Bigfoot And Americana

[norseman]

I have been contemplating the anti kill mindset of late, and while I do agree that many people are simply animal rights types who want Sasquatch to be treated in the same way they are treated.

 

I also think there is another large demographic here that is much more secretive in their feelings. 

 

Recently while debating the legalities of the pro kill mindset, Skamania and Whatcom counties came up in the discussion. And last night I watched a Todd Standing video in which he submitted a petition to the house of commons in a attempt to protect Sasquatch.

 

Is part of the problem that the myth portion of the phenom is as Americana as apple pie and Chevrolet? So to shoot one, your basically saying you hate Americana? I mean for some of these places Sasquatch is a thing of pride............T shirts, bumper stickers, parades, coffee mugs, hats, so forth and so on. And the source of this pride may be just a single track way that was cast during the 50s and 60s!!!

 

I think this...........it's good business.To show your Sasquatch pride means tourist dollars pouring into your rural towns and counties. Some thing they all need badly. So if your local sawmill shuts down? You adopt a Sasquatch day parade or open a Sasquatch gift shop............a hook.........something to get the tourists off the beaten path and into your town.

 

So yes it's Americana.........but just like Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and Halloween. It is designed to separate people from their dollar.

 

Or in the case of the individual? It helps get notoriety so you can sell that next video or book and make money off of the deal.

Edited May 31, 2013 by norseman

[Guest]

I think that is a valid point.  The big guy = big tourist dollars in some parts of the country.  As you said - t-shirts, coffee mugs, bumper stickers etc.  Whether people believe it or not, the mystery, or maybe more accurately the myth, of BF captures people.  There was an albino bull elk that used to roam around Pine, ID (the genes are still in the area, I saw an albino cow with normal twins several years back).  The locals would protect this bull during hunting season, the community "adopted" him as a local figure if that makes sense.  America has done that to a degree with BF - Jack Links, Harry and the Hendersons etc.

 

I also think that in some cases that prominent 'researchers' in the BF community lobby against it for personal gain reasons.  These people (Standing comes to mind) do not want one killed because they will no longer matter.  They've been out there for years and could not produce evidence.  Now, if we have a body, who is going to pay to see their private video collection? 

[norseman]

They either knowingly or unknowingly want to perpetuate the myth.............

[Guest DWA]

...and Grover Krantz used to call them the "Professionals."
 

And no it wasn't a compliment.

[MIB]

I suppose in some circles that might be the reason for a no-kill position.

 

It's not mine.

[BobbyO]

I think that is a valid point.  The big guy = big tourist dollars in some parts of the country.  As you said - t-shirts, coffee mugs, bumper stickers etc. 

I've been to Willow Creek, the Mecca of BF touristvile and I just admit, I never saw any sign of big tourist dollars being spent or in the town itself.

[norseman]

 

I think that is a valid point.  The big guy = big tourist dollars in some parts of the country.  As you said - t-shirts, coffee mugs, bumper stickers etc. 

I've been to Willow Creek, the Mecca of BF touristvile and I just admit, I never saw any sign of big tourist dollars being spent or in the town itself.

 

 

Do you think that when they have their Bigfoot days every year that tourists show up and spend money?

[BobbyO]

I don't think the OP is the main reason for people who are on the no kill side of the fence, not the majority anyway.

And I don't think people need to be labelled as " animal rights types " just because they don't want someone to shoot a Sasquatch.

At this stage, I don't really away one way or the other I don't think, I wouldn't have a problem if someone bagged one, and I have no problem if nobody ever does.

But I'm under no illusion that if this animal is ever to be brought forward as real with scientific acceptance etc, shooting one is one of only a few viable options, along with road kill and things like that.

I think that is a valid point.  The big guy = big tourist dollars in some parts of the country.  As you said - t-shirts, coffee mugs, bumper stickers etc.

I've been to Willow Creek, the Mecca of BF touristvile and I just admit, I never saw any sign of big tourist dollars being spent or in the town itself.

 

Do you think that when they have their Bigfoot days every year that tourists show up and spend money?

Yeah but there's " spending money " and there's " spending money " isn't there ?

Small money at those Bigfoot days things, whatever they are.

Minimal money.

Nowhere near enough to keep the Town afloat in the quieter times, not even remotely close.

[norseman]

No.......not really. Not in rural America. I have no misconceptions that they are pulling down Las Vegas dinero.............. But in rural America where people are hurting? Every penny counts.

 

And I think my Americana hypothesis explains a good portion of the anti kill camp. It's also the reason it's seen in 49 states in the union.

[BobbyO]

Maybe it does, id have no reason to argue that it didn't represent a good portion like you say, but just not the majority like i said.

Still doesn't mean someone who doesn't want to shoot one is an " animal rights type " as my vision of those people isn't necessarily a good one.

And Norse, bear in mind I was replying to a post that said " bigfoot = big tourist dollars in some parts of the country ".

My perception of big tourist dollars is obviously different to yours though, but no worries.

I don't believe that BF makes anyone but Animal Planet any serious money.

Edited May 31, 2013 by BobbyO

[norseman]

Maybe it does, but it still doesn't mean someone who doesn't want to shoot one is an " animal rights type ".

 

As it stands right now per my original post, I offered up two factions in the anti kill camp and I'm sure there are more.

 

1) Americana myth lover

2) Animal rights proponent

 

If you live in a urban or suburban setting, shop at REI, drive a volvo or subaru and go out into the wilds as much as possible to hike, mountain bike, ski, kayak, etc? Your probably group number 2.

 

If your a person living in rural America and hunt and fish, work in the local saw mill and uncle Bob had a personal experience with ole "Shaggy" up on Thrush creek? Your probably group number 1.

Edited May 31, 2013 by norseman

[BobbyO]

Does it really have to be so extreme as to be an " animal rights type " though ?

 

I've always had those sort of people down to be a bit wacko, someone who would tie themselves to a fence naked at a Pig farm or something crazy like that, a bit extreme.

 

Again, maybe we're at crossed wires as my interpretation of an animal rights activist isn't really that positive and in fact, is pretty negative due to the sort of light i have seen them in over the years.

 

But i just don't know why someone has to be labelled as something definitive in this scenario, couldn't they just be against what you're saying and that be that, without being branded a certain type of person because of it ?

 

I don't think someone needs to be an " animal rights type " just because they don't necessarily want a Sasquatch killed for whatever reason, or drive a Volvo, or Ski or hike.

[norseman]

Does it really have to be so extreme as to be an " animal rights type " though ?

 

I've always had those sort of people down to be a bit wacko, someone who would tie themselves to a fence naked at a Pig farm or something crazy like that, a bit extreme.

 

Again, maybe we're at crossed wires as my interpretation of an animal rights activist isn't really that positive and in fact, is pretty negative due to the sort of light i have seen them in over the years.

 

But i just don't know why someone has to be labelled as something definitive in this scenario, couldn't they just be against what you're saying and that be that, without being branded a certain type of person because of it ?

 

I don't think someone needs to be an " animal rights type " just because they don't necessarily want a Sasquatch killed for whatever reason, or drive a Volvo, or Ski or hike.

 

Well I thought the same thing until I got into it with someone from the Humane Society about hound hunting.........they were cuckoo clock extreme. We are not talking PETA here but the friggin Humane Society. And then of course it then begins to be outlawed along with trapping in the Pacific Rim states..........such as Wa and Or which are Liberal bastions. While states like Idaho scrambled to pass hound and trapping rights directly into their state constitution. So they can never be touched.

 

You don't live here, so you do not understand our politics. Although I do blame the UK for quite a bit of this nonsense. After all you banned fox hunting......

 

But anyhow, I'm simply sticking my finger into the anti kill camp brain and poking around abit with my hypothesis above. I wanna know why they feel the way they feel........ And who I'm dealing with. Know thy enemy sort of thing.

