The Scientific Collection Debate........

[hiflier]

Hello Norseman,

 

Just visited your site. Noble goals in the long run to be sure. One already found dead by natural causes would serve the same purpose but if history was to tell the story a cadaver has never been found......wonder why. Anyway I'll take some time to digest Grendel and see if I can reconcile Beowulf in some fashon. There is one thing I can agree with you on though. Only the reality of our "Friend" will put things in motion for it's security. The first one that ends up in a zoo though will really **** me off big time.

 

Ironically in a sense Bigfoot to me is the ultimate folk hero.

[norseman]

Hello Norseman,

 

Just visited your site. Noble goals in the long run to be sure. One already found dead by natural causes would serve the same purpose but if history was to tell the story a cadaver has never been found......wonder why. Anyway I'll take some time to digest Grendel and see if I can reconcile Beowulf in some fashon. There is one thing I can agree with you on though. Only the reality of our "Friend" will put things in motion for it's security. The first one that ends up in a zoo though will really **** me off big time.

 

Ironically in a sense Bigfoot to me is the ultimate folk hero.

 

Absolutely, this would be as good, if not better than harvesting one. But if one is seeing them occasionally and does nothing, and instead focuses on finding a dead one, or casting that perfect cast, or taking that perfect video? Then we are cutting ourselves off at the knees.

 

As for the folk hero part......I just had a thread about Bigfoot and Americana recently, interesting you added that. 

[hiflier]

Hello Norseman, 

As for the folk hero part......I just had a thread about Bigfoot and Americana recently, interesting you added that.

Yeah, I have been known to be somewhat psychic like that. Who knew, eh? Anyway your philosophy is interesting and I think your intent is in good faith. Sure, on the face of it it seems heartless but in the long run it seems quite the opposite. IF what you're saying is the truth which I believe it to be. Will your success in the mission change the psyche of the species? One would hope not although If Sasquatch can reason it may have some trouble reconciling Humans as being trustworthy but rather something to be feared. Or retaliated against in which an unwanted escalation in hostility might prove to be a disaster. For them anyway. Sounds like you've thought things through though.

Edited June 15, 2013 by hiflier

[Guest]

Norseman- IMHO while approaching any governmental body you need to steer clear of promting your own reasoning.Ask them for help and the intent of your actions (ultimate protection and HOW one goes about being above board in seeking a type specimen. Remember you are dealing with buearucrats. Still don't think it is a good idea to shoot something dead that you aren't sure what it is, and thats rule#1 when you are a hunter. Yeah, you can say all day long that you know but do you really know what BF is, I don't think so at all. Remember all flora and fuana is property of the federal and/or state governments so in obtaining  a BF may lead to consequences.Oh BTW are you going to start another thread here shortly, seems like the same discussion really.

Edited June 15, 2013 by ptangier

[MIB]

ptangier -

 

while I agree with the no-kill position you are trying to promote, what you've said is not entirely true:

 

all flora and fuana is property of the federal and/or state governments

 

This is only true of native animals.  A counter example would be african antelope deliberately introduced on "high fence" properties in Texas specifically for commercial hunting.   These are NOT owned by the state or feds.  Management .. beyond obtaining necessary permits for possessing the animals, import, export, etc ... is entirely at the discretion of the land owner. 

 

I don't want a type specimen collected.  For me that's an ethical issue.    However, when we're talking about the legality of the activity, we have to be careful to focus on what the law says, not on what we wish it said.  As norseman has discovered, no agency is stepping up to claim jurisdiction. 

 

MIB

Edited June 15, 2013 by MIB

[Guest]

MIB- you are right, private property is a whole differant scenario, thanks for bringing that to my attention.

