Bigfoot risks extinction, says Canadian MP

[Solus]

What logical fallacies? Some of the world's forests are unknown- therefore we can't be 100% sure of what is in them. Therefore in principle we should be willing to protect anything unknown that is in that unknown area. It's fairly straightforward.

I'm not alone here, Arthur C Clarke agrees with me.

I think you're playing dumb here. The Arther C Clarke comment kinda makes me think so. Having fun being a contrarian?

It almost looks like you're blatantly using that appeal to authority fallacy which makes me think your playing a little game here, time will tell. Some people are actually that dense, we'll eventually see if you really don't know what logical fallacies are.

 

[Tumblehome]

Any forum members from this person's riding?

I'm not in the MP's riding, but I sent an email to his office expressing my embarrassment that an elected representative of my government would act on such foolishness, and questioned his support of someone whose motives are suspect. (I also asked if he would support the "species protection" of teletubbies. No response yet. )

I'd like to think that the Honourable Member will be heaped with ridicule and scorn in parliament, but more likely, even opposition members will be thinking of bigfoot believers in their own constituencies and will tread lightly.

If you truly believed bigfoot was real, endangered, that you had documentary evidence of it, and were trying to affect governmental action to protect it than common sense would dictate that you would try to persuade bureaucrats with that footage of yours. Of course if you were just trying to get some hype for your silly little DVD than the strategy quoted above would be just typical.

Todd Standing anticipated that. From his website:

It will also help explain our reasoning for getting protection for a species that has not yet been conclusively proven to exist; why, in essence, we have put the cart before the horse.

... the most conclusive evidence is the actual footage he himself [Dan Hamilton] recorded. Footage so shocking and revealing that the families of the victims involved have strongly protested it ever being publicly displayed. So out of respect for the families involved and the importance of the story that needed to be told a decision was made to actualize the events that unfolded that summer weekend. It is not our intention to reenact but actualize as precisely as possible, using original sounds, locations, lighting, and cameras wherever possible, exactly the way it originally happened.

So, he has concrete evidence but can't reveal it except in an "actualized" film (but definitely not a reenactment ).

I hope that MP loses his seat.

Not a chance. He's a conservative in the heart of right-wingnut country. This will probably make him even more popular with his constituents.

 

[Civilized Worm]

Surely there's already some sort of law in place to protect newly discovered species until it can be determined how many of them there are?

 

[fuelair]

The Canadian Government wants to place Big Foot on the protected species list.

"Bigfoot researcher Todd Standing, who was behind the petition, claims to have proof of its existence, and says he fears for its safety."

Mr. Randi may have to get out his checkbook soon!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070502/wl_canada_afp/canadauspoliticsanimaloffbeat_070502173737

No feces!! What a maroon!!

 

[Slimething]

But don't these guys realize that Bigfoot is killing the Whooping Cranes, Blue Whales and Red Mulberry Bushes? I market Slimey's Bigfoot Repellant (tm) which is a weightless, invisible powder that you mix with water and spray the areas that have Whooping Cranes, Blue Whales and Red Mulberry Bushes. It's also effective for Unicorns, Dragons and Fairies but we haven't tested it on Dwarves, Chupacabras or Honest Politicians yet. It's fully-backed by a guarantee. All you have to do to get your money back is to prove that Bigfoot killed any listed species in a treated area. So, I figure 100 USD for a month's supply, enough to treat an acre. Maybe I can make a killing selling this stuff to Canada. Eh?

About Todd Standing, the article says

He said he has 12 seconds of video footage of Bigfoot roaming Canada's western Rocky Mountains included in a 30-minute documentary, but his detractors say it was staged with actors.

Twelve seconds of video footage? Well, that's formidable evidence!!!

 

[Hitch]

About Todd Standing, the article says

He said he has 12 seconds of video footage of Bigfoot roaming Canada's western Rocky Mountains included in a 30-minute documentary, but his detractors say it was staged with actors.

Twelve seconds of video footage? Well, that's formidable evidence!!!

I'm a bit puzzled that they could adequately cover 12 seconds of footage in only 30 minutes. I'm going to hold out for the full 2 1/2 hour director's cut with lots of bonus extras. Wouldn't want to miss anything.

 

[Porterboy]

I think you're playing dumb here. The Arther C Clarke comment kinda makes me think so. Having fun being a contrarian?

It almost looks like you're blatantly using that appeal to authority fallacy which makes me think your playing a little game here, time will tell. Some people are actually that dense, we'll eventually see if you really don't know what logical fallacies are.

Methinks that be an Ad Hominem!


Seriously, I don't understand your reaction. What I've said sounds like perfectly common sense to me. What's wrong with acknowledging that the possibility that some unexpected surprise awaits us in the forests of Canada? What harm does it do to prepare a contingency plan for that?

A day may come when we'll be grateful for it.

 

[Madalch]

Not a chance. He's a conservative in the heart of right-wingnut country. This will probably make him even more popular with his constituents.

He's not in the heart of said country. He's (just barely) in Redmonton- the bastion of intelligence in right-wingnut country.

It's in parts of Alberta outside of Edmonton that politicians can claim to be proud of being rednecks, and receive standing ovations.

 

[Tumblehome]

He's not in the heart of said country. He's (just barely) in Redmonton- the bastion of intelligence in right-wingnut country.

It's in parts of Alberta outside of Edmonton that politicians can claim to be proud of being rednecks, and receive standing ovations.

Okay, I'll take your word for it, but "bastion of intelligence in Alberta" sounds like an oxymoron to me.

 

[brodski]

No, but it might be.. or something else unknown. The whole point of something being unknown is that we don't know what's in it.

there is a world of difference between saying "we must protect these forests because they could contain undiscovered species" (a position I agree with)
and saying "we must protect these forests because Bigfoot may be in there".
The latter is making a specific claim for which there is neither historical president nor any supporting evidence.

 

[osmosis]

Sometimes I'm so embarrassed to be Canadian. Here's the email I just fired off to this clown:

Dear Mr. Lake,

I applaud you efforts to protect Bigfoot as an endangered species. Bigfoot is indeed endangered, so much so that there has never been a shred of evidence showing that it ever existed in the first place. Now THAT'S endangered!

While you're at it, you should strongly consider adding unicorns, dragons, gnomes, leprechauns, fairies and your own critical thinking skills to this list. All are equally endangered.

 

[bob_dezon]

Police helicoptors use thermal imaging to find people, assuming bigfoot is manlike and mammalian, would it not have a thermal signature? why has nobody just scoured the places it is reputed to live for large mamalian figures. It would be a hell of a lot more efficient than organising massive manpower and eyeballing the location manually. I think if any form of bigfoot existed, we would have at least one piece of evidence for it now, unless bigfeet (plural?) are also ninjas.

 

[D'rok]

He's not in the heart of said country. He's (just barely) in Redmonton- the bastion of intelligence in right-wingnut country.

It's in parts of Alberta outside of Edmonton that politicians can claim to be proud of being rednecks, and receive standing ovations.

At the risk of derailing the thread....I'll second that. It's not called Redmonton because it's filled with rednecks. It's called Redmonton because the rednecks think it's filled with commies.

Further derailment....As a displaced Edmontonian now living in Ottawa, nothing is quite so conservative as United Empire Loyalist Upper Canada. This is the most conservative part of the country IMHO.

Derail over....back to Bigfoot nonsense.


ETA:

The Canadian Government wants to place Big Foot on the protected species list.

One backbencher != the Canadian Government

 

[dglas]

Let us assume, just for the sake of argument, that bigfoot exists. Bear with me, please.

Assuming this bigfoot critter actually exists (and that, I know, is a big assumption), what sort of measures should we take to conserve it? Putting it on a protected species list sounds like a plan (assuming, remember), but what does that mean in terms of actual measures? Do we just make sure there's enough muddy ground for it to gleefully make footprints? Do we place a death penalty on picking blueberries? What are we doing?

Without some information on the critter, it's needs, habits and preferred environs, we have no measures we can really take to protect it. We can't find it, so we don't know its natural habitat. We have no feces, so we don't know its diet. We don't know its mating patterns, so we can't influence increasing the growth of the population. What, exactly, are we supposed to do?

Let's get down to it.
The problem with placing it on an endangered species list is that this entails recognizing the existence of the critter and legitimizes those who want to advance the cause of privately-held "knowledge." Suddenly these "experts" on "knowledge" only they can access begin to influence policies and laws. This is not a good path to tread on; we've been down it before...

Nearly all of the progress we have made, and specifically the rise of science, has been because we moved away from privately-held, inaccessable-to-others "knowledge" in favour of independant verification in the public realm. This is why we must not permit a particular species not proven to exist to be the foundation for our laws and policies. Anyone could make up anything and influence whole aspects of society on the basis of whatever-it-is-today.

Now, this is not the same thing as the protecting of bio-diversity suggestion (as alluded to, I think, by others) and to confuse the two is to misunderstand the critical difference between private and public "knowledge," the difference between verificationism and intuitionism. Bio-diversity is a well-established idea and we can point to examples of it and the consequences (neutral use of the term) of protecting it or failing to protect it. And that's the critical point - we can point at it. So far we've had distressingly little ability (i.e. none) to point to bigfoot, except in the fluffy, little private realms of certain individuals who steadfastly refuse (or fail) to provide verification of their ideas. As a result, all we have to point to, is their heads. Their motives are irrelevant to the argument really. What's important is the absolute lack of verifiable, reproducable evidence to back their claims. Period.

 

[casebro]

Obviously, it is too late for Big Foot. Why, in the last 50 years, there has been no proof that he exists anymore. I makes more sense to hold a wake, than declaring him endangered. Yup, I think we should add Sasquatches Canadensis to the list with the Do-Do bird, passenger pigeon, unicorns, dragons...

 

[Correa Neto]

Of course bigfeet are endangered. If people stop believing, they no longer will be! Just like every single mythological entity.

Now, when it comes to wildernesses, there are plenty of reasons for their preservation and rational use: biodiversity, scenic value, cultural heritage, environmental ballance, etc. Informing people about their importance is all it takes. Bigfoot or other cryptids are not needed. To rely on this sort of argument is to rely on ignorance and superstition.

 

[William Parcher]

 

[grayman]

This is why Sasquatch refuses to interact with humans:

 

[kerikiwi]

I remember hearing how some explorers in New Guinea a couple of years ago came across a group of people who had never had any contact with the outside world. When these people were taken to visit a city they became mentally ill because it was so unlike anything they'd seen before.

The film "Last of the Dogmen" is all about this subject, although to be accurate, the Indians in the movie were not totally devoid of contact with the outside world, but they'd been isolated for several generation after fleeing from the cavalry at Sand Creek.

Let's detour back to "New Guinea" (which, incidentally, did not exist "a couple of years ago".)

Do you have any evidence they are real? And any reason why they, unlike all the other explorers in humanity's history, became 'mentally ill' upon seeing new things?
Are you sure they weren't extras in 'The last of the dogmen'?

 

[Solus]

I think you're playing dumb here. The Arther C Clarke comment kinda makes me think so. Having fun being a contrarian?

It almost looks like you're blatantly using that appeal to authority fallacy which makes me think your playing a little game here, time will tell. Some people are actually that dense, we'll eventually see if you really don't know what logical fallacies are.

Methinks that be an Ad Hominem!


Seriously, I don't understand your reaction. What I've said sounds like perfectly common sense to me. What's wrong with acknowledging that the possibility that some unexpected surprise awaits us in the forests of Canada? What harm does it do to prepare a contingency plan for that?

A day may come when we'll be grateful for it.

Ok, maybe you're not just playing with us skeptics. You just committed two more logical fallacies in your post right here. Do I need to explain what those two fallacies are?