Leaderboard

Screw them, too. I "know". The rest of humanity doesn't appear to care.

There's a difference between trophy hunter and poacher. Legal sport hunters will not run about willy nilly killing sasquatches after discovery. Poachers will, not might. Grizzly bear poaching occurs. I can prove it. The misidentification of grizzly bears by black bear hunters occurs. I can prove it. We might look at the Justin Smeja affair and say that sasquatch poaching already might have already occurred, even before society "discovered" sasquatches. I can definitely prove that was his claimed intent........or reaction..........upon his claimed personal "discovery". "You", singular, aren't a threat to the species. After discovery, several hundred poachers *will* (not might) be. I again suggest that government knows this, has known it for the past century, and has taken this suppression of discovery approach knowingly and intentionally, and the poaching/endangered population status is just part of it. If sasquatches were just another ape, I believe government might still take this approach. But I believe that sasquatches are a hominin, government knows this, and because of that, government will take this line of protection to the extreme, and I commend them for that.

Trophy hunters aren't causing the decline of rhinos. It's the two-pronged sword of the belief that the horn can be ground to create an aphrodisiac, and in the Levant, the Jambiya dagger, with its rhino horn hilt.

Once proven to exist, the trophy hunters will swarm forests to get their sasquatch hand, foot, head, or the holy grail...an entire body to stuff. Entire nations can't adequately protect a black rhino yet it assumed that government workers here in the US can protect sasquatches from slaughter. Can anyone name one law the enactment of which had the effect of completely stopping those with harmful intent? I can't either. Bad people laugh hysterically at rules and laws then do exactly what they want. Sadly, in my opinion there is no chance of protecting sasquatches once Pandora's box is opened.

I think there is a subjective component such an approach will miss. The evaluation of evidence is .. relative to personal experience. A field observation either is, or is not, like what the person doing the evaluation believes is correct or incorrect based on possibly flawed assumption. I think the approach is interesting but it has built-in shortcomings I see no way to address with accuracy. Suppose, for example, Patterson-Gimlin, Sasfooty, and I are walking through the forest and find a track. Imagine the various evaluations of that track and the perspectives we each hold leading to that evaluation. Figure out what ChatGPT is going to do to somehow find a more correct answer than our individual, and each in our own context, expert, evaluations.