Bigfoot Lunch Club's "A Man Who Would Kill Bigfoot"

Bigfoot Lunch Club has a post about "Dave" who is getting up an expedition to kill himself a Bigfoot:Interview: A man who would kill Bigfoot "Dave" is not his real name, which I find interesting. As I posted in the comment section to the post:

And by the way, why doesn't "Dave" use his real name? It strikes me as being cowardly. Yes, there are avid anti-No Kill Bigfoot folks out there, but, tough. He choose this path, deal with it.

Bigfoot Lunch Club posts some of the interview between J. Andersen, described as a "free lance writer for Associated Content" and "Dave":

J. Andersen: Are you concerned with the Ethics of shooting a bigfoot?

Dave: Yes and No, there's no law against hunting Bigfoot where I'm from. Most people hate me for what I'm doing and that's fine but the only way to prove 100% that it exists is by capturing one dead or alive.

To that, I also commented that law has nothing to do with this either. A law is simply a law, it isn't moral or ethical on the face of it simply because it is, or isn't, the law. I simply don't understand the thinking and motivations behind those that support a Kill Policy, and that includes some of the otherwise esteemed researchers in the field.

The BLC quotes from the article, which cites Loren Coleman's views on killing Bigfoot. Coleman's against it, but to my mind, not much, for he believes having one in captivity is better than killing one:

The first large unknown hairy hominoid captured will live its life in captivity, no doubt, and there it may be examined internally. MRIs, CAT scans, EKGs, and a whole battery of medical and other procedures may be used to examine it.

It is doubtful the first one will be returned to the wild, so, of course, it will die someday within the reach of future scientific examinations. Then it will be dissected, just as newly discovered animals, including various kinds of humans, have been for further study. But in the meantime, why not study the living animal’s captive and adaptive behaviors?

The days of Queen Victoria, when only killing an animal would establish it was real and not folklore, are, indeed, long gone. --Loren Coleman 2/6/2006

To be fair, it's possible Coleman was describing a scenario, and not promoting a personal viewpoint on what should be done.

As I said in my comment at Bigfoot Lunch Club, witnesses know Bigfoot exists. No proof is necessary for them, but, for some witnesses the torment they go through in not being believed, in having their sanity questioned, having their spouses, children, close friends mock them; well, Bigfoot body, dead or captured, would put a stop to all that. And yet, even in those cases, it's not enough. It's just not enough to condone killing or capturing a Bigfoot. I'll amend that and exchange killing for murdering.

People who support a Kill Policy, (as well as a captured one) also neglect to think their murdering-of-a-mystery-beast-quest through. Researcher Autumn Williams brought up this issue at her presentation at the Oregon Sasquatch Symposium in June. So a BF has been murdered or captured, now what? What laws will be put in place to protect the creature? What agencies will be involved, who will have jurisdiction? Will laws vary from state to state -- from county to county?-- and should they? What about habitats? How does that impact humans? Local economies? And so on, oh what a can of worms will be opened if that ever happens.

But for me, it gets down to only one thing: an unhealthy obsession with satisfying a personal thrill-kill blood thirst. For some its buried pretty deep, hidden under what strikes me as self-righteous pronouncements about "in the name of science," for others, they're more overt and upfront, and are simply out to solve a mystery -- if killing murdering a Bigfoot is the way to do it, so be it. Whatever the level of murder-lust, capturing or killing murdering a Bigfoot is wrong. It's not something I support, and never will.