There is a Yeti in the back of everyone’s mind; only the blessed are not haunted by it. ~ old sherpa saying

Monday, May 7, 2012

"TRBC’s Rebuttal to “Would You Shoot Bigfoot?”"

Loren Coleman at Cryptomundo posts the rebuttal from Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy's Brian Brown on their policy concerning Bigfoot kills.Cryptomundo  TRBC’s Rebuttal to “Would You Shoot Bigfoot?” And their answer is: yes, they would. They don't quite come out and say that (which is coming right out and saying that) because they are not "romantic" nor "emotional." They're also not "pro kill" but "pro science." And since science allows for collection of "specimens" in order to, er, scientifically determine things -- like is there really such a thing as a Sasquatch --- "collecting" one is all right.

Second, the TBRC is not “pro-kill.” Our mission statement says our purpose, among other things, is to “facilitate scientific, official and governmental recognition, conservation, and protection of the species and its habitat.” Our goal is to protect the animal, not to make them into a game animal so we can mount them to a wall. It is true that many of our members advocate the collection of a type specimen. How do we reconcile that with our mission to protect the animal? ~ Brian Brown
Good to know they don't want Bigfoot on a wall. And yet, pro kill members are accepted. As I've said many times before, giving permission by allowing the pro kill mentality to participate in your organization is supporting pro kill --  which means you're pro kill.

Some insulting comments follow about those who are "unscientific" and see BF as human and "romantic" and "emotional" -- affirming BF intelligence but still, just an animal. All that misses the point: I don't know what BF is, human, human like, an ape, etc. It doesn't matter. As I've also written in the past, the level of intelligence, and the degree of relation to us, as humans, has nothing to do with the moral decision to kill or capture.

The TRBC's stance remains the same: presented in the guise of being scientific while also talking out of both sides of its collective mouth (members who do actively support a kill) they continue to support a KILL policy. Adding to the convoluted statement is their insistence they must do this in order to protect Sasquatch.

Good for Coleman and Craig Woolheater and others who have left the TRBC because of this policy.

1 comment:

Scotty said...

I guess that the first thing that I wondered was how many 'kills' have been made to date. I can hardly think of any reports, in all the reading I've done. The shooting accounts I'm familiar with (aside from that one jackass Smeja) report lots of apparent 'misses' or 'disappearances in a flash of light' or just no apparent effect from seeming direct hits. This cannot be a simple flesh and blood, big ape.

So I suppose I'm less concerned about No Kill/Pro Kill policies, since there is a reasonable chance that Bigfoot himself is not truly 'killable'. At least, I hope so. Still, there could be a tad bit of satisfaction in reading about a hunter with murder on his mind coming to a bad experience in an attempt to hurt a Sasquatch. Don't mind me, I'm just fantasizing!