This is a copy of an email I sent to Gerry, and my opinion. I think we are dealing with a modern branch of Homo erectus. So if that fellow shot one, he'd technically be committing murder, killing a human (homo means human):
I've been reading about Sasquatch and become convinced they are real. I am a biologist by training, grew up in Africa and have had extensive time socializing with monkeys.
I am not talking about my family!! Anyway, it is all very interesting, and I'd be happy to join in any project you have in mind. Oh, also, I have spent many hours in the forest on my own hiking and picking mushrooms. I have training as an armed guard also, my FAC and hunters' number, not that that should matter. I'm not easily spooked. I like to wander around with a digital camera photographing mushrooms on occasion, so who knows, I might get lucky some time.
I spent my teen years hiking around the Elk mountain area. Apparently there was a sighting there in the 80's, although I never saw or heard anything personally. In this area (Fraser Valley, BC), there have also been sightings at Cultus Lake Park, the Harrison Mills area (around the small lakes and the creek), on the Fraser River before Hope, and at Lindeman Lake near Chilliwack Lake. Look on Google Earth, most are listed.
Some thoughts about Sasquatch while doing my research:
I don't think this is Gigantopithecus. First off, the only fossil remnant of Gigantopithecus is a few teeth and a piece of jawbone of a very large size. It was at first thought to be from a giant human and indeed that still remains a possibility. In my opinion it is probably from a huge Homo erectus, both because of the date and because one Homo erectus/ergaster fossil find (Turkana boy) was also unusually large (a very young boy who would grow to be 6 feet tall). H. erectus might easily have evolved bigger over time in the right conditions. It has had millenia to do so. It is useful to take the time and look at the skull bones that have been found of H. erectus, look here:
www.boneclones.com/catalog_fossil_hominids.htmAlso you can google Homo erectus and get a picture of what the creature was like.
Another thing is that sightings show a range in the cultural knowledge of this creature, if you consider worldwide reports. Some reports have been of it clothed in skins/fur, carrying clubs, using bows, and having a rudimentary knowledge of weaving, both in textiles and in weaving branches as trail sign. Some are vegetarian, and some hunt. The vocalizations seem very complex, also, accompanied with tapped out signals in stone and wood used in communication with each other.
Just because some sightings are of hairy, nude, culturally poor animal-like members of the family doesn't mean they aren't capable of culture, some simply have not yet discovered how to do these things. Some indian tales also indicate that some of these creatures could use fire for signalling, and there have been reports of them coming to fires and waving around lit brands. It seems that they may know the usefulness of fire but not have the dexterity and know-how of how to start one from scratch (neither do most of us without modern technology, if it comes to that).
And then consider that they have had the intelligence to avoid discovery for so long. This to me says "Homo erectus!" more than anything. We are not dealing with a bipedal gorilla here, but another possibly ancient member of the human family. Then there are some very rare accounts of human-sasquatch hybrids, which would not be possible if there was not a very close genetic relationship. I don't know if it is possible for humans and big apes to hybridize (though I have heard the Soviets experimented with it) but I've heard that gorillas and chimps can. It seems sasquatch and humans are much more closely related that them, if you look at the body, the foot, and the diet (omnivorous). Size is also compatible. The mere fact of the nocturnal/diurnal divide may have been what kept more hybidization from taking place, as has been the case with many other species of animals.
Now about taking samples for study. Hair is not very useful, but it should be collected as part of the package. Also be aware that if it is wearing animal fur you might be collecting that instead of a Sasquatch sample. The best to collect is scat, and then if one can, a blood sample. If one were seriously going about this the best thing would be to hunt with a tranquilizing gun, take blood and cheek cell samples, once you've got one. Everything should be frozen asap, so perhaps carrying a cooler around with dry ice is a plan if you are going to spend the time looking. Don't send all of your sample for analysis, keep some. Send it to a big, scientific zoo lab rather than a local lab for comparison analysis. Get them to do several different kinds of DNA tests, not simply an identification test but also a Mitochondrial DNA comparison test and a Y-chromosome test so you get an idea of where in the ape-hominid family this animal fits in. First you'd need to eliminate the possibility it is bear etc, then place it somewhere in the ape hierarchy. Warning, this is expensive but would be worth it. Consider what Morgan did when she found the new gorilla in Cameroon recently, she sent her samples to the San Diego Zoo for analysis and that wouldn't be a bad idea in this case, either.
Finally, locating bones is very important. This particular area was thought to be covered in an ice sheet until 10, 000 years ago, so scientists do not often look for old human bones here. But given the likelihood of finding sasquatch or H. erectus bones in caves hearabouts, ( and since some were found in Asia, thought to have been there for 100's of thousands of years) perhaps they should. The best place to look would be at the bottom of a deep cave, in which creatures fall and cannot get out of (also dying animals often return to their place of rest to die). There would be a nice layered record of the local fauna, combined with a dateable layered pollen record showing what plants they were living with. So that is something to look for, nice deep caves close to water, with deep soil at the bottom. If you find something likely, the best thing is to take a core sample first, down to bedrock and not to disturb things too much so that a record of the layers is kept in situ. When commencing digging make a grid and record exactly what you find in the grid, so you can describe the position of the bones and their location in the soil layer for dating and corroborative evidence. It is important also that bones not be cleaned all over when found, so that the soil with them attests to their location and date. Merely clean enough away off one side to show what you've got.
If someone were methodological and presented bones, scat, hair, video, audio and pictures, and then perhaps in time a troupe of sasquatch were habituated to humans by someone constantly giving them some nice edibles at the same time every day--or one was tranquilized, photographed and blood samples taken, scientists would have to concede that this creature really does exist and it would be "out." From what I've seen on the internet, there are instances of habituation, but no samples; samples, but no pictures or habituation work; bones and remains, but no scientific study of them. There have even been live captures, but they've not been photographed, studied, habituated, etc. What is needed here is a comprehensive package, ie, all of the above, before the community will sit up and take notice. In my opinion, it is only a matter of time.
