Leaderboard

OK, so we put them on the endangered species list like we did with Grizzly bear. (Not sure how we could justify that since we don't know whether their population is shrinking or expanding.) The grizzly bear can still be hunted in Alaska (and British Columbia), the Feds are thinking about taking them off the list, and the Bear manager - plus a lot of cattle ranchers - believe there should be a open season in some regions of the NW. So, is that your proposed plan for "saving" Bigfoot? Since the "Grizzly" plan for Bigfoot is obviously not appropriate; what would be your "Plan B(igfoot)." I doubt that Bigfoot would have in more say in what we do to "save" them than did the Grizzly Bear.

I base my opinions on the health of the other large omnivore in North America, the Grizzly bear. We can see that the last 100 years or so, has not been kind to the Grizzly bear. Nor other species such as Wolves, Woodland Caribou, Wolverine, Lynx, Bison, Elk, etc, etc. This is why conservation groups where established at the end of the last century.........it was an attempt to save these species from Extinction. And why Congress passed this act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act Also, once the species is established, we could give it protection under the endangered species act. One species that has thrived under this act is the Wolf. Sasquatch has no voice...........period. It garners no consideration if a dam is being built, or a shopping mall. It's habitat either is protected by some other species that's needs dovetail to the Sasquatch..............OR they lose. It's much more dangerous for the Sasquatch to stay hidden than it is for them to be discovered and protected. It's not the guys with rifles poaching them that I worry about, it's the bulldozers and concrete that I worry about.