Total Pageviews

Tuesday, 20 December 2011

On The Scientific 'Need' To Kill A Sasquatch

There is a point I need to make, yet again, and this time sparked off by Thomas Steenburgs book that I just reviewed on this blog.

I do totally and utterly disagree with some of Steenburgs final words:

"I sometimes wonder if those who are against the shooting of a sasquatch really want to see this mystery solved at all. After all, if the creature is proven to be real, then the puzzle will be over."


Steenburg notes that in his spare time he became a hunter. Not of Sasquatch but "game". So, the idea of shooting and killing a Sasquatch to solve a "puzzle" is no big deal to him, though he does point out that killing a "bunch of them" isn't a good idea.

The idea that "science" must be satisfied is an utter nonsense in todays world. There are many new primate species discovered that have not been killed (sadly some have but by native hunters -the ramifications if it ever turned out that some biologist or other person had said "get me a dead one and I'll make it worth your while" well...).  Good photographs of new bird and mammal species and even formerly thought of as extinct species has proven good enough. Collect feather samples, droppings, hairs, etc., for testing as well as game trail camera and video footage.  Case proved.


I've outlined previously a good, adaptable, way of going about this with Sasquatch. A combination of still photographs/video footage, hair samples and even (if possible) faeces and footprints of any animal means its there and alive.  Do research and learn how many newly discovered species then become endangered or "at risk" because they have been scientifically proven to exist.


This is the 21st century. To say that a bunch of people sat on their arses in laboratories or universities, even museums, must  be given a body to satisfy them is nonsense.  I've seen and met these people who have knowledge on the subject based on TV programmes, the odd magazine article or lousy website they just checked on. "No such thing" they say.  Well, prove it. Carry out a year long study, talk to witnesses and go out and do field research -that is what science is about. "No. We don't need to -it doesn't exist" they reply. These are NOT scientists and deserve no respect let alone a sacrifice to them.


There is enough research work carried out by John Green and many others showing that these creatures have food sources and huge geographic areas to wander and live in.  So they can survive.  Work carried out on genuine Sasquatch plaster casts has shown dermal ridges and other features beyong hoaxers -we can even estimate weight, etc.. 

Scientifically minded individuals who have gone out into the field have heard vocalisations (scientifically tested and pronounced "unknown"), they have found the Sasquatch "nests" and heard the stone and wood-knocking that shows these creatures have some intelligence.  On two occasions I have seen recorded for tv (Snellgrove, etc.) the reactions of these persons as large stones are thrown at them from out of the forestry.  There is that look, yes, some of them may have believed Sasquatch was real and done the lab work, but getting stones thrown at you from forestry is unexplainable and a kick of reality to the ass.  Unless, of course, some Grizzly has woken up early from hibernation and decided to practice its baseball throwing?

What is the Sasquatch population? we have absolutely no idea.  They could be hanging on by a thread as far as existence as a species is concerned. Look at it this way: a mother Sasquatch has young and has to feed them solid food and train them how to forrage. 

She is out alone, grubbing around and a hunter sees her. Every hunter we know of has never fired at a Sasquatch because it looks humanlike but say the hunter spotting the female thinks "Goddam. I shoot this one I'll be world famous and my financial problems will be over -I'll have proven these things exist!"

Bang.

Dead Sasquatch.  Science has its proof and some young Sasquatch either die through starvation or get predated upon by a bear or even puma. With one shot a vital family group can be wiped out -it's happened with other wild species just this way.  As far as we know Sasquatch may even be borderline panda-like in its mating -and we know how well that's gone for them.

Steenburg notes (252):

"The town of Cobalt, Ontario, had a creature in their area for years.  Locals gave it the name Old Yellow Top because it had a streak of light-coloured hair on the top of its head.  It was around from the late 1950s through the 1960s.  The last reported sighting of Old Yellow Top occurred in 1970..."

An animal tends to keep within its own territory and this may be applicable to Sasquatch, though some suggest there may be yearly migrations, that said Chimpanzees and Gorillas tend to inhabit one area but do move around though not long migrations.  I think it safe to consider that Sasquatch may do like-wise. A suggested trek from Canada, through the US and down into Florida for instance does not seem likely.  Any animal knows its local food sources, watering holes and places of safety and though they may wander around a huge territory it is unlikely they migrate. 

Though there is the suggestion, from reports, that Sasquatch might live in family groups we have no idea whether this is a permanent thing or restricted to mating and rearing of young only.

So, if we take it that, factually, we have no idea regarding breeding or population size, then shooting and killing for 'proof' is out of the question. In wildlife research we depend on eye-witness observation of individuals and/or family packs/groups, knowledge we already have on the animal, faeces, hairs and even paw/hoof prints to study.  We do not go all hissy and demand something is killed so that we can be satisfied an observer is telling the truth.

There are cases on record of individuals being chased or, in their opinions, warned off by Sasquatch (for whatever reason).  "Chases" are usually half-hearted with observers stating that the way the creature moved was so fast it could have caught them at any time -but didn't.  Now, let's say that a hunter gets into this situation but knows nothing about Sasquatch -heck, he probably laughed hysterically over his beer every time someone mentioned seeing Sasquatch- and does what he would do naturally if a Grizzly was charging him: aims and fires his rifle.

What does he do if he kills it.  Most observers state the Sasquatch looks "almost human" or even "Orang Utan-like" (and they can look quite human).  If he has any intelligence then he has a major problem.  Yes, he has proof that these things are real and there's money in this. But then it hits him: can he be charged with killing a Sasquatch? If he fobs it off as "I've provided scientific proof at last" what would happen if those scientists prove it near or almost human?  Is that murder?  Will he be targetted for the rest of his life by "tree-huggers"?  Will someone try to kill him in revenge?

Best to just leave the body and let nature take its course.  In a month there won't be anything left to be stumbled upon and "dead Sasquatch!" shouted around the world -they did a bullet in the remains...

But then we have hunters who have levelled their rifles at the backs or fronts of Sasquatch. What if they actually pulled the trigger and then realised what they have done?

Same situation as "self defence" shooting.

It is a topic you can debate for hours.

The thing is that this may have happened more than once over the last century and that hunter never went into the woods again and never offered a really good reason why.  Self Defence or simple 'sport' killing it is still the death of a creature that could be vital to a population. I'm glad certain areas have legislature or are looking at such to protect these animals rather than issuing proclamations like "Hey , we wanna prove we got Sasquatch: $10,000 to whoever brings a genuine one in for study!"

You want people to stop saying "You've wasted your life, man -they don't exist!" then go all out to gather the evidence but don't even think about killing a creature to prove it. Leave the population to continue and think of the best ways to prove your case -a miniature transponder fitted into a dart that can penetrate or stick to a Sasquatch so you can follow it , .22 slugs have allegedly been fired into Sasquatch with no noticable affect so a dart implanting a tracker, even if only in thick skin is no problem.

There are other ways -some including transponders placed inside food.  Sasquatch want to steal from a cabin then hang your salmon/meat up outside with the transponder in it.  Yes, after a few days it'll be passed through the Sasquatch digestive system BUT you'll have tracked/plotted its route for a while and the device will lead you to Sasquatch faeces!

I would genuinely sooner let Sasquatch remain a "mystery" than prove it existed with a body and all that entailed. Let the Sasquatch hunters/scientists stamp their feet.  Why should we, as humans, demand that any species be killed just so that we can say "I told you so"?

It is definitely wrong to demand a body -if a trucker or motorist hits and kills one okay. That is an accident but hoping that one is killed that way so you can have a clear conscience...?


No comments:

Post a Comment