Should We Consider Sasquatch On 'enemy'?

[TD-40]

I know it's a strange question but when I hear about all these abductions from National Parks, it makes me wonder if we should consider them our enemy. If it is proven that they have abducted people, then that tells me that they are ogranized and communicate these things amongst themselves, and even plot strategies to do so. Should they be listed as an enemy of human beings?

 

If we were to start hunting them that could make the problem worse and greatly increase the distrust between them and us, even endangering other people who venture into the forests. They have a higher intelligence than four legged animals such as bears and cougars, which have been known to plot and kill people. But I would consider sasquatch different because they have a language and intelligence that makes them more of an enemy instead of just a threat.

 

How off base am I?

[BobbyO]

I think the world we live in has much bigger enemy's than Sasquatch right now to be honest.

[norseman]

I dont think there is such a thing as considering something not of the human race your "enemy".

If you chose to go out into nature as the owner of a body made up of meat and bone? Then you must accept that you are now apart of the food chain, and other creatures you may encounter may see you as prey.

Its nothing personal, they must make a living the same as any living organism on earth. Although if a recipeint of such an attack? Its easy to understand how a human could percieve it very personal. But that is just our perception, as we accept that Owls hunt and kill mice or Polar bears hunt and kill Seals. We must accept the fact that things still hunt and kill humans.

Concerning Bigfoot, we certainly have evidence that Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals practiced cannibalism in the past. Nicks on fossilized bone of their same species tells the tale quite clearly. So its very plausible that a hominid would prey on another hominid.

Just follow the boy scout motto to avoid being a denim wrapped snack for whatever is out there.

Edited August 3, 2015 by norseman

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I think that such kidnappings are isolated events, and such behavior is by no means the norm for sasquatch. Knowing exactly why they would do such a thing would be very useful for determining how often it occurs. For instance, what if they did it because they could not find a suitable mate, for whatever reason? This would imply, at least to me, that the act is one of necessity due to population decline in a certain area, or something similar. Although theoretically they could just migrate to a new area if there are no potential mates in their current location, but I am just pointing out how we could make educated guesses regarding the diversity of such acts.

 

I personally believe the animals are potentially dangerous, just like any other wild animal is either dangerous or potentially dangerous. I would classify an animal as dangerous if it would attack a person the majority of the time it comes into contact with them, while potentially dangerous is more like a bear, which probably does not attack more often than it does attack. The size and strength of a sasquatch also plays a large role. They have the physical means to harm or kill a human being, which makes them dangerous right off the bat.  Even docile creatures, if they possess such means, are going to eventually attack a human. This is similar to having large wild animals as pets. Even humans can be dangerous to one another, so the possibility is always there.

 

But does this mean we should consider sasquatch an enemy of the human race? Not where their ability to cause physical harm is concerned, since they do not seem to direct it at us very often. As far as abductions are concerned, if they are rare events then I would also answer no. If however we were to discover that many of the people who go missing every year were taken by sasquatch, then I think it would be understandable to classify bigfoot as a human enemy. Another important factor is what sasquatch actually does with people. Some Native American legends hold that bigfoot eats humans. Perhaps this is true. So I think we just need more evidence and data to work with. Sasquatch obviously differs from other wild animals in its intelligence. This is itself dangerous. The last thing I wanted to mention is regarding your idea that sasquatch actually coordinate with one another, possibly to abduct people. I am not aware of any coordinated abduction accounts, although the abduction probably did not succeed if we are hearing about it. Unless the victim got away or was released. There was an account I recall of a woman escaping. I think she was a Native American woman, and that this occurred a long time ago. Don't really remember. Anyway, the Ostman story involved only a single male sasquatch. Going just from these types of encounters, I think that abductions are carried out by an individual sasquatch and not multiple sasquatch. But this is all guesswork on my part. I could be, and probably am, wrong on many of these points. There are just so many unknowns. But to definitively answer your question, I do not think we should consider sasquatch our enemy at this point.

[JKH]

I agree that the real enemies are human.

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/45203-bigfoot-friend-or-foe/?hl=friend

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/32731-friend-or-foe/?hl=friend

[JDL]

As a species, no.  Can one make an enemy of individuals or small groups?  Probably.  Are there hostile individuals, either habitually or acting out on a bad day?  Probably.

 

Do they view us with caution and suspicion?  Yes.  We, them?  Yes.  Are they smart enough to alter their attitudes and courses of action as circumstances develop?  Yes.

 

It's all situational.

[Old Dog]

I think one needs to prove they actually exist and what their intentions are before using "enemy" labels on them.  There are far more dangers in the woods and forests than the animals.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

I think animals (humans included) want to live as hassle-free lives as possible: don't bother them, they won't bother you. And I think we need to separate killing another animal for food or out of defense from killing another animal because it's entertaining. Granted there are probably psychopaths in every phyla, but I think they are in the minority.

Edited August 4, 2015 by ChasingRabbits

[Shelly]

I don't view any animal (I believe Sasquatch to be an ape of some sort) to be an enemy.  Be it a great white shark, alligator, bear, etc.  I also don't think there are enough truly unsolved disappearances to warrant any concern.  From what I have seen is that a good many "disappearances" have a logical explanation. 

 

As I don't think Sasquatch is in any way human (like, say, the Cro Magnon man) cannibalism is moot.  He isn't a person so if he did eat someone, its not cannibalism.  As far as I know in human cultures that we have been able to study, cannibalism, where it exists/existed, was usually ritualistic versus food driven.  I am not talking about instances like the Donner Party, the jet that crashed in the Andes, etc.  that are specific individual incidents.   I also tend to view Sasquatch as being more omniverous and not carniverous.  Most animals that reply on hunting for a big part of their diet are physically adapted to hunt with dedicated physical features like claws, cutting and tearing teeth, etc.  

[Trogluddite]

I know it's a strange question but when I hear about all these abductions from National Parks, it makes me wonder if we should consider them our enemy. If it is proven that they have abducted people, then that tells me that they are ogranized and communicate these things amongst themselves, and even plot strategies to do so. Should they be listed as an enemy of human beings?

 

If we were to start hunting them that could make the problem worse and greatly increase the distrust between them and us, even endangering other people who venture into the forests. They have a higher intelligence than four legged animals such as bears and cougars, which have been known to plot and kill people. But I would consider sasquatch different because they have a language and intelligence that makes them more of an enemy instead of just a threat.

 

How off base am I?

 

It's a far leap from "missing in the woods" (even a national park) to concluding that a missing person is abducted by large, hairy apes (or semi-humans).

 

I think one needs to prove* they actually exist and what their intentions are before using "enemy" labels on them.  There are far more dangers in the woods and forests than the animals.

 

Then what their range is.

Then what their habits are.

Then whether they communicate instinctively (i.e., they're an animal) 

Then whether they they actually are at a level above animals

Then whether they're preying on humans regularly

 

Even if it were proven* that Bigfoots regularly preying on humans, it seems highly unlikely that state or Federal governments would sanction predator elimination or genocide.  Far more likely that individuals trying to carry out an ad hoc extermination program would be prosecuted. 

 

* Proven to a scientific level or w/enough certainty that policy-makers will accept Bigfoot's existence in formulating policy.  Not meant to argue that those have encountered a Bigfoot or who are tracking them in a given area haven't done so. 

[Old Dog]

Their range, habits,if they instinctively communicate, or their level above or below other animals has no bearing what so ever on if they should be labeled an "enemy".  If they exist and what their intentions are (as in preying on humans) are the only criteria for denoting them as "enemy", everything else, no matter how interesting, has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

[Trogluddite]

Perhaps, but just pointed out all the levels of understanding we have to identify before we can begin to figure out what their intentions are.  

[Old Dog]

The points mentioned have no relation to intentions.  I agree, if we ever get hard evidence of this creature, we absolutely need to know those things, but they lend nothing to intent.

[LeafTalker]

You make an enemy in your own head, with the power of your own thoughts about that person, place, or thing.

 

I have ongoing interactions with a bunch of BF people, and there are no "enemies" among them -- only beings that bring great joy and fun into my life.

 

Please, guys. Start to understand the power of your own thoughts and choices. CHOOSE to see goodness around you, and that's what will come to you. And as it comes to you, out of your choice, you begin to see how much good stuff is really going on. 

 

If you can't even decide, based on the "evidence" around you, what attitude to take toward the BF (and good for you, that there's a 'debate' going on about this; at least some of you don't automatically fall down the rabbit hole of seeing evil in every blank piece of canvas) -- as I say, if you can't see a definitive reason to choose one attitude over another, why, oh WHY would you choose the NEGATIVE attitude????? Because you think that will keep you "safe"?????? Aren't y'all grown up enough by now to know that doesn't work????????? Be brave, and EXPECT the GOOD. 

 

That's the only way it will come to you. 

[TD-40]

If bigfoot are abducting people then that is not just an idea in my head.