I have felt for a very long time that I am much more comfortable with having the Sasquatch remain an "undiscovered" or unresolved species without "official" recognition. It represents a part of this world that has not been probed, tested, analyzed and comprehended. It's also heartening to believe that they can and do exist in an "undiscovered" state in spite of our steady overwhelming of the planet's wild areas.
I really enjoy being able to go to remote areas of the country and know that they are out there somewhere, and might possibly be in the close vicinity. Anyone else feel the same way? I have also suspected for a long time that there is a great deal of hard evidence in the hands of people that purposely keep it under wraps cause they have similar feelings.

No doubt this has been explored here in the past, but maybe not recently?

I agree with you except I am only fairly well convinced they exist. It would make it much more exciting to encounter something that has eluded science and isn't supposed to be there. It is also a pleasure and a privilege to go to wilderness areas that haven't been affected much by humans. If they find they are real, that is another reason the forest service will have to restrict public access.

Bob - I am quite convinced they are real as well. I agree with you on the restrictions that will come about as well when they are finally documented.

I agree, except for the myth that we are overwhelming wild areas.
Just go straight up a few thousand feet and look, and it is amazing that the Sasquatch actually have more habitat than we do. All surfaces in the USA that are covered in something man made, including roads, in our 200 years here (besides of course first-nation peoples) will fit easily inside of Texas.
That leaves a lot of the country for our fuzzy friends.

By the way, I do appreciate the arguments for protecting them and the funding that would be freed up and so forth. I am interested in how people feel about allowing them to stay undiscovered. I'm particularly interested in the idea that many, many more sightings and encounters happen than are reported because people want the mystery to keep on...

I want them "found". I used to be one that wanted them to remain hidden, but not anymore. I used to have a romantic notion of animals, but as I've gotten older that's faded and I'd like to know if they (bigfoot) has a common ancestry with any other primates, from Asia or from some other location. I want to know how long they've been around, here or there (from wherever they've been). If an animal has to remain hidden, I'd rather it be some frog in the Amazon than a larger-than-life primate in North America. I'd like to know if bigfoot is a primate at all, or maybe they are a bear, dog, or something else.

In my opinion, if one is actually found it won't really affect the rest.

They'll just keep on being as elusive as they have always been.

I hope you're right about that..

Ignorance is bliss, they say. And it's true in some things, such as Bigfoot. It's nice to know that he might be out there, gives us something to think about while hiking and camping.

But if he was found? Now that would just rock, and my wife would never live it down

those infamous words..."I told you so"

The main reason that I would like BF to be officially discovered is out of spite for my neighbors ribbing. I give them plenty of other reasons to think I'm "nuts" but this one just bugs me because they won't even listen. I showed them the MMF and Doug Devines results from his studies of this film and the response was "you're nuts".

If I ever found one, and had the chance to do my nationally televised BA to all the doubters out there, I would be sure to drop my pants far enough to show them just how "nutty" I am.

And I'm fairly well convinced that the find wouldn't be good, bad or otherwise. It would be pretty hard to lock people out of our National Forests over something that only has one example.

WOW everyone interesting new thread but will it happen in life time who knows updates as this continues

If you've ever been to some of the really vast wilderness areas in the US, especially the northwest, it's pretty easy to see how the Sasquatch out there could remain hidden for as long as they wanted pretty much indefinitely. Other parts of the country not so much, but I have a hard time seeing the govt doing a good job managing their habitats short of locking down huge areas. On a related note, can you imagine what would happen if they were discovered to be human or sufficiently human to warrant some sort of intervention over and above conservation of habitat??

That's one thing that has bugged me about "proving" the existence of the big guy. I want the habitat protection that I think this would bring but a little niggly nagging voice in the back of my head wonders just how far it would go........

