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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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.



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.

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.

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

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.

prove it.

Impossible, until one if captured or killed.

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

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…

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.

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....

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

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

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....

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.

Is that Chronic's definition or a scientific one?

or, a longer version-

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

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

First, Homicide does not always equate to murder.

And as far as BF not being a human , well because for one thi....... oh wait. we have been all through this before. Ok ok you are less wrong than the rest of us. I dread reading through the rest of this post. Maybe I should try my intinuitive skills and predict the conversation.

"Its not human"

"Prove it isnt"

"Prove it is"

"Prove it isnt"

"Prove it is"

It dont matter what it is right now. But I get you if you brought in a huge 500+ pound beast like that and say "I was in fear of my life or great bodily harm" (same thing you say and then shut up in court even in a clean shoot) No matter the DNA results from the body. If you meet those two above criteria. Death or Physical harm, you are good to go. Besides, I bet anyone on the jury (that will never be), in the case (that will never go to court), will look at the creature that will (never be proven to be real IMHO) and call one a murderer.


Would I shoot one? I dont know. I guess it depends. If I were out with some friends and we were all armed (usually) I guess I could do it. I would feel safer. I am pro kill, well I think that makes me sould like something I am not. I could kill one if the circumstanses were right, it really would depend on the situation at hand. But as far as going out and trying to find one just for the sake of killing it? Not now. my luck I would pull the trigger and the skull cap popping off will take a mask with it revealing some stupid hoaxer. If I did find one, I would study it as best I could. Try to film it , photo it, track it and map out the area as best I can. Hopefully come nack and find it again, Then I would consider geting someone out here to take it down. I prefer it being doped and studied alive, subcutaneus implant put in for tracking, then re released into the wild in nearly the same spot.

Someone mentioned a "gazillion" dollars somewere. I say the heck with that Im calling the WWN and getting my cool crisp $25 for the rights to my story. Heck its probably more that a gazillion after taxes anyway.

From what I heard my Mom say when she seen this creature walking across the pasture behind our house, which by the way was a dark night and she could not see very clearly, (she ask me what is that thing?) that tells me that it certainly did not look to her like a human. Like Arky also said the thing outside our window on another night was definately not something that made us think human. So in my honest opinion I don't think it is human at all.

I agree, to a point. Not of our species anatomically or socially, but in our same genus.

But, biologically, we'll probably never know....without 2 test subjects.

"species" is a tricky word. Like the coyote/wolf, considered different species, look like different species, don't hang out with eachother, but are capable of reproducing. Some say the coyote/wolf/dog are all the same species, but just in different environments.


Your comment about viability including "not being sterile socially" is interesting. I never considered that.

I'm not volunteering for that duty!

a pointless argument...primate yes, homo sapiens? Get real!

Not really a pointless debate, but I do agree that it's primate.

I don't think anyone said Sasquatch is a Homo Sapien.
But, yeah, in the primate order, just like us.

Randomly, all of the genetics on the genus Canis are unbelievably close. In the late ‘90’s (not sure about now), it was impossible to look at a DNA sample from any member of this genus and identify the species without already knowing where the sample came from. This is how close the dog family is. They are all different species; different species separated by their respective niches rather than genetics.

Now, just to toss this in . . . Sasquatch hair is insanely close to blonde human hair under a microscope. It’s ridiculous how close it is. Genetically, samples score some percent that presently escapes me within the human range. That and apparent foot anatomy has gotten me to the point where I’m pretty sure they’re in the family Hominidae. I’m not saying genus Homo . . . Just Hominidae. (As opposed to Pongidae.) That right there is just speculation and really, only as important as anyone wants it to be.

Regardless, if we’re running with ecological niche as a dividing line for species, they’re a different species from humans. I suppose, if I really wanted, we could get into what makes something human, or a person . . . But, yeef.

Getting back to the original topic of the thread . . . I would never put myself in a position where I’d have to figure out what I would do with a body. I’m not out to shoot one, I am anti-kill . . . It is something I consider deeply wrong. Granted, I’m someone who tries not to step on bugs, or harm critters in general . . . But what I’ve been around out in the woods so far has acted calmly, rationally. The breathing I heard once was so human, I thought it was my own for a couple seconds (still hearing breathing when you hold your breath = not you). If I'm ever rushed, I'll take my chances with it being a bluff charge. I prefer going out with people who are armed, but these guys pack heat as a deterrent to the unsafe human element. These aren’t people who would shoot a sasquatch when it came right down to it.


~Ice

I agree, to a point. Not of our species anatomically or socially, but in our same genus. But, biologically, we'll probably never know....without 2 test subjects.
don't think anyone said Sasquatch is a Homo Sapien.
But, yeah, in the primate order, just like us. - Chronic
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

*review of current taxonical listings:

Taxononical terms describing primates and their genera
(genuses is not a word) are as follows:
Subphylum : Vertebrata (vertebrates)
Class : Mammals (as opposed to fishes (two classes: cartilage group, bony group), amphibians, reptiles and birds
Order: Such as primates, marsupials, carnivores, ungulates (hoofed mammals) etc.
Family: in zoology, ends with -id or idae such as pongidae or pongids, canids or canidae, felids or felidae, hominids, cervids, etc.
Genus: such as Homo, Canis, Gorilla, Felis, Vulpes, or what have you.
Then Species: and its technically : "Homo sapiens" either in italics or underlined. Initial word is upper case (genus) and species is lower case)

Maybe this is helpful to someone.
Otherwise, pardon me if its base simple and redundant.

Regarding apes and people, I understand that there are still people out there who keep them separate. There are arguments against this stating that hey, genetically they are so close that many new authors consider them the same so they are all (including us)
"great apes".
There are significant base differences between people and apes. Look them up. Then cross section the reports for behavior, physical looks, physical movement, etc. Its pretty simple. We aint sasquatches and they aint us.
They sure seem to share some important similarities though. So much so that their superficial look may in some cases certainly look like a "people" especially in low light or in distant observations. How it ends up should be interesting. To call them Homo sapiens sure seems like a stretch and there is plenty of argument as to why they should or should not be in the Homo genus. Currently I wonder if they are not so different that they may not only fall out of the genus Homo but even the family of great apes or hominids. If pongids and hominids end up the same family, I would have to do a lot of research to understand exact definitions and the classification system before I would concur with it. Maybe it ends up that way. Dunno.
This was simply spurred on again by Chronics two comments
l) with the reference that stated that they were in our genus
2) with the reference that stated "don't think anyone said Sasquatch is a Homo Sapien. But, yeah, in the primate order, just like us."

This is unclear to me what he means, but I wanted to address it.
First, my take is he thought that they are in our genus. Agreed, it will take time and a bod to determine that. Even muscle tissue will go a long way in suggesting whether or not that's likely.
Secondly I won't comment on the H sapiens reference as its clear that he kinda backtracked there, but the agreement seems primate sure.

Kind of gombizbammed around, but its the weekend.

SR, was replying to Chronic's wanting proof of Sas not being human, to me a human being is exclusively Homo Sapiens, didn't mean to imply that anyone said Sas was a sapiens

No problem Spork, just using the opportunity to throw some stuff on the board. I imagine it looked like I grew a wild one

In agreement with the original poster of this topic, I would myself hesitate to shoot a sasquatch out of fear of shooting some fellow in a gorilla suit. I think the only way I would feel comfortable would be to watch the subject for a while to look for any indication of realistic behavior and details unlikely to be faked. I imagine a sasquatch, if observed by an unoticed hunter, would move through the woods in a manner not unlike that of most other North American woodland animals. It might would walk slowly, constantly scanning the surroundings for movement and listening for any out of place noises. When a slight breeze blowed through, maybe it would flair its nostrils to take in the scent of whatever is watching it. Perhaps it might yawn like a baboon (revealing a mouth full of huge white [or yellow] teeth. Or maybe it might brush away mosquitos with its hands and flinch, indicating realistic muscle and eye movement in the face. Who knows. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I would have to observe whatever I was considering to shoot so that I would be sure what I was seeing was a living, breathing entity cosistant with the mannerisms of a wild animal and not a black or brown blob meandering through the woods trying to scare some campers.

As for the morality of shooting a bigfoot, for myself I do not see it as being wrong at all. Animals are NOT people too and a sasquatch is just as much an animal as anything else. If they are smart or just have really sharp senses, I do not know. But as the moderator stated, jack russel terriers are very smart, as are dolphins, chimps, ect. But they are not persons, just smart animals. The only issue with killing one might would be the viability of the species (say, supose there was only 10 sasquatch left in the whole world), in which shooting just one individual could harm the breeding population. However, it would be impossible to determine the viability of the species without first recognizing its existance so steps could be taken to begin research on the animals. Thus, conservation is a futile goal without first confirmed existance.

I just re-read the original topic, and I wanted to add something.

If I wounded a sasquatch, I wouldn't quit searching until I found the body or the injured animal, or until I lost its trail. I couldn't imagine shooting such an important specimen and then just saying "I can't find it, oh well. I'll try again next year." No leaf in the woods would be left unturned before I gave up. I'd round up every blood-hound and bulldog in the south and throw in the national guard and Columbo for good measure and have them comb the woods on their hands and knees with a magnifing glass before I gave up on that search.

Some VERY good points there Bullfrog. I've done alot of self-debating about shooting a bf. I have pictured it in my mind and tried to play it out. I've come to the conclusion that I don't think I could pull the trigger. Self protection aside, I don't think I could put the cross hairs on the animal and shoot it. Not necessarily because of the "man in the monkey suit" thing, but just because I'm still not sure enough of what these animal are. I don't think they are human, just the unknown
primate aspect would stop me, I think.

Those people who are pro-kill, I don't have anything against what they are trying to do. But, like you said, if they actively hunt for them, and ever are lucky enough to get a good clean shot at a bf, then they must exhaust all efforts to find and bring in the body.

Probably haven't gotten across what I mean but most days it's

I understand what you are saying Jaylee I think I feel the same way. I know it will probably have to be done to prove the existence but I don't think I could be the one to pull the trigger to do it.

Thanks for the positive comment about by post JayeeD. I understand what you are says too and I completely respect your stance. I don't think there is anything wrong with not being willing to kill a sasquatch. I'm an avid hunter but there are some animals I wouldn't be willing to shoot. Its just a matter of what you are comfortable with.

Good thoughts Bullfrog. I don't think that people should pull the trigger unless they are sure and are comfortable with the likely results. I don't know if I could pull a trigger either. If there is only ten percent of the reports being true or even five percent, there still must be a lot of sasquatch out there since not all seen are reported. (well, more than ten ) I have heard estimates of l000 and 6000 and even more.
If we can't verify a species how can we estimate a number?