According to an MP in Canada, Bigfoot, a legendary creature whose existence has never been confirmed, is facing extinction. Because of this risk, they are calling for the inclusion of Bigfoot to be covered and protected under laws protecting other endangered animals.
The reason for concern is the fact that there are been fewer sightings of Bigfoot reported. However, believers and researchers maintain that the lack of proof of Bigfoot's existence does not make this creature ineligible for protection:
"'The debate over their (Bigfoot's) existence is moot in the circumstance of their tenuous hold on merely existing,' reads a petition presented by Lake to parliament in March and due to be discussed next week."
Similar petitions calling for the protection of Bigfoot have been filed to the United States Congress as well.
So, perhaps the less frequent sightings mean that this creature does exist, or perhaps people are beginning to drink a little less?
What do you think about this? On the one hand, I'm kind of thinking that allowing the inclusion of Bigfoot on the list of endangered species may as well allow for the inclusion of other mythical beings that have never been confirmed, such as Loch Ness.
Then again, lack of proof does not mean that these creatures don't exist; and if they do exist and are in danger, they should be protected.
Protect the Bigfoot!!!!
seriously
I suppose there is precedence (aside from the mythological aspect) for inclusion on the list when no one is even sure if it exists anymore. The ivory billed woodpecker, for instance, was re-added to the list after it had been taken off and deemed extinct. Of course... that's not Bigfoot either lol.
In all seriousness, they should reserve the list for those species that aren't thought to be figments of the imagination.
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -Huxley
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." -Gandhi
Sorry Fallon, my bad...i misread.
Jane Goodall believes that there are still undiscovered giant apes, like bigfoot and yeti. Besides if it was a figment of imagination why would there be millions of sightings around the world?
I didn't say they were a figment of the imagination; I said they are thought to be a figment of the imagination. Difference being, I think they may be real... but until we know certain, they don't need to be on the list.
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -Huxley
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." -Gandhi
Yup, we already went into Iraq, so in a sense we're all ready the laughing stock of the world, might as well put something like this on an endangered species list. Though that seemed harsh I do believe it needed to be said.
-Alexa
You can only protect something if you know it exists. Same as with the Loch Ness monster. If you can't find it, let alone prove it's existance, then there is no proof that it needs saving.
But if we already knew these creatures definitely existed, it would be another case. Then we would know that in the future we wouldn't be made fun of for saving something that never existed.
I mean, really. Conservatives have been trying to gut the Endangered Species Act for years, and now we're going to squander valuable time and resources (not to mention scientific credibility) protecting an imaginary creature while leaving actual endangered species at the mercy of hunters and developers?
Somebody call Jon Stewart.
"CONSERVATIVE, n.
A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."
- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
What do you mean the conservatives? Both parties waste time with the Endangered Species Act. Especially when adding frogs and other small animals, which takes away someone's property(by the way i have no problem with it being on the list, but when you take over someones property to protect one frog, then your taking away someones livlihood and home). That is what I call a waste of time. So is this, but it's everyones fault, liberals and conservatives.
"Conservatives have been trying to gut the Endangered Species Act for years." The ESA exists to protect endangered species. Animals go on their when their numbers are sufficiently low enough to be considered endangered. That's what it's there to do. It has overwhelmingly been conservatives who have been trying to fiddle with the standards in order to remove animals from the list, presumably to make room for property development and the like. That is contrary to the intentions of the ESA. They're gutting it, neutering it, spaying, castrating, de-fanging, whatever word fits; they're screwing with the standards for political rather than scientific reasons.
You may disagree with the consequences of the Act and the policies derived from it, but adding frogs and small animals means that it's functioning as it should be: protecting endangered species and their habitats. There's more to the ecosystem than large, photogenic mammals, after all, and not all of them have the luxury of rooting through our garbage for food.
"CONSERVATIVE, n.
A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."
- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"