Guest blazersquatch Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I've thought about this issue, and I've noticed some things from reports I've read that got me thinking about the actual experiences of those confronted with such a choice. The few reports of actual shootings seem to be panicky, like a reaction. Those that have had time to sight a sasquatch in their crosshairs report they could not shoot because what they saw was just too close to being human. And others, such as the youth from Alaska that was interviewed recently on one of the Finding Bigfoot shows, are just too fearful to really do anything. I guess when I add everything up, I would have to side with the No Kill folks. I understand the logic expressed by Krantz and others for the need to obtain a specimen, or at least a part of one that can be studied by scientists, but based on the available evidence of its existence and future evidence that will appear, it seems likely that enough scientists beside Bindernagel and Meldrum will be convinced enough to mount an actual search. I could be dreaming. I might be a romantic. But I feel given enough time there won't be a need to kill a sasquatch to prove its existence. No, I don't have the answers as to how this might happen, but my intuition is that at some point a "perfect storm," if you will, of events much like the Patterson-Gimlin circumstances will occur again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Stankape, you are "forgiven" because of your new status, but yea its a subject that's been discussed "a few" times... lol. Here's a link to an oldie, but goodie- if your interested in seeing what people had to say last year about this time.. One from this summer... http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/7434-to-kill-or-not-to-kill For your knowledge Stankape (or anyone else for that matter)- from the main menu, in the top right there is a search box... if you put in something like "no kill" or "pro kill" or whatever else your interested in- its works surprisingly well I admit it... I'm lazy. I also wanted a fresh outlook from the active members and sometimes the archived threads contain info from people who are no longer active... But I hear ya... I'm really just making excuses cuz I'm lazy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) I say 'No Kill' unless in self defense. That's mostly because I think they are at least partly human and also because I don't believe in harming anything that isn't itself causing harm (except, in some cases, maybe to eat it). Maybe you could explain what you mean to say there because I don't get that. ?? I think we should capture one, study it carefully and then let it go, where we found it. Of course that could be very dangerous but so is capturing elephants, large cats, hippos, poisonous snakes, etc. etc. etc. That doesn't mean that it can't be done. What I mean is basically the "kill one to verify the species and to study it" not "Kill as many as we need to satisfy the scientific community and everybody gets one to study" . Cuz , let's be honest, the minute that they find a body, 47 other primatologists are gonna want one too... EDIT: Just to clarify further, I am supremely in favor of a capture first or habitation type strategy to establish proof first kinda guy. But if all else fails... eventually I think that we owe to the world to prove the species then protect it... If it exists. Edited October 20, 2011 by StankApe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachFoot Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I don't believe a Sasquatch (provided they exist, of course) needs to be killed to prove anything. I don't believe one should be captured or otherwise inconvenienced, either. I know that the current paradigm is that "science demands a body" but, to me, that is "science's" problem. Once there is enough "proof" that they DO exist (and I believe that DNA should be enough), I believe there will be more people/organizations that are much better equipped (resources) out looking for them. Once an individual/family group is located, I believe that a simple study should be enough. Over time, I would think that a body would become available for science to play with thru a natural course. If Sasquatch exist, I don't think they need any protection, either. All I would ask is that we recognize their existence, study them so that we are able to determine their needs, take those needs into consideration when any decisions are made that could affect them or their habitat...and leave them alone. They have obviously survived without our "protection" and, if left alone, will continue to do so. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Pro kill just to have a slam-monkey? No...however I'm still pulling for a logging truck or train to have that accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 What exactly is the difference between wishing one dead and killing one? I don't see the distinction... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 What exactly is the difference between wishing one dead and killing one? I don't see the distinction... I tend to agree with you. The difference seems to be the emotional impact on the individual killer . The result is still one dead Squatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I tend to agree with you. The difference seems to be the emotional impact on the individual killer . The result is still one dead Squatch Yes, not to mention I have not seen indisputable proof they don't take us for a snack when they know they can.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 IMO, One should be killed as it's the only way, outside of catching a live specimen, that we'll ever have irrefutable proof. I don't think that they should be hunted indiscriminately or for sport. How would you "score" a trophy Bigfoot? By it's foot size? A B&C white tail deer is considered a trophy at 160 points which is a combined total of antler dimensions. Perhaps a B&C Bigfoot would be scored by length of foot, overall height, arm span, neck girth, head size, hand size and perhaps the distance between his eyes? Sorry....slow day at the office Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Pro kill just to have a slam-monkey? No...however I'm still pulling for a logging truck or train to have that accident. GJ, ive thought the same for a while, then it kind of occurred to me... While this scenario might make us feel better about ourselves, as far as not "hunting down and killing" one.... Do you think a Bigfoot that's been run over by a logging truck, or crushed beneath the steel wheels of a train feels any better than one that's been plugged in the melon by an experienced hunter's shot ? I know where your coming from, but to me- dead = dead , its just a matter of how and when it happened. The "specimen", if we're going to refer to it as such, would likely be in alot better shape from a hunter bagging it- then someone having to pick up pieces from all over the road/ train tracks.... just sayin.. I voted this time, and in the past = pro-kill, then protection for an obviously endangered species. Then again, that opens up a whole new ball of wax- in regards to what areas would have to be protected, and cause a huge ruckus with the logging industry no doubt... Guess we'll worry about that when/if it ever happens. A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 What exactly is the difference between wishing one dead and killing one? I don't see the distinction... The difference is clearly one death is intentional and the other accidental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Nothing clear about it to me. Wishing/hoping for something and making it happen is in the same vein as far as I am concerned. JMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Shooting BF would not sit well with me unless it was after me, then bang, bang. There are many reports of BF terrifying hikers by following them, breaking branches and screaming. This would not go well with me, and I would shoot up in the air to get BF away. If it continued to harrass me then I would be tempted to shoot it. Otherwise BF is safe with me in the woods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biggie Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 the odds of that happening are slim and none. And slim just left town. I feel the same as Beach and geo. Best to just leave bf be and let unbelievers think as they will since I suspect confirming the existence of bf would cause more harm to bf than good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 IF it exists it's going to be discovered eventually (which is also one of my problems with the entire concept of Bigfoot altogether, it hasn't been yet) When and IF it is, they are going to shoot one to study.... That's the way the cookie crumbles . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts