April 22, 2012
Would You Shoot Bigfoot?
Bigfoot ... to shoot or not to shoot, that is the question.
Albeit a very hypothetical question considering that despite countless sightings, a host of physical proof, and a ton of interest no one can say for certain that Bigfoot actually exists. Let’s say the species does exist.
If there is a large semi-simian species inhabiting the wild the first person most likely to encounter it would be a hunter (Just look at how many turkey hunters have recently spotted the animal). If -- when -- that happens should said hunter kill the animal to offer proof of its existence to the world?
Many in the Bigfoot community say “No.” The most recent example of this comes from Loren Coleman, director of the International Cryptozoology Museum and author of Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in America, who resigned his position as a board member of the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy (TBRC) over their “pro kill” policy, which the group adopted without consulting him.
Coleman explained his position in an email to me. Mr. Coleman stated, “I find it unfortunate that the members of any Bigfoot group are out in the woods, seemingly and randomly, shooting at furry animate cryptids they feel they should kill to prove the existence of Bigfoot. Besides the unknown legal implications of such behavior (What if the species is found to be a species of Homo? What if it is a human in a hairy suit?), I have been an open advocate of the live capture (telebiology), and non-killing of hairy unknown hominoids for decades.”
Although most Bigfoot organizations, according to Coleman, “do not publicize their positions, too openly, on their policies” concerning whether they are for or against killing, it is safe to assume that most favor the latter and that the TBRC is in fringe territory. In fact, most of the commenters that responded to Colman’s resignation blog post on the website Cryptomundo agree with his stance. Do you?
The legality of shooting a Bigfoot isn’t much of a factor as, according to Coleman, there are currently no laws protecting the animal (See Coleman’s piece on the only major law against killing Bigfoot that has since expired.
If a hunter encounters a Bigfoot (not a hairy guy or someone dressed up in a gorilla suit) while afield should he or she shoot it?
September 22, 2020
April 9, 2009
July 26, 2010
January 27, 2012
April 22, 2012
Reporting a sighting of a cryptid, could get someone a page, one of countless around the net, on a website. That won't do much as far as fame and fortune goes.
A photograph or footage of one [Bigfoot], will get one a page, and perhaps some youtube time. The pic or footage could undergo decades of scutiny--much like the Patterson-Gimlin film. Not much fame and fortune there either.
But produce a body of a Bigfoot or the likes, and that will be one sure way into the history books. Someone will become famous for eternity instantly. One will not only acquire fortune--but endless notoriety as well. People have killed for less.
I myself have never held a gun or rifle. Not that I would use it to kill an innocent--not to mention highly intelligent--creature. With human skills constantly evolving and progressing, it should be only a matter of time before a Bigfoot is obsreved--should one exist of course. I'll wait. 😉
June 28, 2009
well the only time i've ever handled a gun i almost shot my brother's foot off ... accidentally ... poor training frankly on his part, the expert, to me the novice ... but he's held a grudge ever since ... frankly, not ever having liked him that much, i'd shoot him long before i'd shoot an innocent Bigfoot ...
but if for some reason i was in the woods with a gun and was face to face with a Bigfoot, i doubt i'd shoot ... or even hit anything ... frankly, i'd probably be busy peeing my pants lol ... i mean, an 8 foot tall (or more) hairy thing standing there staring back at me? it would be pretty frightening i think ...
but now aside from just my personal reaction, i don't think you should shoot any innocent animal .. why? to proved they exist? how ridiculous is that?
take a good video and still camera ... shoot bigfoot like that ...
and if you were alone and shot bigfoot, how would you get him back to civilization if you're on foot, deep in the woods? if you're more than a mile from your vehicle, how are you going to drag three or four hundred pounds of animal back? these things are huge from all descriptions ... and if you're camping say an hour from where you could round up anyone to come and help you bring the carcass back, then will it still be there? it seems if we haven't found a carcass to this point that perhaps the creature has a burial process ... or something ... remember there were hundreds of years before they found a carcass of an elephant in the wild and only then when they found the proverbial 'graveyard' ... i'm not saying the other elephants dragged them there but they went there ... but you're dealing with a primate here and they might have a burial ritual ... we don't know ...
so all that and more is to take into consideration ... i say don't shoot anything but film (digital of course is fine 😉 )
but don't just kill things ... i don't think that's the way to go about it ... maybe have a twinkie just in case ... no primate can resist a twinkie
oh btw i saw a thing on the 'russian bigfoot', a video of a documentary i found on a torrent tracker ... i can't remember if is was 'is it real' series but i think it was ... so there's the story of this 'investigator' out in the woods and she can't sleep at night while they are out camping on a hunt for bigfoot and so she goes for a stroll ... ummm ok ... not what i would think is sound judgement in the middle of a dark forest, middle of nowhere type thing and she didn't appear to have a gps tracker etc (esp when you read about what she WAS carrying at the time) ... and she comes face to face, well 15-20 feet or so i believe, with the russian bigfoot ... and she thinks 'i need to try and communicate with it, to let it know i am friendly and to encourage it to come closer' ... i swear to god this is what she did next ... she just happens to have in the pocket of her winter parka a rubber duckie ... an honest to god just like ernie's on sesame street rubber duckie ... and for some reason this 'scientist' thinks this is the best way to 'communicate' with this animal ... yes, great idea, make a weird noise this creature has never before heard in its life ... why not pull out a freakin' air horn and give a nice long blast on that??? my god i really couldn't believe it ... and so of course she squeaks this thing (why she is carrying a rubber duckie out into the middle of nowhere in a russian forest is never even explained) and the bigfoot takes off running ... well, no shit, sherlock ... and she's supposed to be one of the top scientists in russia hunting for the thing ... wow, just a guess but i don't think she'll be the one to ever find it ... ... i turned it off after that since it seemed she was going to be a large part of this documentary honestly, if that was all the common sense she had, i didn't see the rest of the program as being anything more than a waste of time, much like her research is i'm sure ...
so just remember if you're going out after bigfoot, remember, they don't like the sound of a rubber duckie squeaking ... and maybe leave your 'sesame street greatest hits' at home ... and don't even whistle the song ... 😛
btw anyone here ever had a bigfoot encounter? heard them? i've heard some tapes of what are supposed to be them and they sound pretty scary ... or maybe saw footprints or anything?
take care 🙂
"I have measured out my life with coffee spoons"
-- T.S. Eliot
August 27, 2012
April 9, 2009
If bigfoot actually exists, and it is very likely that they do, a physical specimen is required to confirm its existence. If a species that has never been hunted is becoming extinct, it will become extinct no matter what we do. Without a physical specimen, nothing can be known about the species. If it becomes extinct without being studied then knowledge is lost forever. If a physical specimen can be taken and studied, knowledge is gained that may be useful in preserving other species. If taking one specimen provides enough knowledge about the species, it could be useful in preserving the species itself. If we don't know enough about the Sasquatch how can we possibly prevent its extinction?
Taking a single specimen of the species would not hasten its extinction. It could, however slightly, provide a means to avoid its extinction. It would be better if it could be taken alive and studied without killing it. If that is not possible, then other means can still be useful.