Sasquatch Must Die: Why Cryptozoology Needs a Body

Sasquatch Must Die: Why Cryptozoology Needs a Body


The topic has been debated from every vantage point over the years:  Do you support “kill” or “no kill” in regards to Sasquatch?  In the field of cryptid research, few topics are more divisive and evoke such raw emotion.  It’s time to bring some clarity to this issue.  The simple fact is, we need a body.  It needs to be said firmly and unapologetically that someone needs to kill a Sasquatch.  Nothing else is going to resolve the issue of Sasquatch existence.  Nothing else is going to move this creature from myth into reality.  No amount of photographs, video, hair, tracks, prints, or alleged DNA is going to do in 100 years what a body could do in a matter of minutes.  In the digital age, a picture is not worth any factual words.

It needs to be made clear that the “no-kill crowd” has an agenda.  It may come as a shock to some, but many people support a no-kill philosophy only to preserve their own standing.  They know that if a body is found that they will be out of business.  All their paid “Bigfoot excursions” will come to a halt.  No more “membership dues” to bogus organizations.  They will be relegated to the background as academia and grant-funded scientists take over.  The hobbyists will need to find a new cryptid (or mythical creation) of which to declare themselves experts.

For these folks, no body equals job security.  Therefore they organize “hunts” and “expeditions” while making sure everyone in the group subscribes to their same philosophy.  They take to the woods en masse and act surprised when they fail to locate anything (have you ever hunted deer in a large crowd?).  They taut their experience and expertise in tracking, calling, communicating, but somehow never finding, a Sasquatch.  It is easy to claim to be an expert on cryptic topic when there is no verifiable, scientific evidence to support that such a thing exists.  I am reminded of a lecture I attended at which Dr Esteban Sarmiento stated, “No one knows anything about Sasquatch, because we have no proof it exists.”



The “no-kill crowd” uses numerous tactics to support their single-minded position.  They claim that Sasquatch is “too close to human” and killing one would be murder.  This is nonsense.  Sasquatch are not human.  If they exist, they are animals.  They should not be given protection via scare tactics or a threatened murder charge.  It is not in argument that Sasquatch should be a protected species after it is verified that they exist.  Certainly, this would make sense.  However, threats of criminal charges and laws that preemptively protect Sasquatch are nonsensical tripe unless someone presents a body.  Following the “no-kill” logic, why are they not proposing legislation outlawing the killing of unicorns and the harvest of their magical glitter?

It is amazing  how many self-proclaimed “Bigfooters” have had these animals in their sights and not pulled the trigger.  Happy, touchy, good feelings aside, we all know human nature.  Money, while perhaps the root of much evil, is also a hearty means to an end.  Such human nature should take over in at least one instance if these stories are true.  It would be the find of the century, and worth millions dollars if someone had a body.  One shot, one death.  However, the “no-kill crowd” will tell you that you might kill “someone in a suit.”  I think this speaks volumes about the fact that there are probably more hoaxers in the woods than real Sasquatch.  Again, simple deflection to protect their own interests and agenda.

Further, how many times are we going to have to listen to the “Bigfooters” who are scared out of the woods after “seeing” one of these things?  Isn’t that what they are supposed to be looking for?  These fools rank right up there with the “shadow-jumping,” ghost-hunting crowd: the ones who go running from haunted locations at the first noise or cold spot they encounter.  These folks are an embarrassment.

Science will not take Sasquatch seriously until the people who present themselves in this field do so in a professional, logical fashion.  Science is cold and heartless.  It’s science!  It is supposed to work without emotion.  Too bad the same cannot be said for the majority of “Bigfooters.”  All the “wanting Sasquatch to exist,” all the “eco-protection” babble, and all the “don’t kill the big guy,” has clouded their minds.  Too many are looking for what they want to find and do not want their dream to be killed.  Emotional response to this issue is the problem, not part of the solution.

