The Sasquatch Scheme Part 2
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on August 17th, 2007
This is part two of Daryl Colyer’s theory concerning government cover-ups of Bigfoot.
Part one is posted here at Cryptomundo.
Let me write it again, but with more emphasis: MONEY.
In the cases where US servicemen disclosed sensitive data, the underlying, most prominent, motive always dealt with finances. They were given money in exchange for what they knew.
I’ve said that I don’t believe that a concerted wide-scale sasquatch cover-up is plausible and I stand by that. However, I do think it’s possible that people are motivated to keep their mouths shut about what they have seen or know about because it may impede their progress up the ladder of promotion, thereby adversely impacting their livelihood.
While I don’t see as plausible a US Forest Service decree that all information pertaining to the existence of a large bipedal primate be locked away in a vault somewhere, I do think it’s plausible that a bureaucrat at any given national forest ranger station might be inclined to stick his/her head in the sand when it comes to investigating reports of such an animal. At the risk of contributing to stereotypes, it stands to reason that many bureaucrats do not particularly care about gaining more knowledge; they are more interested in security and putting in their time with as little resistance, controversy or effort as possible. Having to manage a higher-order primate on national forest lands could lead many bureaucrats to early graves.
To that extent, I find this scenario plausible: Joe Bureaucrat tells his subordinates that unless they want to deal with droves of “tree huggers” or to be forced to manage one more “thing,” and maybe even lose their jobs, they better keep quiet about anything unusual. The subordinates in turn realize that Joe Bureaucrat is their boss and, not wanting to jeopardize their livelihood, they elect to zip their mouths. This sort of scenario may or may not be happening, but it doesn’t necessarily strike me as being too far-fetched. It’s also far less romantic than the notion of some concerted governmental conspiracy to hide the existence of the sasquatch.
Conversely, one might think that the National Park Service, with its stated mission of conservation and preservation, would welcome any discovery that would lead to more funding and dedicated resources. In light of this, would its employees willingly take part in a cover-up pertaining to the sasquatch? To me, it doesn’t seem likely, but I also believe that the National Park Service may have its share of obstructionist bureaucracy as well.
It’s been suggested that there are a number of non-governmental groups who might have an interest in covering up, resisting or even downplaying the existence of a North American ape based on the premise that, were such a creature to be discovered, their bottom line or their livelihood would be negatively impacted. One only has to be reminded that millions of acres of forest were shut down to logging in the Pacific Northwest due to the Northern Spotted Owl and the Endangered Species Act.
The Endangered Species Act was designed to restrict development of lands that provide habitat for endangered plants and wildlife; for the timber industry and numerous business groups, the Endangered Species Act is more about lost livelihoods and opportunities.
One can only imagine how the discovery of a large higher-order primate, one that would almost certainly be protected by the Endangered Species Act, might impact certain groups whose livelihoods are derived from the exploitation/utilization of natural resources. This could include industries with interests in timber, mining, outdoor recreational, land development, natural gas/petroleum, and others. While these groups, at least in their own collective minds, have plenty of motive to collaboratively deny the sasquatch’s existence, I believe they lack the requisite resources and organization to do so. And while it may often seem to some that an organized disinformation/misinformation campaign designed to obfuscate the truth about the existence of the sasquatch is indeed ongoing, I just can’t subscribe to such a school of thought.
However, what I do find more palatable, if still unlikely, is that the sasquatch’s official listing may be impeded by communal bureaucratic red-taped focused mindsets that are pervasive and deep, along with perhaps a small measure of good old-fashioned fear-of-the-unknown thrown in.
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
I must agree with your thoughts on this matter, but I would suggest that the problem starts much higher that the local park ranger or forest manager I think it is at State office level.
And that is the old greywolf’s opinion.
Good morning Cryptos…
Nice to hear Daryl’s thoughts. He conducted a thorough and comprehensive investigation of my sighting in Oklahoma a few years ago. Wishing all of the fine TBRC folks the best of luck. Watch where you put your hands and feet. JMHO
What if they are not endangered? What if Squatch et al are actually prospering by adaptation to our monoculture agriculture and refuse management?
live and let live…
ole bub and the dawgs
Very interesting views I must say.
And I would have to agree with Daryl. Most anything is possible, and I wouldn’t put it past any of the groups mentioned to carry out such a scheme either. Our government included. Answers my question why. Guess I never really thought about it. But I can see something like a cover up happening.
And I would think they would have to be endangered. There are alot of hunters out there that would love another trophy for their wall. (Not saying all hunters hunt just for trophies, but alot do, especially if it’s a vew species) You know, the gotta have it mentality. Besides, them not being in huge numbers, I don’t believe there are as many as alot of people think. I would think they would have to be endangered. In my opinion.
