Guest Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) If everyone really believes everything that possibly could be done to help the creature would be done, i'd agree with science having a body, although i may not necessarily agree with the process they implement to obtain that body. BY FORCE Edited March 9, 2012 by Caesar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 First, let me say I've been skimming over this topic because I misread the title. I thought it said " Do You Want Science to Have Your Body?" . I think it's a moot point. If they are being shot, all we have is stories, akin to the big fish that got away. If you can shoot it, kill it, and bring it in, go for it. I don't see it happening. So whether we want one or not, looks like we don't have one, and aren't going to have one anytime soon. The DNA study results, if they are ever released, aren't going to be enough on its own without further studies being done or a body. I'm not to worried about the sasquatch, if we get a body, it will be completely by accident with similar odds to that of winning the lottery. In some areas, the odds of seeing a bigfoot are less than winning the lottery. Either way, I'm not convinced it will result in the big pay out some think that it will. But this hobby is all about fun, and for those of you that like the chase, have fun trying to track him down out there with night vision goggles, your parabolic ears in place, and other high tech toys. Time to call John "Proof" Prufrock. I'm sure if bigfoot is the least bit intelligent he will appreciate the high entertainment value that you will provide for him and his buddies. http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p609/JoEllen10/proof1.jpg[/img]"]http:// Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I agree with Knuck. I feel sure that BLM and Forest Service somewhere along the line have collected a specimen and have examined a specimen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I am ambivalent at this time. A confirmed DNA sample renders a body superfluous, as biological samples can only come from a biological being. That in and of itself would be 100% dispositive proof. On the other hand, the vindictive part of me wants to throw a body right in the Skeptics' faces and shut them up once and for all. The thing is, should an otherwise innocent creature be killed just to do that? Hard to justify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter O. Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 As someone who's somewhat versed in ethics (e.g. Peter Singer), killing a BF can't really be justified. Throwing a body in people's faces, on the other hand... I can't really argue with. For this reason, I hope the Sierra Kills were real. Then it wasn't *me* who did it, but some hunter scapegoat. n.b. never saw the big guy but hope to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dozy Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) I'm torn on this one. As someone who's somewhere between 85% and 90% convinced that they don't exist, the question feeds into two contradictory impulses. The first is purely scientific inasmuch as, to whatever extent these things may genuinely exist, it would be better to have a type specimen and make the situation unambiguous. On that side of the argument, I say "shoot". The second is pragmatic. If these things (as I suspect) don't actually exist, the only thing to be gained by a "go forth and shoot!" attitude is the reckless endangerment of people going about their lawful (or unlawful) business in the woods by people with more bullets than sense. I can see a situation where people in ghillie jackets, or fur, or dark militaristic clothing end up catching a bullet from some hyper-ventilating yahoo who, in their desire to prove to the world that their belief is justified, has a far itchier trigger finger than they ought to have. On that side, I say "don't shoot". I don't think a single innocent human life should be put in jeopardy by little more than a desire to satisfy a mania. I guess the only real compromise position is to say "shoot; but you better be 100% certain of what it is that you're shooting at before you do". Even so: given the credulous enthusiasm with which people have responded to photographs which were obviously suits, that makes me rather reluctant to encourage putting a gun in their hands. Edited March 22, 2012 by dozy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter O. Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Real or not, having a bunch of people running around the woods trigger-happy about a million-dollar hunt is not a good thing. (Regardless of the actual value of such a body of course.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hutch Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Truthfully, even if these continually drawn out studies prove a new strain of ape/human DNA heretofore unidentified, the questionable chain of custody of the source of such DNA will still leave the bulk of the scientific community questioning its authenticity. Seeing is beleiving and the production of a body is going to be paramount to general acceptance among the scientific community and the rest of the populace. The general concern about protection of these animals real or imagined from hunters/poachers is a hoot! If these things to exist, the current lot of hunters and poachers who roam the forest sure have not done any notable damage to date! According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service statistics for 2006: 12.5 million people 16 years old and older enjoyed hunting a variety of animals within the United States. They hunted 220 million days and took 185 million trips. Hunting expenditures totaled $22.9 billion. An estimated 10.7 million hunters pursued big game, such as deer and elk, on 164 million days. There were 4.8 million hunters of small game including squirrels and rabbits. They hunted small game on 52 million days and spent $2.4 billion on small game hunting trips and equipment. 