Do Bigfoots, Yetis & Yowies Have Human Rights In The Eyes Of The Law?

Just askin'..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Damn yetis. But its the aliens and their anal probes you really have to watch out for.

Which brings up a good point. Only aliens with green cards have human rights. Illegal aliens get the shaft and they don't even lube it first.

So all you yetis remember to register with immigration first.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Commie pinko comrade max has a point. Rights are historically given first to those willing to organize and fight for them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I just had a thought: the caricature of a bigfoot/yeti/yowie is a big hairy ape-man with long arms that stay by their sides even when they run. This links with the proven idea that neanderthals didn't have shoulder joints which enabled them to throw a spear! (Wow, I really am heading for title of biggest crackpot)

 

Ummm ... er ... ah ... yeah. How best to say it?

Are you sure about that?

 

Not really. The study, which has a very small sample of n=3, shows that they didn't throw spears, not that they couldn't throw spears. Constant throwing results in shoulder changes in the "throwing arm" in people like pitchers. If you were to examin me, it would pe obvious I've not done a lot of overhand throwing with one arm too.
http://www.physorg.com/news151326825.html

But the key developments were the bow and the atlatl, which the N. never made to our knowledge. It should also be noted not all humans developed the bow and/or the atlatl either.

 

That's nothing. Have you ever seen what they shove up there during the anal probe?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There is evidence that their anatomy meant that they couldn't throw spears as well as humans. This in itself would be a decisive advantage in any early encounters between neanderthals and our ancestors. BTW the article states:

They definitely left Africa BEFORE 40,000 years ago!

 

Disney World

But even that is nothing compared to what he's managed to squirrel away in there.

 

IF such creatures (bigfoot, yowie, almas, chuchuaa, et. al.) can be proven to exist, (big if, hence the capitals) they should be given human rights, on the following basis. They are arguably closer to we humans genetically than the great apes, and as James pointed out in the thread he posted, there are moves afoot presently to give the same rights of protection to those 'lesser' species. So someone from a species like the neanderthals, who separated from the ancestors of the human race ca. 800 kya at the earliest and 600 kya at the latest (as against chimpanzees, which separated from humanity ca. 6 million years ago at the latest) should get human rights.

Let's put it this way; if you're talking about neanderthals, yowies, bigfoot, almas, chuchuaa et. al., and talking about apes and monkeys, and you're asked to describe them as an individual, where do you draw the line between the phrase beginning with the word 'someone who' and switch over to saying 'something that'? Where is the verbal dividing line between hominoid and pongoid?

 

That's a good catch phrase.

 

If the Yeti take over Russia, then they will obviously have more human-rights than the Russians. Baron is right, the ones with power appoint human rights in interests of self-preservation.

 

I saw a TV programme (Stephen Fry In America, BBC) where the ancient redwood forests of northern California and Oregon are under threat from logging. The 'tree-huggers' search for the tree vole, which is an endangered species, and so automatically a 10km radius of forest is protected when a nest is found. Also, an eyewitness gave an emotional account of his sighting at relatively close range of a 7-9ft tall sasquatch (he was fearful for the safety of his family). He thinks that the reason that bigfoot is not officially recognised to exist is purely economical. "Look what happened with the protection laws of the little spotted owl". It means that vast tracts of land become protected by law, which is last thing that the powerful logging companies want.

All that is needed is that the yetis, yowies and sasquatch become listed as endangered species. This way ancient woodlands (and the planet) get saved.

 

I've just found out that there is no law permitting the shooting of sasquatch or BC hairy wild men. My source is from the Centre of Fortean Cryptozoology (CFZ). I quote:

"Upon arriving home Kincaid wrote government agent Bray of Nanaimo enquiring if it would be lawful to shoot the Mowgli, as he was terrorising that vicinity. The government agent replied that there was no law permitting such an act." (1905)

 

Hmm, depends on the taxonomic classification of bigfoot which has yet to be established, same thing goes for yetis and "yowies" (what the fuck are "yowies"?). The most foolproof method would be to bait the bigfoot with pizza crusts and beatles and lead it to a cage with a fertile woman and see if a pregnancy ensues after they have wild jungle sex. If not, bigfoots become fair game to hunt, I don't care if they learn to say "please stop" or "help!" in their thick, raucous voices, they're not humans. If a pregnancy does ensue, then we should give them some casinos and stuff, maybe some fire works, simple things like that to keep them busy. We could perhaps work out some arrangements to purchase a few bigfoot for our zoos, there's no reason to think we couldn't get along if they were eventually considered humans.

 

Yowies are the Australian version of Bigfoot. It would seem that there is no US law which permits the shooting of any such creatures (if they exist).

 

Yowies, Bigfoot and other such creatures are protected under the Unicorn Act.

 

Are you trying to be serious?

 

Of course. They are completely protected from all harm, their established ranges are free from human encroachment. Didnt' you know about this?