So You Shoot One, Then What?

[Guest LittleFeat]

I think this says it all:

Dr. Grover Krantz's response to the question, "What would be the first thing you'd do if you shot one?" "Reload," he replied.

JMHO, but my point is that I don't think that they're ever alone. There may not be others in the immediate vicinity, but I'm sure they're within earshot of each other.

[norseman]

JMHO, but my point is that I don't think that they're ever alone. There may not be others in the immediate vicinity, but I'm sure they're within earshot of each other.

I'm not so sure of that. I think that with a low density population they could be very solitary.

But why bring up that point? Do you feel they would attempt retaliation?

The only animal I know that cunningly retaliates for another of it's own kind is homo sapien, and if sasquatch is capable of such behavior traits, I think we would seriously need to rethink their position on the primate evolutionary tree.

[Guest Greldek]

What would I do if I shot one? Sasquatch Steaks and Bigfoot Burgers!

But really, take a million pictures on as many different SD cards as I had with me, and hide those cards in different places (keep one with me). Then try and contact the experts such as Meldrum, and plan an "unveiling".

It obviously will get swept away by someone.. if you discover a new species, and have the bodily proof, someone else is going to get it. Whether the body is just taken from you, or if you're compensated for it, I have no idea, but I doubt you'd just get to take it to a taxidermist and put ol' squatch in your living room.

Oh and the multiple SD cards full of photos (as well as small samples of hair/flesh) are just in case the all mysterious "they" try and cover it up, I've still got evidence!

Or maybe I'll set it up on my porch and charge $5 bucks a shot for your picture with bigfoot, like they did in Tremors with the graboids!

[MagniAesir]

But why bring up that point? Do you feel they would attempt retaliation?

Yes if you believe this

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/beck.htm

[Guest TooRisky]

There is no trade off... There is no 2 way glory... 15 minutes of fame on Oprah and maybe some good money but the trade off is guilt for a life time... So the one that shoots one will be haunted for life and the species will be, well, done for and this killer will have this very cause and effect on their shoulders...

So the what then may just end in suicide... IMHO

Like the crew of the first atomic bomb... think about it...

[Guest LittleFeat]

Norseman, there seems to be evidence of vocal and woodknocking communication when they surround campers, hikers, etc which would indicate that they are never alone. And I do feel that they would retaliate (thanks for the link to the Beck story,MagniAesir) if one of their own were being attacked.

[Guest]

Well, supposedly one was shot by the GCBRO in Louisiana and there were no reports of retaliation by any other creatures.

I think these creatures are aware of the firearms that humans carry. I don't doubt that they have seen us use them, so in my mind, I would doubt any retaliation, myself.

If you really plan on shooting one, you should really consider what you would do after the fact. It is doubtful that you could prevent the authorities from getting involved. Forest Service, County Sheriff, Game Warden, etc.

As was mentioned, documentation would be pertinent. And I would hide that documentation, just in case.

Personally, I would get a university involved.

I believe the usual stated repercussions of shooting one is overblown.

Yes, it is probably illegal to shoot one in your state, however the publicity of shooting one would outweigh any legal action being taken, in my opinion.

Yes, it would shake up the scientific community, and maybe some funding would appear to study them.

No, I don't believe it will draw out any lunatics to bother me or my family.

[Guest D B Cooper]

Something to keep in mind. If you are hunting, and If, you were to see and shoot a Bigfoot. The first legal hurdle would be the Game Commission. In Oregon, Non-Game Wildlife is protected. In other words, if it isn't listed in the Game Regulations as a Game animal with a designated season, or considered as a pest,varmint or danger to Live Stock or the environment. It can't legally be taken.

Several years ago a Deer hunter shot a Moose that had wondered into North Eastern Oregon, into the Wallowa range, if I recall correctly. He field dressed it, loaded it up, took it to town to brag at the local watering hole.The Game Commission paid him a visit, a very expensive visit from what I have heard. Moose are not native to Oregon, and therefore not listed in the Game Regs. Therefore considered illegal game in Oregon. I've read the Regulations, and don't recall seeing a Sasquatch Season listed.

Another point to ponder is that at least one state , I don't recall which, has designated Bigfoot as an Endangered Species already. I believe they even have a designated Preserve for them. A sharp Trial Lawyer could use this as a precedence to lay out a nasty Court Case.

I am an avid hunter, and have spent days at a time wandering the Cascades, and always carry a firearm of sufficient caliber to stop assorted Nasty Grabbers. I wouldn't think of shooting one unless I knew for certain that it was endangering my life. I've often thought about what I would do if, I was ever confronted by one. I want to believe that I could control the "pucker factor" long enough to show it that I was not a threat. Maybe even offer it food. I carry Snack Bars when in the woods, and might try an offering (from a distance). I don't need and don't want the Fame , Fortune , Notoriety , Hassle , Grief , Guilt or Regret of killing one. I would also add that, I sure as hell don't want to suffer the consequences of pissing one off by wounding it.

It's one thing to talk a good show, but when it comes right down to the nuts and bolts...?

Edited October 27, 2010 by D B Cooper

[Guest]

There is no trade off... There is no 2 way glory... 15 minutes of fame on Oprah and maybe some good money but the trade off is guilt for a life time... So the one that shoots one will be haunted for life and the species will be, well, done for and this killer will have this very cause and effect on their shoulders...

So the what then may just end in suicide... IMHO

Like the crew of the first atomic bomb... think about it...

What are you getting at with the Enola Gay's crew? Nobody commited suicide, thats for sure. One man, the bombadier Major Ferebee, had a nervous breakdown after the war. Thats about it. People get better from nervous breakdowns. They also knew full well what they were doing. Heck, Paul Tibbets helped with the movie Above and Beyond. The Bock's Car also didn't show up with any reports of suicide.

Or are you saying they had to think about that for the rest of their life? If so so has every person who has ever had to end a life in defense of their country or family since the begining of time.

[Guest Robert2]

Until someone does it this will never be resolved.

Pictures will always be doubted.

Live capture doesn't seem to be feasible.

Who here has the cojones?

[Guest]

I, for one, am very willing to consider the possibility of bigfoot being described from photographic evidence. A lot of folks immediately dismiss the value of good photos on the grounds that skeptics will never accept them because photos can be so easily faked. While that's true for a lot of folks and I'm sure it would be challenging to try to get the species described relying primarily on photographic evidence, it's also a largely untested issue. When all we've had to consider thusfar are Patty, blobsquatches, and "sylvanic"-type nonsense, then we haven't really tested the waters of what might make for acceptable photographic evidence.

The "Jacobs bear" is the best example I can think of in which clear photographs of something that might have been a bigfoot were examined by a whole lot of people. That examination revealed the creature to have been a black bear, but what if it hadn't? What if, for example, the subject of those photos was demonstrably 7' tall and had been photographed walking on two legs - maybe even looking right at the camera to provide a clear view of the face? If that had been the case, I might have pounced on the opportunity myself to submit the first paper attempting to describe the species based on that evidence. I doubt I'd have been the first one, however: I'd predict a veritable stampede of scientific hopefuls trying to do the same thing if we ever had photos like that come to light. That's a proverbial "big if" however.

So you've shot a bigfoot? The most likely scenario involves the state game agency confiscating your bigfoot carcass and seeing that it's properly curated in a state museum, perhaps at a state university. It's hard to imagine, however, that the skin would not be used to make a taxidermy mount for museum display and the bones used to make casts from which to build a squatch skeleton replica. Some museums might opt to sell their specimen to another, bigger museum that would be better able to handle the media circus and better protect the priceless specimen against damage or theft. Should that happen, I see the potential payoff easily in the million$ for the state.

Would you, the shooter, see any of that dough? It's hard to say. Wildlife are generally owned by the people so the default would be "no." There are scenarios in which I think the shooter could be handsomely rewarded, however. If the bigfoot was shot on private land and the land was high-fenced then a shrewd lawyer might be able to work some magic. More nefariously, the shooter could go the black market route and make a fortune by shaving little pieces of bigfoot testicles (or ovaries) that could wind up fetching big money in Asian apothecaries. Any one of those bigfoot peices would be enough to describe the new species.

The surest route to cash for bigfoot, however, would be to sell your photos and exclusive story to the highest bidder.

[norseman]

There is no trade off... There is no 2 way glory... 15 minutes of fame on Oprah and maybe some good money but the trade off is guilt for a life time...

This guilt you speak of is your own feelings, yes? As I said earlier I would have guilt if I didn't shoot it. (and I posted the reasons why above)

So the one that shoots one will be haunted for life and the species will be, well, done for and this killer will have this very cause and effect on their shoulders...

I would like you to elaborate on this. How would getting science involved with a body and the full protections of the Federal government be the down fall of a species?

So the what then may just end in suicide... IMHO

Like the crew of the first atomic bomb... think about it...

I don't like this analogy.......

How many scientists have had guilt or committed suicide because they found a new species in the jungle and brought out a type specimen to be studied back at the University?

This happens ALL THE TIME in science!

Type specimen description:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_(biology)

Although in reality biologists may examine many specimens (when available) of a new taxon before writing an official published species description, nonetheless, under the formal rules for naming species (the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature), a single type must be designated, as part of the published description.

Until a type specimen is collected, sasquatch will remain in the realm of crop circles, the mothman and poltergeists.

I personally do not see anything healthy or positive for a legitimate species to remain in that category for long.

[norseman]

Yes if you believe this

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/beck.htm

I'm well aware of that story, and I think it's seriously embellished. Those men probably saw something, and they probably shot at something. But the Alamo stand at the cabin? I see all sorts of "holes" in that story. Like the part about one getting it's arm through the chinking between the logs to grab an axe.

How big would the gaps in the scribed logs have to be for a giant ape to get his arm through?

http://media.photobucket.com/image/log%20chinking/ShiningMountainCabins/Former%20projects%204/sugarloafcabin8.jpg

Edited October 27, 2010 by norseman

[Branco]

Yes but your analogy is wrong minded, because the Ivory Billed Woodpecker is a known endangered species!!!

Shoot one, prove they exist, put them on the endangered species list and then some ******* shoots one? Yah OK....same/same.

You seen any real evidence lately that the Ivory Bill still exist?

[Guest]

What he is saying is that the Ivory Bill is known to have existed in the past so we know it is real. Shooting something that isn't supposed to be real is different. Therefore the analogy is a bit flawed.

For the record I'm pretty sure there has been photo evidence documenting Ivory Bills in the last year or so.