Saving Bigfoot

[Huntster]

As for saving Bigfoot I'm of the opinion that went extinct at least 20 years ago. So by my watch its way too late to save anything!

I agree with Kerchak. While they may have gone or will soon go extinct in isolated habitat pockets like the Sierra Nevada mountains, the Kiamichis, Florida, etc, I'm pretty confident that the original stronghold (PNW) still hold a population which still has a chance at viability.

How long will it remain viable? Nobody knows, and it appears that nobody will know.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

"Researchers" frequently use the device of saying that they are withholding evidence as a means of protecting Bigfoot. The device is simply a construct to circumvent the reality that they have no evidence/proof in the first place. As for saving Bigfoot I'm of the opinion that went extinct at least 20 years ago. So by my watch its way too late to save anything!

Crowlogic, unless a researcher has a Bigfoot body, any other evidence shared will only see ridicule. So what's the motivation to share? Chris B.

[BobbyO]

Yes, you are correct, it's under estimated. 2005 was the latest WHO stats I could find quickly doing an internet search. I have no doubt that by 2010 that figure is much greater. You have to also consider the lack of infrastructure in some of these places to even assess the problem. In 2005, the most homeless people, 73% of that 100+ million, resided in India according to what I read.

Comparing our world homeless population to Bigfoot was the first thing that came to mind at the time I posted. I had the TV on for background noise and was talking on the forum when a "Save the Children" commercial came on. I guess something clicked because I was reading a post on the Enoch thread where someone said they thought proving the existence of Bigfoot and preserving the species was more important than discovering the cure for AIDS or other diseases. It kind of flew all over me since I work in public health with HIV clients, a lot of which are facing homelessness since the economic crash, and federal funding has been cut for their meds. I thought, "Here I am worrying about Bigfoot, when there are so many other things in this world that are more urgent for the human race to be concerned about." But then I wondered, what motivates other people to think saving Bigfoot is an important thing to pursue? Because this topic is thrown around a lot on the forum in different threads. I'm really curious to know because it might provide some insight into why the bickering ensues in Bigfoot world and nothing gets accomplished. If I can understand where people are coming from, and suspend judgement, maybe it will make a difference somewhere down the road for anyone who reads the thread or wants to seriously consider pursuing the topic, including myself. My time might be better spent elsewhere since I don't think it's important to prove the existence of Bigfoot, much less preserve them, if they need our help at all.

Spooky, i saw that Post you refer to about 20 mins ago & had a feeling that this is where that came from..

Anyway, i'll still say that 100m figure is incredibly low..

Especially when you consider that India has 73% of it & there are One Billion people in Africa !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But still, my answer to your question is that the answer is different for different people..

For some people it's not important at all, there is no " saving " of an Animal that doesn't exist.

For others it is important as they know that the Animal exists but are in the vast minority & they may feel that it is very important to save as it's quite possibly one of the biggest kept secrets in the modern World, a huge Primate that walks predominantly upright on 2 Feet, on a Continent like North America, under the noses of over half a Billion people, & they don't even know it !!

Incredible isn't it ??

For others, yeah the selfishness is/would be there, the selfishness is added to ^^ possibly because we're Human Beings & many of us are selfish whether we admit it or not.

I think they're doing pretty well on their own personally & i can't imagine how or why they'd need our help in the slightest, especially with saving them.

I mean, why on Earth would something that has gone undetected by Humans & the ever so wonderful Huamn Science of the ever so intelligent Western World, for so long, need our help in saving it anyway ???

That's only Human arrogance, a horrible Human Trait ( i don't mean you directly Jodie, i mean as us a Species ), that would even dare to think in that manner in the first place given the above..

[Guest Knuck]

I didn't read ALL the replies in this thread. I guess I want to try out some of this "emotional manipulation" hoo-haa.

Sasquatch as a species doesn't need anything from man except to be left alone. If anything is needed at all, it's for federal/state legislation to make it ILLEGAL to hunt/kill this species (unless in provable immanent danger of death or serious injury by one of them).

They have gotten along for millenia without human intervention, and they sure won't thrive with it!-Knuck

[Huntster]

Sasquatch as a species doesn't need anything from man except to be left alone.

And why does that position not work with, say, polar bears?

If anything is needed at all, it's for federal/state legislation to make it ILLEGAL to hunt/kill this species (unless in provable immanent danger of death or serious injury by one of them).

That is already de facto law in all the state hunting regulations that I'm aware of.

They have gotten along for millenia without human intervention, and they sure won't thrive with it!

And, again, why is that not true of polar bears? It is already illegal to hunt them in the United States (except by aboriginal peoples), so why bother declaring them "threatened" or "endangered"?

[Guest Knuck]

Here's where we may agree to disagree; I theorize that there are LOTS more Sasquatches than Polar Bears. Polar Bears' range is Very limited, so I don't really see the comparison, other than both being apex predators.-Knuck

[Huntster]

Here's where we may agree to disagree; I theorize that there are LOTS more Sasquatches than Polar Bears.

Do you know how many polar bears there are? It is generally agreed that there are about 25,000 polar bears, with at least 5,000 in the United States (Alaska) alone.

Do you really think there are "LOTS" more than 25,000 sasquatches?

Polar Bears' range is Very limited

And also quite huge: essentially everything above the Arctic Circle (and some below):

The point is that the feds have declared polar bears "threatened", and are engaging in legal actions to go a step further and declare them "endangered", yet haven't even bothered to conduct a sasquatch census.

And, more to your point, if "leaving them alone" would be all that sasquatches need, why not the same for polar bears?

[Guest Knuck]

As I am no expert on polar bears or Sasquatchs, I cannot verify my theory. As I said "my theory" is not stated as fact. Are ALL polar bears considered under the perview of our govt? The "range" I spoke of, was limited to the boundaries of the continental United States alone. Not to include Northern Canada, Greenland, Iceland, or unincorporated portions of the Artic Circle where I would suspect the majority of these estimated 25,000 polar bears reside. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding. No biggie-Knuck

[Huntster]

Are ALL polar bears considered under the perview of our govt?

No, just those wandering above Alaskan oil fields. Indeed, one can still hunt polar bears in Canada (if you have enough money to pay the government and required guide). But you cannot hunt them in the United States (Alaska).

The "range" I spoke of, was limited to the boundaries of the continental United States alone. Not to include Northern Canada, Greenland, Iceland, or unincorporated portions of the Artic Circle where I would suspect the majority of these estimated 25,000 polar bears reside.

Why?

And what of the sasquatches/polar bears that live in Canada? Polar bears are managed by the Canadian government, but sasquatches are not.

Why the diffent management styles (or lack thereof)? Wouldn't polar bears thrive without government management if sasquatches would?

Edited November 29, 2010 by Huntster

[Guest parnassus]

Huntster, I probably missed it if you posted the part of Alaska state law and any federal law that would or should, in your view, make it the responsibility of the fish and game department to do some sort of survey or census of bigfoots. Could you show us the relevant Alaska and state law? or if that would be many pages, just what you consider to be the most important provisions of state and federal law and a link to the rest of the statute(s)? or link me to where you have already posted it?

[Guest Lesmore]

I live in the province of Manitoba, where a sizable chunk of the world's Polar bears call home, particularly around the Hudson's Bay area in Northern Mb. Churchill, Mb. a town on the Bay is renowned for the number of Polar Bears that live in and around that region.

I have found over that past number of years that some environmental groups say that Polar Bear numbers up in Northern Mb. are rapidly declining. Representatives of environmental groups come up to Northern Mb. every so often.

However I've also read that many Inuit, the native people of the North, indicate that Polar Bear numbers seem to be doing ok or increasing in Northern Mb.

So who to believe...environmentalist groups based out of cities in North America and Europe...or Inuit hunters who have lived since time immemorial in Northern Canada, alongside Polar bears ?

I think the Inuit have a better handle on the situation.

Now about Sasquatch in Manitoba. Well there have been a number of sighting reports of BF here over the years.

The most fascinating story was about the hunter who apparently shot a Sasquatch (killed him) when he was Moose hunting...sometime in the early '40's. Can't recall much more than that, but I'm sure the details are out there.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Lesmore

[Guest Knuck]

No, just those wandering above Alaskan oil fields. Indeed, one can still hunt polar bears in Canada (if you have enough money to pay the government and required guide). But you cannot hunt them in the United States (Alaska).

I imagine that the polar bears would IF they were as elusive as the Sasses.-Knuck

Why?

And what of the sasquatches/polar bears that live in Canada? Polar bears are managed by the Canadian government, but sasquatches are not.

Why the diffent management styles (or lack thereof)? Wouldn't polar bears thrive without government management if sasquatches would?

[Guest Lesmore]

This statement reminds me of the day I went to see Saving Private Ryan in the theater. People were talking, laughing, moving about, getting snacks, etc before the movie started, but when it was over, you could literally hear a pin drop. The entire theater was in a state of shock. You could see it in their faces as they shuffled out of the theater.

I've read several statements about some of the scientists who first evaluated the PG film. The general consensus was one of rejection, simply because the thought that such a creature exists was just too much for them to accept. In other words, they rejected the film not because of a fair evaluation of whether or not it was hoaxed, but because the realization that such a creature exists was just too traumatic.

I believe the same is true today. As the film has undergone more and more study over the decades, it has become almost more ridiculous to imagine that Patterson/Gimlin hoaxed this as it is to accept the fact that the creature existed.

I don't know if there was ever a film made of one of the Patterson-Gimlin presentations. I don't think so and actually it's unfortunate, as it would of given people a real flavour of the atmosphere, the question and answer session and how Mr. Patterson and Mr. Gimlin presented.

It sure made a life long impression on me...that few other events have.

Yeah, I definately know what you mean. I grew up then, too. It seems to me that today is more a lie than reality. Everybody is trying to "one-up" the last crazy act or scheme in order to get some sort of fame. It is the ultimate false world to me.

As Andy Warhol said in the 1960's...(I'm paraphrasing)...In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.

I guess the future is now and Andy seems to have been proven right.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Lesmore

[Guest Knuck]

Sorry, for what ever reason it duplicated your post in quote, but placed my reply smack in the middle of your quote. DOH! for some reason. rrrr computers. My response was that if the polar bears were as elusive as the sasses, maybe the programs in place would be much different. (They do kind of live in more open areas) for the most part.-Knuck

Edited November 29, 2010 by Knuck

[Huntster]

Huntster, I probably missed it if you posted the part of Alaska state law and any federal law that would or should, in your view, make it the responsibility of the fish and game department to do some sort of survey or census of bigfoots. Could you show us the relevant Alaska and state law?

In Alaska, there is no law stating that the ADFG has the power and duty to manage sasquatches. However, it is clear that it is their responsibility to manage all non-federal migratory wildlife within the state. That power and responsibility is demonstrated by their ability to forbide the hunting of any game not listed in their hunting regulations, as well as their power to require permitting even for non-consumptive research.

If you'd like yourself, or would like any of your lawyer pals to conduct a legal review, you'll find the Fish and Game section of the Alaska Statutes here.