Does Bigfoot Require Protection?

[Guest]

I get the impression that more than a few individuals interested in the bigfoot phenomena believe the critter deserves a special level of protection from man. There are those whose appeals I interpret as wanting bigfoot discovered so that it can be granted protection under the US Endangered Species Act (ESA; and afforded equivalent protection in Canada). Then there are those who don't want the species discovered for fear that discovery will result in man adversely impacting its population. I regard the latter as a pseudoscientific argument. I am interested herein exploring the appeals of the first type -- where one believes scientific documentation (i.e., discovery) is needed so that protection can be arranged. I find this position puzzling.

Assuming that the protection being sought is in the form of listing under the ESA, this can only be accomplished through proper channels, which are administered by the Fish and WIldlife Service (FWS). The FWS admits that the listing process is "cumbersome, complex, and generally poorly understood (http://www.fws.gov/e...g-overview.html)."

The ESA protects both endangered and threatened species. An endangered species is defined as one "which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range ... (ESA Sec. 3(6))." A threatened species is one "which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA Sec. 3(20))." There are five listing factors, any one of which can be used to justify granting protection under the law to a given species (ESA Sec. 4(1)(a)):

( A ) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;

( B ) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

( C ) disease or predation;

( D ) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

( E ) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

With regard to listing factor ( A ), in the mid-1990s old growth forest in the Pacific Northwest was granted protection under the ESA because of the spotted owl. The action shut down much of the regional timber industry. Old growth forest would seem to be prime bigfoot habitat, so I think it would be difficult to argue that more habitat should be set aside, especially because we can't really know the habitat requirements of the species until it is documented and studied. I can't speak for habitat in other parts of the country that are at risk while perhaps being critical for bigfoots.

With regard to factor ( B ), I'm unaware of any utilization of bigfoots in any way. Regarding ( C ), we can't know anything about bigfoot diseases without knowing the species enough to have discovered it, and I can't think of anything that might prey on bigfoots (an opportunity to rekindle the bigfoot vs grizzly thread?). Factors ( D ) and ( E ) are likely included so as to give the FWS authority to extend their reach a tad, but I don't see how they are pertain to bigfoots as they are known today.

If you believe bigfoots to be endangered or threatened, my question is "Why?" If you believe they are and deserve to be protected under the ESA -- "What is your rationale for listing?"

Thanks,

Pteronarcyd

Edited January 12, 2011 by Jodie

[Xion Comrade]

Very honestly I do not think they are going to be wiped out any time soon. Clayton Mac mentioned in his book that they were much more common place(Sometimes to common) before European settlers came. Then around the time we started to show up, they just sort of disappeared. This almost correlates well with other tribes accounts. It was believed that the diseases we brought that killed so many natives did the same to the likely more primitive/succeptable hominid natives(Forest Giants). It is possible that many species of hominid were wiped out by diseases brought by the others, and not always by genocide. The further the species were removed from each other/the longer they were isolated, I would speculate, the more likely that would be to happen. That is my biggest fear, that they have not yet adjusted to us and that after we "discover" them(IE Science and the public take off the 10 foot concrete masks they are wearing) we wipe them to near extinction from close/physical contact. After that barrier is knocked down, I don't really care. The suckers can live in our houses after that. That would also lend to why they stay right the hell away from us.

[Guest]

Though bigfoot is obviously a very clever and extremely elusive animal, the very fact that science has no type specimen reveals that they are also extremely rare. I believe they should be regarded as an endangered and therefore protected species.

[Guest]

No. Regarding what no type specimen reveals is our failure to communicate regarding methodologies and ideas that may increase the odds of verification of the spp. Friendly communications does not come naturally. Look at the number of members here. Then note the posters.

Even more interesting add the behind the scenes exchanges. Then add the times you reached out to someone and got no reply. OR reverse that. THEN add the complexities of the unknowns regarding THEM. Quite a challenge. COULD they be an endangered species ? Sure. If so, regarding their potential distribution, that is another factor about them I find bizarre (they are reported everywhere). I think they can make any sound they want, and its rarely followed up and if followed up, rarely is anything ever found. When it is, half or more of the time it remains undocumented. When people see them, that is discounted. Even blood samples and hair samples have been discounted because of alledged contamination from humans. I have had hair come back to me as cattle when there were no cattle in the area. They have it all on their side to continue staying one step ahead for a very very long time. Some researchers are making progress. Others have given up. So, ea year we know more. But not what we could know. What exactly is the line for them to be considered an endangered spp? We are fighting over the timber wolf legislation of that very thing at the moment in a number of states across the country. One wildlife manager told me he thought there would be a viable population of wolves in all of Montana if there were only 100. Humane societies and Peta scream for more predators. Regardless of how many bulls they eat alive, or great pyrenees sheep dogs they kill. Giant somewhat human like primates are going to be controversial, frightening to some, and bring forth emotions from the far side. So the status of their populations may be almost as unimaginable to understand as is their ability to remain unverfied. Are we going to put them in clothes and bring them to school ? Or are all these reports we read and stories we hear from people just straight up and plain BS ? Or, is it somewhere in between ? Man.. I gotta get some sleep.. sheesh..

[Guest]

Given the way the ESA has been abused to ruin various development projects and industries, I would have to say that I do NOT want to give the eco-nuts ANOTHER weapon to use against economic development, so no, BF should NOT be protected.

[norseman]

I am interested herein exploring the appeals of the first type -- where one believes scientific documentation (i.e., discovery) is needed so that protection can be arranged. I find this position puzzling.

I really have a hard time understanding why people find this position puzzling.

If Bigfoot remains in the realm of pixies and orges, science will not apply any scientific methods to the species to answer any of these questions that so many people are keen on asking.

How many are there?

Do they use wood knocking as a form of communication?

How smart are they?

Are we harming them?

How intelligent are they?

What foods do they eat?

What habitat do they like best?

I mean there is a lot of conjecture and speculation going around, but I do not see peer reviewed biology reports coming out....do you? What's the big picture here? The answer is...we simply do not know.

The vast majority of knowledge we have is observations by laymen.

So for me boiled down to brass tacks is this......if we are content to not prove it's existence and just let it be? Then we are content to just simply roll the dice on this species and let fate intervene. And if that means that the only other bipedal primate on the planet goes extinct? So be it.

Science isn't perfect, nor is the ESA, but I would trade a imperfect management tool over what we have now.........NOTHING. If I knew that a certain BF habitat was going to be damaged by a new dam project let's say? Right now I have no recourse in protecting that habitat because they are mythological. At least if it's a proven species, I have some leverage against the project. I can at least require a scientific study into that specific question. And not try and hang it off of another known species that may or may not be related at all within that ecosystem.

I for one, see no validity in the argument that by them remaining "unknown", it some how gives them reprieve from us. Humans are altering the climate, and our environment, no matter if we recognize them or not? We are affecting them all the same. Only by awareness of the consequences of our actions, is there hope we may still yet find the error of our ways. And again, maybe this species can adapt and cope with the changes, but what if they can not? Isn't it logical that we should at least look into the possibilities?

The first step is a type specimen, and a new species being recognized by science.

[southernyahoo]

Depends on what BF is. If it is truely just another form of great ape with no language, culture, or resemblence of humanity, then you could assign it animal rights after it's proven and protect it with the endangered species act. But if it is essentially human, do human laws apply? What rights would it be entitled to? Would they be entitled to land? Would they be entitled to trespass and take live stock? Entitiled to citizenship? We have two categorys for extant fauna humans and animals. What do you do with a wild human? Do we force it into our society or let it roam free as an animal and simply do our best to preserve it's habitat, an put laws in place to prevent shooting them. This is about all we could do, they are reported all over the country, there's no way we would lock down every piece of land they''ve been seen on. Their protection comes in truley understanding what they are, not if they are.

[Guest]

And.. they ARE. Touche soyahoo. Norse, I did not mean to sound like I suggested we should not achieve a type specimen. Ideally that happens along the line and in a way so that it would not be infuriating to the masses. Regarding rolling the dice, that is not happening. Lots of fine things going on behind the scenes. Eventually that will catapult us further and more professionally trained phd folk will get intertwined. Or whatever that fine word is. Not at the speed most prefer however. & what are they? More people keep telling me they are not us. I believe that. But their youth can be surprisingly close looking apparently. At best its confusing. & as has been said, maybe there are more than one kind... ???

[Guest Thepattywagon]

I'm sure the logging industry would like nothing better than to have the big, hairy, undocumented primate remain just that. If a little owl was enough to shut off entire forests to logging, imagine what effect an eight foot tall beast would have if it got caught on film during an episode of "Ax Men".

[Guest]

Xion Comrade,

Two questions:

1. What is a Clayton Mac book?
2. How does one get close enough to a bigfoot to transmit a disease?

The ESA requires listings be based on best scientific evidence. What scientific evidence of human-to-bigfoot disease transmission do you have?

Thanks,

Pteronarcyd

Edited January 12, 2011 by Pteronarcyd

[Guest]

Squatch,

The absence of a type specimen does not necesarily equate to extreme rarity. For example, before the mountain gorilla was discovered it was common in its range; primatologists just hadn't looked hard enough in the right locations. I do not see how your argument could be deemed by the FWS to be best available science.

Thanks,

Pteronarcyd

Edited January 12, 2011 by Pteronarcyd

[Guest]

Man.. I gotta get some sleep.. sheesh..

Excellent conclusion. I hope it was restful and restorative.

Sincerely,

Pteronarcyd

[Guest]

Mulder,

The question at hand is not whether bigfoots should be protected, but whether they require protection. I can't give you much of an argument in your response to the unasked question, but remove your political thinking cap and put on your science thinking cap and please take a shot at the question at hand.

Thanks,

Pteronarcyd

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Of course this is all opinion, but I believe the creatures are endangered. I think the population is very low and I wouldn't care to hazard a guess as to their current numbers. My thoughts are that the creatures likely existed here in far greater numbers in the past. Well before the white man came trekking thru the new wilderness that was to become the United States. We have settled here, built cities, tamed the wilderness, killed off 99.9% of the buffalo, clear cut forests, spread disease and continue to do so. I think the creatures should be put on the list of endangered species. As to what type of protection would be best for them, that's yet to be determined. I think it will likely require us to leave them alone mostly. Once areas of habitat or home range are identified, those areas then need set aside and we need to stay out of them. (all this is still to come) as once the species is officially discovered and put on the books, then begins the funding for scientific research for things like an accurate census of the creatures. Determining home ranges etc..

I've talked with several that seem to share my opinion that the creatures may very well be in a bottle neck at this point in history. It's possible that a few hundred home ranges or less are all that's left of them. If we go in and log those areas, or somehow destroy their home range habitats, we'll wipe them from the face of the Earth. And that's just wrong, we're not talking natural selection, we're talking modern man being the demise of yet another creature that shares the Earth with us. When's the last time someone saw a buffalo in the wild, outside of the breeding program at Yellowstone? So, yes they need protection from us. Exactly what protection, to be determined. Chris B.

[norseman]

And.. they ARE. Touche soyahoo.

No.....they are not. The question of what they are comes AFTER the question of IF they are.

It doesn't matter if one "believes" in them, it doesn't matter if you have seen one, taking it's picture and cast it's tracks. It may be real to you? But science is the deciding factor of what is a species and what is not.

Norse, I did not mean to sound like I suggested we should not achieve a type specimen. Ideally that happens along the line and in a way so that it would not be infuriating to the masses.

When? When is this going to happen? I'd rather infuriate the masses with a non passive act of collecting a type specimen than waiting for another 50 years.

Regarding rolling the dice, that is not happening.

That's EXACTLY what's happening if a person's mindset is they are better off undiscovered. They are then unrecognized therefore they have no consideration from our government nor from our scientific community.

Lots of fine things going on behind the scenes. Eventually that will catapult us further and more professionally trained phd folk will get intertwined. Or whatever that fine word is. Not at the speed most prefer however.

And I wish them god speed. As a member of the pro kill community, I really hope they beat me to it, that they can prove it's existence by some other means.....although I remain cynical and skeptical to a point. I think there are those out there that do not want to prove it's existence because they benefit from the mystery.