Does Bigfoot Require Protection?

[dopelyrics]

Flatlander I have the exact same thoughts as you on this. My view is "NO" they don't need protection and should be left alone. I'm not actually too bothered about proof. I quite like the mystery of it all. I'm not sure whether they do exist. Some days I think "Yes", others, "No way".

Best,

Lee

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I think they need protection otherwise one of them will eventually get shot again.

[Guest Mudder]

I've seen threads involving this subject before. And some of the posts stated to have severe punishment and fines if caught poaching. And I don't think us Americans and Canadians (among other sasquatch-inhabited countries) are the people that will shoot a hairy apeman in cold blood. If BF gets proven to exist, people may go out and hunt for them, but I can gaurantee that it won't be many folks. Most woodsman and hunters are very environment-friendly people. I couldn't shoot an ape, let alone a sasquatch. And, again, this is mostly America and Canada -- We aren't the type of people to poach for profit like a lot of other people in the world do shooting rare tigers for example.

[Guest crabshack]

I think they need protection otherwise one of them will eventually get shot again.

They have been getting shot at for a long time, guy at my old job claims to have shot at something angery, bipedal and very large on his property late one night.

He claims his german shepherd was cowering behind him at the time.

Edited September 27, 2012 by crabshack

[Guest]

Hard to protect something that likely doesn't even exist. If they do exist, and I no longer believe they do, that fact that they have made it this far without any harm pretty well means they can get along just fine on their own. There has never been one shot at before...er...because they do not exist. Just sayn'!

[Guest Flatlander]

Do we who are believers want to prove their existence just to save face, so people won't think we're crazy when we bring up the subject? Or is there a real need for them to have legislative protection?

At this point, I don't see a real need, but I have an open mind. I would love to hear from those favoring protection and the reasons behind that stance.

[Guest]

Let's just think about this for a moment. These creatures survived through the times of manifest destiny.. when everyone and their grandmother had a gun and was hacking out a living in the woods.. with no rules, restrictions on hunting, preservation laws of Any kind. Why would anyone think they need protection, now.. with many conservation laws and hunting regulations in place, for N. America's forests, park lands, and recreational lands ?

So now, you have believers and some researchers.. calling for laws for their protection and conservation, and calling them "people". On the other extreme hand.. you have folks trying to blow one away to prove it to the world, calling them "apes".

I find myself with neither interest, and lost in the vast middle (like usual). I want to observe, record and learn more about them, and be able to come back and do it again, at will.. without having new laws saying I can't enter my research area.. because forest people or wood apes might live there.

I think we have to learn what these things are ..first, before we start demanding that they be protected. IMHO, they don't need our help.. but only to preserve their habitats (pretty much..like what is being done, and is already in place).

I have no idea how to accomplish.. learning what they are, but don't think the squatch hunters will learn much more by shooting at them (if they even have that chance), either. I don't care if they are ever proven to exist.. as long as no one keeps me out of the forest, and doing what I love to do (camp, hike, bird, record, and research).

Edited September 27, 2012 by imonacan

[Guest crabshack]

I just have a funny feeling the peoples here before the white man knew something when some of the tribes referred to them as cannibals, knew just what they were talking about.

Lots of reasons to go missing in the woods, but just makes one wander.

[Guest rolando]

Maybe Bigfoot needs to be protected, maybe not. However, coming from an American who now lives in Europe, you all better be thankful for the amount of pure, never used, wilderness that exists in North America. If people don't wake up and set some restrictions on population growth and land use, in a hundred years or so it will be "Bye Bye wilderness".

I think most of us here on this board are outdoorsmen and appreciators of the natural world. We got to make sure to support conservation of the land whenever possible. For the sake of the untamed wilderness and also, possibly, for our big hairy cousins who live there.

Again, here in the middle of Europe, there ain't jack sh1t for wilderness compared to the States. I miss it tremendously and your children's children will too if you don't take good care now.

[Guest]

Protection will just get more people chasing it around. The best thing for Bigfoot is to let the story die off and protect the environment.

[Guest mdhunter]

I would have to say, if proven real, there will have to be some kind of legislation. If only to keep honest men honest. Greed can be a great motivator. The gorilla hand ashtray holders and various other things like shrunken heads can serve as a reminder of how much money can be involved in such things. That is why it tends to be hush hush about where the gorillas are. Let us not forget the dollars involved in African poaching typically comes from westerners.

Just for perspective... A taxidermist I know mounted a polar bear that was in contention to be the S.C.I. world record. Very intricate scene full body mount. While we were talking and looking at it, I asked what he thought the guy had invested in the mount,hunt,etc. all total. He said a bit over $125,000 maybe $150,000. And yes, this thing is scary big. I don't want to be anywhere near a live polar bear.

I can say in my county alone commercial poaching is a big dollar business. That would be water and land. Rockfish, blue crabs and whitetail deer being at the top of the list. The "good ole boy program" can go a long ways when money is involved.

That being said have fun trying to find one to shoot.

[Guest]

Protection will just get more people chasing it around. The best thing for Bigfoot is to let the story die off and protect the environment.

How is the story going to die off when there continue to be sightings? Even posting on a site like this is contrary to your best intent. No offense intended, just trying to make a point.

[Guest wudewasa]

So, there will be legislation made to preserve bigfoot. How will funding be accrued to do so, and how will this policy be enforced?

[Guest]

I view it like this - we are invading their habitat. Same thing as with cougars, bears etc - and that is why there are more attacks on humans. If we crowd out into bigfoots' habitat aka territory, I can imagine we'd have more conflict with this species. Especially since folks are now actually out there deliberately searching for them, whereas 40 years ago, it was all accidental contact.

I don't know if recognizing this species and officially protecting it's habitat is a good thing or not. Seems like every hunter in the land will want a trophy head if it's official that the species exists - it'll be "game on" and lead to LOTS of conflict, since it seems that sasquatch does NOT like being threatened with weapons. The only stories of it getting destructive and harmful seem to be when it was threatened. Then what? 200 hunters shooting at them and suddenly the forests are not the least bit safe with ticked off bigfoot on the run and a bunch of hunters shooting at shadows - and maybe being eaten by them on occassion.

[Guest Flatlander]

I would really like to hear from some of the pro-protection members if any would like to post.