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.

On JREF: 'Bigfoot and Racoons', and the Assumption of Bigfoot's Limited Awareness

New Bigfoot thread on the JREF, bringing the total of Bigfoot threads over there to something like twenty-two million, about the OP's "hunt" for a rabid raccoon. Prefacing his adventure with his limited experience with hunting, tracking, and being a "city boy" even though he lives in a rural area, he asks why Bigfoot can't be found by experienced hunters and woodspeople:

So my question is, how can these people, who by and large are " Trained" in some way shape or form to find animals ( at the very least they have done some research into how to track, i am positive. ) , not be able to find a much, much bigger animal.

And here's the assumption, made of course by skeptoids and anti-Bigfooters, but many a Bigfoot hunter, that Sasquatch/Bigfoot is basically a "big, dumb ape" or some other animal; whatever, Bigfoot is nothing more than an oversized brainless bear, monkey, ape, ... put firmly in the category of less than us. Many humans don't even call themselves animals, and get insulted if you use the term animal inclusively. This is a world view of separation between us humans from other creatures, held by academics, scientists and the hoi polli alike. The arrogance and stubbornness inherent in that view insists we have souls, we have language, we have tools, we build things, we think about non-concrete things. That makes us different, and that makes us better. Of course none of that is true but it's still the assumption being passed off as fact.

Okay so I got off on a bit of a tangent. The point is, Bigfoot has eluded us because Bigfoot is highly intelligent and sensitive to its environment. And very possibly, paranormaly (for lack of a better term) so. That last idea is too fantastic for an uber-skeptic to consider, so I don't expect that. (It's also too wacky for many a flesh and blood Bigfoot researcher to accept.)

I know I make this comparison often, but there are many similarities to Bigfoot research and UFO research. And I don't mean, in this context, the subject of a UFO-Bigfoot connection. I mean the parallels to research methods, assumptions about the phenomena, and the rejection of the ... otherworldly. Paranormal, esoteric, supertnatual, not sure what word fits, but it's obvious in both areas there are those elements that transcend flesh and blood (Bigfoot) theories, and nuts and bolts (UFOs) theories.

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.

Melisa Hovey Interviews Bobbie Short

A very interesting interview with Bobbie Short from Melisa Hovey’s Search for Bigfoot blog (I’m not sure how recent the interview is; didn’t find a date.) Bobbie Short is a well known researcher, and we’re fortunate she brings us the excellent Bigfoot Encounters site, as well as her newsletter. Lots of good advice from Short in this interview and really, I almost don’t disagree with anything she has to say about research -- Bigfoot not being a giant ape, for example -- but naturally, we go separate ways here:

The most rewarding change has been the move away from the "bizarre" and the exodus away from the UFO related ideas. It used to be in the old days, the only place to read about hirsute hominids was in a UFO or like magazine. That trend is dying a fast death and I'm glad to see it go.

Now if we can just move research away from cryptozoology and those damn mystery apes, chupacabras, the moth man and Spring-Hill Jack, I'll be a happy camper.

Like UFO research, within Bigfoot research, there are huge divergences in ideas about what UFOs/Bigfoot might be. But that aside, it’s a good interview!

Nick Redfern Responds: Burn, Nick, Burn!

Recently Nick Redfern shared his thoughts about paranormal Bigfoot; specifically, about a case from 1985 involving a Ouija board and the subsequent apparition of a Bigfoot like creature in his article A Paranormal Bigfoot. In Bigfoot Fundamentalists: Burn Nick Burn! Redfern writes on the Mania.com site about the comments he received about that article. Redfern received more e-mails than usual in response to that article, some o which bordered, as he writes, on the psychotic:

But what angers me more than anything else, are those who champion the “Bigfoot is just a giant ape” scenario with a definitively rabid (and, at time, vaguely threatening) zeal of a type that would make any, and all, religious fundamentalists (whether from the Deep South or the Middle East) glowingly proud.

But, what interests me most of all is the rabid (and, indeed, almost psychotic) approach that such commentators occasionally display in their e-mails.

It’s not that one may disagree about the nature of Bigfoot; debate is a given, disagreement on what BF is, or is not, is to be expected. But it’s the shrill, over the top, fanatical and downright hateful reaction to the idea that some consider Bigfoot a paranormal creature.

As Nick asks:

So what if I proclaim that Bigfoot may be paranormal? So what if I don’t accept the notion that Bigfoot is just an ape of unknown origins and/or type?

Should that result in vitriolic e-mails to me from a variety of Bigfoot researchers displaying a self-righteous zeal that any stance beyond that of “Bigfoot is an ape,” is somehow dangerous and wrong?

The same can be said of many UFO researchers who have similar reactions when it comes to different theories. And these often nasty responses come from within; we expect them from the uber-skeptic fundie-debunker faux-skeptic crowd, but from fellow explorers of the Fortean realms?

I’ll end with what Nick says about BF being paranormal, or, not:

And here’s the thing I find most baffling of all: why should it even matter if Bigfoot is flesh-and-blood or paranormal? The answer is: it shouldn’t. Only the facts and a determination to get to the truth – whatever that may be - should ultimately matter. But, it does apparently matter – to some, at least.

Exactly. IF the truth is the goal, then we go where the data takes us. And a lot of that data, like it or not, includes encounters that clearly go beyond the “flesh and blood big ape” idea.

From the Past

It's not a Bigfoot, but a Primate from the San Diego Zoo. Just for fun, I thought I'd post this here, since there's many a theory that Bigfoot is a "giant ape."

And yes, I was a Girl Scout; a career Girl Scout even. From the time I was a Brownie (turn that frown upside down!) all the way to a Cadet. Then I discovered rock and roll, boys, and . . . my Girl Scout days were over.

Photo was taken around 1967, give or take a year.