few days..then knock him out again and put him back where we found him. I do not think we need to keep a BF locked up forever.

However...I think our Gov already knows BF exists and they don't have to do anything because they don't think one will ever be caught. I think they've known about them for a while. But disinformation is the best way to keep something confusing and make people look stupid so...they don't really have to do anything...look at Roswell....people still really don't know what happened there. BF's are very good at stealth and remaining hidden. They've been doing it a lot longer than we have been going into the forests.

Right now...the biggest problem in losing land is through commercial and residential developments. Developers can buy land and put up so many cookie cutter houses and make so much money it is something communities find it hard to say no to. But then the developers leave and leave the community to handle the aftermath of all these people moving into an area where there were previously no demands for water, garbage pick up, shopping centers etc. How many shopping centers do people need anyway? How many different kinds of toothpaste do we need? Laundry detergent?When is enough enough?

I don't know....people really need to look at the demands on our resources and set limits. But the minute you say someone cannot do something everyone screams. There are people like me who will continually be wondering about the impact our activities have on animals and the environment. And there will be people who couldn't care less. I love being able to look out somewhere for miles and miles and not see a telephone pole or a house. It lifts my soul. Someone else may look at that same scene and see million dollar houses and the millions of dollars lining his pocket from such a development.

Where does BF stand in all this? Where he always has...behind a tree...watching...forever watching us...wondering what we are going to do next. I don't know how many stories I have read a BF report that state..."we were in an area...now it is all built up with houses...but back then it was wilderness..."

I think that BF's may start seeing that even tho they try to go further into the wilderness....we are hot on their heels....when they run out of places to go...they may just start coming closer to our developments....in many stories this is happening...they will start realizing that we can be a source of food....as bears and coyotes in rural areas have. They will hide during the day and come out at night and raid garbage cans because they cannot find adequate food sources any place else. People will complain and blame bears, because they couldn't imagine it could be anything else. Then when the BF's get bolder and hungrier...the jig will be up...and people will know that sometimes....it isn't a bear. But for now...I think the BF protect themselves by not revealing themselves to humans. I think they probably already know quite a bit about us....they know to fear guns. They know to avoid us. They know we have food. And I think they know that if they stand still we walk right by them because we don't know how to see them. When people go into the woods we are very noisy...how could something not know we are there? I wonder how many times people have walked right by a BF and not known it wasn't part of the tree.

I've often wondered about that. It wouldn't surprise me much if that is an unwritten rule in the logging industry nationwide, now that BF encounters outside the PNW have been so thoroughly publicized. I would imagine that even non-believers in that field would want to take that precaution just in case they're wrong.

I also wonder about Border Patrol. Down here they are out combing the desert day and night, and they have mobile watch towers that rise to 30 feet or so above the ground, looking out over vast areas of roadless land. Now I know it's not commonly thought Bigfoot would hang around desert areas (there have been a couple of threads addressing that, though), but there have in fact been fairly recent sightings down here. I would think that these Border Patrol types would have an excellent chance to see anything out of the ordinary. I wonder if they've been told to keep a lid on it, too, to avoid adverse publicity.

You said a magic word, Donnie (or 2 of 'em, actually): Swainson's Hawk.

I made a video about a year ago about a family of Swainson's Hawks here in AZ - you'd be amazed at how much drama there is for hawks trying to survive in the wild. For anyone who hasn't seen one, I'm attaching a photo of a Swainson's Hawk female with her 2 week old chick.

Sadly, both these birds were dead within a month of this photo being taken. Mother never returned to her nest (almost certainly killed while hunting), baby didn't survive the first night without her. EEEKKKKK, Off Topic! Sorry.

I know someone pretty well that has worked for one of the bigger timber companys up here. I was talking with him a few days ago. he patrols the forest and see's and hear everthing that goes on. if this was true he would know. if sas was ever on the timber companys property he would have the most chance of seeing it. when I hunt I often stay at his house and plan my hunt around his advise. anyway. I asked him staight out if they knew of any sitings on their land. he said none that he heard of. but he has seen enough that he knows their is something to the whole bigfoot thing. I told him about bfro site and that they show 5 reports over the last ten years on the land he patrols. he was quiet surprised and said he sure would have thought that he would had heard something if the reports were true. he talks to the game wardens , sheriff, hunters, loggers. I'm puzzled. is bfro reports hoax? I know this land very well my self. I've hunted it for about 15 years. have shot hours & hours of wild life video. and I would say alot of it is very bigfoot looking. how could my friend be kepted in the dark if thats what is happening? he could be lieing I suppose. I don't think he was thow. there is land there that is always locked up. It just happens to be near reported sitings. something stinks and I don't know whos causing it

That's not really off topic Cochise...That makes me so sad ..that is a beautiful picture tho...people get emotional like that about Peregrines too....its about survival...everyone really wants them to survive...It's like the California Condor....they need the habitat and the food. You destroy their food source you destroy them. It's about the habitat and that is what BF needs too...