[norseman]

Norseman- IMHO while approaching any governmental body you need to steer clear of promting your own reasoning.Ask them for help and the intent of your actions (ultimate protection and HOW one goes about being above board in seeking a type specimen. Remember you are dealing with buearucrats. Still don't think it is a good idea to shoot something dead that you aren't sure what it is, and thats rule#1 when you are a hunter. Yeah, you can say all day long that you know but do you really know what BF is, I don't think so at all. Remember all flora and fuana is property of the federal and/or state governments so in obtaining  a BF may lead to consequences.Oh BTW are you going to start another thread here shortly, seems like the same discussion really.

 

In every single one of your posts to me? You just ramble on and insert your own opinions...........let me make this very clear, I'm not even remotely interested in your opinion.

 

Talk facts or I'm done listening.

 

I have done like you have asked, I called, I have posted in the original post the phone number trail so that you can go right behind me and call those numbers and verify what I have stated here. I talked to the Law Enforcement division of the USFWS...........not a wildlife biologist. These are the people who enforce Federal law for the USFWS.

 

Again, they have no jurisdiction of collecting type specimens EXCEPT within the National Wildlife Refuge system, Here is the list by state:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Wildlife_Refuges

[hiflier]

Hello All,

One aspect of the discussion is that there are many apects to the discussion. One that comes to mind that is quite an in-you-face component is one that has far-reaching ramifications IMO. It is the one thing that has that raise-the-hair-on-the-back-of-one's-neck factor. It is the fine and rather ancient art of rock throwing. Because we are experienced Humans at such capabilities it is of little thought that we can perform a maneuver such as that. We know it takes a more than a brain to pull it off though. it takes a certain amount of dexterity. But that dexterity requires a level of developed physiology that includes not only muscle coordination but a developed physiology thst also allows for the ability to not only pluck one up but to grasp it and hold onto it during the motion. Then the ability or knowledge to let go of it at just the right time to effect the result desired?

THE RESULT DESIRED?? That, my friends would infer INTENT. Intent suggests intelligence. So what is it that is really at issue here with what could be perceived as a level of evolved ability and thought? Sasquatch is worth saving in my largest estimation for reasons other than just species preservation like the spotted salamander. The whistles, the hums, the high regard they may have for us to not attack us as bears would. The issue is becoming more complex by the minute it would seem.

I heard of a person somewhere that might be as old as 150 years somewhere. Don't know for sure though. Might have to kill one to be sure, then we can save the rest of 'em. I'm being devil's advocate here I know but to me, even though I agree science needs to be in the Bigfoot survival loop, there is more than meets the eye if the reports and anecdotes are to be given any veracity.

Edited June 15, 2013 by hiflier

[southernyahoo]

^ You are getting it hilflier, the two compartments we have for fauna, animals and people, may not be perfectly fitting for bigfoot. It might take an entirely different set of rights for the species. While they could survive with simple animal rights, they seem to cross the boundaries we place on each. 

[dmaker]

I've never really offered my position on the whole kill, no kill debate before. While I don't really believe Sasquatch to exist, I can entertain the possibility long enough to offer up an opinion on this issue. Personally, I would be in the anti-kill crowd. At least in the sense of for sport. While I would love a specimen to be brought in, it would be sad if that collection was the result of a deliberate kill. I would much prefer it to be a result of an accident or a carcass that was found that had expired due to natural causes. I would also like to point out that this question can be answered without a carcass. Even a verifiable piece of a Bigfoot would put this question to bed. Some hair, salivia, a tooth, a bone,....anything. But since that does not seem to be happening, and if it takes a deliberate kill to put this question to bed, then I would be happy for the result, if not for the act itself.

If those comments seem incongruent, I accept that. I do recognize that it is rather odd to say I am against killing one, but I also would welcome a specimen for science to examine, at whatever cost. Sometimes life is not as black and white as we would like it to be.

[norseman]

I've never really offered my position on the whole kill, no kill debate before. While I don't really believe Sasquatch to exist, I can entertain the possibility long enough to offer up an opinion on this issue. Personally, I would be in the anti-kill crowd. At least in the sense of for sport. While I would love a specimen to be brought in, it would be sad if that collection was the result of a deliberate kill. I would much prefer it to be a result of an accident or a carcass that was found that had expired due to natural causes. I would also like to point out that this question can be answered without a carcass. Even a verifiable piece of a Bigfoot would put this question to bed. Some hair, salivia, a tooth, a bone,....anything. But since that does not seem to be happening, and if it takes a deliberate kill to put this question to bed, then I would be happy for the result, if not for the act itself.

If those comments seem incongruent, I accept that. I do recognize that it is rather odd to say I am against killing one, but I also would welcome a specimen for science to examine, at whatever cost. Sometimes life is not as black and white as we would like it to be.

 

I think your in a majority group there........and that's the oxymoron of it all. Some people will curse me for shooting one. But they would ALL stand in line to see the body.

 

As a skeptic you well know the lack of real tangible evidence and the need for it. And yet most of our researchers are banging on trees, howlin at the moon and urinating on bushes to get some sort of "proof" the creature exists...... Ad nauseum......foot casts, grainy photos and hookey audio files.

 

I don't believe in the creature but I believe in the possibility of the creature, I've never actually seen it. But if it's out there it's time for a different mindset to end the mystery. And that is why I started Project Grendel, and that is why I'm vocal here on the BFF.

 

Kudos to those that were already on the path before me.

[dmaker]

I wouldn't curse you Norse. I understand the necessity here for a specimen at all costs. I would rather it be a sample collected non lethally, but maybe that is naive.

Now, if you started wandering around town in a spiffy new Bigfoot pelt jacket while wearing Bigfoot hide shoes, then that might be a different story

[hiflier]

Hello dmaker,

 

I agree that the question is a tough one and remaining neutral is even tougher. Science is the one avenue to put things to rest. So If a compromise were to be offered I vote for an all out effort at finding remains. The burial ground perhaps? Or think of ways or places where the deceased may be taken individually if not in the collective sense. When Humans got to a point where they had to leave caves to follow food they recreated the cave concept in neolithic structures and in those made of wood and skins. So, that being said caves are in and some would be good easy internment locations. Especially when one considers the winter dynamic of frozen ground/forest floors. But even in year round temperate climates caves make good candidates. Doesn't have to be big ones either. The bears don't seem to be at a loss in finding plenty of them. As I have said elswhere, Maine alone has a Black Bear population of over 250,000 and rarely if ever are they seen in winter.

[norseman]

I wouldn't curse you Norse. I understand the necessity here for a specimen at all costs. I would rather it be a sample collected non lethally, but maybe that is naive.

Now, if you started wandering around town in a spiffy new Bigfoot pelt jacket while wearing Bigfoot hide shoes, then that might be a different story

 

Understood.

 

I'm a hunter and I love to hunt game animals. I understand that many Apes are killed in the bush meat trade in Africa. I would not care to have an Ape head on my wall or try to grill Ape steaks either. They are very similar to us and I'd much rather see them alive and protected. This mindset for me would naturally be extended to a Sasquatch as well.

 

It would be great if a non lethal means could prove the existence of the species, but ultimately logic and reason MUST prevail IF a person is seeing them on occasion. If makes no sense to go for the hair trap in the tree method if your looking right at it..........at least for the first one, the type specimen.

 

Many researchers have no desire to prove their existence to science, some I know first hand are very well known researchers.......stars if you will. And that is a huge disconnect between what Science is asking for and what prominent researchers are willing to provide. That's a big problem.

[dmaker]

Plussed Norse. I agree with you on all points.

I do believe, however, that if the quality of evidence were to improve that the effort by serious minded and seriously equipped individuals to gather a sample non lethally would also increase. I don't think, as I have mentioned, that it must be a carcass and only a carcass. There are many other ways to either prove the existence or at least put it far more seriously on the radar so to speak. But while all we have is grainy photos, anecdotal reports and various other forms of evidence that can be easily hoaxed ( footprints, etc), the incentive for serious inquiry remains absent in my opinion.