If Sasquatch Is Proven Real, And "human", Is This A Public Safety Issue?

[dmaker]

I'm just mulling over what the potential impact would be if BF were proven to be real and "human" a la Ketchums' study. I don't personally believe this, but let's pretend for the moment. Now let's look at this from a civil authority point of view. What are the public safety issues here? What is the governments' responsibility to BF? Should they be tamed? Should they be recorded in a census? Should they pay taxes? ( a bit tongue in cheek there, but not wholly) I mean if they are human, then to what extent do we treat them as such?

Are they a threat to public safety? There is not much in the history to strongly suggest this, but just simply the reality of their existence I think could make an argument for public safety. Suddenly it's a known fact that there is a population of large, feral humans out there living with no laws, or boundaries whatsoever and we have no idea or guarantee of their intentions. If I was in charge of public safety, I'd certainly want to know more to say the least. They are feral and large and can, by all accounts, be capable of forceful acts of violence against other creatures, i.e. prey items like deer, etc. If you dig into the NA legends then they are guilty of kidnap and rape. Or do we just treat them like other large, predatory mammals? But how can we when everyone attached to the Ketchum study is saying they should be classified as human. So fine, that comes with a boatload of concerns that a bear, for example, is exempt from. So how should Sasquatch be handled from a public safety point of view?

Also, what is our moral or social responsibility to a wide spread group of uncounted humans? Should we "tame" them ( partly to mitigate the public safety issues and to bring them into the "human fold") ? Should we track them and maintain a census of sorts? Humans are supposed to be part of society, right? Are there examples of modern groups of humans that are allowed to completely fall off the map and go live in the woods as wandering nomads completely outside the law?

I'm just curious. And it sparked some thought in my head this morning that for everyone shouting for "human rights" for Sasquatch, has anyone really thought that through to all of what that implies? Or is it merely protection from hunting, but not "civil human rights"? Don't hunt them, but they are certainly not citizens and subject to our laws? So a Sasquatch can wander around and steal, and destroy property and do pretty much what it wants with impunity? Even though it's human? Or do we need a new classification that is not human, but "near-human" or some such?

Lots of food for thought...

Edited February 18, 2013 by dmaker

[Rockape]

Prove it first, then worry about the rest.

[dmaker]

Bah, you're no fun

[Boris Khan]

Most of your posting seems focused towards the U.S. Well Canadian laws are different but the sasquatches are there also. Is there illegal border crossing going on then, per your inquiry? I think this would fall into a 'special circumstances' situation similar to undiscovered tribes in the Amazon or on some unknown Pacific island or the such. Heck even if there were some "stone-age" family units found in the wilderness in North America. Such a tribe would be unwillingly studied and observed as some anthropological academic somewhere would claim this would have to be done as the opportunity warrants that we must study them to understand and gain insights into our own past. Either way, with genetic testing, at best, sasquatches could be defined as near-human but not Homo sapien and thus a whole new batch of hastily put together laws would start popping up in order to "protect their rights" or deal with perceived criminal actions on their part.

Is that better for your conversation?

[dmaker]

Border crossing is an interesting point as well, but since Sasquatch are not likely to be granted citizenship, then I wouldn't think border crossing would be in scope. Can you imagine a BF passport photo?

I agree that near-human is the best we could do for classification. I like your comparison to newly discovered tribes in the Amazon or even Papua New Guinea for example. But those are far removed from the North American experience. As in we don't have any experience with newly discovered tribes of people roaming among us. Certainly new laws would have to be written to handle this. I was curious as to what these laws would look like based on how "human" a squatch was classified in the end. Would they need to be tamed as a species so that they can be controlled and conform to the laws? Do they continue as they are, but be subject to more study? What do we do with a nuisance squatch? Do we re-locate it to a remote forest area? It would be easier if they were discovered and were just a new species of ape. But the current trend with DNA studies is claiming them to be human. Raises interesting questions on how to treat them then in that case.

[Guest njjohn]

They're closely related to human, but they aren't human's like us. If they can verify any of those missing reports linking to them, I see protection measures not being very effective.

[dmaker]

I tend to agree with njjohn, but the thing that sparked my imagination this morning was a letter from a scientist ( Dr.David H Swenson) supporting Ketchum where he states:

"My opinion of the creature is that it is a hybrid of a human mother and an unknown hominid male, Just as reported. For all practical purposes, it should be treated as human and protected under law."

I just wonder how far practically speaking we should take the human classification. Dr.Swenson seems to want to take it fairly far. I don't think that is very practical at all. I have no problem with protected under law, but anything else much beyond that would seem very problematic. So what should "treated as human" really mean? That's what I am wondering. I realize it's a huge area of discussion. I was just curious about the high points, like what actual human rights could we even conceivably transfer to them? And is that a one way street? They are protected by law, but do not have to follow any, etc?

And if even a missing persons report was linked to a Sasquatch, would it be open season? Or would they be protected, like all other humans, by jurisprudence? Innocent until proven guilty?

And just to be clear, I realize a lot of this is ridiculous, i.e. the notion of border crossing and passports, and murder trials for squatches, but when people are saying things like they are human and should be treated like humans, well it does sort of open the door for these kinds of far flung scenarios.

Edited February 18, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest njjohn]

I'm guessing he's saying that animal protection rights shouldn't be applied, which makes sense in their thinking. If a protected animal kills or attacks a human it can be put down. Human laws require more. If it's proven true, it will make for some interesting debates.

[Guest]

They'd have to understand our laws before we could expect them to abide by them. Good luck educating them.

[adam2323]

They are not you human they are priamte of some sort. Public safety?? With all the local crime rates world turmoil and highly doubt Sasquatch's need to be grouped in with safety to the public

[dmaker]

They'd have to understand our laws before we could expect them to abide by them. Good luck educating them.

Very true, of course. There is probably some interesting case law dealing with feral humans. I'd have to dig around and see what comes up. What usually happens when a feral human is discovered? Are they not institutionalized? Would we capture one, educate it, shave it, give it a new suit and send it on its' merry way? If Sasquatch are outed as human, and we wish to study them more closely, can we disregard their right to liberty? We could if they were apes, not if they are human, as is being claimed.

Edited February 18, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

There is historical precedent relating to our treatment of indigenous populations. While I'd like to think we're a different people then we were just 100 years ago, the fact is that reservations still exist.

[WSA]

Actually dmaker, there is an extremely large body of law dealing with the rights and privileges of so-called feral humans. Unfortunately for them, the native Indian population of N.A. got to experience that up close and personal for four centuries, and still counting. In saying that, I'm by no means discounting the elegant and extremely complex social structure of the Indians on this continent, but only that when the worth of it was considered by the dominant culture, who lusted for what they held (land), it counted for nothing. And they could speak our language. Do you have any hope a Sasquatch population would fare any better?

That is the "human" side of the analogy. For the "animal" side of the coin, consider what we've done to all other apex mammalian predators we've been forced to coexist with. Yes, that's right, we slaughtered them to near extinction. On this point though I do hold out some hope. The confirmation of the Sasquatch has been delayed mainly by our predisposition to refrain from murdering one. If you've read the report database, you know it is not due to a lack of opportunity. I would expect that reluctance to fade with time and the right marketing scheme. You know the selling of Sasquatch already is very lucrative....how fast would it go over the top if it is confirmed? That's right.

Would a putative Sasquatch receive a degree of federal protection? I would tend to say yes, initially. Would it hold? Good dang question.

Let's just acknowledge that the idea of sharing this planet with another two-leg is so momentous it can't even really be predicted how mankind would react(and as you know, many argue this is exactly why evidence of the species is so routinely dismissed out of hand). The crisis of identity and re-imagining our place in the cosmos would require no less than our complete reordering of our world. Ask a child who learned at age 20 that "Father" is not his or her real dad to find out what that does to an individual. Multiply that by everyone alive at the time of confirmation and you'd just begin to see the implications. I'd say the inevitable collateral damage of that is impossibly unpredictable.

But I have every confidence our Congress and state legislators will step up quickly and do the right thing for all involved, as they always do.....wait....

[Sunflower]

First, they are real, Second, they are at least part human and the other is unknown. We need to do some very deep thinking about how to handle them or we could just recognize them and go on as we have. Knowing they are real is one thing, dealing with them is another.

For instance, they won't be paying any taxes, they won't be shopping at Walmart, they won't be in a zoo, they won't be driving vehicles, they won't be voting, they won't be coming to our parties (well maybe not), they won't be giving any speeches, and so on and so on.

Just be aware if you are in the woods that you are visiting their home and be respectful. Do not harass them or chase them. Their children are cherished, just like how we feel about our children. Treat them as you would like to be treated. They don't want to harm us but they will defend their home and kids.

The most important thing is that they will survive as they have for all these years. I am very grateful, as are some of my friends that have had interactions and as time goes by, things will settle down and we will need to accept them as another being on this planet.

MHO this is earthshattering, monumental and absolutely astounding which I have said before.

Thanks to Melba and all of the labs that cooperated and reported. Guts and gumption.

[dmaker]

I understand what you're saying Sunflower, but I don't know that it will be as simple as live and let live. If the picture that the Ketchum camp is painting turned out to be real, I don't see them being treated as any other large, predatory mammal. As in be wary when in the woods and practice simple wildlife precautions and you should be fine. That works for animals that are not human and live solely by instinct. But if we're talking about human, or near-human, or whatever, then instinct is no longer the sole motivator. I am not so sure that civil authorities are going to take the word of small number of habituator stories and create this picture of peaceful, shy, well meaning beings. Those stories are only part of the puzzle. There are stories of kidnap, and chasing, and threatening, and even way worse in some of the fringe. How do civil authorities separate fact from fiction when deciding on a posture to deal with these creatures? I can imagine a lot of people not being satisfied with "Oh, that 800lb killing machine? He's harmless, don't worry about him" And humans have a very distinct track record of how they deal with perceived threats. An animal is one thing, we can predict for the most part based on what we know and what instinct tells it to do. A sasaquatch? I bet will be there will be quite a few who are more than alarmed to realize just what is living beyond the tree line. Perhaps discovery might just be the worst thing that could possibly happen to Sasquatch.

Edited February 18, 2013 by dmaker