SquatchKill: To Kill or Be Killed
Posted by: Loren Coleman on July 29th, 2007
Charles Berlin’s cartoon gives another side of the story. Who is hunting whom?
Let’s look at it from their point of view. Maybe they want to kill humans to prove we exist to their clans?
Okay, maybe that’s farfetched, but let me just put it out there. Bigfoot will not be proven without a body. A living body. A dead body. Not a body part. Not a DNA sample. Not a fecal sample. Labs have their share of those with their “inconclusive results” and “near human” findings.
The type specimen is needed.
No two ways around it. The zoological proof of the actual existence of Bigfoot pivots on a body being found, a living animal being captured, or, yes, a specimen being killed.
But should the hunters be looking over their shoulders too?
Is the scenario here a two-way street?
People want to talk about this issue. Let’s talk about it.
Individuals are out there with guns. Hunters, farmers and soldiers have said they’ve killed Bigfoot but were afraid Sasquatch was “too close to human” and they would be charged with murder.
Folks show up on radio shows and talk about buried bodies, but no one has shown anyone a body.
Even the Minnesota Iceman body is no more available today than the two bodies that the Bugs’ map showed us from their alleged burial site in Texas. Nor has the buried baby Bigfoot from the Carter Farm been found? Stories, no results.
Where are the bodies? And I don’t mean the dead Bigfoot alone.
Where are the dead human bodies that Bigfoot have killed? Are Bigfoot out there killing humans who are hunting them? Or is this merely a rural legend turning into a urban myth?
Let’s look at the record for both situations….
Our hairy hominoids have a long history of “missed chances”….In 1784 The Times (of London) reported that a group of Lake of the Woods, Manitoba Native Canadians captured a “huge, manlike, hair-covered creature.” But no record exists of what happened to the body. In 1898, in Honduras, Edward Jonathan Hoyt killed a “five-foot creature of the ape family.” But the body was not kept. In 1913, a group of Chinese hunters wounded and captured a hairy, man-like creature, known to the local Tibetans by a name meaning “snowman.” The creature was kept captive in Patang, Sinkiang, until it died five months later. It was described as having a black monkey-like face, and being covered with silvery yellow hair several inches long. Again, no records remain of what became of the body.
And the missed chances continue. The “wild man” captured in the Caucasus in December 1941 (see page 92) was eventually killed and no one knows what happened to the body. In 1954, Colonel K. N. Rana, director of the Nepal Bureau of Mines, reported to the Daily Mail Expedition that Nepalese tribesmen had twice captured Yetis. One prisoner was a baby, but information had reached him too late to follow up. The other incident involved the capture of a male Yeti by tribes people who tied it up and were journeying back with it from the mountains. But when the creature refused to eat and died, they abandoned the carcass, not realizing it would be as valuable dead as alive. Later, no one could relocate the body. The one carcass that did turn up, the Minnesota Iceman in 1968 (see page 54), was quickly replaced by a model–and has been under a cloud of doubt ever since.
There are also numerous reports that Bigfoot and its kin have been shot and killed. Researcher John Green reports that at least five Sasquatch have reportedly been killed in North America, anthropologist Grover Krantz mentions another case, and former hunter Peter Byrne once investigated stories of a dead Bigfoot in British Columbia, but all reports have been extremely vague and no body has ever been produced. And in Mongolia two Wildmen were reportedly shot by a patrol during the border skirmishes between the Russians and the Japanese in 1939. And again, the body vanished.The Field Guide to Bigfoot and Other Mystery Primates, pages 160-161, (NY: Anomalist Books, 2006).
But what of the reports of people being killed? Where’s the proof there?
Why is this issue a hot topic on radio and within Bigfoot studies? That’s easy, of course, as “death sells.” So let’s go deeper, behind the stories.
Is there any foundation to these “Bigfoot kills people” accounts? In North America, the “evidence” mostly boils down to vague “wilderness” stories.
For instance, here are three examples:
(1) There are the tales from the Nahanni Valley, NWT, Canada, the so-called “Headless Valley,” of the supposed killings of prospectors by the hairy Bushmen, a local name for Sasquatch or surviving Neandertals.
(2) The Yosemite Valley is named after a shadowy group of “people” that pursued the Indians that lived in the valley. The Miwok word yohemiti is tied to their characterizations of their elusive enemies and it means, “Some among them are killers.”
(3) The famed story from Theodore Roosevelt’s The Wilderness Hunter, published in 1890. During the mid-1800s, two hunters, one named Baumann, were camping in the Bitterroot Mountains, on the other side of the Rockies from Yosemite, when they were visited by something that left giant footprints. Then at midnight they saw, in the fire’s light, a huge upright form and smelled it, too.
The next morning, Baumann went to check traps, while his mate packed up. When Baumann returned, he found his friend’s neck broken and four great fang marks in his throat. Roosevelt added, “The footprints of the unknown beast, printed deep in the soft soil, told the whole story… his monstrous assailant, which must have been lurking in the woods, waiting for a chance to catch one of the adventurers unprepared, came silently up from behind, walking with long noiseless steps and seemingly still on two legs…. It had not eaten the body, but apparently had romped and gamboled around it in uncouth and ferocious glee, occasionally rolling it over and over; and had then fled back into the soundless depths of the woods.”
Was Roosevelt’s humanized monster really a Bigfoot or merely an angry grizzly? The Wilderness Hunter tale has joined the Sasquatch literature, nevertheless.
In my writings, I’ve talked of how aggressive Eastern Bigfoot seem to be against dogs. Then I discuss humans being killed:
John Green collected cases of Bigfoot killing dogs, too, but he has only five accounts, other than the Baumann story, of people being killed by alleged Sasquatch. All are second-hand stories. Two from the 1970s came to him from an investigator in Alaska, who told of Bigfoot attacking men living on boats in the Yukon River. Though their dogs drove off the hairy giant, the men later died.
The Bigfoot Bulletin of October 31, 1970, published by California researcher George Haas, carried a fantastic letter from an army trainee named Nick E. Campbell at Fort Ord, California. He related that two Texas National Guard privates, one of them a minister, had told him that at Longview where they lived, there were reports from about 1965 of a giant hairy creature roaming the back country between there and Jefferson, Texas. They said that the creature had reportedly killed a couple of people. Reverend Royal Jacobs told him that as a teenager he was a member of a posse that hunted the creature and he had seen the body of a person the creature had torn apart.
Reports like this are difficult to confirm. One is my files is a UPI clipping, dated September 20, 1965, from Jefferson, Texas, entitled “Town Fed Up With Monster Hunters.” Sheriff Luke Walker is quoted as being upset by the Bigfoot hunters from three states who had overrun his small northeast Texas town since a 13 year old boy came running out of the woods three weeks earlier telling of seeing a big, black hairy thing.
Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in America, pages 181-182, (NY: Paraview Pocket – Simon and Schuster, 2003).
Rumors exist around the world, like these, too.
These bipedal, six-foot-tall creatures with stubby noses are well known to the highland minorities of Vietnam and Laos, and called by many names, including nguoi rung, which means “Forest People.” The nguoi rung have been known to occasionally kill or kidnap humans and take them back to their caves. The Field Guide to Bigfoot and Other Mystery Primates, page 122, (NY: Anomalist Books, 2006).
Look, I’ve been absolutely straightforward in the past: I’m against killing a Bigfoot. But I’m only one person, and the time seems right for a full airing on this here. Let’s discuss an issue that is on the backburner of most Bigfoot exchanges and in the minds of most Bigfooters.
What do you think regarding this two-sided issue?
- Similar Phenomena:
I’m sorry to say it Loren but only a body will settle this once and for all. I don’t like the idea of killing a bigfoot, or any creature, to prove it exists but every other avenue has yielded nothing tangible, at least to skeptical scientists.
I, as many others have posted, believe the body will more likely come from an accident (with a vehicle while crossing the road) rather than by a hunter, however.
As far as these stories go about people being killed or bigfoot being killed I take them all with a grain of salt. These stories of bigfoot being killed are not unlike the stories of lost treasures. They never seem to yield anything no matter how diligently people search. I think there is more folklore than substance there.
I also have a problem with theses alleged stories by hunters who were afraid to shoot because they thought the bigfoot might be considered human and so didn’t want to be charged with murder. If someone shot a big hairy creature in the wild I doubt there is any DA in the land that would prosecute such a case even if science did conclude it was some kind of human. The circumstances would be so bizarre and the case so filled with media frenzy and scientific debate that to do so would be a nightmare for any court.
Just my opinions.
To kill or not to kill a bigfoot; what a moral dilemma that is.
I am not a hunter myself and cannot imagine killing a bigfoot today. I am honest enough to admit that if I did go into the woods to harvest a bigfoot it would only be for profit. Scientific discovery would simply be a secondary result. That would be an unacceptable motivation to take the life of that creature. Yet, I doubt I would condemn another person for pulling that trigger. The possible financial gain and ability to name the new species would be a great temptation. That naming right would go along with being the first to claim discovery with proof would it not? I can imagine a fan of this site stating; “This discovery of the century shall be known as Gigantopithicus LorenColemanius.” Quite tempting I think.
When I was far younger and a bit more adventurous a few of us would actively seek bigfoot in the western Pennsylvania forests. I always carried a firearm and would not have hesitated to shoot the creature on sight. Such was my obsession in proving its existence. With a lifetime of perspective behind me and what I hope is a bit more wisdom, I doubt I could rob that creature of its life no matter how tempting the notoriety and/or gain. But, if I felt I was in mortal danger, there is no doubt I would defend myself.
This kind of puts the responsibility back on Bigfoot in a weird way. If they are thinking creatures, I am confident they would attempt to give human intruders a wide berth. They hold the advantage in the forests in many ways. Avoiding contact seems to be the path of an aware creature. Wanton aggression would provide ample justification to murder the cryptid without reservations.
So it comes down to the Bigfoot themselves in an odd way. Are they going to be better neighbors than we have been to them? If these cryptids do exist then I think the answer has been demonstrated that they have acted in a responsible manner and have shown sound judgment. I doubt there is justification for killing this living creature.
Gigantopithicus LorenColemanius – Needless to say, I would reject that, out-of-hand, unless I was actively involved in the event or funding it (in my wildest dreams), for a variety of reasons. (I couldn’t let this comment remain here without a quick response.)
Many others would deserve this honor, from Jerry Crew to Roger Patterson, from Ivan Sanderon to the unnamed discoverer.
Naming this species something new, but the way, is not a sure thing, as there’s no telling the first Bigfoot might not already be classified as, for example, Paranthropus robustus or Gigantopithecus blacki.
But let’s not get distracted…from the theme of the squatchkill discussion above….nothing will be named until we have it.
I say, don’t kill Bigfoot. If someone were to kill a Bigfoot and bring back the body, then what? A Bigfoot would get captured and all of the skeptics would have been wrong. Everyone would know that Bigfoot existed and it would kind of ruin all of the debates of Bigfoot footage and and footprints after it was found. Sure, there must be lots of other Bigfoot in the world, but it wouldn’t be the same when evidence is discovered, because more people would believe it would be true. I like the mystery the way it is now. Bigfoot doesn’t need to be killed or captured.
I am against killing any animal so Bigfoot is sacred as far as I’m concerned.
But if I was in an awkward situation were I had to kill to not be killed I would turn in to a monster. Or if I had to (what a situation!!) choose then I would rather kill a dog than a chimp. Basically, the more human like the harder to kill for me.
Even though science would want a dead body for examination I doubt that any scientist would encourage the killing of a yet undiscovered species. I think we have to separate science and scientists and recognize the humans behind it.
It would as well be very stupid to kill a bigfoot since we have no idea (if they exist) how many there are or how they live, for example: what if a “family provider” was killed. They seem to be smarter than most animals so it’s not unlikely that they have a complex social life and network were they depend on each other just like humans and chimps do.
Loren I hope you understand I was using your name to make a point about some else’s motivations. (a fan of your books or work in the field of cryptozoology perhaps) I would not suggest that this is your motivation for hunting the creature. I apologize if you got that impression. I would not impune your name.
It is however a valid point in regard to your thread. I knew a college professor who scoured one small area of the night sky for years hoping to discover a comet in order to have it named after himself. Science and financial gain took a back seat to the notoriety he so desperately craved. Naming rights to a newly discovered creature are jealously guarded and I submit that the person who finally proves bigfoot exists will demand his privileges.
Good morning Cryptos…
What if there are several species and sub species living communally and cooperatively? Then “science” would need many more voucher specimens “for dissection” to catalogue and categorize. What a blood bath. JMHO
Many of us have a deep reverent respect for these magnificent critters and their right to peacefully co-exist without our meddlesome interference. We owe them our support and protection. JMHO
These critters have daily opportunities to injure or kill humans and yet they show remarkable restraint and respect for us while we continually plunder and pillage their habitat while threatening their livelihood and young. Would we be so forgiving? I doubt it. Would you “break and enter” a neighbor’s home or desecrate their buried dead, because you felt entitled?
If they are classified in the genus Homo, what gives us the right to persecute and harass them, afterall they were here first?
live and let live.
ole bub and the dawgs
Definitely not a fan of the idea of a Bigfoot being killed or captured. I would much rather hear of an instance where perhaps someone stumbled on a body. You know come to think of it I don’t like that either. I agree with Thylacineisalive. We don’t need some money hungry capitalist, trying to exploit the existence of a Bigfoot. You know someone will do everything in their power to make a spectacle of it for financial gain. Don’t get me wrong I would love to have footage, I mean good quality footage for myself, but I would much rather it be a mystery to those who can not respect life in any form. Especially one with this level of intelligence.
My understanding that, due to the rarity of the species in question, the “dead body” requirement was recently waived for the purpose of formal naming and classification in the case of an endagered bird(?).
I will try to locate a reference. But if incontrovertable photographic proof of Bigfoot is ever found, that might be considered enough for scientific purposes.
Anyone who hunts has to justify, to themselves, the killing of an animal and I would never look down on anyone who shoots a Bigfoot for their own reasons. Even if it’s for fame and fortune. But I’ve run this scenario through my mind a hundred times. I’m out hunting, rifle in hand, and I see a Bigfoot. Do I shoot it? The answer time and again is no. If I ever see one close enough to identify it in order to shoot, then I’ve proven to myself that they exist and that’s all I need. I’m sorry but I can’t personally justify killing one in order to prove it to everyone else.
I would much prefer a more modern approach – determine their range, location of a troop, gradually let them get accustomed, and then study them. Alternatively, tranquilizer guns might be a possibility. If we assume pongid metabolism and mass from the footprints, we should have an ok dosage. (someone else in the party should have a large-caliber carbine, just in case)
These creatures, if they exist, are probably either pongids or hominids – we don’t know which, and they are probably very close to extinction. Killing one would be the last choice. If they had higher population densities, and we knew that they were pongids, not hominids, then it might be necessary to kill one to save the rest – proof of existence would lead to conservation, protection, and well-funded long-term study.
I would also encourage anyone who has killed one, and fears the law because of the human-likeness of the beast, to put the exact location of the carcass in your will or lockbox, to be opened upon your death. At least do that, please.
Personally I would prefer a Biopsy Dart to a Bullet.
The New Zealand version of Bigfoot, the Moehau was also said to attack people and was cannibalistic. There were areas of pre-European New Zealand that were off-limits to many of the Maori as these areas were inhabited by the Moehau and any warrior venturing into them would be killed by these fearsome beasts and used as food. They were therefore to be avoided.
The only documented case during European times was the death of a Miner in the Martha mine area of the Coromandel peninsula. The body was found headless and partially devoured. A woman was also found a few months later in the same area with her neck broken.
We must also ask ourselves about the trampers that go missing and are never found.
The New Zealand species of Bigfoot seems to be more aggressive towards humans. There is a lot of mention of attacks on humans prior to European settlement.
Regards
Tony Lucas
New Zealand cryptozoologist
The existence of such a creature can be proven without actually capturing or killing the animal. Science does not necessarily need a body. The scientific community embraces objective proof. What the scientific community does not embrace is fuzzy photos and urban legend type stories.
The problem lies with lack of evidence or sketchy evidence. Let me give a few examples to prove my point.
Scientists and ornithologists see a less than three second blurry video of what is suspected to be an Ivory Billed Woodpecker and embrace the idea of its existence. They canoe and track deep within the swampy regions to record vocalizations and set up cameras to record a photograph or video footage. No one in the scientific community questions the blurry video image because the proof of such an animal already exists. They have concrete evidence that the bird did indeed exist at one time in recent history.
Now the flip side: There is no concrete evidence that BF exists or has recently existed. What we do have is the same type of evidence—blobsquatch photos and blurry video. Some of the blurry video is less convincing than the blurry video of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker. But not one scientist is embracing the numerous blurry videos and blobsquatch photos. Why not? Because there is no concrete proof in recent times or should I say, there is no preexisting proof or identified creature.
Initially, that sounds like a double standard. The scientific community accepts a blurry video clip for the existence of an Ivory Billed Woodpecker but does not except blurry images for the existence of BF. But it is not a double standard. The difference is that the Ivory Billed Woodpecker was already known to exist.
So the litmus test is not blurry video. It boils down to credible documentation. Blurry videos and blobsqautch photos are not enough to meet the litmus test of “proof” for the scientific community in the case of BF.
What about the stories you may ask? Well, some of the stories seem very credible. And some are the rantings or people with psychological problems or emotional ills. Worse than these poor souls are the “profiteers”. Those that would make up stories and try to deliberately fake or hoax data in an effort to convince people of the existence of BF.
So what are believers to do? The answer is to get just one credible witness account backed up with clear photos or clear video. That is all it would take. It has been my experience that there has not been one case of both clear images and reputable stories from a credible witness. Either the images are somewhat reasonable but the story falls apart based on the credibility of the witness. Or the witness and story has credibility but there is no documentation of the account with accompanying clear images. We need both to prove the existence and to date, that has not happened except with Patterson film which is somewhat blurry. If it were clear, there would be no need for enhancement of the video.
So does that mean we need to have a body before the scientific community embraces the existence of BF. Afterall, we don’t have a body of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker since it was declared extinct. So NO, we don’t need a body. Just a body of clear and credible evidence.
And to prove that point, let’s look at the recent discovery of the Bonobo deep in the forest of the Congo. That is recent. There were good stories before about the Bonobo. But the credibility of the witnesses was suspect. So scientists went to that region of the Congo in Africa. They documented with clear images and first hand accounts. The scientific community embraced that. They did not have to capture a Bonobo or kill a Bonobo to prove their existence. The same can be said of proving the existence of BF. The same standards of proof apply. No one is doubting the Bonobo and the scientific community is embracing that. Why? Credible witnesses, believable stories that are backed up with clear images of the Bonobo. The same standards would apply here. So proof of existence does not require a body. But it does require evidence.
So what we need to prove the existence of BF is one account that contains those elements–a credible witness, believable story, and clear images. But the elements of proof need to occur on that single sighting. Multiple sightings lacking one of the three elements will not do. All three have to occur simultaneously on that sighting. This has not been the case in the past. One of the elements was faulty. Get all three like in the case of the Bonobo and you have your proof of the existence of BF. The scientific community would embrace that. They did with the Bonobo. So there is no need for a BigFoot to be killed or captured. End of story!
As to whether Biggy ever kills or kidnaps humans; going by the anecdotal evidence which we have from Europeans and Natives alike, I’ll say the answer is yes. MOST encounters between the two species seems relatively free from such violence. Nevertheless, I tend to believe such reports because we are dealing with a wild animal which may react in completely different ways to our species depending upon the location and situation at hand; we also must allow for differing temperments and ‘leanings’ of individual Squatches. Two things which I have learned from reading a good number of such reports:
1) If a Sas’ screams at you, DONT scream back, and
2) Dont sleep out in the open, under the stars in your sleeping bag; apparently, this triggers something in at least some of them to carry you away like a sack of potatoes to God-knows-where.
Okay not to bash any of you guys cause we all share the same beliefs on the subject of BF’s existence and i dont mean to offend anyone but ithink we need some opinions from the other side of the spectrum. I am a hunter i ahve hunted all my life and quite enjoy doing what i do. I do not go out just to kill an animal i go out for the thrill of the hunt and the glorious meat that god put on this earth for us to eat. If faced with the chance to kill a bigfoot i would to prove to the world that we are not crazy. The fact of the matter is the only thing that will satisfy the scientific world is a body and if given the chance i would pull the trigger.
Kill it. Why not? Nothin’ else in this whole damn world has been exempt from being killed so what the hell makes sasquatch more supreme than any other species?
Kill it, get the job done then do the clean up after.
End of.
Don’t forget the possibility of tranquilization. There are ways of capturing a creature alive. How do you think Animals were found for Zoos, initially?
The killing of a Sasquatch for any purposes, other than self-defence, needs to be prohibited as there is no ultimate justification for such action. Neither scientific, financial or other. Especially not to prove its existence!
The capturing of one would be beneficial for physical & anatomical study. However, the manner of capture, such as tranquilizing, could cause irreversible physical and mental damage to these intelligent hominids. Both the capturing process and confinement would further prevent unbiased analysis of their natural behaviour but would prove conclusively that Sasquatch exists and protective laws could be made.
A majority of the scientific community would likely accept the existence of Sasquatch if it were provided with extensive data collected through detailed studies similar to those by reknowned zoologists Jane Goodall and Diane Fossey. Gaining the acceptance by a family clan, even at a distance, to collect large volumes of clear photographic evidence accompanied by many detailed journals of the behaviours observed. Would it take any more bravado for approaching a Sasquatch family, with the same determined, peaceful interest for the purpose of study, than it took Jane to meet with Chimps or Diane to approach Gorillas?
It would be nice to know that intimate research of this nature is already in progress with Sasquatch somewhere! However the fortitude required for such an investigation is likely beyond most people, amatuer and professional alike. If only Albert Ostman had photographic equipment with him in his sleeping bag!
Gigantopithecus Biscardii…I can feel the vomit coming up as I type…
I have to agree that Bigfoot should not be killed in order to prove its existence. But on the other hand a body is what it will take for definitive proof.
I do think it will be killed by some sort of accident whether being hit by a car, mistaken identity by a hunter, or someone feeling “threatened”.
On the subject of bigfoot attacking or killing a human, I have to say that if it has not already happened, it will someday. Any creature when provoked will defend itself. We have to remember that. With all the Bigfoot explorations going on at any given time someone is going to eventually take it too far.
Then all hell will break loose in the capture or killing of Bigfoot.
Or tagging it with a GPS monitor.
That would allow scientists to track it, monitor its movements, migration, hunting boundaries AND allow them to pick up after it. (Fecal matter, any animal kills, bedding or matting used as bedding, etc).
If the GPS monitor is removed then we can either guess that
1) their skin is much thicker than we thought, or
2) they are intelligent enough to figure out how to remove it.
Either way I would expect some DNA to be left on the monitor.
Someone provide the bounty on one and I’ll provide the body or someone else will.Money is quite the motivator.
Yea I could kill one but then again I can understand live and let live.
Hard to research them in the wild because of their size and speed.
What I’ve been learning is when they’re in 4×4 mode,you’re not going to keep up with them. A lot was learned from the Honobia incident and from those in that area.They seem to be the authority on this subject.
They are pro-kill believing these are no more than animals and can be hunted.
Smelly, Nasty Creatures with a bad attitude, they damn well aren’t cute and cuddly, yea easy to shoot if ya can catch up with one, but then again they have near human faces. If ya could shoot one, you would be wrestling with yourself, squeeze the trigger or not. No question about it, they would be better off without us looking for them. But some of us just gotta know, don’t we?
As I said on another thread, I’ll be tramping the woods of northern WI and the UP this fall after deer and bear, my 12 bore slug gun loaded with Brennekes (one of the only slugs heavy enough, and made of hard enough lead, to punch through bear/bigfoot).
If I have the chance to take a bigfoot, will I? Probably not. They are incredibly endangered. God gave us dominion over the other creatures, and that includes responsible management.
Is a body required for our society’s “science” to accept the existence of these animals? Yeah I think so. PG wasn’t good enough for them. A lot of other evidence isn’t good enough. The majority will remain skeptical until a body is produced. So? It isn’t that important. Sure I’d love my opinion to eventually be justified, but it isn’t worth further endangering that particular species.
And as for the argument that we need to kill one to save the rest. I don’t really buy it. How many bigfeet have we killed thus far? Do they really need protection from us? I seriously doubt that there will be more bigfeet in the world because some bill is passed.
Of course, the exception to all of this would involve human life. If I have to choose between me and bigfoot, then bigfoot will have to go.
I’ve already said it; Bigfoot HAS been proven real. And the name, if anything should be something on the order of Sasquatchus Pattersoni. And he didn’t have to kill it either. Another reason to name it after him. Oh, and all the ridiculous abuse thats been hurled his and Gimlin’s way and the film itself’s way, and those (like Dr. Meldrum, me and many others here) who support it’s authenticity. If it’s named after Patterson and maybe Gimlin too, then all of us would be honored and vindicated I feel. No one else, especially some ordinary hunter who gets off a fluke lucky shot should be granted this honor.
I’ll take the opportunity to offer my point of view on two issues. The kill/no kill, and the ‘who’ discovered bigfoot issue.
I’ll begin with the latter. The sasquatch issue is like no other species verification on earth. This is a species which mirrors the wild side of humanity. It is a species that is already known to the indigenous people of North America. Did Europeans DISCOVER America? Last I heard, the indigenous people already knew about this land. They know of sasquatch too, and it seems insulting all over again, to even contemplate claiming discovery of something they already know exists. Everyone should consider giving some thought to this.
Patterson did not discover sasquatch! The next person to document sasquatch with video will not be the discoverer either. It would be arrogant to consider otherwise. If I am ever successful at ‘documenting’ the creature, that would be the extent of the accomplishment, but never that I ‘discovered’ the creature. It is important that we try and respect Native American and First Nations perspectives here, even if they have not been shared first hand.
As for the Kill/No Kill issue. Twice, I’ve twice had a rifle in hand when I encountered a sasquatch. The first of which was about 20 years ago, I was less than 100 yds away. The most recent, was three years ago and I came within a distance of 22′. As I’ve stated before, my 30-30 rifle felt about 6″ long during those very tense minutes. Sure I had my barrel pointed right at him, but it is only because I did not know his intentions, as it was he who first approached what would be my path. It was dusk and I had no alternative routes to reach my vehicle. So I then had to approach him. With my German Shepherd at my side, I slowly approached him and spoke calmly to him as I did. He merely observed us, turning his body with us as we approached and passed. My dog only growled slightly once. I could smell his strong odor which was a little familiar. It was similar to a wet elk. There was no foul ’skunk’ smell to this individual.
There were a lot of thoughts that went through my mind. Sure I was shaking to my bones, praying my way through this ordeal, hoping I was not his intended meal, but my having seen sasquatch already twice in my life, enabled me to handle things much differently then most. I respected the creature and he respected me. This is the lesson we all need to attempt to understand. Contrary to popular opinion, these are not simply some giant ape species. He respected me for respecting him.
My research now is such that I am no longer startled when I hear them moving around. Like with any field, one does become proficient in telling the difference between them and other animals. Hopefully they are becoming less threatened by me and will someday accept me like never before. Of all the visual and non-visual encounters I have had, never has one been aggressive towards me. I personally take this as a good sign. Some 25 years ago, I was not so kind, when a bunch of us planned to hunt one. That trip was cancelled at the last moment for reasons I won’t go into here. I believe they have since ’sensed’ that I mean them no harm, and I attribute my increased number of encounters to this.
Hypothetically, let’s say that I never encountered a sasquatch before my most recent sighting when I was hunting 3 years ago. I might have began firing upon him immediately as I would have been panicked in the clear-cut as a giant hairy beast had just cut off my escape route. I am certain that if this were my response, I would not be here today.
I firmly believe, as others have hypothesized in the past, that once you intend them harm, all bets are off. That they will do whatever is necessary to defend themselves. I believe that others would have quickly overtaken me and I would have become one of those statistical missing hunters never to be found alive.
Essentially I think we have a choice of how we are to get along with them. My choice was to be calm. He responded the same. If I fired on him, well he (and possibly others) would likely have responded accordingly.
I suspect that there are missing hunters who have indeed died at the hands of sasquatch. But I believe this is of their own doing too, by either attempting to ‘bag’ one during a chance encounter or just some bad decisions while in panic mode. I believe there will someday need to be an education process for the country on ‘How to behave around sasquatch’. We are not yet at this stage of understanding, but someday the day will come.
I do wonder if the vast majority of those who want to kill a sasquatch, lack a certain maturity, compassion and understanding to have empathy towards these creatures? Keep in mind, I once planned such a hunt when I was young, and I too lacked these qualities. These attributes are more important today as I am more mature and enter the field where they live. Sadly many of us at some time of our lives have lacked a reverence for all creatures. Too often I see the yahoos traveling along logging roads who want to shoot anything that moves. Squirrels, jays, coyotes, anything for target practice. This is not respecting life. I think we all need to learn some lessons from the indigenous people.
Yesterday I had the honor of attending a small gathering of various tribal members. Also attending was Dennis Banks, co-founder of the American Indian Movement. He also spearheaded the movement on the Pine Ridge Reservation to oust corrupt government officials back in the 1970’s. This led to the occupation and siege at Wounded Knee. At this meeting I was privileged to have helped document a very important piece of history relating to Wounded Knee. I played only a small role but it meant much, as something once belonging to Mr. Banks at Wounded Knee, was returned to him after all these decades.
But I was also able to speak with an Elder, yes about sasquatch. I have hopes that something great will come of this meeting. It is too early to discuss any more about this meeting other then to say that we must once and for all, learn from the original stewards of this land.
How many Native American or Canadian stories have been passed down of sasquatch being a tribe? How many have referred to them as a ‘forest people’ or ‘old ones’ or similar? I see them as an ancient people. What if they are our ancient ancestors? This path of trying to kill one is not the right way. How many tragic failures have there been? How many have been maimed and killed? Why are we so insensitive to not understand that this probably brings pain to them when one of their loved ones are killed? Surely we can understand that this has an impact on how sasquatch views humans. How would we respond if our loved one was recklessly slaughtered? Do their feelings even matter?
If people in this field continue on this path that treats sasquatch as simply some new ape discovery to be made, while not giving complete respect to what indigenous people may contribute to our understanding, we will simply end up with another ‘Mayflower Discovered America’ lie, and the real secrets about sasquatch will never be shared.
How do we avoid making the same mistakes of the past?
David Rodriguez
Springfield, Oregon
While the sense of “proof” to each individual may be based on their own experiences, in reality, Bigfoot has not been proven yet.
Furthermore, people here continue to make comments about the possible Latin names of the discovered species, without regard to the formal system of naming species. The system is called binominal nomenclature. It has guidelines, and they will be followed after such a discovery.
First, the name of Bigfoot/Sasquatch may already be represented by a known species, as mentioned above, or it could follow a formal name that Heuvelmans, Sanderson, Krantz, or Strasenburgh has already given them.
Also, for the imagined names people are giving, they are incorrectly capitalizing the second or species name. The genus name is always written with an initial capital letter, and in zoology, the specific species name is never written with an initial capital, such as, for example, in Canis canis.
An individual’s name that is to be honored is likewise not capitalized at the species or subspecies level. For example, some people think that the second or species name of Gigantopithecus blacki refers to its color. But indeed, the blacki was in honor of the German paleoanthropologist Ralph von Koenigswald’s late friend and colleague Davidson Black.
In my hometown in Illinois in the early 1970s some teens and a cop seen one. The local paper ridiculed them.
I saw one while in the Military.
The needs of witnesses to be believed outweigh one ape specimen’s life.
Photoexpert- I think listing the bonobo was a good example of how a species can be embraced by science without actually having a dead specimen in hand. However, I do feel that the existence of the bonobo is not as at odds with common scientific models of the world as the sasquatch is. I’ll try and explain.
The bonobo is a large ape similar to gorillas or chimps which are known to exist, so the existence of another large ape of this type is not a wholly far fetched notion. That is probably why the funding was put into a proper scientific expedition to begin with. If you had stories about, say, the Mokele Mbembe, you would not see a lot of valuable research funding poured into that. With the bonobo, we are dealing with an ape that is not such a stretch to to believe is out there. It is similar to other apes, lives in the same type of remote habitat, and so its existence is not a completely outlandish claim. Of course, the scientific studies and clear photos helped to bolster the acceptance of the bonobo, however that research probably would have never happened if it wasn’t such a feasible animal for that habitat.
Now consider the Bigfoot. It is an alleged 8 foot tall (or taller), hairy, fully bipedal animal roaming about the forests of North America, which already will have some scientists raising their eyebrows as it is not a creature like any other we know of. Already, it is an amazing claim. Then we have the fact that there is no concrete evidence for this large animal, no fossils, no carcasses, and no really definitive photographic evidence. There is a lot of intriguing circumstantial evidence, but nothing concrete and acceptable to science yet. All of this makes the sasquatch a far more extraordinary claim than the bonobo, and thus is going to require extraordinary evidence to back it up, or to even raise scientific interest enough to the point where research funding is actively put into this area of study. I have no doubt that there is a chance such evidence is out there to be found, but the onus is on the ones who claim Bigfoot is there to go out and find it. I just think it is going to require more spectacular evidence than, say a new type of ape, or rhino, or jungle cat, because we are not only trying to find a new creature but one that seems to fly in the face of presently accepted zoological norms.
I do agree that in theory, it is not necessary to kill one. In fact, I think so much more could be learned from a live one than a dead one. But I do wonder what sort of evidence short of a body will ever be accepted fully. Perhaps a blood sample, or clear DNA sample? I do not think any amount of quality footage will be accepted, and such footage will invariably carry the specter of “hoax” over it simply because sasquatch is such an extraordinary creature and there have been so many known attempts to hoax it. Any video evidence is probably always going to be seen as suspect and perhaps flawed evidence, no matter how seemingly reliable the videographer. Footprints have been found for decades and are more curiosities rather than any conclusive evidence. Sightings are potentially valuable indicators of where to search for evidence, and can offer possible insights into the creature’s behavior, but sadly they are not enough in and of themselves.
I hate the thought of it, but perhaps it may be necessary in the end to have a body unless some other hard physical evidence is presented that will make mainstream science sit up and take notice. With such a seemingly fantastical creature such as the sasquatch, in habitat unknown to have conclusively ever supported such animals, in absence of any other definitive physical evidence, I would have to say that unfortunately a body may be needed at some point. Hopefully, there is a way to avoid such a thing.
A lot of people lament the fact that many creatures are accepted on what is perceived as less evidence than the sasquatch has. I should point out however that the Ivory billed woodpecker and other animals that are somewhat accepted on photographic evidence alone are accepted because indeed they are known to have once existed, are related to other animals that are known to exist, or are not a huge jump to accept as existing. No matter what way you cut it, even if sasquatch is Giganto or Homo erectus, the claim that it has survived into modern day undetected in the remote forests of North America is an extraordinary claim and as such will require very hard evidence over and above just photos. This is what I think is meant by the old quote “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. So far, nothing on the existence of the sasquatch has been offered to tip the scales in favor of it being a real creature. Is such evidence possibly out there? Absolutely. Anything that is going to be accepted minus a body or live specimen? I wonder.
We need proof, proof, proof. To that end some one should kill a big foot and then take blurry photos of it!
MY point; once someone shoots one or they catch one and compare it to Pattersons subject, everyone will say, “yep the P/G film was real afterall and we shoulda recognised it”. I recognise it NOW so- I’m just smarter than most. Thus; Sasquatchus pattersoni or… whatever.
Simple fact is, without a body, you have nothing. And don’t blame lack of belief on ignorance. The sheer amount of nut-jobs who have been interviewed over this topic is probably 50% of the reason why others dismiss it.
deejay: of course I can blame “lack of belief on ignorance.”
Because it’s not about belief, it’s about evidence.
A lot of nut-jobs are totally convinced that the Pearl Harbor attack really happened. And those loonies are, as we all know, totally nut-job correct.
Just because a topic seems for whatever reason to attract nut-jobs doesn’t excuse a failure to look at evidence.
One could of course say that the irrational decision of the first mainstream scientists to view Patterson-Gimlin to simply dismiss it has been a factor in leaving the field open to the nut-jobs. And one would be correct about that. Although one cannot, really, BLAME them for their ignorance, just note it.
RECON: as to “The needs of witnesses to be believed outweigh one ape specimen’s life. …”
Well, that’s not a need. If I’d seen one, I sure wouldn’t have that need. I’d have proof sufficient for my needs. So, we don’t have a need here, and even if you did see it that way personally, personal needs probably shouldn’t be dictating The Right Thing To Do.
I’d put the need to do right by another species above “you gotta believe me” as a perceived need.
Thylacineisalive has it right – a body would take the mystery away….I hope a body is never found and publicized – the wonder of Bigfoot would be diminished. Those who’ve seen one know for themselves that it is real and are blessed in a special way for having this experience. If I were ever so fortunate, I would take a certain delight in this “knowing ” and could only laugh at the skeptics for their ignorance and stubborness in discounting all the eyewitness testimony. If you have a bunch of folks hollering fire, it’s best to believe there is some merit there and evacuate the building.
As far as “to shoot or not to shoot” – I’d pass on plugging one unless I felt in imminent danger – if so, then I’d shoot the crap out him/her with no hestitation…the only common sense thing one could do.
I haven’t hunted in a few years but when I do hunt I obey the law and show respect for the game as well as the land.
Bottom line is, if I’m not going to eat it and use the hide then I’m just not going to kill it. Of course if a BF were to attack me that’s another story. I would however take an escape route unless it was right up on me and I had no choice but to shoot it. However, I believe the odds of being attacked are about the same as seeing a BF in the first place.
Some claim that it may be necessary to kill one in order to get them protected. I say that’s not true and how many are reported killed anyway. If they were protected it still wouldn’t stop someone from shooting one and claiming self defense. I have come across many so called hunters that just killed animals for sheer joy. They didn’t care if they broke the law or not.
I say leave them alone and try to get them protected via film and pictures. Someday we will have that video we need to turn the tide or a carcass from some other form of death. I would venture to guess that their numbers are dwindling as well which is another reason to not kill them.
Funny thing is that there are new species discovered every year, yet no one is talking about killing anything else to prove it exists. I never hear talk of taking a shot at Nessie or Champ. So what makes BF a target where other creatures are not?
If a body must be taken so be it– just not in my backyard.
Back in 2005, a Class B report (footprints) was published in the woods near where I live. So I put on my “skepticals” and have been hiking and poking around these woods looking for any physical evidence that something other than known animals such as deer, bobcat and raccoons are living here.
I’ve not yet found any further footprints– but I have witnessed a handful of suspicious daytime observations over the past 2 years. These include finding a trio of tree breaks (2″ diameter saplings broken off 7′ above the ground) forming a circular pattern at the end of a ridgeline within 100 yards of someone’s house, hearing a series of tree whacks on 2 occasions (once in May 2005 and again just last week), and witnessing an echoing exchange of tree knocks and rock clacks (with the same tap, pause, tap, tap pattern) over a 5-minute period.
A fellow investigator who parks his car in this vicinity between midnight and dawn once heard something running through the woods then had a rock thrown at his car (he heard it skipping along the pavement), and a few days later listened to the screams of a raccoon in a fight followed by four (4) apelike whoops that rose in pitch.
I realize none of these observations by themselves prove anything. But taken all together, something suspicious is certainly going on around here that I haven’t before encountered anywhere else in all my years of fishing, canoeing, hiking, backpacking and camping. Something else lives in these woods and when I am hiking here I am a visitor in their home.
I’ve reached an admiration for whatever these creatures are that are managing to live, hide and forage in these woods. I hope to continue documenting my observations and– who knows? maybe some day I will come across more compelling physical evidence.
In the meantime, I feel obliged to protect and respect the location of their habitat. I will not hunt them nor will I help someone else hunt them.
If a body must be taken so be it– just not in my backyard.
Why do people insist on referring to this thing as an “ape” when time and time again eyewitnesses describe having a sasquatch in their sights and they say that they just couldn’t shoot because it looked “too HUMAN”?
May I remind everyone that the majority of evidence that we have to support the existence of these creatures is anecdotal eyewitness testimony… and that witnesses rarely, if ever, say that it’s facial expression was that of a big, dumb monkey?
WHY are the details of this testimony being ignored? Why do we feel the need to classify it (as Gigantopithecus ANYTHING) before it’s propertly discovered? To sound more scientific? That smacks of pseudo-science to me.
If you go into the field assuming you’re looking for a big, bipedal ape and it turns out that that you’re dealing with something much more humanlike in intelligence and behavior (which eyewitness testimony primarily indicates), you’re likely not going to be terribly successful.
Could that be why, 50 years later, we’re still pretty much empty handed? Could it be that everyone is out looking for a Bigfoot (“Giantopithecus”) that doesn’t exist? And the actual creature you’re looking for is standing in the woods, chuckling at your attempts? Wouldn’t THAT be the ultimate irony?
It’s an exercise in futility to underestimate something that you’re trying to track. Just on the off-chance that you might be, it’s a good idea to give a little extra credit where credit may be due.
What I saw was NOT a monkey – nor was it a gorilla. It was a big, hairy, creepy PERSON. There was no mistaking that I was being stared at by a sentient being.
Given the chance, would I shoot? Not on your life, and for several reasons. I don’t believe that I have the right to kill something simply to appease my (or your) curiosity – be it animal OR human. The idea that it’s to “protect” them seems to me to be just that, thinly veiled as “altrusim”. And if we aren’t dealing with an animal, but something closer to human, would you shoot? Is that what we’ve come to? Is that how you’d handle an elusive undiscovered tribe of aboriginal people in the congo? “I’ll shoot one, then we’ll know for SURE that they exist!”
“What is it, Cletus?”
“Heck, I dunno. Let’s shoot it and find out!”
What will that teach us about their culture? The way they live, they way they interact with each other and US? It’s all fine and dandy to know THAT something is, or even WHAT it is through DNA analysis. But aren’t you just the least bit curious WHO it is?
I’d rather spend my time in the brush, watching them eat, instead of over an autopsy table, picking through their stomach contents to find out what they ate…
Autumn Williams
Oregonbigfoot.com
Whatever the sasquatch is, if he exists, he’s a sentient being. In fact, he’d probably resent being called creepy.
So are chimps. (They respected Goodall for respecting them.) And gorillas. (They respected Fossey for respecting them.) And orangutans. (They respected Galdikas for respecting them.) And bears (I got between one and her cub this weekend. She respected me for respecting them.)
One alternative definition I see in Webster’s for sentient is “the human mind.” But all the others I see describe nothing that I can’t see in the behavior of the other animals above.
I think he’s an ape.
So are we.
Not to be blood thirsty but if this thing is out there it needs to be cataloged. Without a body no serious scientific research can take place. As far as killer bigfoots are concerned. I doubt it, but if you were alone and unarmed in the woods are one attacked I can guarentee that you won’t live to tell the tale.
Well, what Autumn said, I’d rather one show me what it eats then do a stomach-content survey.
If it’s a black and white question: “Kill”.
No way around it. Science needs a specimen.
In my opinion the Sasquatch is an ape. This animal, or I should say the specimen I saw had a sagital crest and that does not allow much upper brain it roared or growled, it did not speak it knocked a tree over the way I have seen Gorillas in film do, it rocked like I seen angry chimps in films do. It walks upright, that does not make it human many Mioceine apes did, so do may birds and Therapod dinosaurs walked upright also.
If a person has moral qualms about shooting it because it’s a ape and it’s wrong to shoot apes just to prove it, I respect your opinion.
Hardly anyone ever mentions the economic impact that a body would impose on our country (US).
If one is undeniably found then it would most certainly be put on the highest level of the endangered species list.
If that were to happen then anywhere that sightings have occurred could very well become untouchable habitat. No logging, building, trade, improvement, or expansion.
Considering how many sightings have occurred all over the US it would pretty much bring us to a stand still.
I might shoot one just for the show. And the money. Also, I might want to eat a leg.
One way around this conundrum would be to dig up a Bigfoot corpse. And from where, you might ask? Why, from a Bigfoot grave-where else? I read a fascinating article once containing various eyewitness accounts of Sas’ burials by what appeared to members of its family unit. Apparently, one grave was even surrounded by a circular landscape of rocks. I’m not sure if I could find the link (I dont think I saved it) to this article, but nonetheless; it would satisfy the need for a Sasquatch body without killing one.
Said it before… I hope one is never brought in alive that’s for sure anyway…
Mystery_man:
Think I have to disagree with you.
What more can be learned from a live specimen than a dead one? For one thing I think that the live one will most definitely not be itself. It most likely will be unresponsive once it is captured. That or really pissed off. What will you learn from a pissed off Bigfoot? That it can and most likely will become aggressive. I think more can be learned from them once a colony or tribe or what ever you want to call it is found and can be observed. Obrseved at a great distance at first if need be. Like the Gorillas in the mist lady did. What was her name? Van Fossen I think. I think more can be learned from this approach than a captured animal. Besides the fact that I think the inevitable will happen. Dissection. If you have a live animal that is previously undiscovered, what ends up happening? Hmmmm, let me see. In the name of Science, what makes this animal tick? Let’s find out. Now you have dissection. Now if someone brought forth a body, it could be studied dissected or what ever, without the animal first being poked and prodded. Humiliated by being put on display and so on. I myself hope one is never brought in alive. Or dead for that matter, unless its death is from an accident or natural causes. Anyway, To Kill or not to Kill… My answer is NO WAY.
It doesn’t necessarily take a type specimen to have a species listed.
Depending on the circumstances surrounding photo/video documentation, and who does the documentation, it may be sufficient to have the species listed by virtue of great photos and video. However, it is true that we’re not talking about muntjaks or bonobos or ivory-billed woodpeckers here.
It’s pointless to argue about what the things are at this point, but I do want to point out that a great many witnesses have also used the words “ape-like,” “like a gorilla,” “like an orangutan,” to describe what they saw.
The great apes do not fall into the category of “big dumb monkey” by any stretch of the imagination; they are extremely intelligent and sentient. One only has to witness an orangutan steal a boat and use it to cross a river, pick a padlock to bust out of a cell, or see how gorillas mourn for days after the loss of another gorilla to realize that the great apes are much more than “big dumb monkeys.”
Nobody knows just how many of these things there are. Supposing they’re quite rare, killing one male in Colorado could conceivably decimate the population there. It would not be unreasonable to postulate that there may only be a half dozen of them in all of Colorado (five females; one male). Would it be acceptable or ethical to collect a specimen under such conditions? Not to me, at least not there. And that’s the point; we just don’t know how the impact of collecting one specimen in a given area would affect the local population. Come to think of it – it may be the last one in 10 states. Now you’ve really protected the species, right?
Although we freely speculate, and we have our opinions, the argument about the classification of the species is a valid one. If chimps and humans share 98% of their DNA, is it reasonable that this species may share an even higher amount of DNA with humans (which could also explain the confusion of some DNA samples appearing to have been contaminated by humans; the two may be closer than we realize at this point).
At any rate, we may not have a choice in the matter. As humans continue to encroach into critical habitat and wilderness areas, the answer may be determined by a trucker on a midnight run through southeastern Oklahoma (or wherever). Hopefully the trucker will be cool and collected to the extent that he collects the body or immediately calls individuals who can guarantee that the body will not disappear, leading to proper storage and analysis of the corpse.
The last sentence of my last paragraph brings me to another point.
Who stands to lose with the listing of a large human-like ape (or whatever it is) in North America?
The timber industry?
I don’t even think the answer to that is debatable.
National forests? You betcha. Management just became a nightmare.
The mining industry? Absolutely.
Developers? You bet.
Private land owners? Yep, them too.
Outdoors recreational businesses? Most likely.
If tomorrow the federal government announces the existence of a large gigantowhateverus that stands 7-8 feet tall and shares 99% DNA with humankind, what will that do to campgrounds in national forests and parks in North America? How many moms and dads would take their children camping in the North American outback after learning that such a species exists, even in low population densities. Here. Under our noses.
There’s a lot at stake here. Don’t believe otherwise for a second.
Different perspective. I do agree that one has to be in captivity or just the dead body. Not enough evidence to substantiate it more than a long-standing historical curiosity. We’ve already had many unclassified hair samples, sightings, film etc without getting closer. There’s just no way this will be proven unless this happens. I don’t care if you have a hidden camera filming one in 1080i high definition for 2 hours, in the end it’s considered nothing more than a dazzling Hollywood hoax. This whole subject reminds me of parapsychology and spirit photography— how many hundreds of photos and sighting have happened and ghosts are still “unproven”.
While I have hunted, I haven’t for many years. Lets say if I were on a backwoods trip and saw what I thought was Bigfoot, the last thing I would think of is grabbing my pistol and squeezing off a bunch of rounds in its general direction. I’d be way more inclined to grab my camera. But depending on how I came upon it, I must admit that it would cross my mind. First off, what if it is a person in some outfit, or strange camouflage? Can you say murder? Secondly, I would much prefer a tranquilizer, one that has the juice in it to nullify a rhino. Then you’d have it captured. And yes, I’d have no moral qualms with its capture. It would mean a lot, a huge discovery, it would turn evolutionary models upside down, and yet much could be learned and benefited from it. The downside would be that people would be aware, and there would be a world-wide manhunt for more, which would threaten their survival as well as much destruction of habitat and environment in general. We will get one, and I’ll bet it’ll be within the next 50 years.
DARHOP- I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I didn’t mean keeping one in captivity and attaching monitoring equipment or something like that. I meant perhaps taking samples and then returning it to the wild in order to track it or study it somehow in its natural surroundings. Don’t you agree that studying it live and then releasing it is better than killing it? I have studied animals in the field and I have dissected them as well, and personally I have learned far more from living specimens than I ever learned from a dead one.
As far as bringing in a live one for study, I don’t agree with it but yes, even then more could be learned from it than a dead specimen, I feel. I would much rather have a live animal to study than a dead one to dissect. Do you think gorillas like being captured and put into captivity? No, but we can still learn from observing them. The idea of doing such a thing is not very pleasing to me either, but in the end it may be necessary. Not saying I like it, but in reality, scientists are going to want to study these things up close. Maybe after the creature is confirmed, they can be studied in the field like Dianne Fossey does, but remember at some point gorillas have been dissected and they have been studied live.
The Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy (TBRC) maintains that the source of the bigfoot phenomenon is an animal. As such, it should be possible to photograph the species.
In lieu of a specimen, securing compelling images is considered a necessary precursor in the species documentation and validation process. One of the world’s leading field biologists, and Vice President of the Wildlife Conservation Society’s Science and Exploration Program, Dr. George Schaller, in comments regarding the sasquatch phenomenon, recently stated, “A hard-eyed look is absolutely essential. The best thing to do would be to set up camera traps that automatically take pictures of the animals.”
Dr. Duane Schlitter, who oversees the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s (TPWD) Non-game and Rare and Endangered Species program, had this to say: “To conclusively prove…bigfoot in Texas, we [TPWD] would need an image [photographic or videographic] that included details to show us that it was not a doctored or edited image in any way…”
Such a statement from the Director of the department that would be headlong involved in the listing of the species (in Texas) is converse to the notion that a type specimen is absolutely warranted and very much opens the door for clean photographic/videographic documentation. It’s incentive enough to convince us that it’s the right course and to pursue it vigorously.
I think I’ve only heard a few people call them monkeys. In most of the accounts I’ve read, they’re referred to as apes or apes that looked human or something.
The KKK of the bigfoot world, the GCBRO with their obnoxious pastel website, regularly calls them “monkeys.” But then, consider the source.
Because something stretches our credulity it does not mean that it is okay to destroy an example of it to prove a point.
I agree mysteryman. As long as it is released.
I have come on this post a month late, but I am going to weigh in anyway. We in the crypto community become offended and wonder why mainstream science laughs at us. Read the majority of the comments to this post and you will have your answer. Science deals with cold, hard facts. Emotion has nothing to do with it. If you want to have an intelligent discussion on the kill issue, then leave your personal emotions at the door. They have no place in this arguement.
Science will require a body to prove the existance of any completely unknown animal. For one thing, an actual body is obviously not a fake. Another reason is that any new organism is dissected in order to study how it works. If someone manages to capture one alive, it will be killed at some point for study. Only live captures AFTER that initial speciman have any chance of being kept alive. This little bit of information nullifies the current arguement of whether to kill or not. It is more humane to kill the creature immediately rather than to subject it to the stress of capture, confinement, and then death.
What about darting it? If you dart one, you will kill it. Anybody who deals with the live capture of animals will tell you that it would be impossible to safely drug an unknown animal. Many common animals are killed in this way because of a mistake in estimating their weight. And this is with all other factors known. Drugs as a means of live capture are out of the question.
Well ok then, Ranger Bob, we’ll just collect DNA! And compare it to what? You need to have a known base in order to make a DNA identification. Where do you get that base? From the above mentioned initial body. So, if you want to collect DNA samples, you first need that body. Once again, you need a kill. As for those who are hoping to find a body, let me ask you this. How many common animals are found that have died a natural death? Take a minute to think about it, I’ll wait. Now what would make you think that you could find bigfoot remains?
Photographic and video evidence is not acceptable. It is too easy to fake. Any official who says they would accept credible photographic evidence is just trying to get rid of the questioner. What is the exact definition of credible evidence. Credibility is in the eye of the person to whom the evidence is being presented. In reality, there is no such thing as a credible photograph. With the emotional side removed, the Patterson film is just a jumpy, unclear piece of footage. It is not proof, and to claim Patterson as the discoverer of bigfoot is just silly. If anybody discovered bigfoot, it the the editor of the Humboldt Times. He made the name up.
For those who think we should only study this animal in the wild, tell me this. How do you propose that we do this? Nobody can pin one down long enough to show it to someone in authority. How do you study an animal you can’t catch up with?
If we want scientists to investigate the bigfoot issue then we must give them a body to show there is something to investigate. There is no other way. You may not like that answer, but in life things are not always the way you want them. When we accept this reality something may get accomplished. Until then, we will remain a fractured community who runs in all directions pursuing useless goals.
Some people express concern regarding the legal ramifications involved in shooting one of these creatures. The laws in our country regarding murder apply only to homo sapiens. One thing most of us can agree on is that bigfoot is not homo sapiens. If you were to shoot somebody dressed in a believable costume, I feel that the courts would take this into account. Most likely, the blame would be placed on the hoaxer and you would be found innocent.
If one is killed and needs to be named, then I propose naming it in honor of John Green. He has been involved since the beginning of the bigfoot story, and has always adopted a rational view when presenting the evidence. He is one of a very short list who would deserve this honor.
So, what should you do if you see bigfoot, are armed with a gun heavy enough to kill the animal, and have a clear shot? A quote attributed to Doc Holliday says it best, “Blaze away, and you’re a daisy if you do”.
One more thing. Would bigfoot attack a person? Why not? If you threaten any animal it will retaliate. Bigfoot is big enough that his warning will kill you. Also, since we know nothing about this animal, we have no way of knowing what his dietary habits are. A little ‘long pig’ could very possibly be on the menu. Could explain all those people who have disappeared without a trace.