Ron Paul

Save Bigfoot!

|

If Ron Paul runs on about free silver tonight and someone tells you "that's the stupidest thing I've heard a politician say all day," that someone obviously doesn't know Canada.

Canadian MP Mike Lake… has called for Bigfoot to be protected under Canada's species at risk act, alongside Whooping Cranes, Blue Whales, and Red Mulberry trees.

"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.

"Therefore, the petitioners request the House of Commons to establish immediate, comprehensive legislation to affect immediate protection of Bigfoot," says the petition signed by almost 500 of Lake's constituents in Edmonton, Alberta.

A question—who, if he or she actually spots Bigfoot, would actually try to harm him? That person is obviously going to take some digital photos and sell them to whatever the Canuck equivilent of TMZ.com is.

Ronald Bailey saluted 30 years of the Endangered Species Act in 2003.

NEXT: The Keys To Anamosa State Penitentiary Are for Sale...

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “The debate over their (Bigfoot’s) existence is moot in the circumstance of their tenuous hold on merely existing.”

    Could one of our Canadian readers translate this sentence into English? I can’t make heads of tails of that.

  2. I’d suggest that they put “rational, critical-thinking Canadian government officials” on the endangered species but it’s pretty clear that it’s too late and that they’ve already become extinct as a species.

  3. So would Bigfoot be covered under Canada’s universal healthcare system? And would he/she/it see a medical doctor, or a veterinarian?

  4. joe,

    What it means, at long last, is that I can get legal protections for Wile E. Coyot?. The Road Runner’s constant attempts to kill him make moot widespread beliefs that he is fictional or, in fact, only a cartoon character.

    I’m writing to my congressional delegation as we type.

  5. thoreau,

    I’d take six months, either way.

  6. Sasquatch, we know your legend’s real
    Sasquatch, we know your love is real

  7. But what of the skunk ape?

  8. You could have told me Sasquatch was a…a dude.

  9. What, you couldn’t tell?

  10. Even I can’t think of a way to defend this silliness.

  11. A question – who, if he or she actually spots Bigfoot, would actually try to harm him?

    It depends on what you are calling harm. Placing his hand in warm water while he is asleep to induce him to urinate on his bedding qualifies as torture, by some, if done to a G’tmo prisoner.

  12. Mr. Lake should be tested for Pot 2.0 use.

  13. Come on, people, get serious! This kind of uncaring attitude is what led to the extinction of the unicorn.

  14. “The debate over their (Bigfoot’s) existence is moot in the circumstance of their tenuous hold on merely existing.”

    Could one of our Canadian readers translate this sentence into English? I can’t make heads of tails of that.

    Joe — I’m no Canadian, but what the guy said is an example of the fallacy of equivocation:
    http://www.20mm.net/misc/fallacy/equiv.php

  15. So would Bigfoot … see a medical doctor, or a veterinarian?

    Of course, if the medical problem were serious enough, the question would have to be answered under U.S. law.

  16. So would Bigfoot … see a medical doctor, or a veterinarian?

    It doesn’t matter that much in Canada. He will be dead before his turn for an appointment comes up.

  17. D.A. Ridgely,

    Until we finish socializing medicine, that is.

  18. I showed this article to my fiance, who’s mom and maternal grandparents are Canadian. Her response:

    nothin wrong with that!!! canadians are trying to protect an extremely rare species…what is so wrong with that?????

    Hilarious!

    Seriously tho, I think it was her uncle wearing that ape suit after a long night of smoking weed.

  19. By the way, extreme mad props to those of you dropping Venture Bros. references on here!

  20. I was glad for the link to Bailey’s predictable dumping on the Endangered Species Act. I say predictable because the standard libertarian line runs “the animals are on x’s property, he should be free to do whatever to his property.” Of course that bright logic would invalidate bestiality laws as well. Any takers (single issue voter?)?
    I’m always nonplussed by Bailey’s environmental articles. His articles on neuroscience are very nuanced and thoughtful, a real treat. But these environmental ones are just awful (he denied global warming for what, a decade?). I imagine it has to do with pleasing industry supporters of the Reason Foundation or something. Here is a passage:
    “That’s good to know when contemplating the ESA. As we already saw, it has not slowed the listing of new species on the endangered list. Nor has it been particularly successful in bringing species already listed back from the brink of extinction. According to the FWS only 15 species have been delisted because their numbers increased sufficiently. These include American alligators, peregrine falcons, brown pelicans, Aleutian geese, gray whales, and gray wolves. The bald eagle might be getting close to stable numbers as well.

    Even that short list isn’t necessarily to the ESA’s credit. It is generally acknowledged that banning DDT, which thinned bird’s eggshells, brought back the bald eagle, the peregrine falcon, and the brown pelican.”
    Wow, that’s just awful.
    1. Saying the ESA is a failure because there are more animals listed on it than when it was started is like saying that violence against women acts are failures because there are more reported acts of violence against women now than before they were enacted. I hope I don’t have to spell out the fallacy here…
    2. Here we find Reason writers first kind words for the DDT ban, OK when used as a backhanded slap at another environmental law. I hope Mangu-Ward read this part (of maybe she just hates eagles and falcons).
    3. ONLY 15 species have been delisted (and this is before eagles were delisted)? I guess that is supposed to sound like such a colossal failure, but reviving almost extinct populations is an incredibly difficult task. Also, how many listed species did NOT go extinct (though they may not be so populous to be delisted) is not mentioned.
    I know in my job I have to at times do and say things that I think are nonsense. I always feel like a shower afterwards, but thats life. I just hope Bailey has a good stock of soap after writing these articles…

  21. *blush*

    If I promise to say only nice things about the US, can I have a green card now?

    If not, I’ll see your Fred Phelps and raise you a Linda McQuaig.

  22. A question – who, if he or she actually spots Bigfoot, would actually try to harm him?

    my mother told me a story of a time she was on vacation as a child and they visited a farm (maybe a relative or something) where a guy had a stuffed bird that he had shot. he said that when he saw it, he knew there weren’t many of them left – so he shot it in order to let others see what it looked like, y’know, before they’re all gone!

  23. Environmental protections for a mythical beast silly?

    Would you be surprised to hear that hundreds of millions of humans tithe 10 % of their income in the name of faceless God they can’t lay eyes on. It would kill them to see God’s face. Bible says so.
    Protecting bigfoot is small potatoes.

  24. We have a commercial interest in keeping the Big Foot stock up.

  25. Once they shore up efforts to protect Bigfoot, they will turn their attention to Batboy.

  26. Let’s not forget the Jersey Devil and Chupacabra.

  27. …and maybe the mythical Tampa Bay Devil Rays. I heard they’re a baseball team, or something.

  28. It’s not often you see life imitating Futurama.

  29. I recall hearing several years ago that some of the northwest states do have laws that make it illegal to harm or kill a Bigfoot.

  30. Tricky Vic:

    indeed!

    JimmydaG:

    Deviled Eggs, you mean 🙂

    Fantastic Futurama reference!

  31. “A question – who, if he or she actually spots Bigfoot, would actually try to harm him? That person is obviously going to take some digital photos and sell them to whatever the Canuck equivilent of TMZ.com is.”

    A dead bigfoot carcass would be much better proof than a grainy photo.

  32. jimmydageek,

    Well, to be fair, the Rays are in the middle of the pack right now, ahead of the Yankees, who spend a googelplex more dollars on their team than the Rays do.

  33. Sure, if a monster is all furry and warm-blooded, the government wants to protect it. But when *I* show up, the government is all tanks and missiles.

    This discriminatory attitude has me so riled up . . . OK, I need to take a deep breath. Then I need to breathe fire on Ottawa. That’ll show ’em.

  34. The debate over their (Bigfoot’s) existence is moot in the circumstance of their tenuous hold on merely existing

    Really, would someone unpack this one for me? What is the argument here?

    Is he saying that we shouldn’t bother debating the existence of Bigfoot because everyone agrees that if there are Bigfoot they are in danger of extinction? If so, how does he know that? Because they are rarely “seen”? If so, how would this argument not also apply to any number of fantastical creatures rarely seen, such as leprechauns, lake monsters and tree nymphs?

  35. …just a schill for big bigfoot…

  36. “So we see by this simple scientific proof that the myth of the Chupacabra is just that: A Myth. Now if we apply the same principles to Catholicism, an interesting thing happens…”

  37. Pro Libertate | May 3, 2007, 1:11pm | #

    jimmydageek,

    Well, to be fair, the Rays are in the middle of the pack right now, ahead of the Yankees, who spend a googelplex more dollars on their team than the Rays do.

    Yea, I checked their standings this morning…then I checked to make sure I was awake and not drunk (which occasionally I am) or stoned (which usually I’m not).

  38. “So we see by this simple scientific proof that the myth of the Chupacabra is just that: A Myth. Now if we apply the same principles to Catholicism, an interesting thing happens…”

    That comparison sucks more than the Chupacabra.

