Bigfoot And Americana

[norseman]

They are my opinions based on observations, knowledge of the subject and common sense. And yours? Would especially like to know your specific ideas about "saving" them after killing one.

 

I base my opinions on the health of the other large omnivore in North America, the Grizzly bear.

 

 

We can see that the last 100 years or so, has not been kind to the Grizzly bear. Nor other species such as Wolves, Woodland Caribou, Wolverine, Lynx, Bison, Elk, etc, etc. This is why conservation groups where established at the end of the last century.........it was an attempt to save these species from Extinction. And why Congress passed this act:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act

 

 

Also, once the species is established, we could give it protection under the endangered species act. One species that has thrived under this act is the Wolf.

 

Sasquatch has no voice...........period. It garners no consideration if a dam is being built, or a shopping mall. It's habitat either is protected by some other species that's needs dovetail to the Sasquatch..............OR they lose. 

 

It's much more dangerous for the Sasquatch to stay hidden than it is for them to be discovered and protected. It's not the guys with rifles poaching them that I worry about, it's the bulldozers and concrete that I worry about.

Edited June 25, 2013 by norseman

[hiflier]

Hello Norseman,

Yes, SSQ has no voice in the general sense. And encroachment is a problem for ALL habitats- including tidal basins. I'm going to play devil's advocate here as you already know how I think on the matter of securing a type specimen.

Hypothetically speaking, let's say you and your group succeed in grassing a BF. Death is a natural thing of course, and it's nearly never acceptable when it isn't. At least where Humans are concerned. I've spoken already about confronting, or the lack of confronting, even our own sentiments WRT our own mortality. How we project those sentiments onto other living things does indeed reflect how we feel about Human death- natural or not.

That aside, the taking of a SSQ for the reason of proving it's existence will wake up the scientific community and the world with some rather sobering consequences. For one, the stories and reports about Sasquatch's strength, prowess, and it's hunting skills will finally have some support. What does this mean? At the very least those who venture into the wilds of bear country would perhaps think twice about chancing those wilds if it were KNOWN that a very powerful and stealthy creature existed other than Bruin. So the success of the hunt might keep a majority of folks out of the woods, especially the deep woods, which to me wouldn't be such a bad thing. The idea being that if they are not showing a gun or something that looks like a gun then our Hairy Friend might turn quite bold in not such a good way

The laws governing habitat which have been relaxed to a degree in favor of corporations just might get amended into tougher ones. All creatures could benefit from that. Kind of makes me think that the lacksidasical approach from the goverment research institutions is a functional thing that results in loosening restrictions on the wildlands. To find and have a Sasquatch would not be in the interest of progress but the built-in deniability would. No bigfoot? then dig, baby, dig.

Yep, there's a lot more riding on the discovery than meets the eye if you ask me. So, even though it leaves a bad taste to some, if not most, I sincerely have to say that living creatures in BF's habitat will also gain a voice no matter how small in size they may be if a Bigfoot goes down. Because Voles don't have a say, chipmunks don't have a say, bluejays don't have a say......well, you get what I mean.

Edited June 26, 2013 by hiflier

[Branco]

OK, so we put them on the endangered species list like we did with Grizzly bear. (Not sure how we could justify that since we don't know whether their population is shrinking or expanding.) The grizzly bear can still be hunted in Alaska (and British Columbia), the Feds are thinking about taking them off the list, and the Bear manager - plus a lot of cattle ranchers - believe there should be a open season in some regions of the NW. So, is that your proposed plan for "saving" Bigfoot?

Since the "Grizzly" plan for Bigfoot is obviously not appropriate; what would be your "Plan B(igfoot)."

I doubt that Bigfoot would have in more say in what we do to "save" them than did the Grizzly Bear.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Branco

[Guest]

Americana and Bigfoot..thought this was the place to just share a link, and.this is embarrassing, but on Hulu the banner show this a.m. is a "dramatic scripted series" presented as a reality show, like Survivor, which I was suckered into watching.  

