For decades, the existence of Bigfoot has remained just outside the grasp of mainstream science. While skeptics point to the lack of a type specimen, many of us who have spent years in the field know that there is a body of compelling evidence that cannot be dismissed outright. From footprint morphology and vocalizations to behavioral observations and forensic reports, the case grows stronger.
But if tomorrow, we collectively crossed the Rubicon and confirmed the existence of this elusive hominin, the consequences would be both groundbreaking and potentially catastrophic for the species.
But if tomorrow, we collectively crossed the Rubicon and confirmed the existence of this elusive hominin, the consequences would be both groundbreaking and potentially catastrophic for the species.
Impact on the Species
Dr. Jane Goodall Bigfoot, based on behavioral patterns and ecological inference, is likely a low-population-density species. It occupies vast ranges of wilderness across North America and has remained largely undetected by practicing caution, nocturnality, and avoidance of human infrastructure.
The discovery of even one individual would lead to a deluge of activity into these wilderness areas. The media would swarm. Government agencies, scientific bodies, and opportunists would descend rapidly into known sighting zones. Just as we have seen with the mountain gorillas in Rwanda, even well-meaning scientific research can cause population stress, behavioral change, and unintentional habitat degradation.
When Jane Goodall first made contact with chimpanzees in Gombe, her presence caused immediate behavioral alterations in the troop. While it led to revolutionary discoveries, it also resulted in cross-species disease transmission and increased human dependency within the studied population. Similarly, if Bigfoot exists, its adaptation to a near-total avoidance of human contact suggests that it has no built-up resistance to diseases we may bring into its ecosystem. The impact of direct or indirect contact could be devastating.
The discovery of even one individual would lead to a deluge of activity into these wilderness areas. The media would swarm. Government agencies, scientific bodies, and opportunists would descend rapidly into known sighting zones. Just as we have seen with the mountain gorillas in Rwanda, even well-meaning scientific research can cause population stress, behavioral change, and unintentional habitat degradation.
When Jane Goodall first made contact with chimpanzees in Gombe, her presence caused immediate behavioral alterations in the troop. While it led to revolutionary discoveries, it also resulted in cross-species disease transmission and increased human dependency within the studied population. Similarly, if Bigfoot exists, its adaptation to a near-total avoidance of human contact suggests that it has no built-up resistance to diseases we may bring into its ecosystem. The impact of direct or indirect contact could be devastating.
Environmental and Legal Precedents
The Northern Spotted Owl Should Bigfoot be officially recognized, the most immediate question becomes legal classification and protection. We would likely see federal involvement through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and possibly the National Park Service. Listing it as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) would be the most logical path. But precedent shows that this process is neither fast nor clean.
Look at the saga of the Northern Spotted Owl, protected under the ESA in 1990. Its listing led to over six million acres of Pacific Northwest forests being placed under logging restrictions. Entire rural economies were altered. Lawsuits mounted. Political factions formed around the implications of its habitat protections. Now imagine similar restrictions triggered across known Bigfoot sighting corridors like the Cascade Range, the Sierra Nevadas, and the Appalachian forests. The logging, mining, and even off-road vehicle industries could be profoundly impacted.
Additionally, in 2023, protections for the Lesser Prairie Chicken were reintroduced under the ESA. The reaction was swift. Oil and gas companies, along with several states, filed suits claiming overreach and economic harm. If a creature as obscure to the general public as the Lesser Prairie Chicken can cause multi-state legal battles, imagine what would happen if a massive great ape species was discovered to inhabit multiple states across national parks, private lands, and tribal territories.
Look at the saga of the Northern Spotted Owl, protected under the ESA in 1990. Its listing led to over six million acres of Pacific Northwest forests being placed under logging restrictions. Entire rural economies were altered. Lawsuits mounted. Political factions formed around the implications of its habitat protections. Now imagine similar restrictions triggered across known Bigfoot sighting corridors like the Cascade Range, the Sierra Nevadas, and the Appalachian forests. The logging, mining, and even off-road vehicle industries could be profoundly impacted.
Additionally, in 2023, protections for the Lesser Prairie Chicken were reintroduced under the ESA. The reaction was swift. Oil and gas companies, along with several states, filed suits claiming overreach and economic harm. If a creature as obscure to the general public as the Lesser Prairie Chicken can cause multi-state legal battles, imagine what would happen if a massive great ape species was discovered to inhabit multiple states across national parks, private lands, and tribal territories.
Immediate Legislative Action
There is some early precedent for action. Skamania County, Washington, passed a symbolic ordinance in 1969 prohibiting the harm or harassment of any “Sasquatch-type creatures” with penalties including jail time. Although written somewhat tongue-in-cheek, it has remained on the books and has been reaffirmed in modern times as part of the county's heritage.
In 2021, the Oklahoma State Representative Justin Humphrey proposed an official Bigfoot hunting season. While this was framed partly as a tourism stunt, it triggered public backlash and debate over what protections a hypothetical species should receive.
Should a discovery occur, we would likely see fast-tracked legislation, especially in states like Washington, Oregon, and California where the sightings are most frequent and the environmental lobbies most powerful.
In 2021, the Oklahoma State Representative Justin Humphrey proposed an official Bigfoot hunting season. While this was framed partly as a tourism stunt, it triggered public backlash and debate over what protections a hypothetical species should receive.
Should a discovery occur, we would likely see fast-tracked legislation, especially in states like Washington, Oregon, and California where the sightings are most frequent and the environmental lobbies most powerful.
