James Leroy Wilson's blog

Monday, July 13, 2009

If Bigfoot was real - a coverup I'd endorse

Some months ago the paranormal podcast Binnall of America featured cryptozoologist Ken Gerhard as a guest. The second half of the discussion was devoted to Bigfoot, and the question of government knowledge of Bigfoot's existence was raised.

If a specimen was actually captured (alive or dead) and convinced the public of all doubt as to its existence, it would conceivably be perceived as an "endangered species" and its habitat may have to be protected by law.

This habitat includes many wooded regions of the country, especially the Pacific Northwest. The logging industry would come to a standstill to protect a creature we know nothing about aside from the fact that its strategies so far are proof it wants nothing to do with us.

While the host and guest agreed they really do want Bigfoot found, this discussion gave me pause.

After all, some would shut down farming on the Palouse along the Washington-Idaho border to save an earthworm that had until recently been thought extinct (i.e., that no one was missing), and still might be.

How much more so would they protect a fellow primate who, by walking upright, is probably man's closest relative, even though (as far as we know) it still has plenty of wooded range to trek across two countries?

Wikipedia already talks about the incentive of landowners to kill, bury, and be quiet about endangered species, so that the government doesn't take the land

If logging companies and/or government sources are aware that public knowledge of Bigfoot would have disastrous effects on the economy, I could see why they would keep it quiet - and I would too unless and until we had a more enlightened and pragmatic conservation policy. I could understand a policy, if Bigfoot is discovered, to leave Bigfoot alone and a law barring killing of Bigfoot except in self-defense. But, like the earthworm, don't mark it an "endangered species." Let business go on as usual.

I also find it ironic that Bigfoot could potentially be granted a third of the West, while America's native peoples live on tiny reservations.


  1. If it's wrong to kill it except in self-defense, what's so right about stealing the land it uses?

  2. Because if it was the type of being in whose nature was to assert property rights over land, it could have done so. At the same time, if it is neither a pest nor predator and has possibly near-human characteristics, I'm inclined to respect its right to property in its own person. In any case, I only said I could "understand" if such a law was made. I'm not saying "there ought to be a law."