Guest Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Personally I am a no kill guy, if these Bigfoot exist,and are as intelligent as they seem, can you really justify the intentional killing of something like this? Would there be consequences? For example from Bigfoot itself,considering how adept it is in its own environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 John C- oh yeah, I absolutly agree with you and there however should be conseqences if someone shots a Sasquatch; otherwise we get all these Jim La Bac characters coming out of the woodwork, seeing dallor signs and not really caring about what or who they shot. I am totally in the no-kill camp or even capturing them. ptangier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Certainly "No-Kill". While I'd like to pretend I understand the argument that is often used, that we need a body on a slab to prove it to science so we can protect them, I find both aspects of that line of thinking to be fake. (1) "I" have no need to prove anything to anyone. Scientific acceptance doesn't change the fact NOW, that they do exist. (2) "They" are doing so well on their own now as it is, that we can't even PROVE they exist, that it's an intellectually faux arguement that we need to protect them. This is an old discussion I'm sure we'll have many more times, long before the creature is ever fully accepted to exist. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Why not just get hold of one of the dozens that are supposed to have been shot over the years? Even 50 year old skeletons would be good enough. If any of the reports were/ are true, someone knows where the bones are. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Certainly "No-Kill". While I'd like to pretend I understand the argument that is often used, that we need a body on a slab to prove it to science so we can protect them, I find both aspects of that line of thinking to be fake. (1) "I" have no need to prove anything to anyone. Scientific acceptance doesn't change the fact NOW, that they do exist. (2) "They" are doing so well on their own now as it is, that we can't even PROVE they exist, that it's an intellectually faux arguement that we need to protect them. This is an old discussion I'm sure we'll have many more times, long before the creature is ever fully accepted to exist. This just had to get ''plussed'....about the only thing I'd add is if there were a semitruck accident and one was accidently killed I'd be ok with it. But for humans to go all Rambo on them? no way. I will provisionally add should I walk up on a deceased one I'm walking away or getting the backhoe to bury it. Before I get slammed, lol, I don't care what anyone thinks of my opinion on this...when I die I'm accountable for my actions, thank you very much, an will do what I see as ethical TO ME until then. ..besides in the grand scheme of things the odds of that happening are so astronimical I might as well go play the lottery...heheheh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 People and their concepts of humanity will be forever altered if/when we can scientifically prove and accept the existence of Sasquattle. Obtaining real biological proof of an animal used to mean killing one and bringing it in to be studied. With the kind of technology we have these days, I don't think that method is necessary even though it is extremely scientifically sound. In the unlikely event that I find myself armed in a group right next to a vehicle with a Sasquatch standing in full view, I am certain it's a Sasquatch and I know I could have him/her shot, loaded in my car, and outta there in moments so there's no risk of retaliation from his/her family... Knowing I could take one and "get away with it" still doesn't seem right in my mind. However, I refuse to try to convince anyone of my view being "right." My opinions and feelings agree that killing anything for the simple act of proving it exists is repulsive and morally vile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BuzzardEater Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 It's an unfortunate fact that the apparent lack of an example is what attracts a portion of our population. They view this as a challenge. Until the urge to categorize is answered, I do not think the real work can begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhloydPhan Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 I'm assuming we're talking about kill/no kill in terms of obtaining scientific verification of the species, since someone who is only looking to obtain verification for him/herself and is in a position to shoot one no longer needs to do so. I'm torn on kill/no kill, because I think a body or body part is probably the best way to obtain verification, but I don't think that I would chose to shoot one unless my life were in danger. In terms of obtaining scientific verification of sasquatch as a species, I don't believe that a body (or a part of a body) is absolutely necessary. DNA samples might be enough, if there were multiple, high-quality samples with rock-solid provenance as to where and when they were collected, a verifiable chain of evidence, etc. Video might be enough, if the video in question were long enough, close enough and of a high enough resolution to rule out the possibility of it being a guy in a suit, CGI or some other hoaxery. I don't believe that photos (even a series of photos of the same animal) would be enough to prove the existence of sasquatch, although I would be happy to be proven wrong on that count... That said, I believe that obtaining a body/body part is the surest way to guarantee scientific verification and widespread acceptance of sasquatch. DNA can degrade, depending on how much time elapses between it being deposited and when it is collected, the manner in which it is collected, etc. A video good enough to rule out CGI or other possibilities would have to be absolutely spectacular, and I think such a video is unlikely, if for no other reason than the brevity of most sightings. A body/body part isn't absolutely necessary; however, in practical terms, I think it is probably required. A body/body part leaves no questions as to degradation of DNA, hoaxery or other nonsense. Some will argue that a body/body part could be obtained by someone stumbling across a body in the woods, a logging truck hitting one, or some other combination of events that produce a body/body part without someone intentionally killing one. And they would be right. However, none of those things have happened to date, and seem to me to be equally unlikely to happen in the future. All that said, as a hunter, I don't believe that I would shoot one unless my life were in danger. Even if I were close enough and had observed the creature for long enough to be absolutely, 100% positive that I wasn't going to shoot a guy (or gal) in a costume, I don't think that would choose to shoot something that close to being human unless I was being threatened. I would not choose to shoot a chimp, gorilla or other ape/monkey for the same reason - again, unless I were being threatened. So, to sum up, I think that it is probably necessary for someone to kill a sasquatch to obtain specimen and garner recognition of the species. However, I would not want to obtain such a specimen myself. Incidentally, sitting on this fence is starting to chafe, and if anyone knows of a good ointment for that sort of thing I'd appreciate a PM... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 I see The General is here as I write this. I have a question, if you feel you can answer it, that I believe is pertinent to this discussion. Did the little guy try to speak at the end? Was he conscious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 (edited) wow, indie foot. I am on the side of no-kill. If one gets killed, so be it, and I think that was the circumstance with General's bigfoot. To kill one intentionally, given the intelligence and possible relation to us, is out of the question. I am agin killing anything you don't have a defensive or survival reason to kill. Edited December 24, 2011 by Kings Canyon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 (edited) I understand that any killing is uncomfortable, and hopefully avoidable. This thread for me,is aimed at the act of intentionally going into the field and trying to "obtain a specimen". I personally,think that is something that should be pursued as a crime, and attempting to liken it to science, or justify it as science, is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. I have very strong feelings about this,and think any organization that would participate,or seek to justify something like that,has absolutely zero credibility. I have actually refrained from posting idea's on how to get a little closer to bigfoot for fear they may actually work, and an organization of that nature may attempt to use them. I have even refrained from posting anymore on the cam thread, again, for fear of giving them an idea that might work. It really is a conflict for me, I want to participate,share idea's,and encourage the documentation of a species I am reasonably sure exist, but I do not want to aid anyone in the killing of something innocent to win an argument,claim fame,or for profit.I will get over it eventually I am sure.....but not till I am done with it. I also just discovered that this thread has been done before, I will try not to duplicate stuff in the future,sorry about that, I am new here,and there is a lot to read. Edited December 24, 2011 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nalajr Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 (edited) Definitely PRO-KILL for me. A crime if you kill one? What would you be charged with? A 2nd year law student would get his client off on killing one while he/she was on break in between lunch and TORT Law class. Dance around it all you want, DNA alone ain't gonna do it. Before science would recognize and accept Sassy is REAL, there MUST be a body on the slab. You might not like that idea, but that's the way it is. Pictures, video, footprints and DNA might be great first steps, but FULL SCIENTIFIC RECOGNITION will NEVER be complete until scientists have a BODY to study and document. If all you have is DNA and some various anecdotal "evidence," how would scientists even classify it? You think you'd get protection for Sassy with just DNA, prints and pics? Get all that and then waltz in with a Sassy body, then you can get somewhere and be able to afford the rest of the species the protection that the people would demand and undoubtedly Sassy would need. I've said it before, if you really want to see if Sassy is out there, have Washington, California, Oregon, Alaska and all of Canada declare a HUNTING SEASON for them. Sass has been eluding "White Face" for maybe thousands of years without a single kill that can be documented and if they are as smart as many on here think and claim he is, then what is your worry? Heck they can see better than man, hear better than any other creature in the woods, smell their way around all the game cams and easily elude the latest FLIR technology. Sounds like a mismatch of epic proportions to me. Why would you think that if a bunch of hunters went into the woods with thoughts of a Sassy head over their fireplace that there would suddenly be a parade of pickup trucks with dead Sasses tied over the hoods? Have someone roll into a reputable lab with a skeleton or a naturally dead Sassy and I'll be right there with you with the NO-KILL policy. Until then, lock and load and bring one in. Nalajr Edited December 24, 2011 by Nalajr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 (edited) It's an unfortunate fact that the apparent lack of an example is what attracts a portion of our population. They view this as a challenge. Until the urge to categorize is answered, I do not think the real work can begin. "IF" I understand how you're saying this, sure... I see that. But my BIGGER fear is exactly the same thing takes place and is far more likely AFTER the species is recognized. Once the creature is established as 'real', there will be a certain element of the hunting society(s) that will see a big trophy there and will be chomping at the bit to try and get one. As I've said for quite a while on various boards, IMO it's far better in the end for the species to never be proven if you're concerned about preservation. As for the "second year law students"... they wouldn't be practicing law anyway, so if you're a client of one, you might want to look elsewhere. ETA: I'm still amazed/fascinated at this impulse of "we MUST prove this to science". I didn't understand till I saw one, but many of 'us' who have, have come to a realization that "proving it to anyone" is the least of our concerns. Edited December 24, 2011 by GuyInIndiana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 All that said, as a hunter, I don't believe that I would shoot one unless my life were in danger. Even if I were close enough and had observed the creature for long enough to be absolutely, 100% positive that I wasn't going to shoot a guy (or gal) in a costume, I don't think that would choose to shoot something that close to being human unless I was being threatened. I would not choose to shoot a chimp, gorilla or other ape/monkey for the same reason - again, unless I were being threatened. +1 I'll add that I'm less inclined to kill one close to my home and to quote Ruark you'd better use enough gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 Personally I am a no kill guy, if these Bigfoot exist,and are as intelligent as they seem, can you really justify the intentional killing of something like this? I don't think intelligence plays a role in whether people kill things, and it wouldn't likely play a role in whether a Sasquatch were killed. Would there be consequences? For example from Bigfoot itself,considering how adept it is in its own environment. You would have people that respected you, despised you and every where in between. Legally, they wouldn't know what to do with you, and you wouldn't face charges. Common law typically precludes retroactive legislation. Sasquatch would be dead, so he wouldn't care. His family and friends would feel discomfort in some way, then get over it and move on with living, like some other animals do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts