The Stranger Side of Sasquatch
I understand how important it is to get a specimen of any species under study. But if Bigfoot is real, it is clearly human, not an ape, and murder is prohibited by law. But let's say Bigfoot is an ape ... local laws regulate what you can hunt and when; I seriously doubt any local U.S. laws allow the hunting of apes at any time.Has anyone made a formal study of this?
The "no kill" policy shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not Sasquatch is "clearly human." I'm not sure what you mean by "formal" study. To get this subject treated with any seriousness by the infrastructure is very difficult. There are those within Bigfoot research who are doing their best - Autumn Williams for one -- but sadly, as we know, there are also those inside of Bigfoot research who fully support the killing of a Bigfoot. Some states do have laws that it's illegal to kill a Bigfoot. I forget the specifics, it's either Washington or a county in Washington, for example, that has such a law. Which has been cause for some in the skeptoid crowd to gnash their teeth. Their argument is "how can you have a law about something that doesn't/hasn't been proven to exist?"
I meant formal study of how existing law would protect a Bigfoot.Just spitballing, I would say it's irrelevant to first establish the existence of Bigfoot. If it gets shot, it gets shot. So if you have a body, has a crime been committed?If Bigfoot are human, existing law is sufficient. A hunter could not claim ignorance of the species status; the counterargument would be, "Well, it could have been a man in a suit but you shot anyway."Because apes are not indigenous to North America, they have not been placed on the endangered species list. But surely no one has the freedom to shoot any animal just for the hell of it. Local laws regulate hunting of any kind, I would think (farmers and Natives have their various exceptions of course).It would be nice to see a law professor have a go at it. Belief in Bigfoot would be irrelevant for such a study.
I realize that technically, if there is no law in place about killing a Sasquatch, if one is then killed, we have the question of "was a crime committed?"But this is why it's vital we discuss this, because, yes, a crime was committed! Ethically, morally, -- of course, I realize the dichotomy of legal vs. moral, etc. But it gets down, I don't care. Terry, you're also assuming for argument's sake, I think, that Sasquatch is an ape. Maybe, maybe not. It's a loop all right: we don't if it exists at all (well,except for those that have seen one), we don't know what is is (ape, something entirely different, "human", etc.) and how can we have laws in place for something that hasn't been proven (as far as the infrastructure goes) to exist?But as I said, I'm not concerned with those quibbles. Getting the discussion out there is the point. And I happily note that I believe Sasquatch does exist, so I'm operating from that perspective. Meanwhile, as I wrote earlier, there are Bigfoot researchers/investigators that have no problem at all with supporting a kill. I'm not for a capture -- even if released later -- I say, leave it alone. This does bring up issues of protection. IF Sasquatch is proven to exist then we'll need to protect the habitat. So how do we prove it exists? NOT killing. Well, what about capture? If it's released, then what's the harm? If the goal is to protect the Sasquatch as well as its habitat, isn't that a good thing? questions...We can do a lot more to protect our land, that'd be a start. It's complicated, really, once you go down that path. Brings up all kinds of issues.But it's good the discussion is kept going...
> you're also assuming for argument's sake, I think, that Sasquatch is an ape. Nope. In my first comment I wrote: "if Bigfoot is real, it is clearly human, not an ape." If a hunter kills a Bigfoot, I say it's murder. I only dicussed ape protection to make the point that I think no one has license to kill a Bigfoot, no matter what. I don't believe any special laws are required.But I'm just a regular guy. An expert opinion would better. And it might deter Bigfoot hunters from making a kill.> IF Sasquatch is proven to exist then we'll need to protect the habitatI think that's the real issue. And a paradox. A habitat can't be zoned off for the use of a non-established (perhaps non-existent) species. It's a puzzler.
I was commenting on your ape reference. I understand you also mentioned the human connection.Autumn Williams, in her presentation at the OSS a couple of years ago, (and elsehwhere) has brought up the tangled web concerning Sasquatch protection. Whose land? What agencies are in charge? Which ones "get to" enforce, decide, mandate? Where does the money go? Which agency gets what funding? Which one gets more? How does it impact corporations, industry? Lobbies? Last but not least, yet, least in the real world where us lowly hoi poloi are concerned, what about the citizens? You and I may care, grassroots and "occupy Sasquatch" but "they" don't.
Post a Comment