Guest Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 As long as it remains unrecognized there remains no imperative to manage a fundamentally unmanageable species. And, as I've said before, there's no upside from the government's perspective to recognizing the species. I disagree. One upside of species recognition is legal protection under the law with potentially severe consequences for poaching one of the species, which I already mentioned above. That is certainly a plus, since there is currently NO legal protection for them and therefore NO consequences for killing one (it can't be referred to as poaching yet, since it is not yet illegal or even recognized as a species), with the exception of a few places such as Washington state and a few parishes in Southern Louisiana1. 1http://www.fieldandstream.com/forums/hunting/big-game-hunting/can-you-hunt-big-game-such-big-footis-there-season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 (edited) I don't believe that it is necessary to understand the behavior of BF or anything else in order to protect them legally, which is what verifying the existence of BF would accomplish. We cannot totally stop people from being murdered simply by making it illegal, and we cannot totally stop deer from being poached out of season by making that illegal either, but the law provides a framework to work within and punish violators. Researchers comment on the widespread population of BF, and predominantly disagree with Dr. Meldrum's population estimate of 500-750 individuals, frequently giving figures of 3,000 or more. Siberian tigers number 400-500 individuals1, with some lower estimates. They are highly prized by poachers2, yet international protection efforts due to the species being listed as endangered are what have helped the species to become stabilized1 instead of continuing to decline of become extinct. I have seen no reason at all to keep BF a secret if it should be proven to exist, but have shown many positive reasons for showing the evidence to mainstream science, getting the species listed, and having science begin to study it in order to learn and understand its biology, habits, needs, etc. As I have stated before, it seems to have been getting along fine with the current land uses, logging practices, etc., so I can't see any reason why the big timber companies should worry too much. There is also big money in conservation banking as well. Btw, Prag, I am very interested in knowing what kind of big game rifle can fire accurately for several miles. The .30 caliber, more specifically the 30/06, has been a longstanding choice for marksmen and snipers, and it is routinely fired at 1,100 yards, but much more than that is a stretch, and that is much less than a mile. The warning on the side of the .22 ammo boxes do not mean that the round can hit a target at a mile & a half, but that it can go that far if you aim it upward at a 45 deg. angle or fire it off a high point (hill, mountain, etc.). I still do not believe poachers are going to learn to call BF in from internet forums, especially since folks on the forums can't even produce evidence that they are being successful at doing so. The majority of successful hunters are successful because they are very stealthy and the animals don't know the hunter is there. What are the odds of encountering a BF like that in the big woods? Probably not too good. I vote verify, list, and protect as a species. If the DNA shows what all the hype suggests, they will be verified, whether in our lifetime or the next. Wouldn't you rather have them verified now, like this, than have another incident where one is shot and this time maybe driven around town hanging out of the back of someone's truck? 1 http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/siberian-tiger/ 2 http://www.tigersincrisis.com/siberian_tiger.htm Edited November 29, 2011 by Surveyor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 I disagree. One upside of species recognition is legal protection under the law with potentially severe consequences for poaching one of the species, which I already mentioned above. That is certainly a plus, since there is currently NO legal protection for them and therefore NO consequences for killing one (it can't be referred to as poaching yet, since it is not yet illegal or even recognized as a species), with the exception of a few places such as Washington state and a few parishes in Southern Louisiana1. 1http://www.fieldandstream.com/forums/hunting/big-game-hunting/can-you-hunt-big-game-such-big-footis-there-season You're thinking about what's best for the squatch, and I agree with you from that viewpoint. But government will do the easy thing until it is forced to do the right thing. The social management, regulatory, and enforcement requirements will be a nightmare from the governmental perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 One of the things I've always enjoyed about the BFF is the unpredictability of the things I might be inspired to learn stemming from a comment or question seen here. Today, I considered the history of "uncontacted peoples" and how they have fared after discovery, as well as government efforts to keep them isolated. Fascinating stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Great link! I wonder if that means your recent experience has got you thinking along the lines of "are sasquatches an uncontacted people group?" My