Taking a Stand Against Killing Bigfoot

Posted by: Loren Coleman on April 27th, 2012

The time is now to take a stand. Killing, as an organizational stance by the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy (TBRC), is not acceptable to me.

The TBRC lists a Board of Directors, and a Board of Advisors.

It is rather strange to be a member of the Board of Advisors of the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy (TBRC), and not be asked for my opinion, insights, or thoughts on trying to kill an unknown species in the field. I now see that the TBRC came up with a policy without letting me know.

As of today, I am resigning from the Board of Advisors of the TBRC. I understand that earlier today, John Kirk also resigned. John’s short statement related that he quit due to the following reason:

They have adopted a pro-kill policy and I am against this….I cannot condone this kind of thing being done in the name of science.

I find it unfortunate that the members of the Board of Directors of the TBRC are out in the woods, seemingly and randomly, shooting at furry animate objects 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 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.

There is no reason for me to be a figurehead member of a group of advisors who are not being asked for advice. I must resign from this group, immediately.

John Kirk resigned, and brought to my attention the group’s active pro-kill policy, as noted in The Echo Incident and Operation Endurance.

The following details are what is behind these incidents:

Statements made or reported as being made by Honobia, OK, resident Charles Branson at the Honobia Bigfoot Festival on 1 October 2011, concerning incidents that took place the previous July, contain inaccuracies. The basic facts are as follows.

The TBRC was on Mr. Branson’s property with his permission as part of Operation Endurance (OE). The group in place at the beginning of July, designated as the “Echo” team, was the fifth of ten teams to participate in OE. Subsequent events experienced by that team are referred to as the “Echo Incident” within the TBRC.

On 3 July 2011, at approximately 7:15 PM and under clear daylight conditions, Daryl Colyer, Board Member and Field Operations Director of the TBRC, encountered a sasquatch on the Branson property.


Walking to the south, the creature was momentarily obscured by vegetation and was then visible through an eight to ten foot opening in the dense foliage, still approximately 25-30 yards from Colyer’s position. Using his Remington 1100 Tac-4 12 gauge auto-loading shotgun, loaded with 000 buckshot followed by slugs, he attempted to collect the animal for scientific analysis, firing all the rounds in rapid succession. Colyer then approached the spot where the animal had been, reloading as he walked, but found no body. Within a few seconds he heard the faint sound of an automobile engine starting. When Diaz arrived at the location of the encounter, Colyer directed him to investigate the automobile sound. Diaz found a container of iced tea on the ground approximately 50 yards down the path, but he could not determine a source for the engine noise.

All four members of the Echo team attempted to track and locate the animal until it was too dark to see. Although the ground in the area was covered with leaves and other debris, the trail left by the animal was evident until it reached the nearby rocky creek bed. There were clear signs of its travel through the forest, including where it stepped on and crushed a fallen branch that was left unharmed when stepped on by the TBRC investigators. The slugs Colyer fired were all found embedded in trees near where he saw the animal. The team was unable to find any other evidence of the animal or its fate before losing daylight.

The team departed for home the next morning. Shortly after reestablishing cell phone coverage, Mr. Branson contacted the team and informed them that his nephew and his nephew’s girlfriend had driven to the site the previous day. The nephew left his truck parked at the property gate and had begun to walk up the path toward the cabins when he heard what he mistook to be machine gun fire. He ran back to his truck and fled the area, apparently damaging his truck in the process. Colyer never saw or heard the truck prior to its departure, nor did he see or hear the two people. Their position, relative to Colyer’s, was to the west through the dense forest, while the animal Colyer was attempting to collect was to his southwest. Neither they nor their vehicle was ever in the line of fire.

Following the conversation with Mr. Branson, team members made contact with Branson’s son, a deputy sheriff in the area, and related the events to him. He advised contacting the County Sheriff’s Office, since the nephew had reported that he had been shot at with a machine gun by “druggies.” After communicating with the sheriff’s office twice, the matter was dropped. Upon learning of the damage to his truck, said to amount to $1200, the TBRC offered the nephew $2,000 to help offset the cost of repairs. The check was cashed a few days after it was sent. Following a break of approximately one week, the TBRC resumed Operation Endurance to its planned completion.

In December of 2010, TBRC Chairman Alton Higgins clearly stated on the TBRC web site that the organization would “not stand in opposition to individuals—within or outside the TBRC—or groups supporting and/or actively pursuing efforts to obtain a specimen.” He went on to add, “As a field biologist I have always indicated that I supported collecting a specimen for documentation and study.” He went on to explain, “Biologists are trained to think in terms of, and to care about, populations. Collection of a voucher specimen is a way of protecting the population, from my perspective. It is not immoral, even if there are those who disagree for various emotional reasons.” Those interested can read the position statement in its entirety here.

After reading this, I had no choice but to resign. I shall be reexamining my “board of advisor” memberships in all groups now.

Loren Coleman About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015. Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.

45 Responses to “Taking a Stand Against Killing Bigfoot”

  1. Hapa responds:

    Although I have to agree to disagree with Mr. Coleman over whether a shoot to kill policy is or is not a acceptable method to prove Sasquatch, I do find his belief in taking the animal alive to be quite respectable. This shows that Mr. Coleman is not one who puts unnatural faith in photographs films and prints and anomalous hairs to prove the existence of the big fellow, unlike many who do. He understands a type specimen is needed, a physical one, and that is the mark of a scientist, whether they believe in kill capture or finding major physical remains (bones, fossils).

    I thought the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy was adamantly opposed to killing Bigfoot. This is to my knowledge a major policy change.

    Mr. Coleman, are the other people you listed on the board of directors resigning or considering resigning as well?

  2. Brad Pennock responds:

    I agree with you Loren. It’s unfortunate you couldn’t have remained on the board of advisors to help “advise” the rest of the members to change their minds for all of the reasons you stated above. Sometimes it takes leaving a situation to wake people up and potentially gain a new perspective. Thank you for bringing this to everyone’s attention.

  3. Larry responds:

    Loren I’m glad you finally removed yourself from association with TBRC which Craig Woolheater did long ago. Why did it take you so long? I’m sure you knew about the Echo Incident long ago. I’ll disagree with you on the live capture idea as I am positive they are a type of people but I am happy you are taking a “no-kill” stance. It’s encouraging as well that you are not being pro-kill complacent by staying associated with those out to kill Sasquatch. My message to everyone that is associated with pro-kill or pro-kill complacent organizations is that you have (or possibly will) have blood on your hands… that’s a FACT! Disassociate now away from this murderous behavior.

    I encourage everyone to contact the remaining Board of Advisors & encourage them to distance themselves away from TBRC as Loren, Craig Woolheater & John Kirk have now done. This includes you 3 that I have mentioned as you have more pull.

  4. Loren Coleman responds:

    Larry writes: “Why did it take you so long? I’m sure you knew about the Echo Incident long ago.”

    Why are you “sure”?

    I have received no “consulting” communications from the TBRC since Craig Woolheater and Monica Rawlins left the group. I was unaware of the Texas group’s active, in the field, use of firearms until this morning when John Kirk brought this matter to my attention.

  5. diogenes responds:

    Thank you John Kirk. Thank you Loren Coleman also, for making this public and for removing yourself from a group, because of thier “Pro-kill” position, which does have many of the most respected Sasquatch researchers as advisors.

    So, it is not a trivial decision, but of less importance than the issue, which makes both of these men deserving of, what can I say? THANKS!

    I do hope the rest of the advisors will also publically denounce and distance themselves from the continued amateur hunt for a “voucher speciman” of Sasquatch!

  6. vitamincm responds:

    If people aim their guns as poorly as they aim their cameras then no Bigfoot will be harmed.

  7. Va-Bigfoot responds:

    Everyone has a right to express their opinion on the kill/no-kill issue. But when that opinion transforms into aggressive actions that result in almost killing an innocent person, something must be done. I can’t believe that this incident really happened but it has! Over the years I have read many stories about hunters shooting at anything that moves hoping to get that trophy kill only to find out they killed an innocent individual. That kid is very lucky that he is still alive!

    It’s mind boggling that the TBRC still allows their members to actively pursue a specimen in that manner. Its only a matter of time before one of their members or the entire group will be behind bars for murder.

    What’s even more amazing is that the TBRC thinks they have the ability to actually go out into this creatures domain and kill one, so much for Scientific Methodology and good field research. They have resorted to barbaric actions that include shooting at anything that moves, in this case a young boy! The group and the individual/individuals that took part in that shooting need to step back and understand what they could have done.

  8. G. de La Hoya responds:

    Don’t rightly know. I imagine them Texans are feeling a little pressure to “put up or shut up” perhaps? The gentleman needs to learn to shoot properly, and missing with a rapid fire shot gun? We were brought up with the credo: you shoot it, you eat it.

    I like you Loren and enjoy your site. Thanks.

  9. Peter Von Berg responds:

    Bravo, Loren ! Well done !

  10. AreWeThereYeti responds:

    First, let me state for the record that while I enjoy the outdoors via hiking, biking, camping & fishing, I am not a hunter. No, I am not morally opposed to it – I simply didn’t grow up in a “hunting family.” With that said, I’m afraid I part ways, here, with Loren on the pro-kill/no-kill debate.

    While I find (for example) the details surrounding the Justin Smeja /Sierra Kills incident extremely repugnant I have to ask what else we can expect if the only concrete proof we will accept of Bigfoot’s existence is “a body on a slab?” Let’s face it, all the existing hairs, hand-prints, footprints, body casts, photos, videos, audio recordings, eyewitness reports, scat and DNA samples have not been enough to establish the creature’s existence. Science demands that a type specimen – a body – be produced.

    How do we obtain that body? As I see it, in one of four ways:

    1.A well documented series of photographs/videos by a reputable expedition might be enough to get the ball rolling; thereby warranting additional field research by accredited scientists who, hopefully, would then be able to provide further documentation via additional photos, footprint casts and hair/saliva/scat samples from which DNA could be extracted. Said evidence would provide a compelling argument for the existence of the creature. However, because of the controversy surrounding Bigfoot, the lack of a body would always provide a “shred of doubt” for naysayers and conspiracy theorists to hang their hats on.

    2. Live trapping, as Loren advocates, is also a possibility. And, just to be clear, I assume he means via tranquillization (as I just don’t see Bigfoot falling for a snare, walking into a cage or under a suspended net!) However, also consider that attempting to tranquilize a large, powerful creature is, in and of itself, a risky venture. Getting your dosage wrong has dire consequences: too much, and you put Bigfoot to sleep for good; too little and the frightened/enraged/disoriented subject presents a very real, even lethal, danger to itself and those attempting to subdue it. So, yes, while a hail of gunfire is 100% fatal, tranquillization is not a perfectly “safe” alternative, either.

    3. By accident or misadventure on Bigfoot’s part. Obviously, if Sasquatch are flesh and blood entities, they are mortal and must die at some point. While we can wait for one of them to expire by “natural causes:” trauma, drowning, disease, old age, etc. there is also the possibility that a run-in with an auto/truck/train or honest misidentification by a hunter may provide us with a specimen. However, to date, those avenues have not panned out and simply waiting for a body to “fall into our hands” does nothing to ensure discovery of a type specimen.

    4. Actively hunt Bigfoot with the intention of killing it. No doubt about it, this option raises a host of moral, ethical and legal questions. However, it presents the most reliable and scientifically accepted method of securing a holotype specimen. While I do not advocate a weekend posse of beer swillin’ idiots blazing away at any large dark object that happens by, I do feel that a small group of trained hunters, under close supervision and observing all necessary safety precautions would be justified in shooting a single individual to provide a type specimen. Is it cruel? That one is in the eye of the beholder. Is it cruel that various products, chemicals and medical procedures are tested on animals to ensure their safety for humans? Many people think so, but few forgo the resulting benefits of said testing. Is it murder? In a legal sense, only if it is established, posthumously, that Bigfoot belongs to Homo – and how can that be determined without a body?

    When I consider the above alternatives I am forced to conclude that the only sure, scientifically accepted, method of proving the existence of Bigfoot is, regretfully, the most violent one. However, from the sacrifice of that one individual we would be able to establish the species’ existence, secure protection for the remaining individuals and obtain an untold wealth of genetic, physiological, historical and anthropological information. Not something to take joy in, mind you, but necessary nonetheless.

  11. Loren Coleman responds:

    AreWeThereYeti formulates his point-of-view with this exacting statement: “the only concrete proof we will accept of Bigfoot’s existence is ‘a body on a slab.'”

    This is not true, of course.

    The kill-it-to-prove-it stance is a simple Victorian view of the world that is quite out-of-date. At the end of the 19th century, hundreds of animals were killed to “prove” they exist. James Audubon killed thousands of birds to identify, draw, and paint them.

    Those days are in the past.

    There is no reason that Bigfootery, Sasquatch studies, and hominology should grasp the antiquated forms of species verification. DNA studies, live captures, capture and release, and species studied while in captivity allow for many modern scientific and humane methods of species confirmation. As soon as Bigfoot organizations realize that, they will be taken more seriously by funding and scholarly bodies.

  12. Vpanoptes responds:

    Do the members of the TBRC understand the concept of “culpability”? Might want to think on it a bit…..

  13. AreWeThereYeti responds:

    Loren, I agree that “a body on a slab” is a barbaric method of scientifically “proving” a species exists (however, it is also the only indisputable method). I also agree that “DNA studies, live captures, capture and release and species studied while in captivity” represent “humane methods of species confirmation.”

    Here’s where we disagree: while the aforementioned methods should suffice for new species of animals already recognized by science, say, for instance a new type of ant, frog, mouse, etc., the controversy surrounding Bigfoot – like it or not – demands a higher standard.

    Yes, we have all kinds of DNA samples allegedly belonging to Sasquatch. However, without a type specimen to compare them against, there is no way to say, “This is Bigfoot DNA.” You can say what it IS similar to: human, orangutan, etc., or that it “doesn’t match any known animal” which is really just another way of saying “inconclusive” – and how often have we heard that one? – but as far as defining a species? It’s lacking. Should we be pushing for the various samples to be compared to each other? Most definitely. At least then, if the majority matched, we’d know there was an un-ID’d “something” out there…

    Live capture/capture and release are, as I stated in my earlier comment, not without substantial risk to the subject and researchers. Also, I’m unaware of any successful captures to the extent that they’ve provided conclusive proof of Bigfoot’s existence. Likewise, species studied while in captivity, while another viable avenue of exploration, assumes that you actually have a specimen in captivity to begin with…

    To reiterate, while all of the above methods have their place in the scientific realm, most rely on already having, or having ready access to, the animal in question – something we simply DO NOT yet have in the case of Sasquatch!

    To date, and to the extent that they’ve been tried, the methods you mention have yet to produce any “proof” that Bigfoot exists. Should those methods be tossed-aside while we focus on hunting Bigfoot down? No, of course not. In fact I wholly support all of the methods you espouse but, should the occassion present itself, I don’t have a problem with killing a single individual to obtain a type specimen.

  14. DVMc responds:

    AreWeThereYeti says: “Not something to take joy in, mind you, but necessary nonetheless.”

    Necessary? What’s so necessary about killing one? No matter how much you rationalize, there’s just no need to rush out and kill a Bigfoot. Things will happen as they should and in their own time without the need for violent, barbaric methods. These creatures may well turn out to be a race of humans. That idea, and use of the term “forest people” tends to make heads explode, but what if? What if the stories of interbreeding and the generation of viable offspring that have also reproduced turn out to be true?

    And by the way, do you think the killing of one Bigfoot would be the last one? If you think that, you don’t know people, some of whom would just love to have a stuffed 10-footer standing in their trophy room!

  15. DVMc responds:

    By the way, here’s a very interesting TED video about bonobos, very intelligent, upright-walking apes from the Congo. This should really make you think. If these chimp-like creatures are this intelligent, should we have any doubts about how smart Sasquatch is?

  16. choppedlow responds:

    You know what the fastest way to get your name out in the Bigfoot world (besides saying you have one)? Say you’re going on expeditions to shoot one. Works every time. If no one can get a clear picture of one, how do you think they are going to actually shoot one? And why would anyone even get upset over anyone talking about it, because it’s not going to happen! And let’s say it does. Good for them. But get ready for the Fish and Game and the Feds to crawl up your butt. Try hunting out of season for anything, and see how far that gets you. Shoot the wrong animal that you don’t have tags for, and see how fast you get shut down. I know a judge in San Diego that was dove hunting and had one too many doves in his bag, and it cost him about $20,000 and his job. All these guys do is get a rise out of everyone, and laugh themselves to sleep.

  17. Hapa responds:


    I could not have said it better myself. Shooting and killing an animal unknown to modern science is the best tried and true method of species recognition. Though capturing is another good method of discovering new species, it is not as “final” (i.e. not as easy and/or as likely) as a dead one, and in the case of a Sasquatch, one of the most controversial entities in Crypto-zoology, the tongue in cheek critter of the world, as well as being almost supernaturally elusive, shooting one is justified. Trying to say it is not because they could be human (hard to see a 7-9 feet tall 700 lbs sagittal crest headed hairy all over ape-faced super strong giant as Homo Sapiens) or because it is cruel (where do people think their Big Macs come from? and is being shot less cruel than being sent to a lab somewhere to be poked and prodded, or to a Zoo?) or because they are intelligent (So Moose are less valuable as a living breathing creature of God than Sasquatch because it is not smart? Blue Whales are less important than Orangutans because they are less intelligent?) do not cut the mustard.

    I repeat: I do not have a problem with capturing. It’s just a lot harder to do than shooting, would most likely take more time, money, people and resources, and will most likely not be as effective as the good old fashion shoot to kill method (remember, we do not have phasers, let alone phasers that can be set to stun living creatures in the split second flash of a green energy beam.).

    Having said that, proving a new species by capturing has been done before, you can learn far more about a living animal than a dead one (behavior, vocalization, intelligence tests, etc) and when it comes to taxonomy/species recognition, it is just as effective as a dead body (and in this case will also prove just as effective in wiping the smug grins off the faces of pseudo-skeptics). And, of course, like a dead body, a living specimen will always, always outweigh all the vast horde of evidence of Sasquatch we have to date (tracks, hairs, pics, films, etc).

    If someone pulls off a capture then the battle is won and we won’t be having this debate anymore (save for when it applies to other cryptids). Capturing and releasing into the wild instead of capturing and taking it to a lab or zoo for observation and study could work, but skeptics would response with “why didn’t you bring it to a lab/zoo/etc” argument and once again choose to be deaf and mute to facts. And even if you release it and put some tracking device on it so that you and skeptics can find it later, either that one or another will be captured afterwards, so the capturing-for-life problem comes back again. If you capture, you should bite the bullet (no pun intended) and take to to major scientists for study.

    My great beef is with the “photo/film/track/hair/DNA/spittle/ are the great gods of species recognition” methodology. It ain’t gonna do squat for Squatch.

    1. Body,
    2. major parts of one
    3. live specimen

    These are the ways the cookie crumbles

    Whichever of the above three methods people choose, I have to say this to them: get ‘er done!

  18. airforce47 responds:

    Greetings All,

    To repeat an old adage, “Let me say this about that”.

    Loren Coleman should be respected for standing up for what he believes in regardless of the kill no kill argument. To many people are to wishy washy to take the stand he did.

    Many of my feelings on the subject are already posted here by others but I do oppose the outright hunting and killing of a specimen Sasquatch simply to prove the species exists.

    However, On several occasions specimens have encountered humans and carried their intimidation to the max. In those circumstances a person could of shot and killed one justifying their actions on self defense. I personally know one person who faced this decision.

    Remember the late Dr. Grover Krantz, “We’ll pin a medal on the first one who kills a Bigfoot and send the second one to jail”. Not exact but close enough.

    There’s an overriding reason for not killing a specimen. A forensic pathologist upon examination of it may declare it to be human. The killer will immediately be jailed on a charge of first or second degree murder, denied bail and sent to prison for a long stretch.

    And BTW, I’ve attended a few TBRC meetings and I was a little surprised by the actions they’ve taken. I emailed Daryl Colyer about this some time ago but am aware my opinion will have little weight on their future actions.

    I’m just glad it was Bob Gimlin with Roger Patterson in October of 1967 at Bluff Creek and not Daryl Colyer or Chester Moore or we wouldn’t be having this discussion now.

    As for the other comments about photography and capture of a specimen. We now have the digital cameras capable of getting photos or video of a Sasquatch. It’s just a matter of being in the right place at the right time and being ready to shoot (pun intended).

    A capture could be effected using the Air Taser Model 2600 but you must be within 22-26 feet and have a clear shot. I have it on very good authority of a prominent primatologist that the pulsing voltage of the weapon will drop BF to the forest floor and incapacitate him. But then what will you do with a knocked out Bigfoot?

    It’s my opinion we’ll get a specimen as part of somebody’s vehicle someday and then we’ll have the deceased specimen for science to examine.

    In closing the location given for Dr HENNER Fahrenbach is incorrect and as I don’t know he really wants the world to know where he retired to SO I’ll leave it at that. My best and on with the research for old hairy.

  19. Howie responds:

    This is my first time posting on this website and I do so because the fact is until REAL physcial evidence is found or collected, Sasquatch is a myth.

  20. paul_r responds:

    I don’t think it matters if one is kill or pro-kill where bigfoot is concerned. Human hunters shoot other hunters with unfortunate regularity. A Mass state trooper shot a woman walking her golden retriever because he wasn’t a carefull hunter.

    Bigfoot’s protection is in elusiveness plain and simple. No one is going to bag a bigfoot because no one can even get a good picture of one. There are stories of course that always end with “where’s that body?”

  21. rickg13 responds:

    I would have no issue with a legitimate hunter (or camper or hiker) killing one if they felt it was in self-defense. That being said, I can’t support purposely hunting down this creature that way. I’m not too worried about the human debate. I’m personally convinced that if they are a species of Homo, they’re so far removed from us that it would tie up both the courts and scientific community for years with debate.

    However, what I don’t doubt is that this is an endangered species. I also don’t doubt that mistakes could easily be made (i.e. another hunter in a Gillie suit). Ethically it would just be wrong, legally it would be risky at best, and common sense dictates that the risk of misidentification is so high as to make one question the state of mind of any such hunter.

  22. size 13 responds:

    If you’ve seen one up close,close enough, you realize they are NOT human.I think the prokill/nokill argument is that very thing,human or not.They are most definatley not your fuzzy teddybears or anything from Harry and the Hendersons. So my take is to take one down for the slab,nothing else will do. If I do get one down you will be seeing everybody posting pictures and wanting to see this thing. I’m sure that the pics will wind up being posted on Cryptomundo as well.I feel confident that these are not human at all.I can not believe for one second that these animals are anywhere near endangered, there is way too many sightings worldwide. I also believe that they can take care of themselves and doesn’t need our “Protections”. They’ve done pretty good so far without our help.For me,there is no question about it,Shoot one and bring it before the world so we can know exactly what they are.I’ve seen one and I want to know what they are,what kind of primate. I am willing to do the shooting but I will not go shoot up the forest,I will shoot only what I can see clearly.And it will be a full grown male at that.But everything has to be legal for me and I won’t shoot in someone’s research area,I respect others work.A lot of “If’s” and “Maybe’s”,but just maybe we can bring one in if’n the lord willing.A hunters perspective.

  23. BronzeSteel responds:

    The TBRC is not the same organization I grew to admire in the early to mid 2000’s. Seems like the group reached it peak of succuss with the show MonsterQuest. It’s been in decline the past few years.

  24. marcodufour responds:

    Having joined the British army as a young boy what is being missed here is if Sasquatch is some form of ancient human or animal, it is very easy to take a life but not so easy to live with your actions.

  25. cryptokellie responds:

    Here is something to think about. There is only one primate existing today that is commited to a bipedal form of locomotion…humans. All apes and monkeys, while being able to perform as bipedal on occasion, are basically default quadrupeds and can “gallop” on all fours and do so to escape danger. Humans cannot gallop or comfortably walk in a quadrupedal gait…we are bipeds – plain and simple. Bigfoot (if it exists) is described as always being bipedal and being able to walk and run on two legs, something no other mammal can do except for humans. Yes, many animals can do many things while on their hind legs but only humans are commited to being bipeds. Bigfoot (if it exists) is closer in morphology to humans than are apes and monkeys. You cannot call this animal an ape simply because it’s hairy and has apelike qualities. My High School gym teacher was hairy and had apelike qualities. I think that most of the “it looked like an ape” decriptions stem from not being able to find a base of identification terms to explain what is being seen and the “ape terms” being used to fill the gap. What this is leading up to is that there are only two possibilities in this circumstance;
    1. Bifoot is a real animal and go from there, shot, trapped or otherwise.
    2. Bigfoot is a hoax and go from there…shot…no mistaking a trapped hoaxer.
    Number one will settle itself and solve the issue one way or the other.
    Number two will settle itself when someone is shot and killed while either in camoflage gear or actully wearing a costume. The media will have a FIELD DAY.
    I believe number two is far more likely even if Bigfoot does exist. In other words, live ammo hunting Bigfoot is a tradegy waiting to happen. I say this because Bigfoot (if it exists) have too many traits in common with humans to ignore, see above. Deer, except for being mammals and getting hit by vehicles, share no traits in common with humans and yet many people are killed and injured by careless hunting. Let me state that I am not anti-hunting…not at all, but I am anti-foolish behaviour on the part of both hunter and hoaxer. Bigfoot (if it exists) has avoided capture for many, many years and is propably not foolish. Here is the bottom line; hire the world’s most skilled tracker/trapper and let that person do their job. Over time, those people will find out what the real answer is…carcass, bones, live animal or…

  26. texasbeliever responds:

    Being from Texas, and still residing here, I find it a bit disconcerting that not one person mentioned above and supposedly affiliated with the TEXAS Bigfoot Research Conservancy is actually FROM Texas?

    The whole article above paints all Texans as bloodthristy killers, shooting at dark shadows in the woods, with no thought or concern about safety and good moral values. With that I have a problem.

    Yes, I’m a hunter, but I do not condone the killing of a bigfoot unless you or someone else’s life is in imminent danger.

  27. AreWeThereYeti responds:

    @ cryptokellie: re “many animals can do many things while on their hind legs but only humans are commited to being bipeds.”

    In response I would argue that bipedalism is nothing more than a means of locomotion; it confers no innate “specialness” or “humanness” in and of itself.

    For the record kangaroos, wallabies, kangaroo rats, ostriches (and pretty-much all birds when on the ground) not to mention lemurs and gibbons (exclusively bipedal when on the ground – and both, incidentally, of the Order: Primates), to name a few, might disagree with your “only humans…” statement.

    I would also ask you to consider the numerous extinct pre-human species that have strode across our planet over the past several million years. Although many of them were no more closely related to us than present-day chimps or gorillas, they undeniably walked upright. Because the whims of fate did not allow them to survive to the present day is the only reason we don’t currently share the planet with other exclusively bipedal primates.

    But, then again, maybe we do… (cut to a shot of the P/G film. Fade out…)

  28. windigo responds:

    Anyone, even for the moment, that suggests that there is substantive reason to execute one of the most majestic creatures that have ever lived, has lost their way. These are sentient beings that we are speaking of, and more closely related to us that any current animal known to exist. As I have stated in the previous posts, I have had many encounters where they have been in very close proximity to me, and never once did I feel threatened to the point that my well being was in jeopardy. Furthermore, historically, any aggressive behavior of this creature towards humans has almost always been predicated by our treatment of them. My suggestion is that the reason for this is because, while they may view us as somewhat of a environmental competitor, they in no way view us there adversary, but much akin to their own. Some of this can be seen in the way that they engage us, as they they often choose to apply their own species standards when doing so. Simply put, these are cognitive creatures who have the ability to apply concrete reasoning to their situation or circumstance. They are both special and unique from any known animal, and must be considered as such when determining the approach to, “collecting” a specimen. Especially when that method is rests as close to murder as one might wish to get. Nothing sickens me more than reading the comments from the, “pro-kill” crowd who speak of harvesting and studying this great creature, as if it’s no more significant than an amoeba in a petri-dish. I find it disgusting, and devoid of the level of respect and acceptance their kind have shown ours. It yields nothing to the true spirit of genuine research and exploration, and only represents shades of the worst humanity has to offer.

  29. Desertdweller responds:


    I’d have to say you did the right thing here. Not because of your position on the killing of Bigfoot, but because you were serving on an advisory board that wasn’t asked for advice when an important policy decision was made. This shows me that you were being used to give credibility to the organization through the use of your name. If they really wanted your advice they would have asked for it. As it turned out, you were merely window dressing.

    As far as killing Bigfoot goes, I think that is probably what it is going to take to prove its existence. Bigfoot is more likely to wind up flattened by a logging truck than shot by a hunter or researcher.

    As a shooting range safety officer, it makes me cringe when I read of someone emptying a shotgun at a creature that is not clearly seen. If the Bigfoot was at a distance where it could have been killed with a load of buckshot, and still managed to escape, it doesn’t say much for the skill of the shooter. Basic gun safety requires that a shooter always be sure of what he is shooting at, and what else is in his field of fire. Shooting at sounds or movement is a sure way to get someone killed.

    A shotgun loaded with buckshot and slugs also seems to me to be a poor choice of weapon for taking a specimen for scientific research. Much better to use a high-powered rifle of around .30 caliber. This would confine the physical destruction to a localized area, possibly killing by hydrostatic shock. Hydrostatic shock is caused by a shock wave moving at high speed through the creature’s own body fluids, propagated by the impact of a supersonic bullet. A creature the size of an adult Bigfoot could be killed by one shot from this weapon if well-placed.

    A shotgun loaded with buckshot, backed up by slugs, is the kind of weapon that would be most useful if one expected to be attacked by the prey. It metes out wholesale destruction in a small area at close range. Hardly the weapon of choice for securing a scientific specimen.

    So the shooter needs to know what he is shooting at, and have a clear shot. He also needs to know what else is in his field of fire. If he misses his target (or if he hits it and the projectile passes through and keeps going), where will that shot wind up? Even a shotgun slug can be dangerous at ranges where the possibility of actually hitting an aimed target is small.

    If the “Bigfoot” turns out to be a person in a suit (gorilla or Ghilley) then the shooter would likely be given the benefit of the doubt. Or, at least the mistake would be understandable. If he succeeds in killing a real Bigfoot, and the creature was officially declared to be some sort of human, then it would seem to me the shooter would be protected ex post facto.

  30. airforce47 responds:

    Greetings texasbeliever,

    Although not a native I spent 22 years in Texas because that’s where the jobs were at the time. I’ve met Alton Higgins and Daryl Colyer at TBRC meetings and they’re not bloodthirsty BF hunters.

    However, by their own admission they did a rather dumb thing which is a violation of hunting safety and firearms rules. They could’ve gotten somebody hurt or worse killed. They won’t be the first or the last to do this.

    I’m hoping they see they don’t have the support of the majority of the community and they’ll lose support in Texas because of it. I’m pretty sure it will effect their annual convention in Jefferson and their other activities.

    I can tell you from personal experience that Texans are great people and I never regretted the time I spent there. My best,

  31. cryptokellie responds:

    To: AreWeThereYeti (very clever I might add)…
    Birds are not mammals and while being bipedal, they have wings – even the flightless ones.
    Gibbons are aboreal and yes can move bipedally for a little bit, but bipedalism is not their default mode of locomotion. Lemurs are quadrupeds when on the ground and have tails. Kangaroos, wallabies and others in that group are also quadrupeds in general locomotion and only hop to escape danger…when standing still, they use their tails as a prop. They cannot walk as a human walks. It’s all in the ankles and hips. Bears have plantigrade feet as humans do but they do not have a naturally upright stance and can only walk as a biped for short distances. As for our distant relatives…lets use the term Homo and include Australopithecus. One of the prerequisites for inclusion into this group of advanced primates is the change to exclusive bipedal locomotion along with other skeletal differences, freeing the arms and hands for use in other areas, not locomotion. These ancestors were in fact very closely related to us because once you get past the homonid Astralopethicus and into Homo, we-sapiens are in the same group. Only a human or Homo (whatever species you choose) as a mammal, can run naturally on two legs and cannot on four. It is very special, for a commitment to be bipedal has led homo to the ability to achieve some very special things unmatched by other groups. It makes humans special just for the fact that only we can and are walking around on our own two feet. Size 13 in my case…
    But…my point was that the same general characteristics are shared by both humans and Bigfoot(if they exist). Characteristics not shared by the vast majority of animals. Remember that the Bigfoot(if they exist) as described, still fall “generally” within the range of human size limits. It is here where the line of regognition will get blurred and perhaps tragic incidents occur.

  32. fooks responds:

    that is wacked out!

    you did the right thing by resigning, it’s not like they wanted to put up more cams and didn’t tell you.

    if these guys are gunning for BF,

    I can see this spilling over to every yahoo in the woods!

    what’s next? a bounty?

  33. BronzeSteel responds:

    As a Texan and an attendee of many Texas Bigfoot Conferences I can say the TBRC is full of first class people. The type of people you would like to see as your neighbor.

    I would have like to seen the TBRC keep the organization’s original stance on hunting down a Sasquatch. The Neutral stance they have taken is to political correct for my taste; why ride the fence on such an important issue.

  34. AreWeThereYeti responds:

    @ cryptokellie:

    I appreciate your rebuttal.

    However, much of your argument relies on how sharply you choose to limit your definitions. First-off birds, while not mammals, certainly ARE upright bipeds and while a pair of wings may confer an alternate mode of locomotion to many species, plenty of them (all flightless birds – ok, except penguins) are 24/7 bipedal ground-pounders. They do not, as you choose to define it, however use their upper limbs for anything else and “cannot walk as a human walks.” Ok, I’ll cede that point to you. The same goes for the kangaroos, gibbons, etc.; you set the definition, I’ll live with it.

    You then go on to cite “the term Homo and include Australopithecus” as examples of human-like upright species. What you omit is the fact that A. afarencis, with a brain size of approximately 400 cm³ was, for all intents and purposes, an upright ape – Humans average 1,400cm³; H. habilis, 600cm³, and Chimps, approx. 400 cm³ ) . In fact, A. afarencis’ discovery caused quite a stir in anthropological circles because it had been assumed, until then, that a major increase in brain size i.e. “humanness” preceded an upright mode of locomotion.

    The truth is, there are several examples of bipedal non-human/apelike creatures stretching back to around 6 million years ago, e.g. Paranthropus, Ardipithecus, Kenyanthropus, Orrorin tugenensis. Contrast that to Homo habilis – again, your example of the first human, which only dates to approx. 2 mya and you may get my point: bipedalism is merely another manner of locomotion and although we do not share our upright stance with any (officially-recognized) present-day primates that is only because other, more ape-like examples, did not “make the cut,” evolutionarilly-speaking.

    To reiterate: bipedalism arose LONG before we became “human” and the fact that it is shared by an alleged present-day species of North American ape does not, automatically, bestow the creature with human-like mental faculties.

    BTW: according to the sighting reports, Bigfoot IS often reported to ambulate equally well on all-fours and bipedally.

  35. cryptokellie responds:

    to; AreWethereYeti
    Ok, enough of the pontification. You are missing the entire point of this thread and why I am, somewhat with tongue-in-cheek, referring to the importance of bipedalism. We live in the here and now and if anyone is actively live-ammo hunting, the only mammalian biped trotting past you is going to be either a Bigfoot(if it exists) or a human being…perhaps someone portraying a Bigfoot in a costume AND someone is going to get shot – on purpose – no mistake here. That is my point and I hope the underlying point of this thread. No one anywhere is going to mistake a bird or kangaroo or an extict homonid from Wikipedia for a Bigfoot but, they just might mistake a human for one – especially when wearing an otherwise absurd costume. I know this because not far from my neighborhood, a woman was shot, while in HER backyard by a deer hunter who was too far away to make a clear identification, but close enough to put a bullet into her. I’m very sure she was not acting like a quadruped or wearing antlers. Again, as I said before, I’m am not anti-hunting, not at all but, I am very much against foolish behaviour and unfortunalely there is a lot of foolish behaviour going on in the Bigfoot world – on both sides of the gunsite.

  36. BronzeSteel responds:

    If we connect the events that are known, its a good possibility that Colyer shot at the nephew, who was dressed in a sasquatch costume. If this actually happened, the TBRC is blessed that this event didn’t end in a tragic shooting.

  37. AreWeThereYeti responds:

    @ cryptokellie:

    No more pontification? Ok.

    Dude, you’ve done it again; shrank your boundaries and cut “upright = big brains” from the mix completely! If you didn’t mean it, why’d you say it? Or, try to defend it?

    An upright creature in the woods is either a Bigfoot or a human (and, more likely, a human.) I got that part. From the beginning. Really.

    No argument then and I still agree with it now.

    Looks like we both have made our points.

  38. DWA responds:

    I have forcefully, and many times, stated my opinion on this:

    We should be well past the point of having to kill ANYTHING just to prove it exists.

    I do not care about “naysayers.” Why should I? Why should you? Why should anyone? They are ignorant. At least, I have never heard nor read one that wasn’t. (Only when it came to knowledge of this topic, now.) Should we kill a chimp to satisfy someone who thinks Jane Goodall is a crock? And yes, it is, logically speaking, the exact same thing: taking a potentiallly crucial life – how many of these are there? – to satisfy the ignorant.

    We are way past that.

    A scientist (Dr. Bindernagel, on the Board of Advisors) makes a compelling case that the sasquatch is a scientific discovery we have already made, meeting all qualifications except that the mainstream of science hasn’t blessed it yet. (And “blessing” is what it amounts to.) It seems odd at best that science should resort to something that is no longer necessary to confirm the animal with the most evidence in its favor that any has had in the history of science before receiving scientific “blessing.”

    I was extremely uncomfortable to find out about this incident, which I have known about for some time now. I know these people personally, and the TBRC is doing the best research in the sasquatch field. Almost all of its efforts are devoted to getting the evidence without killing one.

    I support the TBRC. But I wish this hadn’t been done; and hope it won’t be repeated.

  39. hoosierhunter2 responds:

    I have no problem with shooting a Bigfoot to finally get evidence. I am a gun owner and avid shooter. That said, my main concern is that there are too many hoaxers out there and one of the four gun rules is: Be sure of your target. Too much chances of killing a hoaxer.
    Nor do I believe that Bigfoot is a human anymore than a chimp is.
    I also can’t believe that anyone seriously about hunting Bigfoot would use a shotgun. A large caliber rifle would be needed. Shotguns aren’t particularly effective against bear let alone a Bigfoot and limited by range.
    Finally, hunters are not the imbeciles non gun people would like to think they are. Most are very conscientious and very ecologically minded. And most are very careful with their firearms and what they shoot. There are literally hundred of thousands of hunters in the woods every year and very few accidents. So I take offense at that implication.

  40. DWA responds:


    It is one of the more compelling aspects of the anecdotal evidence for the sasquatch that the people one would expect to see them are the people that do. Included in this are a LOT of hunters.

    Those who weren’t so scared they forgot they had a bow or gun – or weren’t sure that the weapon that they had would be ineffective against what they were seeing – thought about it, and for a number of reasons, all good, and all speaking well of hunters, decided not to shoot. Some prepared for a possble charge, but were committed to shooting only if attacked.

    One of the two fatal shootings I am aware of being reported was an accident. The hunter thought he was shooting a moose he had earlier wounded. (Very plausible. A hunter thinking a moose was a sasquatch? Negligible possibility. An elementary acquaintance with psychology satisfies that; we fill in the blanks with what we expect, not with what we know isn’t real.)

    This is a good place for me to mention that I don’t consider the argument convincing that “you know one or more are going to be killed, so nothing’s wrong with killing one for confirmation.” I am adamantly against killing one for confirmation because confirmation can be otherwise had. Taking the step back from that might be the first step toward avoiding it entirely. Our species will kill itself by its own hand unless we somehow manage to deal with our uncanny ability to rationalize murder (first, by saying that only killing humans is murder).

    The sasquatch discovery’s confluence with technology allowing nonlethal confirmation might give us a chance to think, for once, rather than reverting to the solution we’ve lazily reverted to for millennia. In that might lie the salvation of this species…and ours.

    I’m willing to hope for that. Better than just blindly tramping down a road that is leading to oblivion, for sure.

  41. Larry responds:

    For some reason the Board of Advisors page was removed from the TBRC site. My guess is that likely a Board of Advisor member(s?) pressured the TBRC to remove the listing while still agreeing to be associated with this Pro-kill organization. You know… try to fly under the radar. Maybe the TBRC did it themselves so they wouldn’t lose another advisor?

    The following was the list of people left before they removed the page from their site

    Board of Advisors:

    John Bindernagel, Ph.D.
    British Columbia, Canada

    Smokey Crabtree
    Fouke, Arkansas

    Henner Fahrenbach, Ph.D.
    Beaverton, Oregon

    John Green
    Harrison Hot Springs, British Columbia

    Jeff Meldrum, Ph.D.
    Pocatello, Idaho

    John Mionczynski

    Rick Noll
    Seattle, Washington

    Kathy Strain
    Sonora, California

  42. diogenes responds:

    One can hope this is a result of the Board of Advisers wanting to remove themselves from a pro-kill group.

    Bobo, of Finding Bigfoot, stated on Conan last night that the DNA results from a “kill” (I assume the Sierra Kills) showed Bigfoot is in the genus Homo and the results would be available soon.
    I just thought that interesting as we have not heard too many say genus Homo that might possibly know the DNA results, beyond Stubstad..or have we? I have lost track of the many claims…

    genus Homo or not..killing one by a BF enthusiast group is abhorrent to me, and even the advisers would be hard pressed to defend killing one if this news is true…our closest genetic kin…besides…it’s already been done hasn’t it?

  43. diogenes responds:

    or advisors..that spell correct choice w/o glasses is always risky….
    in all seriousness, it seems eventually this news shall come out and I do so hope we take a no-kill, no-capture, no-injury stance as a people and provide this amazing species free roam. It will be interesting and I don’t think many will remain silent that have to date. Hopefully all this will move toward a professional scientific arena of study.

  44. Larry responds:

    I don’t feel the advisors parted ways with the TBRC or it would have been done publicly (As Loren, Craig & John did). This removal of the page is just trying to protect their reputation of being associated with a pro-kill group. It is unknown if this was just TBRC’s doing or if they were pressured by an advisor member to remove the list on the page. I assume the latter.

    Yes – the Homo genus is where Sasquatch DNA points from not only from what I’ve been told but also from experiences in my own research… they are people.

  45. BronzeSteel responds:

    Was the TBRC’s bad publicity from the pro kill stance the reason for no 2012 conference?

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|Top | FarBar|

Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.