The Kill Club

[SWWASAS]

I hear what you are saying but the reality of things are that biopsy darts, tracking darts, and tranquilizer darts require the shooter to be very close, much closer than someone shooting to kill. A shooter with a 50 cal sniper rifle could be so far away the BF does not know they are there. Don't get me wrong, personally I am anti-kill, but approaching with range of the non kill methods is very difficult to do with a creature that hides behind trees even at night. Unless you could find one asleep or unaware, I think it very difficult to get within range with one of the non-lethal methods. If approach to within visual range were that easy, we would have a lot more pictures of BF than we do. Finally shooting anything at a BF is likely to get someone killed no matter how non-lethal their intent is. If the literature is authentic, people have been warned that if they photograph they will be killed. I am living proof that is not always correct but there has to be something to all of those threat reports.

[hiflier]

Hello All,

 

Good dialogue here. In the "olden" days (just cell phones) and even now locations can be triangulated onto a frequency without gps. And yes, it requires a battery. High frequencies don't travel as far but require less energy to broadcast. Low frequencies can penetrate more in the way of say being embedded soft tissue and travel further (think whales) but the power requirements are greater.  

 

If I could tranq one and substitute a molar for a transmitter then..........aw heck, at that point into the back of the truck it goes right?

Or.....I could dust off my Halloween Elk costume and go knock on BigTreeWalker's door LOL.

 

All kidding aside, many ideas have been tossed around and just going after one with what little we know probably has the highest percentage of success as anything as long as proper precautions and good experience in the field is part of it.

[SWWASAS]

Getting a live one would be difficult. We don't need a live one or even to shoot one. All we need are enough bones to define the species. Meldrum said a skull would do it. Thigh bone would be good too as it would show it to be bipedal. If gigatopithecus was defined by a jaw bone with a few teeth you don't need much.

[hiflier]

Hello SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT,

 

Bones would be good. I've mentioned several times past to look in the late Winter/early Spring for any die off. But now that BigTreeWalker has shown us OTHER types of bone clues it may make the job go easier as far as gaining approximate area locations. It's all good really. Broadens the picture so folks don't think they all have to camp out at Bluff Creek to have a chance. Yep, all good.

Edited August 8, 2015 by hiflier

[norseman]

Getting a live one would be difficult. We don't need a live one or even to shoot one. All we need are enough bones to define the species. Meldrum said a skull would do it. Thigh bone would be good too as it would show it to be bipedal. If gigatopithecus was defined by a jaw bone with a few teeth you don't need much.

But that is the problem....... We find very little in the way of fossil evidence. If we are to assume that Giganto roamed the Earth for say one million years? Where are all the bones?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus

Edited August 9, 2015 by norseman

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

The odds of finding Sasquatch fossils here in North America are pretty slim. The first chimpanzee fossils in Africa weren't found until 2005. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_teeth.html

The most practical option for someone who's looking to prove the existence of Sasquatch is to somehow obtain an actual body.

[norseman]

Especially if your looking right at him.

[MagniAesir]

Oh but wait the experts have told us that we can never find them because of our evil intentions

[SWWASAS]

Fossils are formed under extremely rare conditions. Rarely does anything buried become a fossil. A unique process of mineralization has to take place. With calcium in the bones replaces with other more durable minerals. It may be that rather than the PNW where any fossils are rare because of the regional volcanism, look in other regions where fossils of other animals are found.

However if we have a population of BF dying at any near the rate that humans do, their fresh bones should be findable a lot easier and in far greater numbers than finding fossils. OK I know about acidic forest soil and it is race against time and the likelihood that they might bury their dead. Burial of something as big as a BF would leave physical evidence. I think the best chance of finding a body fresh enough to retrieve bones are natural disasters like landslides, flash floods, avalanches, forest fires, volcanic eruptions, where the BF is killed without others around to bury it. The race there is find something before the forest service does. Around Mt St Helens I walk the banks of ash flows on the East side looking for bones washing out. One benefit of ash it that it was hot when laid down, and as we know from Pompey, humans caught in it can be pretty well preserved if completely covered quickly.

[Trogluddite]

In the Animal X episode that includes video of the discovery of the Skookum casts, one of the scientists present worries that Bigfoot is going extinct as we speak.  He then made the (I thought) counterintuitive and probably wildly unpopular assertion that, "we have to hurry up and shoot one so that the government can protect the species."

 

The statement is near the end of the video.  The copy of the video I found is in a 2011 thread whose first post was, "Skookum cast - elk lay or bigfoot butt?" 

[norseman]

Not sure about it being counterintuitive but Iam quite sure its wildly unpopular.

[Woodslore]

I think a bigger challenge than shooting one will be keeping ones britches clean while looking at said creature and pulling the trigger. You miss or misplace the shot and you might not get another. 

Edited August 27, 2015 by Woodslore

[norseman]

How is that different though than a kodiak brown Bear or even ten times more scary a bull Elephant?

[Woodslore]

I think the difference would lie in what you are seeing. A human like ape in the woods and shooting at it might trigger some different fears.

[norseman]

I'm supremely confident I would take the shot. I've hunted dangerous game, roam places that Griz do and I think I'm pretty cool under pressure. And on this forum I am not alone.

My problem is that for the last five years I've been stuck in the oilfield, it would be so nice to be able to go look right from my porch. And my limited time at home is mostly used on family time, honey dos and kids sports, etc.