Does Bigfoot Require Protection?

[southernyahoo]

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.

A question you should ask is "where are the little foot prints with the midtarsal break". They can't be born with 15" plus feet.... LOL If you agree that those prints must be confused with human prints then talking about them being genus homo (not sapiens per se') is perfectly credible.

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.

Depends on what we would consider to be reliable evidence for their presence in any particular place right? Would we need a body for each county in each state?

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.

Good idea, but if we decided to create a preserve, does the sighting reports indicate it would benefit the species as a whole? Critical habitat would be riparian forest land BTW.

[norseman]

Ahem -- see your #1 above.

I'm not getting ahead of myself, and just theorizing that if a type specimen is presented and it is a north American bipedal ape? There may be other avenues that open besides the ESA.

Again type specimen first and then we go from there.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

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

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?

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

But, why?

Of course there is no common data I can display to support my opinion. Long leash, or short, it's just one man's opinion. I don't think you're gonna find too many members that can post a published study on "The Role of Humans in the Destruction of Sasquatch Habitats" The biggest reason why they need to be protected from us is: We destroy their habitat and thereby force relocation. I think I could state with almost certainty that at some point in our past, somewhere a BF habitat has been destroyed by humans. It's not much of a stretch to consider we have been responsible for the destruction of at least one. Even without supporting documentation.(that is given the creatures exist of course) What if that "one" habitat had been the last "one".......

I'm glad you have been able to see some Bison, I asked about if any had been seen in the wild, a National Park is about the only place to see one other than a zoo. There are no buffalo left in the wild. Only "public herds" on reserves and participating National Parks. The Buffalo were mentioned as an example of what kind of destruction we can cause on even the most robust species that was around 60 million strong at one point in history. Our expansion just about wiped them out completely. Elsewhere, man has done the same thing. The Dodo birds are gone, the Tazmanian Tiger, officially gone and now a possible cryptid? If and when the Bigfoot creatures are discovered, they need protected from our advances into their Home Range habitats, if for no other reason than it's the right thing to do. Chris B.

[norseman]

Of course there is no common data I can display to support my opinion. Long leash, or short, it's just one man's opinion. I don't think you're gonna find too many members that can post a published study on "The Role of Humans in the Destruction of Sasquatch Habitats" The biggest reason why they need to be protected from us is: We destroy their habitat and thereby force relocation. I think I could state with almost certainty that at some point in our past, somewhere a BF habitat has been destroyed by humans. It's not much of a stretch to consider we have been responsible for the destruction of at least one. Even without supporting documentation.(that is given the creatures exist of course) What if that "one" habitat had been the last "one".......

I'm glad you have been able to see some Bison, I asked about if any had been seen in the wild, a National Park is about the only place to see one other than a zoo. There are no buffalo left in the wild. Only "public herds" on reserves and participating National Parks. The Buffalo were mentioned as an example of what kind of destruction we can cause on even the most robust species that was around 60 million strong at one point in history. Our expansion just about wiped them out completely. Elsewhere, man has done the same thing. The Dodo birds are gone, the Tazmanian Tiger, officially gone and now a possible cryptid? If and when the Bigfoot creatures are discovered, they need protected from our advances into their Home Range habitats, if for no other reason than it's the right thing to do. Chris B.

Chris your spot on.

We do not know specifically what sort of impact our species is having on theirs. But in the big picture, the evidence is overwhelming that we are directly and passively impacting every eco system on the planet. And that global the extinction rate is going up drastically. So if theoretically Sasquatch numbers are indeed rising and they are not endangered? They are bucking the global trend.

ScienceDaily (Jan. 10, 2002) — AUSTIN, Texas -- Half of all living bird and mammal species will be gone within 200 or 300 years, according to a botany professor at The University of Texas at Austin.

Although the extinction of various species is a natural phenomenon, the rate of extinction occurring in today's world is exceptional -- as many as 100 to1,000 times greater than normal, Dr. Donald A. Levin said in the January-February issue of American Scientist magazine. The co-author is Levin's son, Phillip S. Levin, a National Marine Fisheries Service biologist who is an expert on the demography of fish, especially salmon.

Levin's column noted that on average, a distinct species of plant or animal becomes extinct every 20 minutes. Donald Levin, who works in the section of integrative biology in the College of Natural Sciences, said research shows the rate of current loss is highly unusual -- clearly qualifying the present period as one of the six great periods of mass extinction in the history of Earth.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020109074801.htm

[southernyahoo]

I can't see an effective plan to protect this species "specificly" that wouldn't benefit a plethera of others that may have allready gained their protection and preserved habitat. So, what additional habitat would insure bigfoots survival? His distribution seems wide and his habitat imense to the point that biologists across the country can't seem to document their sign, tracks, hair samples or their own sightings. You could prove they exist and claim their habitat needs protected but where, all across the country?

[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

The word that hangs me up is "require"...would they benefit from protection? Probably. I'll even stipulate that they would.

Do they have any right enforceable on humanity to it?

No.

I don't want to risk killing off what's left of our timber industry by seeking protection for an animal that is in no way essential to human survival on Earth.

I want them documented in the spirit of intellectual honesty and the truth, not so that they can be used to ruin more human families' lives (and experience teaches me that is EXACTLY what would happen).

Cold?

Maybe...but that's how I feel.

[norseman]

The word that hangs me up is "require"...would they benefit from protection? Probably. I'll even stipulate that they would.

Do they have any right enforceable on humanity to it?

No.

I don't want to risk killing off what's left of our timber industry by seeking protection for an animal that is in no way essential to human survival on Earth.

I want them documented in the spirit of intellectual honesty and the truth, not so that they can be used to ruin more human families' lives (and experience teaches me that is EXACTLY what would happen).

Cold?

Maybe...but that's how I feel.

Mulder,

I come from a timber community and I understand your concerns, they are valid. People are hurting right now and I can certainly sympathize with that point of view.

It's a hard tight rope to walk, balancing our needs with nature.

[Guest]

How do you draw this conclusion [that the discovery of bigfoot would not result in the need to set aside additional lands]?

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.

The spotted owl was selected as an indicator species to justify protecting the old growth ecosystem. An indicator species is used to define, imperfectly, a characteristic of the environment. In this case those who wished to curtail logging of old growth forests in the PNW used the northern spotted owl as a surrogate for the entire ecosystem. While defining an entire ecosystem by the presence or absence of a single species is rather crude, it was rather simple to obtain protected status for that one species, which, in turn, resulted in the curtailment of logging and protective considerations given for most of the ecosystem of interest.

If bigfoot is discovered studies will tell whether PNW old growth is its primary habitat or not. Should studies show a need for protection, those studies will also show whether additional habitat, outside of old growth, is critical or not, and whether measures in place to protect the owls will or will not be effective for the bigfoots.

Indicator species may be a crude tool, but if they get the job done 80% of the way with relatively minimal effort, that's quite an effective tool in this complex world. As such, because I consider bigfoot to be primarily a PNW phenomenon associated with old growth, I see no need to fret about discovery in the near term. However, mere intellectual curiosity is enough for me to want to see discovery (or alternative resolution of the bigfoot phenomenon) as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Pteronarcyd

[Guest]

Depends on how you define "Human".

Biologically, I define human as a member of the genus, Homo. Legally, I define human as a member of the species, Homo sapiens.

I define it as any piece of the family of man. Hominid and before.

I think your definition is far too broad. Molecular taxonomists are now defining Hominidae as the great ape family, including both hominins (man, chimps, bonobos, gorillas) and pongins (orangutans). Some propose classifying gorillas, chimps, and bonobos as members of Homo, but if they did I would switch my biological definition equal to my legal definition. Even under the standard anthropological taxonomic scheme, where Hominidae is reserved for man and man's relatively close ancestors, there are hominids that are clearly not human, e.g., Australopithecus.

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.

You can bank on the fact that man and other great apes have a common ancestor. All organisms have common ancestors. Man and the amoeba have a common ancestor. Go back far enough on the evolutionary tree and one finds all sorts of common ancestors.

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.

Given that Homo sapiens means 'knowing man,' its a given that ancestral forms of Homo were not as bright as we now are. But, that doesn't mean ancestral forms of Homo or pre-Homo genera had 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.

I conclude that bigfoots don't make or use refined tools because they are not members of Homo. An organisms needs don't dictate the course of evolution; an organism's success given what it has been given genetically dictates the course of evolution.

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.

Where did you get your education, and what kind of education is it? I'm taking a wild guess here, but I'm assuming you don't hold a degree in either genetics, biology, or anthropology.

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.

Pardon me while I turn off the alarm on my BS detector.

*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!***

I believe the hinged foot has been documented only in pre-Homo specimens. I believe it's seen in 'the hobbit,' which is currently (and I think inappropriately) classified as Homo. Our solid, unhinged arch was put to good use in allowing us to run for extended periods. Our arched foot is a distinct structure of Homo sapiens.

I find myself wondering why you want to redefine human as meaning pre-human.

Sincerely,

Pteronarcyd

[Guest]

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.

The decision criteria for listing, as defined by statute (in the US) are:

( 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.

The factors you list would seem to be potential subcriteria under ( E ). I agree that there is no way to assess your subcriteria or any of the other criteria; thus, it seems pointless, at this time, to speculate as to whether bigfoots require any protection.

Pteronarcyd

[Guest]

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.

Gotta document them before you can study them.

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.