I'm not entirely sure that game wardens and forest workers would be the first to know of sightings, even in their areas. A lot of people who have encounters keep quiet about it for a time -- often only report it after much deliberation and talking it over with friends, or after running across web sites where they might feel more comfortable coming out with it. I would think that whatever knowledge a forestry official might have of Bigfoot activity would be of the first hand variety, and whether or not they would share it with their employers is another good question. I think most would keep it to themselves, frankly.

Your friend is most likely telling the truth because it's naive to think that a large number of game wardens or forest workers have had encounters, even though they spend most of their time in the forest. Think of it this way: Sasquatch spends even MORE of his time in the forest and we've already concluded that these animals are world-class when it comes to eluding human beings. In a way, I would think that those who work in BF's backyard might be the easiest for him (Bigfoot) to avoid. It's hikers and campers and the like that are probably more apt to run into BF because they are unpredictable -- likely to show up anywhere anytime.

Conjecture, for sure. If the Forest Service, or the logging companies, have a policy to keep quiet any run-ins with Mr. Bigfoot, it doesn't necessarily mean they have a lot of encounters. I think it's just the possibility of their industry being damaged that might cause them to take that kind of action (and in the case of Forest Service, probably a desire to avoid adverse publicity from a scoffing public).

ya know I still don't even know how to respond to this.
it is beyond me how someone would do that.

I think people who would do that to a tree ( a living thing) would do it to another person without much hesitation. People like that truly scare me.

Since this thread has gotten heavily into issues of forest management (or nonmanagement) there is one additional factor which all thinking people ought to take into consideration.

Ten years ago, I was a skeptic on the issue of human induced global warming. Climatic cycles are long term phenomena, and ten or even a hundred years worth of data usually doesn't prove much. My skepticism was misplaced, and very few other people who understand the science remain unconvinced. The real world data and the models have come together. We have simply overloaded the carbon cycle. The atmosphere contains 30% more carbon dioxide than it did two hundred years ago.

The eight billion tons of carbon we--all of us--put into the atmosphere each year is modest in comparison with earth's natural processes which generate methane and carbon dioxide, but it has been enough to tip the balance. In the short term, global warming will continue no matter what we do--it wouldn't be stopped for decades even if we went back to stone age lifestyles. And we aren't going to do that.

Like all changes, continued warming will bring winners and losers. Some species will thrive while others will probably face extinction. We don't really have a handle on all the consequences, but from the standpoint of the impact on humans, the picture does not look benign. Greatly increased catastrophic weather events, loss of many productive farmlands and, at the extreme end of things, massive coastal flooding are reasonably anticipatable. And unfortunately, we are on the threshold of a feedback loop where the warm temperatures themselves will accelerate the natural production of greenhouse gasses. I'm confident that we can mitigate the problem in the long term. Some excellent minds are working on innovative ideas like artificial carbon sinks. But solutions are well into the future. We need to buy time as best we can.

What does this have to do with forest management? We are lucky to have two natural allies in this battle to buy time--two natural carbon sinks. Something over half of the 8 billion annual tons of carbon we put into the air is being erased--dissolved in the oceans and used by green plants for photosynthesis. But for this mitigation, the crisis would be much more immediate. Our best measurements show that the great bulk of the helpful photosynthesis is taking place in Northern Hemisphere forests--to the tune of about 2.2 billion tons a year.

We need to do what we can to keep these natural allies working in our favor. The oceans are warming, and given the inverse relationship between carbon dioxide solubility and water temperature, we can expect this to become a less efficient carbon sink. This leaves our forests.

Forests do their best work locking up excess carbon when they are young and growing rapidly. As they approach maturity, growth slows and most of the photosynthesis activity simply produces leaves rather than substantial tree growth. The leaves (or needles--evergreens also replace their needles annually) are shed and decay rapidly, releasing their carbon back to the atmosphere. Completely mature forests can actually become net producers of greenhouse gasses as trees die and decay.

Much of the forest belt in Canada and the Eastern US is at or near maturity. Unless we rejuvenate these forests, we are going to lose much of their value as carbon sinks. This means that we need to consider annual pruning of 3%, 5% or even 10% of the trees, depending on the characteristics of the particular forests. This is the only way to maintain these forests as efficient consumers of carbon. It should be done in a responsible way, mostly by selective cutting of mature and declining trees and with limited clear cutting, and of course the trees need to be replaced, by natural or human performed seeding, or by transplanting, again depending upon species and forest characteristics. And there are some mature forests which should be maintained in a natural state, both for esthetic reasons and to meet the needs of species which require this kind of habitat. But we are going to have to regard the bulk of our forest land as "working" forest.

Like it or not, we are going to have to manage most of our forest land much more intensively if we are going to buy enough time to solve the global warming problem. This is an area where the best interests of most of earth's species coincide.