I mean, I have a forest pass but I only had to pay money for it. What if I had to "demonstrate need" or needed the "proper credentials" to enter the forests....that perverse part of me that doesn't always trust the altruistic motives of the lumber (and or any other large for profit) companies wonders just how much it would cost to buy all the right politicians so they can do what they want where they want when they want without any oversight at all....

I'm just thinking of those "scientific vessels" that the Japanese have who hunt whales....

So, I guess my vote today is "remain a mystery"

I hate to admit it, but I love the thrill of the mystery and I would be a little disappointed if this creature was recognized by science, the government, whatever. Then all of us "enthusiasts" would be thrown on the backburner and all the naysaying scientists would be given millions of dollars to study this animal. In the same sense though, I would love to do my victory dance in front of all my friends/colleagues/family/skeptics/enemies and say "Neener Neener Neener!" "I was right, you were wrong!" Also one of my closest friends who is completely skeptical/scoftical would be stuck wearing nothing but a tight pink thong and he would have to walk around all day telling everyone that I was right and he was wrong and that Sasquatch truly does exist. Sweet sweet revenge LOL!

The mystery is without a doubt the reason I became interested. Well, that and seeing one i guess. I really don't care who or what department believes. Leave them as they are I say!

Cheers

I'm just wondering, not in a judgmental way, if those that wish it would remain a mystery wish all other animals would remain a mystery, and why or why not. I hope I'm not hijacking this thread as much as trying to expand the presented reasoning for why people think solving the mystery would be good or bad. Are there other animals you wish were a mystery, elephants, gorillas, some bird in the South Pacific? Why would you want Bigfoot to remain a mystery if not feeling the same way about all other animals, or any other animals?

Actually its all just a big game of "hide and seek" once the first one is found, they become "IT" and we all have to go hide

For me, the difference is that Sasquatch is almost certainly an intelligent creature (or would seem to be based on its ability to remain hidden up to this point in history), and it maintains it's way of living in spite of humans and their imagined "mastery" of the planet. I like the idea that maybe they choose consciously to remain apart from civilization, and have the ability to do it!

I imagine our feelings about his are related to how we each feel about the place that we humans have taken (mostly by force) in the world. Maybe some of us really wish for more "wildness" in the world, and less control and governing force in our lives...

I hope they remain a mystery. Man has an uncanny way of destroying everything he comes in contact with. Sasquatch will be hunted to extinction.

Once discovered, the woods will be filled with "trophy hunters" who simply must have one for their collection. That includes the wealthy estate owner with high-powered, custom rifles who has a taxidermist on payroll and toothless wonders toting shotguns who "gotta git me one of them thar things".

For all that holy, I hope BF is never formally discovered.

In my opinion, if it is discovered, it is going to create a huge problem for science and most importantly, religion. The effects will be similar to, but much more extreme than, Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

The reason being is this - If Bigfoot is located, it is not going to be what we consider an ape or monkey. It is going to be a hominid and classified in the Homo species in our same class. I guarantee it. It is going to be EXTREMELY intelligent to the point where its mastery of its enviroment will be on par to our mastery of technology. It will have evolved from its ancestors just as much as we did from ours, but in a completely and totally different way - one more in tune with the natural world and its enviroment. It may also be evolved in some ways MORE than us, which will throw the close-minded science and religious crew on their behinds. To those, who think that it would result in it being hunted to extinction, I completely and totally disagree. Based on its ability to keep hidden from science all this time, we would be absolutely no match for it in its habitat, just like it would be no match for us in a computer lab.

I think this would be such an interesting thing to have happen and look forward to the discussion that will come of it.

I have a little more faith in man... Besides as far as we know, very few people have been able to catch more than a glimpse or footprint of a BF much less be able to bag one. I'm convinced most encounters happen because they choose to be seen or heard.. If they truly exsist, they are the most careful, calculating and cautious creatures the world has ever known. I don't think they have much to worry about..

I've seen this said many times here on the BFF and my question and it's answer should (hopefully) stay within the BFF guidelines so, how would the discovery of BF be a problem for religion?

Hi

Let's us not get into the subject of religion too deep as to Anger The BFF Gods ~ Because The dice of Zeus always fall luckily.

Peace
Tim

I'll leave it lay with an answer, I just don't understand how the discovery of a new species would be a problem with any religion. People discover new species all the time and it doesn't seem to upset any religious beliefs.

What am I missing?

Fleeting glimpses now in a world that regularly scoffs at people who believe in BF. Once the real story comes out people will take to the woods, in droves, to get their trophy. There is no creature safe from men when men seek, with determination, their quarry.

It would increase our understanding of ourselves and evolution, humble scientists (it should at least) and there would be large efforts in protecting them, which they don't really have now. They're seen as a joke mostly. I doubt humans will make coats or hamburgers out of them.

Make no mistake, there are plenty of people searching for BF w/determination to no avail.

But not nearly as many as there would if BF were proved to exist.

I like to see them discovered and think it will happen in the next couple of years. But this will be a huge challenge for the government and conservancy organizations. If bigfoots really live all across the continent then the government has to establish a lot of new wildlife protection areas. Imagine the administrative challenges, the problems with timber companies etc.

I really think the discovery of sasquatch will shake the United States to its very foundations.

I think we're just going to have to disagree on this one..

Just a quick answer in regards to that to avoid the whole religion debate. As stated above and IMO, if Bigfoot is real and discovered, it is NOT going what we consider an ape or monkey. It is going to be a hominid or another member of "Homo". I would put my life savings on it. My opinion regarding this is based upon its ability to have shared this world with us and not been discovered by science. To have been able to do this, this hominid would have to be of EXTREME intelligence, but evolved in a different way than us. Its intelligence in using the environment would rival our intelligence in regards to technology.

If we do discovery another extremely intelligent hominid on this planet, it is going to throw a HUGE wrench into the very core of religion. - That man and man only was created by God and in his image" So where does BF fit in? Just think about what the theory of evolution did to religion based upon a few primate bones. Think about what an 8 foot tall, physical superior, and highly intelligent hominid staring right at us would do to religion. It is similar to the scenario of aliens landing on the planet tomorrow.

What you are missing is that these creatures, if proven to exist, might upset the belief that we are the only humans, or that the 'theory' of evolution might somehow be proven as fact (although I don't see how). Scientists everywhere accept evolution as fact anyway, it's only here in the good old USA that anyone sees fit to debate it, and our American Fundamentalist Creationists are most definitely not scientists.

But I'd better stop here. I'm skating on thin ice again.

The Bigfoot Mystery won't be solved, other than finding one version of several different types of BF out there. One example will just set off a more open debate about what they really are. Some say that Patty is Neanderthal, or a variant of it. Some say that the Skunk Ape is a type of Orang, with bright orange hair that hangs down long and shaggy. Finding one, will just solve that one version, in that one area. It will open up possiblities of more of them in America, but it won't really solve anything. Just make it more palitable for science.

I've been wondering where the line between primate and hominid is drawn. Some scientists consider Gigantopithecus to be a primate, other think it's a hominid.

I think Giganto ist the best candidate just because it lived so close to America and fits physically well. Homo erectus is the 2nd best candidate. But I think it could very well be an unknown species.

But I don't believe that there are several unknown primate species in America. Maybe several regional subspecies with different size and appearence, but not completely different species like Homo erectus and Gigantopithecus.

DNA will tell what sasquatch is...

IMHO, BF DNA has already been found.

In all those samples of hair, dried blood, that have been tested and come back as 'inconclusive' or 'polluted with human DNA'. The testers could not distinguish between human and BF DNA because they are so close.

I'd be interested in a comparison of supposed sasquatch DNA with Neanderthal or Homo erectus DNA. Then we could tell, if it's a Homo species or not.

According to wikipedia, the neandertals and humans share at least 99.5% of their DNA whereas the chimpanzee DNA is supposedly 95% identical to our. So how close is sasquatch DNA? And how close does it have to be to be labeled "human"?

Bigfoot discovery = . . .

habitat conservation? No, there's no demonstration that bigfoots are suffering from habitat loss. Overlay the sightings reports on a map of North America and it's obvious that their reported range basically overlaps that of black bears. A huge proportion of this area is comprised of actively managed forests. Bigfoot is by no means restricted to national parks or other forest preservation areas. There is no reliable population estimate, no assessment of population trajectory (increase or decrease), and no formal description of what bigfoot habitat is. Thus, there is no justification to alter management on federal lands for the sake of "bigfoot protection."

trophy-seekers hunting them to oblivion? No way. We can't even catch one on a game cam and folks are worried about hunters getting them all? Over the past, what, 300 (?) years of firearm use on this continent, we have not a single verifiable case of a bigfoot being shot and recovered. Many extremely dedicated and talented people are working their butts off to recover some physical evidence of these creatures (all over the world, btw), and their collective efforts currently amount to diddly squat. I predict that if a body is ever collected, it will take a very long time before the 2nd one is collected, even allowing for increased searching.

problem for religion? Neanderthals and Homo erectus are classified in our genus, and these provide no conflict with the teachings of major world religions and are dismissed or otherwise dealt with by creationists. I see no reason why another member of that genus would pose any additional problem.

I really can't see how the discovery of such a creature as bigfoot could be anything but awesome.



Hominids are primates.

bingo!

That was a great post Saskeptic!! You always seem to hit the nail right on the head. I have a question for you though. How do you think the discovery of this animal would affect your regualar joe who is out there looking for these animals?

I agree with everything 100%, especially the hunting issue. If BF were discovered and started being vigorously hunted by humans, I have little doubt they would be aware of the same, and that some hunters would very well end up the ones being hunted, once they entered BF's territory. Talk about the worlds most dangerous game.

Now, with Religion, I disagree. Its one thing to dig up a very small amount of past hominid bones, but it would be a entirely different ball of wax if one was staring religion in the face. Think about the way evolution impacted religion. Religion either had to accept it and changed its stance regarding our creation, or come out with some off-the-wall "theory" in attempts to dispute it. Now, if we discovered another hominid with extreme intelligence, but different than ours, Religion would have a problem on their hands.

Everyone has valid points and unique points of view.. That is one of the things I enjoy about the research point of view. I for one always wanted to be a part of the "scientific discovery", but like I have seen a few say, once that step has been made, it will open up a whole new topic. I will keep doing what I have been for the last 14+ years and continue my search, but all I know is that if I ever do wind up with that piece of film or physical evidence in my hot little hand, it will be a tough decision... Can't say what I'd do because I haven't had to cross that bridge yet. Good topic!

Do you mean someone who's currently a weekend-warrior bigfooter? Would they keep at it once someone else hauls in a body for examination?

I think these folks will keep at it. Discovery is merely the first step to learning about a species. When I get charged up about doing a survey for some rare or elusive species, the fact that someone else has already seen, collected, and described it makes no difference whatsoever: I want to see it. It's not like no one was has been interested in studying gorillas since they were described in the 19th Century. Discovery is just the tip of the proverbial 'berg.

And, if you'll permit me a little cynicism about motives of some bigfooters to pursue their quarry, I'd wager that the first bigfoot found will make someone very rich. But I'm pretty sure that the 2nd, 3rd - maybe even the 10th - will make their discoverers pretty pennies as well.

I still don't see it. Neanderthals appear to have been just as smart as we are - even had larger braincases. They even appear to have had some sense of spirituality, as evidenced by burying their dead. How could a big, hairy apelike thing present more logical discord for a creationist than spiritual cave man? Besides, isn't there some obscure biblical reference to a race of "hairy men?" Creationists delight in taking something from science and claiming a biblical precedent for it.

If the Grand Canyon, feathered dinosaurs, molecular biology, antibody resistance, astrophysics, etc., cannot sway a creationist from his beliefs about the nature of things, then bigfoot ain't gonna matter one hill of beans.

Thanks for the reply Saskeptic! So do you think if a body was brought in and it was legit that the government would step in and say that it is now a protected animal and cannot be hunted?

They would likely try to close areas where they were seen or however proven. That is the premise of the thread that they are proven. "They" is all those people that try to restrict access for whatever reason they can come up with. Around here they shut down the access to an entire forest because a toad lives there. They shut it down months before the toads even come out. I am not really interested in the entire US forests. It would make it more difficult for the average Joe to get into the wilderness areas where they were actually found to be. I am fairly certain that isn't going to be the entire US.

Why would they "likely try to close areas where they wre seen or however proven"? There's no evidence that they are adversely affected by human beings or encroachment, is there?

I posted this last year amid the whole bigfoot in a freezer nonsense. It's my view of how bigfoot "discovery" will unfold.

Now the aftermath of discovery is less predictable. For the moment, let's assume that Congress had some ability to pass legislation for the emergency* protection of bigfoot, either under the Endangered Species Act or under some authority that protects indigenous peoples. This would potentially make it illegal to intentionally collect another one. This scenario is probably more likely if the specimen was judged to be "human" rather than "animal," although that distinction would be very difficult to justify until said specimen was analyzed and papers arguing for one status or the other would be published. Could take months even given expedited journal review.

But let's say it happens. We're not allowed to shoot or otherwise collect a second specimen.

First, there'd probably be a fairly large outcry from the scientific community that legitimate scientific collecting should be allowed because we'd still know so little about such creatures. (See Japanese whaling.)

Second, any attempt to restrict access to public lands in the name of not "disturbing" bigfoots would be met with harsh opposition, and the opposition would carry the day. It's one thing to say, "These are humans, and we cannot allow another one to be shot and studied for science." I think most moral people can get behind such an initiative. But there is absolutely no justification for restricting human access to areas where we think more bigfoots might be, because these creatures are not in any way restricted to wilderness areas. Bob, I don't what you're referring to with a toad that caused the USFS to "close" certain areas, but I'm going to at least assume that said toad is endemic to - and critically imperiled within - one or more Ranger Districts. Whether folks want to admit it or not, the encounter data show bigfoot alive and well in places that are NOT in the PNW, NOT on public land, and NOT in habitats that can be considered "wilderness" in any meaningful sense of the word.


*I'm using emergency listing in this context because the normal process for listing a species under the ESA involves many years of population and habitat study, as well as significant public input. If lobbyists have a say - as they do for practically everything else - there'd be little chance for bigfoot protection without clear demonstration of grave population decline, high extinction risk, identification of critical habitat, etc.

Why would they close an entire forest to foot travel because a toad lives there? The answer is actually obvious but I suppose I better say it to be clear. Some people want to keep it to themselves and think of all people but themselves as destructive. It is a common attitude from big cities that think locals don't want to take care of the wilderness around them. They need to pass laws that allows only government workers and biologists in the area. It would be like restricting boating because some people are going there to fish.

Saskeptic, the toad is the Arroyo toad and it was a particular irritant to me because they closed down the area around Siverado Canyon. That was my favorite place to hike. I could actually see closing it down to trucks or maybe bikes. They could even restrict access to the steam and it wouldn't bug me. They close down a huge area and it is closed before the toads are even active. They also close down Bluff creek much of the year but that is to truck traffic to prevent some sort of Cedar disease and that at least makes sense. Wilderness is relative term. In Socal, there are large areas that don't have houses or development. Judging from my experience, there are many who would like to keep everyone out of the wilderness except the drug growers and naturalists. I read the naturalist who studied the toad there. There are several other streams but since she studied it there, it was restricted. It sounds like a private playground to me. And yes, she needs to justify her job. Cynical? probably.

What a great post! BRAVO