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.

The KKK of the bigfoot world, the GCBRO with their obnoxious pastel website, regularly calls them “monkeys.” But then, consider the source.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mystery_man:

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.

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.