Guest JiggyPotamus Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 I'm not sure that bigfoot tissue would be used in pharmaceuticals; at least not in the west, lol. I believe that the main problems all sasquatch researchers face will still remain after the discovery and acceptance of the species. Just because we know they're there does not make finding them any easier. Although this knowledge does create one thing that is lacking at present: consistency and determination. (I know...that was two things.) That is not to say individual researchers or organizations do not possess these characteristics, rather they are the ONLY ones to possess it. Or a certain percentage of them anyway. But the greater scientific community will latch on after discovery, and what is viewed as persistence and determination now will be overshadowed by the same when possessed by this profession.Things will change significantly in that department; funding will flow in; and the bigfooting world as we know it will cease to exist, at least in some respects. It is much easier to place faith in something when you know that something actually exists. What I bet you will not hear however are any apologies for constant doubting from those die-hard non-believers, despite the fact that scientists should never have held such a view in the first place. As I've stated in the past there is a huge difference between being skeptical and being a non-believer. The scientific community will gloss over the fact that they have derided the subject for decades or put no effort into it whatsoever. The most annoying thing will probably be that there will be no thanks given to those who laid the groundwork, or those who kept the idea of sasquatch alive despite the constant barrage of mockery and in some cases personal attacks. I am not sure that bigfoot areas should be off-limits to humans. Someone could easily conclude that sasquatch are doing a great job at avoiding us or hiding from us, despite the fact this is not the case. Sasquatch are doing an okay job at best, considering they are seen, photographed, and filmed all the time. Some believe this is because the animals do not truly possess great awareness, but I hypothesize that sightings are due to both an increasing human and sasquatch population. It is impossible to know whether I am correct as far as the sasquatch population is concerned, but I really hope that once the official discovery is made that this question will be answered. However it will certainly take years of actual scientific study to determine the answer. It could be countered that my hypothesis is incorrect because sightings have not increased to any significant degree in the last decades, but there are many variables here. The availability of cameras, the number of individuals living in or passing through sasquatch habitat, etc., and since these are variable a consistent number of sightings need not mean the population is maintaining or even decreasing, and the latter could easily be argued as well since the higher number of people and greater availability of communications devices and cameras could translate into more sightings or a higher percentage of reported sightings. Since sightings do not appear to be increasing it could be argued that the sasquatch population is actually decreasing, since we should be seeing and reporting them more. But of course there are counter-arguments to this as well, which I won't get in to right now. Suffice it to say that it is unlikely we will have a huge impact on the sasquatch population by keeping their habitat open to the public, unless we could somehow ensure that all the sasquatch in the nation were living in a single area, which we cannot. So people wouldn't know where to look in the first place, and would be unlikely to run into a bigfoot despite the area being bigfoot territory. Researchers know this too well. Unless there were many thousands of people flocking to the woods all over the nation hoping to catch a glimpse of bigfoot, as this could upset and have some negative effect on the animals, but this scenario is unlikely in my opinion. Plus, this is assuming that people would not be afraid of the creatures, and thus avoid the woods altogether. This could happen, and perhaps it could even influence the ultimate decision of whether to inform the world of the existence of sasquatch. Revenue in national parks could decrease; fewer hunters might purchase licenses; any other activities that take place in the woods and that require payment, such as camping or fishing, could also decrease. So we might be looking at a large loss in these sectors. Logging has been mentioned in the past as well, as protection of the species, especially if bigfoot require large roaming regions, would ultimately have a negative impact on the profits from trees. Which in turn could negatively effect related industries, such as paper manufacturers. There is a lot of stuff made out of trees. To the point that I can definitely see the government and those who own the companies wanting to protect the industry as a whole. As to whether they would ever put a bigfoot in a zoo, that is a great question, and is very hard to answer with any certainty. Human depravity knows no limits, so anything is possible, but I ultimately think clearer heads would prevail. Bigfoot, even if they turned out to be no closer to humans than chimpanzees, still look so much like us that I doubt they would ever be caged. The public outcry would simply be too severe. I definitely think there are certain individuals who would like to profit from having a bigfoot in a zoo, and who likely lobby the government to get permission, but I don't think it would be allowed to happen. Zoo owners do not seem like they would be incredibly influential where lobbying is concerned. But people WOULD want to see a bigfoot, and the zoo is the only place to see one in person without expending the energy of going into the woods with the hope of being lucky. Instead, what may happen is that some of the animals, eventually anyway, would be placed in some type of reserve or sanctuary. Perhaps cameras could be installed all over the place to observe them. But people would not be allowed to enter this area. It would simply be set up, and fenced for obvious reasons, with a handful of sasquatch inside. This is also the best way to study them, if they can be captured in the first place, without the animals knowing they are in captivity. They might figure it out, but they wouldn't feel "trapped" if the area was sufficiently large. Good luck to the guy trying to keep a bigfoot fenced however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzerschlep Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 I have a feeling that every yahoo with a rifle out there will be going into the woods to try to bag one. I think laws would have to be enacted to protect the creatures. Careful study of habitat and the range of the creature's roaming would have to be carefully implemented. Initally sasquatch study will be huge. I think a large industry dedicated to studying them, protecting them, and/or exploiting them for profit will sprout up. There are so many interests that would have their fingers in the the whole sasqutch pie, that I have a hard time imagining how it would shake out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 This is a fantasy that will never happen due to the restraints of the culture, among other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzerschlep Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Wag, what do you mean by restraints of the culture? That if one is found and confirmed by science, that it will be swept under the rug and concealed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 In case you haven't noticed, there's a visceral reaction to even the idea of them being real.... nopenopenope, way, way, wayyy, WAYYY too freaky to consider that the bogeyman exists, ima shut down my brain now and start spewing out appeal to incredulity fallacies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 I know right, the disabilities acts will kick in and we'll all have to raise our ceilings 2 feet and make the doors wider. I'd laugh, but this would most likely end up not being a joke. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frap10 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Well, perhaps they could be hired as guides/protection and we can get to some really good hunting and fishing spots. Get them a share of the hunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Or we could teach them how to build 4 seater sedan chairs or rickshaws and sign them up for uber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 I think the next step, after confirmed or official discovery, would be the legal classification of the Bigfoot species. In short; What are they? Some people believe they are animals and others believe they are human or almost human. The first two, animal or human, are fairly simple. However; how do you treat something that's "almost human?" Does that mean they get some basic human right but are not allowed to vote or buy guns? In my opinion, the classification of these beings would be the biggest and most difficult hurdle. I also don't think this is something that's likely to be self evident. It could take years, if not decades, to learn enough about them, in order to properly classify the species. I can see this turning into one humongous legal battle, with all sides jumping in with their opinions... Everything from, Bigfoot is the original descendant of Cain and Abel, to Bigfoot is just a giant, fuzzy pet for the average American family. Can you imagine the legal circus this will create? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 The skeptics will say, holy #%$@ we were wrong! The habituating/flying saucer/other dimensions folks will move on to their next fantasy and the crazy people who think they must protect their hairy friends will suddenly become dangerous. t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 CR, I'd expect it would depend on what, in your hypothetical scenario, the bigfoot were determined to be, no? True that. But who would be in the best position to make that determination? Actually, I find this a very good question. I, likely for my own selfish reasons, wish to have closure on this "are they real" topic, which is the main reason I get frustrated with the "I have proof but will not share it" crowd. That being said, I think that research would be next in line. What kind of research, and who is best positioned to do it would be the first questions answered. I think it would be beneficial to understand how they live, how they interact with their surroundings, how they have avoided comfirmation for so long along with other things. I believe, if they exist, they are flesh and blood animals just as everything else in the known animal kingdom is. I do not subscribe to the paranormal abilities that some attribute to them. Then, who? I imagine many would claim it should be those who have known for a while, perhaps habituators. But I do not think they would be the best option. For too long they have either hidden their evidence, or shown that they are simply not good enough to provide the desired evidence. I imagine some formally educated biologists/primatologists with perhaps a willing "hab" guide - until the guide is no longer needed. Aside from that, I do not feel we need to set land aside, close our forests etc. Business as usual in that respect. Interesting thoughts. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodslore Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 I truly think in all truth and honesty, if Sasquatch was proven real it would be a wonderful mess. The media would put their spin on it as they do. You would have some people scared to go into the woods or let their children near the woods. There would be other people you would seek to hunt the creature as the ultimate trophy. Some would simply hunt it just to prove their tough. Some would push for it's protection. Some to set up laws on the creature. In many ways I think it would be similar to the beast of Gévaudan. Fear would be the ruling emotion. Lets be honest, people fear what they do not know as a whole. Some individuals my not but the general body fears what they do not know. It would be a wonderful mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 the question I posed is a hypothetical one, but as I also pointed out research or any project has to be started with an end in mind. Proving BF exists is great, but then what? Does every BF researcher/believer pat themselves and each other on the back and then hang up a "retired" sign? See, I think the real work begins the day BF's existence transforms from legend to fact. And I think the BF research community will be the ones people (science and the public) will look to for leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 You cannot prove BF as real when the Gov will not allow it. Body or not, a BF body would not prove BF anyway. The hypothetical is a social disaster. Can't have giant human level intelligent apes walking around in every state, killing people in some, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) You cannot prove BF as real when the Gov will not allow it. Body or not, a BF body would not prove BF anyway. The hypothetical is a social disaster. Can't have giant human level intelligent apes walking around in every state, killing people in some, etc. In my hypothetical question, it's implied that the scientific community has agreed that BF is real. Therefore the government has recognized it's existence. You state that it will be a social disaster. Fine. So what do you think would be the best way(s) to mitigate or avoid this social disaster. Remember, the scientific community says BF is real: BF is out of the forest of mythology. Now what? Edited February 4, 2015 by ChasingRabbits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts