Posted by: Loren Coleman on March 13th, 2007
Would you kill a Bigfoot, if you got the chance?
The cover illustration by Dick Klyver is of Homo floresiensis, a Proto-Pygmy, on the front of The Field Guide of Bigfoot and Other Mystery Primates, 2006.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, March 13th, 2007 at 12:25 am and is filed under Bigfoot, Books, Breaking News, CryptoZoo News, Cryptotourism, Cryptozoologists, Cryptozoology, Expedition Reports, Sasquatch. You can follow responses via our RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.
Spread the Word!
- Similar Phenomena:
Now there’s a loaded question! This ought to touch a few nerves…
I can’t wait to read all the responses tomorrow morning!
What we know about them suggests that they are relatively social creatures. On that basis, killing one is more compassionate than capturing it, segregating it, and leaving it confined to an extremely limited space. If one were to capture a specimen, one would have to be extremely naive to think that one would be allowed to release said specimen back to the wild after having “”exhibited” it. Then there would be the legions of zealot scientists clamoring to get their own look at said specimen. I shudder to think what would be done to it in the name of the religion of science. (Where do you think Yarwen ended up? On the slab in some hidden lab, of course.)
Clearly, producing a dead specimen is the kinder way to go. A physical specimen is ultimately needed, particularly since photographs and film increasingly fail to constitute decent evidence in the face of modern technology (the scary implications of which I need not mention).
Of course, I could be accused of dodging Loren’s question. I don’t believe in killing for any reason other than sustenance (vegetarians tend to piss me off since they’re so insensitive to plants while proclaiming to be sensitive — they’re just being kingdom-ist); so my answer must be: No, I wouldn’t kill a sasquatch if I had the chance; unless I intended to eat it for dinner. However, given the way they reportedly smell, I hardly think that sasquatch is something that I would ever want to snack on.
Just my two cents.
This is a double edged sword. Without an actual specimen, there can be no end to the debate on the existence of sasquach, therefore they can not be listed on the protected species list. But to actually hunt down and kill one just to prove its existence seems silly. That would be like killing one of the last condors just to prove they are endangered. But that being said, without an actual body that could be studied and probed we will probably never have definitive proof. I personally would not kill one. I came in contact with one as a teen and had a rifle and was mere feet away, but opted not to shoot.
Grover Krantz always said that all it took was ONE dead Bigfoot then they’d be on the protected species list so fast no others could be harmed. I have to say that I agree with him. However, I don’t hunt. So I’m not used to shooting anything, never mind an intelligent hominid. Heck, I used to get squeamish gutting fish. I’d probably make a terrible Bigfoot hunter.
Besides, if Bigfoot are as heavy as people estimate, how the heck would I get the poor thing back to civilization?
I’m a hunter, but I doubt I could get the nerve up to kill something as humanoid in appearance as a Bigfoot.
Exactly. In fact, I’ve been thinking about it. Even if I was used to hunting animals, when faced with a Bigfoot could I honestly convince myself that
a) the best thing to do is to kill it in order to prove it exists or
b) that it really isn’t a hoaxer in a stupid costume?
Can you imagine the headlines if you bagged a college kid in a monkey suit instead of a Sasquatch?
There is absolutely no doubt that one of these magnificent animals is going to have to “take one for the team” in order to prove existence of the species. In spite of what evidence has come forth, mainstream science denies the possibility of these animals being here.
It’s funny how eyewitness testimony can convict a person, and even get them the death sentence, but the same level of testimony is not accepted in establishing the existence of this creature. Would I ‘harvest’ one? You bet! There is a catch to it though, I only want an adult male. Do I think that there is money to be made off of one? Nope, I don’t think anyone has ever gotten rich by establishing the fact that a particular species exists. Maybe there would be some cash on the movie rights. Maybe. I hate to offend those that think this is the animal from “Harry and the Hendersons”, but if the conditions are conducive to recovering the remains, I will shoot in a heartbeat.
I would not kill one, except in self-defense or in defense of someone else.
I’m curious as to why Al would only “harvest” an adult male. I have a few guesses as to why, but I’d rather hear from him, rather than speculate idly, as I do more than enough of that.
I’m not sure i could shoot a bigfoot that was minding it’s own business, since I’m not a hunter and don’t kill animals unless they pose some kind of threat or serious nuisance. if it came down to self defense, I can assure you that the ape will be taking a dirt nap. If I were on a bigfoot “expedition”, I would be armed, not because I’m looking for trouble, but in case trouble comes looking for me. Being unarmed in the woods is just a bad idea. How many horror movies set in swamps or the deep forest would have turned out differently if the characters had only been armed?
Unfortunately though, someone IS going to have to kill a sasquatch in order for it to be recognized as a valid species. Unless a corpse or skeleton is found laying around somewhere.
I don’t believe that recognizing a species requires a kill. A capture would be just as good. No, even better, because the animal could be fitted with a tracking or monitoring device and released to be studied further.
Animals can be subdued by drugs or other means for long enough to obtain direct tissue samples for DNA and other testing. Killing one to prove its species’ existence might be quicker, but it is no longer necessary. The benefits of having the living animal for further study outweigh the benefits of having its carcass.
Sooner or later, every animal dies. If we are studying the living animals, eventually we will have a dead one, without having to kill it ourselves.
I don’t hunt, and am a very live and let live kind of person. But a body, one way or another, is the only way this matter will be settled.
Maybe he’ll get pancaked on the interstate and make it easy…
They only get pancaked in Kentucky :D.
Only to protect myself or others.
To actually hunt one down and kill it seems wrong.
If they are real, they have been doing fine without our protection or interference for a long time.
Here is one of the best arguments I’ve read for killing one.
I disagree.
We are past this, or should be, and if we’re not it doesn’t say much for our chances of saving anything.
Things have gotten to the pass where we don’t even know how many of these there are. Killing one on purpose seems unjustifiable from that perspective alone.
Given the number of people who were armed when they met one, and suddenly, um, either totally forgot that fact or had that gun suddenly feel like a water pistol, I feel pretty safe in saying that you won’t shoot a sasquatch unless you’ve already done it.
It’s a very nineteenth-century idea, and last I checked this is the 21st.
That guy in the link is very calculating about it, and tries to strip the decision of all sentiment. But that in itself is a kind of excuse. I don’t think anyone’s really thought about this. Or maybe someone has. There he was, sitting in remote backcountry with a dead sasquatch….thinking about how the hell he was going to get it out of there….about the kind of reception he was going to get….and about who he might meet first…and second….and 354th….he didn’t come out with that ape, did he?
And chances are quite good that in your state province or wherever, hunting is illegal. Unless you shoot this, between these dates, with this weapon. In other words, if it’s not specifically mentioned, it’s illegal to shoot it.
Unless you are going out with a heavily manned and equipped formal expedition with clear protocols for engagement, and a well thought-out and thoroughly vetted procedure for evacuating that carcass and getting it into the right hands, you better put that gun away.
And if you think you’ll make any dough off of this….put that gun away. I will NEVER be able to understand how anybody thinks killing a sasquatch, or proving its existence any other way, will make them rich. If this is so, why aren’t several Fortune 500 companies funding expeditions? Why isn’t a paper company - you want to talk about most likely to see sasquatch? try loggers - taking this tack? Probable answer: they thought about it. Thought, past tense of think. I will say this, though: the only person with a chance of getting rich off the sas is the one who brings one back alive - on video. People are NOT going to like a dead or imprisoned sas. I’m telling you, it’s 19th century, and in this (if in few other areas) the vox populi has changed. Better take that public temperature, folks.
But again. The idea of doing it turns my stomach. (Remember, you asked me MY opinion.) And the twisted logic …well, our ability to do handy rationalizing has gotten us in the mess we’re in. It’s time for a new leaf, and this sure seems a logical place to start.
Sorry. It’s disgusting.
Kalashnikovnik: I read your sentence “Being ARMED in the woods is just a bad idea.” That’s the truth. Trust me; 26 years being out there sans weapon is enough to convice me. But then I saw the typo. If you’re not hunting legal game, the last thing you will need - in ANY emergency situation in the woods and you will not be able to name me an exception - is a gun. If you are capable of using a gun, you are capable of ending the emergency another way. (Like, walking out.) If it’s a crooked member of your speciies you’re worried about, why? Either you’re crooked too or you’re dead. (BTW the only people I have ever met in the woods with weapons were hunters of legal game.)
If you think you’ll need a gun out there, well you might. You might need your house and car too. Are they there?
Call this sentimental, but if we don’t stop destroying villages to save them, well, does it look like we’re saiving anything?
No killing - period.
Good morning Cryptos…
These critters have done remarkably well without our interference and “protection”. Public awareness of their existence and plight with respect to a shrinking habitat is vital.
Capture is highly unlikely and could be potentially catastrophic if the specimen was documented, chipped and released, possibly exposing other clan members to human diseases which could devastate an indigenous population…JMHO
One of our researchers at NABF was a pro kill advocate…until he watched a 9 footer browsing at his bait station for 40 minutes through his rifle scope a few months ago “seeing is believing”. He told me he had relatives more apelike than this creature. He is strictly observe and protect these days.
I referenced this incident…with his permission hoping those folks with an itchy trigger finger may reconsider.
A roadkill or winterkill voucher specimen is inevitable in my humble opinion…when that day arrives…who are they gonna call…thats the real question.
Hunting them for sport, trophy or “science” should be illegal…period…JMHO
Live and let live….
ole bub and the dawgs
Kill a bigfoot and the FBI will confiscate it before it hits the ground. They have a crew in every region, that is assigned that task. So “researchers” are living a pipe dream, by imagining that killing a bigfoot is going to solve anything. Secondly, bigfoot are not endangered becaue they likely number in the millions. But they are intelligent people and deserve protection on that basis alone. See topic “bigfoot invisibility” for why people think that their numbers are so few. A dead bigfoot would only scare people and that is not the goal of researchers. A live bigfoot can possibly be revealed as benevolent, cooperative, gentle, intelligent, having a sense of humor and of course, supernatural. None of this can be proven with a dead body.
Gotta go with the no kill camp here.
I couldn’t even imagine killing a BF for any reason. The capture scenario is also a sticky situation.
When we did the “how would you catch a BF” thing it really bothered me to consider capturing and holding one of these creatures. I got into it a little then and I explained why I preferred a male.
Some of the many issues we have to consider are removing a BF from a migrating family group, taking a mother from her offspring or visa versa. What kind of traumatic effect would it have on the captured BF as well as the family group? I could go on and on….
There has to be a better way.
First, I am a hunter and I know I would be able to shoot one if I saw one, but I would definitely choose not to. Second, I agree that a body is the only thing that will put the debate to rest. I think that a person that brings a body to science will stand to make a lot of money off of it if they handle it right. Just like the person who takes the world record whitetail deer or the person who catches the new world record largemouth bass. There will be money to be made.
DWA,
I can name you numerous examples of being in the wood where you need a gun. And hunting has nothing to do with it. How about fishing in Grizzly country? Hiking in mountain lion country? I have run across pot fields while in the woods, trespassers, and the like. Without a firearm, these could have turned out very differently. Just because there are bad people out there doesn’t mean you are automatically going to be a victim or “dead” as you said. In fact you are more likely to be a victim if you are unarmed.
Also, in reference to the hunting regulations, since Bigfoot is not a recognized species, there are no regulations governing the taking of one. A state or province can only regulate what they recognize as a legitimate animal. For example, my state of South Carolina has no laws against shooting a cougar because they say we don’t have any in this state.
raisinsofwrath: there has to be a better way, and I’m pretty sure there is.
You read that link I put up there, and much of the justification is in, oh well, the way science always was, always is, and always will be. Well the scenario just got changed. This isn’t science as usual anymore. Has science as usual confirmed the sas? Just because everything else has a representative dead in a drawer means we have to keep doing that? Have you seen what a dead in a drawer specimen looks like after a few decades? There IS a better way now.
People say good video will never be accepted. The only reason, in my opinion, that Patterson/Gimlin isn’t absolutely unquestioned as a sasquatch is the totally irrational initial belief, that planted a seed in the public’s mind, that that’s a man in a suit. (That scientists let that happen is an eternal blemish on zoology and primatology.) That belief takes time to die. 40 years and counting for P/G says it’s dying.
Everything I’ve seen filmic for fake sasquatch has smelled dead from the instant I saw it. Only my totally irrational belief that gosh, maybe that IS a guy in a suit kept me from trusting my eyes at the first runthrough of P/G. Well, I’m there now. And you know what? I bet the majority of the public who have actually paid attention to P/G are too.
Trust me, a good video of a live sasquatch taken today or tomorrow will be INSTANTLY compelling.
Summing up: the only reason we’re talking kill at all is an extremely bad reason.
And if silvereagle’s right, only a live one will prove it.
We can’t prove his thesis on this scientifically. But let a bunch of scientists see it, and I want a ticket and some popcorn.
There is a better way, but it can’t be done by an amateur. Tranquilizer darts, figured for the correct size and weight by a professional, could be used to immobilize a Bigfoot so that closeup, definitive video and photos could be taken with complete physical exam. Hair and other biological specimens could be taken for later analysis, then the creature could be released. I know at least one party that has attempted this in an area of known sightings with a trained scientist, but they were unable to get a shot although they did find fresh tracks and other evidence. Their attempt was documented and may be shown nationally at some point.
- Linda Godfrey
My two cents:
If this thing truly exists then it would be correct to ensure it’s survival as a species. Comments regarding whether the species is viable or not is pure speculation. Nobody knows. The only way to find that out is through comprehensive research. Nobody is going to sink the kind of money necessary into researching a subject that is in most minds no more real than elves and aliens.
Due to the sensational nature of the subject, any picture or video that surfaces will be written off as a guy in a monkey suit no matter how good it is. Any attempt to capture the animal will more than likely end up killing the beast or it will result in the serious injury of death to the person undertaking the task. Finding a body would be ideal, but based on the accounts I’ve read sightings of live Sasquatches far outweigh the dead ones. If we wait around for this to happen the species might well be extinct by that time. That leaves only leaves one alternative, to collect a specimen.
I have no desire to go out in the wilderness to shoot one of these magnificent animals nor would I have any business doing so. But to me, other than to satisfy ones curiosity, any serious research in the Sasquatch without the intent of collecting one is a waste of time and money.
What a great question. Killing would only be justified in self defense. These creatures have to be as rare as the most protected of endangered species.
A live specimen would be the gold standard of proof. Also I am sure that there a physical characteristics that could only be assumed with a dead one. Many reports talk about eye glow. I would think that the eyes are one of the first things that deteriorate at death. Some deep sea creatures and insects self illuminate but I believe that this is unknown in the mammalian world.
I don’t think that there should be any worry about the discomfort of a captured sasquatch. Any zoo lucky enough to be considered to house one of these would spend millions to make a state of the art enclosure. Look how Pandas are treated. Wild animals have a very tough existence. Once they are old or sick death comes with a lot of suffering.
Best Regards
It should be trapped like man has done with other apes and studied.
Why settle for one, why not capture a family and breed them in a zoological park?
Evidently it’s a rare beast and should not become a trophy and have it’s head over someone’s mantle.
I really hate to be drawn into another debate about this topic again, so I will keep my thoughts brief. I personally think it would be better to capture one and try to track it somehow. Sure if you kill one, you have that body, you have that holotype. I used to be a proponent of killing one, but my views have changed on this of late. I think the main reason I changed my mind is because the amount of data that could be gained from actually being able to track one. The way I see it is that if you kill it, sure you have the body. You can document it and dissect it and do all sorts of nifty experiments with it, then maybe have it taxidermied and sent to a museum. Then what? Could we be sure of finding one again when it took all of this time just to find one to begin with? Would we know everything that can be known about it just from its body? Is that really going to satisfy all of us who have been looking for this creature for so long?
Now, if you capture it, you can document it and get that physical evidence. You can also release it, track it, and gain much more data about its habits and movements than you could by killing it, I feel. I do not think I would want to forfeit all of that potential data just to get a body. This is the same way with known animals, and I feel tracking it would provide us with far more answers to our questions. I see where the “kill” camp is coming from, and there was a time when I agreed, but I just think now that there are more productive ways to do this.
If I happened to stumble upon one in the woods, I would not hesitate to shoot and kill it.
DWA, you can argue this point until you’re blue in the face, but the scientific community, as well as the public, simply will not accept anything less than a body (live or dead) as ‘proof’ that Bigfoot exists.
Given the difficulty of capturing a specimen alive (especially if we’re talking about one or two people who happen to find one, rather than a group of people specifically equipped to capture a live one and actively seeking to do so), shooting and killing one is the best option.
Seems pretty obvious to me.
Quote: “be fitted with a tracking or monitoring device and released to be studied further.”
Good luck with that.
My dog won’t even let me put a Doggie Sized Football Jersey on her…
Being of Native American ancestry I always heard my grandfather talk about sasquatch but I never took any of it serious, until a few years ago. I used to think that I would have no problem killing one, but now after reading a lot and hearing alot more of the old Indian tales I can’t help but feel a little superstitious about the “old man”. Another thing that started turning me was reading Jeff Meldrum’s book. I never realized how little I knew about the subject. As for killing one? I really don’t think I could now. How many professional hunters claim to have stumbled across the squatch and could not pull the trigger? I just don’t think I’m willing to possibly curse my family. Only a professionally organized research group should be the ones who tranquilize, tag, and release such a beast. Although, if one was to come into my camp to steal one of my kids, I wouldn’t hesitate blowing his kneecaps off.
I guess there is the remote chance that a hunter will kill one someday, or it’ll get killed by accident (logging truck), or we’ll come upon a dead or dying one, regardless of how the deed is done it will be an interesting day. Saying that once it happens means it will be effectively protected sounds kinda funny since without any protection they’re doing great…at keeping away from us, which I would say is essential to their continued health. Currently there are people who claim all sorts of experience in wilderness skills, hunters, biologists…and all of ‘em come up empty, and they’re trying to the best of their ability to just see one. I believe the creature can exist, but I also believe that our own understanding of our own ability is lacking. Should they ever become scientifically recognized it will be the first step in understanding their behaviour and habitat.
But really, just mentioning the idea of capturing one makes me laugh. As Keith Foster commented in his long essay on the situation; imagine trying to capture a 1000 pound leopard that has the intelligence of a chimp. I think that explains tons.
If they are as intellegent as most say… wouldn’t killing a Sasquatch be just as bad as killing a human?? Think about that… I say No. It would be murder.
I’ll have to come down on the no-kill, capture only side. If you have a dead sas and you want it to be studied, I’m not at all sure you’d get anything but a circus. Most scientists would refuse to examine the body (because it MUST be a hoax), and they would crucify anyone who did examine the body (reference Meldrum).
Then, after the results were published and confirmed (a matter of several years), these same scientists would dispute every finding that was published, all the while lamenting that they were not involved with the study.
All this would take place while other scientists were talking about how the dead sas was really just a freak, or an anomalous gorilla, or someone’s escaped pet (escaped pet what, I’m not sure, but you can bet someone would say it).
And some idiot would say with complete certainty that it was an Indian with a stick.
All in all, a dead sas would only prove that it had at one time been alive (and some would dispute that), not that there were any others out there. Capturing one (now that’s a REALLY tough job) might very well give us the opportunity to find more of them. The impossibility of finding a dead sas out in the woods hints that they might bury their dead, so maybe they’d try to get a captured one back. Yes, I know how quickly bodies decompose in the wild and I know how hard it is to find skeletal remains of deer, bear, wolves, etc. I also know that it isn’t impossible to find them , as I have done so. Also, human remains out in the woods can last for years, as skeletal remnants. A sas ought to have a more robust skeleton than a human, so it should last longer. So where are they? Buried, maybe?
All in all, I think capture, almost impossible as it may be, is the ultimate goal. Then the sas could demonstrate it’s intelligence by escaping and we could start over again.
Wouldn’t that be fun?
This may sound slightly selfish or perhaps even make me come across as a tree-hugger or some such thing but, I wouldn’t even consider shooting a sasquatch. I only wish to see one in the flesh myself. Personally I don’t much care whether the rest of the world would believe me if I did see one because I’d know that I had. As has been mentioned above, “mainstream” science will never accept that sasquatch exists until a specimen is produced, but I don’t think I could bring myself to kill one.
My vote is “no kill” but for a slightly different reason than has already been stated.
Observations of these creatures reveals that they are social animals that operate in groups and somehow communicate with each other. They watch human beings, especially hikers and hunters and people living near their habitat areas, and have proven themselves at being adept in eluding us. They have adapted to our modern technologies; exercising caution to avoid dangers posed by trains or automobiles or articial lights or cameras. They could prey on us, but for whatever reason they don’t. A peaceful coexistence is maintained– though for the vast majority of people, we as a race remain blissfully unaware of their proximity and presence.
Now if someone ever managed to kill and collect the body of one of these creatures as a dead specimen, we should not dare to presume it will go unnoticed. These creatures watch us; adapting and learning. Once we demonstrate our intentions and capabilities of successfully hunting them, we will become their enemy. The table is turned. How do you think this will change their apparent indifference toward people? Will they become more active in defending themselves and their habitat areas? Will they become offensive or aggressive?
This is certainly one species of creatures that I would not want becoming hostile towards people.
escAPEe:
I have a theory that Indian tribes set areas aside for the big guys, areas that they never entered, period, for that reason. (Not all theory: The Hoopa of Northern CA - to name one - did precisely that.)
Theory comes in when I speculate on why.
1. We kill them.
2. They kill too many of us.
3. There’s something there that shouldn’t be killed.
4. Besides, they kill too many of us.
Don’t know whether that’s it. But maybe it wasn’t always so friendly. And maybe we want things kept the way they are.
(For those not conversant on the sas literature: there is nothing in the North American woods other than us that the sas hasn’t been observed to prey on.)
I would not bet it would work for the sas the way it has for everything else. That’s another thing we just don’t know.
No kill.
And for one simple reason:
It is a sentient being, not a means to an end.
It is, by all accounts, as intelligent (if not more so) than the other extant great apes. These have been proved time and time again to be as intelligent, and capable of pain or suffering, as a child of up to four years old.
I wouldn’t shoot a child for any reason. I wouldn’t shoot a sasquatch.
And it has been repeated on this site many times that ’science will only accept a body’. Indeed, I have said this myself.
The more I’ve thought about it though, the less I think that is true.
Science certainly wont accept its existence on the grounds of the evidence we have produced so far. And fair enough, in my opinion. But its not that science wouldn’t accept decent (and multiple) video evidence, in combination with DNA, hair, droppings, etc.
The key is for these bits of evidence to be individually sound, and for them to be consistent with each other, and related to each other. If provided with that kind of triangulation of evidence i think ’science’ (or at least many more scientists) will be happy to accept it. It might not be given a species designation, but they’ll accept there is ’something’ out there. And that would be the start of what so may people want to see- serious, funded scientific research.
I think all of this evidence should be available without us having to resort to killing a sasquatch. Despite what many people here have implied, you do not need to kill, or even capture, an animal to retrieve DNA. DNA can be recovered from feces, hair (caught on branches, thorns, fences- shed in ‘nests’), saliva (from something it has been feeding on), skin (from where it rubs against something).
If that’s all too difficult (which it shouldn’t be if even ten percent of sighting reports are valid) then one can retrieve tissue samples through firing special darts that take a small sample of skin and flesh before dropping harmlessly out.
Now i wouldn’t want to be the one sticking a bf in the arse with a dart, but it could be done (and as this thread proves, there are- apparently- lots of big brave hunters out there who wouldn’t have the slightest worry of being faced by an enraged nine foot ape in the dark wooded wilderness).
Jason P: I don’t have to argue ’til I’m blue in the face. As you can see, most of the rest of the posters here will just pick up for me when I get tired!
The misconception you may have here is that science as usual rules. Not with this, not in the 21st century, it doesn’t. (The public does NOT want a dead one, as the first killer will find out.)
Advanced video technology, if an amateur gets lucky, will allow the amateur to bypass the perfessers and go straight to the court of public opinion. The media have gotten much warmer on this topic; they don’t chase sighters off as nuts anymore. If, and I think I’m right on this, a video would compellingly show an entire world of critters with 4-plus million years of evolution as a hunter that this is a real animal here and not a fake, and the amateur protected it properly which is a significant but manageable if, that video would make CNN pretty quickly.
Science is politics, played with different numbers. When the public confirms the sasquatch, science won’t be far behind.
To kill even one when the tools exist to move easily to confirmation without it? If we haven’t evolved beyond that, I hope we never find the sas. We sure won’t help it when we do.
Jason P: as things-in-the-woods notes, you don’t have to kill OR capture one. If you think it would be a problem catching one, I’d say it might almost be as hard as killing one.
Another thing that I’ve mentioned before elsewhere: it’s not just the evidence but who brings it back. Patterson and Gimlin were seasonal cowoboys, basically. The last TBRC expedition had three biologists on it. If an expedition like that comes back with evidence, the public won’t care whether the biologist is “mainstream” or not.
I have had the opportunity to shoot one, twice, with my rifle handy and a bigfoot in sight. The last one stood literally only 22 feet away, and my 30-30 rifle was pointed right at him just in case he had other intentions. He didn’t and I suspect that calmly speaking to him left an impression. Once you’ve seen these ‘forest people’ I’ll call them, up close, you know shooting them is not the right thing to do. Of couse, as I’ve mentioned, my rifle was also feeling about 6 inches long and had I shot, I am certain that I would not be here today and would have been listed as another ‘lost hunter’.
Now I am able to visit these bigfoot where I instinctively respected them during our last meeting and they show no aggression. A trust was slowly being built and I won’t be the one to betray that trust. Now I must wait for the snows to melt in order to continue this ‘loose’ friendship. They are sentient and while I believe there are other ways to prove their existence to science, causing the loss of one, that a mate and offspring would obviously care for, is not the way.
I tend to feel the same way Sadisticgreen does (a few posts up). I just want to see one, so I can know for myself that they truly exist. I kind of like the idea of knowing they’re out there, even if no one else believes they are real. Guess I’m selfish also.
Of course, the folks who have actually seen “the real thing”, generally seem to agree that the event makes you immediately want to let others know so that measures can be taken to protect them.
Still don’t think I’d kill one to accomplish that.
graybear- on the issue of burial. You say that the fact we don’t find sas bodies out in the woods hints that they bury them (well, perhaps- although i think it more likely hints there aint anything out there at all, that they don’t exist…
Don’t want to be too much of skeptic here, but when we start using our LACK of evidence as the basis of theories about the being we risk ending up next to silvereagle claiming that we know they are there coz we cant see them.
Just three thoughts-
1) If sas exists, it’s probably either a great ape descended from giganto, or something related to Homo erectus. No evidence that either of them buried their dead (in fact the only primates- the only animals?- that do are humans and Neanderthals). What does that mean? Nothing conclusive, but it means burial is yet another hypothesis requiring extraordinary evidence.
2) If they do bury their dead, we have a much BETTER chance of finding their remains. burial protects bodies from weathering and dispersal by scavengers. In the end someone will dig up a sas grave. The only negative here is; why haven’t we found any skeletal evidence at all so far…?
3) How are they supposed to bury them? If it is going to be a burial that is going to stay buried its going to have to be pretty deep. How are they gonna dig the holes? I’ve seen a few reports of sas digging for shellfish with sticks, etc, but I’ve never seen claims of them holding a shovel.
Even though I’m a victim of a Black Widow bite, I still put spiders outside rather than exact some kind revenge.
I see no reason to kill a Bigfoot. If you are absolutely sure you have one ‘available’, organize a capture…remember, ALIVE he would be The 8th Wonder Of The World and you would be an instant millionaire. (If you get around all the bogus ‘permits’ required to keep him alive untill the right offer came in…oh and be able to put up with the ‘rights’ groups that would be picketing and driving you nuts…hmmm…maybe one between the eyes would be the best way. I wouldn’t do it though.
“A dead bigfoot would only scare people and that is not the goal of researchers. A live bigfoot can possibly be revealed as benevolent, cooperative, gentle, intelligent, having a sense of humor and of course, supernatural. None of this can be proven with a dead body.”
Excellent point, silvereagle! With the general public’s base perception of Bigfoot as either a lovable Harry and the Henderson’s type, or the dangerous mankiller of various sundry exploitation flicks, the only way to convey the necessity in seeing to it that these creatures are left alone is to show them for what they are; intelligent, benevolent, sentient creatures with their own social/familial structure. Only then can the “forest monster” stereotype be fully deconstructed and public opinion swayed to the preservation of these creatures.
No kill.
At the risk of being inflammatory, I think we need a reality check here. Quite frankly, most people think that anyone who thinks/knows/believes/whatever-word-you-choose that Bigfoot is real is a nut. It’s that simple. No amount of videotape is going to convince them otherwise. Those of you who don’t understand that are living in a dream world.
If you want to be taken seriously, and to potentially have real money put behind study and/or conservation efforts, you will need either a live animal or a dead body. Period. All I know is that should I ever find myself anywhere near one, you can rest assured that I’ll be firing at it.
Jason P: then I (and it sounds most of us) hope you never get there.
I think the reality check needs to run in reverse, and needs to include the following:
1. What century it is.
2. What the public thinks; your presumption above is just that. There are many small towns - yes in the USA - where the animal’s existence is tacitly assumed, because everyone in town either has seen one or knows someone who has.
3. The true difficulty of the kill option, which I’ve never heard a pro-killer understand,, just like I’ve never heard a scofftic understand the preposterousness of the all-fake claim. And I’m not talking about killing the sas; I’m talking about after it’s dead.
4. None of the no-killers I read here even cares about convincing anyone. If it takes killing a sas to convince you - I read here - you don’t even need the time of day from me. And I agree. I want to convince people, not Neanderthals. And I think the public can be as surprising with its intelligence as with its stupidity. If it means giving the sas the beneift of the doubt I’m going the same way with the public.
Real money will follow discovery. However that happens.
Jason P- At risk of sounding inflammatory myself; You are just wrong.
As DWA has just pointed out, there is funding going into the search for the orang-pendek (and not funding for someone to go out there and blast a big hole in its head), and in the past there was for the Yeti. There is very little evidence for the orang-pendek (i.e., footprints, sightings, folk-lore), but it is given some scientific credibility (it is mentioned as possibly existing- along with the Yeti- in the 2005 book ‘The world atlas of the living apes and their conservation’, which is about as mainstream a science publication as i can think of), and at least partly for the reasons DWA says.
And, in any case, you completely ignore the ethical issue, which, in my opinion is the core of this question.
This animal thinks, feels pain, has emotions, and forms social bonds. Having people ‘think you are nut’ without a body is not good enough reason to go out there and just kill one. Even if the choice is as you suggest (which it isn’t), i know i’d rather be disbelieved than morally compromised.
