How many of us are SICK of seeing the wholesale, systematic RAPE of our Land by greedy developers ?
Could the verification of BIGFOOT's existence be the key to stopping this irreversible trend of putting a subdivision/gas station/Wal-Mart on every square inch of available space in this country ???

Could BF be our "Spotted Owl" ?
The savior of the Land ?

If so, then let that realization spur us on in our hunt to bring one in; saving his habitat will also save our own !


Thoughts ?

...............................

Wow then I am way off track. I was thinking of making it a game animal with seasons and everything. Just sitting here dreaming about my 8 foot trophy squatch comforting my living room.

i am pro kill and all for getting our specimine but to me having a bunch of idiots with a squatch head on the wall is nausiating. i dont particular know why as i dont realy have a problem with other trophy hunting done within the limits of the population control.it just seems to me to cross the preverbial line. as for the spotted owl thing. i still am waiting for that judge to die a slow cruel death. i know him from several other law suits over prison control issues and he was a wasted appointment. as with the spotted owl ruleing he came out of retierment to deal with the prison issues. something is wrong with a system that allows activist judges to come out of retierment to legislate fromt he bench.

It can not be stopped really! Man is on a path of material destruction. Even
Bigfoot will get runover in the end - the Planet is getting raped!

If you look into this, it is showing itself everywhere. I work for the City Of
Calgary. They are trying to stop the snowball with Environmental Placements.
It is not working...and it will not. Man is being fed a lie. The Great North...just
north of us is disappearing - the ice-shelves down 30%. This is just in this
area. Everyone could add to this. Man's greed he can not control - he's his
worst enemy.

Did you know, that in Calgary, a city of almost a million people (and one of
the best places to live...according to U.S. Today) - we have a city district
just three miles away, that has been evacuated, is contaminated by an Oil Company years ago, and is a small ghost-district, with over a hundred
dwellings just sitting there empty. And this is an International...Olympic City?
(Whatever!) But they don't want you or anyone else to know this.

Good thing this isn't Russia - I'd go missing for saying this! :willies:

I think there is some need for compromise on both sides. Many of the ammenities of your comfortable, civilized lifestyle are the direct result of the "raping" of the earth. We complain about prices, and companies try to keep prices down, and take shortcuts environmentally. Then we want it the other way. Heck with prices, we want a clean environment. In most cases, "raping" the earth cleanly is more costly. Of course, there are extremes here too. Some want NO progress, all wilderness to stay such. Others wantonly destroy our environment. We need to act like the stewards we are supposed to be, and not a bunch of emotionally disturbed children that can "sound" very intelligent.
BSF

I am not sure if or how much the discovery of bigfoot would contribute to change. I would guess that in some areas it would bring change for the better.

Well I do think the discovery of BF would have a wide ranging impact on people and what they do in the future. Especially if we discover that BF is intelligent. This isn't the 17th century. An intelligent creature would have some rights, and there are plenty of lawyers (and those activist judges) to pursue those rights.

I think that would be a good thing. It's not like we haven't already developed quite a bit. We just so love to build things, but now we ought to start taking some stuff down before we build the next stuff.

But the trouble is, of course, we can't get that close to BF. It may be that we never do prove its existence before it is too late. The big creatures with low offspring ratio are always on the edge of extinction.

My dad works for the WA state DNR and had to be the moderator on public discussions between the two groups of the loggers and the environmentalists in the spotted owl debates. I sat in on those debates, and I can tell you it was a huge mess. My dad and his team had a viable solution to the issue, and presented it to both sides, and both sides found it a good compromise, but would say "I'll be damned if I'm going to agree with that other side". The loggers and environmentalists just hated each other too much to resolve the issue, and if they would've we'd be up to our ears in spotted owls by now. This is a huge reason why I have leanings to each side, and feel each side is important, but you can't just demonize the other side. That only leads to more hate and nothing is accomplished.

