 |
| Grover Sanders Krantz was a professor of physical anthropology at Washington State University |
Today, January 22, 1996, the late Grover Krantz picks a side on the kill/no kill Bigfoot debate. Krantz's idea that in order to preserve the Bigfoot species, we need a specimen to understand it first. This is one of the most polarizing debates in Bigfooting. Some have argued that Grover's stance is a little more nuanced than any newspaper article can convey. There are also those that argue Krantz's view would be different today due to the advances in DNA. Either way, the debate continues to stir high emotions among the community. Read the article below that touches on arguments for both sides.
The Salt Lake Tribune
January 22, 1996
WALLA WALLA, Wash. -- Dr. Grover Krantz, anthropology professor at Washington State University, has touched off something of a controversy in Bigfoot circles by openly advocating the view that a specimen should be hunted down and killed. "Someday down the line, 50 years from now, somebody by the rare chance might just stumble across the skeleton of a Sasquatch, and then the government sends out masses of [chimpanzee researcher] Jane Goodall's granddaughters, and establishes definitely, they were there, but they're extinct," Krantz theorized. "Everybody will be standing around wringing their hands saying: `If only we knew they were real, we could have saved them.' Well, they could have been saved if only we would blow one away now. The first one who bags one should get a big, big prize. The second one should be hanged."
One opponent of Krantz's view is Peter Byrne, director of the Bigfoot Research Project at Oregon's Mount Hood. Byrne is a big-game hunter in the classic tradition -- Irish, with a good head of white hair and a penchant for khakis and wool sweaters. He spent a good part of his hunting-and-tracking career in Nepal before developing an interest in the Sasquatch and undertaking the first major organized Bigfoot expedition in Oregon in 1960.
It failed to produce a Sasquatch, but Byrne hasn't quit looking. He now spends much of his searching tracking down witnesses, carefully probing their stories for holes and sending investigators to look for corroborating evidence.
Well,I could understand wanting to kill one for DNA,but remember there intelgent/wild and have Packs traveling together.so would think shooting one in life or death situation is one thing,but possible pack retailation from bigfoots for killing one of there own kind,if we could maybe try leaving food they like out and have motion detector Floodlights around locations with the motion trap cameras set at every angle the flood lights point to
ReplyDelete"if only we would blow one away now". I don't get how that helps but maybe it's just me. That's like saying...if we kill one endangered species it will help the rest of its kind, because there will be one less. It just isn't logical.
ReplyDeleteWith the advances in technology we're starting to see (such as the viral video of the CGI eagle) it is becoming, and will continue to become, easier and easier for people to claim any video is a hoax. One way or the other, to really convince people that Bigfoot exists, we need tangible physical evidence. Ideally this could come in the form of a proper DNA sequencing from a sample, or even a live capture, but both of these would be hard to obtain. A real dead Bigfoot would be a media sensation, and if verified, the majority of people in the Western world would know about it and have no logical choice but to accept its existence. This would provide the basis necessary to implement proper conservation methods, etc.
Delete