The quote in question :
"The TBRC investigator fired upon the animal with an auto-loading shotgun in an attempt to collect a specimen. The creature ran off and no blood was found before the loss of daylight. Additional teams returned to the area in the following days to continue the search for evidence. Stones with apparent blood stains were subsequently discovered a short distance east of the original sighting location in the dry creek bed that is adjacent to the cabins. Several, but not all, of the rocks were collected. Another team was sent to collect the remaining rocks, but a hard rainfall took place on the day of their arrival, and the team was unable to locate any more of the rocks."
It seems that this is not the first Bigfoot creature the TBRC has shot at. It seems that these 'conservationists' want to kill a Sasquatch as the ultimate piece of "scientific evidence" and they should be villified for this.
But they are not the first. John Green is a Sasquatch researcher/investigator whose works are highly recommended and some of the best found outside of Sanderson's book. In Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us, Green asks: "Should they (Sasquatch) be hunted for scientific purposes? Definitely yes..they will have to be , and study will have to include dissection...sasquatches are not available for study without killing them." (pp. 462 and 463).
Green's opinion is that the Sasquatch is an animal. And Ape. In his book he seems rather annoyed that there is "public objection to the killing of any of the great apes for research purposes (which) has risen to the point where projects involving it are not approved, even though there are sufficient animals available." (p. 463). Even at that time I could not believe Green had written that. It shows a total lack of knowledge pertaining to Great Apes, their environments, populations and the delicate balance of these populations.
But Green can be seen in interviews in which he is quite clear that these Sasquatch are American Great Apes and that apes are okay to kill for study. At this point I lose respect for the man if not his research.
In the Society for the Investigation of The Unexplaineds Autumn, 1980, issue of Pursuit, Dmitri Bayanov, Chairman of the Hominoid Research Seminar, Darwin Museum, Moscow, took Green to task. In "Why It Is Not Right To Kill A Gentle Giant" Bayanov made his arguements quite clear and stated that it was most definitely wrong to try to kill as Sasquatch. In the brief correspondence I had with Bayanov he made it clear that Green maintained the stance.
In January, 1973, the late George F. Haas published his paper The Present State Of Bigfoot, a copy of which he sent to me a little later, Haas states (p.3):
"It would be nice to have a body for examination and dissection and it is fully realized that until such is available the actual existence of the creatures cannot be scientifically determined. Some investigators sincerely and honestly advocate that a body be brought in for the benefit of science but we feel strongly that there can be no justification whatever for killing one of the creatures for that purpose. It is to be hoped that such a scientific examination could wait until the body of one that has died naturally, or been killed by accident, has been found. Sooner or later that will happen."
Now, there are certain problems here. Firstly, 1973 and 1980 was a period when there was no DNA testing. Secondly, if -if- these creatures do exist, we have no idea about population numbers. Kill a Sasquatch and you might be killing one of the vital males or females in a breeding group. This could lead to a major threat to any population.
Things have changed considerably over the decades. For instance, we have DNA so that hairs (also open to many other forms of testing), scat, blood and other material can be tested. There are very many methods of gathering hair and, though a bit more limited, getting blood samples (see Monster Quest Sasquatch Attack and material found at Snellgrove Lake).
There are infra red/night vision and general types of trail-cams that can be used and a combination of these set up in a wide area might very well produce good footage (again, Snellgrove seems an ideal locale).
Analysis of footprints is, today, very advanced. Checks can be made for dermal ridging and Dr. Meldrum has proven that there are good physical comparisons between prints from around the US/Canada and even China. We can tell a great deal from footprints now.
Analysis of video footage cannot be analysed just by experienced film-makers/videographers but the movements of alleged Sasquatch creatures can be analysed and attempts to copy said movements made. If we look at the Patterson-Gimlin footage we see a perfect example. Over 40 years technology has taken this shaky footage to the point where a leg muscle injury can be seen, where accurate assessment of size and so on made and, above all, it shows the unique way that "Patty" walked. The late Grover Krantz studied this and noted that a man could not walk as shown. Big laugh. Now the method of walking has been tested using a tall athlete and it has been found that a man ..cannot walk that way.
Arguements used by detractors of the "Patty" footage seem, at best dumb or desperate.
At one point, if asked what I thought, I said the film was a "bad hoax". My opinion has now been altered due to all the scientific analysis carried out.
A body of a sasquatch found...not likely. Chimpanzees have been seen to comfort and take care of sick/dying members of their group and even use leaves to bury a body. Sasquatch are assumed to be more intelligent than chimps in their behaviour and tests carried out in typical sasquatch country to see how fast a deer can decompose/be disposed of found that it happens about 50% faster than was thought.
Scientific researchers have looked not just at habitat but food sources as well as possible Sasquatch "nests" so that we know, based on eye-witness reports and our own experiences, what the creatures eat. The detractors always state that "there is never any bedding area found"/"There is no food for a primate to survive on" which, being honest, is pure bilge. Those people have not studied cases or the literature and to a man/woman they all admit to not having gone on any expeditions or studies. So, can I say here and now that their opinions do not count on the subject.
The average member of the public does not know about all the research being carried out just the "silly season" jokes -though I've not seen a Bigfoot/Sasquatch report on tv news or in the press in the UK for a very long time.
If it was discovered that the Thylacine did exist in a relic population somewhere would scientists, who never studied live specimens, insist that one be shot for "scientific purposes"? No. The animal is protected.
If the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy group is planning to "bring in a corpse" they should -must- be condemned and I'm quite sure that supporters withdrawing financial assistance and a boycott of any TBRC fund raising items ought to make them think again.
Killing any animal so you can stamp your foot and cock-a-snoop and say "See -I was right!" is unacceptable. Like the BFRO, I am afraid that the TBRC has lost its credibility for me.
Email the TBRC and say "NO KILLING"