Would You Shoot Bigfoot?

Absolutely

If I could figure out whether it was really bigfoot, or just a human, I dare say he would have some .450 marlin coming his way.:D
 
I respect that point of view of P.P about hunting. It's not a "sport", depending upon how one defines sport. But to most people's definition of sport, hunting is not a sport, because it's not an even playing field.

Nevertheless, sport or not, it is a "pastime" - whether it's an enjoyable/worthy/ethical pastime is debatable, and depends on the person's individual values. For me, it IS an ethical and enjoyable pastime (both) - ethical to help control populations, and enjoyable because it's fun and it puts meat in the freezer. But no, it's not a sport. And certainly not necessary for existence. It would not even be necessary for controlling out-of-control populations IF this were still the old days when more people hunted, and a balance was struck. Now, the health of the herd is dependent in part upon hunting, with some species. I kinda doubt that I would hunt deer if it weren't for the need for population control, for all the many reasons for that. As for birds, I'd probably still hunt quail, pheasant, & turkey occasionally even if it wasn't necessary for population control - and in fact, it's not necessary to the health of the "flock" to hunt quail, I don't think. Now hockey is a sport - my team can lose on any given game day, no matter how hard I try. I suppose you can "lose" the hunt, and I often do, but still that's not the key factor to it being a sport - sport is mano a mano, where both parties are equally equipped.

In any event, we should probably let this silly thread die. There is no bigfoot of course, but if there were, no I wouldn't shoot it because obviously it'd be an endangered species.
 
Ahhh, I see what you're saying....you're turning this around on me:

because it's not an even playing field.
Click to expand...

Well, good point - they have several advantages in their favor (speed, strength, better nose, better ears, etc.), and we have certain advantages (intelligence, GUNS, BOWS, etc.). Hard to say who has the advantage. But to me it's not a sport unless the other animal is also *trying to kill ME*.

I suppose you could say the game has the advantage since the number of game that escape to live another year each year exceed the number of game harvested each year, but that's more a function of the limits of taking game set by game laws than it is a function of the sheer level-ness of the playing field.
 
probably a little gamy

Seems to me unless you planned on eating bigfoot there is little point in shooting it. However if you were to see it, then be sure to check your water supply to be sure your hydrated and avoiding hallucinations.
 
As for hunting, no one that does it ever called it "a sport". We do it for sport. Kinda hard to explain but there is a big difference. Sort of like explaining what "a sport" is. Football, baseball etc are "a sport", but what about ice skating? Certainly those folks are more talented and athletic than most everyone else. How about darts? Someone wins, someone loses, but anyone can do it. Bowling, Nascar, golf etc. The definition of sport is well like the old saying goes, "I can't define obscene, I just know it when I see it."

As for whether there is a bigfoot. Look at the Patterson film. If you know animals, you know the difference between "living" fur and a costume. Beyond that, realize that whatever walked in front of Pattersons camera weighed between 800 and 1,000lbs. Period, that's a fact. Could they make a costume to look that good, doubtful, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Could a human make those prints. No way in hell. Take a reeaally big guy, say 500lbs. Do you really think he could carry a hidden jacket of some sort weighing 300 lbs or more and look that graceful if he could even walk that far? Nope, not a chance. Who knows what Patterson filmed, but it weren't no human.
 
We have a believer!

:) Actually, they found and interviewed the guy out in Calif. who got in the suit and played bigfoot, because of the funny way he walked (still walks) - him and his buddies admitted the whole story in great detail after Patterson died. Patterson paid them like $1,000 each to go out and help him make the film - they trekked a good ways into the wilderness on horseback. Just some good ol' boys.

http://www.rense.com/general49/making.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson-Gimlin_film
 
If I were hunting and thought that I was looking at some weird, rare creature of any kind, I would certainly not shoot it. I'd take a picture of it if I had a camera with me, and I'd mention it to the wildlife authorities.

Playboypenguin said:
I am afraid I just do not see anything "sporting" in hunting. Hunting is a means of providing food. Anything beyond that is just machismo.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not a hunter, but I can see how hunting would be a challenge requiring skill, even if one doesn't consider it a "sport."

While I certainly don't think shooting an animal makes anyone more of a man, I don't have a problem with hunting as long as it's done humanely. After all, I own leather jackets, leather shoes, and leather belts, and I eat plenty of meat, so I'm just as responsible for the deaths of animals as any hunter. But my concerns about hunting are when people do it irresponsibly: e.g., shooting wildly at running animals and thus wounding rather than killing quickly; using too weak a cartridge for the game; shooting female animals when they may be caring for their young; and so forth. All of these things are heartless and cruel (synonymous with "manly" in the minds of some). But cleanly killing some big buck or whatever is no big deal. It's a lot more merciful than dying of age-related disease or injuries from a fight.
 
It all depends on your definition of "sport"....

Hunting is as much as a sport as bowling isn't it?? How about horse riding, windsurfing, shooting....all those are official olympic "sports".... How about hitting DH in baseball, heck, if you hit the ball hard enough, you don't even have to run.

You don't have to be in a life threatening situations to make it a "sport", and you don't have to be an athlete to participate in a "sport", but I would agree that I don't consider hunting a "sport", but I'd categorize it more in line with hobby/pasttime.

I can see some flaming coming, like: "if you don't think hunting is a sport, then you've never really been to a REAL hunt before"....mehhh... I play soccer twice a week, I rock climb, I run marathons.....so if you can keep up with me, then I'll listen :D
 
Bigfoot, camera unless threatened. If threatened, I would make swiss cheese out of him.

Hunting for sport. Hunting for food. A little confusing so let me give my 2 cents.

I do not hunt for food. I have a job and can buy groceries. I hunt alot. I take alot of game animals. I eat most of everything I hunt.

If there is something wrong with the animal, I do not eat it. I butcher my own game and we eat it. Yet I do not hunt so we can eat it. I hunt because I love to be in the woods and I love the thrill of the chase and I love the whole experience. I feel it is my duty to the animals and the other hunters to tag and eat everything I hunt and kill.

I do not hunt to eat. I do not hunt to kill. I hunt because I love everything about it. That is my privilege.
 
Obviously pro wrestling was not around in Hemingway's time.

I find it disturbing that so many want to kill something when they do not even know what it is.They will not eat it.And it has done nothing to damage them or their property.Doesn't say much for humans.
 
Homo sap's a predator, so hunting is just part of our deal. The more aggressive among us get into the more violent sports as a substitute; others go into business as their form of sublimation.

"Blood sports" would include hunting the African buffalo; I like the description, "He looks at you as though you owe him money." Jeff Cooper covers it well in his "Another Country".

But if physical condition and exertion are part of the deal, along with attributes like eye-hand coordination and a knowledge of all the factors involved, much of hunting is certainly a sport. I guess the competition factor is less formalized, since you don't really have a case of two or more people competing for a single trophy.

Fifteen miles of walking-hunting in mountainous country, with the shooting skills that are requisite and the knowledge of your prey's behavior that is necessary: That's indeed as much of a sport as running around a formalized field with other people.

It's certainly a game, as shooting has been part of the Olympics for well over a century...

Art
 
Mothman
Click to expand...

And that's another one...

Looks to me as if the Mothman had been real, such a creature's chances of survival in a small West Virginia town during the mid 1960s would have been very small. Surely someone had a 12-gauge with 00 buck, a .30-30, a surplus Springfield, something!
 
I agree Art. Hunting is a sport in the since that it is a physical and mentally challenging activity that is competitive. It is competive between hunter and prey of course, but in "most" people it is also competive with hunters too. I know that we all hunt or should hunt for the meat and the experiance of the hunt but lets face it, we judge our success be it number of kills or size of rack, ect against other hunters. That is what makes hunting such a wonderful sport. I guess that you can say that we can have our cake and eat it too.
 
If I was sure Han Solo would't come out of the clouds and shred me with his blasters...yes.

The bigger question is, would Sanow count it as a "one shot stop"?
 
with my nikon i would, now if he comes any closer and shows any intent of doing harm, my 1911 is always cocked and locked and i would not hesistate
ed
 
Well now that begs the question, what handgun caliber for Sasquatch defense when you're attacked just trying to take some pictures. :D I say .50 GI!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top