You can't just make Sasquatch the Holy Grail of environmentalism. If it is discovered by having a body the environmental issues will be tied up in red tape and legislation for years, maybe decades until it's too late. Because, unfortunately, politics, business, and the state of the environment are tied too closely together, and politics is filled with demonizing and spin doctors.

But you don't have to. The internet IS a wonderful tool, and if you have a concern for an environmental issue in your local area or wherever you can probably find others that do too, and are doing something about it. Usually that means signing petitions, contacting your congressman or state representative, town or county meetings, or out and out voting. And with the internet you can do this by just clicking your mouse, it's so much easier than hunting a mysterious bipedal ape that Renee Dahinden totally dedicated 40 years of his life chasing with no success.

The best we can hope for is that there will be better management of the timber trade and perhaps a few more protected areas where there is known sasquatch activity.

IF the mountain gorilla were a NA species- it would definitely be protected here. I think our Sasquatch is more intelligent and closer to us on the evolutionary scale. Once they are discovered I'm confident they will be protected- here in Canada anyway.

One step toward the solution is to not give in to alarmist groups on either side. Many of the environmental groups are, in reality, fund raising orgs. They must constantly have an immediate, emotionally grabbing issue at the forefront, or contributions begin to wain. So many people get a totally one-sided, emotionally charged side of an issue, and make decisions or form beliefs because of it. Same can be said on the other side. They see this group who's real goal is to stop them completely from doing what they do, and see them having great success at it. So they oppose ALL environmental issues from the get go. But, you know. we as citizens do not have to be as polarized as they are. We can pull the wool back from over our eyes, get REAL facts, and make REAL decisions, not cutesy-wootsy emotional stances, or hardened backing for rape-the-earth push for development at any cost. .
Just my 2 cents.
BSF

Edit: Most of us are being manipulated by one side or the other, whether we admit it or not.

The question proposed to those who advocate "killing" a Sasquatch.... it's a big WHAT IF....

WHAT IF YOU BAG A SASQUATCH AND IT'S DNA ANALYSIS COMES BACK WITH 98% HUMAN CHARACTERISTICS?

YOU HAVE JUST COMMITTED MURDER!

You could be right there, Jim. I do not think they are quite that close to humans, so the legal aspect does not influence my feelings on this issue all that much. To me, it seems a sin to kill anything just to look at it. Isn't that what we would be doing? Killing it to examine it. Get our grubby little mitts on it's innards. Very difficult decision, when you get right down to it. Killing one could help the rest, possibly. Or could bring their death sentence. Not gonna jump on one side or the other here just to not sound indecisive.
BSF

Murder. Killing an animal is considered murder? If it did turn out to be a human then that would indeed be bad but I would never consider a Squatch a human.

I doubt the first person who shoots and kills a bigfoot would be convicted of murder. But indeed I believe some hunters have claimed to have Sasquatch in their sites but did not pull the trigger becasue they could not be certain that it was not a man- either a guy in a suit or some variation of human.

Certainly that recent report from Maitoba on BFRO site suggests that the hunter, one of few people to touch and examine a bigfoot upclose, had thought he may have murdered some sort of woodland hermit.

If they are proven to be a very close relative, or some form of primnitive human- there would very likely be special legislation for them.

I agree completely, I would also blame the lawyers and the press. this is not a blanket statement that ALL lawyer and press are bad, just most.

Thoughts? Yes, I think Wal-Mart should have more sales...I miss K-Mart's blue light specials.

Reality? Most, if not all, of traditional Bigfoot habitat is on lands managed by the U.S. Government (Forest Service, Park Service, BLM, etc.) or are State/Indian lands. In the west (OR, WA, and CA) there are over 20 million acres of wilderness and timbered lands unavailable to developers or other land scale destruction.

If your crusade is against Wal-Mart or other mega-stores, sasquatch isn't going to help you because he doesn't generally use urban areas. Clear-cuts (which we don’t do anymore) were a larger threat than DVD consumers.

Why?

If it is an erectus meganthropus, as some researchers believe, or any other variation of the homo line it is human by definition.

Good point Kathy!!

Global warming?
An interesting, environmentally related article in today's news.
BSF

Yeah if any of you have beachfront property, the time to sell is NOW!

About the killing of a squatch -- no way it can be deemed murder as that requires malice aforethought.. now I know you'd go in intending to kill a squatch, but you did it thinking it was an animal. Afterwards, if it's deemed human enough for charges, I guess you could only get something along the lines of manslaughter, but even there I don't think it could stick. BF doesn't get classified as a man until after you kill one.

So the second guy to bag a squatch gets the chair..

But I don't think anyone should kill one. They die naturally and their remains must be somewhere. Let's find those.

This article is by Steve Milloy, who has run a couple of organizations paid to at first distort the effects of tobacco, and now to challenge and distort the effects of pollution, among other things. He was paid by the tobaco companies, and now is paid by oil and industrial companies. Here's a link for more information on Steve Milloy:
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Steve_Milloy

Is there any truth to what he says here, in this article? I would bet I could find a little bad background info on some of the groups that tout the global warming emergency as well. AND I do believe many might see the org. (read activist group) connected with the link you've provided as quite likely to be somewhat biased. Check here
BSF

This link, Activistcash.com, is a front for Richard Berman, also a lobbyist for tobacco and alcohol. Also some information on him wanting to keep minimum wage down.
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=ActivistCash
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2001Q1/berman1.html

Yes, I'm sure you can find articles on activists that are negative, and show them recieving money, oil companies (and those who want to lift polution regulations in general) as well as tobacco and alcohol spend a lot of money to do so. I'm pretty positive you won't find activists or even environmental groups downplaying the effects of tobacco though.

Nothing off-subject about that, wolftrax. Tobacco??? OK :rolleyes: I am so glad this archaic '60's method of thinking is finally dying out. Hippies were so screwed up, and gave birth to other very screwed up movements. I was there.
BSF

Typical. Ad-hominum attacks, rather than denying truth to what is said. It is very funny that you have to keep relying on the same activist website (CMD) to back your statements. Is that a little wool that I see over your eyes, there?

Lets look at it this way.

If the being is non-human, then is it an animal by definition?

In most peoples mind this is sadly true.

Now lets take an extreme case - a far fetched one for sure. But let's say that one day we wake up an CNN/FOX/NBC and even your local TV station is showing live shots of an alien space craft landing on the front lawn of the Whitehouse and non-humans exit the craft.

Clearly they are inteligent, they traveled across interstellar space, yet they are non-human. Are these to then be concidered aminals?

With this extreme example above I am trying to make this point - just because an inteligent creature is non-human does not make it an animal.

What ever BF turns out to be, we should all reserve judgement on classifying it as animal or sentient being until we know for sure.

Attribiting actions that seem inteligent or sentient to a non sentient instinct driven creature would be bad, but attribiting instinct driven behavior to an sentient - selfaware - thinking creature would be devistating.

No, they would be non-resident aliens. Or Extra-Terrestrial Beings.
BSF

I guess we would then have to give them California drivers licenses, Green cards and voting rights - LOL



Hmmm, if SQ/BF was sentient - that would mean he/she was native to the country and would have civil rights --- oooookkkaaaaayyyyyy now

Only in certain states, and mainly those on the extreme left coast of the continent.
BSF

Where did this come from? Ad hominum attacks on whom? Hippies? I'm not sure what you mean by this...in the last post I mentioned 2 websites....nothing at all personal to you, as has been all our correspondence...

Hmmm.. well aliens may cnsider us animals- in which case we may be fast food before they move along to another dimension.

To me its simple. If Sas is from the homo line he is a human being. If it is an advanced race from another line then he should also require special rights. I don't subscribe to the argument that anything that is not human is animal- thats just semantics.

look at like this. up till this point from all we know there have not been two differing sentient species that have surrvived to any form of evolution.if the big guy is self aware and runs off more than basic animal instinct then we are in new territory. even science fiction dosent usually have two sentient species from the same world surrviving. there are some exceptions however.if we find we are not alone as there is another sentient species on our planet it could throw the world into chaos. who should live who should have what rights.etc.bigfoot dosent have to be as evolved mentaly to be sentient.

I am open to possibilities, but until something gives me a clue otherwise, what I saw in the mountains of Northern California was a big apelike animal that walked upright. Maybe my mind hasn't been "enlightened" enough by reading the works of fiction writers. The fact that he is rare, bipedal, and good at hiding, is not enough to convince me that he is "human" or "sentient". But, I haven't observed a whole lot of sasquatch activities, either. Guess you will just have to go out and catch one to prove me wrong. I suppose it is fun to speculate, though.
BSF

BSF,
You are a very lucky man for your experiences !

I think so. Thanks
BSF

Interesting.

It appears that we really don't need to define sasquatch. We need to define "human" in order to include/separate sasquatch.

To start, a human fetus inside a female human's womb is not a human being, in accordance with Roe v Wade. Otherwise, abortion would be (by definition) "homicide".

So how is a sasquatch "human"?

Oh no..

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around that definition. I guess perhaps I was a BF till I was born then just magically became human. And I got all A's in biology class. Go figure.

Sasquatch is not human. He may share some characteristics with humans, but then again, so do bugs. Cross-comparing the numbers of external characteristics isn't going to get you anything profitable.

And for the record, for 100's of years, people had the good sense to know an unborn baby was still a baby and 100% human. Go check out the AMA papers from the 1940's, for example.

Man, trying to prove the "human-ness" of a monkey by "de-humanizing" a human.

lets not do the abortion crap or this thread will be locked. and all the free exchange of ideas will be stopped.

Thank you, C&C! And agreed! The thread was good up until then.

Tong-in-cheek? Anyone know what that means any more?

This is a good thread and we need to continue with it. Keep up the good conversation.

OK, well I'll take this one step at a time. I downloaded the report Milloy based his article on, only to find that my version of Acrobat Reader would not read it, the report is encrypted. It took some time to download since it's 15 mb and I'm on dial up, hence the wait from yesterday morning as to not tie up the phone lines. However, in my earlier posts I was able to find links about Steve Milloy, and that is why I listed those. There are other sites besides the one listed, such as this one:
http://www.no-smoke.org/Steven%20J_final.pdf
http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2004/09/03
And no it's not that I subscribe to Disinfopedia, I just did a seacrh in Google. I used the tobacco link because it shows one thing: That Milloy has spoken for the tobacco companies as a "Research group" to downplay the effects of tobacco. Why is this important? Because we all know tobacco is harmful, it doesn't take a scientist to know that, and if somebody's going to try to tell you it isn't as bad as it really is, then you might want to reconsider what else he has to say, right? I know I would. That's not an attack, that's a precaution.

There is also a link with Berman. Could Berman's article on on the guys at Disinfopedia be linked to Disinfopedia's work in the case of tobacco? Maybe, it's enough for me to consider it.

Possible anti-industrialists vs. known poison cover-ups? Which is more dangerous to me? That's the basis of my logic here. Check the links, and the link you provided on the money issue, if that is important to anyone.

Here is another article from the mainstream media on global warming:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...96001_mz001.htm

There are some from the New York Times as well, but I don't have a subscription to view them in their complete form. However, a search on Google will point out and contradict what Milloy has talked about in the article.

As for hippies and new generation, I'm not sure what you mean by that but my parents were'nt hippies, my Dad fought in Korea and didn't take too kindly to being spit in the face and called a baby killer when he got back, and as far as I'm concerned all I care about today's war is that our kids come back safely and soon, and a big thank you for all they've sacrificed. Not to get political, or get the thread locked, but if my person and stance is being questioned, I'll answer.

And wool over my eyes, well, all I know is that I've seen these debates since I was 13 years old, and the more larger the scale the louder the bickering and anger, until all sights on the purpose is lost. As I said, my Dad was right in the middle of the spotted owl debates back in 84-85, and had a good solution to the problem, but everybody involved (Loggers vs. Environmentalists) hated each other too much to agree, even though BOTH sides KNEW the solution would work.

Now it's on a bigger scale, and you've got one side saying the other side is just trying to scare you, and the other side with some pretty impressive science behind it. The other side also claims to have science behind it as well, but from what I'm seeing is that seems to be the same science that said tobacco wasn't as harmful as it really was, and by doing some easy digging it's not a surprise who pays for that science, the oil companies and others that pollute. Which way to turn? Well, I was always taught an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And the solution to this problem seems to be reducing vehicle emissions, at the least, and exploring alternative fuel sources at the most. Fuel cells are an interesting development.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...96001_mz001.htm
Jees, here's a bunch of alternative fuels:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/afvs/

You know, Wolftrax, I was debating whether to reply or ignore. There is good science aplenty on the opposing side to the global warming issue. My decision is to let it drop. My original intention was to display that there is usually more than one side to an issue. Of course, that only works if there is not a radical extremist in the group. If there happens to be one, he or she will forcefully manipulate it into further polarizing the discussion. They can't help it. They are powerless, and have been manipulated to the point that they believe there is no validity to any other stand on the issue. To me, as a chemist who deciphers scientific data all day every day, it seems that putting full faith in this global warming theory with the info at hand is akin to those who kept 2 years worth of MRE's and water (along with stockpiles of guns and ammo) in prep for Y2K.
BSF

Edited to correct a spelling mistake.

Exactly, there is more than one side. My opinion on global warming is that it is part of a natural 11000 cycle that we have no control over. It will happen no matter what we do because it is not a climatic induced occurance, but a climate causing occurance. I forgot exactly what it was called, but I'll pull down one of my binders and find it again. But it is a cycle the planet goese through ever 11 thousand years. The astronomers have a name for it but it escapes me at the moment.

To me the debate is really about what you should do when you aren't sure.

If it's me in my own house, say, and someone says to me "there is credible evidence that if you run your airconditioner at 65 degrees, you will shrivel into a tiny ball and die"

and then another person says, "that's hogwash! The evidence is all on the other side of this issue.."

I'm fine with running my air-conditioning at 68 until I know who's full of it.

But in this case, it isn't like it's only me, or you, or all of us reading this thread. It's the whole frikkin' world! If we were a prudent species, we wouldn't be having an ideological discussion right now. We'd be taking steps.

And even if it is cyclical, it's going to be a disaster. We aren't preparing for it.

OK, maybe some of you are, but if you are the only one with food and potable water within three miles, you'll have an awful lot of visitors.. Probably more than you have bullets.

I made a mistake here, the number should have been 21,000 years, not 11,000 years. I was thinking about the halfway point when the climates reverse and head back in the other direction. There is about 10,500 years of heating then 10,500 years of cooling down - aproximently. This is a cyclical event and ever going. We will always have global warming and global cooling.

Who knows BF/SQ may be a hold-over from a previous race before the last iceage and just advanced enough to stay hidden -- Just speculation here.

For more on this see this link:

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/seasons_orbit.html

Well, BSF, we have our differences and I can accept that. We've gotten along pretty well before this and I hope we do in the future. One thing I respect about you, as well as others who may take a side in the environmental issues, is that you choose to at least respect sasquatch not to kill one unless your safety is threatened, and that to me speaks volumes.

But back to the subject, it pays to look into the background of the people who give you environmental information, people, whether pro or con. And if you have a problem with an environmental issue, you can do something about it by seeking information and making choices to effect the outcome. And that is a lot easier than spending your life chasing a mystery ape.