Editorial Note: This is a special point/counterpoint debate from two associates within SRI. The beautiful thing about an initiative like SRI is that we work together despite disagreements. We believe that debates have their place, but should not interfere with the overall mission of documentation and discovery. The editorial staff at SRI wants to make clear that SRI has no stance on the kill/no kill issue. SRI is an association of independent researchers. Obviously, our views on many issues may vary. The following is presented as an example of those varying views on a subject that has been quite divisive within the bigfoot world. This debate is ongoing with respectable researchers on both sides. It is likely that it will never be resolved. With that in mind, enjoy this point/counterpoint debate.

POINT - Comments by Corey:

“To shoot or not to shoot.” That is a tough one. I have been over this one time and again, but still have no clear answer. Might it be the last one of its kind? Could the subject that you have removed be vital to a certain area population? Would bagging one be a guarantee that laws would be enacted to protect them? Could you become famous? Make a lot of money? I do not have the answers, but I do have some thoughts.

I remember something I read a few years ago. A child overhears someone saying that he would shoot a sasquatch in a heartbeat. The child then says, “What if it’s the last one?” That is a thought—what if it is the last one. Someone could be wiping out an entire species when the original intention was to prove its existence. I also take into consideration that there may be a group dynamic involved. A certain subject may be important to the existence of any given group. Ok, they may or may not live in a group, but can you say that they don’t?

Trying to prove this creature’s existence is an honorable thing. An often-cited argument is that proving its existence can then protect it. However, would it be protected, I wonder? Would our politicians run screaming to the state capital and pass a law hoping to save this species? Let’s say that one is shot in New York, for example. Would Washington pass a protection law? Would California? How about New York? What if there aren’t any laws passed? Might it then be open season on the sasquatch? Would the woods suddenly be filled with people hoping to take one and cash in? Would it be like hitting the lottery? Would any good come from a dead sasquatch? Might it have been better in hindsight to just leave well enough alone? I find it hard to believe that any laws could pass in any useful time frame. What if it took six months for a law to pass? You are out looking and you shoot one. You are all over the TV and the news; you have money coming in. Don’t you suppose that folks will see that and decide that they would like to cash in too? So, it takes six months to pass a law, how many more sasquatch could be harvested in that time? Of course, there is the argument that it took all this time for a body to be brought in, so how easy would it be for people to go and get another one. I would wonder if folks with money interests wouldn’t mind investing a large sum of money to make even more money…an extended hunting trip, with all the bells and whistles.

I cannot say I haven’t thought of imagined scenarios of contact with a sasquatch. I have imagined everything from knocking, to howling, to having the damn thing running through the campsite. I also have thought a lot about shooting one. Even after running it through my mind a few times, I still have no answers.

I have a scenario that comes to mind. I am out overnight on a research trip. It is late at night, or early in the morning, depending how you look at it. Not much has been happening and I am pretty much waiting for sunrise to pack up and bug out. I am sitting, trying to stay awake when I start hearing some noises. Something is poking around behind me in the distance. With branches breaking, I stand and look behind me. I can hear something, and after a bit, I can see…something. Something is moving between some trees.

“Hey, you!” I yell.

That evokes a response resembling something between a bear and a dog, but nothing like a bear or a dog. A growl, maybe a hoot or maybe a whistle. Doesn’t really matter what now, I know what I’m dealing with. It is the reason I am there. It’s a sasquatch!

I move off in its direction, and it begins to move off. I follow, and occasionally catch another glimpse. I am essentially following the noise it makes by moving through the brush. I follow for a while then realize that it has gone quiet. Either I lost it, or it lost me. I scan the woods with my flashlight. I don’t notice anything at first, but then I see something. Approximately 20 yards off, I see a face. A face is about eight feet off the ground peeking around a tree looking at me.

I pull my piece, because it is always best to kill that which you do not know, right? So there I am, gun in my hand, and a sasquatch in my sights. Do I shoot? That is the part where I am stuck. Do I shoot? Do I end the whole speculation thing right there? I could easily take this thing out. I could forever be known as “The Man Who Killed Bigfoot.” I could go on Oprah Winfrey. I could go on Letterman, Leno and Geraldo. I would be on ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN. I could make some good money, and I would be famous. Folks could pile accolades on me.

I could also end up being hated, being pursued and unhappy. What I thought would happen, could not happen at all. No fame, no accolades. It may end up being exactly what I thought it would be: unhappy, regretful. Nevertheless, I cannot be sure. I have been hunting for almost 25 years. I have shot my share of deer. Am I happy about shooting a deer? Well, I filled my tag. I have a hundred pounds of meat; meat that is almost like gold around here. I have a beautiful skin, a great set of horns and the story telling potential would be great. There is one less deer that could be hit by a car. One less which may possibly starve if there is just not enough food supply. So, am I happy about killing a deer? Actually, not really.

A humanity thing comes into play when debating with yourself about taking a sasquatch. I think this humanity aspect must be thought about whenever someone considers shooting a sasquatch. Just because you can, should you? If you think you should, can you? Are you sure about what will happen next? Will laws be passed? Will one body be enough? Are you willing to be known as “The Man Who Killed Bigfoot?” I just hope that anyone who has decided that they are pro-shoot has truly considered all the angles. If they have, and still decide that they would shoot, well good luck to them. I hope it turns out just as they thought it would. However, I just cannot be sure enough to say I would shoot. I am just not sure. Are you?

COUNTERPOINT - Comments by Scott:

“To kill or not to kill.” Back in 1967, when an almost-broke Roger Patterson shot footage of a 7-foot tall creature striding across a creek bed in Bluff Creek, California, the last thought on his mind while filming probably wasn’t how he was going to prove this thing wasn’t faked. Now almost 40 years later, the film is still a hotbed of controversy. There wasn’t the technology back then to have faked the moving musculature that can be seen just under the creature’s hair. But there is now. I don’t remember ever hearing that Patterson was backed financially, and no one has come forward with any hard evidence that they made a suit, or has been able to find the “zipper.” A few men have claimed to wear it, and some, like Bob Heironimus, even have a suit that resembles the creature. However, Bob was not heavy enough to leave the kind of deep impressions in that creek bed that were later cast by a few men. There was not that kind of special effect technology back then, but there is now.

So how could a poor rodeo rider pull off something like that? Who could have known that his partner that day, Bob Gimlin, wouldn’t shoot it? Some people have dramatically blown up the P/G footage, and one thing is apparent; somebody shot it. Despite being shot, it survived, and walked across that creek bed in 1967. Besides the footprints and a few amazing frames, it left an old question; does it really exist?

So, what is it going to take? Probably a dead bigfoot, sadly, to be laid at the feet of all the skeptics, who will probably look real hard for a zipper at first. Then they are faced with the reality of sasquatch being real.

However, do we really have to kill one to prove they live? Back in 1967, Disney said they were the only ones capable of making a suit like that, if that good at all, and they didn’t make it. They didn’t have Photoshop back in 1967 or have the capability to make a movie like Harry and the Hendersons. Plus, the bigfoot film in 1967 didn’t look all shaky like the original King Kong. So, say you are part of a bigfoot research team, and your group decides not to kill one. So, you go out and beat the odds by actually finding one, and take some real good video of the big guy just strutting into the woods. You have ten witnesses with you, and they take some good photographs as well. You are all excited, and head back with your group to show the world that you have finally got proof, just to have a bunch of people laugh at you and say you faked it.

Your evidence is met with skeptics who put a reward out for the guy who can say he wore the suit in your video; however, eight guys come forward and say it was them. What the hell? So you tell them that your group told no one where you were headed that day, and you hiked into the most remote of areas where no one in their right mind would have been. Why would anyone be running around in a suit where there is the potential that hunters could be out hunting for bear? The odds of running into some guy in the deep forest, just hoping someone would be at that exact spot at that exact time and just happen to be looking for bigfoot with a camera, well, the odds would be astronomical. The odds are more in your favor that you would actually find an undocumented primate there rather than another human being.

And the skeptics want to know what side the zipper was on, who designed the suit, etc. So now what? How exactly can you prove that they really exist with out dragging in a dead one? Let’s see, we have footprints, which show dermal ridges, sweat glands, and that they are awfully big , weighing 600 pounds. We also have hair that has been analyzed and found to be from an undetermined primate. Then there are feces with parasites inside collected and found to be from an undetermined primate. There are vocal recordings of unknown primate-like sounds, not to mention thousands of written recorded sightings from police, clergy, and many upstanding members of society. We have innocent children who have called them gorillas, and loggers and lumberjacks who have spent their entire life in the woods, yet are frightened by something big and hairy, which was not a bear. That is a lot of evidence.

The American Indians had on their totem poles images of eagles, wolves, bear and gorilla looking faces. The Calluck Indians of Mt. St. Helens called them Seahtik. Other tribes called them Omah, and some other names that all meant the same thing. To the tribes, they were not mythical creatures. They belonged in the woods and were just as natural as eagles, wolves, bear, deer, moose, and other flesh and blood animals. The Indians said they don’t like to discuss these things with white men, because they didn’t like being called liars.

So where do we go from here? Is it right to think then, that it is totally impossible to convince scientists that something is real from high quality video or other photographic evidence? Is there other actual physical evidence to show besides a body? I guess so; they really do need a body, to be able to see, touch, x-ray, and dissect. So here we go, back into the woods. Any photographic evidence is cool to share with other bigfoot believers. Reports are nice to get, and so is hair, plaster foot casts and fecal material. However, it is all for nothing, because we already have that evidence. Believers already believe. Getting more is just more of the same. Why do we keep looking for it then? We already believe it exists.

Think of the mountain gorilla, or the panda. Scientists thought these animals were a figment of people’s imaginations, until specimens were brought in. How many species do you think have become extinct or pushed to the brink due to habitat destruction in the past century alone? If you believe in bigfoot, I assume you want this shy but grand primate to survive. The only way we can assure this, is to have it recognized as the first documented non-human primate in North America, and have land set aside for it to live on. Until it is recognized, deforestation will continue to happen at an alarming rate in many areas of our country, making way for new subdivisions, malls and parking lots.

I am not suggesting we all go out on a shooting rampage to try to bring one in. Nevertheless, someone has to. Even those who are no-kill must agree that at least one has to be brought in, and I am not sure that could be accomplished without killing one. If it can, I am all for it. For those who think it should be shot with the little tranquilizing dart, think hard about that. The tranquilizer in the dart can be lethal. So, a little too much would put sasquatch out forever. Not having enough in the dose could put one in a drunken rage, which would be dangerous to anyone in the field, who could get scared and probably shoot it. Shooting a sasquatch with a dart is not like tranquilizing a buffalo. Their weight has to be carefully estimated along with age and other factors. The buffalo roams around the prairie, while even if you could locate a sasquatch, it would be a fleeting glimpse, with no time to measure the dosage carefully. You could only hope that when you try to dart him in the thick, dense woods, you wouldn’t hit a tree.

No one is certain how many different species, or sub-species that sasquatch can be broken up into. There are reports of 5-foot tall creatures up to 15-foot tall creatures. There are 3, 4, and 5 toed tracks in varying sizes and all different hair colors reported. Maybe they are all variations of the same species, with age, sex and habitat being some of the factors. Maybe so, but I doubt it. There seem to be a lot of serious differences between sasquatch of the Pacific Northwest and the Florida Skunk Ape, but if we had one, it would be a start. Nobody started seriously studying the Mountain Gorilla until one was proven to exist by one being captured. No one questions anymore if they are real or not, but questions only how we can help them survive. And we can’t yet question that about sasquatch. Therefore, this is a sad irony. To prove they live at least one has to die. The death of that one may help many live.