Does Bigfoot Require Protection?

[Guest]

You advertize your bias by refusing to look at a so-called obvious right-wing source. What is to stop you from labeling whatever sources I provide as right wing and then ridiculing them? That's a typically elitist tactic. Let me clue you in -- no one is free from biases. It is fallacious to judge a proponent's argument on the basis of the proponent's beliefs (argumentum ad hominem); one should judge the argument on it's validity and soundness. There is no shortage of close-minded so-called skeptics here. Educating the close-minded is a hopeless exercise. If you can convince me that you will examine the documents I can provide in an open-minded and logical manner without resorting to Alinsky tactics, I'll be happy to provide them. Otherwise, I'll leave it to you to search for them yourself.

All substances are hazardous -- if the dose is high enough. They teach you in Toxicology for Jocks that the dose makes the poison. Inhale too much dihydrogen oxide and you will die. Feed too much pure dihydrogen oxide to an infant (feeding one any at all is unwise) and it will die. Your Duke link fails to mention the dose at which the mentioned adverse effects occur. I could write a similar blurb describing some of the lethal effects of exposure to water that would be just as scary if I could, like Duke did, omit all information about dosage. I'm unaware of a single human being harmed from DDT exposure. In fact, DDT's leading proponent used to eat a tablespoon of the substance each week, often at public hearings, to demonstrate it's safety in the early 1970s. His first exposures to DDT occurred in 1944 in Europe during WWII. He did die in 2004. While climbing a mountain in Glacier National Park in had a heart attack at age 84.

Any decision, except some that are very simple and obvious, requires making tradeoffs. All chemicals, in the right dose, are dangerous. Some chemicals offer amazing benefits. The evidence shows that DDT is one of the latter. You, of course, are welcome to feel comfortable in the delusion that DDT, when used appropriately, is dangerous. Try to convince the tens of millions of pregnant women and children in Africa who have died because they were denied access to DDT of how dangerous the substance is.

Just to clarify, I will gladly provide links to two or more articles documenting the malicious fraud behind the DDT ban, if you are willing to assure me that you will (1) read them and (2) judge them within the framework of logic.

Sincerely,

Pteronarcyd

You brought up the DDT issue. I am very aware that no one/no source is free of bias. I have only asked for a link or two to information on which you base your opinion, so that I may judge your argument on its validity and soundness. Snide or patronizing remarks about "toxicology for jocks" or accusing me of being a "typical" elitist are not necessary. I, too, look for logical soundness in an argument. I won't beg or play some game about your info. Please, put up or shut up, is all I ask. I can assure you that I am not out to ridicule. I just want to judge for myself both sides of the DDT argument. If you are not convinced, then just keep the info for yourself...but I think you are not doing your argument any good by not sharing whatever sources have caused you to make up your mind on the subject. Just MHO. I will admit that my phrasing was poor: instead of requesting "no right wing" stuff, what I should have said (and what I meant) was that I hoped that you would present info from moderate sources, relatively free from bias, and heavy on hard science and historical accuracy.

Edited November 1, 2011 by notgiganto

[Guest Jodie]

Here is a middle of the road article about DDT research, sounds like you are both right to me:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ddt-use-to-combat-malaria

For what it is worth, some of my best memories are chasing the mosquito truck on my bike riding through the cloud of DDT it left in it's wake. I don't seem to have suffered any ill affects that I'm aware of, or that are obvious, but that might be a matter of opinion.

[Guest StankApe]

This is an interesting subject. There are different ways that an animal can be "endangered" it can be so rarely spotted in nature that we have no idea what the population is so to play it safe it is "endangered". There are the animals which have lost so much of their population during the historical era so we know that they are actually endangered, and there are the animals who are so specialized that they never existed in great numbers. (cave salamanders, many different arctic and cave animals) There may only be less than a hundred Texas cave salamanders at any given time. But there may have never been more than 100 at any given time. They live in a very specific niche.

The reason I bring that up is because we have to figure out which one Sasquatch is before we can adequately protect it. If it turns out to be living in very healthy populations spread out across lots of land, we might not need to put a strangle hold on the logging industry. Their practice of cutting and re planting might work just fine for the big guy. If it turns out that it's a relic species from pre-history... It would get very complicated. Logically, we should allow it to progress naturally and either thrive or go extinct. But for the sake of study, one would want to preserve them so as to learn as much as possible about them.

It would seem that they are not a niche animal as the sightings seem fairly widespread. I would say ,that Bigfoot appears to need the same wilderness areas of dense forest with enough ungulates and berries...etc that a bear would need to live. Once again, perhaps not needing "protection" at the extreme level, but a similar level of protection given to threatened species. No shooting them, no encroaching on them, basically leave them alone. Pockets of protected areas, but no need to shut down the forests of the PNW.

If it turns out that it's not only rare but limited to only a few tribes... THEN you start determining how much wilderness must be set aside.

Edited November 1, 2011 by StankApe

[Guest]

Here is a middle of the road article about DDT research, sounds like you are both right to me:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ddt-use-to-combat-malaria

For what it is worth, some of my best memories are chasing the mosquito truck on my bike riding through the cloud of DDT it left in it's wake. I don't seem to have suffered any ill affects that I'm aware of, or that are obvious, but that might be a matter of opinion.

Uhhh huh...explains a lot, Jodie I think this thread derailment calls for a bug emoticon

Good article, thanks. Tough choice: spray a questionable (at best) insecticide that may build up and prove harmful for the environment and possibly humans, or suffer tens of thousands to die...

Hey, here is some wild speculation: DDT spraying caused low BF sperm counts....

[Guest]

Here is a middle of the road article about DDT research, sounds like you are both right to me:

http://www.scientifi...-combat-malaria

For what it is worth, some of my best memories are chasing the mosquito truck on my bike riding through the cloud of DDT it left in it's wake. I don't seem to have suffered any ill affects that I'm aware of, or that are obvious, but that might be a matter of opinion.

DDT saved millions of lives before it was banned, and it's time to bring it back.

Check this out.

http://www.matrixbookstore.biz/ddt.htm

http://www.21stcentu...m02/Carson.html

As a biologist this is one of the arenas I have been working in for the last few years.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Tautriadelta

[bipedalist]

I like this response to the Lie rationale (keeping it off topic though): http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2428/was-rachel-carson-a-fraud-and-is-ddt-actually-safe-for-humans

Maybe we should move on to "Roundup" and it's evils next?!

[Guest Jodie]

More than likely, it's the subtle things like that that pose a bigger danger for bigfoot than anything we could accomplish hunting them. You know, just like the viruses that killed the aliens in War of The Worlds....

Just because it's Halloween:

[Guest]

I like this response to the Lie rationale (keeping it off topic though): http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2428/was-rachel-carson-a-fraud-and-is-ddt-actually-safe-for-humans

Maybe we should move on to "Roundup" and it's evils next?!

Thanks, Bipedalist. Seems fair and balanced, overall.

Pump n' go....with continuous spray...of DOOM....

[Guest]

Referring to the original post and the five criteria:

( 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.

I think D and E have to apply. Legally.

Practically, however, I think we might need protection from them rather than vice versa. Voice in the wilderness department: There are more than is thought and they are closer than you think. ... Just sayin'.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Kings Canyon

[Guest]

You brought up the DDT issue. I am very aware that no one/no source is free of bias. I have only asked for a link or two to information on which you base your opinion, so that I may judge your argument on its validity and soundness. Snide or patronizing remarks about "toxicology for jocks" or accusing me of being a "typical" elitist are not necessary. I, too, look for logical soundness in an argument. I won't beg or play some game about your info. Please, put up or shut up, is all I ask. I can assure you that I am not out to ridicule. I just want to judge for myself both sides of the DDT argument. If you are not convinced, then just keep the info for yourself...but I think you are not doing your argument any good by not sharing whatever sources have caused you to make up your mind on the subject. Just MHO. I will admit that my phrasing was poor: instead of requesting "no right wing" stuff, what I should have said (and what I meant) was that I hoped that you would present info from moderate sources, relatively free from bias, and heavy on hard science and historical accuracy.

I resent being falsely accused of calling you a "'typical' elitist." What I did say was: "What is to stop you from labeling whatever sources I provide as right wing and then ridiculing them? That's a typically elitist tactic." I didn't accuse you of using the tactic, I was merely attempting to preempt use of that tactic by anyone, as elitist tactics seem to be encouraged and celebrated here at the Bigfoot Forums. I'm pleased to see you reject such illogical argumentation, and will be happy to provide you a few links.

If you don't wish to hear a fundamental truth taught everyone in Tox for Jocks, then please don't insult me and the other readers of these forums by linking to a blurb that fails miserably in supporting your position.

Here's a link to the 2002 article written by J. Gordon Edwards, PhD, an entomologist who was the most vocal proponent of DDT use during the debate in the early 1970s that ended with its ban:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Fall02/Mosquitoes.html.

I believe someone above posted a link to a review of this article, which was written for a popular science publication.

Here's a link to a 2004 article by Edwards, published in a scientific journal, Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons, soon after his death:

http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf.

Here's a link to the select pages of the "Hearing Examiner's Recommended Findings, Conclusions, and Orders" issued in 1972 after seven months of testimony and published in the Code of Federal Regulations. I recommend focusing on the Findings of Fact on p. 90, the Conclusions of Law on p. 93, and the Opinion on p. 95. These sections include such findings and conclusions as:

• DDT is extremely low in acute toxicity to man.
• DDT is not a safety hazard to man when used as directed.
• DDT is essential ... .
• DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man.
• DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man.
• The uses of DDT under the registrations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife.

[Guest]

Thanks Ptero. I did perceive that you were accusatory (of my being elitist) and seemed rather patronizing, and responded to that perception. If I was wrong, I apologize. All I wanted were some links to steer me toward the info that brought about your way of thinking, which differs from the mainstream and from what we lay people have always been taught about DDT. I do realize that the site I linked to was a bit elementary, but I linked to it because it WAS simple and represented (fairly succinctly and accurately) the mainstream scientific view of the dangers and effects of DDT from an academic/university source. So again, thanks, I will peruse, weigh, and make up my own mind on the matter.

Cheers!

Edit to add: Getting 404 Errors from your links. No matter, I will locate the articles myself through JSTOR or EBSCO...

Edited November 2, 2011 by notgiganto

[Guest]

Yes I think Bigfoot needs protection. Everyone should use condoms. Safe sex or no sex is my motto.

[Guest]

Edit to add: Getting 404 Errors from your links. No matter, I will locate the articles myself through JSTOR or EBSCO...

Sorry about that. I get 404 errors, too. Also, it appears I neglected to post the link to the hearing findings in the CFR. Allow me to try again:

http://www.21stcentu...Mosquitoes.html

http://www.jpands.or...no3/edwards.pdf

http://www.21stcentu...dt_hearing.pdf.

Allow me to clarify that the final link provides excerpts of the hearing results that were published not in the CFR, but in the Federal Register.

Well, the first two are working for me, but not the last one. One more time:

www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/ddt_hearing.pdf

The above should work if you cut and paste it into your browser.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Pteronarcyd

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Interesting topic.

Before I make my opinion known, I'd like to present a distinction between stewardship and protection, such as the ESPA.

I fully believe that all animals should be allowed to exist in their natural habitat. I also believe that, as humans, we have a responsibility to leave our planet and its resources in as pristine shape as is possible for the future generations and for the animal inhabitants. I feel that this is just exercising good stewardship over what we have been entrusted with. For example, I am all for our logging industry and all of the necessary things it provides for us - jobs, paper products, lumber, etc. But I also understand that this industry should be managed in such a way so that we replace what we take and/or grow trees that are more conducive to producing the products we need and want. The same could be said for the oil and mining industries - Responsible procurement and use of our resources that will not harm animals that are dependent on the habitats we manage to harvest the resources we need. That's good stewardship.

Protection, on the other hand, is where I have a bit of a problem. Should we protect Bigfoot, spotted owls, or any other animal? I guess that one could conclude that by doing so that we humans are exercising good stewardship. However, one could also conclude that by doing so we are attempting to protect animals selected for extinction if they are unable to adapt to an ever-changing environment.

I am admittedly not in the evolutionist camp. However, if I understand correctly, Evolution states that the fittest will overtake the weakest, which will eventually die off because they are unable to compete with the more highly-evolved. I believe it is the "survival of the fittest." I also believe that these things occur through natural selection, or by having the fittest of a species pass it's more beneficial traits to its offspring, thereby forcing the members of the species without the more beneficial traits to become obsolete and unable to compete. I believe that this is a cornerstone of the evolutionary theory, is it not?

I've stated the previous to say this: If we protect Bigfoot and/or any other animal, aren't we actually favoring a form of artificial selection? Not in the selective breeding sense, mind you, but in the sense that we are interfering with the process (survival of the fittest) stating that if these animals are unable to adapt and pass on the necessary traits to continue to flourish in an ever-changing environmental situation? If Evolution is to be truly in control, doesn't it make sense to let it take its natural course without our influence?

I look back at some of the animals in the fossil record. If Evolution is true, then these animals were selected for extinction. Perhaps they were unable to compete with other animals in their niche that were better adapted to procure the same food sources. Maybe they were exterminated through natural predation or they were unable to adapt to changing environmental circumstances such as a change in climate. In any event, these animals are now extinct for a reason.

One has to wonder how many animals have been spared from extinction by domestication and selective breeding by man. Think about it - You'll never see a cow on the Endangered Species list because they are valuable to us humans... the fittest.

In closing, I'm all for good stewardship of every living thing and our environment. Evolution, on the other hand, says that the fittest survive and that the weakest die off. If Bigfoot survives by our exercising good stewardship, I'd be very glad. As for protecting them, I believe we'd be better off to allow nature to take its course. If they fail to survive along with every other creature that has to compete on the earth, then that's just their draw of the evolutionary straws.

At this point in time we humans are the fittest and should do just as any other animal on this planet would do - Look out for our needs first and foremost while practicing good stewardship.

Maybe if and when we find Bigfoot we can spare it from extinction by making it useful to us in some way?

Moo.

[Guest Flatlander]

I've only been on the forum for a couple of months, so I suspect this topic has been discussed. I did a forum search for preservation and nothing came up. If there is a thread someone could link, I can go there. Otherwise...

I respect and appreciate organization's efforts to protect and preserve bigfoot, once they are proven to exist to the scientific community and lawmakers. But I also have some concerns.

For one, in the 60+ years that bigfoot has been a cultural phenomenon, no one has been able to kill one yet. They seem to be doing pretty well on their own. Do they need any protection from the government?

Another thing, if their existence is proven, couldn't that possibly increase danger to them? Couldn't the efforts to protect them actually do them harm? No one is hunting them now, because they are seen as a fairy tale. If they are proven to populate the forest, many more people may likely try to hunt them, even if it is illegal.