Killing a Sasquatch For Science?
Posted by: John Kirk on April 6th, 2006
If we are unable to know for sure what a sasquatch is in the order of things in nature, how can anyone brazenly suggest that you kill one? if it is indeed in the same branch as human beings, then by killing one, you have committed homicide. The last time I had a look at the law books homicide was still an indictable offence with pretty severe penalties in all jurisdictions that I know of. if you were lucky you might get done for manslaughter, but that is still a pretty heavy charge to say the least.
There are some in this field of study who say it is imperative to bag a sasquatch to prove they exist to the scientific community. Frankly speaking, since when has science – except for the handful of academics actually in this filed – ever given a damn about sasquatches or made any effort to look into reports of sightings? In fact the scientific community goes out of their way to say sasquatches ‘couldn’t possibly exist’ and have criticized sasquatch investigators for being ‘gullible’ among other things
Killing a sasquatch so that you can be vindicated and justified in the eyes of these types of scientists is not a good reason at all. To kill a rare and endangered creature to appease your ego is so selfish and unthinking. For something to have to die so that you will look good and be exalted is a pretty lowbrow way of thinking.
I have borne the slings and arrows of the scientific community, the media and the pseudo-intelligentsia out there for my prima facie investigation into the reality of sasquatch over the last 19 yeras. Do I feel compelled to have to kill a sasquatch to vindicate myself? No way. Rather, I look at the closed minds, the spouting of the same party line arguments and the looking-down-the-nose attitude of some scientists and do I want to slaughter a sasquatch to show them up? No, emphatically no.
This need to kill sasquatch is not merely to prove it exists, but, in truth, is a way of seeking approval. I’ll be damned if something has to die for me to win someone’s approval.
Let’s be realistic here. Sasquatches have to die like everything else. One day someone will find the remains of this animal and that will do. They can’t stay undetected forever. People encounter these animals with moderate frequency in living form, so one day they will find a dead one. If perchance, somewhere down the line, one is captured, the this creature should be kept alive to the full term of its life and when it has gone to that big forest in the sky, then do what you will to its remains, but with dignity. Butchering an animal to see what makes it tick is barbaric.
If the animal is uncontrollable and not conducive to captivity then photograph the heck out of it and let it go. Who do we think we are that we can lord it over the rest of nature? Let’s know our place. We share this planet with every other species and we really ought respect there right to live peacefully and with dignity.
“Kill a sasquatch for science” is as big an oxymoron as “Fight for Peace”.
About John Kirk
One of the founders of the BCSCC, John Kirk has enjoyed a varied and exciting career path. Both a print and broadcast journalist, John Kirk has in recent years been at the forefront of much of the BCSCC’s expeditions, investigations and publishing. John has been particularly interested in the phenomenon of unknown aquatic cryptids around the world and is the author of In the Domain of the Lake Monsters (Key Porter Books, 1998).
In addition to his interest in freshwater cryptids, John has been keenly interested in investigating the possible existence of sasquatch and other bipedal hominids of the world, and in particular, the Yeren of China. John is also chairman of the Crypto Safari organization, which specializes in sending teams of investigators to remote parts of the world to search for animals as yet unidentified by science. John travelled with a Crypto Safari team to Cameroon and northern Republic of Congo to interview witnesses among the Baka pygmies and Bantu bushmen who have sighted a large unknown animal that bears more than a superficial resemblance to a dinosaur.
Since 1996, John Kirk has been editor and publisher of the BCSCC Quarterly which is the flagship publication of the BCSCC. In demand at conferences, seminars, lectures and on television and radio programs, John has spoken all over North America and has appeared in programs on NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, TLC, Discovery, CBC, CTV and the BBC.
In his personal life John spends much time studying the histories of Scottish Clans and is himself the president of the Clan Kirk Society. John is also an avid soccer enthusiast and player.
I want the existence of sasquatch to be proven, and unfortunately that might have to be bring back a body. I’m a great believer in if there’s a way to capture one humanely, tranq it or something. Just don’t kill this beautiful creature.
yeah i feel the same way, but unfortunately the only way we’ll ever be taken seriously by science (outside of capture) is if a body is either found, or “created.” 🙁 no matter how good of photographic/video proof we get, it won’t be enough for 98% of the people out there.
Kirk, I agree whole heartedly. If the creature exists, then there cannot be too many of them. The one somebody shot to prove its existence might be the one to keep the gene pool thriving in a given area. I would just as soon leave it alone as to do that. I am not against hunting in and of itself, so I can’t be accused of that. I feel sooner or later that a corpse will be spotted or one that is careless will stumble in front of a semi. Besides, the creature has made it almost an art form to avoid humans, so finding one to shoot is perhaps a pipe dream. Unfortunately, it will probably take remains to convince people otherwise.
If they exist, they die. But bodies are difficult to find, haven’t been found, and may be hidden or buried.
Perhaps we should learn from successful animal collecting experiences of the past, and understand that it may take a reward-based reinforcement for finding a body of a naturally dead specimen, a la’ the coelacanth “second” find of 1952.
We need to be creative, and understand a local person, perhaps, who does not care about Sasquatch, but who is interested in a reward, may be the key.
I am firmly in the “no-kill” camp with cryptids. However, I also sense that one should take advantage of opportunities to collect to secure a good specimen, dead or alive, when they present themselves.
With all due respect, an accident leading to death or a find from a natural death, without killing being involved, may be the surprise ending to this story.
Good evening Bigfoot bloggers…
I think the ArkLATexHoma region will be the first to yield a “specimen”. There are too many folks in the wilderness areas with hand cannons and high powered rifles….an “accident” or roadkill seems inevitable…IMHO
The Indian Nation Turnpike traverses the heart of Eastern Oklahoma’s prime Sasquatch habitat…a 120 mile interstate with a 75 MPH speed limit.
I sincerely hope a “captured” creature would be studied, “chip implanted” and set free to rejoin it’s clan….GPS tracked and monitored to provide the migration and habitat data necessary to insure the Sasquatch specie’s long term survivial and protection.
I read on some site…a couple of Crackers had a pair of Sasquatches in captivity in SE Oklahoma…any updates to that lil nugget of info? There’s a rescue mission I would support…LOL
seeing is believing…
ole bub and Toshiba the Samurai dawg
Yes, seeing is believing. But killing is something else entirely. Regardless of your position on the existence of a Sasquatch or similar, killing one is unquestionably more difficult than seeing one.
For example, in an unquestionable scenario, take the total number of deer kills divided by the total number of deer hunt-days (# of days all deer hunters spend hunting deer) and compare that ratio to the number of deer seen by hunters per deer hunt-days. From my experience, the kill/hunt-days ratio is about 1/100th of the latter, although I’m sure that number varies.
So, to set out to kill a rare, ‘unknown’ animal to prove its existence is a rather silly plan. Of course, you could very well be the best-informed, most skilled tracker and know something that would reverse those odds. Then again, if that were the case, you could probably just take some really clear photos, set some infrared cameras, and be done with it.
I recall a recent incident in Florida where I and several others spotted a full-fledged panther in a wilderness area, well north of the ‘accepted’range of panthers. Even with plaster casts, “Its a large, long-tailed bobcat” was the official verdict. Three infrared trigger cameras and four months later, the local paper ran a full color photo of a large male panther, photographed in the Reserve. Much easier than killing one.
I don’t understand this no amount of good photo or video footage will be acceptable to science sentiment. I heard no calls for the production of an Ivory-Billed woodpecker body. It seemed to me that quality photo,video and sound recordings are exactly what the scientist wanted. Repeatable observation would be just as good if not better than a single body. I am not anti kill and will not condemn anyone for bringing one in that way but it just seems photographic evidence can be of great value without effecting an unknown population.
It seems to me that if a body is required, a live body should be as convincing as a dead one. Grant it they are just by their size possibly dangerous, but I am sure some way can be worked out to contain one.
Good morning Bigfoot folks…
I hate it when mountain lions roam beyond their accepted range…..we need more mountain lion literacy and range compliance….LOL
I’ve seen black panthers (a mutated color variance) years before they were recognized in the local press and accepted….by the State fish and game folks…who simply extended their “range”….
seeing is believing…
ole bub and Toshiba…the Samurai dawg
AMEN!
I am a hunter and I admit I have day dreamed of shooting one but then there is what do you do with it. I would probably call around and see who would be willing to pay for it and sell it like it was a drug deal. But you know we will never be able to justify preserving the habitat for them just by pictures.
About preserving habitat –
That is a noble idea, and has been successful in many cases with rare species. But it isn’t a simple case of proving that something rare exists, then, bam, its habitat is protected.
In the U.S., protection may be provided by state, local, and federal law, depending on a variety of factors. But, for a wide-ranging and widely distributed (apparently) creature like a Sasquatch, state and local protections would be piecemeal, at best. And federal protection requires more than a claim of existence based on a single dead specimen. Or several. It requires full blown investigation of species life history and requirements, distribution, and an clear recovery plan based on applying the best available science through a highly political process. In other words, you are talking about, at best, a decade or so after official ‘discovery’ might get you a draft species recovery plan and standard local operating procedures. Forget about critical habitat, just rest assured the next interstate highway would reference a paragraph or two in its NEPA documents, at best. You can imagine what could transpire in the interim, of course.
So, if you’re interested in protecting the species, step one is not to kill any of them. Step two would be to consider why the habitat is not protected on its intrinsic, current value alone, Sasquatch or not? That is where the protection answers lie.
If I might intrude with a rare defense for the skeptics, I think the main difference between a video of an Ivory-Billed Woodpecker and a Sasquatch comes down to this- there’s no way you can put a guy in a woodpecker suit and pass it off as the real thing. Sasquatch are, by their very nature, quite similar to ourselves, and as we have seen, it is possible to stuff a guy in a suit and get someone, possibly many someones, to believe it. Ultimately, however convincing a video of a Sasquatch appears, there is always the possibility, however remote, that it’s just a guy in a suit. It may not be fair, but I think that is the true explanation for the different standards that Bigfoot photos/videos are subjected to.
I was reading all of the comments on “killing a Sasquatch for science” and I must first state that I don’t believe in killing an intelligent, shy, curious, beautiful hominid for scientific study. Don’t get me wrong, I am not a tree hugger nor am I an anti-hunter. I believe that these marvelous creatures should be studied at a distance. If man becomes involved in this animal’s “conservation”, it would surely be the beginning of the end of its existence. Even with the best of intentions, we would screw it up. This hominid is very intelligent. It knows how to survive. It is smart enough to evade capture from eons ago to date. Why must we interfere further in its domain? Do we really want to make this species more scared and threatened than we apparently are already doing? An animal with its intelligence must have many of the same emotions as we. It can feel fear, sadness, pride in its family members, and I believe, joy as well. It is not enough to really know that they are there and really do exist. If you are at this website, then you must believe so. So really, why must we prove its existence to the non-believers? If we try to regulate this animal and tag it and track it by satellite receivers, we would be doing it great harm and a very sad injustice. These creatures are not criminals, they are shy and secretive and that is what makes them so remarkable and special. I am a descendant of American Indian heritage. My people have known of Sasquatches’ existence for hundreds of years. We learned to appreciate it and to respect it and to co-habitate with it. Isn’t that really good enough?
Steve Hyde, a Bigfoot researcher from the state of Georgia, had plenty of comments for John on this blog entry.
Far too many to post here. Go to Steve’s own blog entry titled Oh, To Kill A Sasquatch!!! to read the comments.
Shouldn’t need to kill a Satchquatch. The Carter family claim to have bigfoot living on their ranch, didn’t a young one die?
Problem solved! Dig junior up!
If Bigfoot exists in the USA, then its remains should have been found by now, more so if they bury their dead.
You can’t keep spouting out the same old rubbish of scavenger predation when they,supposedly, conceal their family members.
Bears, Pumas and American Mastadons never had their bones concealed, which in turn means the scavengers must have had a good knaw on them. But you still get skulls etc found.
Or is there another unkown animal in North America that only feeds on Bigfoot bones?
i have to agree to disagree. I know Bigfoot is a very elusive animal and if there is such a thing there is most likely under a thousand of them…. if not under 500. But this animal needs to be proven whether or not its real. I have never had the privelege of seeing this beast but i can garuntee you that if i have the chance of putting this thing in my crosshairs, i can garuntee you the trigger is gonna be pulle and that thing is gonna have a bullet in its head before it hears the shot.