Sasquatch/Bigfoot

[Fusilier]

We'd probably kill it anyways. Some how or another. Last year we discovered the oldest known animal, a clam, and instead of letting it live longer, we killed and ate the damn thing!

[Matt Wiser]

The only law on the books against killing a Bigfoot is in Skamania County, Washington. There was a rash of sightings there in '69, and the usual monster hunters showed up-from bowhunters to guys with BARs. The Sheriff was afraid with all the guys with guns around, someone would get shot, so he asked the County Board of Supervisors (or however they do it in Washington-County Commissioners, or whatever) to pass an ordnance making it illegal to kill a Bigfoot. Penalty is up to 5 years in the County Jail and a $10,000 fine. There were attempts in the '70s in Oregon, California, and Washington to pass state laws protecting the beast, but all failed.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

...he asked the County Board of Supervisors to pass an ordnance making it illegal to kill a Bigfoot. Penalty is up to 5 years in the County Jail and a $10,000 fine.

LOL... some would still consider that to be worth it. One could probably make a fortune selling the thing.

[Matt Wiser]

No doubt. And the shooter would probably keep quiet about where, exactly, he made the kill. That is, until he got paid by whatever scientific institution offers him the most money.

Incidentally, one of the most ardent proponents of shooting a Bigfoot, the late Dr. Grover Krantz (Univ. of Washington, and an anthropologist), traveled to this particular county several times, and he was always armed. His preference was for a 30.06, which might be the smallest caliber that would do the job, I believe. A .308 or higher, though, will do the job, in all likelihood. And two of Dr. Krantz's contemporaries from Canada, John Green and the late Rene Dahinden, when they went into the field, also packed rifles as well as cameras, and were perfectly willing to use both.

[Fusilier]

That's messed up. But I'm not surprised really. Interesting stuff too.

[Matt Wiser]

When mainstream science demands either "bones or a body," you'll have folks with the intent to provide what is required.

[Fusilier]

Well that's where your ethics requirements are supposed to come in. It's hard to get anything published for peer review without these days. People have gone to prison when the lure of money led them astray and you don't get second chances with academic credibility. It's not a perfect system, but it's the best we have.

A little too OT though.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

No doubt. And the shooter would probably keep quiet about where, exactly, he made the kill. That is, until he got paid by whatever scientific institution offers him the most money.

Incidentally, one of the most ardent proponents of shooting a Bigfoot, the late Dr. Grover Krantz (Univ. of Washington, and an anthropologist), traveled to this particular county several times, and he was always armed. His preference was for a 30.06, which might be the smallest caliber that would do the job, I believe. A .308 or higher, though, will do the job, in all likelihood. And two of Dr. Krantz's contemporaries from Canada, John Green and the late Rene Dahinden, when they went into the field, also packed rifles as well as cameras, and were perfectly willing to use both.

Nah, use a .950 JDJ, just to make sure.

[Matt Wiser]

You want to use something that would have the body somewhat intact for study, Paul...not blow it to smithereens. A .308 (7.62-mm NATO) ought to fulfill that requirement.