Why isn't Bigfoot in a Zoo?

[Huntster]

3 hours ago, georgerm said:

.........Can someone find out what part of the GNP or gross national product is timber production?

In the U.S., private lands produce the vast majority of timber, typically around 90% of the annual harvest, even though they own about 58% of the forest area; public lands (federal, state, local) supply the remaining 10-11%, with federal forests contributing a small fraction, around 6% of the total harvest. This dominance by private forests, especially family-owned forests, is crucial for the nation's domestic timber supply. 
 

But that doesn't matter so much if sasquatches are "discovered", especially if they're determined to be of the Homo taxonomic family. Their basic human rights would still be a major political reality that would need to be addressed. Indeed, such a reality would most certainly extend government power over private timberlands.

[norseman]

“Hundreds of billions” is what AI says.

[Backdoc]

20 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

But that doesn't matter so much if sasquatches are "discovered", especially if they're determined to be of the Homo taxonomic family. Their basic human rights would still be a major political reality that would need to be addressed. Indeed, such a reality would most certainly extend government power over private timberlands.

 

 

This makes me wonder:  How human-like would bigfoot have to be to be human as you describe?  How animal-like would they have to be to be considered animal like by science or the public at large?

 

To me, if bigfoot is essentially nearly Ape-like in intelligence and so on it would be an easy to think "It's an animal"   Obviously if Bigfoot could communicate or have a language and very high intellect good luck selling the idea bigfoot is an animal.    I just wonder how we define the traits for an animal and define the traits as a human.  What's the line?

 

To me anything equal to or less than an ape Bigfoot is an animal.   But how far beyond that takes us to a human?  I don't know the answer.

 

We do science experiments on Rats because they are a lower animal and a pest among other reasons.   

 

-----------------------------------------

 

• "Col. Hans Landa: Has a rat ever done anything to you to create this animosity you feel towards them?"

----------------------------------------------

 

 

We don't tend feel comfortable doing experiments on Chimps or Gorillas.  When we do I assume it is more restrictive for apes as they are a higher animal. 

 

 

 

 

I think of the Helsinki Guidelines on human experimentation.  We have a higher order of requirements to experiment on people/ humans scientifically.  Rats don't get that same consideration.

 

 

What makes an ape-like  HUMAN?   What makes an APE (or Bigfoot for that matter) NON-HUMAN?   When does a ManApe stop becoming an Ape and start becoming a man?

 

 

 

             

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, Backdoc said:

........ How human-like would bigfoot have to be to be human as you describe?..........  How animal-like would they have to be to be considered animal like by science or the public at large?...........

 

These are the key questions. Moreover, even if they're determined to be, say, an Australopithecine or similar, that's close enough, no? Would they qualify for basic human rights?

 

Quote

..........Obviously if Bigfoot could communicate or have a language and very high intellect good luck selling the idea bigfoot is an animal...........            

 

Reports strongly indicate verbal language. It would be tough to class them as much less than Homo under such a situation.

[MIB]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

These are the key questions. Moreover, even if they're determined to be, say, an Australopithecine or similar, that's close enough, no? Would they qualify for basic human rights?

 

 

Reports strongly indicate verbal language. It would be tough to class them as much less than Homo under such a situation.

 

Those are critical points.    We have 2 things to go on, personal experience or prior beliefs, nothing that is going to change anyone's mind.    We have a third .. public perception.   People vote their emotions more than their logic; politicians who want to stay in office pay very careful attention to public perception, and scientific research FUNDING is often in the hands of those politicians.     If what "they" know they're going to find .. because they have more information than we do .. does not align with voter emotion, that might be a reason to suppress evidence at least for the time being.