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

And people are not stupid. Some realize that sasquatch is simply a Moneymaker for many people, lol, and thus they automatically assume the position that sasquatch is a myth. But I also bet that many of these people do not realize both the long history of sasquatch in Native culture, and the sheer amount of evidence that is available today.

 

And I firmly believe that those who utilize and abuse the idea of sasquatch simply to make money are doing nothing but hurting the community as a whole, and ultimately hurting the sasquatch as well. This is because the more people disbelieve in the existence of these animals, the less likelihood that someone is going to go out there and gather evidence that proves the legitimacy of these animals. And I believe that discovery would be the best thing for the sasquatch. Humans have already had some affect on their population, changing their way of life to some degree, and although sasquatch can continue to live virtually the same way for who knows how much longer, eventually that is going to come to a stop. Eventually their way and quality of life is going to decrease, due simply to the fact that they are not recognized as being in the forest, thus their habitat will be destroyed as we move further and further into it.

 

We see the government setting up preserves for all types of wildlife, which must mean that it is a good thing for the wildlife, and a necessary thing, otherwise it would not have needed to be done. Therefore not allocating space for such a LARGE animal, with such a broad range, it stands to reason that this lack of protection from man is going to hurt them in the long run. And the long run may be 10 years from now, or 100; it is difficult to say since we know so little about them at this point.

 

As for the people who still do not believe in sasquatch, but who are familiar with all of the evidence available, I don't know what to say. Something I would like to ask those people is this: if you were told of a sasquatch encounter by the person you trust the most in your life, would you believe them? See I have a feeling that those who do not believe the thousands of reports that have been accumulated over the years may not have a problem with sasquatch exclusively, but rather they have a trust issue in general. I would bet that most of these people still would not believe even if told by a trustworthy person, whom they knew to be trustworthy, that sasquatch exists.

[norseman]

And people are not stupid. Some realize that sasquatch is simply a Moneymaker for many people, lol, and thus they automatically assume the position that sasquatch is a myth. But I also bet that many of these people do not realize both the long history of sasquatch in Native culture, and the sheer amount of evidence that is available today.

 

And I firmly believe that those who utilize and abuse the idea of sasquatch simply to make money are doing nothing but hurting the community as a whole, and ultimately hurting the sasquatch as well. This is because the more people disbelieve in the existence of these animals, the less likelihood that someone is going to go out there and gather evidence that proves the legitimacy of these animals. And I believe that discovery would be the best thing for the sasquatch. Humans have already had some affect on their population, changing their way of life to some degree, and although sasquatch can continue to live virtually the same way for who knows how much longer, eventually that is going to come to a stop. Eventually their way and quality of life is going to decrease, due simply to the fact that they are not recognized as being in the forest, thus their habitat will be destroyed as we move further and further into it.

 

We see the government setting up preserves for all types of wildlife, which must mean that it is a good thing for the wildlife, and a necessary thing, otherwise it would not have needed to be done. Therefore not allocating space for such a LARGE animal, with such a broad range, it stands to reason that this lack of protection from man is going to hurt them in the long run. And the long run may be 10 years from now, or 100; it is difficult to say since we know so little about them at this point.

 

As for the people who still do not believe in sasquatch, but who are familiar with all of the evidence available, I don't know what to say. Something I would like to ask those people is this: if you were told of a sasquatch encounter by the person you trust the most in your life, would you believe them? See I have a feeling that those who do not believe the thousands of reports that have been accumulated over the years may not have a problem with sasquatch exclusively, but rather they have a trust issue in general. I would bet that most of these people still would not believe even if told by a trustworthy person, whom they knew to be trustworthy, that sasquatch exists.

 

 

Protection is important absolutely........but you conveniently side stepped the main thrust of my posting. 

 

What is the reasoning behind the anti kill mindset? If discovery and protection is as important as you say it is (and I agree). Then why wring your hands and sulk and cry out over the death of one animal in order to save a species?

 

I have proposed that there are two reasons, one is that some people are animal rights types. The other is the "Don't hurt our Nessie!" mindset.

 

You?