2.3 million hunted migratory birds such as doves or waterfowl 1.1 million hunted other animals such as woodchucks and raccoons Thats a lot of days in the woods with no confirmable Bigfoot kills in 2006n in the US. Now, multiply this by all the subsequent years since BF really became famous as a result of the PG films exposure and add in hunters in Canada as well. Even if you unequivicolly and unquestionably proved BF beyond any reasonable doubt, I have serious doubts that the woods will suddenly become filled with hunters/poachers who will suddenly experience great success in finding and bagging these creatures. The other thing that most forget is that hunters are some of the greatest conservationist out there in terms of thier financial and resource contributions. It seems that there is a broad brush stroke assuming that everyone is suddenly going to want a BF above thier fireplace. Hardly the case. Prove the species and I can promise that you will see across the board protection for this animal. Poachers will be poachers and they are beyond the control of law or morality so they are going to kill what they are going to kill regardless - just don't throw 99.99% of the ethical hunting crowd into your assumption that proof of BF will lead to thier demise. In the end, it all comes down to this - Show us a body and we'll believe. Everything short of that is smoke and mirrors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Great points, Hutch! Hunters are by and large a great group of conservationists when it comes to developing and maintaining habitat and responsible harvest. Your point about the total man days of hunting with lack of confirmed BF kills is well noted. However, I think that if we do have a published study that confirms the existence of BF based on DNA evidence with verified chains of custody of the tissue samples, then it will change the game. Currently the majority of hunters don't believe in the existence of BF (look at any hunting forum where they happen to have a topic about BF). If there is a media frenzy talking about this new finding, then it will open the eyes of hunters that there is a big animal out there to be had. With that knowledge they may be tempted to put some effort into a hunt. What concerns me more than someone wanting fame and fortune for bringing a BF body to science is someone who wants fortune for selling BF body parts to the traditional medicine markets of Asia. We will definitely need laws and enforcement of laws to prevent this from happening once the species is established. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hutch Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) BFSlueth, I agree with you with respect to poaching and the illegal parts trade. The problem is, what law or protections are you possibly going to enact to stop this? Poachers are poachers and even if you closed lands and made it a felony imprisonable by life behind bars, someone is still going to go for it. If they get caught in the woods, they are simply poaching deer or bear. The only way you nail someone for poaching BF is if they have a body or body parts that you can run DNA on. Murder, drugs, rape, and much, much more are illegal - yet they still occur everyday as will poaching. What I am getting at is this - even with definitive proof, this animal is supposedly so keen at avoiding detection that I seriously doubt poachers will make any impact. The economic return vs days in the woods will prove BF poaching to be a less than minimum wage prospect. The supposed Sierra Shooting should in my opinion be considered as a poaching incident. Researchers would not have thier prized 13-15lb hunk of meat which is now the big basis for thier research had these two BF's not been poached by someone hunting for bear out of season. Agreed? So, based upon what I have read cruising around these sites in the past few days and getting up to speed on everything, we have a 1941 shooting by Pete in Manitoba, and a Sierra Shooting. All the other shootings by the government and timber companies are unsubstantiated. A total of 3 BF's poached in 60+ years is not what I would consider a massive attempt at trophy hunting. Edited March 23, 2012 by Hutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) True that, Hutch. Not many have been taken, and I don't believe even with concerted effort hunters will have much of an impact (based on the level of intelligence and physical ability BF display). However, I think that you may be underestimating how much Asian buyers are willing to spend for rare or endangered species for the traditional medicine trade. Some of the earliest references to Yeti are noted in ancient texts for traditional medicine. I do a lot of business in Asia, and have had conversations that pretty well establish both the desire for consuming and the unreal prices paid for the chance to dine on, for example, tiger penis soup (and think about how many tigers died to make a soup to feed a business lunch of a dozen men). There is a status associated with being able to pay for and consume something like that. Their belief in the health benefits is also a driving force. They will spend money on their way of health care just like we do. If they had a chance to eat the last specimen of a species they would probably pay a premium. Edited March 23, 2012 by BFSleuth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hutch Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 BFSlueth, There are already folks out there offering up to $2 million for BF bodies or parts -see link below.... http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2011/07/todd-standing-offers-2-million-for.html Considering the socio-economic status of many of those who engage in poaching activities, I would think that this would be enough of an incentive already to head into the woods with rifle in hand for those so inclined. Again, let walk before we run. I don't think the UFO crowd is concerning themselves with zoning issues for alien craft landings just yet, so let's wait until we prove BF exists before we start worring about game management. Prove it exists and we'll worry about protections later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I dont think our government could ultimately keep any secret let alone the existance of bigfoot. But, I dont think science will ever have a body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts