Comments on: Killing a Sasquatch For Science?

By: BearMan

BearMan — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 06:20:20 +0000

i have to agree to disagree. I know Bigfoot is a very elusive animal and if there is such a thing there is most likely under a thousand of them…. if not under 500. But this animal needs to be proven whether or not its real. I have never had the privelege of seeing this beast but i can garuntee you that if i have the chance of putting this thing in my crosshairs, i can garuntee you the trigger is gonna be pulle and that thing is gonna have a bullet in its head before it hears the shot.

By: Ian Sallis

Ian Sallis — Wed, 10 May 2006 15:06:06 +0000

Shouldn’t need to kill a Satchquatch. The Carter family claim to have bigfoot living on their ranch, didn’t a young one die?

Problem solved! Dig junior up!

If Bigfoot exists in the USA, then its remains should have been found by now, more so if they bury their dead.

You can’t keep spouting out the same old rubbish of scavenger predation when they,supposedly, conceal their family members.

Bears, Pumas and American Mastadons never had their bones concealed, which in turn means the scavengers must have had a good knaw on them. But you still get skulls etc found.

Or is there another unkown animal in North America that only feeds on Bigfoot bones?

By: Craig Woolheater

Craig Woolheater — Tue, 02 May 2006 04:32:37 +0000

Steve Hyde, a Bigfoot researcher from the state of Georgia, had plenty of comments for John on this blog entry. Far too many to post here. Go to Steve's own blog entry titled Oh, To Kill A Sasquatch!!! to read the comments.

By: malenurse93

malenurse93 — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 00:25:21 +0000

I was reading all of the comments on “killing a Sasquatch for science” and I must first state that I don’t believe in killing an intelligent, shy, curious, beautiful hominid for scientific study. Don’t get me wrong, I am not a tree hugger nor am I an anti-hunter. I believe that these marvelous creatures should be studied at a distance. If man becomes involved in this animal’s “conservation”, it would surely be the beginning of the end of its existence. Even with the best of intentions, we would screw it up. This hominid is very intelligent. It knows how to survive. It is smart enough to evade capture from eons ago to date. Why must we interfere further in its domain? Do we really want to make this species more scared and threatened than we apparently are already doing? An animal with its intelligence must have many of the same emotions as we. It can feel fear, sadness, pride in its family members, and I believe, joy as well. It is not enough to really know that they are there and really do exist. If you are at this website, then you must believe so. So really, why must we prove its existence to the non-believers? If we try to regulate this animal and tag it and track it by satellite receivers, we would be doing it great harm and a very sad injustice. These creatures are not criminals, they are shy and secretive and that is what makes them so remarkable and special. I am a descendant of American Indian heritage. My people have known of Sasquatches’ existence for hundreds of years. We learned to appreciate it and to respect it and to co-habitate with it. Isn’t that really good enough?

By: Mnynames

Mnynames — Sun, 09 Apr 2006 19:10:31 +0000

If I might intrude with a rare defense for the skeptics, I think the main difference between a video of an Ivory-Billed Woodpecker and a Sasquatch comes down to this- there’s no way you can put a guy in a woodpecker suit and pass it off as the real thing. Sasquatch are, by their very nature, quite similar to ourselves, and as we have seen, it is possible to stuff a guy in a suit and get someone, possibly many someones, to believe it. Ultimately, however convincing a video of a Sasquatch appears, there is always the possibility, however remote, that it’s just a guy in a suit. It may not be fair, but I think that is the true explanation for the different standards that Bigfoot photos/videos are subjected to.

By: WVBotanist

WVBotanist — Sun, 09 Apr 2006 04:27:42 +0000

About preserving habitat -
That is a noble idea, and has been successful in many cases with rare species. But it isn’t a simple case of proving that something rare exists, then, bam, its habitat is protected.

In the U.S., protection may be provided by state, local, and federal law, depending on a variety of factors. But, for a wide-ranging and widely distributed (apparently) creature like a Sasquatch, state and local protections would be piecemeal, at best. And federal protection requires more than a claim of existence based on a single dead specimen. Or several. It requires full blown investigation of species life history and requirements, distribution, and an clear recovery plan based on applying the best available science through a highly political process. In other words, you are talking about, at best, a decade or so after official ‘discovery’ might get you a draft species recovery plan and standard local operating procedures. Forget about critical habitat, just rest assured the next interstate highway would reference a paragraph or two in its NEPA documents, at best. You can imagine what could transpire in the interim, of course.

So, if you’re interested in protecting the species, step one is not to kill any of them. Step two would be to consider why the habitat is not protected on its intrinsic, current value alone, Sasquatch or not? That is where the protection answers lie.

By: Steve8511

Steve8511 — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 03:38:14 +0000

I am a hunter and I admit I have day dreamed of shooting one but then there is what do you do with it. I would probably call around and see who would be willing to pay for it and sell it like it was a drug deal. But you know we will never be able to justify preserving the habitat for them just by pictures.

By: CryptoInformant

CryptoInformant — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 01:21:53 +0000

AMEN!

By: Ole Bub

Ole Bub — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:33:33 +0000

Good morning Bigfoot folks…

I hate it when mountain lions roam beyond their accepted range…..we need more mountain lion literacy and range compliance….LOL

I’ve seen black panthers (a mutated color variance) years before they were recognized in the local press and accepted….by the State fish and game folks…who simply extended their “range”….

seeing is believing…

ole bub and Toshiba…the Samurai dawg

By: One Eyed Cat

One Eyed Cat — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 04:39:27 +0000

It seems to me that if a body is required, a live body should be as convincing as a dead one. Grant it they are just by their size possibly dangerous, but I am sure some way can be worked out to contain one.