I am so embarrassed to be a Canadian. A member of Canada's Parliament has given voice to an effort to add Bigfoot to the country's Species at Risk Act. Read it and weep:
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.
But also: "A similar appeal has been made to the US Congress." Which congressman or woman will rise to the challenge?
It is true that Canadian MPs have a tradition of reading a wide variety of petitions from their constituents into the parliamentary record without necessarily agreeing with them. But MPs aren't expected to introduce just anything. There are limits: racist petitions, for example. But apparently nothing is too stupid for Mike Lake.
Given the costs associated with a Species at Risk Act, one would hope that adding non-existent species would be beyond the pale
- Log in to post comments
Well, I don't know about you, but I love the Sasquatch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sARqCa5Cqu4
And 500 people in Edmonton signed that petition?
Yikes!
I used to point out a sasquatch to the kids I ferried to and from school. It stood on a hill above the highway, and was obviously watching us.
Even the youngest of the kids knew it was just a snag.
You're embarrassed by this silly and relatively harmless sasquatch kerfuffle? Lucky thing you aren't an American, you'd explode from nonsense going on here!
And speaking of Alberta, there is a new public Christian elementary school opening in Cochrane. They'll be teaching creationism in science class. It seems that they take their imaginary beings seriously there.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2007/05/02/mixed-school.html
Robert Michael Pyle's book "Crossing the Dark Divide" published in 1995 leaves a question I will try to paraphrase: Since we cannot scientifically prove or disprove the existance of such a creature, does it stand to reason we should continue to wipe out habitat whether real or potential? Or does it make more sense to preserve the habitat and try to learn more?
How is this an embarassment? Given Canada's less than stellar record of preservation and environmental stewardship, any action in that direction should be applauded - however unusual it appears.
Sasquatch. . .
We know your legend's reeeeeaaaaal. . . .
Sasquatch. . .
We know your love is reeeeeaaaaal. . . .
Sasquatch. . .
Hey, hey, hey, ho. . .
You. . . and Mike Lake. . . are reeeeaaaal. . .
(with apologies to Tenacious D)
If the only reason they can come up for with for habitat protection (or rather, basic environmental preservation) is the supposed habitat of an imaginary creature, then I think their basic sanity is in question. I assume then that if bigfoot were not supposed to live in an area, then there would be no problem destroying the environment?
It's a shame that real creatures take a back seat to imaginary creatures (as real humans have taken a back seat to imaginary boogeymen for many people here in the states).
We can applaud their conservation stance, while deploring the idiocy and lack of any real thought (not to mention critical thought).
With people like that I expect the Ogopogo of Okanagan lake will get equal backing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogopogo
Depressing. But Futurama will cheer you up!
An educational filmstrip about bigfeet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uusIL_61CHA
Clearly, we should be worshipping this beat!
Sure it's embarrasing to enact legislation to protect imaginary creatures. But what's MORE embarrasing, to me as a fellow Canadian, is to try to protect an AMERICAN creature!
Obviously this MP has been watching too much Discovery Channel and not enough Nature of Things. The Himalayan gigantopithecus is called Yeti; the American version is Bigfoot; and finally, the Canadian subspecies is the SASQUATCH. This is like declaring that our national sport is ice hockey. No. We call it HOCKEY.
There, now I feel better.
Now, while preserving habitat is laudable, trying to reserve land for an unknown creature is, well, unquantifiable. How does one count these beasts to assess whether they are, um, still endangered? It's all rather silly. If the MP really wants to conserve habitat, then do so for all. While a few spotted owls certainly deserve to be protected, one must think of the biosphere and its interconnectiveness to realize that all creatures need habitat to endure.
How to embarrass your country, part deux:
Be unfamiliar with the coinage of the country you are visiting
The USA retakes the lead in the 'embarrass your country sweepstakes'
Mike Lake has publicly stated that he does NOT agree with the Bigfoot petition, but tabled the petition (he did NOT speak on it in the House)on behalf of one of his constituents, which is part of his job as MP.
Here is a quote on the subject:
"I take seriously my responsibility to represent all of my constituents, regardless of whether or not I agree with their views. If a legitimate petition is brought forward by one of my constituents and deemed to be in order, I feel it is my duty to table it in the House.
People go to Scotland to catch a glimpse of Nessie and pay high libras for hotel rooms and quaff brew at pubs. Shouldn't our Canuck cousins (is the term pejorative? My apologies if it is considered so) spread the welcome for Sasqatch watchin' at the appropriate time o'year so that good times may reign?
Let's say they take the petition seriously. What could they do that was meaningful? Well, for one, they could set aside wilderness habitat in areas of 'bigfoot' sightings.
That would be good for the local tourist industry. And, it might be a good outcome (even if for odd reasons) environmentally. We're trying to get ecotourism to catch on elsewhere.
Ecotourist: I'd like you to guide me through the wilderness to see wildlife.
Big Game Hunter: So you can shoot them?
Ecotourist: Yes, with a camera.