  39. But these environmental ones are just awful (he denied global warming for what, a decade?). I imagine it has to do with pleasing industry supporters of the Reason Foundation or something.

    Ken,

    I agree (basically) with your assessment of the Bailey passage and his environmental articles (did he write the animal rights cover story for reason a few years back? that was one of the weaker articles I have read in the magazine), BUT the above quoted passage seems to contain a fallacy of its own–an ad hominem. It could be that Bailey’s skepticism with respect to global warming subsided as the evidence became stronger, which strikes me as exactly the way a good thinker operates. Being a global warming skeptic 10-15 years ago made a lot more sense than it does now.

  40. Dave Weigel is a shill for Big Foot!

  41. *pecks NoStar on the taint

    *fades away

  42. Bigfoots (bigfeet?) are obviously under assault every day, if the commercials I see for beef jerky are anything to go by.

    I feel terrible about myself every time I laugh at those commercials

  43. “anonymouse” != Viking Moose.

    I never feel terrible for laughing at those commercials. And I tripped the Geico Caveman once. He was admiring the poster of himself, but he was blocking up the airport people mover. It’s not fucking disneyland, people!

    (although going from B to C in terminal one at O’Hare seems like it)

    grin!

  44. VM,

    I always flew out of Midway when I was a resident of Chicago. Great airport–you could drive your car up to the plane, load your own luggage, and board! Voil?! O’Hare is a hellhole, on the other hand.

    Incidentally, why is Geico portraying cavemen as gay or, at best, effete? I somehow doubt that that is an accurate depiction.

  45. Let’s not forget the Jersey Devil and Chupacabra.

    We already have Chupacabra proof.

  46. Incidentally, why is Geico portraying cavemen as gay or, at best, effete? I somehow doubt that that is an accurate depiction.

    I thought they were just preppy? The National Lampoon had a guide to tell the difference between homosexual and preppy back in the early 1980s.

  47. The funniest part of this?

    This guy is a memeber of the ruling Conservative Party, our right-wing Republican wanna-be minority government.

    Gawd, even our left-wing NDP psuedo-socialists aren’t this stupid…

  48. How come there’s no link to the original article?

  49. “Gawd, even our left-wing NDP psuedo-socialists aren’t this stupid…”

    You obviously never met Ross Harvey, former NDP MP for Edmonton East.

  50. In answer to your question who would actually harm Bigfoot if he or she actually saw Bigfoot, I present: http://www.tnugent.com

  51. Yeah, but what are the corporate sell-out fascist Canadians doing to protect manbearpig?

  52. Or the jackalope?

  53. “Incidentally, why is Geico portraying cavemen as gay or, at best, effete? I somehow doubt that that is an accurate depiction.”

    Recent studies show that cavemen were into recreational sex with anything that moved – other cavemen, cavewomen, wooly mammoths (“Hey, baby, Oog show you something that is *truly* mammoth!”), pterodactyls (“Thog initiate you into mile-high club, baby”), etc.

  54. Ethan-You’re probably correct about the ad hominen, but it was meant as a guess. Bailey is obviously a bright guy, as I said see his articles on neuroscience and its implications. But some of his work, like his environmental stuff, is just subpar it seems. I’ve noticed his worse stuff seems to be pro-industry, so I put two and two together (of course there can be some other answer). I guess I’ll throw it out: has he ever had an article on this subject that was not pro-industry? I guess even if the answer to this is no it does not conclusively prove anything, but it’s highly suggestive IMHO…

  55. jimmydageek

    “I showed this article to my fiance, who’s mom and maternal grandparents are Canadian. Her response:

    nothin wrong with that!!! canadians are trying to protect an extremely rare species…what is so wrong with that?????”

    Jimmy – don’t marry her!!!

  56. has he ever had an article on this subject that was not pro-industry?

    It’s worth a look I suppose, although we might have different takes on what constitutes “pro-industry”. Here’s a link to his work:
    https://www.reason.com/staff/show/133.html

  57. I would like to point out that we now know the bigfoot in the picture is a hoax. For years that video was so called “proof” of existence.

  58. I believe there is a place in Washington state called Ape Canyon, that supposedly got it’s name from settlers’ claim that giant apes would throw rocks at them as they passed through.

    I’m skeptical.

  59. TrickyVic

    May I point out that Homo Sapiens is the second largest member [by average body mass] of the family of Great Apes.

    So the story might be true, in a strict sense.

  60. Yes you may, and in that light, I would agree.

  61. We originally petitioned to put ” An Ethical American Foreign Policy” on the endangered list, but figured we’d get farther with Bigfoot.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.