question, exactly. Did you notice the similarities in the woven or crossed trees and leaves, and what some researchers report seeing here in NA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 I wonder if that means your recent experience has got you thinking along the lines of "are sasquatches an uncontacted people group?" Nope, I still think sasquatches are 100% folklore, but these uncontacted tribes are the real deal, and I bet some of their folklore kicks butt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 I hate to say it but I'm beginning to lose my religion on BF too.... This very site has ,IMO, proven to me that Bigfoot isn't real. The scientists always fail at their studies, the bodies never are real (or in the case of the Sierra thing, are amazingly left in the woods!!) The pictures are always terrible, the stories cryptic..... Why on bloody earth can't one of the witnesses gather any sort of reasonable evidence? it's maddening.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 (edited) I see what you're saying, JDL. I do hope that, like I have said to Prag, I respect both of your opinions and what you have to say (that's not simply an opinion), and I am merely postulating and opining, mostly based on 2nd hand reports, management and conservation efforts for other species (mostly large mammals), etc. Of course, from where I stand, that's all we have to go on, though we can interpret all of that very differently while having a very good understanding of it (which we lack in regard to BF). Edited for double post withing the same post (kinda odd) Edited November 29, 2011 by Surveyor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 I hate to say it but I'm beginning to lose my religion on BF too.... This very site has ,IMO, proven to me that Bigfoot isn't real. The scientists always fail at their studies, the bodies never are real (or in the case of the Sierra thing, are amazingly left in the woods!!) The pictures are always terrible, the stories cryptic..... Why on bloody earth can't one of the witnesses gather any sort of reasonable evidence? it's maddening.... I'm just a bit curious Stank Ape, why have you deemed the current DNA studies a failure when the results have not been released yet? I gather you've decided it's a failure already, but wouldn't you want to allow the whole process to play out first before you decide what is real and what isn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 I haven't decided anything, its just that I'm so worn out by the crying of wolf that seems to happen in the Bigfoot world.... I reckon I just have days where it feels like it's all malarky... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Well StankApe, so do the rest of us. I don't doubt bigfoot exists, I just doubt all the fantastic stories. I might be proven wrong one day, but it's not looking good right now from where I am sitting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 BBF members- Also just to add to things, one of the major, major hurdles in any laws being passed for the protection of Sasquatch is the ability to EDUCATE unwilling lawmakers. The draft legislation I turned in to my assemblywomen in Oct. 11' will be not be read until early Jan. 12'. Hey, I will do my best to just try to educate the lawmakers at where we are now, as far as proof. Will they listen? maybe they will but probably not. My motive is to get them to start thinking that a species identification is close and a hunting prohibition is a first step agianst the mad rush to nab a specimen without any deterents in place. Can't be afraid to fail or get shut out, the least that can happen is to learn the approach of educating the the lawmakers ptangier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Here is the process for a species to be listed in the Endangered Species Program: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/listing-overview.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Surveyor- I understand your approach to verification, however I was trying to introduce a ban on the Sasquatch; ie skamania co. wash. ordinance bf069-01 1984 andwhatcom co. wash. resolution 92-043 1991to be used a type models. However I agree that the lawmakers have no insentive to listen without any real proof of. ptangier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Surveyor, re the long distance rifles. Just to be clear, I didn't say 'several miles', I had said a few miles. Of course that is not the norm and a mile and a half would be more realistic. The Lapua comes to mind as one of the contenders for stretching these distances. There does appear to be govt recorded record at 2 miles with a 45/70, I guess if you do some research there will be other examples. Point was that a shooter can reach way the hell out there without being noticed these days. Remember, I'm not saying I am opposing verification, I'm just trying to raise issues that I don't feel have been thought out adequately. A few years ago I drafted a thirty something page 'Petition to List' myself. Experiences and discussions over the last few years have simply made me realize that its not so simple a prospect. I live in Spotted Owl country too, and know how some very organized groups will rally against any further locking up of forests. So what I am equally concerned about is the effort to list falling short, and then what do you have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts