Guest Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 I think we need to consider the consequences for the Bigfoot population if they are proven to exist in the future. It would be great for us and the science community, but from their (Bigfoot) point of view, it could be a negative thing. I do not think they want to be found. There has to be a reason why they actively try to evade detection. On the positive side, maybe Bigfoot will be placed on the endangered species list and protected. There could also be more protected areas and parks. On the negative side, there could be a surge of people looking for Bigfoot in their territory. Captured specimens could be studied by scientists in laboratory conditions. I also do not want these creatures to be held in zoos. I'm not saying we should not try to prove their existence, but ethical problems must be considered. We don't know how intelligent they are. We don't know their intentions. We don't know what they are. They could deserve special rights that most non-human animals don't have. Thoughts?
Sasfooty Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 I don't think they'll give up & come forward to be put in zoos & studied in laboratories, just because they've been "discovered". People are already trying to capture/kill them & that doesn't seem to be working out very well. Actually, if they are ever proven to exist, it will probably be a big non-event for them.
1980squatch Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 Short term loss long term gain... pretty much for the reasons you mention.
JKH Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 I'm imagining the heavy sighs at what must be a perennial topic. They already have "special rights". The only thing that needs protection is habitat and we're not even very good at that.
Guest Posted April 6, 2014 Posted April 6, 2014 If we assume the human race is a superior race which to my mind is doubtful given the way we've mistreated our planet, then perhaps the Sasquatch would be given a fair shot; however, we haven't proven ourselves very good stewards of our planet earth, so I doubt we'd be doing any favors to the Sasquatch by controlling them.
salubrious Posted April 6, 2014 Moderator Posted April 6, 2014 IMO they are way better off being undiscovered. 2
Guest Posted April 6, 2014 Posted April 6, 2014 IMO they are way better off being undiscovered. Totally absolutely positively agree. They contact those they trust.
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted April 6, 2014 Posted April 6, 2014 My opinion on this matter is based on a particular belief I hold regarding their population size. Because I hypothesize that their population is already quite large, and will continue to grow in the future to a considerable degree, I feel that proving their existence will allow for their protection. As things stand now, large swathes of their habitat can be destroyed by humans, who are oblivious to their existence. Honestly, even if they are discovered and documented, this will not have too much of an impact on them where people entering their environment are concerned. Even if more people are out looking for them, they possess the necessary avoidance skills to stay away from these people. My only concern would be that large groups of people looking for them could disrupt their natural cycle of finding food and water, and cause them to change their plans, which could potentially harm them somehow. But that is not too big of a deal, because I highly doubt that there will be all that many people out looking for them. And even if there are, it is not like all these people are going to be trying to kill or capture them, because they will be federally protected as soon as they're discovered. The majority of people will not attempt to kill them or anything once this occurs. So I am not too worried about discovery hurting the animals, and really do feel that they will be better off in the long run. For the short-term it is hard to say how things will change for them, but I do not anticipate things getting bad at all where their survival is concerned.
Guest keninsc Posted April 6, 2014 Posted April 6, 2014 In the big picture and long term discovery would be a benefit. However, knowing how great our government works makes me worry they will make it impossible for humans to enjoy nature because we might damage their ecosystem or declare them endangered before they even know anything about them. The most dreaded words to hear, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
BobbyO Posted April 6, 2014 SSR Team Posted April 6, 2014 (edited) Not necessarily, humans in general aren't that great towards other species overall. And the reason why is part of the reason why Sasquatch haven't been proven to exist in the first place, money. They're animals ultimately, they can be proven to exist much easier than we think. But proof of existence would stop a large part of the GDP of Norhh America, or at best have a huge impact on it. Edited April 6, 2014 by BobbyO
Guest keninsc Posted April 6, 2014 Posted April 6, 2014 (edited) They're animals ultimately, they can be proven to exist much easier than we think. Then one wonders why it hasn't been done. Such a discovery would catapult someone's career into the stratosphere? Edited April 6, 2014 by keninsc
Guest Posted April 6, 2014 Posted April 6, 2014 alot is being said about how we would be controlling them. control goes both ways but it would matter greatly how regulations and statutes are drafted. let me explain. when we write hunting regulations prohibiting harming animals we are imposing on ourselves laws that regulate our behavior because we don't have the foresight to relize the harm we do. in that sense it is not a regulation that Sas would have to adhere to, it is a regulation that we have to adhere to, so we are controlling ourselves not the Sas. a little truth here. when verification comes establishing the exsistance of Sas there are many, many steps already step up that leds to the path of protection, endandgered species enactmants and scientific protocal for classification. Thats just the way it is. what you need to think about is during the public input or comments and suggestion stage of the regulatory stage that the public suggests regulations that would be benificial to the Sas; because they will not be able to speak for themselves. give facts and examples that back up your proposals and maks **** sure the governmental regulators are not being swayed by big corprate money which I believe will be the big fight. as far as putting land aside for Sas well they may not want to stay in one spot and so I think a "free roam" policy is the best approach. with free roam comes insurance mitigations from private land owners who need to be educated that the Sas aren't going to come in and disrubt the lay of the land and destroy properties. good questions Kryptos, there needs to be a lot of forethought and a willingness to get educated on how the system works if your planning on going to propose anything to governmental bodies. I for one think that there are a lot of people in America, private citizens that with sound suggestions and groups that want to proceed once verification comes that clearly some benifical proposals would come forth from caring viewpoints.
hiflier Posted April 6, 2014 Posted April 6, 2014 Hello All, Hard to believe this topic is coming up again. And Sasfooty: ....Actually, if they are ever proven to exist...... Yours has to be the most surprising of all.
JDL Posted April 6, 2014 Posted April 6, 2014 I think we need to consider the consequences for the Bigfoot population if they are proven to exist in the future. It would be great for us and the science community, but from their (Bigfoot) point of view, it could be a negative thing. I do not think they want to be found. There has to be a reason why they actively try to evade detection. On the positive side, maybe Bigfoot will be placed on the endangered species list and protected. There could also be more protected areas and parks. On the negative side, there could be a surge of people looking for Bigfoot in their territory. Captured specimens could be studied by scientists in laboratory conditions. I also do not want these creatures to be held in zoos. I'm not saying we should not try to prove their existence, but ethical problems must be considered. We don't know how intelligent they are. We don't know their intentions. We don't know what they are. They could deserve special rights that most non-human animals don't have. Thoughts? Right now, there is no evidence that they are threatened as a species and they have complete freedom. They have nothing to gain in terms of species survival and much to lose in terms of freedom. 1
Guest Posted April 6, 2014 Posted April 6, 2014 I've seen a lot of items concerning hunts - for monetary gain. Folks who join this type thing don't have the best interests of Sasquatch at heart. Small wonder they conceal themselves.
Recommended Posts