Leaderboard

Quote Kit: "The Gifford Pinchot Task Force's mission is conservation, forest, fish and wildlife restoration. Finding Bigfoot and recording it on camera would hinder that how?" The fact they "found" Bigfoot and recorded it on camera would not at all hinder their "mission". Publishing a definitive photo or video of a Bigfoot for all the world to see without the consent of the DOI and the DOA would end their project. Period. The federal government - and all those entities that depend on the resources of national lands for their financial success - have no interest in having to deal with the repercussions of having the creatures existence on federal lands revealed. They are considered neither fish nor wildlife by the state or federal government because they are feral, primitive humans and the photographic images would confirm that. Consequentially, the two states that control the hunting of game animals in GP cannot establish rules or regulations for their protection. (They are already protected; murder is murder.) If such documented photos/videos were released the DOI and DOA would have only one alternative; designate huge areas inside the GP as absolute refuges for the Bigfoot, restricting access by modern humans. Unless such action was taken, the GP would be overrun by people from all over the world attempting to see, hear, photograph or hand feed them. (No rules against attempting to feed or befriend homeless people.) Without making the area a refuge - and with "us" humans kept out, the distinct possibility that conflict between the "tourist" and the "residence" would likely occur. How would the feds handle that? (Summary execution or trial?) If you don't think the U.S. government is capable and experienced in conspiracies designed to withhold information from the public which "it" feels is in "its" best interest to do so; a rude awakening is hopefully in your future, With 775 reported BF encounters reported from Washington and Oregon in just the past few years to one BF research group, and the world's foremost animal DNA lab in Jackson County Oregon, and thousands of National Forest personnel in those two states, one would suspect the existence of BF would be as well known to those government employees as they are to the hunters in those states and other area with populations of the creatures. But on the other hand, hunters don't have to worry about loosing their jobs when they reports seeing the things. Branco, on 30 Dec 2013 - 9:51 PM, said: Kit"s Response: Because they do... So BF DOES show up on park Cameras??? Where are the photo?

And there's probably one that wants to pet you. Consider learning to purr.

Ethical calculus. Multiple issues, each with its own variables. 1. Some researchers simply want to know more, not necessarily to disclose more. They are engaged in a private pursuit shared only with those they consider to share their perspective. 2. Some want to be the first to reveal the sasquatch in the form of indisputable evidence, so they will guard the information they obtain until they have the ironclad case. They may pass on before everything they have learned is disclosed. 3. Some want to protect the squatch. This takes two forms: a. Learn all you can to prove they require protection. b. Prevent disclosure of their existence, thus protecting them from the greatest perceived threat to their existence, public knowledge of their presence and activities. 4. Some believe or know that some squatch engage in behaviors that threaten people, namely abduction and predation. Based on this there are three reasons they may keep what they know to themselves. a. They may sympathize more with the squatch than the victims and fear that the public will retaliate if they find out. b. They may feel that there is little that can be done about it anyway, and that the public will be incapable of dealing rationally with the knowledge. c. They may recognize that government can not manage squatch, and that government can not manage public reaction to knowledge of the squatch and their more threatening behaviors. Until recently I've been on the fence regarding kill, no kill based on the assumption that once the existence of squatch is proven, there will be a period of difficult adjustment followed by long term co-existence. My quandary was whether or not the taking of a squatch life (I consider them people) is necessary to achieve this outcome. Now, however, with the understanding that Paulides has provided, that there are probably populations of squatch that prey on people, the ethical calculus for me is greatly simplified. If squatch are preying on people, often young children, then the public needs to be aware of the threat, and the life of a squatch, one that engages in this behavior or not, is a small price to pay to establish public awareness and effective management of the threat.