Do You Really Need Proof?

[dopelyrics]

Hello,

This is one for all those who have actually seen a Bigfoot I think.

I can't help thinking that if Bigfoot was ever discovered to be a real animal (a recognised animal, by the scientific community) that it would be bad news for the creature. No matter what anyone said, some of the animals would be taken from their natural habitat by scientists to have tests done, to be prodded and poked, to see what the creature could do for mankind. Their habitat would no doubt become in jeopardy due to the increased number of people looking for them etc'. It happens with a lot of animals. The fact is that, if the animal is real, it has done a remarkable job to stay largely undetected for thousands..millions, of years. So I'm not too interested in the "science could help protect the species" viewpoint.

So, with that in mind, are eyewitnesses satisfied in their own knowledge that the creature is real? Is it really necessary to prove its existence, for reasons other than, "I told you I was right"?

Best regards,

Lee

[Drew]

Hello,

This is one for all those who have actually seen a Bigfoot I think.

I can't help thinking that if Bigfoot was ever discovered to be a real animal (a recognised animal, by the scientific community) that it would be bad news for the creature. No matter what anyone said, some of the animals would be taken from their natural habitat by scientists to have tests done, to be prodded and poked, to see what the creature could do for mankind. Their habitat would no doubt become in jeopardy due to the increased number of people looking for them etc'. It happens with a lot of animals. The fact is that, if the animal is real, it has done a remarkable job to stay largely undetected for thousands..millions, of years. So I'm not too interested in the "science could help protect the species" viewpoint.

So, with that in mind, are eyewitnesses satisfied in their own knowledge that the creature is real? Is it really necessary to prove its existence, for reasons other than, "I told you I was right"?

Best regards,

Lee

Why do you think a discovery would make them easier to find? I have been hunting for 20 years in Michigan, I have never seen a bear(other than at the dump or crossing the road), bobcat, elk, albino deer, wolf etc... they are all recognised fairly common animals, and yet I haven't seen them. Unless Bigfoot starts becoming stupid once it's discovered, I think the chances of seeing one will still be miniscule.

[Huntster]

I can't help thinking that if Bigfoot was ever discovered to be a real animal (a recognised animal, by the scientific community) that it would be bad news for the creature. No matter what anyone said, some of the animals would be taken from their natural habitat by scientists to have tests done, to be prodded and poked, to see what the creature could do for mankind. Their habitat would no doubt become in jeopardy due to the increased number of people looking for them etc'. It happens with a lot of animals. The fact is that, if the animal is real, it has done a remarkable job to stay largely undetected for thousands..millions, of years. So I'm not too interested in the "science could help protect the species" viewpoint.

This is a huge consideration for me. I've gone both ways, and multiple times, on this. I'm really not sure what to think.

I agree that discovery will create a silly eco-industry surrounding the creature, and they'll be pestered much like mountain gorillas are now, and likely much worse.

But science and aggressive management has shown success in thwarting the otherwise inevitable extinction of (at least) the California condor. Just 23 years ago, only 22 were left in existence (all in captivity). As of August 2010, there are 384 condors known to be living, including 188 in the wild.

The impact of discovery is likely to be more profound on humanity than on sasquatches. The silliness and novelty aside, it may well result in environmental activism regarding resource extraction as well as basic access to particular areas, and maybe even wide areas at first.

[indiefoot]

Not proof...... understanding.

[BobbyO]

I'm with Drew on this..

[dopelyrics]

Drew: I didn't say a discovery would make them easier to find. And I'm not asking about the frequency of someone seeing one.

Feel free to read my post again if it helps to clarify what I am asking.

Best regards,

Lee

[Drew]

Drew: I didn't say a discovery would make them easier to find. And I'm not asking about the frequency of someone seeing one.

Feel free to read my post again if it helps to clarify what I am asking.

Best regards,

Lee

If the unfettered logging of the early 20th century didn't affect them, why would a few hundred thousand eco-tourists and scientists?

Some of the most protected rainforests in South America are allowed to stay that way because of Ecotourism dollars.

Some of the most successful programs in Africa are funded by HUNTING the creatures.

Ecotourism could only help the habitat.

[Huntster]

Why do you think a discovery would make them easier to find?

In the same way that mountain gorillas are now easy to find. People now know where to look, and (just as important, in case you haven't figured that out yet) where not to bother. For example, nobody is looking for mountain gorillas in New York's Central Park or Oklahoma City.

You see, Drew, it is hoped that discovery might even get science involved in the matter (what a novel idea!), and that they'll actually start to learn about these creatures. That might help some folks figure out how/where to find these creatures.

I have been hunting for 20 years in Michigan, I have never seen a bear(other than at the dump or crossing the road), bobcat, elk, albino deer, wolf etc... they are all recognised fairly common animals, and yet I haven't seen them.

1) Did the remote possibililty that you're not a particularly good hunter cross your mind?

2) If you haven't actually seen these creatures, how do you know they exist there?

