I wanted to know the same thing. The cover of the version on Amazon is different… it looks like a sketch of a guy holding a monkey or something. Thankfully, Exapno Mapcase is still around and can help us out.
You don’t think a giant hairy monster (???) would upset outdoor recreation or logging business for example?
A bear rummaging through your cooler is one thing. But a wild, manlike being looking at you from behind a tree like a creep. I would probably crap myself (with the bear too).
If Native Americans recognize them as people, and people start insisting they be treated as such, will we have to give them rights? Property?
If they are real; and let’s assume with nearly human intelligence, and seem to know that mixing with humans usually means getting shot, then their elusiveness is a good thing if you want to deny their existance.
They don’t exist. No need to provide protection for giant wood hippies, no need to allocate land, funds or anything. Just confiscate whatever real evidence that rarely ever shows up, explain everything away as swamp gas and weather balloons, done.
Just because one doesn’t believe in them shouldn’t make a person lack all imagination to the “what ifs”. Writers don’t necessarily have to believe in ghosts or shape shifting clown-creatures either.
So you think it’s the local tourism boards that have these vast resources for the bigfoot denial conspiracy?
In truth, proof that bigfoot existed would be the biggest boon to tourism they could ever hope to get. Thousands of people would be flocking to the woods for a chance to see a bigfoot.
And you didn’t answer Lemur866’s question: how do these “authorities” keep the hundreds of people quiet who would have to be in on the conspiracy?
What problem do you think the “authorities” are worried about if they were given rights? 300 million people in this country already have rights. And if they were recognized as people, then like all people, they would have to pay for property. But I’m sure they could earn a good living on the talk show circuit.
Would it be legal to shoot a gorilla or chimpanzee if you saw it in a forest in Texas (or the Pacific Northwest)? That is, assuming it wasn’t attacking you.
(Just to clarify, this is not sarcasm or a rhetorical device. I’m actually asking.)
Brought up in post #26 three years ago.
The weirdest and most mysterious thing about this thread is why it was allowed to remain in GQ. I’m with Musicat on this one. And with all due respect Colibri, finding another species of Tapir in the middle of Amazoinia or reclassifying existing known animals is quite a far cry from finding a Bigfoot in Texas. I’m from Texas, I grew up and hunted every corner of it. I’ve also backpacked and camped in most of it. Even in the depths of the Big Thicket or the bowels of its national forests you will find people. I’ve found almost every kind of skull you can think of, heck I’ve even found an eagle skull. I’ve found bones by the thousands. Every last one of them accounted for in an existing species.
Given that Bigfeets (Bigfoots?) would need to have sustained a breeding population for thousands and thousands of years and remain undetected and leave no remains is just not possible.
I’m polluting the thread a little, but I recall reading a scifi story–almost certainly first published in Asimov’s Science Fiction–about an alternate universe in which the Americas was populated not by other humans, but by a relict group of hominids with rather lesser intelligence than homo sapiens, but beyond that of the great apes. A legal and ethical controversy raged and–SPOILER!–it turns out interbreeding is possible.
Anyone got info on this? My patented Lazy Google turned up nothing.
I believe that in Utah, the hunting season on Bigfoot is the first day which falls after March 31st.
The content of the laws is a factual matter. Why wouldn’t it be in GQ?
Since Bigfoot really doesn’t exist, it’s a hypothetical. Seems like it should go in IMHO.
If it weren’t a hypothetical, then it would need to go in IMHO.
Maybe they aren’t all hippy dippy beings? They have been called cannibals, etc… Potentially Dangerous.
.
They mostly dont have to. Smart ass skeptics already mock them enough. Maybe it’s a reputation thing.
They can force bigfoot to pay tax? :rolleyes:
This is of course assuming they are real. Who knows, I haven’t seen one with my own eyes, but do think there may be more to it than just hoaxes.
My Google-fu is off this morning, all I’m getting is basketball hits when I look for cites …
I seem to remember many years ago that some folks were out in the woods hunting in Southern Oregon (since renamed Jefferson) … they had licenses, the proper tags and it was in fact bear season … so they shot a bear … so far so good, but when they got to the carcass they noticed right away it was somewhat larger than the usual black bear (they are a bit smaller here on the West Coast) and it was colored a little funny …
Turns out they shot a Grizzly Bear … a pretty serious violation of ODFW regulations … so they turned themselves in right away and they were given a pass on the offense … it was ruled an innocent mistake since Grizzlies hadn’t been seen in Jefferson for nearly a century … and this particular animal was escaped from a nearby wildlife park …
So it is illegal … but that doesn’t mean it’s automatically prosecuted … just don’t be a jackass towards law enforcement officials …
I want to believe that anyone who bags a Bigfoot would promptly deliver it to a local university’s Zoology Department for a proper scientific description to be written out … and this action would clear them of any wrong-doing … although one might still have to deal with a civil lawsuit financed with J.D. Cooper’s money … I’d love to sit in on that hearing regarding standing …
Bears are not only potentially dangerous, they’re actually dangerous. And yet thousands of people go hiking and camping in bear-infested forests every year. Some morons even approach the bears and try to feed them.
Anyway, I’m not really following your argument. You’re saying these “authorities” know so much about bigfoot that they know that they’re likely to kill people they come in contact with? How do they know this? Have a lot of people been killed in bigfoot encounters? Why aren’t loggers and hikers who spend a lot of time in the forest also aware of this? And I thought you said earlier that bigfoots avoid encounters with people because they know they will be shot by the murderous humans.
Wraps, ropes, handcuffs… their kinks are their own business.
I can see your point. I’m not criticizing the modding, I just said it seemed strange to me.
Depends on the people, 'squatch and situation.
I thought if it didn’t have a listed season and wasn’t on the endangered list it was huntable [perhaps as vermin?]
Bugs and Daffy tearing posters off a tree:
“It’s Rabbit Season!”
“Duck Season!”
“Rabbit Season!”
“Duck Season!”
“Bigfoot Season!”
"Shhhh! Be vewwy, vewwy quiet. We’re hunting Sasquatch! Hahahahahahaha! "
Update: someone recently nearly shot Bigfoot. The primate in question insists that he isn’t Bigfoot, but that sounds exactly like what Bigfoot would say.