At about minute 32 there is a sequence with a "scream", "whoop," and snapping trees around the campfire which sends everyone to cabins....and the show ends with one contestant dying under un-revealed circumstances that bleeds (literally and in the story thread) into an ending of some kind of attack on camp, spooky nighttime stuff, etc....in future episodes....and a general unraveling of their psyches..

 

no one said Bigfoot...and a tiger is mentioned...

but,   I am betting on Bigfoot....or, since this is supposed to be Siberia...the Almasti? 

http://www.hulu.com/watch/504799

Edited June 27, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest]

Branco- about your question(s) on post #108, states set regulations and the federal government sets policies and the states can adopt them or not.

now, in the state I live in, Calif., the Ca. F&W comm. set regulations and has guidelines in place that are usually followed, however the public can recommend regulations and policies and present them during comm. meeting with studies, verifiable proof and evidence for the board.First things first before approaching the board one better have their presentation togeather with PROOF or you may be shown the door; buearucrats don't like people telling what to do without substancial pieces to the puzzle and in case of Sasquatch that means that the Ca. F&W comm. is looking for a peer-reviewed DNA report and clear videos and/or photographic evidence of the subject within the boundaries of Ca. With that said - if those pieces to the  puzzle could be obtained IMO an emergency prohibition on hunting should be adopted until further review and/or studies could be evaluated as called for in emergency situations. Also a free-roam policy should be adopted, and guidelines already in place for endangered species list statewide. after some study case a application to the federal government for placement on their endangered species list. The way I understand it that penalties are handled in a differant way with the enforsement authorities chiding in. The reason a free- roam policy is it would skirt the politics and economic lobbyists so that an emergency adoption could take place; I am sure that heavy industry and property owners will have their say at any other board meetings. So that is just the tip of the iceberg. BTW it took 3 years for Ca. to adopt the prohibition on taking sharks for just thei fins and selling them and dumping the rest of the fish.  

[hiflier]

Hello ptangier,

Would this count?

http://cliffbarackman.com/research/field-investigations/vermont-trail-camera-photo-analysis/

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii317/klyphphjiord/VT%20Trail%20Cam/VTtrailcam.jpg

Edited June 27, 2013 by hiflier

[norseman]

OK, so we put them on the endangered species list like we did with Grizzly bear. (Not sure how we could justify that since we don't know whether their population is shrinking or expanding.) The grizzly bear can still be hunted in Alaska (and British Columbia), the Feds are thinking about taking them off the list, and the Bear manager - plus a lot of cattle ranchers - believe there should be a open season in some regions of the NW. So, is that your proposed plan for "saving" Bigfoot?

Since the "Grizzly" plan for Bigfoot is obviously not appropriate; what would be your "Plan B(igfoot)."

I doubt that Bigfoot would have in more say in what we do to "save" them than did the Grizzly Bear.

We can justify it because we can say ahhhh we don't know! Better do a 10 year study!

And even if its numbers were healthy? They would never allow a hunting season on a temperate North American bipedal ape......

Can you imagine the conservation groups that would spring up?

And can u back up your claim that they are delisting the griz in the lower 48?

Edited June 27, 2013 by norseman

[Guest]

Heflier- I don't think so, not compelling at all.What the board assistant told me was very compelling video or photos, enough for the board to consider. Let me just say this, 10 years ago the (at that time) the DFG won't even enetain any discussion about the Big Guys. So why now the shift? Do they know something? Are they waiting for someone or some group and present proof that they already have? My guess is yes.Just saying .

[hiflier]

Hello ptangier,

Good point, why the shift? Anyway, I thought the photo pretty compelling. The animal is said to be in a crouch with it's head facing to the left. I say good job no matter the truth of what it is.

[Branco]

 

OK, so we put them on the endangered species list like we did with Grizzly bear. (Not sure how we could justify that since we don't know whether their population is shrinking or expanding.) The grizzly bear can still be hunted in Alaska (and British Columbia), the Feds are thinking about taking them off the list, and the Bear manager - plus a lot of cattle ranchers - believe there should be a open season in some regions of the NW. So, is that your proposed plan for "saving" Bigfoot?

Since the "Grizzly" plan for Bigfoot is obviously not appropriate; what would be your "Plan B(igfoot)."

I doubt that Bigfoot would have in more say in what we do to "save" them than did the Grizzly Bear.

We can justify it because we can say ahhhh we don't know! Better do a 10 year study!

And even if its numbers were healthy? They would never allow a hunting season on a temperate North American bipedal ape......

Can you imagine the conservation groups that would spring up?

And can u back up your claim that they are delisting the griz in the lower 48?

 

And can you imagine how the public would react to someone killing one to "save" them from being killed by others?

 

To find out more about what the situation is with the Grizzly in the NW, do a simple web search, Its public record.

[norseman]

I live in the NW and do web searches all the time.....nada.

And I'm pretty sure a discovery like that would overshadow HOW one was brought in.

[coffee2go]

I still don't feel that killing one is a method to prove they exist.  If scientists or others were serious about studying bigfoot there are tools they could be using to observe their habitat.  The military certainly has a variety of things for spying and detection of an enemy that are very sophisticated.  They use drones for everything else, why not concentrate them on certain areas in the NW for observation?  Over time, observations would eventually pinpoint where they live and the areas they frequent.  DNA could then be collected and analyzed.  Just a thought.

 

[norseman]

I still don't feel that killing one is a method to prove they exist. If scientists or others were serious about studying bigfoot there are tools they could be using to observe their habitat. The military certainly has a variety of things for spying and detection of an enemy that are very sophisticated. They use drones for everything else, why not concentrate them on certain areas in the NW for observation? Over time, observations would eventually pinpoint where they live and the areas they frequent. DNA could then be collected and analyzed. Just a thought.

How do you propose WE get them serious on the subject? What's going to change the minds of scientists?

If your thinking a body or a portion thereof? You would be right!

Science has rejected foot casts, photos, video, etc for about 50 years now......that's half a century. And what do most researchers go out searching for? Foot casts.........photos etc

It's bizarre.

[norseman]

Actually I owe Branco an apology, they are talking about delisting Yellowstone griz in Wyoming by as early as 2014.

But I think most of the 600 bears live inside the park where hunting isn't allowed.

Anyhow sorry I doubted you.

[Branco]

 

 

OK, so we put them on the endangered species list like we did with Grizzly bear. (Not sure how we could justify that since we don't know whether their population is shrinking or expanding.) The grizzly bear can still be hunted in Alaska (and British Columbia), the Feds are thinking about taking them off the list, and the Bear manager - plus a lot of cattle ranchers - believe there should be a open season in some regions of the NW. So, is that your proposed plan for "saving" Bigfoot?

Since the "Grizzly" plan for Bigfoot is obviously not appropriate; what would be your "Plan B(igfoot)."

I doubt that Bigfoot would have in more say in what we do to "save" them than did the Grizzly Bear.

We can justify it because we can say ahhhh we don't know! Better do a 10 year study!

And even if its numbers were healthy? They would never allow a hunting season on a temperate North American bipedal ape......

Can you imagine the conservation groups that would spring up?

And can u back up your claim that they are delisting the griz in the lower 48?

 

And can you imagine how the public would react to someone killing one to "save" them from being killed by others?

 

To find out more about what the situation is with the Grizzly in the NW, do a simple web search, Its public record.

 

http://newwest.net/city/article/feds_to_remove_yellowstone_grizzly_from_endangered_species_list/C396/L396/

 

http://pendoreillerivervalley.com/ifg-supports-removing-grizzlies-from-endangered-list-p53117-71.htm

 

http://ens-newswire.com/2013/05/03/threatened-grizzly-bears-in-montana-to-lose-federal-protection/

 

 

Many more if you look.