Believer57 Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 Should a Sasquatch be killed to help prove that they exist? Are there better alternatives? Is the speed of discovery more beneficial to the Sasquatch well being? Please vote and add your own thoughts on which path may be best to protect the Sasquatch from Man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wooly Booger Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 If Sasquatch exists, and the evidence suggests that they do, then they are likely very rare with a low population density. The BFRO estimates there are around 2,000 individuals inhabiting the wilderness areas of North America. If the species is ever formally classified by science, it will almost certainly be placed on the endangered species list. The question of whether or not a specimen should be killed and then given government protection is complicated with good arguments on both sides of the issue. On the one hand, killing a specimen would prove to be the quickest and most efficient method of proving the species existence to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists. On the other hand, the species is more than likely highly endangered, and killing a specimen could prove to have detrimental consequences for the future survival of the species. There is also the question of ethics. If the Sasquatch proves to be a hominid or type of human, then killing a specimen would constitute homicide. With all of these factors in consideration, I personally take a "No Kill" position. I would much rather get clear photographic or video evidence of a Sasquatch, then kill a specimen of what is almost certainly an endangered and very human like species. However, this does not mean that researchers in the field shouldn't take necessary precautions. If Missing 411 is any indication then Sasquatches are an apex predator and potentially very dangerous. I always go into the woods armed, but this is simply for defensive purposes. If a Sasquatch attacks I will open fire. But killing a specimen is not my objective. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Believer57 Posted February 10, 2021 Author Share Posted February 10, 2021 (edited) I understand your argument and appreciate your input. Your posts have been very honest. I took a few clips of your text to show the assumptions that help support your decision. Nothing wrong with that. I believe that we really have no idea what is out there and video evidence will never be considered proof of species. In my mind, the great equalizer between the Sasquatch and Man may be a high-powered rifle with a scope and night vision. Perhaps a tranquilizer could be substituted for a bullet. Cheers! they are likely very rare BFRO estimates will almost certainly would prove to be the quickest and most efficient method more than likely highly endangered question of ethics If the Sasquatch proves to be almost certainly an endangered and very human like species Edited February 10, 2021 by Believer57 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 Would the authorities in some states or even federaly regard killing one as murder of a sentient human type species?. Or killing of an endangered species? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 (edited) Only if states or federal agencies step up in court and show proof that the Sasquatch exists and is, in fact, a sentient Human-type species, or that it's at least an endangered one. Neither a state nor federal agency is going to do that as it means those official entities will have to admit the creature is, or will become, a recognized species. It would also mean getting embroiled in an argument of whether or not those agencies have lied about the Sasquatch's existence all this time. And that's just not going to happen. It's one of the conundrums we have faced and discussed many times. Edited February 10, 2021 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRockBigfoot Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 Nothing short of a body is going to be taken as proof of their existence. How many times has inconclusive primate DNA or DNA that is almost human but not quite been discovered? It is good for a quick 'what if' moment on a tv show or documentary, and then it is just shelved. How many hairs have been found that did not seem to be from any known species? Any footage that isn't crystal clear is going to be met with calls of pareidolia or blobsquatch. Any clear footage will be immediately labeled as a hoax. I'm sorry, but if anyone thinks otherwise then I would assume that they haven't been paying attention to the last 40+ years of Bigfoot investigation. To prove the existence of something as earth shattering as Sasquatch, you need irrefutable, undeniable proof. You need a body. I am almost to the point of thinking that even a body part may not be enough. You need something that cannot be ignored or explained away...or covered up. An adult body at that, as I believe that a smaller juvenile could be explained away as an already classified primate that had somehow escaped captivity. Unlike a lot of people on here, I don't view these things as some sort of fuzzy forest friend or noble savage. I believe that they have regularly predated upon man in the past, and only the advent of firearms caused them to be more reclusive. I believe that they still prey upon humans as the opportunity allows. Either they are an extremely physically gifted apex predator which views us as extremely dangerous prey, or they are a sapient relic hominid that views us as direct competition...a competition that has caused them to live in secrecy for hundreds of years. So, basically they view and treat us as an enemy. Either way these things are not our friends, so I don't allow sentimentality to affect my judgement here. As far as being charged for killing one...we are talking about a huge predator that isn't supposed to exist. It would be like me killing a tiger in the woods of South Carolina. Sure, it's an endangered species. But, it's a loose tiger in an area where it is not supposed to exist. PETA might get upset, but no one else will. The only real problem that I have with the concept of pro-kill is the difficulties involved with taking the shot. From what I have seen, by the time you have 100% identified your target to eliminate the possibility of shooting a hoaxer or someone in a ghillie suit... you've probably lost your shot. You would have to take a shot at a distance on a target that has remained in view long enough to dispel any doubts. Even then I could see many people freeze on pulling the trigger because of that 1% chance that it is a human in a suit. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camper Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 I voted to say that killing one would be the most effective way, but if one was (heavily) tranquilized and taken somewhere where you could get indisputable coverage that would be 100% ideal. Probably impossible to do but IMO its the best option overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvedis Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 The biggest controversy in bigfootery other than do they really exist. I am so torn over the issue I can't even vote on it. I do want to see a corpse for science but I think it would bring a heavy cost if it was shot to death. But, then we'll never get one since there is little likelihood to find one that died naturally. That is unless we get really lucky with fossils. I also believe these things have some level of humanity in them which makes it even more controversial and raises legal issues talked to death already on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 Definitely pro kill. Only a body on a slab will suffice. If they do exist, to ensure conservation and protection of the remaining creatures. Perhaps, it is too late and the few that remain don't need protection. They have retreated to the dark forests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogluddite Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 I would note for the benefit of new members that you can find several excellent and fulsome threads on almost any topic, like this one, that you have questions about. I have to immediately add that I am among the worst people at figuring out how to find those topics. For instance, there was a robust discussion a few years back that also developed multiple offshoots as to what it would take to find and engage a Bigfoot target (tactical plan, weapons, logistics, etc.). I'm noting this to highlight the depth of information that's here even for the free side (and there's so much more if you become a premium member!) . Found the thread I was thinking about in spite of myself - 82 pages of kill/no kill debate can be found at . 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCBFr Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 I wonder if they are kill or no kill. Hopefully no kill as they could have killed me at least 2 times but chose to let me go. Happy to return the favor and be no kill. The end does not justify the means. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogluddite Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 ^^ Depends - do you think that the Sasquatch scientific community believes that a breed of runty hairless squatches exist? Is so, they don't need a type specimen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 Makes me wonder if we're as blurry to them on camera as they are to us They've probably even sold all of their trail cams since images of Humans are more than likely on every one of them by the thousands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCBFr Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 18 minutes ago, Trogluddite said: ^^ Depends - do you think that the Sasquatch scientific community believes that a breed of runty hairless squatches exist? Is so, they don't need a type specimen. Not sure if this was directed at me, but in case it was, I gave up a long time ago about the "Sasquatch scientific community". Talk about an oxymoron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 55 minutes ago, NCBFr said: I gave up a long time ago about the "Sasquatch scientific community". Talk about an oxymoron And here I thought we'd gotten better about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts