If I shot a Sasquatch Options

[damndirtyape]

If I saw and shot at a Sasquatch, but it ran off and I could not locate it, I don't think I would tell anyone. I would always wonder if it wasn't a damn fool human in a costume and now with some buckshot in his butt. I would be scared to look in the newspapers about someone coming across some dead person in a fur suit. Maybe the authorities would look the other way and say that it was an intentional suicide because no one who wants to live very long would don a fur suit and walk around in the woods. But it could also be considered manslaughter.

I have thought about this scenario a lot and how other people might react. I hope it doesn't happen that way, but am curious as to how others might act.

[nightwing]

I seriously doubt if I would ever shoot at one unless it was obviously attacking, and therfore, obviously not human.

[Fishbone35]

I'm with Nightwing. I would never consider drawing a bead on a sasquatch unless I seriously thought I was in immediate danger. Should it happen to be some moron in a monkey suit and they managed to scare me that badly, I suppose they might get what they'd have coming to them.

[RobUstes]

Yup, thats me, only if my life or anothers life was threatened.
But, given the fact that a bluff charge may get as close as 20 feet ... would there be time to tell IF its an attack or a bluff charge ???

Guess i really wont know until it happens, and then it may be too late, and youll read about the missing guy ... and some dog will drag one of my legs home ... but actually, i doubt that it would be anything but a bluff charge.

[GreenRogue]

2 things here, If you really shot and say killed a sas how in the sam hell would you get the thing out of the woods?
and say you did get it out of the woods you would be an instant gazillionaire but you would also be a huge bastard to alot of people who dont want to see one hurt.
2nd point would it really be worth killing one if you lost all of the respect of fellow bigfooters? maybe a gazillion dollars is alot of money but I would have to say that your days of being in this comunity would soon be over any time you would show up at a symposium or something like that people would be saying hey theres that ass hole who killed one I for one could not just kill one for the money maybe if I was attacked but I would still feel really bad about it. Sean

[Sean V]

I hope that I do actually get the clear chance to bring one down, I have stated that before and will say it again now. As to the point of becoming a "gazillionaire", it would be nice, but it would be blood money, and I don't want it. :|

If and when I do bring one in, it will be given to one of three places: The Smithsonian Institute, The Royal Ontario Museum, or the British Museum of Natural History. What do I want with a Sasquatch corpse, I'm no Frank Hansen.

The day that a dead Sasquatch is brought in is the day I trade in my .444 for a camera. I don't hate these creatures, I just want to lay the mystery to rest.

And to those people who would think I'm an asshole, well screw them. I know who my friends are, here and elsewhere, and I would hope that they would be friends through thick and thin. :|

I'm pro-kill and not afraid to admit it. Anyone who does not like it will just have to live with it.

[RabidMonkey]

I'm with SFS here, except I would donate the specimen to my alma mater ( and hope they would stop calling me every week for a contribuiton). The only reason I do BF research is to help prove the existence of BF, which a specimen seems like the only practical way.

On a side note to SFS, are you using a Marlin lever action?

[bipto]

2nd point would it really be worth killing one if you lost all of the respect of fellow bigfooters?

The shooter wouldn't lose the respect of all 'footers. Not by a long shot...

[The Madness]

2 things here, If you really shot and say killed a sas how in the sam hell would you get the thing out of the woods?

Well first off I would not even *think* of dragging his hairy carcass out- at least not in one piece. This may sound a little gruesome to some people, but all you need is good video documentation and some choice parts, namely the head/hands. This is my personal opinion here, and if it rattles some cages then so be it, but I couldn't care less of what the 'bigfoot' community would think of me after taking down one of these creatures. I would probably say that quite a few of them have never seen/heard one before, and base their opinions on third party accounts- and being a 'casual' bigfooter, the fact that I wouldn't be able to openly attend future gatherings wouldn't faze me one bit. So a bastard I'll be.

2nd point would it really be worth killing one if you lost all of the respect of fellow bigfooters?

Yes it would. Most definately. Same thing goes for everything else out there in this world. Solid evidence speaks for itself. Enough with the shaky video and fuzzy blobsquatch photos- I personally have my doubts on this creature's existence, but like a lot of other people out there a body will speak volumes. Although I can understand your point of view Sean it really comes down to the reasons why you are out there in the first place- for me it would be to bring back some solid proof, if ever I got the chance. You can't be content with an autograph, we need a souvenir.

[Paul1968UK]

We have talked about pro/anti kill before, and I am still not sure what side of the fence i sit on.

Realistically, i feel that one or two need to be killed and brought in - i just don't want to be the person that does it.

That said, moving the body out of the woods is going to be almost impossible - Krantz suggested removing the head, feet and hands for examination.

[JayleeD]

We have talked about pro/anti kill before, and I am still not sure what side of the fence i sit on.

Realistically, i feel that one or two need to be killed and brought in - i just don't want to be the person that does it.

That said, moving the body out of the woods is going to be almost impossible - Krantz suggested removing the head, feet and hands for examination.

Paul I agree with you on this one. I'm still sitting on the fence too. I really believe that all the evidence and reports in the world are not going to matter in the least unless solid proof (a body or parts of a body) are examined. I don't want to be the person to pull the trigger, but can understand why someone could do it.

I really would hate to see someone remove the head, feet and hands though. Take the full body and learn even more about the animal.

Just my 2 centavos.

[chronic]

If anyone can define homicide and then explain why it wouldn't include shooting Sasquatch, I'm all ears.

[bipto]

Because a sasquatch isn't a human being. It has no more rights under the law as any other animal. In fact, it has less since it isn't supposed to exist. If after the fact, it's determined that murder statutes should be extended to cover sasquatch, then the shooter would still be safe from prosecution since the government isn't allowed to prosecute you for something that was not against the law when you did it.

Haven't we already covered all this?

Now, if you want to talk about what's moral instead of what is and isn't legal, then that's a whole 'nother ball o' wax. Just like so many other things, the choice to shoot to kill one has to be made by each person in a position to do so. In many ways, it's analogous to the abortion question.

[chronic]

Because a sasquatch isn't a human being.

prove it.

[bipto]

Impossible, until one if captured or killed.

[chronic]

Doesn't that dictate one must err on the side of caution until his genus is proven one way or the other?

[RB]

... his genus...

Whose genus? This "his" of which you speak does not exist. If you say it does, and it warrants our consideration, then prove it exists... otherwise, I'm not sure what the heck you're even talking about.


But if I'm out hunting, and I see what I think is the biggest damn bear I ever saw, and I have a bear tag… it might feel the result of modern firearm’s manufacturing processes… but hopefully not… hopefully it won’t feel a thing… I think that’s what every hunter wishes for his quarry, a painless end… but then, not surprising, since that's what most of us wish for ourselves…

Now, if you shoot something, you are morally obligated to reap what you have harvested… otherwise it’s a crime against nature IMO… if you cannot find the animal, even after exhaustive efforts to do so, you must conclude the shot was not fatal, at least not immediately… you begin to question your shot placement, or if you even hit the target at all… you replay the shot over and over in your mind… you are now questioning everything… if there is no good blood trail, you may not have indeed delivered a fatal injury… you are now faced with the dilemma of whether to continue off alone into the unknown with no good trail to follow maybe and probably with darkness closing in, possibly encountering what you think is the biggest damn bear your ever saw, maybe wounded, maybe not, but pissed off either way… this is a pivotal moment… what you do from here may dictate the course of the rest of your life, so think carefully… then the mind begins to play tricks on you, the “what if “ questions come at about 5,000 per minute… to me, this is where it might be a good idea to get some help if you are serious about recovering anything… now you go and tell exactly what to who? Hmmm…

I think Taco Bell would be calling my name just about that time… better luck next time…

This post has been edited by RB: Aug 26 2003, 12:06 PM

[Streamrunner]

Prove that a sasquatch is not a human being?

Me like where this is going


Let's start with asking our peers: Jaylee, Arky, Rob, RB, SFS, Deppup, Ranshirl, Jon, Angie, Craig. . . . . . . and I missed a bunch, was what you saw, do you think, that was a human being? Incidentally, if this is not the appropriate placement of this inquiry, oops. Perhaps someone could coordinate where this is applicable.

My next question would be explain the footprint differences as well. And while we are at it we better ask what is the definition of a human being because if we don't define that next thing I hear is that great apes are human beings to. I don't know crap about what's going on here except that to imagine that a sasquatch is a human being is a very difficult thing for me to do. But I guess it might be its possible. What's the chances?
I don't see them as possible human beings but I can see that they well may not be typical great apes either. To call them human I wouldlike to know why the difficulty in killing them, why they are not easier to deal with. That makes no sense to me at all. If they were apes however or closer to that status, then I could see it. Uh, I think. What a mystery.

This post has been edited by Streamrunner: Aug 26 2003, 02:02 PM

[The Madness]

If anyone can define homicide and then explain why it wouldn't include shooting Sasquatch, I'm all ears.

Homicide does not imply a moral right or wrong. It is a neutral defintion of killing one human being by another. Taken into the context of Bigfoot this is not readily applicable as we have not legally defined Bigfoot as 'human'- at least not yet.

According to Black's Law Dictionary: (homicide) is a necessary ingredient of the crimes of murder and manslughter, but there are other cases in which homicide may be committed without criminal intent and without criminal consequenes, as, where it is done in the lawful execution of a judicial sentence, in self-defense, or as the only possible means of arresting an escaping felon.

It really depends on the circumstances surrounding the 'shooting'. Conditions? Actions taken by both parties, etc.
And yes, this discussion can go on forever....

[bipto]

Doesn't that dictate one must err on the side of caution until his genus is proven one way or the other?

No in my opinion because I think it very unlikely they could in any way be considered human.

[Sean V]

Let's start with asking our peers: Jaylee, Arky, Rob, RB, SFS, Deppup, Ranshirl, Jon, Angie, Craig. . . . . . . and I missed a bunch, was what you saw, do you think, that was a human being? Incidentally, if this is not the appropriate placement of this inquiry, oops. Perhaps someone could coordinate where this is applicable.

The only similarity that I noted was the fact that it was bipedal, like a human being.

There was a certain amount of "intelligence" in it's eyes, but it was not human intelligence. I can't explain it. It just did not seem human or anything close to it. JMO

[bipto]

I've seen the same look of intelligence in the eyes of a gorilla and an orangoutang at the Como Zoo, but that doesn't mean they are intelligent (relatively speaking) or in any way equatable with humans. Are they more or less intelligent that dolphins? Jack Russell terriers? I mean, where do we draw the line?

SFS, this isn't directed at you. I'm just expanding a bit on what you said....

[chronic]

And while we are at it we better ask what is the definition of a human being

If we can produce viable offspring, it's a person.
Like the wolf and the coyote. They've been seperate species for over 2 million years (that's a long time). But, when there are no bitches around, a male wolf will mate with a female coyote. Their hybrid offspring can reproduce with eachother, the coyote, or the wolf.

[bipto]

Is that Chronic's definition or a scientific one?

[chronic]

species: NOUN: 1. Biology a. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. 

or, a longer version-

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/sep99...93054.Ev.r.html

[Homer]

A certain percentage of bigfooters will consider the killing of a sasquatch as murder, even possibly a crime against "humanity", this means that the first person to bag the BF is going to be harassed. On the other hand, a certain percentage of bigfooters will hold that person in high regard. It all depends on one's point of view and how fanatical those beliefs are.

I am relieved that SFS will put down his gun once the first one is taken. Unfortunately, I believe that even more people will be out in the woods with guns once the existence of Sasquatch is proven (for reasons that have been discussed in other threads).

Also, as discussed in other threads, I am anti-kill but I try not to be too fanatical about it (otherwise someone might want to prove I exist by bringing my body in).

James

[JayleeD]

Let's start with asking our peers:  Jaylee, Arky, Rob, RB, SFS,  Deppup, Ranshirl, Jon, Angie,  Craig. . . . . . . and I missed a bunch, was what you saw, do you think, that was a human being?    Incidentally, if this is not the appropriate placement of this inquiry, oops.  Perhaps someone could coordinate where  this is applicable.

The only similarity that I noted was the fact that it was bipedal, like a human being.

There was a certain amount of "intelligence" in it's eyes, but it was not human intelligence. I can't explain it. It just did not seem human or anything close to it. JMO

Yep, it walked on 2 legs....the similarity stopped there. I didn't see the face so I don't know about the eyes looking intelligent. I agree that these are some pretty smart animals (animal being the key word here).

[RabidMonkey]

And while we are at it we better ask what is the definition of a human being

If we can produce viable offspring, it's a person.
Like the wolf and the coyote. They've been seperate species for over 2 million years (that's a long time). But, when there are no bitches around, a male wolf will mate with a female coyote. Their hybrid offspring can reproduce with eachother, the coyote, or the wolf.

I would generally agree with your statement about the definition of a species, but I think there is an important nuance. Having the ability to produce offspring such as wolf/coyote is the first part, but like you said they need to be "viable". The offspring can not be sterile either physically, or socially. With wolves and coyotes, the offspring of a chance mating will probably not be able to find a mate due to social reasons. In this case, I think we can easily say sasquatch is not of our species, even without a body.

[Streamrunner]

I still think we should define what a human being is.

Neat subject, cool responses. I would still like to see some compelling
information that suggests that sasquatches are more manlike than apelike. Oh, and womanlike, excuse me

So far, after looking in most of the literature lots, I don't see it.

[Fishbone35]

I still think Roger Patterson said it best when he said he didn't know how the legalities would work for the person who shot one but he felt sure that their life wouldn't be worth much after the fact.

I believe he was on target there. Everyone likes to talk about all these warm, fuzzy, tree-hugger types like they're all wearing Barney t-shirts and having love-ins but these are the same folks who will spike a tree and not give a tinker's damn about some sad sack cutting timber for a living when he gets his face ripped off by the chain when it breaks loose.

You really think they'd hesitate to put a spike through the shooter's head? Hardly. You'd forever be the bastard posterchild for the liberal left and you wouldn't be able to drive to the corner grocery store without thoroughly checking your vehicle for explosives or tampering...going and coming. Boy, that's the kind of popularity I can live without!

And please, don't anyone fool yourself into thinking that it couldn't happen to you. It could. Or maybe not you, maybe they'd be more insidious than that. Maybe it would be your wife, or your children, or your grandma. Just something to think about if you ever happen to have a bipedal, pointy-headed, hair covered, critter in your sights.

Food for thought, folks.

[Arkansan]

Let's start with asking our peers:  Jaylee, Arky, Rob, RB, SFS,  Deppup, Ranshirl, Jon, Angie,  Craig. . . . . . . and I missed a bunch, was what you saw, do you think, that was a human being?

Nope, no way. What I heard breathing outside my window did not sound human, not like any human being I've ever heard. Far as I know, humans don't make that internal sound when they breathe unless they are having a seriously major asthma attack or something. The shape that passed by the window looked like a large animal.

They are animals. Just my opinion. But I'm pretty sure of it from my own experiences.

[Streamrunner]

Incidentally
I would like to see a serious side to the consequences of shooting a sasquatch from a government/politics side that Fish touched on.
I know many people are on the fence, some are pro we need a bod and some are no, there other ways. Regardless of your stance, its good to work together and I would like to see some of the ramifications that could happen continue to be discussed and how if it is indeed true that the sasquatch could be another spotted owl, how this would figure into
the consequences of killing one and stepping forward with it. Fish made some potentially very real concerns evident.

Regarding those that did step forward with a comment regarding their take on what they saw, thanks. Also want to thank Chronic for motivating me to ask more questions. Heckuva mystery.

[RB]

I must admit that from the distance I was viewing it from, it looked human-like to me... walking on two feet, arms swinging to and fro...

But then when my father crossed nearly the same ground only a few minutes later, I could tell what I saw was at least twice as tall as my Dad...