Guest Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 Skull Structure- There are racial disparities that exist today that make a head shot lethal for one person and not for a person of different ethnic background due to differences in bone thickness. I know nothing about guns, but I think I would make sure I would use a weapon that can penetrate steel just in case you miss the eye ball, head, chest all together if you are suddenly struck with awe at your first sight of a bigfoot. You can't predict how you will respond in a new situation, and certainly not how bigfoot will respond. You would want to make sure you had a second shot.
Guest Lesmore Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 Skull Structure- There are racial disparities that exist today that make a head shot lethal for one person and not for a person of different ethnic background due to differences in bone thickness. I know nothing about guns, but I think I would make sure I would use a weapon that can penetrate steel just in case you miss the eye ball, head, chest all together if you are suddenly struck with awe at your first sight of a bigfoot. You can't predict how you will respond in a new situation, and certainly not how bigfoot will respond. You would want to make sure you had a second shot. I agree, that's why I would suggest a big game rifle, one such as the Czech made CZ Magnum 550. Many African Big Game Guides use one, as if there client misses, or just wounds the big game, they have to be able to take it down quickly (no time to lose) with one well placed shot. I would rather one not shoot a BF (if they exist), but if they do exist and turn on the BF hunter....they (BF hunter) need to have the correct tool.
Guest tracker Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 Good point Les, about the pros and clients (amateurs) making or missing shots. How many have brought down a large pred at close range and in the dark? Through the eye sure that would do, but even an upper body shot would be lucky day or night. So then you would have to track a very po screaming Bf. Risking your own life and your buddies trying to finish what you started. It would be like hunting an wounded grizzly in good cover. So if your not willing to do that, let it go.
Guest Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 If a person feels confident that they can shoot one, that implies that they can find one deliberately and intentionally. If someone could do that, it is presumed that one can find them and that one could photograph it just prior to pulling the trigger...or are we to believe that some people could shoot one or even trap one while not knowing how to deliberately and intentionally see one, and the only reason we haven't is because we can only find one if we intend to shoot it or trap it.
Guest tracker Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 If a person feels confident that they can shoot one, that implies that they can find one deliberately and intentionally. If someone could do that, it is presumed that one can find them and that one could photograph it just prior to pulling the trigger...or are we to believe that some people could shoot one or even trap one while not knowing how to deliberately and intentionally see one, and the only reason we haven't is because we can only find one if we intend to shoot it or trap it. Hunting and shooting at a BF' is not like hunting shooting at a deer or game animal. I tried to relate this to others by comparing it to ground hunting a grizzly in NA. Some of us on these sites have already been close enough to know the difference. Also most times there's more than one around, they will defend each other. It's very important that hunters remember that if they decide to shoot at one. And nothing can be more unpredictable then the big guys. Maybe someone else can explain the difference better than me?
Drew Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 500 Nitro Express If it was standing still, broadside, I would aim for the near arm, breaking it, the bullet would travel through the chest, liquefying the pumphouse, and then exit, breaking the other arm. If it was charging, both barrels, betwixt the eyes. http://www.norma.cc/content.asp?Typ=68&Lang=2&DocumentID=350&Submeny=2&Rubrik=African%20PH&Title=500%20Nitro%20Express%203
Guest Bullfrog Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 How many have brought down a large pred at close range and in the dark? Through the eye sure that would do, but even an upper body shot would be lucky day or night. So then you would have to track a very po screaming Bf. Risking your own life and your buddies trying to finish what you started. It would be like hunting an wounded grizzly in good cover. So if your not willing to do that, let it go. I doubt you'd have to eye-shoot a bigfoot with a larger deer-caliber rifle. A .17 is an insanely small bullet. If you've ever seen a .177 caliber pellet for a pellet gun, that's about the size bullet Pteronarcyd is refering to. A .270 or .308 is a sniper grade round. .308s were the snipe caliber of the USMC for years. Its killed many a human with one head shot. Presumably even helmeted humans. .308 rounds can penetrate many body armors. I doubt the skull of a saqusatch is tougher than many man-made body armors. The reason a head shot usually isn't a practical way to kill a grizzly is because their brains are much smaller than their head mass. Same with an elephant. Shooting right for the middle of the skull wouldn't necessarily lead to a brain hit. A sasquatch presumably has a brain position like those of other great apes and humans. One should be able to hit the brain just beyond the ear or right between the eyes. I read once that varmit hunters were shooting coyotes in the eye with a .17 caliber at night to avoid damaging the precious hides. I believe they would spotlight them and it made the eyes easy to see. I assume the coyotes would freeze in the spotlight.Bigfoots presumably have bigger eyes than coyotes. But, I get the impression that bigfoots don't freeze in the spotlight, but evacuate the locale instead. Arming a buddy with a spotlight would have the benefit of not having to worry about angering the bigfoot with a missed shot, as the spotlight would ensure he'd stay away. Where legal, most predator hunters use a red light to spotlight predators. The red light is invisible to most including coyotes. The animal sit still for seconds at the time while trying to locate the source of the distress call that brought them in (usually the hunter with a call). Many dedicated coyote hunters frown on using .17s for coyote hunting because they won't often drop a coyote with a body shot. Many coyote hunters out west will take 200-400 yard shots, so head/eye shots aren't practical. In the east where shooting ranges are closer I don't see why a .17 through the eye wouldn't take one down. I've killed adult wild hogs with single head shots with .22 magnums before. Much weaker than the deer calibers I am suggesting, yet it will penetrate a hog's skull just fine. Yet I've also seen large caliber bullet hit skull but not brain, and the hog survive the encounter and go one with life as usual in the weeks to follow. So a head shot isn't necessarily a sure kill on a sasquatch. But a brain shot would most certainly be.
Guest Bullfrog Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 Tree stand and baiting only works for less intelligent creatures. Not necessarily. Hunters see animals generally when the animal in unaware of the hunter's presense. Awareness of the hunter's presense comes from the animal's senses, not the animal's intellegence. Sight, sound, and smell give a hunter away. Intellegence can only help insofar as it can help the animal interpret what it is sensing and plan accordingly. But there isn't a anything a sasquatch can learn that an experienced deer doesn't already know. There's only so many ways to avoid hunters in the woods, and deer practice them all. And many experienced deer are succesful at going unseen all season by hunters. The best a sasquatch do would be to be as good as the best whitetail buck at avoiding hunters. Which probably means laying up all day in the thickest of woods and only exposing itself at night away from highways and clear cuts. Which doesn't explain how they magically avoid trail cameras, but I digress...
norseman Posted January 4, 2011 Admin Posted January 4, 2011 Some of my thoughts: Trapping There are four schools of thought in trapping. 1) Leg hold trap - The trap is designed to hold the animal by the leg until the trapper can dispatch the animal. In the case of a large dangerous animal, this practice has gone the way of the dodo. You can still by grizzly sized leg hold traps but they are illegal to use. But many states still allow leg hold traps for coyote, bobcat, etc. The upside to the leg hold trap is that a complete trap line can be contained in one gunny sack, making logistics a snap. In the case of a Sasquatch, in theory at least, I suppose you could use a leg hold trap and tranquilize it. But because of the illegal status of such a trap, and the fact that you may be catching bear in the trap? It's a legal mind field. 2) Conibear trap - This trap is designed to crush the neck of the animal humanely, killing it instantly. The biggest conibear trap in the world is a 330, which is not big enough for something that is reportedly as big as a Sasquatch. 3) Live trap - Many states including mine, now require all trapping to be done with a live trap. They are a logistical nightmare for the trapper. And this is within the context of bobcat, coyote and other small fur bearing animals. The size a trap would need to be to attract and capture a big foot would not be logistically feesible. A static built trap would be feesible, but because it's not relocatable would make the trap utterly useless. 4) Snare cable - Super portable and great for logistics. Designed to catch either the leg or the neck depending on the set. But I've never seen a manufactrued snare that would be big enough for the job of snaring a Sasquatch. I really don't think trapping is the answer to solving this mystery. For one it's indiscriminate, and right now it's under a lot of pressure from many anti trapping groups. Spot and stalk This usually involves a good set of binoculars and hours of glassing good game areas. And also generally a high powered rifle and a good scope. Once the animal is spotted the hunter works to get into a down wind shooting position to cleanly take the animal. The problem I see with this approach is that it requires areas that are condusive to glassing. Many reported bigfoot areas are heavily timbered and the animals are reported only active at night. Add to the fact that your probably going to need to take a long shot? Only adds to the risk of killing a hoaxer. I don't like this approach to the Sasquatch pro kill question. Calling Many hunters use calls to call in game, and they do this successfully right across the spectrum of game animals. From ducks to turkeys to coyotes to bear to elk.......it works very well. Some calls are designed to sound like a potential mate while others are designed to sound like potential prey. The down side to this is what does a Sasquatch sound like? What is he attracted to? There is SOME potential here, if a system could be perfected. But I think for our goals of taking ONE and only ONE, it may be folly. Although BF researchers do claim success from call "blasting". Lure and bait One can lure an animal in many different ways, but the two most successful ones are similar to calling.....potential food source, potential mate. I see BF researchers using ape pheremone chips and I also see them using small caches of food. I even witnessed one man using wind chimes and other curiousity type lures. I think this one has a lot of potential, hunters have used these techniques to ambush prey for eons. And it seems to have been successful for the "skookum cast". I like this approach because it almost assures that the hunter will be within close approximity of a animal and can judge it's authenticity hopefully successfully. I've even thought about getting it dead to rights and then shouting a verbal challenge before actually shooting. I think any hoaxer is giving it up at that moment in time. But I'm 99 percent confident that at 50 yards I can make a positive ID between something real and something being hoaxed. Tracking As the name states, a hunter cuts a track and follows it to the source. Dogs can also be used in the pursuit, depending on the species and country. In northern Europe and Russia, they use Laika's to hunt everything from Boar to Moose. But in the states the main "hound" game species are Raccoon (most popular by far), Bear, Bobcat, Cougar and Boar. This style of hunting has a lot of potential as well. Although hound hunting is right along side trapping as far as being under fire by "anti" groups. But I'm skeptical that a man could track down a Sasquatch by himself. The only way the gig is going to end up in your favor is if your eating more ground than the quarry is. Which is a unrealistic expectation for an animal that takes one step to your three. But a good couple of dogs, changes that equation entirely. I often times hear people state that it takes a lot to "imprint" a hound to a given species. I have never found this to be true within reason. If you have a good **** hound, he is going to be able to track cougar or bear as well. A couple of drags is in order to get him in the right "mindset". My hounds run cougar, bear AND ****, they are treeing walkers and redbones. Now a good **** hound could get ruined upon his first run when he encounters something other than a ****, and is too aggressive for his own good. If he gets popped he may not want to go again, a houndsman has to be able to read the disposition of the dog. The nose is only one part of the equation. Spot lighting or other Spot lighting generally is not as illegal as people think it is. Generally **** hunters with hounds and coyote hunters all employ spotlights in their hunts. The key is that generally speaking either the seasons do not overlap with big game seasons OR it's unlawful to use a light during those seasons. As we all know that spot lighting for big game is generally illegal. To put it bluntly, most reports identify Sasquatch as a nocturnal creature. This perplexes me because all of the other apes, including us have trichromatic vision and there for do not venture out at night. But if the reports are to be taken seriously one had better be ready to invest in at least a good tactical shooting light and some sort of attachment point on a rifle. Of course there are now much more serious "toys" to be had, such as night vision scopes and FLIR scopes. Both of these types of scopes allow a shooter to attach them to a rifle and zero them. I won't get into the technology here, but either of these high end scope technologies would make hunting at night a fairly mundane affair. I've used both and they are the real deal. The Hunter I've been 50 miles from the pickup truck while packing ALONE, I wouldn't advise it to anyone. It's kind of like SCUBA diving by yourself, if something goes wrong, the only person that can get you out of the jam is YOU. Make your wife a happy woman and pair up with somebody. The military has a saying "two is one and one is none". Rambo is a sham guys, team work is the key to our species success. The Team I've had some military style training in my life, and I really think that this style of mindset would be the largest asset to any BF hunter groups out there. It just needs to be tweaked in order to make it successful in this style of operation. To place strength in the team it could be setup like any "A" team in the US Army special forces groups. In which each member has a specialty, although many of their specialties would not be useful in a BF hunter team, you get the jist. a)Team leader b)Medic/Corpsman c)Tracker w or w/o dog d)Communications expert and Assistant Team Leader e)Weapons expert f)Reconnaissance expert This is not a rigid list but a well rounded list that could be added to or subtracted from. Each patrol would have at least two members and would be in radio contact with a patrol base at all times. Weapons Any weapon used would need to be sufficient in taking a 800 lbs omnivore cleanly. Think Grizzly bear here. I'm not a big proponent of taking long shots because of lack of authenticity in what we are hunting. Therefore we should resolve ourselves on taking close shots. The downside to this approach is that it places the shooter danger close to the animal. No shot should ever be made without your "battle buddy" backing you up. He can spot the shot for you as well as back you up in the case of malfunction. Weapon lethality vs. ammo capacity. Would a person rather carry a double barrel .500 nitro express? Or would a M1A scout in .308 and 20 round detachable box magazine be a better choice? Rifles are just like tools on a work bench, and generally there is more than one tool that can get the job done. There are also new rifles that are beginning to fill the void, such as the .50 Beowulf, the .458 Socom and the .450 Bushmaster. AR platforms shooting large caliber rifle rounds. I think this is all up to the individual, since we are probably talking about something individually purchased. But if I was a team leader I would put a bare minimum requirement caliber wise on the team. We have all heard uncle Buck's story about killing a bear with a .22, remember the mission and remember your commitment to your fellow team members. The caliber should be capable of stopping any charge