It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should We Make New Laws, Protect BigFoot?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 06:08 AM
link   
B F, I think, really does not enjoy being forced out to places that humans would never want to live in, in the first place. They were probably the dominant animal before Humans showed up. To be really compassionate, we would have to give up settled land. But, you know what, I do not want to have a big "DO NOT ENTER" sign in the middle of a map, where there were towns.
I am more worried about loosing the right to explore that territory, than I am of that territory, all of a sudden disappearing. I am more concerned with the rights of Humans than the right of animals, even if they look kind of like us. Uganda has a real problem with habitat destruction and poaching of mountain gorillas. That kind of thing makes me sick. I would agree with making a preserve for those animals.
. I paddle a Kayak and there are lots of nice places to go, and I can not imagine myself on a jet ski pumping raw oil and fumes into that water. There are places where motorized vessels are not allowed. I think that is great. But I would not want to run into a "NO HUMANS ALLOWED" area.
The one thing that I have to disagree with, is, "...we don't have vintage photos of wilderness scouts standing over the bodies of the bigfoot they've killed either." First, they would not have had cameras. And, if someone would have gone off to find a photographer, when they got back, the body would have been gone. I think the main B F killing would have taken place when Human populations came into areas that were previously inhabited by B F. There would be an inevitable confrontation over resources and someone, or something, would end up dead.
lions. It may be relevant to this forum because I think the circumstances could be applied to a B F encounter.
I just have a certain way of looking at the situation. It comes from where I lived. The highest concentration of Indians, other than Mexico City, before the Spanish came, were the Temecu. They lived in what is now Temecula, California. was highly inhabited by Indians over a long period of time. They would travel up and down that river during different times of the year. They would go through what is now Camp Pendleton, to the Pacific coast and collect shellfish and go up to the beginning of the river, to Warner Springs.
The Spanish basically pushed the Indians out of the valley and made it into a giant cattle ranch. There was a time between when the Indians left, and the white American settlers moved in. I think that B F used that period to fill in the vacuum. The main killing I was talking about, that we do not have physical evidence of, was when the Indians moved in. That was a long time ago, and I would not expect to be able to find anything from thousands of years ago. So, I think that the Warner Springs incident may be the best documented case of what happens when B F moves into an area that can support a large human population.
I do not like the idea of preserving a B F habitat, or making it a crime to shoot a B F. I wonder if anyone has questioned if this scheme is a good idea, or if anyone has considered the possible consequences if these changes actually came about. Personally, I do not like it. I hate that these old roads I used to ride my motorcycle on are now restricted to walking only. Where I used to camp in the summer, as a kid, you can not even camp there anymore,and you have to have a permit to even be there. All this regulation bothers me, especially when there was never any problem to start with. These changes were completely unnecessary, except to the ego of some ninny who is afraid that something "MIGHT" happen. To me, B F is like a coyote. They figure out how to get by in the suburbs. In an actual wilderness they are at an advantage over Humans. Whether B F flourishes or dies out does not have anything to do with that goes on in the wilderness. If you want B F to advance, you have to get rid of Humans from the areas where people live Yes, if we were all dead, B F can take over our habitat and have a great life.


[edit on 2-1-2008 by jmdewey60]




posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 06:51 AM
link   
The above post is not very good because it is pieced together from several posts that I had made at a BigFoot web site forum. I did a quick editing and I found out that I need to add a detail in to have it make sense.
Back in the later eighteen hundreds, there were events in Warner Springs that were reported in the newspaper in San Diego. A BigFoot researcher told me that he found the story while searching through the paper's archives.
When the Americans moved into the area and established settlements, they had conflics with the local BigFoots. Events escalated, over a period of time, into all-out war. It ended with the BigFoot being cornered in a cave and being totaly massacred.
The point is that, if given the opportunity to take over the better land, they will take it. And, they will fight for it, to a point.
The BigFoot had this oppotunity after the Spanish Land Grant holders threw the Indians out, to raise cattle.

[edit on 2-1-2008 by jmdewey60]

[edit on 2-1-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 

Well there are some obvious issues with such a law:

- Its not 100% certain Bigfoot exist
Yes there are is evidence but its not declared as a fact (nor species).

- We know nothing of the population
Hell we havent even ONE bigfoot in captivity.

- We know nothing of the habitat
Making a preserve would kind of assume knowing where they live and what they live on.

If anything, I say screw the laws at the moment. When a hunter returns with a killed bigfoot, its DNA is profiled and species determined including a full autopsy, they can begin arguing laws to protect them.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 06:59 AM
link   
You have some interesting values. You don't like the destruction of animal habitats, yet you want to enjoy the areas where they tend to live, which is its own version of habitat destruction.
You want to have your cake and eat it too.

It's my hope that the animals, including Bigfoot, retake the planet. They've earned it.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 07:05 AM
link   
I wrote most of this back in July because someone has set up a web site to promote a movement to set up a preserve that would take up about half of British Columbia. The main point I had was that it would be useless and counter productive. Mainly because no one has interest in moving into the area, anyway. But my undelying feeling is that BigFoot is our natural competition, for land and resources. So, they are, in a way, our enemy.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anatomic Bomb
You have some interesting values. You don't like the destruction of animal habitats, yet you want to enjoy the areas where they tend to live, which is its own version of habitat destruction.
You want to have your cake and eat it too.

It's my hope that the animals, including Bigfoot, retake the planet. They've earned it.

Real ecologists are as rair as real comunists,IMHO. How many people would like to give half their house over to homeless people? How many people would be in favor of moving people off lands to set up "No Humans" zones?



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 

Dont know, but you have an excellent idea in the making right there. We dont need "no humans" zones, just tag the "dangerous" zones, for example bear rich areas. Then we move the homeless people there. So many pros:

- You get to keep your half of the house
- The homeless become closer to nature
- Bears get something to eat
- Fewer homeless



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 09:07 AM
link   
I think bigfoot should be protected,



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   
i also brought this upabout many of the different species that are classed as myth because we do not have proof of their existance.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

i think the only way scientist will except a creature is when they have it to disect which to me is very sad.

in a way i hope they never do find bigfoot if he or she exists because theyll only be put in a zoo



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Yeah, surely you can't protect something that nobody knows actually exists properly right?




posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Here's a couple of threads based around your'e discussion.

May give you some insight on peoples thoughts on the subject.


Bigfoot in BC, added to endangered species list

Protecting Bigfoot Bill

One of them has the link to the BC Legistation Bill they were 'thinking' of passing. ( not sure whatever came of it ).

As far as it being 'counter-productive', I think first it has to be proven that there is actually something to protect.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by kerrichin
i think the only way scientist will except a creature is when they have it to disect which to me is very sad.

And why is that sad? Killing something is the only real way to know if its alive!!!

There are clearly different classes of "mythological" creatures here.

For example the giant squid. We got pretty solid evidence. Dead squids, living squids on camera, giant suction marks on whales that are known to eat squid, even if we know absolutely nothing about them we have a fair idea that they are there. We've even named the species and can give a consistent description of it, that's how certain scientists are.

What DO we have for Bigfoot? Questionable sighting, questionable footprints, questionable videos. There is NO solid evidence that bigfoot really exist. We got no dead ones, no fur to sample DNA, no nests, nothing conclusive that indicate an animal is there.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Real ecologists are as rair as real comunists,IMHO. How many people would like to give half their house over to homeless people? How many people would be in favor of moving people off lands to set up "No Humans" zones?

I'm definitely in favor of the latter. We've done a good job of destroying the planet. It's time to give some of it back.

As far as Bigfoot being our competition or enemy, that's just plain ridiculous.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Love Monkey
I think bigfoot should be protected,

Here is the problem. Should "researchers" and BigFoot hunters be going to the most remote parts of our country, where BigFoot is likely to be, for the purpose of proving they are real, before they are to get any break? Does just looking for them constitute harrassment?
Yesterday, I went on Google Maps and looked at the spot where I had my first BigFoot encounter.(using their high resolution sattelite images) I was horrified to find out that the whole area, that was purely rural and agricultural, was now Suberbia and covered with housing developments. Uug!
Where we (Humans) want to live, is exactly where BigFoot would happily be living, if we left them alone. They are living a very marginal existance, and their population has to be getting smaller.

[edit on 2-1-2008 by jmdewey60]

[edit on 2-1-2008 by jmdewey60]

[edit on 2-1-2008 by jmdewey60]

[edit on 2-1-2008 by jmdewey60]

[edit on 2-1-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   
I think if Bigfoot really exists he is doing a good enough job of protecting himself.
There are many other animals that are known to exist that need to be protected more than Bigfoot.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grailkeeper
Here's a couple of threads based around your'e discussion.

May give you some insight on peoples thoughts on the subject.


Bigfoot in BC, added to endangered species list

Protecting Bigfoot Bill

One of them has the link to the BC Legistation Bill they were 'thinking' of passing. ( not sure whatever came of it ).

As far as it being 'counter-productive', I think first it has to be proven that there is actually something to protect.


Oops, I guess I should have looked to see if there was already a thread on this subject, before starting a new one. I did this mainly to answer someone's question to me if I cosidered BigFoot our enemy. The answer is yes. But I do not advocte killing them. I want people to think of them a little like that zoo tiger that killed a guy. Left alone they are fine, but actively going after them can end in tragedy to the foolhearty.

[edit on 2-1-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


this kinda reminds me of monty pythons life of brian

"supposing he cant actually have babies, which is nobodys fault, not even the romans, but that he has the right to have babies"

"what?, where you gonna keep it? where will the fetus take?"

"are you just gonna keep it in a box?"

" dont you opress me"

"right brother, I mean sister, we shall fight for your right to have babies"



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I have always thought of BigFoot as being real. When I was very young, like in the early sixties, the big thing was the Abominable Snow Man. I read the books about him, but BigFoot was not such a big issue, back then. I never doubted that they were real. I found out, for sure, when I was sixteen, because I ended up with one walking to about four feet from me. So, to me, the thought of someone not thinking they are real just leaves me wondering. It is not an issue, to me. I could tell you stories about my encounters, but if you are sceptical, it will not convence you. I think we need to get past that and think about what we should do about how to deal with them.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
I have always thought of BigFoot as being real. When I was very young, like in the early sixties, the big thing was the Abominable Snow Man. I read the books about him, but BigFoot was not such a big issue, back then. I never doubted that they were real. I found out, for sure, when I was sixteen, because I ended up with one walking to about four feet from me. So, to me, the thought of someone not thinking they are real just leaves me wondering. It is not an issue, to me. I could tell you stories about my encounters, but if you are sceptical, it will not convence you. I think we need to get past that and think about what we should do about how to deal with them.



get past the non-proof they exist and deal with something imaginary?

oh boy, you are great for laughs

how would you propose to do that?



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by MurderCityDevil

get past the non-proof they exist and deal with something imaginary?

oh boy, you are great for laughs

how would you propose to do that?

The US government has penty of evidence of BigFoot being real. They are hiding it in an agressive way, just as they are hiding evidence of UFO's. I would be supprised if they did not already have a BigFoot in captivity.
The goverment is hiding the real BigFoot pictures. There was a caller into Coast to Coast, during a show about people going out to find BigFoot. He said that he was working for the US government, in Central America doing drug interdiction surveilence. They had night vision cameras set up to catch drug smugglers and they would, every once in a while, catch a picture of a BigFoot. He said that when they found one, they would report it. The government would send someone down to pick up the pictures. Sounds like the men in black.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join