Conservation Versus Exploitation, A History Lesson
Dian Fossey History shows us that discovery does not equal protection. In 1902, the mountain gorilla was discovered by a German officer, and what followed was nearly a century of poaching, war-zone habitat destruction, and trophy hunting before serious conservation efforts stabilized the population.
If Bigfoot were found, the demand for physical specimens, black-market trophies, and private exhibitions would spike almost instantly. Without immediate and aggressive intervention, the creature could be more at risk post-discovery than it was in obscurity.
Conservation groups would need to act in concert with state and federal authorities. DNA samples and non-invasive research would become the gold standard. Infrared and acoustic monitoring might replace traditional field studies. Ideally, any research effort would be modeled after the Dian Fossey and George Schaller conservation-first approaches, which focused on habitat preservation and minimal human impact.
If Bigfoot were found, the demand for physical specimens, black-market trophies, and private exhibitions would spike almost instantly. Without immediate and aggressive intervention, the creature could be more at risk post-discovery than it was in obscurity.
Conservation groups would need to act in concert with state and federal authorities. DNA samples and non-invasive research would become the gold standard. Infrared and acoustic monitoring might replace traditional field studies. Ideally, any research effort would be modeled after the Dian Fossey and George Schaller conservation-first approaches, which focused on habitat preservation and minimal human impact.
How Discovery Could Aid the Species
The Saola aka "Asian Unicorn" While much of the discourse around Bigfoot’s potential discovery leans toward the dangers of exposure, there are legitimate and compelling ways that such an event could serve to protect the species if handled correctly.
First and foremost, confirmation would elevate Bigfoot from folklore to zoological fact. That shift alone would attract the attention of legitimate scientific institutions, conservation NGOs, and funding agencies. Rather than fringe groups operating in the shadows with limited resources, real scientific infrastructure could be mobilized for habitat preservation and biological study.
Species with confirmed taxonomic status receive access to global conservation mechanisms. This includes funding from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), and potential inclusion in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Bigfoot could quickly become a centerpiece for environmental protection across multiple North American biomes.
The discovery of the Saola, or "Asian Unicorn," in the Annamite Mountains of Laos and Vietnam in 1992, led to an international conservation campaign that protected large swaths of its range from deforestation and poaching, despite the animal being rarely seen since.
If research determines that Bigfoot relies on intact old-growth forest or isolated highland regions, conservationists could use that data to lobby for the expansion of protected areas. National forests could gain new designations, similar to how critical habitats are carved out for endangered species like the Florida panther or grizzly bear.
Discovery would also catalyze a shift in public perception. What was once dismissed as fantasy would become an icon of biodiversity one with the potential to inspire the next generation of conservationists, zoologists, and field biologists. Much like gorillas and orangutans became mascots for wildlife protection in the 20th century, Bigfoot could serve the same role in the 21st.
Additionally, local communities near sighting hotspots could benefit economically from responsible ecotourism, scientific field stations, and conservation grants. This can create a financial incentive for protecting habitat rather than exploiting it.
First and foremost, confirmation would elevate Bigfoot from folklore to zoological fact. That shift alone would attract the attention of legitimate scientific institutions, conservation NGOs, and funding agencies. Rather than fringe groups operating in the shadows with limited resources, real scientific infrastructure could be mobilized for habitat preservation and biological study.
Species with confirmed taxonomic status receive access to global conservation mechanisms. This includes funding from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), and potential inclusion in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Bigfoot could quickly become a centerpiece for environmental protection across multiple North American biomes.
The discovery of the Saola, or "Asian Unicorn," in the Annamite Mountains of Laos and Vietnam in 1992, led to an international conservation campaign that protected large swaths of its range from deforestation and poaching, despite the animal being rarely seen since.
If research determines that Bigfoot relies on intact old-growth forest or isolated highland regions, conservationists could use that data to lobby for the expansion of protected areas. National forests could gain new designations, similar to how critical habitats are carved out for endangered species like the Florida panther or grizzly bear.
Discovery would also catalyze a shift in public perception. What was once dismissed as fantasy would become an icon of biodiversity one with the potential to inspire the next generation of conservationists, zoologists, and field biologists. Much like gorillas and orangutans became mascots for wildlife protection in the 20th century, Bigfoot could serve the same role in the 21st.
Additionally, local communities near sighting hotspots could benefit economically from responsible ecotourism, scientific field stations, and conservation grants. This can create a financial incentive for protecting habitat rather than exploiting it.
Final Thoughts and Conclusions
We who investigate Bigfoot must not only be prepared for the moment of discovery, but also for what follows. That discovery is not the end of the mystery. It is the beginning of a moral, scientific, and ecological obligation.
If we fail to prepare, the very act of proving Bigfoot exists could lead to the destruction of the species. The best defense of the creature’s survival will not come from those who just now believe, but from those of us who have always looked, always cared, and always understood that respect must come before recognition.
The real challenge will not be finding Bigfoot. The real challenge will be protecting them from us.
Till Next Time,
Squatch-D
If we fail to prepare, the very act of proving Bigfoot exists could lead to the destruction of the species. The best defense of the creature’s survival will not come from those who just now believe, but from those of us who have always looked, always cared, and always understood that respect must come before recognition.
The real challenge will not be finding Bigfoot. The real challenge will be protecting them from us.
Till Next Time,
Squatch-D
RSS Feed
