Why is their only non-kill BF groups (boring)?

I should start a hard-core BF hunter killer group with lots of firepower and exotic equipment. Pre-operational training would be a blast. Just a thought.

my thoughts on it are like this lets say you do kill a bf way out in the woods how you going to get it out ok then you decide to take a hand or head for proof most people i talked to think they travel in small groups myself included well then you done made someone mad at you a big something mad at you and i dont want to be in the woods anywher near a po bigfoot exspecially if i got his or her mates hand or head in my back pack besides i dont think its rigght to kill one theres been a lot of people thats had there sights set on one an when they saw it it looked to human to pull the trigger

Your a bit late Tonga.

www.gcbro.com

On second thought, no your not. Theirs is still running around in the woods.

They do however claim to have shot one and collected a sample of blood and guts but no body so you still have time.

Pro-Kill groups are boring to those of us who aren't interested in hearing endless talk of calibre, load preferences and the one that got away.

If that is what you seek then you will surely find it.

Martin Grenfell

A lot of the folks on the Kiamichi board are pretty gung-ho about blasting a squatch. Of course, a lot of them seem to think that the squatch are hunting them at the same time.
http://s3.invisionfree.com/Kiamichi_Giants/index.php
It's also one of the first bigfoot forums I found, and I'll just say I'm glad I found the BFF not long afterwards.

I also hope you adjust your aim on poor Patty up there.

I say. Do what ever it takes to get one on the books,and make it legit once and for all.

The one big problem My friends and I have come up with in regards to killing a BF.
The animal right wackos; and the BF trolls/romantics will make(or try really hard ) that persons life a living hell.

I think bagging one may be worth the trouble,plus you will never be called a hoaxer by some bored schmuck who is retired and has crooked friends who like to write books.

OR just ask one in for your casual mouth swaub.

Medic said:



That would be nice but it ain't gonna be me who does it.

Martin Grenfell

Killing a Bigfoot will only answer a very small percentage of the questions. You say it will put the species on the books, and it's worth whatever it takes to do that. What if you are successful, and do manage to kill a Bigfoot, what will be the legal ramifications if it's found to be closely related to humans? Don't think for a minute there won't be some group somewhere that won't make the rest of your life a living hell trying to put you into prison for it. What if in the future we find they are our equals in advancement, except for technology. What if they have a language, religion, the same emotions, and dedication to family as we do, how will you handle that emotionally and psychologically?

As far as equpment is concerned, how much is enough? I see a few of you mentioned the 45-70 as being the rifle of choice, will it be enough? Don't take for granted that it will be. There was a post on here recently, by a member who claims to have a 45-70 with a high powered zoom scope. He gave the impression, that the high powered scope was for no matter how far away the Bigfoot was, he was going to place a hollow point round in the soft spot behind the ear. First of all a hollow point is a bad choice when shooting into heavily boned areas, it's designed for soft tissue damage like muscles. Secondly a 45-70 is not as accurate as some people think, and it's definately not a flat shooting firearm, there is a lot of bullet drop beyond 150 yards. A reputable online gun site, did a test on 45-70 ammunition, shot from a Marlin Lever Action Rifle, with a sand benchrest at a target 100 yards away. This method is much more accurate than someone simply holding the rifle to their shoulder and shooting. Firing 5 round groups, the hand-loaded rounds ranged from 2 1/2 to 4 1/2 inches from edge to edge of the group, and factory loads from 2 3/4 inches to 4 1/2 inches. Basically this tells us the bullet you fire, may hit up to 4 1/2 inches away from where you are aiming at 100 yards, and it gets worse as you get further away.

The last point is you are assuming where the kill zone is based on the physiology of other animals. We don't know where the actual kill zone is, since we don't have a Bigfoot to study, yet. You assume he has 2 large multilobed lungs, that would be a kill zone, how do you know he doesn't have 50 single lobed lungs, and destroying up to 1/2 of them would still not result in it's death. You assume he has a heart and assume the location is the lower center slightly offset to left. What if he has multiple hearts, or they(it) are(is) carried in another location. A worm has 7 hearts, a cow 4 stomachs, multiple organs are not impossible.

"The animal right wackos"

I believe in animal rights, so I'm a wacko?

In some people's eyes, yes. Not in mine.

I wish people wouldn't slip in the little political jabs, but i do it too sometimes.. Can't help it

Not all those who hunt are gun wielding redneck drunks shooting at road signs and across roads. Not all those who believe in 'animal rights' are tree-hugging, mink-releasing, blood-tossing extremists.

And, that about says it all. Thanks Bipto.

Agreed, Bipto. I for one believe animals should be given respect, and I support animal rights. I've also killed something to survive, I ate the being (no it was not a sasquatch) and fed my family. I also prayed for the being, and asked for forgiveness. It is not nor should be a careless act. But what would benefit a person to kill a sasquatch? Scientific progress? Don't we have enough apes being injected with aids? The discovery of a new species and possible relation to humans? Well, if you kill one, it still has not been observed while it was alive to answer the questions Moregon asked as to intelligence, family values, love, etc. Look at the red tape clogging our system now, look at the environmental issues still in debate. Do you really think finding a human relation in the wilderness is going to stop population growth and urban sprawl blight? We can't live peacefully or reasonably with the known humans now! As for money, since a sasquatch has never been killed or caught you'd have a better chance of winning the lottery. I've heard people tout that it is necesary to kill one to protect the species, which makes no sense. You kill one, claim your millions of dollars, then tell others they cannot do the same. "Do as I say, not as I do".

The pro-kill/anti-kill guys will never see eye to eye on this. I think one should be taken as a type specimen. Without that, the animal will never be proven to exist, and ironically, protected. I know others would rather we take a different approach, but seeing where we are now in regards to proving this thing, I'd say a type specimen is required.

Not at all, but just because YOU uphold the law doesn't mean ALL people do. I'm guessing Medic was referring to these 'wackos':









Here's a list of animal rights groups, and though the vast majority might not fit the definition of 'wackos', there ARE a couple groups that DO engage in illegal activities. I can understand the suspicion that these 'wacko' groups could target someone who successfully bagged a bigfoot.

Personally, I could not shoot a bigfoot, but I strongly believe a dead body is the only form of absolute proof that will be accepted by science.

RayG

Brian,
I agree a body is needed but for scientific reasons. I don't think it is needed to give someone the joy of killing something.
I feel a distaste for Tongo's obvious enthusiasm for guns and (by extension) killing. If you look at his avatar - a scene from what looks like the movie Predator, blasting away - and his posts which more often than not include pictures of guns, bullets, etc - it gives me the impression of immaturity.
I don't know where he is coming from but I can tell you my reaction is not one of confidence in his judgement.
The last place I would want to be is in the woods when he or DOC is out there.
I think the body is needed and should be taken by someone who does it calmly, with regret. Someone who is prepared to kill, not for fun, but for science and the study of the species.
Jan

How exactly would the discovery of sasquatch benefit science? How would killing one protect the rest?

Aw, man. Here we go again...

The arguments have been made again and again. If you don't think one should be killed for the scientific value/validation, then you don't think it and nothing I say will change your mind. However, as John Green said, if you'd rather that never happen, you should get out of the 'field' immediately and forget about bigfoot (and hope everyone else does, too).

This is a real animal, and as such, it will be studied some day in a laboratory on a slab. Every other animal known to man has and so will this one, eventually.

Ray, what's the point? Yeah, some animal's rights groups go too far. So do some hunters. Want to do a Google seach for stories on careless/stupid/malicious hunters?

I'm not taking sides in this one. Just saying every group has it's extreme ends.

Oh I know there's some animal rights people who defy common sense or rational reasoning, likewise I know the mentality and ways of the average hunter in this area, o the beartown wilderness, and it would not paint a flattering image of hunters overall if I were to label all hunters according to those people.
But I'm not writing anything most people on here don't already know of course. I just know we certainly feel it's a shame when the bigfoot community is labled according to the most extreme or some of the more whacko people in the bigfoot community.

You mean someday we will have Bigfoot terrorists?

Once Sassy is proven to exist, yes! These people will terrorize people who would wish to do Sassy harm. Like eco-terrorists they will put 'other's' lives in danger for their 15 minutes of fame. Their main foes will be the Bigfoot Pro-Kills!

Then, I hope that Bigfoot is never found! Then the world would be safe !

Obviously, you've never heard of the Chupacabra Commandoes?

I just wonder why conversations like this break down to comparing hunters with animal rights activists? I don't see the comparison at all.

Don't shoot at something you can't identify, don't short change mother nature's capabilities, and don't be overconfident in your understanding of ourselves.....you may actually be deficient.

As far as having a type specimen to satisfy the need for science to have one for classification purposes, I fully agree. What I don't agree with is the manner in which we go about getting that specimen. I propose we find a group or individual bigfoot to observe and study first. Once it is located, I'm sure there will be no shortage of researchers to maintain a 24 hour, 7 day a week observation of it (them). Sooner or later one of them has to die a natural death, or die from an accident. Since someone will be there, as a researcher, when this happens, a special team could go in and recover the body before the others in the group are able to bury it, if that's in fact what they do. Then the needs of the scientific community will be met, and the no-kill group will be satisfied. You'll also have countless hours of data to answer some of the questions I posed in the other post.

This is a creature some of us have already spent years and years looking for, what is the urgency to have a dead body? So what if we have to spend another 20 years just in an observation and study mode until one dies naturally? Doing so will only add to the discovery, not detract as a let's kill now attitude would do.

Except when they are.

What he said!

Well said Moregon, without Jane Goodall's observations we would know very little about chimpanzee behaviour. Same with Diane Fossey and gorillas. Both were considered romantics by the scientific community, both brought methods that were classified as unscientific at the time. They also believed in animal rights (I don't mean the extremists) as well as the fact you can learn a great deal more about the animals by observation instead of killing. If either had killed the animals they studied they would've set back their research by decades.

Considering John Green's stance on kill/no kill, since he's been working in the field for 46 years and has yet to have a sasquatch body on a slab, "immediately" may be a very long time. However, Mr. Green has changed his opinion, at least at this time:
http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/BODYCAST/green_statement.asp

I'm quite sure John Green has not changed his views on the need for a body.

John Green's quote:
"For more than 40 years I have held the opinion that science can not be convinced of the existence of sasquatches by anything less than physical remains. I have now changed my opinion. I think the Skookum cast can do it, provided that enough influential zoologosts, mammalogists, anatomists, primatologists, etc. will take a serious look at it."

I don't think he said that no body is needed... just that the skookum cast should be enough for science "provided that enough influential zoologosts, mammalogists, anatomists, primatologists, etc. will take a serious look at it."

I think what he said was..""For more than 40 years I have held the opinion that science can not be convinced of the existence of sasquatches by anything less than physical remains. I have now changed my opinion."
Sounds to me like he changed his opinion!

True, but does that somehow justify actively hunting them down?
"Savages" were actively hunted a couple hundred years ago, we now know how deficient our understanding of ourselves was then........is that a logical path to hop back on for hunting these "monsters"?

Prove he's not you or me, then kill him.

And the most influential primatologist would be Jane Goodall? Jane Goodall=no kill.

And what is Goodall's opinion of the Skookum cast? Has she seen it? I haven't heard that she has. Have you?

Ya think GC? You have it qouted there twice.
What I was trying to do was paraphrase what I thiought he was trying to say. I still don't see where he says it is no longer necessary only that the cast should be enough to change peoples mind if enough of the right people would look at it.

Yes. I know it was quoted twice..to make the point that 'exactly' what he said was very 'clear and precise' in the words that he chose.
Physical remains..either left on the ground because of a hunter's bullet, or left on the ground from a deadly accident, or from old age, or from disease..or whatever..will be no longer necessary to persuade the scientific community, if the Skoocum Cast can do it instead.
Ergo...a body is no longer necessary to prove the existence of Bigfoot, providing the above conditions are met!

John Green, in September 2003 at the symposium in Bluff Creek, said a body is what we need. His opinion remains consistent.

Be that as it may, what Green thinks or I think or anyone on this forum thinks is immaterial. Without a body, the animal does not exist to the vast majority of the world.

[EDIT] And not to put too fine a point on it, while the Skookum cast is a fantastic piece of evidence, the fact that bigfoot still does not exist in any of today's high school biology texts pretty much sums up its impact on the world.

Sadly, I fear that this is true!
In order to live..Bigfoot has to die!
...or at least come in and give himself up peacefully!

Green said the S cast "can" do it, not that it "will" do it. It hasn't done "it" yet. Maybe it's viewed {by the larger scientific community-who probably haven't seen it anyway} as no more evidence than a foot casting.

I give up GC.... You tell me...did he change his stance that a body is needed or not?... or did you change your mind?
I'm all confuzeled.

Obviously, from his own words, he did change his stance, BD. And no, I did not change mine. Why would he say that he changed his opinion if he hadn't?

OK.... John Green has stated that science needs a body to prove to science that this creature exists. My interpretation of the qoute is, IF the relevant people would study the cast a body would not be necessary.
I guess the only way to know for sure would be to ask him directly, but I didn't see where he said that a body was no longer needed in any way shape or form. I saw no real change of stance, only that he was stating what he thought of the quality of the evidence that the Skookum cast represented.

"I just wonder why conversations like this break down to comparing hunters with animal rights activists? I don't see the comparison at all."

Personally I brought it up at 1st simply because I thought there was a lot of liberty used in labeling animal rights people as wackos. I wasn't offened by it, just thought it might be warranted to consider being more discreet considering that a lot, not everyone, but a lot of people on the no kill side, while not extreme activists, might lable themselves animal lovers.
That said, I do tend to also believe that most pro kill people are hunters.
Pro kill would be hunters of bigfoot, no?
The no kill side would see it as the animal, bigfoot, having rights, and be against it's harm.

I totally agree with you B.D!
But to me..when someone says that Johyn Green said this...and I look it up and that is exactly what he said, then I have to agree with that person.
You see to me it would have been better if Mr. Green said.."I will change my opinion, if....
When in actuality he said.."I have changed my opinion..."
Am I beating this thing with the 'semantic' stick.? .propbably...but I hate putting words into peoples mouths! I can only go by their printed word in this medium.
I am truly not trying to be obtuse here!
We agree on the meaning of the message..but not on the wording!

Chronic,

Given your position on this, I've got a couple of questions:

1) In lieu of a body, what evidence would you take as conclusive that sasquatch were or were not human? I imagine that there must be some piece of evidence you would find compelling besides a body, or you've got a catch-22. I'm not trying to be a smart-alec here. I just don't know if anyone has ever asked this question of you, or if you have ever said it anywhere.

2) What known species (or genera), extinct or not, do you consider human? I'm looking for where your evolutionary cut-off is.

Thanks.

Nor do I.

I agree with Medic though,



If we consider that the most likely senario involves a hunter actually shooting one, and given that a small portion of animal rights groups engage in firebombing and other harassment techniques, I wouldn't be surprised if the person who kills a bf is subjected to that harassment.

RayG

We might ask the same for any other undiscovered species.



It might not, but unless I'm mistaken only Skamania county has any formal law regarding the protection of bigfoot. I think we'd probably see a dramatic increase in the counties passing protection laws if bigfoot were truly proven to exist.

RayG

I support both sides of the issue.

Personally, I'm no-kill; could not and would not kill one.

I'm no-kill, yet I'm not an animal rights supporter. Do I like animals? Sure do. Not just the cute cuddly ones either.

On the other hand, I'm pro-kill. The only way to absolutely solve this mystery of bigfoot, is to produce a dead body.

I'm pro-kill, yet I don't hunt. (Haven't touched a rifle for hunting purposes in over 25 years.)

RayG

Lets think about the legality part.
Excluding those who have seen a BF; and possibly for those who have seen non hoaxed tracks and other compelling physical evidence of a possible BF.
In the eyes of the world this is a mythical animal. Without a body to prove existance.We may as well be looking for unicorns.

The world would be rocked off it's comfy foundation when a BF body is laid out for all to see.
The guy or gal who does that IS NOT GOING TO JAIL. I will bet my eyes on that.

"The world would be rocked off it's comfy foundation when a BF body is laid out for all to see"

As I said in the chat room last week, in my honest opinion, the bigfoot community is the only group of people that would be rocked off of their foundation.
In my honest opinion, the world would ooo and ahh for about 2 weeks, the average person might ooh and ahh for about as long as it would be before their mind got their priorities back and refocused on britney, the latest gossip, or the latest witch hunt martha stewart style case.