Are Hikers, Campers, And Hunters Pushing Bf To Its Limits?

[georgerm]

Had to attach the file,

THEIR TERRITORY.doc

[LeafTalker]

I saw your original post in whatever thread that was, georgerm, and I greatly admired it. 

 

 

"WE NEED A NATIONAL MOVEMENT OF ‘RESPECT THE BIGFOOT’ AND NOT HUNT DOWN AND KILL BF" 

 

I agree with you. 

 

Edited to add: And I agree with the logic that led up to the statement I quoted. Everything you said seems true, to me (not just that statement). 

Edited August 10, 2013 by LeafTalker

[Guest Grifter9931]

How can you have any type of movement even though you don't know the basics of the intended recipient?

Edited August 10, 2013 by Grifter9931

[LeafTalker]

I think we do know the basics.... The basics don't seem that complicated, actually. They eat, breathe, poop, etc., like every other living being.

 

All living things deserve respect; why would these beings -- whether you want to call them animals or people -- be any different?

 

P.S. But I agree, it's difficult to establish a movement to honor a being most of us think doesn't exist. So maybe it's more important that those of us who DO 'think' they exist try to remember that respect is a good thing to have.

Edited August 10, 2013 by LeafTalker

[Guest Grifter9931]

 

All living creatures do those basic things..

And respect for living creatures/animals /people vary depending upon culture.

So until we have a bead on a population of or maybe just BF. Lets try to find out everything about them before we start enacting the "BF is an endangered species" Act.

[LeafTalker]

I agree. All living things do those basic things. And very few cultures (that I know of, anyway) consider killing something a sign of respect for it.

 

Sometimes other beings are food sources for humans, and then it's not uncommon to find oneself in the position of thanking (that is, being respectful to) the being that gave up its life so that you could live.

 

When a being is not a food source for a human, though -- or encroaching on a human's food source -- killing that being becomes a tough thing to justify. 

 

You don't need to know everything about a "non-food-source being" to decide that killing one is unwarranted. 

Edited August 10, 2013 by LeafTalker

[Guest]

Until there is proof of bigfoot's existence, it's a bit premature to start trying to protect their range. Show me a type specimen, and then we'll talk about putting them on the endangered list.

Edited August 10, 2013 by leisureclass

[LeafTalker]

I think the original post was about respecting them and not killing them, not about protecting their range or putting them on a list. 

[Guest Urkelbot]

If there really was a robust Bigfoot population the government could issue a limited number of hunting liscenses the same as any other big game. Probably some type of lottery with a large fee.

[WV FOOTER]

I am for protecting them totally, but first, Bigfoot needs to be made 100% proven and accepted to exist by everyone, not just a Minority of everyone. I know there are places that Bigfoot is already being protected from harm, but I am talking about a nationwide, if not worldwide protection. Although, I believe Bigfoot is smarter than people think and really doesn't need protected. But as far as Hikers, Campers, and Hunters putting pressure on Bigfoot, I don't believe that to be true. I have read many, many sighting reports along with some video evidence, and most of the time that humans have a sighting or encounter with Bigfoot, either the Bigfoot or the witness(es) become scared and leave the area immediately. Sure there are exceptions to this, although I do not think that the Bigfoot population is in any danger from the ultimate predator,Man.

[Guest Grifter9931]

 

Maybe BF is easily stressed like other big game animals??

[TD-40]

All the more reason to hurry up and positively identify them. That is the only way they will be protected.

 

Doesn't Oregon have a law that prohibits killing a sasquatch?

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

Although I have stated my opinions, beliefs, and hypotheses in the past, I will reiterate for the sake of...hearing myself type; I mean, for those who have not seen these posts. I completely agree that bigfoot is being pushed to the limit in terms of territory by humans.  But I think there is a bigger problem. I believe that the increasing bigfoot population is causing sasquatch to expand and broaden their territories. 

 

So while we are pushing from one direction, the rest of their species is pushing from the opposite direction, albeit unintentionally. I think that sightings will continue to increase as time goes on, simply because more and more habitat is being spoken for. In fact, maybe, just maybe, there is some connection between the struggle for habitat and the seemingly different characteristics of bigfoot in different geographical areas. I may have mentioned this idea in the past, I don't remember, but I admit that it would be a stretch. It could also mean a couple of different things I suppose.

 

It is for some of these reasons that I believe discovering bigfoot and protecting it are essential. We humans will continue to encroach upon bigfoot habitat as the years go on, to the point where they will eventually need protection. Maybe they don't need it now, but for the good of the species, I think we need to prove their existence as soon as possible. Here is what will likely happen if we do not:

 

The sasquatch will be forced to evacuate areas that are being encroached upon, and the best areas for them are going to be areas that are already protected, or areas where humans have yet to wander. This is still a lot of acreage, no doubt about it, but with an increasing population, I believe they are on the verge of crisis. It may be 10 or more years down the road, maybe 50, but it will happen in my opinion. And not only for their sake, but for our sake as well, we need to scientifically recognize these animals. It is absolutely unnecessary that there are people out there who refuse to or are scared to go into the woods after an encounter, simply because they never knew such an animal existed in the forest. If people knew they were there, that would be half of the battle, as it were, as far as preparation is concerned. 

 

Now let's talk about the idea of sasquatch violence toward humans. I am of the opinion that such events are quite rare, and have been for some time. The most likely period to have seen violence between our two species likely at least 10,000 years ago. For those who believe sasquatch is a descendant of Gigantopithecus, they may also believe that homo sapiens at one point actually hunted these giants. Could bigfoots' propensity for solitude where humans are concerned actually stem from such an ancient behavior? It is possible at the very least.

 

But this tells us nothing regarding whether bigfoot are violent towards humans today, or if they've ever been in the past. In fact, I would postulate that their propensity for solitude suggests the exact opposite...Instead of fighting back to any significant degree, they chose to retreat and live a life away from the threat of violence. This is of course all conjecture.

 

Maybe the sasquatch did fight early homo sapiens, but were losing due to their lack of tool making and other characteristics that set homo sapiens apart from other primates. But if this were the case, sasquatch was smart enough to quit before they were eradicated. But I prefer the idea that they are more peaceful entities, hardly ever prone to violence, and thus they rarely have to attack a human in modern times.

 

But as far as violence toward one another, I feel that the little evidence that is available suggests it is highly plausible, under the right conditions at least. So the idea that a sasquatch would attack and attempt to kill a person who enters their territory is absurd in my opinion. Maybe the term absurd is too harsh. It is unlikely... Let's say that. However, a person who enters into an area of sasquatch territory that holds some immediate importance, such as a place where they spend most of their time, they would be more apt to harass a human who enters this type of area. But, what about a person who enters an area like this, and shows no sign of leaving? What if the person stays for a long time, maybe days or weeks? What would their reaction be? Surely they would respond violently after being pushed to these limits...

 

Unless the hypothesis regarding their initial retreat from homo sapiens who wished to eradicate them were accurate...Then I believe they may show the same type of behavior, retreating instead of confronting people directly. But this seems highly unlikely, considering their size as compared with an average human, and the fact that the human is alone or in only a small group. I would be willing to bet the sasquatch would be stumped as to what to do if the people refuse to flee at the first signs of aggression. They are likely very used to this occurring. But it would not take them long to make a decision about what to do. Whether that decision involves escalating violence I do not know. I admit it is possible, but I cannot accept that this is that common of a behavior.

 

The majority of personal encounters I have read suggest that most aggressive behavior is not escalated beyond attempting to scare the person. However, there is at least one account of a sasquatch bumping into a person in such a situation, probably knocking the person to the ground. If there are other reports, I would love to know about them. There was another report of such bumping, but this was an entirely different circumstance, and involved a sasquatch running over a semi-open area at or near top speed. I only mention these instances because of the claim contained within the document, alleging that such behavior is more common.

 

I am always struck by how little we know of these animals, even though sometimes it seems they are quite easy to understand. I mean basic questions are still debated among those who KNOW these animals are real. What we need to do is just catch one, and ask it directly "What is up with your peoples sasquatch?" With what some have suggested I would expect a sasquatch to be able to write out, in a legible hand, exactly what we want to know. We would go that route only because we couldn't understand their English, as it is too broken. Maybe they speak French, or some other language that was introduced quite early into the Americas. Of course I am just poking fun at those who ascribe such intelligence to sasquatch that they actually have a language.

 

I don't doubt they make sounds that may sound like they are "speaking," but I do doubt that they are communicating in an actual language, composed of all that a language consists of. Here is why I say this: There are certain things that are necessary for certain stages of cultural development. For instance, before cities can be built, people need to have a fairly stable society, a way to bring in enough food for all those individuals, a way to communicate, etc.

 

Everything I have read about sasquatch suggests they are in a stage of development that humans passed through fairly rapidly. This suggests to me that they may not be all that intelligent. I would expect that IF they could communicate with an actual language, and it was widespread among their population, then they would have organized into more than family units. In fact, it seems impossible to me that any group that exists in such a fashion could not have a common language. A common language requires a group who are in constant proximity or contact to one another. Small family units existing independently of one another are highly unlikely to share a common language with other family groups.

 

And IF they form larger groups, I would have expected them to have villages by this point, at the very least. Surely they have some intelligence, and intelligence coupled with the ability to communicate suggests that they would have progressed beyond where they appear to be today. I admit I could be wrong. I am not an anthropologist, except in the sense that I enjoy studying the types of things the field is interested in, but that does not qualify me to speak on such matters with much authority. So as always, take what I say seriously, but also do not take it as fact. I very well could be right, or be on the right track in certain instances, but everyone should arrive at their conclusions after analyzing the evidence. Part of the problem is that much of what I am presenting is not directly suggested by the evidence we have, rather it is assumed to a certain degree. Anyway, it is highly interesting to say the least. And in accordance with my previous behavior, I have created a post of sufficient length, and now I can rest.

[LeafTalker]

I think what's so interesting about georgerm's idea is that it's not about passing laws.

 

It's about awareness. It's about consciousness. 

 

We don't need to force each other to do the right thing with the threat of legal action. We can debate. We can talk. Isn't that why this forum exists in the first place? It's a recognition that we can share ideas and learn from each other, just by talking. 

 

What each of us thinks is important, especially if we spend a lot of time on this forum -- because it means we spend more time than most people thinking about these things. So what you say to some random stranger about BF (if you ever talk to random strangers about BF) carries weight. 

 

Your consciousness affects other people, whether or not there's some law around to back up what you're saying. 

[Guest]

" Are Hikers, Campers, And Hunters Pushing Bf To Its Limits? "

 

My guess, to the topic question.. is, probably not. I ask myself these questions... to help with the still unknown questions. My answers, are just my personal version of common sense .

Q : Are a population of these creatures under stress here in  N. America.. where vast expanses of forever wild forest preserves, cover more territory than most can even imagine.  A: Vast territories in my home state alone, exist... where I don't believe humans ever, or rarely frequent. Areas that are not accessable, or extremely difficult to get into.

Q: How did BF get through the times of "manifest destiny" ..when there were no enforceable laws, hunting limits, firearm laws, hunting and trapping seasons, and most families were carving a living out in the wild ? A: If BF could survive through those times.. when many large game animals and predators.. were being driven to the brink of extinction.. than it could certainly deal with some urban sprawl.

Q: Do they really even need our protection ?  A: They need us to continue to preserve what we already Have preserved, and probably nothing more, besides leaving them alone.

Q: Can BF avoid these rare cases, where people do come into , or on the edge of their lairs ? A: They sure the heck are pretty good at avoiding us.. who plan expeditions into those liars seeking them, but can really only push our resources to the edge of where we think they are. 

Q: How big are their territories, and how much does a family group need ?  A: No one knows yet. 

Q: How can they be protected, if no one can even find them consistently, or do a population or territorial study ? A: They can't. 

Q : Other than a handful of enthusiasts / believers / knowers ... would Anyone be expected to really take protecting a species not yet proven to exist yet.. seriously ?  A : No.. how could we expect that ? Many in my home state... think the ordinance passed, protecting them in the township of Whitehall, is just a novelty, to attract tourists and enthusiasts into the area.

Edited August 11, 2013 by imonacan