Saving Bigfoot

[Guest vilnoori]

LOL! I thought they were thought to be dying out. Anyways, around here they choose to use a different habitat niche than our people do, that's why encounters are so rare. I doubt there would be a population problem. I'm talking about halting the decline. Er...if they exist at all. Since I haven't seen one myself, I'm still not sure. Footprints are enough to intrigue me, but not convince me totally.

Also your gov't has enough money to buy vaccines for the poor, all it has to do is spend less on the military, or put a tax on booze and cigarettes or something. Compare your nation's spending on luxuries to the amount that would be required to give your poor basic medical care some time. An eye opener.

Edited December 1, 2010 by vilnoori

[Huntster]

Ok, so say we manage to provide medical care that increases their population and life span. Where are we going to put them when they outgrow their territories?

Wherever they want? They're human, right? With all the rights thereof?

Who will pay for all of that?

If they're human, why don't they pay?

Who pays for Indian and Alaska Native health care?

We don't have the funds to buy vaccine for all of the indigent and underinsured humans in the U.S. for next year.

The First Nation gets theirs for free. Why shouldn't sasquatches get it, too? They were here at least as long as our aboriginal cousins.

Once the population is large and the competition begins for the same resources, then what?

Political struggle, war, etc.

If they're human, why not? Isn't that how it works for the rest of humanity?

Then we get into all of the ethical dilemmas of "if human" then they have a right to refuse our "help".

Yup. That's how it works.

Are we going to go in and let Children's Services remove a Bigfoot Momma's kids from her because one of them died as a result of enchephalitis because of a tooth abccess? I think I would quit if I were DHHS worker and got assigned to go out in the woods to "rescue" bigfoot children......

It'll be a tough job, but somebody will have to do it.

[masterbarber]

Ok, so say we manage to provide medical care that increases their population and life span. Where are we going to put them when they outgrow their territories?

HERE (Medical Benefits are included )

efc.

Edited December 1, 2010 by masterbarber

[Guest tracker]

Hey, next you will have them forming unions, thats all we'll need.

Back on topic we go.

Since we destroyed many life forms already and we are slowly killing the planet. We need to redeem ourselves and save all creatures(and the earth) especially the endangered elusive ones. Every day they lose habitat to do to our urban sprawl, deforestation and the fires we cause.

In Canada/Alaska were down to only about 800 grizzlies for the same reasons plus add poaching and we can barely protect whats left of them in our protected National Parks.

If you kill, capture one female or male protector/provider for study or identification. That may kill off that whole family unit. Maybe the only one living in your state or province? Who would be okay with a family member being kidnapped or killed in your own back yard so others could study them? Were pretty arrogant as a species to assume we have the right to do that to other creatures for their own benefit.

All they need is their space and to be left alone.

[Guest]

You partly hit on the reality: Polar bears don't thrive in thick, montane rainforests. They're white, and they live in a treeless land (works good in the winter, but not so much in summer). They're also bears, which aren't known to be as shy and reclusive as great apes.

What say you about the fact that at least one polar bear was harvested over 200 miles inland in a place no one expected them to be? Or the existence of the "pizzly"?

[Sasfooty]

Putting my "skeptic hat" on now...

Where is the proof that they are an endangered species? They are a lot smarter, more mobile, & more adaptable than polar bears, fish & frogs. They have the option of not staying in one place & dying. They can pick up & leave if their habitat becomes unusable.

Where is the proof that their numbers aren't actually increasing? That could be the reason that they are seen more often than a few years ago. Maybe the wilderness areas are becoming crowded & some are coming out & learning to live closer to us. Could that be why they sit & watch humans, to learn about our habits & how to survive among us?

Something to think about.

[ShadowBorn]

Instead of talking about polar bears how about the Grizzlies what about thier numbers and how they survive.Grizzlies are just as low in numbers and are making a come back,which is great.If their is any animal out there that is like a Sas that would be a Grizzly.

Huntster

I really do not believe that these creatures are going to give up the freedom they have now,would you give up that freedom.If you were able to go where ever you desire without someone telling that you cannot go there would you give that up?If you were told that you are only allowed to hunt in this season would you give this up? They have no borders and they fear nothing so why should they give that up.Why should they abide by laws that were created by man that puts control on man?If anything they have it right to stay away from us and live free and have no understanding of our world.Just look at what we are doing to our selves do you really think that they want what we have to offer them?This is why I stand at the belief that we should just leave them alone because they do not want anything from us.If they wanted to be found they would have done so a long time ago and this whole story of knowing what they are would be finish.But people still keep wanting and still cannot understand why they cannot get that picture or that body and if it ever happens that we do get a body it will be because one got careless but I really doubt that happening so in ten years from now we will still be having the same conversation except the diffence is there will be more reports of people having friendship with these creatures in away not ever reported before and that will be the norm.

[Huntster]

In Canada/Alaska were down to only about 800 grizzlies for the same reasons plus add poaching and we can barely protect whats left of them in our protected National Parks.

???!!!

Alaska alone harbors over 35,000 brown bears (75% of the continent's brown bears). Canada harbors at least 23%. That's thousands of bears.

All they need is their space and to be left alone.

Which space? And how do we know that's the correct space?

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 29 November 2010 - 04:04 PM, said:

You partly hit on the reality: Polar bears don't thrive in thick, montane rainforests. They're white, and they live in a treeless land (works good in the winter, but not so much in summer). They're also bears, which aren't known to be as shy and reclusive as great apes.

What say you about the fact that at least one polar bear was harvested over 200 miles inland in a place no one expected them to be?

The one shot with a 223 near Fort Yukon in 2008? S**t happens. Sorta' like the possibility of a sasquatch in Fife Heights, Washington, or near Oklahoma City.

Young bears/wolves/wolverines/etc (usually males) tend to travel long distances on occasion and for reasons unknown by biologists.

Or the existence of the "pizzly"?

Polar bears and brown bears are very closely related. And brown bears have inhabited polar bear habitat for eons. There have always been brown bears north of the Arctic Circle (at least in recorded history).

Sorta' like almas and humans.

[Huntster]

Putting my "skeptic hat" on now...

Where is the proof that they are an endangered species?

Your "skeptic hat" needs adjusting:

If you're a "skeptic", you don't accept their existence, anyway. But I will admit, that's a classic skeptical excuse for avoiding the reality that wildlife management agencies have a responsibility to investigate the phenomenon.

They are a lot smarter, more mobile, & more adaptable than polar bears, fish & frogs.

<Donning his "skeptic hat">

Sez who? Prove it.

They have the option of not staying in one place & dying. They can pick up & leave if their habitat becomes unusable.

<Donning his "skeptic hat">

Sez who? Prove it.

Why can't polar bears, fish & frogs do that, too?

Where is the proof that their numbers aren't actually increasing?

Out there waiting to be found.

That could be the reason that they are seen more often than a few years ago.

Maybe. And maybe not:

1) What evidence do you have that there are, indeed, "seen more often than a few years ago"?

2) They should be "seen more often than a few years ago", because the human population in North America has more than doubled since 1950.

3) And what about the reason why we don't have another PG film quality photographic evidence, especially since we have more cameras out there?

Maybe the wilderness areas are becoming crowded & some are coming out & learning to live closer to us.

Maybe, but why hasn't one been hit by the astronomically increasing number of vehicles on the road since the Patterson days?

Could that be why they sit & watch humans, to learn about our habits & how to survive among us?

People themselves get hit by cars by the thousands each year. But not one sasquatch?

Something to think about.

Yup. Just like the possibility that they're dying out in their former range.

[Huntster]

Instead of talking about polar bears how about the Grizzlies what about thier numbers and how they survive.Grizzlies are just as low in numbers and are making a come back,which is great.

1) Grizzly numbers are very healthy north of the U.S./Canada border, and still inhabit virtually all of their historic range, and maybe more

2) Grizzly numbers have been "making a comeback" in areas of intensive management (the northern Rocky Mountain states)

3) Grizzlies and humans cannot exist together in the same area without intensive management

4) Grizzlies are not "making a comeback" in much of their original range, like California, Oregon, and Mexico, which are the areas where they have not been reintroduced, intensively managed

This is yet another illustration why sasquatches, just like bears, bats, bees, and illegal immigrants, need to be managed.

Huntster

I really do not believe that these creatures are going to give up the freedom they have now,would you give up that freedom.

My ancestors and I already have, and we did so because if we didn't, the "manager's" army would kill us. Why do you think I'm a cultural refugee in Alaska from California?

If you were able to go where ever you desire without someone telling that you cannot go there would you give that up?

Yes. I already have. I've got a "passport". Don't you? I even have to have it now to drive through Canada to get to the rest of the U.S.

If you were told that you are only allowed to hunt in this season would you give this up?

Already did, and long ago.

They have no borders and they fear nothing so why should they give that up.

If they have no borders and fear nothing, why are they hiding from humans and don't inhabit Central Park in New York?

Why should they abide by laws that were created by man that puts control on man?

Because if they don't, we'll kill them, just like grizzly bears.

[Guest tracker]

Sure maybe 35,000 native Alaskan Kodiac's? I said grizzly's their cousins usually native to areas further south and in the northern states. Anyways I hope your numbers are right Hunster, I sure would hate to see them go. Whether you agree or not with them being slightly different breeds of brown.

I support the idea that Sasq migrate to avoid us and to find new food resources and denning areas.

[Guest]

HERE (Medical Benefits are included )

efc.

Oh My God, that is so freaking hilarious!! And wouldn't be much of a transition for them either

[Guest]

Putting my "skeptic hat" on now...

Where is the proof that they are an endangered species? They are a lot smarter, more mobile, & more adaptable than polar bears, fish & frogs. They have the option of not staying in one place & dying. They can pick up & leave if their habitat becomes unusable.

Where is the proof that their numbers aren't actually increasing? That could be the reason that they are seen more often than a few years ago. Maybe the wilderness areas are becoming crowded & some are coming out & learning to live closer to us. Could that be why they sit & watch humans, to learn about our habits & how to survive among us?

Something to think about.

I couldn't agree with you more. I don't see a decline of anything, since I was teenager a lot of wildlife have actually increased in numbers in my area. I see my resident eagle out on the river bank just about everyday and there is hawk that likes to roost on my office window ledge. Deer come up to my deck all the time, we are running over with wild life in South Carolina. I think the anti pollution laws in the 70's and 80's are responsible and most likely bigfoot also benefited from that, if he exists of course, you know how that goes

[Huntster]

Sure maybe 35,000 native Alaskan Kodiac's?

!!!!!

No, there are approximately 3,500 bears on Kodiak Island, and they're already eating each other. If there were 35,000 of them there, it could not support human life (or, likely, any other life, either), even though Kodiak Island is the second largest island under the U.S. flag.

I said grizzly's their cousins usually native to areas further south and in the northern states.

They are all taxonomically considered "brown bears", including Eurasian bears. Here in Alaska, Boone & Crockett (not a scientific organization) considers brown bears within 200 miles of the Gulf of Alaska as "brown bears", and interior bears as "grizzlies". In total here in Alaska, they all total up to approximately 35,000 bears.

This is some pretty good info on Alaskan brown bears. It's the most recently published (2007) ADFG brown bear management report.

Anyways I hope your numbers are right Hunster, I sure would hate to see them go.

Those numbers are as close as it gets, are legally required to be provided by the department, and the linked management report is an excellent example of what wildlife management "looks like".

I support the idea that Sasq migrate to avoid us and to find new food resources and denning areas.

And I think that authorized and responsible wildlife management agencies should be conducting the same type of management strategies for sasquatches as they do for brown bears, black bears, caribou, moose, dall sheep, et al. You can see all the ADFG management reports here.