I would like nothing more than the proof of various cryptids, alien civilizations, even alien visitors to be found. But that proof will come only through rigorous science and objective analysis, and by holding evidence to the highest standards of scrutiny. Born in south eastern Pennsylvania, i have found myself at one time or another living in Chicago, Cleveland, Raleigh-Durham, on the island of Kaua'i and finally landed on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State. I have turned my hand to various professions from early work in 3d graphics to historic building restoration, carpentry and log home building to working in a bronze art foundry on the WWII Veterans Memorial. Currently I am a writer, script writer and working for a non profit organization called Empowerment Through Connection which is involved in equine assisted therapy for veterans, at risk teens and women.

Let’s see, how many of you read past the headline?

Good. This is not an article about proof of any cryptid related to Bigfoot. Just as many people believe aliens and their presence, even interference in our daily affairs if not our evolution will one day be proven; many people believe the existence of Bigfoot will one day be proven. This article is not even about that.

The question I have is what happens next, provided Bigfoot is shown by legitimate science to be a living breathing creature? There is a movement among the Bigfoot believers for it to receive status as a protected species. Seekers like Todd Standing have already gotten a commitment from the Canadian government to grant protected status to the creature. Just as soon as he proves its existence. Melba Ketchum says repeatedly on her FaceBook page that she only wants protection for what she now says is a member of the human family. Some go so far as to say the killing a Bigfoot should be treated as murder.

A debate arises regularly across the various websites and FaceBook pages where the armchair cryptozoologists gather: Kill vs No Kill. Some of the believers say that the DNA evidence is enough. Once DNA can be confirmed it will be taken as proof and the issue will be settled, governments can get down to the business of protecting the species. So far that is not really working out as hoped.

Diehard skeptics believe that only a body will do. Now that need not be a dead body, a live capture would in many ways be preferable. Also, unfortunately incredibly more difficult and potentially dangerous for all involved, so what is most likely to occur in the pursuit of proof is a dead body. At the far end of the No Kill spectrum, there is also a No Capture group. Some people will just insist on making life difficult.

At this point in the article I am interested where our readers stand on the topic. Existence or Non-Existence does not enter into this poll, that is a different discussion. This poll deals with a presumption of existence and the question of killing a specimen or not.


Kill or No Kill?
pollcode.com free polls 


I am curious about how this plays out, but some of you may well ask what my position is on this question.
Simply put, Don’t find out if Bigfoot is real. Stop looking.

There are people out there who follow crypto-zoology, some of them educated, who say we should not be bothering to look for Bigfoot. The highest odds are that if a creature of that reported size has gone undiscovered for this length of time the most likely reason is it does not exist so why bother wasting resources on looking. To them I respond that in that opinion they are by far the most ignorant of the lot, believers and skeptics alike. Nothing is learned by burying your head in the sand. If Science only looked for things that we already know exist, what would ever have been discovered? In the mean time we only just discovered a ligament in the human knee. What on Earth has been more rigorously studied than the human body? If there is something, I cannot name it.

So why the hell am I saying do not prove the existence of Bigfoot??

Because IF they exist, and IF people actually want them protected, the best thing that we can do to achieve that end is let them be. Any amount of knowledge we gain about a creature only puts them at further risk from our hands.

An article from September 2013

In 2008, the number of rhino poached barely reached double digits. Last year, the number was 668 and will be about 700 when you read this, meaning an average of 2.7 rhino die every day. By the end of the year, between 900 and 1000 rhinos will have died for their horns.


An article from early November 2013

The fact that trafficking wildlife – or more accurately wildlife parts – is illegal is no deterrent. When a business is worth between £4-6billion globally people will take the risk.

The international sale of ivory has been banned since 1989 yet elephants are being slaughtered for their tusks as never before. Around 32,000 were killed in Africa last year, which equates to 96 a day.


From an article by Daniel Cressey of Nature magazine

Human activity is still killing Right Whales, one of the most endangered animals in the ocean. An analysis of four decades of whale deaths shows that attempts to prevent them have not had a demonstrable impact.


From The Daily Mail

The year 2012 will end on a cruel note for tigers. As many as 78 tigers have been killed, mostly by poachers, this year – the highest number in the last 12 years.

The closest any year came to this figure was 2001, when 71 tigers were killed. The dramatic rise in the tiger deaths has cast aspersions on conservation efforts for the wild cats.

Until the 2010 tiger census, 1,706 tigers were left in the wild. Out of the 78 tigers killed this year (till November 22), 50 fell victim to poachers, while another 28 died due to natural causes.


Poaching is the second main reason why giant pandas are nearing extinction.

The main reason why people poach a panda is for its skin. Since pandas are such rare animals their skin is treasured and can be sold for a lot of money. A panda skin was sold for $65,000 once!


All of these animals are “Protected.” Words on paper not worth the ink they are written in. All of these protections are reactionary, setting punishment for those who break these laws. By the time a poacher is caught, IF one out of a dozen or a hundred are caught, by that time the “protected” animal is already dead. All we do is hope to punish the trangressor, we protect nothing. The monetary gains far outweigh the losses to the poachers, while well intentioned law enforcement is overburdened, underfunded, ineffectual, and at times corrupted by the very people they are set to catch.

Proving the existence of Bigfoot, if it does exist is about recognition of the person who manages it. That and that alone. There are many out there who claim they want to prove it to protect it. If they exist, they have not been located for hundreds of years. There has never been a confirmed specimen killed by a human. What protection do they need?

The day Bigfoot is proven to exist is the day they start dying. If you truly want to protect it, stop trying to prove it.

[email protected]

Find us on FaceBook for Updates and more.

  • Arclight

    There is…even on a physics level…just for shits n
    giggles read up on a guy named Chuck Missler of the Koinoia Institute, check out his bio. He was a genius like you. He’s done some intense Biblical research and has drawn some fascinating conclusions…Sorry, I’m using the term spontaneous creation in the same context as the big bang, same thing…

    I never heard about ‘those people’ who think God created Himself, hilarious. The Creator always was and will always will be…just curious, were you raised in an secular/atheist home?

    If there is even a miniscule of doubt on your part and I know there is, why take the chance? I know you hear me, but are you listening?

  • Henry

    No, it is your assumption that there doubt in my mind. There is none.

    So, god always existed. That is again absolutely counter to your argument “no watch without a watchmaker.” A thing which exists without have been made to exist. There must be some miniscule doubt in your mind that such a state can only support the possibility of the big bang having been the true origin of the Universe.

    Where and how I was raised is irrelevant. I think for myself, not choosing to believe what others would try to indoctrinate through dogma.

  • Henry

    If you are going to espouse a belief in irreducible complexity (no watch without a watchmaker) for which the typical example is the eye; that such a “complex” organ cannot have come into existence without having been “designed” than you can hardly expect anyone to accept your case that an infinitely more complex and omnipotent entity capable of having designed that eye exists without also having been “designed.”

  • Arclight

    You’re spinning, turning it around..you’re not hearin me. Its difficult for a mere human to comprehend the concept, especially if we’re stuck in our little logical world.
    If how you were raised is not important, which, by the way is relevant to your core belief’s… then lets hear it. So, your parents had no impact or influence on you, that’s interesting…in the animal world, if we are animals, how a parent raises its young has a vital impact on the offspring’s survival.

    I know this won’t end until one of us stops typing. We are apparently the type that’s got to get the last word in…
    Maybe we can just agree to disagree…I have a real job that requires my attention…

  • Henry

    If it is so difficult for a mere mortal to comprehend, than you can hardly make a case for what you cannot comprehend.

  • Henry

    Your use of arguments such as “You cannot have a watch without a watchmaker” is an attempt to couch the concept of creationism in logic, sticking it into our “logical world.” Why attempt that if it can ultimately not work? As it clearly does not since your points continue to refute each other.

    My upbringing briefly paid some nominal attention to attending church (not by choice at any time by me) Episcopalian, and even as a child I never believed the crap we were being told, nor did my parents, it was simply what was done. It did not continue for long. We are animals in that we are living beings that require food, have a reproductive imperative, and share a genetic make up with every other living thing on the planet. That does not relegate us to animalistic intelligence, speaking of trying to turn things around. Even belief in your god allows free will. I exercise that privilege and reject what cannot be supported and is clearly self refuting.

  • Arclight

    Of course. How do you explain the supernatural? The secular world does by rejecting the obvious and explaining things within the realm of their science and worldly knowledge base to fit their comfort zone…as their whole world deteriorates around them. No such thing as evil, they call evil ‘bad’ or mentally unbalanced…their blindness will be their demise. If you recall the miraculous works of Jesus Christ, then you’ll understand human nature. When they realized he was the Savior, capable of miracles, the wanted to kill him because he was a threat to their religious positions. Don’t be offended. A non-believer does is not offend God. Its not a connotation of wrong doing in his eyes. Its actually worse in Gods eyes to be a luke-warm Christian than an atheist. He loves you regardless, but tells us to be either hot or cold for him, ‘for if you are luke warm, I will spew you out…’

    …one day you will know Jesus and know true

    My Mom is about to die of cancer…as a woman of faith she knows she is about to take an incredible journey, a one way ticket to an unimaginable place…

    I watched as my wife pass away about 14 years ago…most write it off as brain chemicals and hallucinations. If they only knew how destitute of the truth that was…I know I’m just some blogger you don’t know, but I speak from my heart and implore you…don’t be deceived Henry…Its very real.

  • Henry

    How do I explain the supernatural?
    How long have you been on this website??

    Your question presumes that the “supernatural” is what so many people choose to believe, and has been said already, by yourself, belief is irrelevant. I do not expect there is any one explanation for supernatural events. I have experienced a few things personally and with reflection, asking (eventually) the correct questions found what I experienced to have perfectly reasonable, perfectly natural explanations. The “super natural” is only that for which we either do not ask the correct (or often any) questions, or that which we cannot yet explain through nature.

    The suggestion that the supernatural is explained through god is called the “God in the gaps” argument. Which comes down to this:

    Primitive man sees lightning, hears thunder and cannot explain it. He understands that something must be causing these events so invents a power beyond himself. We continue to have questions to this day about things we cannot explain, but have thus far narrowed that list considerably both to the farthest reaches of space that we can perceive and to the level at which matter ceases to be matter.

    At its most basic level the “god in the gaps” argument says: “I don’t know:: Therefore god.
    Simplified it can also be read this way:

    I don’t know:: Therefore I do know.

    That is an argument that can only fail.
    If you are going to apply a logical argument, it must be consistent, if it is not, then it is flawed and invalid.

    If you cannot have a watch without a watchmaker, then neither can you have a watchmaker without a maker. If, on the other hand you can have spontaneous creation, without a maker, as is claimed for the existence of god then you have no valid argument against the big bang, or evolution and the natural process of the generation of life in the Universe without rationalizing the inherent flaw in your argument.

    Does science have questions, yes. Science embraces questions, seeks answers and when it finds flaws it looks again. Does religion embrace questions? It does not, becasue all answers are the same, god, and if you question god, then you do not truly believe.

  • Arclight

    You repeatedly confuse religion with faith and spirituality, your going in circles. If science is your God, I get it. I use science as a tool. If you expect all of your answers from science, fine. One day science will triangulate its position to a Creator.
    Its interesting how physicians explain spontaneous remission or near death experiences reveal events they were never in a position to know or the mass ‘hallucinations’ at Fatima or the spiritual enlightenment of a mission specialist who’s been to the moon or the miraculous birth of your child or the amazing intricacies and resilience of the human body or the mysteries of Zeitoun, Akita, Lourdes and I’m outta time…

    See you on the other side…

  • Henry

    “One day science will triangulate its position to a Creator.”

    Thus far it has done quite the opposite.

  • Arclight

    ya just keep on spinning…

  • Henry

    Just as you refuse to offer any response other than “belief” or “faith” after having stated that belief is irrelevant.

  • Arclight

    As it relates to science. Tag…your it! Move on dude. Lets get back to Bigfoot…

  • Henry

    The existence of bigfoot will be proved by one thing.

    Facts. Independently verifiable facts as in any science. Not opinions, not beliefs or personal convictions.

  • Arclight

    Amen! I’m here if you need to talk, er type…