As long as the individuals in the woods, who are doing the true legwork, are afraid to pull the trigger and kill one of these beasts, we will never make any progress.  Acknowledgement and respect go out to those who are getting off the couch, putting miles on their cars and boots, and looking for Sasquatch.  Now they just have to have the fortitude to follow through.

Too many people have used the paranormal and, in particular, the hunt for Sasquatch to further their own agenda.  In the realm of ecology (a science) and taxonomy (a science) a body is required before a new species is recognized.  The pseudo-groups need to understand simple reality.  Anything short of what is necessary for true science is just feel-good nonsense.  Those with the “no-kill” philosophy should be relegated to the “Sasquatch is a shape-shifter, trans-dimensional, UFO pilot” camp.  Their position does nothing to further professional research or bring any legitimacy to the field.


Join the Traveling Museum of the Paranormal and get awesome perks!


  1. Marc Ferris

    11/12/2013 at 6:40 PM

    Why not capture one? Mankind has been making traps to catch stuff size we realized it took less energy to make lunch if we could get prey animals in a box.

    Live trapping is an art but with new composite material, and wireless technology a trap large enough and strong enough, yet portable enough to hump into the mountains should be an easy project.

    In Monterey County we have Mountain Lions, and Bobcats, but few people know that there are also ring-tailed cats. Few people know about them because they are extremely rare, and sneaky. It would make no sense to kill one in order to study it, and as they are secretive creatures dead ones are impossible to find. So a lot of study and planning goes into an effective capture of these animals as to not hurt them. The bonus being that careful study leads to more information.

  2. Kwin The Eskimo

    11/12/2013 at 10:32 PM

    Thank you, Marc, for taking the time to leave a comment.

    As a professional trapper (and by that, I do mean “one who is actually paid money to trap animals”) I can tell you that trapping is truly an art form (as you indicated). Patterning known animals is no easy task. Patterning an “unknown” animal, while not impossible, would be highly unlikely to yield positive results. Kill trapping is hard enough, live trapping is a whole different story. Most people are under the false assumption that trapping is as simple as placing some “steel” in the woods or setting a few snares. Nothing could be further from the truth. One has to have intricate knowledge of an animal, know exactly what its travel patterns are, have positive sign, have proper baiting techniques, know exactly when the animal will show up, and then still get incredibly lucky. Trapping requires you to set the trap and then bring your quarry to the EXACT spot YOU picked. Most people are clueless how difficult it is to trap a canine (brain the size of a golfball) let alone something as allegedly intelligent as a Sasquatch?

    The simple difference between a trap and a gun is that with a trap, you can see the animal all day, but if it doesn’t come to you, you’re out of luck. With a gun, if you see the animal, you now have the ability to “reach out and touch it” no matter where it goes. And before we go down the “dartgun” path, again most people have no knowledge of what real tranquilizer guns require. They watch Animal Planet and see amazing shots from helicopters, etc. Real drug delivery guns require a person to get within 50 feet of the animal. If that was possible, we would have HD images of these things by now. Or, if we had the budget of some of these nature programs (i.e. big university dollars) we would not be having this discussion because we would already have one of these things in a lab.

    Thanks again for taking the time to read the article and comment. Kindest regards.

  3. Bugs

    11/13/2013 at 1:09 PM

    I completely agree that a body is needed to prove scientifically and conclusively that the species is real. However, I would like to call into question the need for proving its existence in the first place. I have come to the conclusion that it is far better for THEM to remain off of the establishment’s radar. I personally don’t see any good that would come from furthering professional research and/or legitimacy being brought to this field.

  4. Meggin Lane

    11/13/2013 at 2:34 PM

    I vote no kill. Tranquilize, take tissue samples and put one of the heaviest endangered species fines on any one who seeks to do them harm. Because if we’ve learned anything by how the gorillas have been treated the Sasquatch will be poached to near extinction coz every yahoo with trophy room will want a preserved hand as an ashtray or a decapitated head as a bubble gum dispenser.

    • Coppertop

      11/14/2013 at 6:12 AM

      I was just thinking the same thing. If Bigfoot exists, leave it alone. I personally have very fond childhood memories of Harry and the Hendersons, and I wouldn’t want that ruined by a front-page picture of a beer-bellied redneck holding up Squatch’s head under the headline “LOCAL MAN BAGS LEGEND” or something like that.

      • Kwin The Eskimo

        11/15/2013 at 8:59 AM

        Thanks for the comment.

        I would simply add that I enjoyed “Charlotte’s Web”, yet I still squash spiders. I further found “Babe” to be a touching film and, at least for now, I still eat pork.

    • DocZaius

      11/14/2013 at 10:13 AM

      How do you tranquilize an animal of unknown size and unknown metabolism? I’m no expert, but my impression is that when biologists go out to tranquilize a wild animal, they have *some* idea of the animal’s size and reaction to the tranquilizer (which may dictate what drug to use).

      There are too many unknown variables with Sasquatch to safely tranquilize one. Any attempt is going to be risky not just to the animal, but to the researcher. Would you want to be on the bad side of an angry and inadequately tranquilized 10-foot-tall ape?

      Never mind that you’d have to get close enough to hit one, probably in heavy undergrowth that would hinder a relatively slow-moving dart. You’re much more likely to hit the target with a traditional rifle bullet, I would think.

      • Kwin The Eskimo

        11/15/2013 at 8:34 AM

        Excellent point. I have been an unfortunate witness to bad traq/pneumatic dart gun use. If not set correctly for size, etc the dart will punch right through the muscle and maim (if not kill) the animal depending upon shot placement. A well placed kill shot is much more humane than a failed “darting” attempt.

    • MAF

      02/10/2014 at 10:07 AM

      The gorillas have been poached by the “bush meat” trade. Impoverished starving people that live enmasse near or in the gorilla habitat borders. It has absolutely nothing to do with trophy hunting. The macabe furniture is a by-product of the killing not the motivating factor.
      Dr. P.N Stuff

  5. Andrew

    11/14/2013 at 8:14 PM

    Well spoken, Kwin!

    There are definitely those of us working towards that goal. We’re not predators, super-hunters, or trigger-happy murderers. We really just need one body. For those of us truly interested in learning about this species and protecting its habitat – Sasquatch must die.

    • Kwin The Eskimo

      11/15/2013 at 8:34 AM

      Thanks for the comment. Kindest regards.

  6. alanborky

    11/15/2013 at 2:40 AM

    I’m slightly disappointed given the recent more racy if not raunchy material on here I saw the picture an’ thought now there’s a type o’ porn y’don’t hear much about Sasquatch rapin’ Frosty the Snowman. I even thought I’d finally find out what Frosty’s carrot was for.

    Mighty Kwin you say you’re a trapper but there’re many trappin’ methods.

    Couldn’t you go for a honey trap an’ sidle up t’Bigfoot in a bar makin’ goo-goo eyes at’im?

    I’m bein’ facetious because I’ve a suspicion things wouldn’t work out quite as you hope.

    Bryan Sykes’s been criticised for puttin’ out material before subjecting his data an’ interpretations to peer reviews but why should it matter what order these things’re done so long as the data’s made available?

    It matters of course if you’re concerned with gate keepin’ popular perceptions as well as protectin’ decades of work establishin’ you your colleagues’ or/and your proteges’ status as receivers of acclaim an’ awards for the currently accepted paradigm.

    For decades in fact people’ve been submittin’ samples only t’be told “type o’ man/ape/bear” an’ that’d be the end o’ that chapter.

    Thanks t’Bryan Sykes though “type o’bear” suddenly seems potentially far more mysterious than we’d’ve ever previously’ve assumed.

    Thanks to Svante Pääbo “type o’ man” can be potentially even more mysterious though in other hands the Denisovan tooth could also’ve been set aside as “type o’ ape”.

    If someone other than Mike Morwood’d found Flores Man we may well’ve never even heard about him an’ even now there’re those who perfectly fairly dispute his status as human.

    The point I’m makin’s you yourself might shoot an’ drag in what you know for a fact’s a Sasquatch but ‘pendin’ on which scientists first lay hands on the corpse you may never be allowed near it again an’ your only knowledge of it’s subquent fate’d be years if not decades of peer reviews of peer re-reviews of peer re-re-reviews disputin’ whether it’d been nothin’ more than one o’ RPJ/Coppertops’ alcoholic reprobate naturist red sheep o’ the family members sleepin’ it off in the woods.

    I also suspect it’d actually be a boom time for the Fortean tours industry an’ I’d be surprised if Loren Coleman for one didn’t have somethin’ t’say about Dr Esteban Sarmiento’s statement.

    We may have no PROOF it exists but I’m sure Loren’d dispute us not knowin’ ANYTHING about Sasquatch.

    Might I just add y’seem very keen on the idea scientific research justifies shootin’ Sasquatch but’d y’be so keen if it was y’dog or y’cat or y’pet bunny rabbit?

    Sayin’ all this I have a deep suspicion you’re actu’ly actin’ as Devil’s Adocate here so I hope y’don’t receive too much naked hostility for writin’ this piece.

    • Kwin The Eskimo

      11/15/2013 at 8:52 AM

      Thanks for taking the time to leave a comment.

      Personally, I weigh the learned commentary of Dr Sarmiento heavier than the opinion of Mr Coleman.

      Academia has rigorous standards for publication. These standards exist for a reason. The ease of publication on the internet does not mean these standards need to be lowered or modified.

      Also, this piece is truly my position on the topic. If hostility be garnered, I welcome it, naked, clothed, or otherwise.

  7. Tina

    11/25/2013 at 8:09 AM

    Wow, I love how you put down everyone who is against killing something. I’m a vegan, and I’m against hunting. I am no-kill because I believe all animals have a right to live. Do I believe in Sasquatch? I would like to, just like I would like to believe in ghosts. I want to know there are things about this world that we have yet to discover. But killing one just to satisfy my thirst for knowledge? Cruel and selfish. Shame on you

    • Mark

      05/21/2014 at 8:11 AM

      I’m also in the “no kill” group but for another reason than those stated. I’m of the opinion that there is not now and never has been any such animal as bigfoot so any killing that would be done would probably only result in the death of some harmless hoaxer.

  8. Regan Lee

    12/01/2013 at 4:41 PM

    KTE, you come off as many KILL supporters do, as condescending. As a NO KILL activist, I will tell you I get it, perfectly. I don’t care.

    I GET that science needs a body to prove to itself and the world that Bigfoot does exist. The point is, I don’t care if that proof is ever found.

    For many witnesses who have seen Bigfoot, they don’t need proof. They don’t need proof because they’ve see one. I have not (yet) seen one, so I can’t say it is a fact BF exists. I do choose to believe friends and family and many of the witnesses I have interviewed who have seen a Bigfoot. No, doesn’t prove beyond doubt it exists, but it’s pretty damn good for the time being.

    You also make a lot of assumptions about the motives and agendas of NO KILL supporters. I don’t speak for everyone but many I know, and myself, are not about making money are afraid that, if proof of Bigfoot is found, we somehow lose something. In that case, the only thing that has lost anything is the dead Bigfoot that science got, presumably by way of a trigger happy Bigfoot hunter.

    The point that BF may be closer to human than not is a valid one, and if true, killing one will certainly impact us on many levels. It BF isn’t and “just” an animal — remember, we are all animals — that is still no justification in killing one. We don’t get to, simply because we want to. Any more than we get to go out and kill elephants or gorillas — we do not have that right. (Don’t confuse this argument with hunting in order to feed one’s self, that is another issue altogether.)

    You also trivialize the NO KILL supporters by putting them in the same box as those that seriously entertain the shape-shifting paranormal idea of Bigfoot. That is pretty low. For many NO KILL supporters reject such ideas about Bigfoot. (I happen to think BF is much more than a flesh and blood “beast” as so quaintly refer to it, but that’s beside the point.)

    Then again, if BF is indeed a paranormal type entity, good luck with killing one.