And DWA, don’t be so hard on Neanderthals- I reckon they’d understand- its possible some of them where hunted down by humans.
Catch and release is the way to go.
A few blood samples for DNA and a tracking tag to observe future behavior. There is no reason what so ever to kill something that may be closer to us than we realize!
And what if after being caught we find out that these creatures may well have a superior intellect.
They have not had a negative impact on their eco system. By living a way more in line with nature. We can not say the same.
things-in-the-woods
On the issue of burial, my reasoning goes like this:
1 The sas exist and are as much animals as you and I.
2 This means that they die, from accidents, violence, disease, old age, what have you.
3 Although animal remains are hard to find, they are not impossible to find. Sas remains have been impossible to find, maybe because we’re not looking in the right places.
4 Jane Goodall has documented chimpanzees grieving over dead friends or relatives and it’s a very small leap from grieving to wishing to protect the remains of a loved one.
So I still think it’s a viable opinion. The sas have to be smarter than chimps or gorillas or we would have found them by now.
As far as making the remains easier to find, I don’t follow your reasoning. Burial could be as simple as concealing the body in a cave or covering the body by pulling down a small section of creek bank. Or covering it over with leaves or a few bushes. The damp conditions would dispose of the body very quickly. And even if there were a ‘traditional’ burial, i.e. a hole dug in the ground, the body interred then covered up, that wouldn’t make the body easier to find at all. One leaf covered lump in the forest floor looks very like all the other non-sas burial leaf covered lumps in the forest floor.
As for the sas not burying their dead because their supposed ancestors (Giganto or erectus) didn’t bury their dead, how do you know? Let’s not forget that all the fossils of Giganto and erectus could be stored in a large suitcase. In Giganto’s case, the fossil record is a thousand or so teeth. That’s it. Erectus has a few skulls, and some skeletal remains, a large number of which are disputed by some scientists and accepted by others. I could be wrong, but I don’t believe that a single complete Erectus skeleton exists (Anybody know? Correct me if I’m wrong). A few ‘complete’ skeletons have been cobbled together from different fragmentary remains, but I believe that’s all. There is absolutely nothing still in existence which tells us anything about their lives, intelligence, social structure, etc.
Maybe they did or possibly they did not bury their dead. We just don’t know.
Still, to me, the evidence ‘hints at’ the possibility of the sas burying their dead. If you happen to stumble over a recent unburied sas skull on your next outing, please let me know. I really don’t mind being wrong and learning from the experience at all. Yes, I’ve been married for a long time.
Keep ‘em coming, things-in-the-woods. I always enjoy your posts.
The matter of the “difficulty” of killing one has been raised repeatedly. I recall having read a report, likely on the BFRO, of a teenaged hunter having killed one. This was well before Ray Wallace, if memory serves me correctly it was in the 1940s — possibly still during the war. Sadly, I don’t recall where it was beyond it having been somewhere in the US. As the story goes, it was winter, and the young fellow thought he saw a moose, so he fired. The explanation goes that said ’squatch was bent over at the time, and he quite unintentionally got it through the shoulder and the heart. Of course, when ye laddie got there, what he found was nothing remotely resembling a moose. Not knowing what he had, he quickly got the hell out of there, and told no one for decades.
The story in its presentation, which has accompanying sketches, seems credible enough in comparison to other reports. If we accept it, then it does serve to illustrate the point that killing one may not be as technically difficult as has been suggested.
Of course, one must find one first; and one must also ensure that it’s a lone individual –and how, exactly would one do that? — for who would really want to chance retribution from the remaining family group?
DWA
regarding your quote, “And I think the public can be as surprising in its intelligence as with its stupidity.” I wish I could believe that.
“Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.” Robert A. Heinlein.
Words to live by.
A body will be needed to protect this species, if in fact , it truly exists. Which I doubt.
For those of you not familiar with the spotted owl, just see what a little bird conjured up.
Now could you imagine what would happen if a Sasquash truly existed.
things-in-the-woods:
For reasons probably obvious from some of the posts above, I wanted the word “Neanderthals” back about a second and a half after I posted.
I sure wouldn’t shoot a surviving Neanderthal to show science I’d found one.
graybear:
As I’ve said before, I’ll take my chances on the public’s intelligence if it means not shooting a sas.
And I think that thing-in-the-woods’s point about burial is that we have absolutely no evidence the sas does it. I generally don’t think you can persuade people of something for which there’s no scientific evidence by trotting out an explanation for which there’s no scientific evidence.
Those of us who are open-minded on the sas are comfortable with the explanation that they’re rare, they pick remote places to die, and nature cleans up fast. All reasonable, none require a stretch.
There was one other thing I wanted to say, and it regards “blobsquatches.” PLEASE if you’re trying to be helpful here, DO NOT SUBMIT A SAS PHOTO OR VIDEO for public scrutiny if a reasonable member of the general public, with no outdoor experience, would not see it and go, holy cow….it’s a bigfoot. Your experience does NOT validate your blurry shotz. Keep ‘em as souvenirs. But your knowing what they are does not make them look like what they are.
Besides which, some of us here on Cryptomundo are going to need reading glasses soon. (We already come with BS detectors.)
As the name implies, I am a hunter, of the most passionate and dedicated breed. I believe that hunting is the oldest and most important sport there is. I hunt for trophy as well as food, usually the trophy is also food (yes non-hunters, it can be both). The fundamental question posed was “Would you kill a Bigfoot?” Even me, a person that P.E.T.A. would call a psychotic killer, would say no, this animal, if it exists, has much more scientific value alive and undiscovered (as of yet), than dead on an examining table. No primate that I am aware of is of the classification sport animal. Some tribes, still running around in loin clothes in un-developed countries hunt types of primates for sustenance, in fact they hunt everything for sustenance. Otherwise (and this is for the P.E.T.A. card holders) “every animal has its place, right next to the mashed potatoes”.
Great discussion. I couldn’t kill one. If these beings exist we don’t know what kind of society, if any, they have. It’s pointed out above that chimps have been observed to grieve. Could those of you in the pro-kill camp live with the chance of finding out that you killed something and that action caused huge emotional pain to a sentient, intelligent creature? I couldn’t.
things_in_the_woods - of course these creatures have shovels, we just call them hands
And in terms of the body for proof argument, not necessarily true. I think the existence of the Tibetan Blue Bear has been acknowledged from hair samples and some bones, not a complete body. If I’m wrong on this I’m happy to be corrected.
I thought I was “no kill” until I read Cryptid. Now I think you’d better watch your arse and not mess with the sucker.
As for burials, maybe we haven’t found them because they’re buried, in the woods…think about it.
I’m not saying they do bury their dead, if they exist, but I’m not saying they couldn’t. After all, quite a lot of burial sites are discovered when something is being dug up for a reason other than archaeology.
Would you kill a Silverback Gorilla? I couldn’t imagine doing so, neither a Sasquatch. They are rare and loved and respected by many a human.
If I saw one captured, I think I might do something about it.
We as humans are the ruling party here on earth but we don’t respect other life forms as in they to have a right of life. Once we see that it is we who protect other species and insure their right of life here, then we grow spiritually as well as intellectually.
Just my 2 cents.
I saw a documentary that featured an Aborigine man discussing his first encounter, decades earlier, with Europeans. He recalled that the deciding factor for his abandonment of ‘the old ways’ was his first taste of jam. We have all heard the tale of Ishi, who, as an elder, gave up the fight and joined civilization. These two men were completely outside of society, yet were able to recognize the futility of staying there. One day one of the Sasquatch people will decide he would like to eat EVERY day and will present himself.
Another thought.
I hear people saying we need to kill one to protect the species.
From what?
From the mass murder we’re inflicting on everything around it is my only possible guess.
Seems circular reasoning to me.
We need to put a damper on that philosophy that rationalizes killing for all kinds of reasons.
The guy on the link I put in on my first post says that holotypes have gone without a dead body before but….
I can stop him right there. BUT WHAT!!?!??!!??!
If we have made ANY exceptions to the body-holotype rule, then the decision has been made.
WE MUST make this another one.
elsanto: my statements about the difficulty of the kill approach stress that killing the animal is the EASY part.
DWA:
“Kalashnikovnik: I read your sentence “Being ARMED in the woods is just a bad idea.” That’s the truth. Trust me; 26 years being out there sans weapon is enough to convince me. But then I saw the typo. If you’re not hunting legal game, the last thing you will need - in ANY emergency situation in the woods and you will not be able to name me an exception - is a gun. If you are capable of using a gun, you are capable of ending the emergency another way. (Like, walking out.) If it’s a crooked member of your species you’re worried about, why? Either you’re crooked too or you’re dead. (BTW the only people I have ever met in the woods with weapons were hunters of legal game.)”
Well I’m not really sure what you are trying to tell me here. I already stated I have no intention of killing anything that doesn’t try and kill me first. I’ve never been hunting in my life and have no desire to. I don’t even eat meat. I do however carry a firearm both as part of my job and at home when I’m off the clock. I find your suggestion that I am somehow “crooked” because I choose to do this to be more then a little insulting. My worst brush with the law has been a speeding ticket.
As far as not being able to think of a situation that would require a gun in the woods, generally it’s the situation that you never thought of beforehand that has you wishing for a gun when it happens.
And no, you aren’t ALWAYS capable of walking away. sometimes you are left with NO choice but to defend yourself. just because you personally have never run into a situation that you haven’t been able to de-escalate by simply leaving the scene doesn’t mean everyone will have your good fortune.
Going into the woods is all about preparedness.
I’d love it if I were able to bring my house and my car into the woods with me, however that is simply not feasible, choosing to carry a means of defending oneself is. You don’t feel you need to? That is totally your prerogative, but try to tone down the condescending attitude towards those who don’t share that point of view.
Hi!! First time poster, long time reader.
If I had the chance, I would kill it. And eat it. I would then tell everyone it tasted just like chicken.
But seriously, considering no one has really managed a good clear shot at these things with a camera I think their survival skills will continue to thwart my pursuit. Mmmmmm, Sasquatch.
Kudos for another good thought provoker, Mr. Coleman.
The late great Steve Irwin once said, “There’s only one way to shoot a crocodile, and that’s with a camera.” I agree with that statement as it pertains to all wildlife endangered or otherwise. I hope in my lifetime and those of everyone else will get the opportunity to see one of these magnificent creatures. For those who’ve had the experience I can only imagine the feeling.
First of all I always carry a gun with me if I’m deep in the woods, especially if I’m somewhere where I don’t know what kind of creatures I might come across. I stress that I am not a hunter–I’m a photographer–I’m less concerned about running across the kid from “Deliverance” than a bear or cougar.:-)
I would not want to shoot a sas unless I felt threatened. I agree that the best way of proving their existence would be a well funded expedition, complete with tranquilizer guns, camera (still and video) and researchers with credentials that would be hard for the greatest skeptics to refute. Samples, video and an infield examination while tranquilized would be best.
But the average person in the woods should not try to take one by themselves for all the very good reasons listed above.
This has been a fascinating discussion, and I imagine it may well continue for a few posts… (still no word from Al on the reasoning behind only killing an adult male — my curiosity is simmering)…
I would like to point out that the argument that killing one will serve protect the species is fallacious. Several states and provinces have already enacted legislation to protect them from being hunted. Any protection that could be extended to them beyond that would be protection that would be extended to several species and to their habitat. Going up against the lumber lobby would be tough (let’s face it, that’s one point of the Free Trade Agreement that the US has never stuck to as international courts have recognized time and again). Given the weight big lumber carries around, protecting habitats is going to be the harder fight. It’s already a hard fight in the face of threatened species whose existence is recognized and held as public knowledge. If you want to protect them, protect their habitat, which can be done without proving the existence of sasquatch.
And again, while I’m not in the “kill” camp, per se, I do believe that a living or dead specimen will be the only evidence that mainstream science and the public at large will recognize. To steal from the Bard: Ay, there’s the rub.
Perhaps of all the comments that have been made, the one that most resounds is things-in-the-woods’ comment that it is not “a means to an end.” Ultimately, that is what we are talking about, here. Do we want to prove to mainstream scientists in their blind, religious zealotry (redundant by definition, I know) that these creatures exist? Do we want to prove to the public at large that they exist? Or would we be content to have had the experience of seeing one and knowing for ourselves with the certainty of direct experience that they do indeed exist?
I have to admit — these critters scare me. Gorillas don’t; but these do. I have no idea why. The thought of them wigged me out as a kid; and my interest in the subject stems from a morbid fascination. From all the accounts I’ve read, I understand completely that they pose less threat to a human in the wild than a black bear or even a lynx would; yet that knowledge doesn’t serve to dispel the fear that I carry with me.
Having that fear, do I want to see one shot, killed, and dissected? Not at all. Do I want to see one captured and exhibited to John Q. Public? There, I would have to answer in the negative as well. Were one captured and put on exhibit, I doubt very much that I would want to see it — can’t say for sure, as it’s not happened, but I can say that I hope it never does. Do I want to see one with my own eyes in the wild? Without a doubt, in spite of my personal fears. Perhaps it is because I wish to confront those fears and overcome them that I harbour the desire to see one. Having seen one, would I need to tell others? Perhaps. Would I need them to believe me and understand my experience as I’ve experienced it? Not so much.
In the end, it may be better that these creatures/animals/people, however you wish to think of them, remain a mystery to the larger populace.
That idea may run counter to the very concept of cryptozoology, admittedly, but I find myself wondering how humanity as a whole would benefit from knowing with certainty that they do exist? (Beyond religious scientists getting a much-needed slap in the face and returning to science as method rather than religion.)
“I hear people saying we need to kill one to protect the species.
From what?”
That’s a great comment. The answer is we don’t know. Like any animal the Sasquatch would be subject to any adverse environmental affects caused by human development. Be it pollution, disease or the destruction of it’s habitat the Sasquatch could be in a position where it’s gene pool is shrinking to a point were the population could crash and go extinct.
Again we don’t know and the only way we could know is through expensive field work. Something that ain’t gonna happen without a body. The truth is proving Bigfoot is not the same as rediscovering a woodpecker thought to have gone extinct, or of finding a new type of treefrog. Bigfoot has too much baggage for that. To most people a bigfoot video is just another guy in a gorilla suit. I don’t care how good it is.
Lets by honest, most people, especially the ones who count, take the whole thing as a joke. And considering the regulations some industries may have to contend with if the Sasquatch is ever proven to exist there are some powerful interests out there who are content having it remain a joke.
Ask yourself this, what’s the greater tragedy, An unfortunate animal killed to help ensure the survival of it’s kind or a decreasing number of sightings over a period of years until we get to a point were the Sasquatch drops completely off the map never to be heard from again?
i wouldn’t kill it, since it is most likely a dude in a suit, you’d get charged with murder. no thanks
Fascinating reading. I am not convinced that if Sasquatch exists, that they are not humanoid as opposed to pongoid. Therefore killing one may get you arrested for homicide, capturing one could be kidnapping or false imprisonment and seizing a juvenile could be abuse.
I hunt, I carry a gun in the deep woods, mostly for feral hogs and feral rednecks. Nevertheless I would not kill a Sas. I wouldn’t kill a chimp, or gorilla or any other primate. I would kill for self preservation, but I would hope I am woodsman enough not to intimidate such a creature or being to the point it would attack me for its own self preservation.
Most of the time when I am in the woods I kill only time, leave only footprints and take only pictures.
Hidden agendas
Reason to prove the Bigfoot are real:
1. So self labeled bigfoot researchers get more respect at work. (selfish agenda)
2. So scientists will study them and maybe bigfoot researchers will get a piece of the action (selfish agenda and scientists have already studied them well beyond your wildest dreams, and you will not be able to deal with what they already found out, trust me.)
3. To protect the animals from extinction (They are not animals, they are people. Intelligent people. Homo paranormalpithicus has a nice ring to it, don’t cha think? They only need laws designating them as people, with all the rights to life as homo sapiens. They aren’t going extinct, we are.)
4. To make them taxpaying citizens (bigfoot doesn’t have nor want pockets for instance, to carry a wallet and credit cards, so he can get into debt up to his eyeballs.)
5. So that we can be somebody. (you will more likely be dead if you attempt to to capture or kill a bigfoot.)
Danno and all the other killers here (I had to say that):
We may have to agree to disagree and hope for the best.
My position, though, is one I can’t see changing. I think that the way we rationalize things like development and destruction is a cancer that’s eating biodiversity. We’re just too good at biggering, and think we can crowd other life forms onto shrinking islands of habitat while we keep chomping away. It won’t work, not in the long run it won’t. And I don’t need to kill a sasquatch to determine which nonstarter of a strategy we’ll start to do something that won’t work.
I want the sasquatch to keep its freedom as long as it can. And I don’t want to do away with one on purpose. If we can’t save it without killing one, I am flat convinced, we will not save it. We will simply have established that here’s something else we can poke and prod and move whenever it gets in our way. And suddenly one day we will find the intact skeleton…of what turns out to be the last one.
The only way you can show me that we are fully committed to saving the sasquatch is, RIGHT NOW, committing to a road and development moratorium in the United States. No more asphalt. No more development in places it is not now. And yes, putting the Denver boot on our population.
Anything else, it says here and I hope you and I don’t live to see me collect, will NOT be enough. Period. We’re whistling past the graveyard, and everything we build pushes the sas, and us, closer to it.
I’m for leaving it alone for as long as we can. Which won’t be forever.
Kalashnikovnik: you misinterpreted what I wrote.
Which was: there isn’t a situation you can get out of with a gun that you can’t get out of without one. At least in the woods on this continent. OK, there’s one: you have deliberately forged into the continent’s most remote country, in winter, and atrocious weather pins you down for so long that your food supplies run out long before you’re gonna get back. And of course you deliberately are getting yourself into that situation, and could simply have avoided it.
The crooked part means if you are a straight arrow with a gun and the other guy isn’t, he has the drop on you. Crooks don’t have compunctions. Not sure how that could be read to construe you as crooked; I tend not to make such assumptions.
I’m sure that there are more instances of having a gun causing unintended trouble than having one preventing it. And yes, I’m including hunters accidentally shooting people - but I’m not exactly sure why I shouldn’t.
Guns are dangerous enough, I think, that if you don’t have a purpose for which you absolutely intend to use it - i.e. hunting legal game - you’re better off without it.
But hey. If you’re following the law you may feel free to ignore that advice. Just know what you’re shooting at and why.
I think it’s worth pointing out, also, that if one were killed and the creature verified, accepted and protected, it WOULD NOT BE SAFE!
Someone would want a trophy and they would go after it. Scientist would want live specimens. Naturalists would want to observe it in the wild. Zoos would want one to exhibit. (I hate zoos–wild creatures were not meant to be on exhibit for bored human beings to gawk at.) And poachers—poachers would be all over the woods looking to cash in from those who’d pay to own a piece of a dead bigfoot–or have it stuffed in their dens.
I guess this thread has made me think! Maybe if I just knew they were there, it would be enough. But that would take seeing one myself and so far I haven’t.
By the way DWA:
Everyone I know who has a gun (handgun or long gun) treats it with a great deal of respect. Sure there are those who have guns and no sense (plenty of those driving cars, too) But every gun enthusiast I know is EXTREMELY respectful of his or her firearm and equally respectful to those around them.
I’m guessing you’ve never come across a rabid animal in the country. (I have) or been trailed by coyotes–the have very little fear of man and can be very mean. Believe me, that will make you very nervous!
I always wear a .45 caliber on my hip if I’m in a state that allows it when I’m deep in the wilderness.
Nope, taking life, any life, in order to further the ends of cryptozoology or any other field is not the answer…nuff said
What you need are more experts! Here in Australia when we have something that needs an answer we call in an expert. When it won’t rain we call an expert. When petrol costs too much we call in an expert. In fact we’ve got so many experts here we could probably let you have some for free! Trouble is, just like your scientists, they don’t solve much and won’t give you a straight answer. So in the end you’re no closer to the truth and no closer to a result.
A few years ago a naturalist [expert] was interviewed on TV whilst carrying a double barreled shotgun on an expedition in the bush. He told the audience he had 1 barrel for any feral cat he might spot and the other for a pigeon that hadn’t been seen for many years and if he could shoot 1 it would to help protect them through analysing the dead bird’s stomach contents. Needless to say they haven’t collected a bird for a while but the specimens they they did collect, for its own good, probably drove it to extinction.
My long winded point: A dead anything won’t save much and if you believe who gives a rats that they don’t.
Picture the scene…. The woods are dark. Everything is quiet. You and a friend have tracked this creature for 2 days. There has only been the 2 of you because a larger crowd could never get this close, but a support team is only a radio call away.
A twig snaps as the creature steps out from behind a tree. You take aim with your tranq gun. The distance to target is only 50 feet because tranq guns aren’t very powerful. Slowly you pull the trigger.
A perfect shot! Does the creature just fall? NO! Even though you have hit him with enough drugs to knock out a 800 lb grizzly, it may take up to 10 minutes for the full effect to kick in. In the mean time you have just pissed off a very BIG, very SMART, creature who is going to spend the last few seconds of YOUR life beating you to death with the limbs it has ripped from your partner’s body!
Capture….NO! Hunt…NO! Smashed all over the front of a Freightliner tractor as it made a night time road crossing…..Much more plausible!
One other thought. The 26 year old woman who was killed and partially eaten by a cougar as she jogged down a fairly well trodden path in California last fall didn’t have a gun. And I doubt the cat was gonna let her just back out!
Some of you need to get a grip…
No one will be shooting a sasquash soon…
For that matter your never gonna see a decent picture of one…
Unless of course you wanta get hoaxed again.
I would never kill bigfoot or any type of cryptid! They are so different. I mean who would kill such a creature?
If Sasquatch exist, they are flesh-and-blood creatures. Even if they weigh 1000 pounds, fight like a leopard and are as smart as a chimp (or smarter), a well-placed dart would knock one down. Wild bears are huge, ferocious, and intelligent too, but they are fairly easily to sedate, tag, and collar. Very large bears are sometimes even caught with nets. I doubt that there is any kind of animal, with the possible exception of large whales or sharks -certainly not any kind of land animal- that could not be subdued in some way for live capture. And even large whales and sharks are tagged with tracking devices.
Bigfoot, being bipedal and presumably having opposable thumbs like we have, might be be able to remove a collar or tag, but there are many kinds of monitoring and tracking devices, some of which are even designed to be surgically implanted. If they are as intelligent as or more intelligent than, then they would be more apt to be curious about a collar or tag than to ostracize one of their kind that was wearing one.
If anyone actually gets close enough to subdue a Bigfoot, there’s no reason to kill it. It would not be necessary to take the Bigfoot into captivity to obtain the tissue samples, photos, and measurements needed to document its existence.
Sasquatch may be hominids. The may not be. But whatever they ARE, no law will protect them until they “officially” exist. They could not even be considered native or nongame wildlife, because they “don’t exist”. If Joe Blow went out and shot a whole family of them to death, a good lawyer could argue that he committed no crime, unless he happened to have violated some firearms ordinance, because the animals that he shot are not recognized as anything under the law in most areas.
That is the best reason for finding them and documenting their existence. I think that with the increasing awareness that we are losing much of the precious natural world around us, including wildlife that is disappearing at an appalling rate, if Sasquatch are proven to exist, they would be protected right away, and habitat set aside to be preserved for them.
A lot of people here are saying that one needs to be killed in order to save the species. Do you all really think it would stop at just one? I highly doubt it. I personally feel that it is a habit that we should not get into and that the data that could be gleaned from a live one would be much more useful. A dead one is going to prove its existence sure, but think of how much could be learned from a live one. People who wonder how we could ever tag one, let me tell you that there are larger creatures than Bigfoot that are tagged and studied by science. Tranqs might be a problem, since they have to be very well adjusted to the creature you intend to use them on, but I tend to think if there’s a will, there’s a way.
Also, I hate to be pessimistic here, but I don’t think proving they exist is going to necessarily prompt people to immediately drop everything to put aside protection for them. Look at known animals that are endangered that receive little protection or are even on the steady decline. I would say for the most part, our track record with a lot of animals does not lead me to believe that this Bigfoot is going to automatically get all these laws and regulations to protect them just by being proven to exist. I hope it does, but can we really be sure of that when looking at what has gone on with other species? I think it is a tad naive to think that its verification alone will work all these wonders. I think even if it is proven to exist, that in and of itself is not going to afford it some kind of immediate conservation measures and I think it may be a little bit of wishful thinking to think so, unfortunately. I think it might be more complicated than that and I feel that perhaps if its existence is verified, the battle to protect it properly will just be beginning. I hope I am wrong on this.
My post sounds really pessimistic, but someone has to look at the worst case scenarios!
Mystery_man, I happen to agree with you completely on this. Plus it would suddenly open up the whole can of worms of arguing over whether they are people or not, whether they are endangered or not, etc, etc, all of which will slow down any and all efforts to (hopefully) ensure their protection.
Right, Ceroill. And then there’s the fact that we don’t even know what its full range is or what to protect even if we did have the inclination to put in immediate conservation measures and unfortunately I don’t think the info needed for this would be gleaned from a dead specimen.
Shoot with bullets or darts or not at all. Hmmm….
The literature is rife with reports of hunters who could but didn’t and none of them were actually hunting for one.
I can’t recall any reports of hunters who went looking for ‘em ever getting so much as a good look at ‘em. The psychology of the hunter is not the psychology of the assasin nor are they gonna shoot first like a soldier facing an enemy.
As for using tranquilizer darts; got a dosage in mind? A friend of mine lost several wild wolves, a species he’d been collaring after tranquilizing with well known dosages for several years. The dosage depends on the individual health and stress of the subject. You’d have to get pretty close, something that so far has never been accomplished in a purposeful, predictable, intentional way, and based on what I’ve read that a BF Research expedition is like, I’m not in the least surprised.
There’s nothing louder than the sound of someone trying to be quiet, unless it’s a huge gaggle of loquatious car campers, reeking of deodorants, exotic hydrocarbons, dazzlingly obvious in camouflage and squeeling and bellowing electronics, trying to be unobtrusive.
If one can get close enough to shoot them with either a bullet or a dart, it means you can shoot ‘em with a good camera and you’re probably able to anticipate where they will be with some certainty, which means you can also get the kind of data (photographic and otherwise) about their behaviour and habitat that will be acceptable to the scientific community.
I think the problem lies in our obviously inadequate understanding of the subject of our interest. I see that PBS is broadcasting the program Nature about the guy who went to get the first “in the wild” film of cloud leopards, cool technique, the way he did it. And nothing like what’s being tried by researchers so far as I’ve heard, with the exception of the occasional unverifiable story of the western wilderness back-country “off-trail” hiker who stays out for weeks with minimal impact.
And were I that person and could actually find a bigfoot to observe, I’d wonder if I’d want my own personal peak wilderness expereince shared with anyone but the very closest of sympathetic, like-minded friends.
On second thought, I’m certain I wouldn’t share it voluntarily until I thought that bringing the data forward would insure my continued ability to protect and have a proprietary claim on continued access for my personal research and enjoyment.
Kittenz appears to be volunteering to locate that well-placed dart.
But let’s please leave off the obtrusive (and I cannot believe not extremely bothersome) stuff like radio collars. As I’ve said elsewhere, a collar irretrievably tarnished the best look at a wild wolf I ever had. It probably did more to the wolf. If you’re going to risk killing a sas with a tranquilizer, at least don’t attach something that will probably torment the poor critter. Sorry, I can’t believe that animals have no problem with collars. I think the idea of a surgically implanted transmitter (if we MUST do that) is the best way. Of course then there’s the problem of keeping the sas unconscious long enough, which everyone knows further complicates the risk issue.
The more I think about it, the more I believe we should not be trying to harass and harness one, much less kill it.
Particularly when, as mystery_man says, discovery probably won’t be followed by a swift mending of our predatory ways.
I can’t get over the idea that the sasquatch is giving us a chance to stop paying lip service to the concept of all life’s right to live free, and finally acting like we really mean it.
JackSparrow: where have YOU been, man? That’s the kind of expert we need on this case.
JSimson: Right. Or…the groggy blighter runs away, and puts himself in the way of the oncoming truck …yet another aspect of drug risk….
titantim: you say “can name you numerous examples of being in the wood where you need a gun. And hunting has nothing to do with it. How about fishing in Grizzly country? Hiking in mountain lion country? I have run across pot fields while in the woods, trespassers, and the like. Without a firearm, these could have turned out very differently.”
Maybe with you totin’ the gun, pardner. But not me. If your first shot doesn’t put the bear down, you’re gone. If he/she wants you, the mountain lion won’t even give you a chance to use the gun. And the pot guys are toting automatics. I raise my hands and turn around and, well one in the back is probably better than one in the guts.
In reading the comments, I see pros and cons both ways.
To clarify my position on ‘harvesting’ an adult male, nature will replace it faster and easier than replacing a breeding female or young one. There is always a male aching to step up and take charge.
I’m not bloodthirsty by any stretch. Yet, a body is the only acceptable answer. The simplest way to get one is to kill one. There are too many risks and hazards involved in attempting a capture, especially due to some social observations of these animals. It will be tough enough to recover the remains of one that’s been ‘harvested’.
The costs, and time required to even attempt a harvest is mind boggling. There are no organizations that provide funding that would allow a small group to engage in this task full time, with expenses and equipment furnished. It would be even more expensive to try to capture one. That doesn’t even cover the fact that it would be even more dangerous and require more people.
As a note to the guy that claims that the FBI would confiscate the body before it hit the ground, I wonder where you get that information? No Government Organization has any interest in an animal that doesn’t exist. I have gotten that information straight from the Regional Director. We discussed it at length over breakfast a couple of years ago.
Well, AI inspires me to keep probing for my bottom line. It took me awhile. But here it is. If I’ve said anything inconsistent with what follows, disregard that. This is it.
And it comes from mystery_man’s quote: “A lot of people here are saying that one needs to be killed in order to save the species. Do you all really think it would stop at just one? I highly doubt it. I personally feel that it is a habit that we should not get into …”
That’s it. We believe, apparently, that our acknowledgment that the earth isn’t the center of the universe was some sort of act of cosmic humility. Truth is, we haven’t taken the first step toward humility yet.
We, all of us, still believe that we ARE the center of the universe. At least, the main focus of life on earth. It’s a HABIT that we are unable to break. (M-m: we “got into” it way too long ago.)
If we want our planet to have one one-thousandth, one one-millionth, of the variety and pleasure and wonder for our grandchildren, heck, for our children, that it does for us, we need to start acting, right now, as if we are equal to everything else on this planet. No better, no smarter (OK, but look where our smarts have gotten us), no more worthy.
All this talk on this thread, as fun (indeed) as it has been, has focused on how we will manipulate the sas to make it do for us what WE want. We’re making it another damned meat puppet, and already depriving it of about 98% of what it can teach us, before we even find it. (Find it? Thousands, maybe tens of thousands,