The Ramifications Of Proving Its Existance

[Guest thermalman]

At one time even the Giant Panda was considered elusive and unknown, living in the valleys of the Himalayas, since it took 65 years between its “discovery†and the capture of a live one.

[Spader]

Just a thought. What would the Bigfoot think if we started to "red tape" and rope off areas of their habitat? Would they think that we are "jailing them"? Containing them? Surely they are smart enough to know something to confine them is going on. For their protection or not. Something bad may happen. No sentient creature wants to be confined to an area. Even if WE think it is in their best interest. Just ask the American Indians. I'm sure that they could add an interesting perspective. 

[Guest]

I think they would step over the rope. I think also it would be to keep humans OUT, not squatches IN.

 

 

This isn't possible. I can say with great certainty that there are no bigfoot in Indiana, Illinois or Ohio. I can say with equal certainty that none exist on the Great Plains and there are none on the Arctic tundra.There are other problems too. For example, black bear hibernate in the winter when there is no food. If bigfoot do not hibernate then this would restrict their northern range. In other words, bigfoot are unlikely to live anywhere that black bear do not live, but a hypothetical bigfoot population would have to be considerably smaller than the black bear population.

 

Whoa. Isn't the host of BF tonight in Ohio, part of Ohio BF hunters association? Illinois has more sightings (BFRO) than Colorado last time I looked. Etc.

Edited October 26, 2013 by Wag

[Guest The Hunted]

I don't think we'd stop logging etc, I think they'd try to keep it quite or dismiss it all. Similar thing with the mermaids, they had some footage underwater recently, I saw a documentary and the governments apparently try to keep the evidence away from us, so they can keep doing what they do in the seas. I reckon they've got bodies of Bigfoot as well, same thing there, keep it quite or people will petition. Saw something on here with the ranger talking about the one they ran over when they had the forest fire, where's that now?

 

It's all about greed and money, and wildlife in any form always suffers and man or the men in charge don't care about, Bigfoot, whales, fish, mermaids, or anything else there is or may be ;-(

[hiflier]

Hello the Hunted,

It is difficult too for those who work for the one's in charge when there are mouths to feed. No doubt there are many who consider the dilemma they are in but can say or do little without risking their economic security. I think it safe to say that we all know their plight. There is still time for Sasquatch though unless there is a failure to prove it's existence. But here's the thing: I don't think there has been a failure at all. THAT is my firm conviction when it comes to the subject of proof. In other words, I'm absolutely positive that science, though not mainstream science mind you, already knows, and has known, for decades. How can it not.

I've been trying to dig into the angle myself on the idea that when the California Rim fire was raging that there were teams out there ready to capture a Sasquatch when it emerged. I hope other folks are trying to do that same kind of research.

Edited October 26, 2013 by hiflier

[Guest shoot1]

Just a thought. What would the Bigfoot think if we started to "red tape" and rope off areas of their habitat? Would they think that we are "jailing them"? Containing them? Surely they are smart enough to know something to confine them is going on. For their protection or not. Something bad may happen. No sentient creature wants to be confined to an area. Even if WE think it is in their best interest. Just ask the American Indians. I'm sure that they could add an interesting perspective. 

I think there would be more red tape than rope - as in Humans would be prevented from breaching legal or administrative boundaries we set up to protect their territory using conventions like the Endangered Species Act in the USA. Isn't there already a conspiracy theory floating around that says the areas protected for the "Northern Spotted Owl" are actually secretly protecting Sasquatch habitats? Can't remember where or who I heard that from so it might not be a popular theory.

[Guest]

Don't think red tape or ropes would/should be in the mix; how would anyone think they could confine a Sasquatch? IMO a free roam ploicy should be adopted(which may need to be addressed as far as home/land owners' insurance rights. also the free roam policy may in fact be an 

a more exceptable to policy/lawmakers IMO.

[Guest shoot1]

I have to confess that I think you're right. 

[Guest Darrell]

At one time even the Giant Panda was considered elusive and unknown, living in the valleys of the Himalayas, since it took 65 years between its “discovery†and the capture of a live one.

Not quite. they were known and classified with type speciments by the Chinese earlier than the 15th century. As far as western knowledge of the panda, this is from Wikipedia:

The West first learned of the giant panda on 11 March 1869, when the French missionary Armand David[42] received a skin from a hunter. The first Westerner known to have seen a living giant panda is the German zoologist Hugo Weigold, who purchased a cub in 1916. Kermit and Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., became the first Westerners to shoot a panda, on an expedition funded by the Field Museum of Natural History in the 1920s

 

So we have actual skin and hair from the panda by 1869 and a living specimen in hand by 1916. And this is in China. Now how long have we been looking for bigfoot in our own backyard and still cant provide a type specimen? 53-55 yrs?

Edited October 29, 2013 by Darrell

[MarkGlasgow]

^ Enough already.

There must be lots of other forums where your wiki copy and pasting would be much more appreciated.

[Guest shoot1]

Okay so what if Sasquatch were proven to exist - why would it have to change anything about our place in the world? I think some conservations laws would be expanded, but that's it - it wouldn't change anything else unless they were also proven to have some level of  intelligence culture equal to or greater than any other great ape - most people object to a great ape being treated poorly, so a Wood Ape, Mountain Ape, or Skunk Ape (assuming they're apes...) would be protected once they were identified. I'm personally assuming they're related to one of these groups of great apes, not humans. As far as i know, nobody has said they think Orang Pendeks are anything more significant than bipedal great apes while Chimpanzees are supposed to be our nearest cousins and gorillas are so intelligent that they can use sign language to communicate, yet both animals are still commonly kept in zoos - so I'm not so sure we would treat Sasquatch any better than these other apes. 

Edited November 2, 2013 by shoot1

[MIB]

That's fine, but I disagree with your 'personal assumption' about what they are.   There is no winning for either of our positions as long as we're debating without proof, right?

 

However ... if we provide proof, then find you were wrong, that they are closely related to us and do have significant culture, how do we put the toothpaste back in the tube?  How do we avoid those impacts we would not want?

 

My suggestion is that whoever finds proof better think carefully about what it is, what it means, and where "discovery" is going to take us before providing that proof.   Once the genie is out of the bottle, there's no putting it back, so we have to get it right the first time, ahead of time, because there is no second chance and "sorry" just doesn't fix anything.

 

If someone gets enough information to determine they really are "just an ape", then perhaps releasing the info won't have a huge impact.   If someone gets enough information to determine they really are close relatives with culture, intelligence, etc, then they better think twice, they my be historical pariah, not the hero they hope to be.   And if it turns out some of the woo stuff is real ... "Katy bar the door." 

 

We have opinions but we can't really know yet.   So pre-choosing our course of action, without knowing the destination, is pretty foolish. 

 

IMHO, of course.

 

MIB