Does Bigfoot Require Protection?

[Guest]

If Bigfoot remains in the realm of pixies and orges, science will not apply any scientific methods ... .

I see two choices for fixing the typo above:

1. "pixies and orgies" or
2. "pixies and ogres."

Assuming you are not a deeply troubled individual, I'll opt for interpretation no. 2.

If I may summarize your lengthy response, you believe the first step is to discover the species so that studies can be done to evaluate whether or not protections are warranted? If so, I agree with this. I believe, as I must, because the facts force me to, that it is premature to conclude now that protections are needed. But, once the species is documented I believe science will show interest and information will be gathered to allow for an assessment to be made.

Pteronarcyd

Edited January 12, 2011 by Pteronarcyd

[norseman]

I see two choices for fixing the typo above:

1. "pixies and orgies" or
2. "pixies and ogres."

Assuming you are not a deeply troubled individual, I'll opt for interpretation no. 2.

Correct.

If I may summarize your lengthy response, you believe the first step is to discover the species so that studies can be done to evaluate whether or not protections are warranted? If so, I agree with this.

Correct.

I believe, as I must, because the facts force me to, that it is premature to conclude now that protections are needed. But, once the species is documented I believe science will show interest and information will be gathered to allow for an assessment to be made.

Pteronarcyd

A couple of thoughts here:

1) With out the needed data, we can draw no conclusions. But, it is not logical to assume that a species is better off not discovered by science, or that it is protected by it's unrecognizable status.

2) Because of the uniqueness of the species (American ape, bipedal, etc), it may warrant legislation that is not associated with the ESA. I would welcome any such legislation.

[Guest]

treeknocker, on 12 January 2011 - 01:44 PM, said:

And.. they ARE. Touche soyahoo.

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

TK: you are saying they do not exist ? All I said in reference to southernyahoos point was they ARE. Meaning: They do exist. That was the context only. My response was not to mean anything else. I agree with the rest of your point. IF you are suggesting they MIGHT not be real..

ok. Feel free.

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.

TK : Cant argue that point. Science is certainly taking their time with it.

Quote

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.

TK: When? Your guess is as good as mine. The problem here is .. you may have to wait another 50 years. That sounds sooo unlikely. But.. look at the history. And if we are in a bottleneck situation that Chris suggests may be the case (he may well be right) then perhaps it gets less likely ea year for this to happen. Personally, I wonder if it is not going the other way (they are increasing). But without knowing for sure, I agree and think we would all like sooner than later.

Quote

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.

TK: Regarding my comment: Many are working now, and behind the scenes. That was my point. These individual studies are gaining ground, funding is beginning to stir, and in time, more will be done. That is all I meant by not rolling the dice. I beg to differ here a bit. Not sure that is EXACTLY the way it would pan out. I understand the thinking and in a perfect world land is set aside. But its been said before how difficult the complications will be particularly if they turn out to be another spp of Homo. I do not know.

I do know that if major predators that subscribe to common biological law survive in areas that are often referred to as fringe habitat, and if black bear is an indicative spp with them, then we are doing things right now. (Old growth forests are being replaced with pine which is a natural cover for them.. check the reports in the north west south, behavior series, etc. Without the complications. I agree with most of what Chris said. It is going to be interesting to see what happens if they are discovered by science. I think they will be but I would not be surprised if its later than sooner. Better off recognized ? If what we think would happen, should happen, does happen, then I agree. In time I think it probably does.

Quote

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.

TK: Couldnt agree with you more there. Cynical and skepticism runs high and for very good reason.

[Xion Comrade]

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

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/stories/mack.htm

Grizzlies and white men, or something to that effect. That was his book, and that was the theory the local chief had about why the numbers suddenly became so sparse. Their is no scientific evidence, but seeing as how this has wiped out many hominids, and almost wiped out certain populations of Gorillas, it is a very likely thing, and a reason to exercise extreme caution when dealing with the Sasquatch. IE Don't freaking hug bigfoot until we know for sure XD.

I don't know, but it happens to Gorilla's all the time. That is why when out watching them, you are required not to get terribly close or touch them, to help prevent a outbreak. But I have seen people pet them in the wild(The Alpha males) and sit shoulder to shoulder with them, so I think it is more of a precautionary thing, and they have been forced to either build a immunity or die. Still the high likely hood that the group that is being followed does not have the immunities. Just a thought

[Guest]

Depends on what BF is.

Bigfoot is clearly a non-human primate. Perhaps the best evidence of bigfoots' existence are tracks, which anthropologists have shown exhibit evidence of a metatarsal break -- a hinged foot if you will. Such a structure is clearly non-human. This hinged foot can be seen in the Patterson footage. Talk of bigfoots being human comes across to me as fancy that detracts from the credibility of the field.

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.

The question at hand is what is the justification for protecting bigfoots with the ESA. Do you have one?

But if it is essentially human, do human laws apply?

Only in the south. (I apologize for the jab, but after the Big 10's drubbing in this year's bowl games to SEC and other southern teams, I feel a need to strike back.)

... they are reported all over the country

I find this troublesome. If bigfoots are everywhere, then it seems likely they are nowhere -- i.e., the phenomenon is explainable by something other than a biological organism and its study belongs in the realm of psychology.

...there's no way we would lock down every piece of land they''ve been seen on.

The ESA discourages doing this. The ESA focuses on critical habitats, and the act discourages defining the entire range of an organism as its critical habitat.

Their protection comes in truley understanding what they are, not if they are.

In the ecological sense, I agree. However, before one can truly understand what they are their existence must first be documented.

Thanks,

Pteronarcyd

[Guest]

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".

The spotted owl was selected by the FWS as an indicator species for the entire old growth ecosystem in the Pacific Northwest. If these old growth forests constitute the primary habitat for bigfoots, the discovery of bigfoot should not result in additional land needing to be set aside.

Pteronarcyd

[norseman]

TK : Cant argue that point. Science is certainly taking their time with it.

I disagree. Science has looked at it and written it off as mythological. They are not taking their time with it.....they have washed their hands of it. So it's up to us in the community to provide something conclusively that will change their minds.

TK: When? Your guess is as good as mine. The problem here is .. you may have to wait another 50 years. That sounds sooo unlikely. But.. look at the history. And if we are in a bottleneck situation that Chris suggests may be the case (he may well be right) then perhaps it gets less likely ea year for this to happen. Personally, I wonder if it is not going the other way (they are increasing). But without knowing for sure, I agree and think we would all like sooner than later.

Then we should all galvanize our selves to take a type specimen any means possible post haste. If your right? We can all breathe a sigh of relief.....if Chris is right, then we must act quickly. Knowledge is key.

TK: Regarding my comment: Many are working now, and behind the scenes. That was my point. These individual studies are gaining ground, funding is beginning to stir, and in time, more will be done. That is all I meant by not rolling the dice.

Understood, but this is just one segment of the community. And generally speaking I think most of these approaches are not pro kill either. I'm attempting to light a fire under the butts of the whole community.

I beg to differ here a bit. Not sure that is EXACTLY the way it would pan out. I understand the thinking and in a perfect world land is set aside. But its been said before how difficult the complications will be particularly if they turn out to be another spp of Homo. I do not know.

But again, there is not even a slight chance of habitat being set aside for a mythological creature. Sure Skamania county has outlawed shooting one......which is counter productive although well intentioned. The vast majority of the county lays in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Which means that it's federally managed. Do you think any activity inside the forest that requires a environmental impact study includes the needs of a Sasquatch? No. And why? Because science needs a type specimen! Talk about a catch 22 here.

I do know that if major predators that subscribe to common biological law survive in areas that are often referred to as fringe habitat, and if black bear is an indicative spp with them, then we are doing things right now.

This is logical reasoning given that they are both (BF reportedly) omnivores. But more data is needed for any such theory to be conclusive. The needs of different species of bears changes from one to another. For example, a grizzly needs much more elbow room than a black bear does.

(Old growth forests are being replaced with pine which is a natural cover for them.. check the reports in the north west south, behavior series, etc.

Most reports are from laymen, it's great that people take an interest and try to do studies, but it doesn't replace scientific inquiry by experts in their field.

Without the complications. I agree with most of what Chris said. It is going to be interesting to see what happens if they are discovered by science. I think they will be but I would not be surprised if its later than sooner. Better off recognized ? If what we think would happen, should happen, does happen, then I agree. In time I think it probably does.

I really would like to read a biology study within the last 20 years of a zoological animal suffering at the hands of man because it was officially recognized by science. I just don't think there is a question that species status isn't going to be helpful.

Good talking to you!

[norseman]

The spotted owl was selected by the FWS as an indicator species for the entire old growth ecosystem in the Pacific Northwest. If these old growth forests constitute the primary habitat for bigfoots, the discovery of bigfoot should not result in additional land needing to be set aside.

Pteronarcyd

How do you draw this conclusion?

Just because two species share similar needs for habitat? What is the dispersal rate of the species? In other words, if a spotted owl need 20 sq miles of old growth forest in order to exist? What if a Sasquatch needs 200 sq. miles? 400 sq. miles? 800 sq. miles?

Again, we have no data to draw a conclusion from, although logic would tell me that the dispersal needs of a 10 lbs bird may be significantly less than a 800 lbs primate. But maybe Sasquatch doesn't need old growth forests at all in which to survive. Maybe like many ungulates they prefer clear cuts and burns that offer browsing foilage? Ultimately we have no idea.

[Xion Comrade]

Bigfoot is clearly a non-human primate. Perhaps the best evidence of bigfoots' existence are tracks, which anthropologists have shown exhibit evidence of a metatarsal break -- a hinged foot if you will. Such a structure is clearly non-human. This hinged foot can be seen in the Patterson footage. Talk of bigfoots being human comes across to me as fancy that detracts from the credibility of the field.

Pteronarcyd

Depends on how you define "Human". I define it as any piece of the family of man. Hominid and before. This does not include any apes, but if one believes that apes shared a common ancestor with us which is not implausible, unlikely, but not implausible, then it does not include the apes. Somehow people are totally overlooking the FACT that man in his previous forms was allowed to rely more on his physique than his mind. That is not to say that Hominids were down right stupid, many of them had larger cranial capacities than modern man, but Hominids did have the advantage of "Souped up" bodies.

Why doesn't Sasquatch use tools often? The answer is blatantly obvious, he absolutely doesn't need tools to any degree. He is 9 freaking feet tall and weighs over half a ton, chasing down a deer and ripping its head off or punching the brains out of a bear is about as hard as chasing down a banana and peeling it for us, not to mention that a Cougar to them is the equivalent of a small house cat...He doesn't need fire, clothes, or any other trinkets at all, he has thick skin and hair and most of them probably don't even understand the concept of being freezing cold seeing as how they live in largely temperate areas. As RWM says, they are completly 100% at one/in harmony with nature, whereas we are completely 100% removed/out of harmony with it even biologically. We would freeze to death in a matter of hours without the clothing and fire we have, we would drop dead if we ate uncooked/most vegetation in the woods, and our feet would be horrible bloody messes if we didn't have covers for them.

Over time the human body has become more and more degraded, and yes, I can tell you for a fact, that as the generations go on this pattern will continue to pan out. Physically the human race is falling to pieces just because the Genetics involved with keeping a species going have to be stretch thinner and thinner as it goes through the ages. The only thing that will save us from extinction is our sciences. The only reason we have that is because of ALOT of luck and just a LITTLE intelligence. At a point in time we could not eat raw food or digest the now poisonous vegetation of the world and THEN we had to adapt by cooking it and farming what we could eat. Eventually we could no longer tolerate the possibly increasingly brutal winters of the ages, and had to make clothing out of animal skins and use fire or die. Eventually the human body became weaker and weaker as the supply of "strong" genes and awesome gene pools were wiped off the face of the earth, then we HAD to make weapons and tools or die. The Sasquatch are a perfect example of this, and a living history lesson.

So even the laid back "beast men" of generations past were human, they lived in a way we were supposed to(Carefree, happy), and were not like us because they simply did not have to be.

*That hinged foot, in fact, is a trait of early man. Most if not all solidified prints of ancient man showed that break, and is further proof that man's evolution has probably never been a positive gaining, but instead his continually losing battle against nature.* It is not necessarily a "Ape" trait at all. And in actuality what you should have said, is that the structure that makes up OUR foot is clearly non human!***

[southernyahoo]

Considerations on their protection would include the following.

1. What do they eat.

2. Where do they find what they eat.

3. How many of them are there.

4. Where do they live

5. Any evidence of their decline or increase in populations.

6. Are there any reliable indicators for any of the above.

If there are no definitive answers for these questions protection of the species would be very complicated.

If they live everywhere and eat anything edible then the only thing that needs protection is the habitat, which gets some protection and rejuvenation anyways.

Are forest lands definitively on the decline? I think they are, but it is extremely gradual.

[Xion Comrade]

Considerations on their protection would include the following.

1. What do they eat.

2. Where do they find what they eat.

3. How many of them are there.

4. Where do they live

5. Any evidence of their decline or increase in populations.

6. Are there any reliable indicators for any of the above.

If there are no definitive answers for these questions protection of the species would be very complicated.

If they live everywhere and eat anything edible then the only thing that needs protection is the habitat, which gets some protection and rejuvenation anyways.

Are forest lands definitively on the decline? I think they are, but it is extremely gradual.

TBH I think that if we can protect them from bullets it would solve all/most of their problems. If they don't think they are going to get shot, they don't give a crap to come around homes. Be a good way to get rid of food trash.

[Guest]

Norse I agree: good talking with you, cant expand right now due to phone calls, other interference. Thanks for that. I agree with most of your points. It comes down to how do we know for sure. ALL behind the scenes scientists have not blew this off. Do not expect them to stand up now in unison to popularize research on THEM, however. Its fractionalized and like you say, its about time there is some serious data collection by the ones that will be listened to. I believe this is growing. I think there will be different capacities to contribute for interested researchers. Regarding sasQ distribution, its a bite. Either they are on the increase and have similar needs to black bear OR a high significant percentage of the reports are unreliable. Really an unknown factor. Hopefully they will surprise us positively. ps Whole community butt fire lighting is an interesting term. lol

AND the point was brought up with communicable diseases. That might be the biggest potential limiting factor that they face.

So contact with germs via drinking and eating vessels might be a consideration for future interactions.. because if they are dumpster diving..

well ?

[Guest]

A couple of thoughts here:

1) With out the needed data, we can draw no conclusions. But, it is not logical to assume that a species is better off not discovered by science, or that it is protected by it's unrecognizable status.

Amen!

2) Because of the uniqueness of the species (American ape, bipedal, etc), it may warrant legislation that is not associated with the ESA. I would welcome any such legislation.

Ahem -- see your #1 above.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

A subject for study would be great to see if we do have an impact on their survival. This has proven true with many species. Although we stopped using DDT(DDE) worldwide which directly stopped the impact on species like the bald eagle and other bird of preys, since we were using it for a hundred years, traces remain in the food chain and are still affecting species like the Californian Condor who feed on marine animals who feed deep down the chain where DDT is embedded. We would not know this if we did not have a subject to study (or at least the thin eggshells). We could chance it, not look for a bf and think all is well with the species, but if we did that with these raptors, they would probably be all gone by now.

If people are worried about hunting/poaching, yeah, good luck finding one.

[Guest]

Of course this is all opinion ... .

Fair enough, but you have allowed yourself a heck of a long leash in your suppositions that have no data behind them.

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 don't care about type of protection at this time -- I'm asking why they should be protected. Your reason, I'm assuming, is because of a threat from diseases yet unknown contracted from unknown transmissions routes?

When's the last time someone saw a buffalo in the wild, outside of the breeding program at Yellowstone?

I've seen wild buffalo in Custer National Park in SD, and in the National Bison Range in MT.

So, yes they need protection from us.

But, why?