NO KILL

Craig Woolheater, the TBRC, and Rationalization

Bigfoot Evidence: July 2011 Bigfoot shooting incident at Honobia, OK

"Voucher" specimen. A term used by biologists and other scientist to euphimistically disguise the act of intentionally killing an animal to satisfy the ego.

In this case, the term is used by Alton Higgens of the TBRC, along with the disingenuous statement: "It is not immoral, even if there are those who disagree for various emotional reasons."  Higgens cites the use of collecting "voucher" specimens -- in other words, killing creatures to drag back to the lab -- to justify a Sasquatch kill.Higgens wrote:

Speaking now outside of my Chairman role, as a field biologist I have always indicated that I supported collecting a specimen for documentation and study, although I have not personally pursued that objective. I don’t think sasquatches are people. Biologists are trained to think in terms of, and to care about, populations. Collection of a voucher specimen is a way of protecting the population, from my perspective. It is not immoral, even if there are those who disagree for various emotional reasons. Since this would be a new species to science, there is little question but that a specimen is justifiable. Here’s a link to guidelines and policies that have been worked out in the scientific community regarding the collection of voucher specimens. (Source.)

It is immoral.

The use of the word "emotional" is used to trivialize NO KILL supporters and activists and it's extremely condescending. Dismissing those who are avidly No Kill as mere "emotional" beings with no understanding of the clinical is dishonest, as is using euphemistic terms like "vouchers," citing scientific protocols to bolster justification, outline the TBRC policies on carrying guns, and being passive-aggressive about one's own part in killing, er, collecting, a Sasquatch, I mean voucher. (I also noticed the lower case use of "sasquatches" in the above quote, which is either a typo, or an intentional use to  further distance oneself from seeing Sasquatch as a living being and both marginalize and underscore the idea that Sasquatch aren't "people."

Craig Wooheater, a co-founder of TBRC doesn't agree with the Kill/Capture platform either. This is what Craig recently posted on his Facebook page; it's been re-posted many times since throughout the Internet. Craig gave me permission to post his statement:

As the co-founder, former board member, former director and chairman of the TBRC, I feel it necessary to state my opinion regarding the shooting incident involving the organization.

The organization was formed as a strictly no-kill organization.

Myself, former member Gino Napoli and Daryl Colyer participated in a pro-kill versus no-kill debate held at Chester Moore's Southern Crypto Conference in 2005. We represented the no-kill position, which was hugely unpopular with the vast majority of the attendees.

I stepped down from the organization in July of 2010 and was given the title of Chairman Emeritus and Co-Founder.

In December of 2010, I began hearing rumors that there was a philosophical change brewing in at least several current TBRC board members.

I communicated with Alton Higgins, current chairman, regarding the rumors and he stated the TBRC's position was neutrality regarding pro-kill versus no-kill.

I felt that was not the case and I relinquished the honorary titles and asked that my name be removed in all instances from the website.

This was not an easy decision to make, taking into account the 11 years of dedication I had given to the organization.

After word came out regarding the shooting incident, my suspicions were verified and I knew I had made the correct decision.

- Craig Woolheater

I cannot tell you how much I respect Craig for doing this.

This is an issue I feel so damn strongly about; it's not a mere disagreement on theory or speculations about what Sasquatch is, or isn't, or the "flesh and blood vs. paranormal" issue. (Although that does bring up interesting aspects that one should consider in all this.)

 Some of the comments on the sites where the above articles have been posted (a few which are "anonymous" yet feel compelled to share their opinions, including name calling, while hiding behind the ubiquitous no name name) say that Sasquatch "aren't people." Higgens certainly has said so. Maybe they are, maybe they're not. I have not been honored to see a Sasquatch so I don't know. For many who have, they say it is indeed closer to human than not. For myself, it doesn't matter (well, it does, but...) if it's "people" or closer to a worm. Its intelligence level is not the criteria for making the decision to go out and kill one. Or, capture one for that matter.

Naturally, if Sasaquatch is "closer to people" than not, then yes, it'd be horrific to kill one. But it's also pretty damn horrible to kill one just because you can. (Although, have you noticed, no one has, thankfully.)

It's a living being minding its own business and we do not have the right to intrude upon its habitat and attempt to kill or capture, simply to satisfy our egos. It gets to that, and only that. Fuck science. We don't need to prove a damn thing. Witnesses who've seen Sasquatch know. The rest of us who haven't, well, too bad for us. Maybe we'll be blessed as well some day.