-Vern

A very interesting post Vern. Although I'm not personally totally 'convinced' of the cause-effect', you make compelling arguments and I will watch with absolute curiosity how the future unfolds politically (especially) and scientifically on this subject. On a very related note, there's also 'conjecture' out there that our atmosphere's continued decreased oxygen levels over the last 100 years COULD BE the major cause of human 'cancers'. It's not without scientific merit either. I don't need to go into the details on THIS forum so as to BORE you off topic and I AM aware that 'oxygenation (or lack thereof) of cells as CAUSE of disease' is a quasi 'hot topic' of debate in 'legitimate' research circles BUT...50+ years and BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars spent have produced VIRTUALLY no 'true answers' as to it's cause.

Although I am a republican ( ), the one thing I am increasingly convinced of (if not absolutely) is we truly are a SIGNIFICANT part of 'our environment' and not just visitors to it. What we do with it and to it makes a difference and when our collective mindset comes to that realization, only then will we be truly able to solve the 'damage' we've heretofore denied inflicting.

"Harry"

Hey Vern,

Before we had to "Manage" the forests...was the thinning accomplished before due to fires? I remember someone telling me that certain trees did not release the seeds from their pine cones until they popped open at a certain temperature, which I believe had to be around 200 degrees F??. So without fires these trees would not reseed. Have you heard of this?

Hi Sosha--

I guess you can call it pruning if you want, but yes, there were certainly truly massive wildfires in prehistoric times. The problem, as I see it, is that for much of the last fifty million years the world's forests were probably more or less in carbon cycle equilibrium--they took in about as much carbon dioxide as they gave off. This is the condition of the Southern Hemisphere forests right now. They aren't helping us with our greenhouse gas problem at all. But through sheer good luck, reforestation in the Northern Hemisphere has produced enough forest in relatively young fast growing condition to help bail us out with the problem our industrialized economies produce. We need to keep them in that condition until we find a permanent solution. In other words, equilibrium conditions for our forests aren't good enough right now. And in the US and Canada, much of our forest is on the verge of entering that old age equilibrium condition.

Yes, cones which release seeds only under intense heat are called "serotinous". Lodgepole pine is one example among the Western species. In the east some jack pines produce serotinous cones while others do not.

-Vern

Sosha,

Sorry... I have wanted to get back to you but my long winded fingers found several other posts to ramble on about! Yes... it is fun! Especially when you consider that (almost) everyone has something valuable that they can bring to the table!

I have given this example many times before... Think of a mountain... (Lets use Mt. Shasta) If you are on the West side, and I am on the East side... and we are both looking at the top of the mountain, both of us can see the ultimate goal. (the top) But!... we have two entirely different approaches on how to reach the top! Same goal... two different approaches!

I think many situations concerning the environment, end up like this. Two (apparently) different groups trying to achieve, "Basically" the same goal. I'm very glad you and I spoke!!! (I look forward to speaking with you again!)

VernF,

WOW! That some great information. Every one talks about the forest acting like a natural filter, (especially the rain forests,) but I had no idea that an old forest could also be a contributor. Very fascinating! I wish I had a job in which I could study this kind of stuff all day! Thanks for the info!

cochise,

Your photo of the "Swainsons Hawk" is absolutely fabulous!!! Inadvertently, I have become sort of a bird nut! (It's a long story!) So... even though there was a time in which I wanted to cook a "spotted owl" I now feel much differently. (I would like to contribute it to "maturity" )

I don't think your photo is off the subject at all! I think that if and when the day comes that Sasquatch is proven to be real, Sasquatch may be considered to be an "Umbrella Species" (No... that is not an animal that lives in Western Oregon or Western Washington!) They consider a Grizzly bear an "Umbrella Species"... If you take preserve the Grizzly Bear's habitat, all of the other animals and birds habitat will also be preserved, and will be benefited, as a whole. They may find that if we take care of the habitat that Sasquatch needs to survive, all other animals and birds (including the Swainsons Hawk) will also thrive! Absolutely gorgeous!!! (The Hawk!)

Have a Great Day!

Donnie

Spoken like a wise man, Harry. In a very real sense it is not so much a question of what we do as the vast scale on which we do it. One backyard mechanic dumping his used motor oil down the drain doesn't signify much. When a few hundred million do it routinely, we have the makings of a problem.

-Vern

Well it is interesting stuff, Donnie--at least to me--because I think it is a challenging problem with fairly high stakes on the table. A number of ideas have been tried in recent years to boost the efficiency of our oceans and forests as carbon sinks. Unfortunately, none of them has panned out.

For a while it was popular to think that we might get the proverbial free lunch--that increased carbon dioxide levels would themselves boost worldwide forest growth rates, even for mature forests. The data is in and it seems pretty clear that for most forests the limiting factor on growth rates is available soil nutrients. For now, it seems clear that the only proven tool available to us is forest rejuvenation as I have described it. And it goes without saying that we ought to also be encouraging reforestation of lands which are only marginally useful for other purposes.

-Vern