norseman Posted June 1, 2013 Author Share Posted June 1, 2013 ^^^^^^ Well see there you go............relying on cameras again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveedoe Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 Norseman you asked me the question if I was the animal rights type. I do like domestic animals and I love wild animals, I do understand the need for hunting. I personally don't hunt anymore. I do like to eat meat, I do wear leather shoes. But I am one who just goes to the store to buy animal by-products and am ignorant to the big picture / kill floor What I am saying is simple. I could not shoot an animal for science. However I would kill for survival. I love your opinions you have some very good points, I even hope if a bigfoot is shot for science it is you who shoots it. but please these are just my opinions, not right or wrong, just like everyone here. My favorite saying is "Everyone has an opinion, its just that your is stupid." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 1, 2013 Author Share Posted June 1, 2013 Norseman you asked me the question if I was the animal rights type. I do like domestic animals and I love wild animals, I do understand the need for hunting. I personally don't hunt anymore. I do like to eat meat, I do wear leather shoes. But I am one who just goes to the store to buy animal by-products and am ignorant to the big picture / kill floor What I am saying is simple. I could not shoot an animal for science. However I would kill for survival. I love your opinions you have some very good points, I even hope if a bigfoot is shot for science it is you who shoots it. but please these are just my opinions, not right or wrong, just like everyone here. My favorite saying is "Everyone has an opinion, its just that your is stupid." I find the anti kill mindset repugnant, but that doesn't mean I think that people who hold such a view point are evil. I just feel that it's a well intentioned mindset, but very small in scope. And ultimately damaging for a undiscovered species. I see it all the time in issues of hunting, fishing, trapping and hound hunting. Science is telling you one thing........and public heart strings another. For instance, in the March 2013 article in Petersen's hunting. Many states are now issuing reports in which feral cats are wiping out populations of bobwhite, and other game bird species as well as song bird species. Their answer to the problem is for hunters to start shooting/trapping feral cats. Do you realize what a **** storm this has created? Cat owners across the country are aghast with this type of science........... And yet nobody seems to speak for the bobwhite? The anti kill camp in Bigfootdom is by far and away the majority. In fact there are very few BF forums in which I could even DISCUSS shooting a Bigfoot with you. How much of this is science based vs. a pulling of the heart strings? This is the whole crux of this thread, I'm trying to figure out what makes you guys tick. Is it because it looks similar to us? Is it because people are simply animal rights activists? Is it because some people have a vested interest in perpetuating a myth? Is it because they have bought in to some sort of conspiracy theory? Is it because for some they resist the notion that science needs to poke and measure everything in the known world? Logicially speaking...........I know absolutely that this species is better off, classified by science and protected by law. And killing one specimen to get to that lofty goal is a very very small price to pay. It's certainly way better than another 25 years of inconclusive DNA studies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted June 2, 2013 SSR Team Share Posted June 2, 2013 Is it because it looks similar to us? Is it because people are simply animal rights activists? Is it because some people have a vested interest in perpetuating a myth? Is it because they have bought in to some sort of conspiracy theory? Is it because for some they resist the notion that science needs to poke and measure everything in the known world? My bet would be the first one mainly, and the lack of knowledge as to what it actually is IE Human/Non Human. It's a predominantly upright animal that walks on two legs and would highly likely be our closest living relative. It's the closeness to us that many would feel uncomfortable with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 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? My reason behind an anti-kill mindset is that I don't think they are simply animals. I think they are borderline sentient and more intelligent than chimpanzees and other great apes based on what evidence I see. I don't think they are advanced as Homo erectus or neandertal, but probably somewhere below that mark. It's unethical to kill humans, and it's unethical to kill proto-humans. That may represent a minority view of what sasquatch is, but that's what I think it is and that is my opinion. However, I do accept that in the real world someone will eventually kill one - someone not government, I mean. I think they are quite cognizant of the existence of sasquatch. I mean a hunter or bigfooter like yourself etc will someday kill one and collect that type specimen. The only good I see coming from public and scientific proof would be habitat protection, laws prohibiting hunting them and knowing exactly what they are genetically. Otherwise, I see nothing but chaos down that road. Wanting better treatment for factory farmed animals has no bearing - to me - on whether someone should kill a sasquatch. I view them as entirely different topics - and I also believe hunting is much less violent than factory farming animals, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Madison, I very much agree. Norseman, Based upon my personal experience, IMO BF are not like bears or other animals. They are smart enough to recognize boundaries and modify their behavior so it does not anger people. They are not dumb animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 2, 2013 Author Share Posted June 2, 2013 Madison, I very much agree. Norseman, Based upon my personal experience, IMO BF are not like bears or