3) If you do know they exist there, doesn't that give you some insight as to why you haven't seen an even more rare creature like a sasquatch?

Unless Bigfoot starts becoming stupid once it's discovered, I think the chances of seeing one will still be miniscule.

Again, it isn't necessary for bigfoot to become stupid. It might, however, make a difference if humanity got smart.

[dopelyrics]

Drew: so I take it that's a Yes - you would want proof after having seen one already.

Thanks for your response.

Best regards.

Lee

[Huntster]

If the unfettered logging of the early 20th century didn't affect them, why would a few hundred thousand eco-tourists and scientists?

You don't know if "unfettered logging" has affected them or not. Indeed, you don't even know (or accept, in your case) that they exist. Large scale clear cutting may well have brought them to the point of extinction, for all you know.

That is why it is important at this point for science to actually look into the matter.

Some of the most protected rainforests in South America are allowed to stay that way because of Ecotourism dollars.

Actually, it is the legislation prohibiting slash and burn as well as homesteading reform that has protected rainforest in Brazil. Ecotourism dollars tend to go into environmental industry pockets.

Some of the most successful programs in Africa are funded by HUNTING the creatures.

Yes, in some nations, especially the U.S. Much more than eco-dollars.

Ecotourism could only help the habitat.

Maybe.

Too bad the environmental industry is as silent and MIA with regard to sasquatchery as the official wildlife managemnet agencies, huh?

[BobbyO]

In the same way that mountain gorillas are now easy to find. People now know where to look, and (just as important, in case you haven't figured that out yet) where not to bother. For example, nobody is looking for mountain gorillas in New York's Central Park or Oklahoma City.

You see, Drew, it is hoped that discovery might even get science involved in the matter (what a novel idea!), and that they'll actually start to learn about these creatures. That might help some folks figure out how/where to find these creatures.

Scientist or no Scientists, i personally just can't see how they are going to find more of these Creatures as & when they want..

They are the absolute Masters of their domain.

Mountain Gorilla's i doubt, were not NOT easy to find before their Discovery, their numbers were much larger than they are now & Westerners simply were not in their Geographical areas, before their Scientific acceptance yet when they were, the Mountain Gorilla was " discovered "..

The locals would have known about them for Centuries previously of course..

But the local's word & lack of being able to provide physical proof, even though i doubt they particulary cared either way, wasn't enough in Western eyes..

That might ring a bell...

[Guest]

I agree that discovery will create a silly eco-industry surrounding the creature, and they'll be pestered much like mountain gorillas are now, and likely much worse.

There already is a silly eco-industry surrounding bigfoot. Don't people travel to Honobia, OK every fall for their conference and don't these almost always result in some people claiming encounters in the vicinity?

[dopelyrics]

Wow, do topics often get so off-track this quickly?

Maybe I should have edited my first post to ask, "Do those who have seen Bigfoot want scientific confirmation of the creature's existence?".

Best regards,

Lee

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 20 October 2010 - 09:22 AM, said:

I agree that discovery will create a silly eco-industry surrounding the creature, and they'll be pestered much like mountain gorillas are now, and likely much worse.

There already is a silly eco-industry surrounding bigfoot. Don't people travel to Honobia, OK every fall for their conference....

That isn't a silly eco-industry. That is a silly satisfy-science industry. And it is as ineffective and silly as an eco-industry.

and don't these almost always result in some people claiming encounters in the vicinity?

Yup. Do you believe them, Professor? If so, why don't you go to Honobia and look for a sasquatch?

If you happen to run into a mountain gorilla while doing so, you can call Drew and proclaim your incredible find.................

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 20 October 2010 - 09:57 AM, said:

In the same way that mountain gorillas are now easy to find. People now know where to look, and (just as important, in case you haven't figured that out yet) where not to bother. For example, nobody is looking for mountain gorillas in New York's Central Park or Oklahoma City.

You see, Drew, it is hoped that discovery might even get science involved in the matter (what a novel idea!), and that they'll actually start to learn about these creatures. That might help some folks figure out how/where to find these creatures.

Scientist or no Scientists, i personally just can't see how they are going to find more of these Creatures as & when they want..

They won't "as & when they want" initially, however, after more and more is learned about their behavior, range, population, etc, it will become easier to find them.

Obviously, the first requirement is that the appropriate people need to go out and look to begin with, which is not happening now.

Mountain Gorilla's i doubt, were not NOT easy to find before their Discovery, their numbers were much larger than they are now & Westerners simply were not in their Geographical areas, before their Scientific acceptance yet when they were, the Mountain Gorilla was " discovered "..

That is my point exactly: before 1912, nobody even knew they existed, or that they exclusively inhabited such a small range. Now that we know, it's relatively easy to find them (if you can successfully get a permit to go there, and can successfully negotiate the regular civil wars of the region).

The locals would have known about them for Centuries previously of course..

But the local's word & lack of being able to provide physical proof, even though i doubt they particulary cared either way, wasn't enough in Western eyes..

That might ring a bell...

Precisely.