Guest Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 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. My first thought exactly! Why does man always have to kill ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 My first thought exactly! Why does man always have to kill ? Because it seems to be written into our DNA to fear anything we don't understand. It also seems to give us a false sense of superiority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Because it seems to be written into our DNA to fear anything we don't understand. It also seems to give us a false sense of superiority. Which basically sounds like a lacking of maturity. Or- my way of thinking 30 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I have never understood this anthropomorphic self hatred... We are running the show for the most part. Be happy ! It's a heck of a lot better here than from the perspective of a field vole! Always looking over your shoulder for owls and snakes!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Several people have suggested that a live capture of Bigfoot would be perfered over killing a sasquatch to prove the existence of the species. How would we go doing this? Is it possible to capture a live Bigfoot? Tranqulizers would be the only relaply way to capture Bigfoot alive. But there is serveral promblems with the tranquilizing Bigfoot. "In order to dart a Sasquatch, one must somehow locate the creature and get withen range to use the weapon. Only a few people have succeded in doing that with a good rifle, and there is no reason to think it would be any easier with a tranquilizer gun. In fact, this method requires a much closer approach because these darts travel a much shorter distance than a bullet and are not very accurate. Most people who see one never see another. Your chance of bringing it down with a high-power rifle is easily a hundred times greater than for putting a dart into it. If you miss, you probaly will never get another chane. It might be aware of the nearbly source of the that painful needle jab and perhaps, in somewhat drugged state of mind, decide to retalite. The drugs that are normally used are narcotics that can be legally obtained only by licended field resarchers. Despite all of the promblems indicated above. suppose you somehow succedded against all of odds and had a sasquatch unconscious on the ground. How do you restain an eigh hundred-pound primate when it wakes up? You could measure and photograph the body, take blood and tissue samples, collect parasites, and let the creature recover and go away. After the tranquiled animal wakes up, we should also consider how it might react to humans (also applys to other live captyre techniques) The creature might decide to kill every human beign it can lay its hands on, However unlikely that last possibilty might be, I would not want to risk turning something like that loose anywhere in the world. You would have some intresting evidence that might convince a few more experts. But a type specimen must be collected and put on recored b efore most scientist will pay any serious attention. In summary, the idea of trying to tranquilize a sasquatch is a very impractical approach to the promblem" So if tranqulizer are not a relapy to to capture a bigfoot should we recosider the idea of Killing a sasquatch? Is there anther way that would alow scientist to study a living Bigfoot with out the need for a typespecimen? So should we make sure that they are Hominids not Hominoids to prevent what would be unethicaly murder of a Hominoid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Can some no-kill proponents please explain why they feel it is wrong to kill a sasquatch (assuming it is not human)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Why assume it's not human? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) The assumption that the creature is not human is a propositional statement defining the bounds of my question. If you don't believe they are non-human, feel free not to answer. Edited October 28, 2011 by Bonehead74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Why assume it's not human? No indication of tool use or technology. That's the main reason that comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) Why assume it's not human? Pesonal I would say that charles Darwin said it Best when he stated "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each questions." So some one like me who hold such therioes that Bigfoot is a Hominid with the Pro kill view can expand and think over the oppesite side of the question. Edited October 28, 2011 by Jeff Albertson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) Can some no-kill proponents please explain why they feel it is wrong to kill a sasquatch (assuming it is not human)? Pesonaly I do not hold the No-kill position but hopoefully this can help or just a place to start the confersation or to think about. "Profesionals" "These people may appear to be serious resarchers and/or field workers, but they all stand to lose their social standing if and when the proof is brought in. They all know full well that when the proof is found, the scientist will move in to dominate the field, and they will be shoved aside into obscurity. Their behavior does not differ in many respects from that of the serious investigators, but they all share the comman traits of oppostion to shooting a specimen. These people are not stupid; most of them have thought the matter though and know that the only a body will constitute proof." - Dr. Gover S. Krantz My personal thought is that it is like the Differnts between Dr. Gover S. Krantz and Peter Byrne just my take on Dr. Krantz Quote though. Edited October 28, 2011 by Jeff Albertson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 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). Then let's kill one and eat it. How can an organism be "at least partly human"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Then let's kill one and eat it. How can an organism be "at least partly human"? Have you met my ex-girlfriend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts