North American sasquatch hunters are a diverse lot whose various goals include taking a specimen, capturing one, filming, studying their behavior, trying to protect them, trying to make contact, or just gathering data. The first and last of these goals make sense, while all the others are misguided, to say the least. And now, since Grover Krantz has passed, his opinions and thoughts on the state of bigfooting continues to this day...
Click here to buy the book "Big Foot Prints" by Grover S. Krantz.
THE HUNTERS
In saying this I am stepping on some toes, so all of this merits some further explanation that may well step even harder in some cases.
The first category is our hard-core hunters who are hying to bring in the first body. These are mostly ordinary people who have ordinary jobs—not academics, wildlife workers, or government employees. These hunters have seen a sasquatch or know a trusted friend who did, or else they have studied the subject in some depth. Most of them have (or think they have) considerable skills in hunting and tracking big game animals, while some have specialized military experience that seems pertinent to them; few, if any, have both kinds of background. All of these hunters have some regular occupation that has precluded their devoting full time to the hunt.
The motives of the hunters fall into four main areas: fame, money, vindication, and/or science. They almost all expect to become famous if they bring in the first specimen, both for its own sake and because this notoriety is a requirement for obtaining the next two rewards. They generally have little concept of how much this success will disrupt their private lives with legal hassles and media badgering, to name just the two most obvious problems.
Financial reward is the most common motive. The first mounted skin may well bring in a great deal of money, but this presupposes success in three critical respects. (1) The skin must be retrieved in good condition in a timely fashion—an unlikely event to say the least. (2) A buyer must somehow be found who is willing to pay a substantial amount. (3) The delivery and money collection must be accomplished without someone else getting either the skin or the money, legally or otherwise. The hunter should note that if he openly advertises for a customer, he is just as openly inviting someone to try to take the goods away from him.
Publicity can bring financial rewards if it is well handled—interviews, public talks, story contracts, and product endorsements. But the pressure would be intense, and most of the agents will try to get what they want while paying little or nothing. (Negative publicity can also be a major factor; self-labeled conservationists will harass the hunter for killing a member of a supposedly endangered species, while others will accuse him of murder.)
Personal vindication is a major motive for those who previously have stuck their necks out publicly, especially by claiming to have seen one of the creatures. These witnesses currently get some recognition from others who think the species is real, but much of this support is from the lunatic fringe. Scientist call these sighters fools or liars, the media think it's all just a joke, and the public has mixed opinions, mostly negative. To bring in absolute proof would be to show that you were right and so many others, especially the experts, were wrong. This is a personal motivation that can drive some people as much or more than money.
A few of the hard-core hunters have expressed some interest in advancing science by proving that a new species exists and by providing the body of the first specimen for detailed study. Personally, I think the greater motive in this direction is to figuratively rub some scientists' noses in it. On the other hand, at least two of these hunters have publicly stated their intention of denying any scientist access to the body if they bring it in. The motivation for this latter attitude is not clear, especially when official verification depends on the examination of the body by these very scientists. I sense a certain amount of spite being expressed on this issue, but it is not at all clear against whom it is directed or why, and especially what is to be accomplished by their statements at this point.
All of the hard-core hunters are in competition with each other, and most of them are keenly aware of this fact. There will be a prize of some kind to the hunter who brings in the first specimen, but there will be no second prize. That first specimen will prove the existence of sasquatch. It will promptly be declared an endangered species, and taking a second specimen would become a serious violation of law. Even if one did shoot a second sasquatch, none of the usual rewards could be obtained: no one could buy the skin, you get jail instead of fame if it becomes known, and vindication is unnecessary at that point anyway. The scientists might appreciate the second specimen, but it would be confiscated by the authorities without any thought of payment.
Being aware of these facts, each hunter figures that if and when one of their number brings in the first sasquatch, the rest of them will be out of business. Few of them would have any intention of sharing the credit or proceeds if they succeed, and they assume that all the other hunters have that same attitude. When deer hunters get together to discuss their subject it is natural to offer helpful information to each other. If I help you get your deer this year, you might help me get mine next year. And hunters enjoy bragging about what they know. In the sasquatch case, however, anything that might assist another hunter could spoil your own chances—and that means forever.
Needless to say, it is unusual for sasquatch hunters to do anything that might help the other guy in the quest. Many of them can't help bragging about what they have found out, but they often cancel this by adding false information to throw the others off the track. My impression is that they spend as much time and effort trying to prevent others from shooting a sasquatch as they do trying to succeed themselves. Given the circumstances, this is entirely understandable.
I have participated in several attempts to get a working agreement with a few hunters for cooperation in the hunt by sharing all information, dividing up the areas to be searched, and with an understood procedure to be followed if one of them were to succeed. No agreement could be reached on how to divide the spoils, and no one was satisfied that the other hunters would abide by any such agreement and not just take it all. I think that none of them thought he could trust the others to circulate accurate and complete information. One of these hunters privately raised the possibility with me that if two of them were on the scene of the shooting, maybe only one of them might return.
There are a few of us, most notably John Green and myself, who are so publicly extended on the subject of the existence of the sasquatch, that we win no matter who brings it in. Added to this is the fact that neither of us is a hunter, and it is most unlikely that we would ever shoot one. We are also fully aware of the problems involved in handling such a specimen. Green says he would simply deposit it with a competent scientist in the nearest university and let nature take its course. I would want to have full rights and responsibilities for the study, but if someone else had to put up with all the work and trauma that would ensue, I wouldn't be greatly upset.
The hard-core hunters all hope to bring down that first specimen with a heavy rifle. Opinions vary as to the best gun to use, but all agree that a typical deer rifle is simply not powerful enough to seriously damage an animal of this size. Guns that are suitable for elk, moose, or large grizzlies are always preferred. None of these men wants to leave a wounded sasquatch out there; it would be a sad waste of a specimen, and it might be extremely dangerous to follow.
The hunters appear to be using two procedures to locate their quarry: chance and anticipation. They spend many hours or even days moving slowly or just watching in a suitable area, hoping to encounter a sasquatch just like many unsuspecting other people have done before, but they will be prepared to deal with it. At the same time they are making note of all animal signs, especially footprints and other environmental disturbances that indicate when and where the creatures have been, and hopefully what they were doing. In this way the hunter tries to build a behavioral picture that might enable him to anticipate when and where an encounter might be anticipated.
Some hunters have tried to follow a trail in the hope of catching up with the quarry. If it knows someone is following, a sasquatch could easily outdistance any human pursuer, and it possibly might avoid leaving tracks as well. No one is known to have caught up with the quarry in this manner; the trail has been lost, by circumstance or design, or else the hunter was unable to continue for lack of time, strength, food, or whatever. I've heard about cases where novice hunters were diligently following a fresh trail in hopes of catching up, but abruptly quit when it dawned on them to ask who catches whom if they succeed.
Lures of many kinds have been tried, apparently without success. A variety of food baits have brought in other animals or nothing at all. At least one hunter used soiled sanitary napkins with no result. A few years ago my wife suggested that playing a tape of a baby crying might be similar enough to the sound of one of their own to draw them in. Annette and Mike Johnson provided a lengthy recording of these cries from their newborn, and Greg May played the tape once in the Blue Mountains with a classic ghetto blaster. The only result was total pandemonium in the nearest herd of elk. This might be worth trying again.
There are no doubt many other kinds of attraction methods that have been used. Obviously none has worked to the degree that a sasquatch was taken, but we don't know if one was even partially successful. Tracks might have appeared in response to a lure, or one might have been seen too briefly to be shot. Any hunter who has achieved that degree of success would never tell the others about it. The last thing he would want is for someone else to win the prize by using his own technique.
Another variation of hard-core hunting methods is the tranquilizer gun. At least one hunter has openly displayed such a weapon to the news media, and others have publicly stated their intention to use one. This is strictly for appearances, and none of the serious hunters has any intention of even trying to dart a sasquatch. There is much public opposition to the idea of killing one of these animals, so this is used simply to avoid bad press. It might also be used to put public pressure on the other hunters not to shoot a sasquatch, thus hope-fully neutralizing some of their competition. This subject is elaborated upon below.
Novices
There is another category of hunter, far more numerous than the hard-core, who are simply "looking for bigfoot" without having any clear idea of what they are looking for or what they would do if they found something. These novices are usually as ill-informed as they are enthusiastic. They try to contact previous eyewitnesses, look for previously discovered tracks, and hope to see new tracks or even the sasquatch itself. They are usually equipped with cameras and notebooks, sometimes with tape recorders and plaster as well. Many of these novices are simply trying to decide for themselves whether these creatures exist; I can sympathize with them because I started out pretty much that way myself.
The novice who is trying to "find bigfoot" usually has given little or no thought as to how his/her potential discovery might be proven to anyone else. Having talked to many of them, I get the impression that they seem to think general acceptance will be automatic when they see the evidence. Others plan to take pictures of the creature on the assumption that this will constitute proof. These people are very naive about the kind of evidence that is required, and they usually have no concept of how much has already been collected.
Some novices talk seriously about obtaining a specimen with a tranquilizer gun. Obviously they have never looked into the subject or they would know that they would not be able to obtain the necessary equipment, and that it wouldn't work anyway. Eventually, all of these novices either drop the subject, or else they shift into one of the other categories of hunters when they learn more of the facts.
Tranquilizers
Most of the public is under the impression that any animal can be rendered unconscious with a tranquilizing drug contained in a rifle-fired dart. They think that this can be done fairly easily, and that it is harmless to the quarry. They have seen this done many times in movies and television programs, and naturally assume that it would be a simple matter to do the same with a sasquatch. It seems obvious to them that this would get around the need to kill a specimen in order to prove they exist. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In order to dart a sasquatch, one must somehow locate the creature and get within range to use the weapon. Only a few people have succeeded in doing that with a good rifle, and there is no reason to think it would be any easier with a tranquilizer gun. In fact, this method requires a much closer approach because these darts travel a much shorter distance than a bullet and are not very accurate. A good rifle might work from as far away as two hundred yards (or meters), but a tranquilizer is effective at only about one-tenth of that distance, and even then one might easily miss. There is no way to call up a sasquatch on demand. Most people who see one never see another. If you are so skilled and/or lucky as to get that one sighting, and you have a weapon in hand, your chance of bringing it down with a high-powered rifle is easily a hundred times greater than for putting a dart into it. If you miss, you probably will never get another chance.
Darting equipment is expensive and difficult to obtain. The drugs that are normally used are narcotics that can be legally obtained only by licensed field researchers. The dosage that is used depends on the size of the animal, so several darts are usually carried with different amounts in each of them. When the quarry is spotted, its weight is estimated, the appropriate dart is selected and loaded, then the close approach is attempted. Most sasquatch sightings are so brief that one has time only to estimate its size, and then it is gone. And without a great deal of familiarity with the species, most hunters would be quite unable to guess the weight with any accuracy. There is little chance that at the moment the sasquatch is seen, the rifle and case of darts would be immediately at hand, with plenty of time to load up and shoot. And this presupposes that the sasquatch is within range, and that the hunter can act calmly and carefully.
There are different tranquilizing drugs whose effect on each species may vary. We have no good information on how the sasquatch would react to these various drugs. Too much of the wrong kind could kill the specimen, in which case a good rifle would have done the same job more dependably and probably with less trauma to the subject. With too little and/or the wrong drug, there are at least three undesirable possibilities. First, the animal simply goes away with the dart and a long-term injury from the enormous needle that was used. Second, it may go away only to fall unconscious at some great distance, and perhaps not survive but never be located either. Finally, it might be aware of the nearby source of that painful needle jab and, perhaps in a somewhat drugged state of mind, decide to retaliate.
If the administration of tranquilizing drugs was as simple as it seems in the movies, then all a doctor would have to do before surgery would be to quickly jab the human patient with a needle and they would be ready for an operation. There is good reason why anesthesiologists get the patient's medical history, check his/her immediate health, give strict preoperative instructions, apply very exact amounts of certain drugs, and carefully monitor responses. If they didn't do that they would often lose patients. The same principles apply to wild animals as well.
When wildlife experts tranquilize animals, they usually know how their chosen drug will work on that species, and how much to use on specimens of known age, sex, and weight. They also know all of the likely adverse reactions to expect, and are trained and equipped to handle them. In spite of this, they occasionally lose an animal that has been drugged, and some will run off apparently unaffected. I have read about one case of a polar bear that did not go down until the third dart was shot into it, then it revived in time to attack the scientists and had to be dispatched with rifle fire. Without all of the necessary experience and equipment, a first attempt at a new species would have only a very small chance of bringing in the subject alive.
Some years ago I made these points in a public lecture in San Diego, where much of the audience was appalled by my advocacy of shooting a sasquatch. They still thought that tranquilizing was the way to go if a specimen was to be taken at all. Two weeks later a hippopotamus escaped from the San Diego Zoo, was darted, and promptly died of suffocation. I can only hope that these objectors were able to see this as a good illustration of the dangers in following the tranquilizing approach.
Educational programs do not show the traumatic failures that occur in the real world of animal tranquilizing. A well-funded, concerted program might succeed in bringing in an unconscious sasquatch this way, but it would probably also result in the death and serious injury of a dozen or more of the animals in the process. A single neat kill with a powerful rifle would avoid this kind of slaughter.
Despite all of the problems indicated above, suppose you somehow succeeded against all the odds and had a sasquatch unconscious on the ground. How do you restrain an eight hundred-pound primate when it wakes up? If you were able to manage this, and you reach a phone to call the authorities, who would believe you? You could measure and photograph the body, take blood and tissue samples, collect parasites, and then let the creature recover and go away. You would then have some interesting evidence that might convince a few more experts. But a type specimen must still be collected and put on record before most scientists will pay it any serious attention.
After the tranquilized animal wakes up, we should also consider how it might react to this experience at the hands of a human. Most likely it would avoid our species very carefully for the rest of its life. It is also possible that the creature might decide to kill every human being it can lay its hands on. However unlikely that last possibility might be, I would not want to risk turning something like that loose anywhere in the world. This scenario of a killer sasquatch on a rampage would certainly result in our obtaining the needed type specimen. After a few attacks it would be diligently hunted down and dispatched. This is hardly a desirable way to achieve the goal.
In summation, the idea of trying to tranquilize a sasquatch is a very impractical approach to the problem. To have any chance of success, trained experts would have to be found to do it—none would volunteer their services at this point and there are no resources to pay them. Such an approach would probably result in the deaths and maiming of many individuals before one is successfully brought in. The operation could be quite dangerous to those who tried it, assuming they could ever gain access to a sufficient number of the quarry. Given the inaccessibility of the animals, even the best staffed and funded operation could not reasonably hope to succeed for many years, tens of years at the very least. If the sasquatches are in any ecological danger, they would likely be extinct before the first one could be brought in by this method.
Recorders
Many investigators are simply gathering all of the information they can on sightings, footprints, and any other evidence that is available. These people usually keep good records of their data, hence the name, but they vary widely in terms of what they gather and what they do with it.
The quality of the recorders' data is not just a question of good or bad, though this is a large variable. Some of them try to filter out exaggerations, distortions, hoaxes, and over-interpretations—all with varying degrees of success. Others seem content to include any and all reports, no matter how atypical and/or undependable they may seem. I remember one recorder on the West Coast who told me she was careful to get confirmation of each report from at least two sources before taking it seriously. I inquired into more detail about one of her better stories, which was reported to her by two people, and it turned out that both of them had heard it from the same original source. That fact didn't bother her at all. For this and other reasons it seemed pointless to investigate her reports any further.
Quality of data depends on the kinds of events that are selected for investigation. Some recorders restrict themselves to animal accounts that broadly fit the description of the sasquatch as given here. Others include stories that include traits of a much more human type, and are in fact probably of human origin. Many are also gathering UFO information, for which I will not fault them, but when they combine this directly with the sasquatch it does not seem to stand up well. I have talked with only two people who claim to have direct knowledge of an association between UFOs and sasquatches; on other evidence it was quite obvious that neither of these people had full possession of their faculties. There are some who would associate sasquatch with almost every paranormal phenomenon that has been reported. This is explored further in the next section.
Recorders vary in how they disseminate their information. This can be in the form of regular publications, privately produced newsletters and small books, or personal access to their files. Hard-core hunters are gathering this same kind of information, but for obvious reasons they are not disseminating their best data in any form. One can safely presume that the hunters' data are strictly of the wild-animal type, and not any of the paranormal interpretations. There are some investigators who are not obviously hunting the animal, and who claim to have extensive files of information, yet refuse to share it with others. Since they do not have the hunter's motive for withholding their data, it would be a fair working hypothesis that they actually have no important data at all.
The novices are information gatherers, but they do not always record it diligently. Those who continue the search and learn more about the subject sometimes develop into recorders of one kind or another. Some become hard-core hunters, others become "professionals" (see next section), but most of them eventually just quit.
Recorders are generally individuals, but sometimes a small group of them will work together, with or without a strong leader. As long as they are not trying hard to bring in the first specimen, dead or alive, there can be as much cooperation in this endeavor as in any-thing else that they might attempt.
The curious thing about most recorders I know is the great value they seem to place on the reports for their own sake. To my way of thinking, these reports might be valued as a means to an end, but not as an end in themselves. But some people collect baseball cards and other items of no intrinsic value, so why not sasquatch reports? My pet peeve along this line is the investigator who boasts that he has many reports, but is so jealous of them he won't let anyone know what they amount to. For all practical purposes, his reports simply do not exist.
I would propose a subtype of recorders that could be called "chroniclers," who gather large amounts of information that is carefully selected for quality, and publish it for others to use. Most notable among these are Green, Heuvelmans, and Sanderson, who's books have been mentioned frequently here. All of these authors have kept the paranormal out of their works on hairy bipeds, though Sanderson got into some other strange things toward the end of his life. These chroniclers probably like money as much as most people, but that was not the driving force behind their work John Green is now financially secure for reasons having nothing to do with chronicling the sasquatch; Bernard Heuvelmans is barely making ends meet; and I have no knowledge of how well off Ivan Sanderson was. For at least the first two of these men, investigating unknown animals cost them far more than it ever earned. They all acquired a certain degree of notoriety for their works (not likely a serious motive in itself), but that publicity proved to be a means of gaining more information on their subject. This also happened to Roger Patterson after he made his movie, and it is happening to me because of the media coverage that I don't always manage to avoid.
There may well be other chroniclers who have large amounts of valid information, but who can't find the means to publish it. There definitely are others with paranormal leanings and, in my opinion, too many of them have found the means to publish.
A final comment must be made about another subtype, the "bibliographer." Most recorders get involved in gathering published works and references, at least to some degree. The usefulness of this activity has not been established in this particular field. To the best of my knowledge only one person has made a major effort along this line. Danny Perez published a respectable book in 1988 consisting solely of bibliographic references on the subject of sasquatch.
"Professionals"
The final category of investigators are those who do not want the sasquatch to be proven to exist. These people may appear to be serious researchers and/or field workers, but they all stand to lose their social standing if and when the proof is brought in. They are not hunters and have no realistic prospects of being the one who finds convincing evidence. They all know full well that when the proof is found, the scientists will move in to dominate the field, and they will be shoved aside into obscurity.
These people have made an ongoing profession out of sasquatch hunting. They give public talks on the subject (sometimes for money), write pamphlets or newsletters, give press releases, attend scientific conferences where they try to present their views, and sometimes lead study groups and expeditions. In most cases this appears to be a part-time and largely unpaid activity, but these "professionals" have chosen this route to gain a certain amount of social status. Their behavior does not differ in many respects from that of the serious investigators, but they all share the common trait of opposition to shooting a specimen. These people are not stupid; most of them have thought the matter through and know that only a body will constitute proof. Naturally they will do all they can to prevent the discovery of something that will terminate their chosen profession and thus reduce their own social significance.
If the sasquatch hunt is a small part of their lives, the “professionals” stand to lose little, and producing the proof will have little effect on their lives. Those who are more deeply involved have more at stake, and they more actively oppose any serious hunting. My deepest sympathy extends to anyone who lives only for his/her involvement in making a name in this business. Such a person might thus think that they will have nothing left to live for when the quest is over and the previously skeptical scientists take control.
This is reminiscent of the old March of Dimes organization that put itself out of business by helping to find a cure for polio. Some of the participants may have realized that this might happen and they would lose their jobs, but the work went ahead anyway. Other societies that are working on specific diseases have been accused of seeing the same handwriting on the wall, and thus devising ways to divert funds away from the most promising lines of research. The same reasoning applies to all other professions. If crime were significantly reduced, many police officers would lose their jobs; dentists depend on people continuing to have bad teeth; welfare workers owe their existence to social inequity; and if sin disappeared, preachers would have much less to do. Sasquatch hunting is a trivial profession when compared with any of these, but it follows the same pattern.
Some of the sasquatch “professionals” may actually have information that could be useful to the scientific investigation, if and when it begins. If they have gathered specific data on footprints and sightings, with a healthy degree of skepticism, these data might be used to help determine the distribution of the species. Most ecological information, however, would probably not be taken seriously; scientists usually insist on determining all of that for themselves. Any information that was collected before the proof was found will be suspect to some degree. When people collect information on the basis of belief rather than on knowledge, it is only reasonable to suspect that some or all of that information is less than objective.
All of the hard-core hunters, even those who might not be involved in trying to take the definitive specimen, probably have good distributional and behavioral evidence that the scientists will then want. Their motivation for being objective in their studies need not be questioned. The professionals,” on the other hand, will turn out to be quite a diverse group-some with no useful information at all, and others with quite a bit. It will be up to them individually to convince the scientists that they have something of value.
At the present time it is difficult to determine which of the “professionals” actually think that the sasquatch is real, whether in the strict biological sense of a species of primate or in one of the paranormal aspects that are so often advocated. They might think there is nothing to it at all, but are capitalizing on a segment of public belief in real animals, superior humanoids, or UFOnauts depending on which audience they are trying to work on. They might consider the animal species to be real, but think they can find a better social niche by advocating one of the paranormal aspects. Or they might actually believe that they are dealing with some kind of superior beings.
I have been contacted by several rational-sounding people who say they are or have been in telepathic contact with sasquatches. Each of them presents a very different version of what the creatures really are. If one of them is right, the others are totally wrong. Since all but one version must be wrong, there obviously has to be some explanation of how a false impression of telepathy has been experienced by the rest of them. It then becomes a simple step to apply that explanation to the single remaining version. What most likely occurs here is that a person is having a conversation with him/herself, and is silently verbalizing both sides of the discussion. It is a known psychological phenomenon that many such people, at one time or another, fail to note that both sides of the discussion are their own creation, and ascribe one of them to an outside source. In most instances of this phenomenon, that outside source is attributed to an entity very different from the sasquatch, but the principle is still the same. This is classed as a minor mental disorder, but it is fairly common and generally has no serious repercussions.
The association of sasquatch activity with a higher order of intelligence or technology is contradicted by virtually all of the known accounts. The exceptions are so few that inaccurate reporting or fabrication would more easily explain them. To suppose the other way around would require a hundred times more such explanation, and perhaps even more, depending on which paranormal version is presumed to be the true one.
I was recently contacted by a man who, like a few others, was concerned about how sasquatch tracks mysteriously started and ended with no explanation, and by the “inexplicable fact” that no physical remains of them have been found. lle thus knows that they are not normal creatures, and he and others are into “channeling” in an attempt to contact their spirits. He was quite bothered by my refusal to have. an “open mind” on this interpretation. Needless to say, his two premises are quite wrong, thus he is going to considerable trouble to try to explain phenomena that do not exist. If and when a sasquatch is taken, this person will have no input into further investigations by the scientists.
At the opposite end of the practical scale are the people whom I suspect may be paid by the timber industries in the Pacific Northwest. There is no hard evidence that this is actually occurring, but the behavior of some individuals is otherwise difficult to explain. There are various reasons to take a stand against shooting a sasquatch, and some can be quite legitimate from a personal moral point of view. But when it is claimed that sasquatch is made of titanium, and yet we still must not shoot him, then there is something quite illogical going on. The best way to make sasquatch research look ridiculous is to make outlandish and absurd claims of this kind, with as much publicity as possible, and to try to associate yourself with the scientists and laymen who are doing serious research. By this means the whole subject of the sasquatch becomes tainted by association, thus making the government, most scientists, and much of the public think it is all a fantasy.
There is one other variation of the sasquatch “professional,” one who is simply looking for personal publicity of any kind. Some individuals report fake sightings just to get the attention of the news media in order to liven up an otherwise dull existence. In itself, this may be a motivating factor with certain people who are well known in the field. Unfortunately this cannot easily be separated from the legitimate fact that any kind of publicity tends to provide contacts that bring in more information. Most of the hard-core hunters do not need this coverage, but it is very useful for the recorders and the “professionals.”
Click here to buy the book "Big Foot Prints" by Grover S. Krantz.
No comments:
Post a Comment