With the Pine Ridge activity, this Baby Story in Maine etc etc, i was wondering, if one was to be accepted by Science in the not too distant future, would it depend on where the Creature was actually found that determines what areas would be classed as their actual habitat zones ??

I mean for example, if a Creature was discovered in WA, i think we'd all be in agreement that BF would immediately be classed as an enangered species so Logging etc would have to stop in the immediate area due to a known endangered species living in the area...

But that would have no bearing on say the Skunk Ape & it's habitat in FL would it or the BF's in OH, MI, NY etc etc ??

Does anyone know how the relevant people would calculate habitat zones for endangered species such as BF when discovered ????

Bobby O,

Very interesting line of thought you've opened up here...

I would think that Hunster probably has a good idea as to how the ESA would apply to the "discovery" of Sas...and I bet that his post will be pretty smooth reading as well...

Thanks for bringing it up...

Bobby O,

There are a few other threads on this forum that deal with this, tho I'm too lazy to find them for you.

Good question. I suspect that because it's such a wide ranging species (if it exists), like cougars, spread pretty thinly in temperate forest across the continent, it'd be pretty hard to designate wild life preserves for it. It's not like a few hundred live within a few hundred square miles of country (as far as we know) like the grizzlies in Yellowstone. Maybe some really good habitat could be preserved, but nobody knows what that is, or how big a sasquatch territory is.

Maybe the most that could be done is a national no-kill or harassment law like we have for sea mammals off our coast.

And in any case, maybe certain types of logging actually "improves" the habitat for them, for all we know, by providing more browse in the form of berry bushes and allowing denser deer populations for their hunting.

Yes. Initial discovery would likely prompt a quick moratorium (or some degree of such) of some activities (logging comes to mind) in at least those areas that current databases of sasquatch activity (Green's, BFRO's, etc) show sasquatch activity. Then wildlife agencies would be charged to inventory the creatures nationwide.

That inventory would take years, but at least it would officially begin.

How does anyone know that this is an endangered species?
And on what grounds would they declare it to be so?
And I am curious as to how a wildlife agency would suddenly have the expertise to inventory a creature which cannot be found?

Why would logging be halted?
And where? And why...? On the bases of anecdotal evidence....that even many researchers do not have a lot of faith in??

It is not like we are dealing with a ferret which has only been seen in one tiny valley of the Northwest. This creature possibly roams across a landmass of many thousands of miles! Does that mean that logging would have to be stopped in all of North America. This is not likely.

Or is one to think that once a body turns up, that Squatch will be popping their heads up everywhere..and all one has to do is, find a wooded lot, hang some sparkles up in a tree and wait with a net for Squatch to come and take the bait. After all..they have been discovered..no point hiding now is there? I am sure that they will make themselves readily accessible for study now that the jig is up.

There would have to be a whole lot of proving done on many levels about the area where the creature was found and under what circumstances, before the lumber lobby in Washington even raises an eyebrow over the developments.

As for that..would it affect lumber only in one state, all states? Won't go over too good when mills shut down and their brothers across the state border are still out in the woods gainfully employed.

As for the international logistics. of borders..lets not even go there.

How it will play out..who knows? But it will not be a slam dunk just because a body is found. There will still be many decades of kicking the can [ dead squatch? ] by those with vested interests in the land where the body was found, who will wish to prove that this find is merely a remnant of a species which is, for all intents and purposes, already extinct.
( And who could prove them wrong? )
Therefore, as far as they are concerned, there is no need for protective measures.. (even if such a thing were humanly possible.)
Not everyone will be eager to jump on the squatch wagon should they be proven to exist. imho

Nobody knows officialy that it is an endangered species but, after all these years & based on the size of the Animal i think a few people will calculate that it is.. :wink:

Thinking back to my original question, i don't suppose any particular habitat would be able to be designated as detailed research on the Animals ( unless tracking collars are used ) is highly difficult as a lot of people on this site would testify & you can't class every Forest in N America as habitat of an endangered species....

Trouble is, with the BF Migratory arguement, they just might be !!!!!!

One step at a time though me thinks !! :wink:

We don't.

Nor do we know if they are.



After "they" studied the situation.



They have the expertise to inventory currently endangered and rare species. They've done it, after the process was initiated.

It has never been initiated with this species. Government wildlife agencies have never attempted to inventory sasquatches.

That's the point.



Wd don't know that it would, however, if these creature's primary habitat was old growth coastal rainforest, and they're numbers were as low as most folks tend to believe, it might very well have an impact on logging such areas.

The only way we'll know is if it is studied.

Officially.



Where past reports and evidence indicate.



Because there is evidence these creatures exist, and are very rare.



In courts, people are convicted all the time on testimony from other criminals who are coerced into that testimony with promises of leniency.

Got much faith in testimony like that?



Yup. Possibly.



That's right.

It's not likely.



Yup. Once found, I'd bet they'll pop up everywhere.

That's because more people will be looking, as well as accepting the statements of witnesses (that we already have, but often are not believed).



Agreed.



Already seen that in Alaska. We weren't too happy about it.

Nobody else seemed to notice.



Fair enough.



The goal, at this point, is to use environmental law to force the appropriate agencies to make an investment in discovery and research (which they aren't doing now).

To be as blunt as possible, this isn't how the ESA process works. Initially for a species to be considered for listing for ESA protection, proponents for listing must prove scientifically that there has been a significant reduction in population abundance from historic levels. How exactly would one go about doing this considering that everything that is 'known' about the sasquatch in reality is nothing more than wishful speculation?

I do agree that those interest groups that would like to see logging in the PNW stopped, would look at this as a modern day 'spotted owl' with which to advance their respective agendas.

Thanks for your info WillinYC...

I worded that part wrong to be honest..

I did mean to write that we'd all be pretty much in agreement that the BF SHOULD be classed as an ES but i didn't know if Logging would have to be stopped if i'm honest hence the question...

From what you write though Willin,YC, it seems that if there ever was acceptance, due to the lack of info on the BF, it may not automatically become an ES like i/we hope it would ???

Bobby,

I'm no expert by any means on the ESA. I have done some volunteer work with some biologists that do work directly with ESA listed species and species listed as threatened here in CA. The ESA is a fairly complex(at least IMO) piece of legislation. Here in CA we have two designations of ESA protection: State and Federal. The concensus among those that I know who are much more well versed in aspects of the ESA is that the federal listing has more teeth than does the state protection. Listing for any species is never automatic. There are well defined criteria for a species to be a candidate for lisiting as well as criteria for currently endangered species to be 'delisted' if certain conditions in regards to population abundance are met.

All biologists I know have an interest in bigfoot(to varying degrees). All are open to the possibility such a creature is a reality. The general concensus is that the 'evidence' for such an animal isn't very damned good, but cannot be dismissed out of hand. Very much like the opinions expressed by Saskeptic here.

Most seem to think that if real, bigfoot really isn't the type of animal the bigfoot community as a whole, paints it to be(in terms of how it exploits a niche(s) in the ecosystem to maintain enough population abundance to survive, but not enough to become already 'known').

It's my opinion(i.e a wildass guess) that if a bigfoot were hit by a semi some time in the near future and it's existance wasn't the main issue any longer, that obviously would indeed cause the scientific community as a whole to acknowledge it's existance. If that were to happen, I do think there would be a rough general concensus as to what the animal likely is( from an ecological exploitation standpoint) and there would be a big push to say the very least) to discover more.

I do think that what the BF community as a whole thinks it 'knows' about the alleged animal would be largely ignored(and for the most part without getting into detail, I think rightly so). In terms of discovery, you'd literally be at square one IMO.

Again, I do think there would be some powerful interest groups who would without question, utilize the potential discovery of the sasquatch to spearhead their own environmental agendas while paying lip service to 'conservation of potential sasquatch habitat'. I can see them also to an extent demanding that the sasquatch be given immediate ESA listing for special circumstances because so little is known. Social support for this endeavor IMO would be high because of the emotional and sensational nature of such a potential discovery. The manner in which the ESA is written really does seem to favor those that would be opposed to such a listing and those that would warrant that proper established protocol be followed IMO. Again, just my take on this issue.

If the sasquatch is accepted as a species, mainstream science would probably try to take in account most of the sasquatch reports and accept them as truth, and kinda draw a line around high-concentration areas. That's my thoughts, anyway.

That would surely be crazy as who knows how many hoax reports are out there along with how many legitimate ones ??

No one 100% !!

& where would they get the base of reports ??

The BFRO ??