The Argument For A Sasquatch Type Specimen [Pro-Kill]

Over the past few months, there seems to be a huge shift in opinion about whether or not we need a body to prove the existence of Bigfoot. Opinions in the Bigfoot community appears to be slowly swaying in favor of the "no-kill" ideology. Most of the people in this camp believes Bigfoots (or "forest people") are more human than ape and killing one would be akin to murder. On the other side of the fence, the "pro-kill" camp, suggests that there is no evidence at all that "wood apes" are human.

One member of the TBRC, a pro-kill group, quotes a famous Bigfoot researcher, John Green, who wrote, "It is not really our physical attributes that distinguish humans from other animals so much as the things that we do." The TBRC says there is no evidence at all that wood apes "do any of the things that are unique to humans". The group has been under fire recently for the sasquatch shooting incident in Honobia, OK. Several prominent researchers have stated their discomfort with the group's "pro-kill" position. Last Friday, on Cryptomundo, Loren Coleman wrote that he was resigning from the Board of Advisors and quoted John Kirk, who also resigned earlier that day:

"They have adopted a pro-kill policy and I am against this….I cannot condone this kind of thing being done in the name of science."

The TBRC recently posted on Facebook that John Green had given them permission to publish the entire, "Sasquatch, Humans, and Apes" text on their website. TBRC's Paul Bowman Jr. commented on the post and writes, "It's time to bring this 'mystery' to a conclusion, period. A type specimen is the ONLY thing that will accomplish that. This is clearly a very emotional issue for many folks but logic and reason need to rule the day here. You can love us or you can hate us, but we aren't here to placate science any more than we are to placate the so-called bigfoot "community" who are dead set against the taking of a type specimen for irrational reasons. We are here to SOLVE this once and for all."

The link that was posted directed us to this article on the TBRC's website:

Taking a Stand With Science: Sasquatches, Humans, and Apes

By Brian Brown

Recently, famed author and journalist John Green gave the TBRC permission to publish the final chapter of his seminal book Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us. In it, he lays out the case that bigfoot are not human or human-like and that the collection of a type specimen is necessary. Many of us here at the TBRC agree with Green. It is our position that until and unless wood apes are firmly and finally established as living animals that the real work of protecting and conserving them – the very heart of our mission statement – cannot begin. We felt that Green's words were some of clearest and most convincing we've read, even if they are from 1978.

Indeed, Green is not alone in his advocacy of the collection of a type specimen. When asked, Jeff Meldrum has said, "there is no precedent for recognizing a new species on the basis of a DNA sequence alone," as well as, "the standard, the gold standard, the conventions of zoology have required and do still require, a type specimen," and, "I’m the first to acknowledge that the scientific community is under no obligation to recognize the existence of a species without the type specimen."

The Animal Ethics Review Panel, in their article "Collection of voucher specimens," perfectly summarizes the TBRC's position:

Conservation needs are impossible to assess without the ability to recognise and differentiate species. Thus, identification, although often taken for granted, is fundamental to any animal-based study and particularly important when studying native animals.

They continue:

The fundamental bases for identifications are whole animal specimens, usually maintained in a museum or similar institution. If necessary, identifications can be confirmed by reference to such collections. In some situations, e.g., distinctive species, a non-essential part of the animal such as a hair sample, or a photograph, sound recording or some other non-destructive record may be adequate for identification.


These, however, have limited value. They do not offer the range of information as do whole body specimens, initially or through re-examination, nor are they suitable for detailed study by alternative means, including new technology (e.g., biochemical).


There are many species for which these are not valid alternatives. Accurate identifications can only be made if there is one or more specimens already available for comparison and examination. If an animal is thought to represent a new species, a specimen should be taken. Types (the basis for taxonomic descriptions of new taxa) should always be specimens; other kinds of samples are not suitable alternatives.

It is in the spirt of science and the established practice of legions of naturalists like Charles Darwin that we pursue our research, and it is in that spirit that we are very proud to bring you, for the first time online, "Sasquatches, Humans, and Apes."

As mentioned above, Green's book was originally published in 1978. He could not provide us with an electronic version of the text so we transposed it manually. Any errors in what follows are the result of that transposition and are not the fault of the author. Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us is available from Hancock House Publishers.
[...]

You can read the rest of the above article and John Green's "Sasquatch, Humans, and Apes" here.