other animals. They are smart enough to recognize boundaries and modify their behavior so it does not anger people. They are not dumb animals. Ok........are they smart enough to petition the Forest Service to not allow a timber sale in their habitat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted June 2, 2013 Moderator Share Posted June 2, 2013 (edited) Ok........are they smart enough to petition the Forest Service to not allow a timber sale in their habitat? Uh .. who said they don't want a timber sale? You're a hunter, right? Or have been? So you know that the greatest biodiversity exists in "edge" conditions, often the boundaries of clear cuts where the herbivores can reach the edible parts of plants in ways they cannot in old growth forest, yet the older forest is handy for cover. More food for deer means more deer for food. The very fact that you could suggest they might petition the USFS to block a clear cut suggests you miss the big picture. The main reason I do not want their existence proven is because they will become a tool, a lever, *edit* to lock up public lands. It's especially stupid when it would be counter to the big guys best interests ... but logic has little to do with feel good politics. MIB Edited June 3, 2013 by BigGinger To Remove Political Content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 2, 2013 Author Share Posted June 2, 2013 (edited) Ok........are they smart enough to petition the Forest Service to not allow a timber sale in their habitat? Uh .. who said they don't want a timber sale? You're a hunter, right? Or have been? So you know that the greatest biodiversity exists in "edge" conditions, often the boundaries of clear cuts where the herbivores can reach the edible parts of plants in ways they cannot in old growth forest, yet the older forest is handy for cover. More food for deer means more deer for food. The very fact that you could suggest they might petition the USFS to block a clear cut suggests you miss the big picture. The main reason I do not want their existence proven is because they will become a tool, a lever, *edit* to lock up public lands. It's especially stupid when it would be counter to the big guys best interests ... but logic has little to do with feel good politics. MIB Well here we go........we do not know what a Sasquatch needs to survive because they are not proven to science there for biologically speaking they are a mystery. But let's look at two herbivores in which clear cutting helps the one and destroys the other. Elk love clear cuts for the very points you have described. While on the other hand for Endangered Woodland Caribou in the Selkirks clear cuts are devastating.......why? Because the stay up high in the winter and in deep snow pack they cannot reach browse in a clear cut. It becomes a barren waste land to them. Only old growth forest that extends up out of the snow pack gives them adequate browse. http://www.defenders.org/woodland-caribou/basic-facts So you cannot simply make a blanket statement about: A) What Sasquatch does or does not prey on or how much of one prey species. B ) That clear cutting forest is simply a benefit for every species in the ecosystem. Despite your claims of intelligence, human encroachment upon wild places has negatively impacted other large omnivores, if we are to draw any sort of parallel at all. Which of course needs further biological study........to be proven one way or another. Which means we have to prove they exist to science. What if they go extinct because your presumptions about their diets are wrong? Would you feel bad? Edited June 3, 2013 by BigGinger To Removed Quoted Political Content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Norseman, Is your goal to convince others that killing a male and female BF should be accomplished as soon as possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 2, 2013 Author Share Posted June 2, 2013 Norseman, Is your goal to convince others that killing a male and female BF should be accomplished as soon as possible? Absolutely...... the problem is? Very few listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 I think you have a few problems. First, these creatures are closer to us than anything I am aware. This is a moral issue for many people (myself included). Another issue is locating specimens. This is not a big problem. How do you plan to kill the specimens? This question impacts other issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted June 2, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted June 2, 2013 Madison, I very much agree. Norseman, Based upon my personal experience, IMO BF are not like bears or other animals. They are smart enough to recognize boundaries and modify their behavior so it does not anger people. They are not dumb animals. Good point on boundaries, they would have been stacked like cordwood on museum shelves by now (and may be at some institutions due to road kill, volcanoes and such) if they were incapable of this. I get the impression they are fast, but not so fast that the average hunter hasn't drawn a bead on them from a deerstand from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 All ethics aside, I feel like going into the woods at night and taking pot-shots at a five hundred pound plus Ape would result in a very pissed off five hundred pound Ape, and possibly a family of very pissed off five hundred pound Apes. I dont see how you'd be able to drag the dead Squatch out of there, or even take photographs/specimen samples, and then get away unharmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 2, 2013 Author Share Posted June 2, 2013 All ethics aside, I feel like going into the woods at night and taking pot-shots at a five hundred pound plus Ape would result in a very pissed off five hundred pound Ape, and possibly a family of very pissed off five hundred pound Apes. I dont see how you'd be able to drag the dead Squatch out of there, or even take photographs/specimen samples, and then get away unharmed. Ah yes..........bigfoot army! Also my plan is to cut the head off, map the kill site and boogie. ill come back for the rest later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts