IF BIGFOOT WERE PROVEN TO EXIST TOMORROW

If Bigfoot were proven to exist tomorrow, what do you think would happen? Would they be put on the endangered species list? Would land be set aside for them to live on? Would they be slaughtered to extinction? Would, after about 50 years or so, something like "Conquest of The Planet of The Apes" happen where after being enslaved by humans/Homo sapiens, the Bigfoots would revolt against us? Or do you envision something else happening?

The role of the DNR in the Bigfoot phenomenon

As you probably know, one type of evidence for the existence of Bigfoot is unidentified vocalization recordings. I have to wonder how many of these remain "unidentified" because the DNR(Department of Natural Resources) for the state they were recorded in, has said that whatever known animal that was suspected of being the source of the vocalization, didn't exist in that state. Awhile back I started to wonder EXACTLY what the DNR means when they say that. So I decided to inquire about that and used the Mountain Lion as an example for two reasons.
1)The existence of Mountain Lions in WV is the subject of some controversy.
2)I've read numerous reports on various Bigfoot sites of vocalizations being heard that were described as sounding like a woman screaming or a woman being murdered. I've heard Mountain Lion screams described the same way. (In fact 20 years ago or so, it was a hot night and my bedroom window was open and I heard a sound that sounded like a woman screaming. My dad said it was a Mountain Lion) Anyway, I got the following reply from the DNR:

Steven:

Relating to mountain lions, it is our agency's position that the eastern cougar was extirpated from West Virginia in the 1800's and that there are no mountain lions reproducing and sustaining themselves in West Virginia. With that said, it is possible that individuals may have illegally acquired animals which have been released into the wild on occasion. Each year the DNR investigates numerous calls from individuals which say that they sighted a mountain lion and they typically turn up as bobcats, coyotes, etc.

Thanks. Gary

Gary M. Foster
Supervisor of Game Management
West Virginia Division of Natural Resources
Wildlife Resources Section
P.O. Box 67
Elkins, West Virginia 26241
Phone: (304) 637-0245
Fax: (304) 637-0250
Email: garyfoster@wvdnr.gov

So you see, when the DNR says a particular animal doesn't exist in a particular state, it doesn't necessarily mean the animal in question doesn't exist in that state

Bigfoot, Nessie, & Scifi

An article I just read about Loren Coleman's new Cryptozoology museum has got me thinking. Often in articles about Cryptozoology, including this one, the authors use both Bigfoot & The Loch Ness Monster(Nessie) to help explain what Cryptozoology is to those who don't already know. Since Nessie has been all but debunked due to a thorough sonar scan of the lake that found nothing and then a study of the amount of aquatic life in the lake that concluded there isn't enough aquatic life in the lake to support a viable breeding population of Nessie type creatures, I'm not at all sure it's good for Bigfoot research to have Bigfoot and Nessie mentioned together. A skeptic might know of the lake scans I mentioned above and conclude that Nessie doesn't exist & assume the same thing about Bigfoot if it's mentioned in the same breath in an article or documentary. Maybe it's time we all start referring to Bigfoot research as Crypto-Anthropology like I've heard Robert W. Morgan do. Another thing that the article about Loren Coleman's museum has reminded me about that really bothers me is how Bigfoot is often classed as "Scifi" Technically it may still fit that category, but I can't help thinking some people form biases against the possibility of Bigfoot, based solely on the "Scifi" classification. It seems Mr. Coleman's museum shares space with a book store featuring Scifi books. While this may be good for the town the museum & book store are in, it may not be good for getting people to take the subject of Bigfoot seriously

TV Shows

I know tv shows about Bigfoot and other mysteries are fun to watch, but how much can we really learn from them? Today I contacted the main scientist at the lab that did the testing on the soil samples from the Romanian forest on a recent episode of "Destination Truth" I contacted him because I happened to remember another documentary about U.F.O's where soil samples were taken from an alleged landing spot. The samples revealed a fungus that causes round, barren patches of ground. It's also the explanation for "Fairy circles" Anyway, I asked the scientist if the soil samples from the Romanian forest were tested for that fungus and he said no, they weren't. I know the producers of the show weren't exactly deceitful about any of the info they gave in the episode, but they also didn't investigate all possible explanations for the circle. This makes me wonder how often such corners are cut in other shows of this type

The value of folklore

Many people rely on Native American folklore about Bigfoot/Sasquatch as anecdotal evidence of its existence, but how reliable is it really? Yesterday I was watching the "Destination Truth" marathon on Syfy and started noticing how often native people from different countries mislead Josh Gates & his crew. One man said he could take them to a man who had large scales from a particular cryptid (I can't recall the name of it now) He indicated the scales were approximately 3"-4" in length. When they got to the man, he gave them scales about half the size of a dime that turned out to belong to a fish indigenous to the area. In another episode, the natives said a vocalization they were picking up, belonged to the cryptid in question. That turned out to be an owl vocalization. Every episode has people claiming clear sightings of these cryptids. Many of which have been a part of the native folklore for many years. When I hear some of the more fantastic characteristics attributed to Bigfoot (invisibility, the power to cause amnesia, etc...) I can't help wondering if some of these people aren't pulling the legs of some researchers. So how much credibility should we really give to Native American folklore about Bigfoot?

Who would benefit?

We are all constantly prodded to "go green" because supposedly the planet is undergoing a warming trend. Most of mainstream science seems to support this idea. This is causing an increase in interest in alternative energy technologies. Some of which have actually been around for many years, but have been mostly ignored by the public until now. The other day I bought a collection of "In Search Of" episodes on dvd. One of those episodes is called "Coming Ice Age" This theory also had a lot of scientific support in the late 70's. By now you're probably wondering what this all has to do with Bigfoot. Well, I'll tell you. With two such opposing theories as global warming & a coming ice age, both with support from the scientific community, I'm starting to wonder if science may be vulnerable to lobbyists. And if science is vulnerable to lobbyists, what industry or industries, if any, would benefit from scientific support of the Bigfoot phenomenon? Maybe if we could figure out if any industries would benefit from the existence of Bigfoot, we could appeal to them for funding to further research. The only industry I can think of is tourism though
P.S.
West Virginia's record high temperature of 112 °F (44 °C) was recorded at Martinsburg on July 10, 1936, and at Moorefield on Aug. 4, 1930.

Seeking feedback from mainstream science

A few days ago I received an interesting trail cam video that may or may not be a black bear. I am reluctant to post it on any Bigfoot forums at this point because I would like several opinions from bear & other experts first. After several unsuccessful attempts at e-mailing it to a couple of experts, I uploaded it to my website & then e-mailed the page link to the experts. Chris Ryan, leader of the West Virginia Black Bear Project, says it could be anything with black or dark fur & Dr. Lynn Rogers hasn't replied yet. I also posted it on a Biology forum & ageneral science discussion forum. The only replies from them so far is one person says it's probably a black bear. But the way he phrased it, I suspect he thought I was inquiring if it could be a different species of bear. All of this is leading up to the point of my post. That we sometimes get accused of only sharing potential evidence with fellow Bigfoot researchers, but often when we do attempt to share something with the mainstream scientific community, we get little or no feedback. Another incident that happened to me was a month or so ago, I got the idea that possibly touch DNA testing of the dirt a possible Bigfoot track was left in, might yield some DNA. I made a few different inquiries for more info on touch DNA to different labs & got no replies. So what are we suppose to do? Continue to try to get the opinions of mainstream science? Or just forget that, knowing the opinions of our fellow researchers carries absolutely no weight whatsoever with the mainstream scientific community?