Something I've honestly never considered...

[wiiawiwb]

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.

Edited June 27 by wiiawiwb

[Incorrigible1]

1 hour ago, wiiawiwb said:

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.

 

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.

[Huntster]

23 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said:

 

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.

 

It can be very reasonably argued that unregulated and/or poorly regulated trophy hunting, era 1850-1970, helped in the decline of African rhinos, but it's definitely unarguable that poaching has both brought rhinos to the brink of extinction and halted efforts to bring about recovery.

 

I'd also argue that there's little difference between a rhino head on the wall of a trophy room and a rhino horn handle on Jambiya dagger, and that's from a guy with bear rugs and ungulate antlers on his wall.

[norseman]

2 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

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.

https://www.fws.gov/law/endangered-species-act

 

https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/open-spaces/2023-05-26/a-black-bear-hunter-mistakenly-killing-a-grizzly-begs-to-question-are-black-bear-hunters-educated-well-enough

 

Are Grizzly bears doing better now or before 1973 in the lower 48? Are trophy hunters shooting every Griz they see? This idea of once proven that an army of trophy hunters will eradicate Bigfoot is just silly.

 

Africa is a very very poor place. So if your dirt poor? You will risk your life to sell an illegal item on the black market. Most American hunters don’t want to lose their guns or pickups, pay fines and go to jail. 
 

Besides? I am actively trying to shoot one TODAY. And in my 54 years of life? I have never once even seen one. Their elusiveness isn’t going to change based on scientific classification. So I reject the idea of some wholesale slaughter.

[Huntster]

12 minutes ago, norseman said:

.......Are trophy hunters shooting every Griz they see? This idea of once proven that an army of trophy hunters will eradicate Bigfoot is just silly.........

 

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".

 

Quote

....... I am actively trying to shoot one TODAY. And in my 54 years of life? I have never once even seen one. Their elusiveness isn’t going to change based on scientific classification. So I reject the idea of some wholesale slaughter.

 

"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.

[norseman]

8 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

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.

I can ALSO PROVE to you that Grizzly Bear numbers have INCREASED in the lower 48 after they passed the endangered species act! So this argument is a fallacy. And that’s despite the random poacher, self defense incident or hapless hunter that mistakenly shot one.

 

https://www.fws.gov/species/grizzly-bear-ursus-arctos-horribilis

 

And we won’t know what Bigfoot is until it’s studied by science and classified.🤷‍♂️

 

Point to a law that truly protects endangered species? 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

[Huntster]

39 minutes ago, norseman said:

I can ALSO PROVE to you that Grizzly Bear numbers have INCREASED in the lower 48 after they passed the endangered species act! So this argument is a fallacy...........

 

I agree that has happened. However, my argument is not "a fallacy". First of all, grizzly repopulation has not and will never, ever, ever recover to pre-1775 levels in North America. Secondly, extant grizzly range where there were plenty of bears (western Canada extending through Alaska) bordered the areas where grizzly repopulation efforts have been ongoing for the past 49 years of ESA Threatened status and which could easily expand back, and I'd suggest that there has been precious little recovery for half a century of official declaration and investment.

 

Quote

........And we won’t know what Bigfoot is until it’s studied by science and classified..........

 

You are correct that *we* won't know what it is until studied and classified, but it is my unproven speculation that government has studied them, and is suppressing taxonomic classification intentionally. 

 

And before you counter with the claim that I can't prove that, let me remind you that you are claiming exactly that with regard to extraterrestrial visitors, so we're camping in the same forest, vegetated with different trees.

 

Quote

......... Point to a law that truly protects endangered species? 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

 

I can't. And I use your point to again speculate that government has chosen to take the route of suppressing discovery in order to protect the species, not only from poachers, but from zoologists, biologists, environmentalists, lawyers, foreign governments, et al.

Edited June 27 by Huntster

[norseman]

33 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

I agree that has happened. However, my argument is not "a fallacy". First of all, grizzly repopulation has not and will never, ever, ever recover to pre-1775 levels in North America. Secondly, extant grizzly range where there were plenty of bears (western Canada extending through Alaska) bordered the areas where grizzly repopulation efforts have been ongoing for the past 49 years of ESA Threatened status and which could easily expand back, and I'd suggest that there has been precious little recovery for half a century of official declaration and investment.

 

 

You are correct that *we* won't know what it is until studied and classified, but it is my unproven speculation that government has studied them, and is suppressing taxonomic classification intentionally. 

 

And before you counter with the claim that I can't prove that, let me remind you that you are claiming exactly that with regard to extraterrestrial visitors, so we're camping in the same forest, vegetated with different trees.

 

 

I can't. And I use your point to again speculate that government has chosen to take the route of suppressing discovery in order to protect the species, not only from poachers, but from zoologists, biologists, environmentalists, lawyers, foreign governments, et al.

That’s not the question at hand.

 

The question at hand IS Bigfoot better off now in 2024 being known and protected by science, government and the public or not?

 

I say YES.
 

And I think the facts at hand support that. Grizzly bear populations have almost tripled in the lower 48 since 1973. If they had not been protected they would probably be gone.

 

If Bigfoot was a classified species under the endangered species act? I would certainly NOT be trying to shoot one. To me the notion that if they were classified as a real species, hordes of blood crazed hunters hitting the woods is bass ackwards.

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

..........I can ALSO PROVE to you that Grizzly Bear numbers have INCREASED in the lower 48 after they passed the endangered species act! ...........

 

As usual, the debate here (and everywhere, over everything) motivates me to research random trivia (which is really rarely trivial) research. 

 

The USFWS declared grizzly bears "threatened" in 1975. The estimated population in the continental U.S. at the time was 700-800 bears.

 

Today the estimated population is estimated at 1,923. This represents a recovery number of @ 1,200 bears over half a century of legal protection.

 

The total brown bear harvest in Alaska for the year 2007 alone (not including poached bears, road/railroad kill, or DLP {defense of life or property} kills) was 1,900 bears. This one year's harvest represents 150% of a half century of USFWS recovery efforts in the Lower 48.

 

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm%3Fadfg=brownbearhunting.main

 

Of that Alaska harvest figure of 1,900 bears in 2007, about 700 were taken by Alaska residents and roughly 1,200 (or 67 percent) were taken by nonresidents, illustrating the interest in hunters to pay Big Bucks to hire a guide to take a bear (a legal requirenpment for non-residents in both Alaska and Canada), and that interest can be considered when it comes to poachers who want to take a bear, but don't have the money to pay to do it legally, or who are like Smeja who simply see and instictively shoot without consideration of the law.

 

 

[Huntster]

48 minutes ago, norseman said:

........The question at hand IS Bigfoot better off now in 2024 being known and protected by science, government and the public or not?

 

I say YES.........

 

I would speculate "no", and I'd further speculate that science has been almost completely absent from the phenomenon (save a few individuals), the public has behaved as the public can be expected to behave (trying to cash in on the phenomenon, real or not, with movies, books, t-shirts, monster art, horror stories, etc, etc, ad nauseum), and government has been protecting the species since at least 1958 in the way government works best:

 

Covertly.

 

Quote

........And I think the facts at hand support that. Grizzly bear populations have almost tripled in the lower 48 since 1973. If they had not been protected they would probably be gone........

 

Grizzly populations have just a bit over doubled, but I agree that had the threatened status not been declared, they most certainly would be gone now.

 

However, a sasquatch isn't a grizzly bear. Not even close. Just the annual bear maulings in Alaska and their disregard for being sighted prove that, not to mention the annual property damage they cause throughout their range. 

 

Quote

.......If Bigfoot was a classified species under the endangered species act? I would certainly NOT be trying to shoot one........