Nice and balanced. Yes, I can’t imagine that if it were known that Napes existed, that their existence would be covered up by wildlife officials. Some were caught a couple of years ago faking the presence of lynx in an area, in order to increase protection of the area.
But that officials and officers would be wary of coming forward with anything less than absolute, unquestionable, positive proof, for the reasons stated, yeah, I can see that.
Craig, thanks for sharing this with us. Daryl is writing some great stuff, and seems to be a solid researcher. Keep up the good work, Craig and Daryl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’ve always felt that the lumber companies might have a vested interest in NOT confirming the discovery of Sasquatch.
DARHOP, I feel there is nothing wrong with Trophy Hunting. Take Africa for example. Hunters can not bring game meat back to USA, just the trophy. The meat does not go to waste. It feeds the locals. But I doubt there would be an open season ever on Bigfoot.
As for a cover-up? Well, I just do not see how on an on-going basis? Bigfoot would almost have to be under control. And for how long? I mean, one might be able to hide Bigfoot a few times, but sooner or later the cat is going to get out! Then some heads might roll? But I have heard stories of park personnel being told to burn and bury a found dead Bigfoot. I can see how that might happen. But I feel the actual discovery of Bigfoot by State/Government employees, would be too big a thing for them to keep quiet about, for long. If that buried Bigfoot corpse came to light, someone would have to take the fall. Plus I can just envision the low person on the totem pole, knowing where Bigfoot is buried. Think of how much money they could get for their story and info. Movie rights too? It might be too tempting not to blab?
I was a park ranger once. I personally would not have been part of such a lie. I would expose the truth, because I would feel it was the right thing to do, job or no job! I just feel there are too many people involved, to keep Bigfoot under wraps for long. With that said, some might try to? As an elk hunter and Bigfoot believer, I have often wondered what would happen if a hunter killed or found a dead Bigfoot? Once loaded in the truck, then what? The guys who helped load it up surely would spread the news like wildfire. Then the Game Department would come. My guess is they would confiscate the Bigfoot and perhaps charge the hunter with something. And then, what would they do? Try to cover it up? Or let science have a Field Day?
Interesting comments, but I think a few may be agreeing with more than Daryl is saying.
I’m a bureaucrat myself. I generally consider myself an incompetent model of the stereotype Daryl refers to; I’m just not enough of a BS artist. (And beyond a point, yep, it’s an art.) But boy the percentage of those where I work is nothing short of astonishing. That’s not to say that as a body, the Feds (or any bureaucracy) would be capable of bringing off a concerted coverup. As good as the individuals in bureaucracies are at safeguarding their individual kitties, they aren’t the best mass conspirators. Because they number among them just enough incompetent BS artists like me. Not too many. But just enough. (There are other ways of safeguarding your kitty in a bureaucracy than being a master BSer.)
It is my understanding that in more than one case, state and federal land managers have gotten involved in sasquatch encounter followup. A sighting in Oregon a few years back comes to mind; it might have been at a state park. But wherever it was, the sighter considered himself competent enough to be believed, and the agency took him seriously. Not that anybody, obviously, found anything close to proof. Not sure I can remember particulars but my curiosity is now piqued enough to do some looking. You may hear from me; you may not. Bureaucratic followup can tend toward the so-so. 😀
I think that each sasquatch encounter is one of a kind, really; the “trust chain” of each one is subtly different. The sighter may not be willing to tell anyone; the person the sighter tells may not be willing to pass it along. And so on.
I think we’re just going to have to wait until the “trust chain” works out just right enough to get immediate followup. But don’t hold your breath. The “sasquatch coverup” is all about individuals, not bureaucracies.
One more thing, to sschaper. Faking lynx is one thing; as they’re pretty known critters, there’s considerable agreement on management strategy. Getting protection for an area might actually add to your personal kitty. It’s just that the sas is such a wild card no one is willing to bet on it.
The “local bureaucrat” syndrome happens: I’ve told before how an impressive Colorado grizzly bear sighting was very rejected by a ranger who flat-out asked the witness: You really didn’t want to close all that land to hunting and other recreation, do you? But that was local: state and federal authorities here have been diligent in following up other grizzly reports.
The kind of economic conspiracy postulated in Penz’ excellent novel Cryptid would only work temporarily and locally: as time passed, too many people would have to know, and someone would eventually decide to take a video to CNN and cash in.
I wonder if managers/rangers in popular sasquatch-sighting errors have dealt with so many excited, half-glimpsed sightings and fake footprints that they simply won’t listen to any more sighting reports, even really impressive ones.