    You also say, though it’s confusing the way you put it, that there are probably more hoaxers in BF suits running around than the real thing. If true, then yeah, the chances of someone shooting a human IS very likely and it’s a little scary you treat such a possibility as not very important.

    As to unicorns crapping glitter; well, I don’t know of any witness reports to that, but I sure do know of a lot of witness reports concerning Bigfoot.

    Another question that doesn’t get asked concerns the aftermath of the kill. If BF is proved to be real, because of a dead body, then what? How does such a discovery affect county, state, and federal laws regarding land use, hunting, camping, rights of way, endangered species, etc.? How does it impact us on all levels — from the mundane to the metaphysical?

    Laws protecting Bigfoot may seem silly — after all, we don’t know for a fact it exists. Well, those that have seen it know. But there’s no proof. I get that as well. However, if it exists, better safe than sorry. No harm in having such laws and it might turn out to be a good thing. Complaining about laws like this seems silly.

    There is no good argument for killing a Sasquatch in order to prove its existence. Why prove its existence at all? I know, it’s to prove to science it exists. But, WHY prove to science it exists? It’s an endless loop.

    I don’t care if it’s proven. If it turns out there is no BF (but how does one prove there isn’t?) oh well. I’m content with what witnesses have to say, and the interesting evidence collected so far. I do not and will never support a KILL and I will always argue for the NO KILL agenda. Always.

  9. Malachi

    12/06/2013 at 10:05 AM

    While I agree with the spirit of the article. There is are a few factors I don’t think it addresses.

    I don’t think it is wise to let a bunch of armed Sasquatch hunters loose in the woods with the expectation that if they see a bipedal dark figure, then shooting it could possibly give them fame, fortune, and an opportunity to stick it to PETA. In their minds, there are two possible candidate identities for large bipedal creatures walking around in the woods: humans or bigfoot.

    For the others, and I would have to say the vast majority of those who report sightings, there is only one possible candidate identity for large bipeds in the woods: humans. So when the man out hunting deer encounters a large thing walking around and sees something standing on two legs we would have to expect them to assume the creature is human regardless of the odd appearance. So while it maybe true that a body will end this controversy in one fell swoop, we have to grant pardon for people not wanting to shoot humanoids they encounter in the woods. In fact we should applaud them for their discretion.

    I’ll offer an illustration:

    Imagine you are late for some engagement and are speeding down a dark back road to make up time. You round a curve and see a man-shaped figure lying in the road. Two things go through your head: 1. it is possible the figure is simply an old discarded jacket or large trashbag of some sort, or 2. it’s possible the figure is a man unconscious, dead, or dying lying there. What would you do? Barrel right through it in hopes it was the former option or swerve around it just in case it is the latter option?

    I think most folks would choose the latter, and that is the same sort of rationale we find common within bigfoot sightings by armed witnesses: even though they are convinced this thing is not a human being, at the off chance it is, they choose the more conservative path. If a man chose not to shoot a bear, because he thought it was a man in a bear suit, then silly as that may be, his motives should be applauded.

    However, those that do shoot at the creature (which there are reports of) do it out of a sense of being directly threatened just like you would a charging bear, or even a human attacker; not for trophy but for survival. So while it would definitely serve our curiosity for someone to bag a bigfoot, the discretion and hesitancy commonly experienced by armed witnesses in shooting the thing is out of a respect for human life even though the creature itself shows little signs of humanity. I’d have to say, unless the thing was posing a direct threat to life and limb, I’d probably not shoot it either. So even if your assertion (in direct contrast to Dr Esteban Sarmiento’s preceding agnosticism) that “Sasquatch are not human. If they exist, they are animals” is in fact true, then it still does not justify killing an animal simply because you see one. So the ‘no-kill’ policy should be as conditional as we apply to any animal. If there is no immediate threat then just observe and if there is an immediate threat, then shoot to kill.

  10. kenny

    03/08/2015 at 12:11 PM

    I would have to go along with kill
    We need a body I no it not nice but I think it is the only way to go

You must be logged in to post a comment Login