Question,

I know this is a hot topic, but Im going to "go there" anyway. The Kill vs. No Kill. This is a very contested issue in this area of research. Those in the "Kill Camp" believe the animal must be killed in order to prove it exists. In the other camp we have the "No Kill" researchers, who believe photographic and physical evidence will be enough one day to prove the existance of Bigfoot or Sasquatch.

Where do I stand? Well, this issue for me is difficult. I understand how science works, and as such, I do understand where the "Kill Camp" stands. But, I do not agree that we need to kill anything to prove it is in fact on this planet. I want this animal documented as much as anyone in this field, but I could not be the one to shoot it - unless it would mean the safety of myself or another team member. I think for me, part of this is the research. I love being out in the field - looking for evidence, studying reports, looking for that undiscovered needle in a haystack. Does that mean my world will fall apart if this animal is found and infact cataloged? Absolutely not. For me, this research is as much about the work involved, as it is about finding the animal. I enjoy both. Maybe thats why I dont care to kill one.

If I were to get a call telling me someone had actually shot and killed one, my heart would be sad, but I would not lead the charge to have that person hung by the toes. We all have our opinion about this issue, and regardless of the position, I can respect that.

Question I have though... Why is no one, in the search for the Ivory Billed Woodpecker, calling for the head of one, to prove it exists? In my opinion, in that case, we have 14 seconds of blurry footage, and the scientific community and bird watchers across the world are throwing big parties in celebration. That find is taken seriously. In this field we have recorded vocalizations, that have been tested and have come back as "Not in the Human range", we have track casts, we have eyewitness reports from very credible sources - and still this search is only taken seriously by a few in the scientific community. I just dont understand.

I think the lack of interest within science, is what is fueling this "Kill" issue.

Maybe you see my stance on this as romantic, or maybe you think I dont understand the issues involved here... If thats the case -- tell me where Im wrong?