It’s 5:30 in the morning as I begin this post..
I should be sleeping, but I can’t. I have a busy weekend ahead, a busy day ahead today, and I’m tired… but this topic has been swirling around in my brain and I know that if I don’t start on this, I won’t sleep. I also know that if I go back to bed, I won’t have a chance to write again today. Rowan wakes up early and once she’s up, I usually don’t get a chance to sit back down (which is the reason why the “daily” blog isn’t always daily!).
This will be a multi-post series, since there is no way that I can even attempt to cover everything I want to about this topic in one post. It’s multifaceted, multidimensional, and possibly one of the most in-depth discussions we can have about this subject. Rather than biting off more than I can chew, I’ll do my best to organize my thoughts and share them in small doses. I’ll try to link each post to those previous, to keep things in context and I’ll do my best not to jump around too much. Just know that as I share my thoughts with you on this, whether you agree or disagree with them, whatever I say is probably never going to be the final word I’ll have on the subject because it’s just too complex. As always, your thoughts and feedback are always welcome – and encouraged – as I make a meager attempt to address a subject as intense as this one and I’ll do my best to share my thoughts on your questions, concerns and opinions as we go.
Context. In the end, maybe that’s what it all boils down to.
The first question I ask myself is this: To prove, given the chance, or not to prove?
Please note how that question is worded. The headline that sets Bigfoot forums buzzing and starts flames wars is usually “To kill or not to kill”… but this topic, in my mind, encompasses more than that.
I’ve been doing research for 20 years now. I’ll be 36 on Tuesday. That’s more than half of my life. And I’ve been wrestling with this subject nearly every day during these last two decades…
What, ultimately, would constitute proof? What would a “proof” scenario look like? Do we have the right to potentially destroy something simply to assuage our curiosity? What are the possible ramifications, on our world and theirs, of “proving” that they exist? Will proving THAT they are prove WHAT they are?
I know I’ve said this before, but I’ll reiterate it here: A body on a slab will tell us that they exist. It will ultimately prove THAT they are. But in the end, what will it tell us about WHAT they are?
Which question, really, would you like answered?
And if a body is acquired, will you or I ever hear about it?
That’s why the possible consequences to US matter. Because those consequences will inevitably be taken into account by any agency or individuals involved in the dissemination of that information. Whoever has a body, or any kind of proof in hand, has the opportunity to make a bigger impact on this world than they may realize.
To kill or not to kill… is that the question?
Since this seems to be the part of the equation most often focused on, let me address this first so we can move on to the rest of it.
I have always been firmly against harming a Sasquatch in any way, shape or form Except, perhaps, in self defense – which would be a questionable scenario to begin with, since these creatures rarely seem directly aggressive unless stupidly provoked and whether killing something because you stupidly provoked it can really be considered “self defense” is another thing entirely. *grin* But I digress.
I don’t believe we have the right to “take a specimen”. Yep. I used the word “believe” and that’s something you’ll rarely see me do.
For me, it’s simply a moral dilemma. Over the years, I’ve listened to my peers in the research field talk about taking “just one” specimen to put the subject to rest once and for all. Often, somewhere within all of the initial bloodlust, there are vaguely altruistic murmurings about “proving they exist so they can be protected”. This strikes me as being very short-sighted. First of all, I’m fairly positive that “just one” wouldn’t be enough. Secondly, the idea that proving something exists will automatically cause us to subsequently “protect it” – with our track record as humans of destroying most everything we touch – is just… well, rather asinine and smacks of ignorance.
“What is it?”
“I don’t know! Let’s kill it! Wait… that sounded bad. I know: Let’s say we’re killing it so we can identify it and protect it!”
Asinine.
“But,” the doubters say, “how can you prove it exists without a body? How can you protect it if you can’t prove it?”
First of all, there are likely ways to prove it exists – at least enough to garner “protection – without a corpse or a captured creature. Second of all, who says we CAN protect them? Third, do they even NEED our protection? What would constitute “protection”?
We’ll explore these ideas in upcoming posts. Meanwhile, please share your thoughts with me. :)