I recommend getting your facts straight about DDT. There is no valid, non-fallacious, scientific evidence that DDT caused bird egg shell thinning or in any other way endangered the health of birds. DDT was arbitrarily and capriciously banned by the EPA administrator, and the only thing that action accomplished was the unnecessary death from malaria of one-hundred-million people, mostly in Africa. Remember, environmentalism kills.

Sincerely,

Pteronarcyd

[Guest]

A question you should ask is "where are the little foot prints with the midtarsal break". They can't be born with 15" plus feet.... LOL If you agree that those prints must be confused with human prints then talking about them being genus homo (not sapiens per se') is perfectly credible.

Just as I was able to bend my elbow on the day I was born, I assume a bigfoot will have a midtarsal break at birth. Primate bones tend to get less pliable with age.

Depends on what we would consider to be reliable evidence for their presence in any particular place right? Would we need a body for each county in each state?

I must admit that the many reports I've read of sightings in places other than the PNW are opening my mind to bigfoot being in other locations. But, in my mind they are primarily associated with PNW forests.

Good idea, but if we decided to create a preserve, does the sighting reports indicate it would benefit the species as a whole? Critical habitat would be riparian forest land BTW.

I realize many reports come from riparian forest, but I think critical habitat cannot be defined for a species that has yet to be discovered.

Pteronarcyd

[Guest]

I'm not getting ahead of myself, and just theorizing that if a type specimen is presented and it is a north American bipedal ape? There may be other avenues that open besides the ESA.

Again type specimen first and then we go from there.

Okie dokie.

[Guest]

Of course there is no common data I can display to support my opinion. Long leash, or short, it's just one man's opinion. I don't think you're gonna find too many members that can post a published study on "The Role of Humans in the Destruction of Sasquatch Habitats" The biggest reason why they need to be protected from us is: We destroy their habitat and thereby force relocation. I think I could state with almost certainty that at some point in our past, somewhere a BF habitat has been destroyed by humans. It's not much of a stretch to consider we have been responsible for the destruction of at least one. Even without supporting documentation.(that is given the creatures exist of course) What if that "one" habitat had been the last "one".......

No one knows, but you somehow know?!? There is absolutely no evidence of their habitat being destroyed and their relocation being forced. No one can make that statement with any credibility if he can not also point to literature or his own evidence of the critter's scientific documentation. Speculation may be fun, but it doesn't do much to further the discovery of the species.

I'm glad you have been able to see some Bison, I asked about if any had been seen in the wild, a National Park is about the only place to see one other than a zoo. There are no buffalo left in the wild. Only "public herds" on reserves and participating National Parks. The Buffalo were mentioned as an example of what kind of destruction we can cause on even the most robust species that was around 60 million strong at one point in history. Our expansion just about wiped them out completely. Elsewhere, man has done the same thing. The Dodo birds are gone, the Tazmanian Tiger, officially gone and now a possible cryptid? If and when the Bigfoot creatures are discovered, they need protected from our advances into their Home Range habitats, if for no other reason than it's the right thing to do. Chris B.

The vast majority of Yellowstone is wild. So is Custer NP and the Nat'l Bison Range. I believe there are native buffalo running around somewhere in northern Alberta, too. The destruction of the buffalo herds was deliberate -- a way of controlling the plains Indians. Take away their primary food source and they were relatively easily rounded up on reservations. It may have been inevitable, if we assume that farming and non-free-range ranching were inevitable, as buffalo and normal fences don't get along well together (the buffalo always win).

Pteronarcyd

[Guest]

Chris your spot on.

We do not know specifically what sort of impact our species is having on theirs. But in the big picture, the evidence is overwhelming that we are directly and passively impacting every eco system on the planet. And that global the extinction rate is going up drastically. So if theoretically Sasquatch numbers are indeed rising and they are not endangered? They are bucking the global trend.

ScienceDaily (Jan. 10, 2002) — AUSTIN, Texas -- Half of all living bird and mammal species will be gone within 200 or 300 years, according to a botany professor at The University of Texas at Austin.

Although the extinction of various species is a natural phenomenon, the rate of extinction occurring in today's world is exceptional -- as many as 100 to1,000 times greater than normal, Dr. Donald A. Levin said in the January-February issue of American Scientist magazine. The co-author is Levin's son, Phillip S. Levin, a National Marine Fisheries Service biologist who is an expert on the demography of fish, especially salmon.

Levin's column noted that on average, a distinct species of plant or animal becomes extinct every 20 minutes. Donald Levin, who works in the section of integrative biology in the College of Natural Sciences, said research shows the rate of current loss is highly unusual -- clearly qualifying the present period as one of the six great periods of mass extinction in the history of Earth.

http://www.scienceda...20109074801.htm

No one knows what the normal exinction rate is, but extinction is a normal, natural process: My link.