and take the animal quickly and humanely. Camouflage All apes possess trichomacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichromacy We have to assume that if we have eyes on a Sasquatch, he is looking back at us with the same capability we are observing him with......our gift of trichromatic vision. Hunting camo is all the rage, but in my mind at least it is very specialized camo. If your going to set up a deer stand in a oak tree, there are several choices out there to match you with that oak tree. But what if there are no oak trees around? Generally speaking hunting camo takes "prints" of vegatation and overlays it onto fabric. Military camo on the other hand is more generalized and works well in a wider range of situations. I personally think multi cam is a great choice, but there are others. Again this could be an individual choice but probably up to a team leader's discreation. Also.....paint up, our faces are very discernable in the bush, the goal is to make a negative of your face. And make sure you reapply as it wears off. Mission Unlike BF researchers that are not pro kill, and with time and resources being precious, it must be understood by everyone that a three month old track is just that.......a three month old track. Document it quickly and move on. The goal should be harvesting a type specimen and "old sign" doesn't help you accomplish that mission in the short term. Obviously as a data base emerges, a team could begin crunching the numbers, observing patterns and make educated attempts to get ahead of the game. But the direct mission objective (a type specimen) should always be the first and foremost objective with only using trace evidence as a means to that end. Reporting: The military uses the SALUTE report: S-Size A-Activity L-Location U-Unit T-Time E-Equipment This could easily be changed to accomodate our needs. It's purpose is to make a clear, concise report quickly on a radio, allowing for as much information to be passed without compromising the patrol. And it stops such conversations as this on the radio: Me "Hey Bob!" Bob "Yaah?" Me "I see something in the bushes" Bob "Where?" Me "About 50 feet in front of me" Bob "Where are you at?" Me "Ummmm over by the big snag" Bob "Which snag?" Me "The BIG one!" Bob "I have no idea...." Maps The military usually will "grid" their maps. This is a grid overlay that allows for quick reference. Longitude lines could be given a number value while latitude lines could be given a alphabet value. So now you are in grid reference square A6 or Alpha Six by using the military phonetic alphabet. As opposed to simply using long/lat or section, township and range in civilian maps. I could go on for hours, but I'll post this and let everyone respond....... 1
Guest Lesmore Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Well thought out....lot's of valuable, obviously experienced information there, Norseman. Les
Guest Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 My guidelines for those in the Pro-Kill camp: If you can smell it's breath and count nose hairs..... <10 Yards >10 Yards One final thought. Don't miss. My advice for the non Pro-Kill camp who may try and capture one.......use the gun on yourself after you make it mad.
norseman Posted January 4, 2011 Admin Posted January 4, 2011 Pistols are defensive in nature, and not really what I had in mind for a primary weapon. But one could pack it as a secondary weapons system. I'm thinking more along the lines of this: http://http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/50-beowulf-future-weapons/0e79d3191af91c70e4c30e79d3191af91c70e4c3-289417789943?q=.50+beowulf&FORM=VIRE4 Coupled with this: http://http://www.imaging1.com/thermal/monocular14.html
Guest Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 dont they make biopsy darts? it would be possible to get a large enough sample without killing it.
Guest Spazmo Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 There was an old thread called, "I'm gonna get him" or something like that. A guy was going to put tranq darts on arrows, IIRC. It was pretty funny. Anyway, I asked him what he was going to do if the arrow went through the target and spewed it's tranquilizer harmlessly onto the ground leaving an angry animal at close range. I think the biopsy dart might be as bad or worse. It is, of course, much more humane and I understand the merit of trying, but I'm not going to be anywhere near any large animal that just got pinched by one of these things.
Guest Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Tracker: "Hunting and shooting at a BF' is not like hunting shooting at a deer or game animal." If they exist as I imagine they do, then your quote is more than just correct. Indeed, it would be like hunting and shooting a human...and one that is thinking about you with fairly realistic insights about what its pursuers are up to, while you are attempting to find it in a wild landscape, while the pursued is far better prepared by instinct and experience than even Eric Rudolph was, and he eluded 2 years of searching conducted by the biggest and baddest manhunters for 2 years until he essentially stopped hiding.
Recommended Posts