Even here at the threshold of the 21st century, the debate continues over whether mankind should or should not collect a "dead" specimen of any previously unknown animal. Until it is proven to exist and is recognized as an endangered or vanishing species, wildlife laws offer no protection to any cryptid from being killed.
For example, should scientists searching for the noted marine creatures seen from time to time at Loch Ness in Scotland or Lake Champlain in upstate New York hunt these animals and kill them on sight to prove their existence? More to the point of my interests, should field researchers be plotting ways to capture or kill a Bigfoot creature? Is the best aim for our research to collect a specimen; dead or alive?
Observations of Bigfoot creatures reveals that they are social animals that operate in groups and somehow communicate with each other. They watch human beings, especially hikers and hunters and people living near their habitat areas, and have proven themselves at being adept in eluding us. They have adapted to our modern technologies; exercising caution to avoid dangers posed by trains or automobiles or articial lights or cameras. They could prey on us, but for whatever reason they don’t. A peaceful coexistence is maintained– though for the vast majority of people, we as a race remain blissfully unaware of their presence and proximity.
Now if someone ever managed to kill and collect the body of one of these creatures as a dead specimen, we should not dare to presume it will go unnoticed. These creatures watch us; adapting and learning. Once we demonstrate our intentions and capabilities of successfully hunting them, we will become their enemy. The table is turned. How do you think this will change their apparent indifference toward people? Will they become more active in defending themselves and their habitat areas? Will they become offensive or aggressive?
This is certainly one species of creatures that no one would want becoming hostile towards people.
As a community of investigators who are developing field expertise and techniques for finding these creatures, our primary aim should be to improve our surveillance of the living animals. Observations of living animals in their habitat areas are the only way we will find out how many of them are there, how do they live, how do they communicate, and what behaviors can we expect from them. You cannot learn the answers to any of these questions from a dead or captured specimen.
Whatever the world learns about these creatures will come from the observations of a few fortunate, attentive and well-informed people living near their wooded and wetland habitats. Be alert and share your observations.
FEEDJIT Live Traffic Map
FEEDJIT Recommended Reading
3 comments:
Hey - you never know what lurks in the woods or in `the unknown'. Certainly something, it seems, is generating a physical presence of something unusual represented as a bigfoot - you have explained the possible scenerio well. That said, as I read it - I got the feeling that you may believe the number of creatures/entities that may exist in this form is a significant number - and, that is where I'd beg to differ.
To me, the behaviour of these creatures/entities seems very `temporal' as far as the common consensus we all call the real reality. Qualities they exhibit make me more prone to say that one `couldn't' be `killed'. Actually, I'd say even a more nuanced view -- one could be killed in a sense; but, I don't think their `space' (or body) would `stay here' - for long at least. I really here speak most of the bigfoot - the manlike creature.
The reason I say that is that I do believe that there's at least a `small chance' that some indigenous `chupacabra's' may indeed exist between the cave world and ours. But, the remains of the neanderthals or some other lineage of man seems - to me - less likely. Especially in any significant number.
m4ever,
Yes, for any cryptid species that persists to the present day, each specimen we observe represents the latest generation in a sustainable and reproducing population of flesh-and-blood animals. It would be irresponsible to hunt and kill specimens of cryptid species when the viability of the population of such a species is entirely unknown-- for all we know that particular specimen animal might be among the last of its kind.
And yes, in the case of bigfoot creatures, I do suspect that this species exists as a viable and sustaining population of animals. For millenia, First Nation people were competing with bigfoot creatures for the same edible resources on this continent. Since the end of the 19th century, modern agriculture has boomed and human beings are no longer "living off the land." Now no longer competing with human beings for the same foodstock, the population and range of bigfoot creatures may in fact be experiencing resurgence and expansion.
My reasoning to denounce attempts to kill or capture specimens of bigfoot creatures is stated in the original post. It is not because I suspect they are a vanishing species, but that they would be an intelligent, stealthy and potentially dangerous foe if people goad them into becoming our enemies.
Native American tribes gave certain names to the wilderness areas being inhabited by these creatures and gave such areas wide berth; treating these creatures with respect and even religious awe. Place names of First Nation origin such as skookums, windago and saskeets survive to this day; for example, Skookum Meadows, Windigo Island and Saskatchewan.
Over the centuries, the original people of North America learned to co-exist with bigfoot creatures. The details of how they learned this are clouded in the past; but there are verbal histories and folklore handed down that relay accounts of hostilities between people and these creatures. Some accounts describe these wild hairy giants as fearful, man-eating predators. We would be foolish to provoke these creatures with any efforts to hunt or kill them.
And once the existence of these creatures is accepted and proven based on physical evidence obtained by field researchers, both the government and general public would be wise to follow the lead of our First Nation forbears. We should set aside and protect their habitat areas.
I suspect my ancestors learned to co-exist or die. My grandmothers were very fearful of the shadow-people. They were called that because they lived in the shadows. Both my grandmothers were fearful of them taking us when we were small children. As we got older the fear relaxed. My grandmothers were insistant if we saw one of the giants of the forest back up and leave. Never anger them.
My fear is that as the pro-kill folks advance their agendas they will anger these creatures.
I cannot imagine the threat such foe would be. They are hundreds of years ahead of any military in survival skills. In the blink of an eye they could learn weapons.
Researchers are proving how intelligent these creatures are every day.
Granted most folks don't want to admit they are smarter than an ape. I feel they are above an ape probably even a chimp.
The very size of them along with the skill of concealment, boggles my mind. Imagine pissing one off and bringing the clans out to revenge. Would any sleeping household be safe?
I know folks like to think that guns in your house keep you safe. Police officers are trained to shoot under stress and even then they miss the target 75% of the time as data gather suggest. Imagine Joe Shmoe trying to shoot under the stress of a couple of 10 foot creatures in his bedroom. Its a sobering picture to me.
Course I still respect the old ways.
Post a Comment