Levels of "Intelligence", Supernatural Sasquatch, and the No Kill/Kill Debate

Some are adamant about their opinions on this debate: kill, or, no kill. I'm adamant -- I won't budge -- I'm for a No Kill stance and that's that. Some are less adamant; they qualify their opinions depending on the perceived state of intelligence of the creature. The more human like Sasquatch appears to be, the less likely this type of person would attempt to kill one, but, if the creature is perceived to be "ape like," and more ape, less human, the kill policy reigns. Sasquatch is considered, by some, an animal, less than us, and while clearly intelligent, and astounding in its very existence in terms of scientific discovery, it's still "just" an animal. Still less than us, somehow. And that alone gives some the justification they need to support their kill view.

I don't care if Sasquatch turns out to be "just a big ape," some kind of uber-bear, or an alien. I don't care if the intelligence of Sasquatch is below that of a pinto bean. The intelligence level of Sasquatch should have nothing to do with killing it. I have major issues with hunting, but I do understand the justification for it in terms of survival; if one needs to feed oneself, then I'd be a hypocrite to say one should not hunt for food. If I were to find myself in certain circumstances, I might have to find I'd have to hunt as well. That aside, killing a Sasquatch is a very different issue.

I'll reiterate what I've said so many times before; I don't give a damn if science finds proof of Sasquatch's existence, and certainly not at the expense of a dead body.

Maybe this view of mine is based on my personal experiences with the paranormal, anomalous encounters and interests and UFOs: I don't care if anyone believes me or not, and I don't owe anyone an explanation or proof. I share my experiences for my own reasons, many of which I am clear about, many which I'm not. Who knows why we do what we do? We're not as focused as we sometimes tell ourselves we are. That's okay however... we're human.

My personal experiences involving the above mentioned phenomena is no doubt the reason why I am open to so-called "paranormal Bigfoot" encounters. I've never seen a Bigfoot (yet, :) and never had a supernatural Bigfoot experience (although, I suspect my cone of light experience related to Stan Johnson might be considered one such experience in some ways) but I accept these high strangeness stories. I accept them as interesting, true, and valuable. True, not necessarily literal.

So in some ways it's a non-argument; killing Sasquatch, if the creature is supernatural. Can you kill a fairy? On the other hand, we can't be too sure, and might as well continue the good fight against those who, regardless of where they fall on the kill policy continuum, would support killing one under certain circumstances.

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.

Monster Quest and Exotic Pets

This week's MQ was about big cats in the North Eastern part of New York. Sightings of large black cats, attacks . . . and good evidence they're around, from the claw marks in tree bark, prints, etc. Theory is that the cats seen are black leopards, escaped from, or let go, by their owners.

The most disturbing thing about the program is the fact that people insist on keeping tigers, leopard and other big cats as "pets" -- MQ even showed a man who kept cougars and sold baby cougars as pets! Aside from animal rescue places, animal reserves, and a Sigfrid and Roy kind of thing, no one should, no one needs to, have big cats as pets.

Many owners have been attacked by their "pet" tiger, lion, etc. This is a surprise? You try being kept in a cage for years and see what happens. It is literally criminal that it is legal to keep exotic animals as "pets."

I realize MQ isn't in the business of being political; it's entertainment. And it's implied in various MQ episodes that keeping wild animals as pets is dangerous, stupid, and to a lesser degree in their implication, cruel. But I would like to see more of a definitive statement towards support of legislation that outlaws keeping exotic animals as pets.

Demons in My Neighborhood: Beware the Batsquatch

On the heels of a strange night of UFO related stuff, I woke up to find an interesting e-mail in my account. It was from someone who lives in my area (Lane County, Oregon) and who has a friend about ten miles from my home, out Lorane Highway, who thinks he saw a Batsquatch at 1:00 a.m. on his property. I receive e-mails from people all the time, but this time I just had an odd feeling; suspicious, yes, but admittedly intrigued. For awhile. As you'll see, by the evening, after an exchange of a few e-mails, I decided to have nothing to do with any of this.

Here's the first e-mail, the one that appeared in my mailbox. The only thing changed is the exclusion of the name of the sender:

I trust the person that saw it. It was near Eugene, off of the Lorain Highway, about five miles from town.

Can it be baited with a lamb? I'm thinking of putting shark hooks with 3/32" braided steel leader in the lamb's fur along the back. I want to tether the lamb near the edge of a field near the woods. I am concerned about coyotes getting the lamb first.

Do you know anyone game for this? Do you know anyone with a night vision scope? I know this sounds a bit crazy, but I'm willing to try. I want to work quickly while it may still be in the area.

The "thing" was about 15 ft. from the witness at about 1:15 A.M. behind his house. He accidentally locked himself out of his house while working in his garage late last night. He went around to the back of his house to climb in through a window. He heard something and used the light from his cell phone, pointing it in the direction of the sound. The thing had a human form only quite large over seven feet with red reflecting eyes and very large wings. It jumped into the air flying off with the sound of massive air displacement with each wing stroke.

I tried to tell him it must have been a bear or a really large bird. He is really sure of how he described the creature. This is a very trustworthy 19 year old young man. He usually comes into town every day. He is staying home to protect his home now.

I hope you respond.


Thank you,

I was a bit unnerved at the idea of using a live lamb, or any animal, as bait. And the whole thing just sounded off to me. What was this person doing at 1:00 a.m., working in his garage (possible, but, ... sort of screamed crank freak to me) and how did he manage to lock himself out of the house in the country? Again, possible -- it's not that any of these things are strange in themselves, but overall, I just had a strong intuitive reaction that this all seemed off somehow.

I wrote back:

Certainly interesting if true.

I have to tell you however that your idea of using a lamb --or any other live bait -- repels me. I do not support such an action. I hope you reconsider. While finding proof or strong evidence of anomalous creatures is always the goal, there are other factors to consider when collecting such evidence. Using live bait is not one of them.

I've never heard of Batsquatch in this area, though I know there are reports of the creature in Washington state.

Another reason why I'm suspicious is your spelling of Lorane -- unless you don't live in the area.

I'd like more information; do you have an image from your friend, for example?
I recommend reporting this to MUFON if you're truly interested. They have qualified field investigators.

Night vision scopes have revealed very interesting things, mainly UFOs, that can't be seen with the naked eye. If you have a scope, try it.

R. Lee

And, the response to my e-mail above:

Date: Thursday, May 7, 2009, 8:22 AM

Hello Regan,

Sorry about the misspelled name. I am a long time resident of Eugene. Yes, the town is spelled Lorane, I was in a hurry. I don't know what other bait may draw it. The witness tried to get photos of the footprints but it was raining hard off and on all day (and some that night) so it was really muddy and he was not able to get a good photograph of any prints.

It has been reported these are probably taking small farm animals so I think a lamb would be a good bait. Do you object to this on humane grounds? I don't know how else to prove this creature exists other than to catch it. I doubt anyone has really ever tried so it may not be wary of such an attempt. It was within 20 or so feet from the boy's house so it is not that afraid of human dwellings.

I don't think photographs or eye witness accounts are going to be enough evidence of this things existence. It has probably moved on by now anyway. The Willamette Valley is a likely corridor for the thing moving North and South foraging. The Coast Range is probably the habitat it prefers (in the foothills). There is probably a humane way to capture this using nets, but it would take more time and equipment than for which I have resources.

I will contact MUFON to see what they think. This thing may still be in the woods nearby the boys house so hopefully someone is near Eugene to investigate.

I give it another try; I admit, while feeling squeamish, I am also still curious:

Is it possible to make sketches of the prints, how do they compare to known animals in the area, for example, and is there an estimate as to size?

I object because I do not believe in using animals gratuitously. I don't believe we have the right to "prove" the existence of a creature if it means sacrificing a living creature. I'm absolutely against it, don't approve of it, and will not support such an act.

Frankly, I don't care much for capturing, alive, and certainly not dead, such creatures.

Interesting theory about the range. . . . it's quite possible. Assuming this is a true story.

Well, I admit my curiosity is most certainly aroused here -- I am interested, in at least giving you a call. This might have to wait until the weekend, due to my work schedule...I might be able to get out there Sunday. I'm not sure if MUFON would be interested, there's no Eugene MUFON chapter, -- try Autumn Williams, Bigfoot researcher, she lives in the area.

I realize it's not Bigfoot, still...

As I say, I am interested but I do not know why, am also suspicious. We'll see.

But whatever, I encourage you to not use a live animal, or, kill one to use the body, for "bait" -- my values, my opinion, but there you go.
R. Lee

And I send along this as well right after the above:

One more thing about the lamb; I didn't say this at first because I realize it would sound odd but here goes; the whole symbolism of sacrificing a lamb to an unknown, so-called "monster" -- well, speaks for itself. The obvious religious (and I am NOT religious in any way) symbolism is one thing, but there's also the idea of extending an invitation to this thing. By setting out a living (or even dead) creature with the intent -- the invitation -- of showing itself, and coming into your home, your life, you have no idea what you're asking for, and what might happen.

R. Lee

Things get testy; I receive another e-mail where I'm told he thinks I would have been "all over this" and I'm really tired of hearing about tying up some poor lamb on hooks, bleating into the wilds of the night. Below is the last e-mail I've received (so far) with my reply:

Date: Thursday, May 7, 2009, 6:02 PM
Hi Regan,

I have seen both UFOs and demons / monsters. I am afraid of neither. In fact, I would relish having trapped or captured such as they are no friend to mankind.

I've seen plenty of UFOs as well, ....as to "monsters" no, I haven't. Do you consider the Sasquatch a "monster" or worse, a "demon?" To be killed? I sure hope not.

As to this so-called "Batsquatch" -- whatever it may be, to think it's a "demon" -- well, it scares me there are people such as yourself that think this way.

