I'm curious about this, because it seems that a lot of us here are pro-kill, myself included. For the most part, i think this is because we want to force capital 'S' Science to take Sasquatch research seriously, and also to protect the species as a whole. I don't want to start another kill vs. no-kill debate here, but I was curious to know, out of the pro-kill field researchers here, how many are actually taking it upon themselves to bring in the body, or how many are just hoping a body will be brought in, but by somebody else. This isn't meant to put down those who don't carry a big game rifle and six hand grenades whenever they go into the woods ( ) - i know I woludn't if i ever got a chance to do field research.. i'd probably fire the wrong end of the gun and earn a Darwin award. I just want to get a more detailed idea of the demographics, and also our chances of an actual, active pro-kill researcher bringing a specimen in.

I also included choices that hopefully will accomodate everyone else who is here. For the record, i'm an armchair researcher with a pro-kill philosophy.

-robo

I Would love to find a body while in the field.

My .45 cal pistol, while intended for defence only.Could possibly take one out if needed. In close quater shooting can hit my target just fine.
But I havent tried it while taking a crap in My pants. Which is possible since I have yet to see one,Let alone up close and personal.

I'm a field researcher, pro-kill, and I do carry firearms with sufficient power.

I chose door # 4. I may be a little off.(well ok maybe a lot) but I'm not sure how good my chances of taking down a Bf with a dive knife are....maybe I can just cut off a lock of hair ?

Does the choice of Field Researcher mean I am not an enthusiast? I am about as much an enthusiast as a field researcher. I have to pick one over the other? Damn.

I guess I have to pick field researcher as I do go to the field on occasion. Just dont have any worthless photos to prove it.

But I am Pro Kill, but dont pack the heat to do it. I am not out to bag one, but if I find one and can study it in legth and be able to locate them. I would get some folks together and have it either drugged and captured, at least enough to get some awesome photos and video while it is down. But if someone puts a large caliber slug into it, its fine with me.


I picked #4. I only carry a 9mm, mainly for the other bipedal predators. I borrow a .44 sometimes, but mainly for the hogs. But if a BF jumped at me, I guess I would ventilate it.

I'd kill one with my Barcalounger!

I voted Armchair all the way and pro-kill. We take a glock with us when we camp way out in boonies and if one did the old scream and yell and throw rock bit we might take a shot IF we had a shot. That situation is 1 on million probably but we would do our part if we could.

ok, actually you didn't have enough choices, although i voted feild researcher, anti-kill, but i am also a little arm chair researcher too, i hope to find a body without having to kill one, the only way i would kill one is through self-defence, i know and respect several people who are pro-kill, myself i don't own a gun, so i don't have the power to kill, so all in all, that was a hard vote for me.....

Interesting responses so far. I think, for simplicity's sake, that if you go into a remote area for the express purpose of looking for Sasquatch more than once a year, you count as a field researcher. The closest i get to studying Sasquatch in the field is seeing the hairy guy with the gut in the filthy tank top holding a Bud standing in my apartment building's lobby, who people tell me is the super. You get the idea.

I got to say that the pro kill motive of protecting the species is often given but I just can't see it. If they are proven to exist by killing them, they will be minus at least one bigfoot and I think their population is obviously endangered to the point that one is probably a lot. If they are not proven to exist, how could that hurt them. If they are proven to exist, then I think it is quite likely they would be hunted even more. Additional specimens would be sought but they would be more confident and would be more financially backed. Bounties would be paid by some looking for trophies. Zoo's would certainly want specimens. I want them proven for "S"cience but I don't really see how bigfoot is going to benifit in the process. Just my humble opinion.

Seen whats happening all over the country with development ? More people equals more space needed.Suburbs are growing at an astonishing rate.More resources consumed to accomidate that growth.At the current rate of development ,proving them may indeed be the only way to save them.

Voted #2. Pro-kill. Mostly armchair but we do get out in the field, not as much as we used to, but thats about to change. My husband carries a 1942 mouser sniper rifle. He saw one back in the 70's and has allways said if he ever gets the chance to ever see one again, it will be proven. He had talked about the tranquilizing method but would hate to be around it the s.o.b. woke up.

That's Mauser--I hope!!

No, she meant "mouser". It's a very, very small rifle!

Armchair, pro-kill(until one is actually done in).

Crap, can't spell again. Mauser. Then again, I had him spell it for me. It's his buddy, not mine. I've tried it in target practice and the shoulder just can't take it, lol.

by the way robo, love that avator, its so cool!!!!!!!!

Yeah. What the hottie in the pink bikini said.

The only difference is that I do own enough guns to keep the local police department at bay until the S.W.A.T. team arrives.

Cool avatar..
But, I have to ask this(and not trying to stir up anythig here...)
What happend to the "Admited Hoaxer" title?
I thought it was supposed to stick with Robo for all time, just to keep him, and others thinking the maybe they could pull one over on us again..honest?

Oh..and for the record.
I am, I suppose, now a field researcher(have gone into the field on several occasions, and working on some other things), but still consider myelf more of a "curious investigator"...and am Neutral kill.
Have nothing against those who are pro, and am certainly not anti, but have no plans on doing the deed myself(although I do often cary a weapon sufficient for the job into the field.).
So, I guess you could call me a pro-kill field researcher who caries a weapon sufficient for the job, but has no plans on useing it..

You could use the term of 'Practical Kill' then.

You have no intention of actively searching out a Sasquatch to shoot, but if one presents itself as a danger to you, you could bring it down. Is that right?

I vote ... noneya.



Robert

That about covers it.

Anytime I go into the woods I carry a 12 gauge with 3 1/2 inch mags.But if I did happen across a SAS,I'd do everything in my power not to shoot.. Although when I first came here I could'nt understand why anyone whould shoot a SASSY for any reason,I even called those who thought about it money snacthers.I was wrong for the most part I'm sure there are some who would do it just for the money,but not someone with a little logic about them.I guess what I'm trying to say is you do it the way you feel best about it, nobodies wrong until someones right.

While I did vote that I was a field researcher I'd like to point out that I am also an armchair researcher. I find that the armchair role helps me out greatly while in the field. I also voted No-kill. I dont hold anything against those that are pro-kill though. I just think they are a little crazy. I cant imagine being up close and personal with a BF and then pulling the trigger. That is a very scary thought to me. While some may disagree, I still feel that good video would be enough to get science to do something. My feelings were reinforced recently when I watched a program on National Geographic. I wish I could remember more but here is the gist of it: Some biologists were off in some rainforest looking for some types of animals. They caught an animal in a live trap. I'm pretty sure they got some video of it. They then let the animal go, not knowing, at the time, that it was a newly discovered animal. Upon returning to the states, they discovered that it was never before examined. So then they had to return to the area, find the animal again (not an easy task), and take measurements, blood samples and such. My point being that once they knew the animal existed, then they took on the responsibility of documenting it. They didnt have a specimen at first but they had enough evidence that it existed so they made it a priority to go get a specimen. The same could be done for a BF. If enough evidence could be gotten to show that they existed, enough to satisfy science anyway, then they can take on the responsibility to go get the specimen. I think it would be easier to video a BF than to kill one and bring in the body. And a whole lot safer too!

Well thanks alot, Angie.

I've gone all these years without anybody finding out, but I knew someone would discover it someday.

Yeah, don't worry about it Angie. I think the anti-kill crowd is a little crazy, too.

Ah ha ! I knew it all along. :rolleyes: The whole damn bigfoot community is crazy
peg

I'm not sure where I stand on this issue. Next summer, a couple of friends and I are going out into the field serching for the big guy, and all I really want to do is hopefully catch a glimpse of him just so I can prove to myself that he DOES exist. If we can get some pictures, film, and/or audio then that's great too. (I know the chances are real slim, I'm just being optimistic.) Now I'm starting to wonder whether or not I should bring a gun with me. While it's all fine and good to prove this to myself, wouldn't it be great to prove it to the world in the process...?

That is right where I really am at this point..although, I am interested in pursuing it further through photo/video or other evidence, if the opportunity presents itself.
I am NOT at all interested in shooting one..I cary a fairly potent firearm for protection only..mainly from bears.
Even if one stood looking at me from just feet away..unless it charged and caried the charge to within a few feet, I would never shoot.
However..I am not opposed to someone else making another decision, that is just mine.

I am pro kill to a point. I think the only way science will ever come forward and admit there is something out there is if there is a body.
I haven't done that much snooping around in the woods looking for BF. But I do own weapons that are capable of taking one out.
Would I actually pull the trigger on one? Yea I think I would. I hunt a good bit and I tend to think if I saw one and had a good shot I would take it.

I guess that pretty much to a point.

Nightwing, I think I'm with you on this one. Carrying a gun for protection from bears ain't a bad idea now that I think about it. I don't think I'd ever feel tempted to shoot a Sasquatch though... In th doubtful situation that he was attacking, I'd probably run away!

I'm new here, but thought I'd chime in on this. I'm basically "not anti kill", in that I think it's a little unsettling to go out hunting for BF, (if you can get a good shot, you can get a good photo, it seems to me) but it wouldn't bother me in the least if one were shot. The immediate thunderclap of an actual body would do so much scientific good that the loss of a single individual to the population would be immaterial. And frankly, if one individual's death is enough to seriously endanger the population, then it's such a tenuous population that it's basically extinct already. In this case, it becomes even MORE important for science to obtain a specimen before it rots and turns into topsoil.

Weapons - I wouldn't want to trust my life to any handgun. Most of these hand cannons get their inflated energy figures from their velocity, not their actual bullet weight. This is an animal about the size and muscle mass of a medium sized grizzly, and although people do hunt grizzlies with handguns, they always have a hunter with a real rifle backing them up. I'm thinking a .35 Whelen or a .375 would be the ticket. Killing a big animal is one thing. STOPPING it in its tracks is quite another. If I was going to shoot the thing, I would want it dead, fast. And in the words of Renee Dahinden, "Reload."

One thing I would not want to do is dart it. Unprovoked, they seem to be peacuful. Angry, attacked, frightened, it could be a whole 'nother ballgame. I'd sure hate to be climbing the nearest tree, wetting my pants, waiting for the PCP to take effect while his hollering summons his friends and family to help out. Then I'd be part of the topsoil, I bet.

Cheers
HD
Tennessee

Good point. I'm even thinking it might be worthy of inclusion in Favorite Quotes, except that so far people haven't posted contentious quotes in there, and I wouldn't want to change its character by inciting people to start to submit Dueling Quotes. Maybe I should start a Contentious Quotes thread? Maybe someone else should do this who has a lot of contentious quotes at his fingertips, so it can get started off with a bang.

BTW, HD, one point I've made recently in favor of pro-kill that you may not have seen is that once BF is validated, then a massive project could/would be funded to save the almas, which seems to be going extinct.

I am pro kill thats the only real way to end this whole debate and get main stream science on board I do alot of field work , more than 10 times a year I am out in the woods of bluff creek area and other places and I do carry a 45 with me and I would only shoot if I knew I could kill it I dont want to wing it once and have an ijured and pissed off sasquatch roaming around looking for the nexy poor backpacker that comes along to hit in the head with a big rock.

If you only have Adam and Eve and you shoot Adam, how does that benefit a 'tenuous population'? I would think just the opposite.

The point is, if one specimin makes that big of a difference in the survival a the species, then the species is already doomed. Adam and Eve make a great parable, but in today's world two animals do not a viable species make.

I carry a .444 Marlin /w/ 305 gr. Flat Point Penetrators.

My back-up is a 12 guage shotgun /w/ .00 buckshot.