Leaderboard

http://www.animalethics.org.au/policies-and-guidelines/wildlife-research/voucher-specimens Conservation needs are impossible to assess without the ability to recognise and differentiate species. Thus, identification, although often taken for granted, is fundamental to any animal-based study and particularly important when studying native animals. And; The fundamental bases for identifications are whole animal specimens, usually maintained in a museum or similar institution. If necessary, identifications can be confirmed by reference to such collections. In some situations, e.g., distinctive species, a non-essential part of the animal such as a hair sample, or a photograph, sound recording or some other non-destructive record may be adequate for identification. These, however, have limited value. They do not offer the range of information as do whole body specimens, initially or through re-examination, nor are they suitable for detailed study by alternative means, including new technology (e.g., biochemical). There are many species for which these are not valid alternatives. Accurate identifications can only be made if there is one or more specimens already available for comparison and examination. If an animal is thought to represent a new species, a specimen should be taken. Types (the basis for taxonomic descriptions of new taxa) should always be specimens; other kinds of samples are not suitable alternatives.

Really? Grizzly bears have a reputation of being bad for humans as does the wolf. Been a while since I've heard of a UHS stalking, killing and eating a homo sapien. Your analogies are exceeded only by your leaps in logic. However, you aren't the first pro-killer to initiate a reactionary response when asked pointed questions of challenged to think in a non-linear fashion.

What an extraordinary leap in hyperbole and logic... but if rationalization and justification helps you cope with your plans to kill something unnecessarily, bless you. Now back to the topic of Sasquatch Science in 2015. It's likely to be a very slow year given that the field has learned so little from it's past. (That's an observation with opinion.)

That's quite an insinuation there, Guy, backhandedly implying pro-kill BFF members are inherently liars. Bravo.

The arguments here on this thread have been pretty circular with proponents arguing among themselves. Evidence of why we never seem to get anywhere. Someone implied something that I would like to expound on. Let me throw out a hypothetical. Let us say that someone pro kill does succeed in bagging one and gets it delivered to a reputable team of scientists. They do DNA testing and are able to type it. Take xrays or MRIs and do comparative anatomy and not only is not an ape but nuclear DNA shows it be an ancestral human in the human family tree. What then? The shooter just shot grandpa! They will not be able to keep a lid on that because they will need verification of their findings from other labs. The previously very friendly lab could turn on the shooter and call authorities just to cover their butts. Where does this leave the shooter? Anti-kill people as we have seen can be very vocal and will be calling authorities and demanding legal action. Told you so's will be all over the internet. If this is the case, and BF is ancestral human, I can almost guarantee the shooter will end up on court defending himself. Guilty or not, self defense or not, the shooter will have legal fees, for a sensational legal trial, that will bankrupt a normal person. Whoever pulls that trigger better know what he is shooting or be aware of what will happen if BF is more human than ape. It might even be better if some redneck with nothing to his name does the deed and can get a public defender because anyone with anything might loose it to legal fees. The prosecutors would dig up every person they can find that have had a BF in their sights and chose not to shoot because of how human it looked. There are many such reports. The shooter's defense might have problems because of that. If you intend to shoot one you best provoke it first, at least that way you can claim self defense.

Norseman, No ill will is meant whatsoever as I believe you are good of heart. I apologize for making you squirm a bit as the path you're own is the one I have already trod in years past and I wish someone had given me reason to pause and think early on.

I'm sure those with the torches and pitchforks were comfortable (at the time) in their own skins, as well.

The only spin here sir is of your own doing. I'm utterly comfortable in my own skin. Thank you.

This is all simple conjecture! Point us to which labs and which hospitals did the lab work, so that it can be independently verified. What story line? You claim to have collected a Bigfoot blood sample after your group shot and tracked it and was scared off. I wanna know what lab I can call to verify that indeed a Bigfoot blood sample was indeed received from your group and what were the findings. Company name, and telephone number will suffice, thanks......

http://www.network54.com/Forum/23217 You have to join before your posts are approved.

Never claimed to have any forensic evidence in my possession, at this point in time. That info has been disclosed years ago in various public venues and for you to assert otherwise, is unbecoming.

No, it's your claim, I'm asking you. Who tested it? Allegedly type O+?

WRT "assault rifles", other than those manufactured and legally sold to civilians before 1986, they are the sole province of the military and law enforcement. By definition an assault rifle has select fire capability, that is it can be fired in both semi and full automatic modes (like a machine gun). They also typically are chambered for a lower powered or smaller caliber round than a main battle rifle, which may be either select fire, semi-automatic or even bolt action. As examples, the semi-auto M-1 Garand, firing a .30-06 cartridge was the main battle rifle of U.S. forces in WWII and Korea. The M-2 Carbine, a select fire version of the M-1 Carbine, could also be considered an assault rifle as the .30 carbine round was a reduced power load. The M-1 Garand was supplanted as our main battle rifle in 1956 by the M-14 which was designed as a select fire weapon and was chambered for the 7.62 mm/.308 caliber round. The M-14 was found to be very difficult to control in full auto fire and most were converted to semi-auto only by removal of the selector lever. The M-14 was replaced in the mid-sixties by the M-16, a true assault rifle firing the smaller, less powerful 5.56 mm round. Some M-14 rifles have been returned to service as designated marksman weapons after being restocked, tuned and accurized. What are often mistakenly called assault rifles in the press are simply rifles that look like military weapons but in which the bolt and fire control group are configured to allow only semi-auto fire. Some civilian models also use a gas piston operating system rather than the direct impingement system used by the M-16/M-4 family. These civilian legal (depending on which state you reside in) rifles are correctly referred to either by their manufacturer's model designation, i.e. Colt AR-15 (the AR stands for Armalite Rifle), Ruger SR-556, etc., or by the generic Modern Sporting Rifle (M.S.R.).

You give us U-mans waaaay too much credit Kit. We aren't really that good at making s*** up, and our imaginations really aren't that fertile. Mainly, we just muck along looking at the tops of our shoes and it typically takes a 2X4 to the slats to even get us to notice the obvious. If you have any facial hair, shave it off some day and see how long it takes somebody to even notice. Days, typically. We wouldn't know a BF in our backyards (or any other medium to large mammal) even if it sent us a certified letter. Have you ever walked with others in the woods? I'm guessing you have. Count how many times somebody either looks behind them or above them into the trees. Unless that person is a hunter (Surprise! Hunters see BF, a lot) that number won't be that hard to tally.