The lamb was just a suggestion as there is an abundance of them right now it being Spring. I can buy a small one for about $20.00.

So? I hope you do not. For what purpose? To prove to who, the world? that such a creature exists? Then what? Is your ego that important? I'm asking out of a genuine need to understand this urge to want to capture a "monster," and to use a live animal as bait, as if it's your right to do with what you will with other creatures. It isn't your right.

I have shark fishing gear. I would like to have a large net also. There is an old abandoned barn right down the hill that would make a good ambush point.

Groovy, but I don't sanction such thinking or desires, and want no part of it.

I would have thought you would jump at the opportunity to try this.

I've written many times on-line that I don't think capturing a creature is right. Who are we trying to prove it to, and why? Isn't the personal experience of a sighting enough?

Once caught, if alive, such a creature is then a prisoner of science and the authorities, to do with what they will. Is this right? Not in my world view.

Demons feed off of fear. When faced with them, don't be intimidated and yes, I am a believer in Jesus as the Christ, Son of God. Demons are actually cowardly when they are confronted with faith in God. I am concerned for the safety of the young man that told me the story. His faith may not be strong enough to sustain him.

I accept that evil exists, and that negative and "evil" entities exist, but as to the religious interpretation of a Christan or any other religious construct, no, I don't believe these things are "demons," nor do I believe God, Christ, Allah, or whoever has anything to do with it.

But back to the creature, assuming it exists. IF it exists, why the assumption it's a "demon?" This is very backwards, superstitious thinking, and, very dangerous. It's just a creature. Because we don't understand it, or know where it comes from, doesn't make it "the devil." Is a rabid animal Satan? Is any animal, doing what it does, a "demon" because it kills, or scares, or ...?

I hope you reconsider; it all sounds very stupid, arrogant, thuggish, dangerous and irresponsible, both for the humans involved and the creature.

R. Lee

Batsquatch has been reported in Mt. Shasta, and in Washington state. I'm not sure about Oregon but I haven't found anything. Who knows what, if anything, is going on out there on Lorane Highway. Speaking of Lorane Highway, that is the location of where I saw my "orange orb" sighting (and the hovering silver orb that emitted a beam of light) and experienced missing time.

Maybe there's something mysterious out there after all.

Run, Bigfoot, Run!

Here's hoping Bigfoot stays hidden . . .

I’m conflicted. I enjoy watching television shows about Bigfoot. I’m right there with the field researchers, making plaster casts of prints, setting up game cameras, and tromping through the crunchy woods at night with night vision goggles strapped to my face. I’m interested in the evidence collected, and the conclusions on the analysis.

At the same time, I cringe when I see investigators coming up with twists on how to attract Bigfoot. Hanging CDs in the trees or wind chimes, playing recordings of animal sounds, pheromone traps, and so on. At some point, the idea of actively looking for Bigfoot changes from interesting to intrusive, as well as pointless.

I always have the feeling that Bigfoot is well aware of the team about to descend on its territory long before the team gets any whiff of Bigfoot. For that reason alone, the chances of Bigfoot being found seem slight.

For the people who’ve seen Bigfoot, no proof is needed. After all, they’ve seen it! (Although, for some of them -- naturally I can’t speak for any witness -- proof might be welcome, if only to prove to family, friends and community they’re not lying or crazy.)

What of the aftermath? Bigfoot is found to exist; now what? There are laws already in place in some areas protecting Bigfoot. For some unfathomable reason, this irks many a scofftoid. If we waited until after Bigfoot is found to create and implement such laws, there’s a window where harm to Bigfoot could be done, with no legal consequences to the one doing the harm.

Then there’s the issue of habitat; varied, it seems, since Bigfoot has been reported in many diverse areas all over the U.S. The time, money and creaky process of law will be a circus, while Bigfoot remains vulnerable and the less ethical and moral will be out in droves hunting down the creature.

So, I’m conflicted. I love the search even while hoping Bigfoot is never finally found. I like the elusive photos that are tantizling; just enough but not quite enough to satisfy. I like the continued debate over footprints (for example, see the JREF forum for endless debates over the usefullness of prints) and the weight it gives to Bigfoots existence. I like the personal experiences of researchers and witnesses; they remain elusive and “just” anecdotal eveidence which all too often is not valid for skeptics and others alike.

These kinds of things keeps Bigfoot in the shadows, which is where I hope it stays. Some may get glimpses, but never enough to bring out into the harsh light of “discovery.”

On Cryptomundo: "Pygmies Belittled: Exhibited at Zoo

Again.
A very sad and disturbing story, that is sadly a true story, which inspires Coleman to ask us about Bigfoot and our relationship to it.
Pygmies Belittled: “Exhibited” At Zoo