Guest Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 (edited) Well, I think Oxford disagrees, by this study..and other labs currently willing to investigate.... but, I don't want to derail your thread, a search for ethical justification. I have considered the many problems with this situation...and because of that deeper look at both the legal landscape...and the path of proof in modern science...I ended up here... Don't you think it is a bit odd it's been over fifty years and we haven't a body/specimen? I would not be surprised b/c we find BFs are indeed so human or close, that the ethics rear up like a black cloud......and the result we see are the shell games? It could be, I don't know...but, honestly, if we can't even gather hair for DNA to interest qualified researchers..? So, maybe I am just practical too...really, though I gotta get off here today.... Edited June 1, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silent Sam Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 With a body the opinions and conjecture end........forever. Boom. Headshot. Once you have a type specimen the choose your own adventure time ends and the real work begins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 1, 2013 Admin Share Posted June 1, 2013 Well, I think Oxford disagrees, by this study..and other labs currently willing to investigate.... but, I don't want to derail your thread, a search for ethical justification. I have considered the many problems with this situation...and because of that deeper look at both the legal landscape...and the path of proof in modern science...I ended up here... Don't you think it is a bit odd it's been over fifty years and we haven't a body/specimen? I would not be surprised b/c we find BFs are indeed so human or close, that the ethics rear up like a black cloud......and the result we see are the shell games? It could be, I don't know...but, honestly, if we can't even gather hair for DNA to interest qualified researchers..? So, maybe I am just practical too...really, though I gotta get off here today.... If Oxford comes back with a DNA study that proves the existence of Sasquatch? My work is done............DONE. I become a instant anti kill camp member........and you guys can throw rotten tomatoes if you wish upon my arrival. But think of this. Bobo cannot get a good DNA sample in his 20 odd years of squatching. But how many times has he seen the thing? All a rifle needs is a clear line of sight. If you can line up your eyeball to the creature down a rifle barrel? The mystery becomes extinct in a instant. The ultimate question we should be asking ourselves is if being ethical and polite and passive in our pursuit? A detriment to the species as a whole? In this 20 odd year time frame? How many board feet of timber has been cut in possible Squatch habitat? How many fisheries have been polluted and dammed up? Maybe it's not a detriment........maybe it is? Are we willing to continue rolling the dice? How would the anti kill camp feel if Sasquatch goes extinct during this passive search approach? Because they were not willing to challenge their own moral sensibilities? Is the wolf, wolverine and grizzly better or worse off because of governmental protections? I'm sorry but it's an illogical mindset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 (edited) Oh, dear no...Oxford won't prove BF...not for law anyway,.and that's what really counts, when it comes to the what do we do now....and, I doubt that effort will prove it for science, as it is aimed at just DNA..... but, it's a start..if we delivered good samples..and if we can't do that..well...nuff said I guess... A body is but one body, an inherent problem there...arrg..OK, I am cutting myself off now! Edited June 1, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 As far as chimps? From your own article: "The argument is whether genetic relatedness is the only thing you should take into account," said anthropologist Bernard Wood at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. "A genus should also be a group of very similar species, that share attributes such as behavior and [mode of movement]," he said. Fossil human-like species are currently divided into at least three genera. Grouping them all in the genus Homo could be very confusing, Wood said. Classification schemes "should be the signposts for differences between organisms," said Wood. "The problem is, if you call the chimp Homo troglodytes, you deny yourself that tool to help guide you through the tree of life." I didn't say it wasn't controversial. Logicly If sasquatch is just another great ape, with it's bipedalism , human face and feet, it will be ten times closer to humans than chimps. That "will" be genus homo. Science has "never" delt with another extent member of homo that they could politicly call a seperate species, and I'm not sure they have the stones to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest UPs Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 I completely agree with Norseman as far as getting a type specimen. I understand others feelings about to, but I am one of those who wants this animal discovered and I do not consider them as human. If you consider bf as human or do not want bf discovered, then I understand your reluctance to support what science needs as far as the discovery process goes (type specimen). I also believe this will benefit them as a species and humankind in the long run. This topic has been argued over many times, but in the eyes of science, it is completely ethical and expected to have a type specimen whether it is killed by a car, old age, or a rifle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted June 2, 2013 Moderator Share Posted June 2, 2013 UPs ... "you consider" ... interesting choice of words. Do you personally have authority to decide if they are or are not? So what you're really saying is, you are presuming ... guessing. What if you guessed wrong? What if you pull the trigger, walk over there, and find a dead PERSON? How are you going to rationalize that? I don't know you, so I can only ask .. is that something that would weigh on your conscience? MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 2, 2013 Admin Share Posted June 2, 2013 UPs ... "you consider" ... interesting choice of words. Do you personally have authority to decide if they are or are not? So what you're really saying is, you are presuming ... guessing. What if you guessed wrong? What if you pull the trigger, walk over there, and find a dead PERSON? How are you going to rationalize that? I don't know you, so I can only ask .. is that something that would weigh on your conscience? MIB Do you recognize Patty as one of your own species? Would you date her? Or do you think she is something else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 I was thinking a voucher specimen was anything other than a body that could be used for purposes of identification, but I guess it also means an actual cadaver. In that case, I will reiterate some of the ideas I have presented on these forums in the past, relating to the acquisition of a sasquatch specimen by actually taking its life in the field. Justification for such actions must be thoroughly thought out, as we have already established. Personally I do not believe that scientific curiosity is reason enough to take the life of a sasquatch. But does this mean that I hold the same beliefs regarding any mammal? No. There are various situations in which I believe it is acceptable to take the life of other mammals. I even believe that sheer scientific curiosity is enough justification for such acts. But I do not believe this regarding any hominoid or hominid, especially the genus Homo. Scientifically we realize that the resemblance and positioning of genes makes apes and great apes quite close to humans. Seeing as how we give humans certain basic rights, or all humans should have basic rights anyway, I believe that the same extends to non-intelligent primates, including the groups I listed above. Although I established that scientific curiosity provides enough justification for taking the lives of certain animals, I believe that it is the genetic resemblance to humans exhibited by other primates that should keep us from taking their lives in such a nonchalant manner. But I also believe that there are situations in which collecting a type specimen is essential for some reason. I think that the acquisition of a sasquatch cadaver is essential to our aims, but my reasoning may not be sufficient for everyone. See I personally believe that the sasquatch population is already quite large, and that it is steadily increasing. Because of this, I think it is fair to believe that at some point in the future the encroachment by humans upon sasquatch territory will cause them harm as a species. Even though we know relatively nothing about these animals, I still think this argument applies, because obviously their population is increasing, otherwise they likely would have died out already. And the sighting reports are full of witnesses describing sasquatch young, meaning there is a breeding population. Therefore it stands to reason that if they keep increasing, they will run out of habitat at some point. And this time will arrive sooner without government protection of the species. And it seems that such protection is necessary for all sorts of animals, as the government has already established sanctuaries for other types of animals. I do not believe however that these sanctuaries are adequate for sasquatch, mainly because of their range and sheer body size. And I also believe that such areas should be off limits to everyone except a handful of scientists, which is the only way we will learn more about them, even after they have been discovered. So to sum it up, I think that it is vital for us to collect a specimen mainly because it is the only way to ensure the survival and also a good quality of life for the sasquatch, as it is logical that they need ample space in their natural setting to maintain psychological and physical health. But I want to make it extremely clear that I am against random people going out there and attempting to shoot a sasquatch. I believe that it should be done methodically, and by someone who knows what they are doing. Their methodology must also be sound. Establishing guidelines of this nature will hopefully ensure that we do wound sasquatch, who then run away and suffer because of the lack of skill of the marksman. I should not that tranquilizer darts could be used as well, although that is an argument I do not wish to debate in this post. It is also highly important that the person who collects a specimen have a way to actually get the sasquatch out of the woods, and have a place to take it to. There must be scientists on the ready to study such a creature. I would not want someone to kill a sasquatch only to find that they cannot get it out of the woods, which is a very feasible scenario. So the person who will carry out such an act must be experienced, be a good marksmen, and have support from a team of individuals who also know what they are doing. Knowledge of the sasquatch is not essential, except in the case of actually finding one to bring down. So understanding sasquatch nature will only help to increase the odds of success. The above is what I believe to be a more ideal scenario for collecting a specimen for study. However, now I would like to lay out what I believe is a much more likely scenario. Seeing as how most states do not have laws regarding the protection of sasquatch itself, although many have laws that would extend to such an animal, I feel that it is likely that some hunter will shoot a sasquatch in the near future, and I am positive it has happened multiple times in the past. And I personally know that sasquatch scare people, especially if the person has never known sasquatch to be a real animal. This may increase the chances of a person firing on the animal. One thing that will detract from the desire to shoot a sasquatch is the fact that these animals appear so human-like. I think that a person who kills a sasquatch may fear prosecution, but in all honesty, there is no way this person will face any real legal consequences. Sure there will be groups and maybe individuals who attempt to hound this person via the court system, but criminal charges, if they are brought against the individual, will easily be dismissed, or the person will be found not guilty. This is quite logical considering these animals are not supposed to exist. How can someone be prosecuted for shooting an animal that doesn't exist? And another aspect of such a scenario would be that the shooter could easily claim self-defense, and people would buy it, simply because of the size and look of the animal. If no one else was on the scene, then it would be much easier. And this very well could be the reason that a person shoots a sasquatch. Not necessarily that the animal was going to attack, but how is a person supposed to know that if they know nothing about sasquatch, and likely did not even know it was a real animal? Unfortunately, since there likely have been many cases of murdering sasquatch in the past, nothing good has come from the acts. It is a horrible act to be sure, but a necessary one. And the fact that science has not advanced in this area because the shooter was too afraid to pursue the issue means that these kills were horrific. If something good comes from such a scenario, then the act is not necessarily so bad. It is sort of like a scenario where doing something bad brings about a greater good. But I do not think we, the sasquatch community, will have to worry about setting up scientific expeditions to kill a sasquatch, because I believe that a lone hunter will beat us to it. I say this because of my belief that the population is large, and growing. The likelihood of encounters is increasing every year, and therefore I believe it is much more likely that a kill type situation could arise. However, just because a hunter shoots and kills a sasquatch does not mean that person will do the right thing and pursue the issue. The act is exponentially worse if the person does not attempt to take his evidence to the scientific community. If I found myself in such a position, I would gather all of the physical and visual evidence that I could, find some credible people of science, get them to come document and take samples, and then notify wildlife officials. Only after gathering a plethora of evidence, and letting people know what occurred, would I allow such a government group to take over the site. Because you never know if they will attempt to keep it quiet, and I would not take that risk. This is if I happened to shoot a sasquatch in the woods, without planning on doing so. I would probably even alert the media after I had gathered the evidence. Part of the problem is that I think the legal repercussions would be greater if the shooter attempted to retrieve the body, or take it home. This would indicate intent to some degree, which could be incriminating. So I think it may be better to immediately document the specimen, before notifying officials. And this way it will be much more difficult for them to cover up the occurrence. I would hide copies of all visual evidence as well, not taking any chances. And if they attempted to bring charges against me because I did not immediately notify officials, but instead went to the media or to scientists, I would use the argument that the animal was already dead, and therefore there was no chance to save its life. I also think I could escape legal consequences because this is a mythical animal. I could claim such fear and confusion after the incident, that I was not thinking clearly, and therefore did not know what to do. And this could actually be the case if someone found themselves in such a position. I realize that utilizing the pronoun "I" there may be those who think that I am planning on shooting a sasquatch, but I want to clarify that this is not the case. I am simply painting a picture of a scenario, and telling what I would do if I were in the position that the shooter found themselves in. This by no means implies that I am going to attempt to be the person who collects a sasquatch specimen. And this scenario that I am describing is the second of those I presented, the first being a sanctioned kill mission by the government or wildlife agency, if that would ever happen, and the latter being the more likely occurrence of a lone hunter killing a sasquatch without prior intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted June 2, 2013 Moderator Share Posted June 2, 2013 (edited) Do you recognize Patty as one of your own species? Would you date her? Or do you think she is something else? Stop twisting my words. I said person, not human. Not at all the same thing. What she is, biologically, I'm unsure. I suspect very much closer to us those in the ape camp are willing to accept ... even with a "specimen" on the table. I don't know that for a fact. That's really an irrelevant tangential question, though: I'm interested in just how much PERSON she is, not whether she's HUMAN. You can't learn the quality of another's mind after you've just shot them dead. I'll ask you the same question I posed to UPs: how are you going to react when you walk over to the big hairy "thing" you just shot the life out of and realized that you were WRONG, it was a PERSON after all, and you've just snuffed out a sentient life? Are you going to whine? "But I didn't know.". Are you going to rationalize? Or are you going to man up? In the context of murder, what exactly does that mean? You can't apologize for a bullet. Once sent, there is no calling them back. "Sorry" has to happen before the trigger is pulled, not after. Look at it in the balance. If I'm wrong, what harm is done? If you're wrong, what murder is done? MIB Edited June 4, 2013 by See-Te-Cah NC Inappropriate content 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 2, 2013 Admin Share Posted June 2, 2013 (edited) ^^^^ Um extinction of a species...........that's the harm possibly done by your unscientific illogical mindset. As far as twisting your words? I'm not. If they are the same species as us, sexual attraction I think is a good marker stick to judge by. While Patty has two arms and two legs? I find her hideous and bizarre........... So she many be of a species related to me, but I don't consider her one of my own species. Edited June 4, 2013 by See-Te-Cah NC To Removed Directly-preceding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest UPs Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 MIB.....I respect your opinion and base my own on my knowledge and experience. You do not agree and that is your choice. You can "what if" just about anything to try and justify your own actions, but for myself, I try to take my time and learn as much as I can before forming an opinion one way or another. My opinion is that bf is an animal unlike any other, but one that we as humans know very little about. I fully understand those that are on either side of the kill vs. no kill debate and to me, I agree with the scientific approach to discovery. Does that mean I go out and hunt bf, no, but I also harbor no ill will to those that do in the name of discovery. Some think that DNA alone will be enough to establish bf as a species and they could be right, but what it will really do is free up funding for science to collect a specimen or specimens for further study. It will also most likely establish protections against public hunting of them (a good thing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Where are the type specimens of Homo sapiens? Millions. Scads and scads. Every cadaver that's ever gone on a table. At least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wudewasa Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Norseman, So you're a fan of the three S's?! Shoot, Secure and Submit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 4, 2013 Admin Share Posted June 4, 2013 Yes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts