What Would Be The Ramifications Of Bigfoot Discovery

[norseman]

51 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Agreed, Norseman, but with millions of hunters how does anyone hope that only one will be taken? Under the circumstances of a biased government how would a hunter know what to do in order to handle voucher specimen in such a way that it gets handed off to the right people to insure study and disclosure? Taking it to a tagging station, because that's what law-abiding hunters do, will put everything back to square one. What about the guy-in-a-suit side of the equation? You know, murder-hesitation syndrome? Too-Human syndrome? I think you may be the only hunter in the entire US who is so up on the subject that you could be trusted. Anyone else? I don't have that answer but I doubt there is one.

You wrote a guide! Promote the book! Start a Go fund me page and print the damn thing and give it out to shooting clubs, Hunter safety courses, NRA, etc! Reach the masses!

 

And we may take a few instead of one if the effort is fragmented across a continent. It won’t be many because it hasn’t happened yet to our knowledge. They obviously have a knack for staying out of the cross hairs. But with that said we always get hunter reports of sightings each year.

 

Opportunities lost! It’s just a simple change of mindset. And it’s not for everyone, even hunters. But if you could convince just mere thousands out of millions? What an incredible tool to change the odds in Sasquatches favor. A few die to guarantee the protection of all for all time! That comes after we prove it real. This is how it has to be. We don’t need an army of researchers, and labs to back them. That comes after discovery as well.

 

 

[hiflier]

The book has been in need of updating but it will still stress one specimen and one specimen only with the first order of business being finding a dead one. Do you think hunters are going to trouble themselves looking for a dead Bigfoot when that is not their primary reason for going hunting? Regardless though, the book will still get out there.

Edited May 27, 2020 by hiflier

[norseman]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

The book has been in need of updating but it will still stress one specimen and one specimen only with the first order of business being finding a dead one. Do you think hunters are going to trouble themselves looking for a dead Bigfoot when that is not their primary reason for going hunting? Regardless though, the book will still get out there.

Good.

 

Hunters are constantly looking for sign. Magpies, Ravens, Coyotes, etc congregating in a area will draw the attention of a good hunter. Even if none of it has anything to do with the prey he seeks. But If Wolves or a Cougar made a elk kill in a drainage that Your hunting elk in? It’s probably not good hunting anymore. Confirmation. And if it’s a Bigfoot laying there instead of an Elk? Only an idiot would simply walk away. IMHO.

[hiflier]

Again, agreed. So then, on topic? One dead Bigfoot. One lucky (or unlucky?) hunter. It's still a long way to public disclosure. Over the years we as a group have hashed over much in the way of getting a voucher specimen to science for study. And while this thread isn't meant to go into any of that, there are pitfalls, or perhaps personal hazards if you will, to overcome/avoid to accomplish that goal- IF that is indeed the goal at all. But let's just say that it is. Ramifications if it's found out that someone is trying to do that? And if not and the voucher is successfully delivered, studied and determined to indeed be a large North American primate other than Human, the next choice becomes one for science to make. Publicly expose the discovery, or not publicly expose the discovery.

 

This all needs to be broken down into small bites like this because every step requires the possessor of the evidence to evaluate the next move. And that evaluation MUST include looking beyond what's laying on the table and fathoming the fallout for spilling the beans. Would your average Joe Hunter understand that? Maybe they wouldn't have to? It's been reported that people who have shot these creatures leave them in the woods for a several reasons. But let's just say that the right kind of hunter is who pulled the trigger, "right" meaning they know what they have and they know it is a find that science should know about. Now it's on a slab, the study has verified the species and it time to.....What? Ruin one's life? Become famous? In either case, disclosure could have enormous consequences down the road, not only for the hunter or the scientist and their facility/institution, but for the world in varying degrees depending on what get impacted the least or the most.

 

At the very least things could go the way of the Spotted Owl in the 1980's. But I think we all are pretty aware that disclosure would mean way more than that. Someone said it best earlier in the thread- will the good outweigh the bad. I say yes, but not having realistically arrived at the point, the bad could end up out weighing the good. The chief "bad" would be the economic ripple from corporate and government treasury departments all the way down to the family wallet. We're experience that in much worse fashion right now, so to put it in perspective, I think public disclosure of Sasquatch reality would be absorbed in the economy in the long run if times were normal. Right now? IDK. At this point what would another trillion or two of losses matter? The Human race has the rest of its OWN existence to pay it all back. What I'm saying is, if public disclosure of Sasquatch existence was going to happen? Now would be the best time economically to do it. And it would be better if it happened in the next two or three months. Might as well let the world bail itself out of the pandemic and Sasquatch's reality all at the same time. I see no better time than over this coming Summer to make it happen.     

[Huntster]

12 minutes ago, hiflier said:

.......The chief "bad" would be the economic ripple from corporate and government treasury departments all the way down to the family wallet........

 

The economic and land use issues would be just one aspect of possible bad results. Others would certainly ba added to that. Another bad aspect would be slavery and sasquatch trafficking. 

 

Huh, you ask? Who would do such a thing? How could they do it?

 

We currently have human smuggling on a huge global scale, and for both labor and sexual service. The Zana story was exactly that. If the criminal elements on Earth realized that a non-communicative slave with super- human strength could be exploited, you can bet they'd be out looking for them. 

 

Even nation-states would be free to start using sasquatches for military applications like they do today with dogs, porpoises, elephants, camels, horses, etc.

[hiflier]

I think that's a but over the top, but knowing Human greed and need for power, who's to say. But it government knows they exist there's no evidence of exploitation. This subject can possess a certain wildness as far as speculation goes, comes with the "what-if" territory. Keeping possible impacts of disclosure to least common denominators may help ease understanding of potential fall outs. One question might be whether science would announce a find right away or only after years of study. I would think right away would be best to reduce the chances that potentially more harm could be perpetrated within habitats by those "in the know" if they thought the brakes were going to go on regarding further development or resource extraction.

 

I also think the longer science waits to announce the discovery, and whatever subsequent studies they publish,  the longer insiders will have to create laws to circumvent Sasquatch conservation measures. i.e., existing endangered species laws which cover setting aside zones, in the case of the Bigfoots LARGE zones, of untouchable territory. Of course any official backlash that science would be subjected to for blindsiding the establishment could be severe and so must be weighed along with everything else in the decision of how to break the news to the public...and when.

 

Adding to that, will the public ever fathom that government has known all along and therefore is caught in a fairly serious lie that exposes it's greed, and that of stakeholders, for wealth at the expense of the lives of these magnificent creatures?

Edited May 27, 2020 by hiflier

[ShadowBorn]

Let's say that who ever has found the evidence that these creatures do exist and are Flesh and Blood. What do you really think would really happen with these creatures once they are found out how vulnerable that they might be. It would become a problem for the Gov. in trying to protect a species that might be on a verge of extinction. All we have to do is look to see at what is going on with the gorillas. They are already on that level of becoming extinct. With all the poaching that is going on with them we have no idea how longer we have with gorillas.

Quote

Statistics

 

"According to interviews and field surveys, we think we may have about 200 gorillas left in the area," says Mr Fidenci. "But we estimate that 4% of the population is being killed each month, or 50% in a year. It is a lot." The poachers particularly target adult gorillas of reproductive age which carry the most meat.Sep 15, 2009

So what would that say about these creatures. Once they figured out on how they can be killed it will be a free for all on anyone who wants to get one. Now this is just a assumption on my part.  As it seems right now we have no idea how many of these creatures are actually roaming our forest. Some have said at least around 5000. But that to me seems a lot and it could be fewer then that. I believe that they have problems breeding. But this is my opinion. I happen to believe that people have been observing the same creatures in different parts of our national forest. That their prints can make my point on this theory. Just like they can tell different killer whales by their fins we can tell these creatures by their foot prints. Again I am just assuming .

 

But discovery of these creatures would throw everyone into a loop. Wondering about our own existence. Just like finding life on another planet would . How would we deal with that. Watching a what everyone had said was myth come to life in a very eyes.  I would think that people would need to be counseled. New laws would need to be placed. Funding would need to be placed a side so that these large companies could be compensated for their loss of income. Only if these creatures turn out to be a new nation of people... Again I am thinking out of the box. There are a lot of possibilities that could happen if these creatures were ever to be discovered. Personally I believe that they are meant to not be discovered. That we are some how being discourage from discovery. Again this is just my opinion.    

[norseman]

Quite the opposite, their numbers have almost double since human intervention!

 

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/world/2019/10/29/mountain-gorilla-rebound-intervention/40482749/

[hiflier]

Thanks for linking that, Norseman.

 

ShadowBorn, for one thing, this isn't deepest dark Africa. I know what you are saying but think about the poaching aspect of say deer or bears. People get away with it but most do not. And even if one was poached people just wouldn't be able to keep their mouths shut. This isn't like a deer in the back of a truck under a tarp, this is a Sasquatch. I truly doubt anyone could keep the poaching a secret for long. Game Wardens are very good at knowing their territory, who the poachers are and where they live. And believe me poaching a Bigfoot would bring infinitely more trouble and people onto the scene that a deer or a bear. The seriousness of someone risking heavy fines and jail would be off the scale. Not that it wouldn't happen, and not perhaps that it has already happened,  but I think it's unlikely because the creature's ability to avoid Humans is far greater than deer or bear- or Gorilla.

 

There's a lot in favor of protecting the species, more so than the risk of losing one to a poacher. How many times have we discussed someone's head being ripped off. My guess is most poachers would be under-gunned for the task anyway. Law Enforcement in the forest is nothing to fool with and ALL hunters know where they stand when committing even the smallest infraction. And too, where Sasquatch probably is would mean a team with enough firepower and vehicles to pull off the job. Just think about what it would take to seriously go after one to get to science. It's not that easy and requires careful planning and orchestration of the team to pull it off. And THAT'S if no one says anything to anyone or uses any electronic devices in the expedition. The difficulty in poaching one would make the act nearly impossible. Look at NAWAC. They been trying for better than twelve years and haven't succeeded. So I think the Bigfoots would be pretty safe from poachers just on their own. Add a force designed to protect them and their habitat on top of that and I see no issues with public disclosure.

 

Loss of revenue from resource harvesting is still at the top of the list but even that can utilize new methods and programs that will leave Sasquatches pretty much unmolested. Bigfoot researchers as we know them, though, will be left with nothing to do because they probably won't be allowed to do any more research, like even to do footprint hunts for casting. Kiss that one good-bye

Edited May 28, 2020 by hiflier

[Huntster]

45 minutes ago, hiflier said:

......this isn't deepest dark Africa. I know what you are saying but think about the poaching aspect of say deer or bears. People get away with it but most do not. And even if one was poached people just wouldn't be able to keep their mouths shut. This isn't like a deer in the back of a truck under a tarp, this is a Sasquatch. I truly doubt anyone could keep the poaching a secret for long. Game Wardens are very good at knowing their territory, who the poachers are and where they live. And believe me poaching a Bigfoot would bring infinitely more trouble and people onto the scene that a deer or a bear. The seriousness of someone risking heavy fines and jail would be off the scale. Not that it wouldn't happen, and not perhaps that it has already happened,  but I think it's unlikely because the creature's ability to avoid Humans is far greater than deer or bear- or Gorilla........

 

I suggest that you have a poor understanding of the world poaching market. I can guarantee that there will be a market for both live and dead and parted out sasquatches immediately upon "discovery". In fact, I can even point out the supply side market; China, Korea, Japan, and other areas of eastern Asia. Indeed this is where Gigantopithecus teeth are ground down into a powder for Asian "men" to snort or mix with their evening drink like an American might take a Viagra. The vast majority of the illegally poached ivory goes to east Asia. 

 

As an Alaskan resident, I can harvest up to five black bears per year and one brown/grizzly per year. Upon said harvest, the animal is mine. Every piece of him. But Lord help me if the Alaska apostate Troopers catch me with a bears gall bladder removed from any bears I harvest. Of course, it's mine, and if I want to squirt the juice on myself while dancing in the moonlight, I should be able to do so. But the Asian market for bear gall bladders is insane. Alaskan hunters leave them in the field, despite the prices they fetch. Marketing them goes beyond federal crime; it's an international crime.  Look up CITES. This isn't Bubba shooting Bambi's mom and putting her on the bbq. It's the Big Time.

 

In 2005, after a week long chase, Los Angeles County deputies shot and killed a 450 lb tiger near the Ronald Reafpgan Presidential Library in Simi Valley. They have no idea where this tiger came from.

 

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/california-authorities-kill-tiger-that-had-been-roaming-near-ronald-reagan-library/

 

Just a year or two earlier, the authorities in LA took possession of a mature male chimpanzee that tore the face off its "owner". You guessed it; they had no idea that chimp was there.

 

If you can keep a chimp and a tiger in LA without the authorities knowing it, you can keep a sasquatch there. George Hen.........Hen........Hen....... showed us how..........

 

.......There's a lot in favor of protecting the species, more so than the risk of losing one to a poacher. How many times have we discussed someone's head being ripped off. My guess is most poachers would be under-gunned for the task anyway. Law Enforcement in the forest is nothing to fool with and ALL hunters know where they stand when committing even the smallest infraction. And too, where Sasquatch probably is would mean a team with enough firepower and vehicles to pull off the job. Just think about what it would take to seriously go after one to get to science. It's not that easy and requires careful planning and orchestration of the team to pull it off. And THAT'S if no one says anything to anyone or uses any electronic devices in the expedition. The difficulty in poaching one would make the act nearly impossible. Look at NAWAC. They been trying for better than twelve years and haven't succeeded. So I think the Bigfoots would be pretty safe from poachers just on their own. Add a force designed to protect them and their habitat on top of that and I see no issues with public disclosure.......

 

I think that the greatest advantage sasquatches have over hunters is their incredible rarity.

[7.62]

Hunting them where they live ?

It's hard enough just seeing one by chance . If these things had an inclination they were being hunted they would disappear and become totally nocturnal . There would never beday times sighting ever again .

You have that group wood apes that have been trying to shoot one for the last how many years ?10 , 15 years and still nothing. These guys never even see one during the day. You're not going to hunt these things with any kind of success in day light hours.

 . You just have to be damn sure what you're firing at in the darkness no matter what kind of scope you are using ., that's where the hesitation will play a big factor .

[7.62]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that the greatest advantage sasquatches have over hunters is their incredible rarity.

 

 

Yup 

Most of us who go looking for them have never even seen one. The concern over the hunting aspect of this problem if  discovery  is proven by DNA  or a body is a non issue  .

 

I still believe it can be accomplished in an active area with the right equipment and having the time and money to spend.

[Huntster]

8 hours ago, 7.62 said:

Hunting them where they live ?

It's hard enough just seeing one by chance . If these things had an inclination they were being hunted they would disappear and become totally nocturnal ........

 

Ever hunt tigers? Cougars? Gigantopithecus?

 

Yet their "parts" are for sale in Hong Kong as aphrodisiacs. And tigers are endangered. Big time. Gigantopithecus are extinct.......or so they say. 

8 hours ago, 7.62 said:

.......Most of us who go looking for them have never even seen one.......

 

Madison and NorthWind have re-taught me that one can pretty confidently go out and find footprints.

[hiflier]

9 hours ago, Huntster said:

I suggest that you have a poor understanding of the world poaching market. I can guarantee that there will be a market for both live and dead and parted out sasquatches immediately upon "discovery". In fact, I can even point out the supply side market; China, Korea, Japan, and other areas of eastern Asia. Indeed this is where Gigantopithecus teeth are ground down into a powder for Asian "men" to snort or mix with their evening drink like an American might take a Viagra. The vast majority of the illegally poached ivory goes to east Asia. 

 

With all due respect, I may have been born at night but it wasn't last night, LOL. Of course there will be a market. There's a market for just about everything not legally available. But the rarity and reclusiveness of Sasquatch, plus our surveillance and LEO network all work in favor for the creature's safety. Perfect? No. but pretty dang good.

[Huntster]

13 minutes ago, hiflier said:

........Of course there will be a market. There's a market for just about everything not legally available. But the rarity and reclusiveness of Sasquatch, plus our surveillance and LEO network all work in favor for the creature's safety. Perfect? No. but pretty dang good.

 

Currently, if you add to rarity, reclusiveness, surveillance, and LEO network (all currently in place for tigers, rhinos, elephants, whales, Gigantopithecus, etc), sasquatches also have a zealously maintained official status of "nonexistent". Criminal networks, being more efficient than government, aren't going to waste their time hunting creatures that don't exist.