 

I believe that, but I can also point out that your ardent desire to shoot one has posed little danger to either the species or any particular sasquatch individual. Further, I challenge you to continue your attempt to harvest one. Even if successful, my bet is that it won't reach the light of day, and that's the plan of government.

 

Quote

........To me the notion that if they were classified as a real species, hordes of blood crazed hunters hitting the woods is bass ackwards.

 

Your opinion is noted, but I think that your wording has been exaggerated. I believe that sasquatch poaching interest will increase substantially.
 

 

 

Edited June 27 by Huntster

[norseman]

42 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

As usual, the debate here (and everywhere, over everything) motivates me to research random trivia (which is really rarely trivial) research. 

 

The USFWS declared grizzly bears "threatened" in 1975. The estimated population in the continental U.S. at the time was 700-800 bears.

 

Today the estimated population is estimated at 1,923. This represents a recovery number of @ 1,200 bears over half a century of legal protection.

 

The total brown bear harvest in Alaska for the year 2007 alone (not including poached bears, road/railroad kill, or DLP {defense of life or property} kills) was 1,900 bears. This one year's harvest represents 150% of a half century of USFWS recovery efforts in the Lower 48.

 

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm%3Fadfg=brownbearhunting.main

 

Of that Alaska harvest figure of 1,900 bears in 2007, about 700 were taken by Alaska residents and roughly 1,200 (or 67 percent) were taken by nonresidents, illustrating the interest in hunters to pay Big Bucks to hire a guide to take a bear (a legal requirenpment for non-residents in both Alaska and Canada), and that interest can be considered when it comes to poachers who want to take a bear, but don't have the money to pay to do it legally, or who are like Smeja who simply see and instictively shoot without consideration of the law.

 

 

Ok. So if Alaska outlawed Brown and Grizzly bear hunting all together? Are you saying that 1900 bears per year would be poached in Alaska? Nothing would change?

 

The question isn’t how many brown bears are hunted or poached in Alaska anyhow. The question is has the ESA been effective at staving off extinction in the lower 48? 
 

And with Bigfoot? We don’t have ANY numbers…. They could be doing great without us. OR they could be going extinct right under our noses. We simply don’t know. Because they are a Pixie or Gnome.

[norseman]

34 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

I would speculate "no", and I'd further speculate that science has been almost completely absent from the phenomenon (save a few individuals), the public has behaved as the public can be expected to behave (trying to cash in on the phenomenon, real or not, with movies, books, t-shirts, monster art, horror stories, etc, etc, ad nauseum), and government has been protecting the species since at least 1958 in the way government works best:

 

Covertly.

 

 

Grizzly populations have just a bit over doubled, but I agree that had the threatened status not been declared, they most certainly would be gone now.

 

However, a sasquatch isn't a grizzly bear. Not even close. Just the annual bear maulings in Alaska and their disregard for being sighted prove that, not to mention the annual property damage they cause throughout their range. 

 

 

I believe that, but I can also point out that your ardent desire to shoot one has posed little danger to either the species or any particular sasquatch individual. Further, I challenge you to continue your attempt to harvest one. Even if successful, my bet is that it won't reach the light of day, and that's the plan of government.

 

 

Your opinion is noted, but I think that your wording has been exaggerated. I believe that sasquatch poaching interest will increase substantially.
 

 

 

Or the opposite is true.

 

In the Dennis Martin case they sent out armed to the teeth SF units to hunt for a missing kid. 

 

It’s quite possible that they don’t want Bigfoot accepted by science because they are trying to eradicate it. Why? I have no clue.

 

I do believe that the Government isn’t saying everything they know, just like with the UFO phenomenon or X,Y and Z phenomenon. This is why conspiracy theories abound. Lack of transparency.

[Huntster]

6 minutes ago, norseman said:

Ok. So if Alaska outlawed Brown and Grizzly bear hunting all together? Are you saying that 1900 bears per year would be poached in Alaska? Nothing would change?.........

 

No. If brown bear hunting were banned in Alaska, the DLP killing rate would skyrocket, and since unreported DLP killings legally qualify as poaching, poaching would increase with legal DLP killings. How many? Dunno, but significantly for sure.

 

Quote

.......The question isn’t how many brown bears are hunted or poached in Alaska anyhow. The question is has the ESA been effective at staving off extinction in the lower 48?.......

 

The Alaska brown bear population was referenced because this (and western Canada) is where the increased bear population is coming from, either by immigration or transplantation. Moreover, bear death rates and types here reflect the same continent wide.

 

Quote

........And with Bigfoot? We don’t have ANY numbers….

 

Actually, we do. You just won't accept them. The sasquatch population has, as I've been mentioned before, been estimated by people lik3 Roger Knights using the same methods as those used to estimate bear populations, albeit with weaker data. To learn hiw bear population numbers are estimated, try reviewing these two reports:

 

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/research/wildlife/speciesmanagementreports/pdfs/brownbear_2014_2024_smr_gmu_14c.pdf

 

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/research/wildlife/speciesmanagementreports/pdfs/brownbear_2014_2024_smrp_gmu_8.pdf

 

Those are two different game management units with quite different habitats, bear densities, human densities, etc. Here i# a link to all current reports for the different GMUs:

 

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=librarypublications.wildlifemanagement#bbear

 

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, norseman said:

........It's quite possible that they don’t want Bigfoot accepted by science because they are trying to eradicate it.......

 

Maybe. I suspect they'd just as soon the things quietly go extinct.

[guyzonthropus]

I've often wondered if the introduction of the European pathogens might have had a similarly devastating impact on the  continents sasquatch population as it did on the indigenous peoples. This could account for the extreme remote regions that seem to be their strongholds, in that some may have witnessed what was happening to both native populaions, and simply chose to isolate. Nevertheless, this influx of new diseases  could easily have reduced their numbers as they did  in the Native Americans in both north and south america.  Gradually either antibodies might arise(or perhaps they're still quite susceptible) or continued isolation allowed the resurgance from the remnant populations. Then couple this process with the western expansion by European ranchers and their subsequent extermination of virtually all the major predators(see Grizzly Bear in above posts) yet basically overlooking the mythical hairy devils. With the other predators gone, the hoovestock (mainly deer and elk) populations exploded, conveniently providing a continent wide abundance of preferred food sources. These two elements alone could account for rising population numbers. 

I think its pretty safe to say they don't require old growth forests to thrive. As hominids they're bound to be far more adaptable than spotted owls or murrlets. With some cover and an ample food supply there's little reason to think they're in decline. Of course the megafires of the last decade or two might be seen as the next stage of covert eradication, since such conflagrations must undoubtedly take out groups within those areas.....

[Huntster]

4 hours ago, guyzonthropus said:

..........With the other predators gone, the hoovestock (mainly deer and elk) populations exploded, conveniently providing a continent wide abundance of preferred food sources. These two elements alone could account for rising population numbers. 

I think its pretty safe to say they don't require old growth forests to thrive..........

I'm confident that sasquatches thrive best in rainy forest habitats along with black bears, but away from the more open, arid brown bear habitats. 
 

if I remember correctly, you live in Southern California, which us where I was born and raised. I remember being surprised to learn that the San Gabriel Mountains were devoid of black bears prior to the extirpation of brown bears, but they immigrated into the range quickly after the brown bears were shot out. I think that is an illustration of how quickly one species can make hay after a competitor is eliminated.

 

The Alexander Archipelago in Southeast Alaska is another illustration of range separation. Admiralty, Baranov, and Chichigof Islands at the north end of the chain all host brown bears and no black bears, but Prince of Wales, Revillagigedo, Etolin, Kuiu, Kupreanof, Annette, Zarembo, and Mitkof Islands at the southern end all host black bears, but no brown bears. It would be easy for bears to swim back and forth, but it doesn't happen. Significantly, sasquatch reports are more prevalent on the islands hosting black bears.