Guest mdhunter Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) Maybe get rid of the camo gear, dress for the outdoors in earth tones, you are probably not fooling them anyway. Don't set yourselves up for friendly fire. Now you know to have a slung firearm at all times on you, after all its kind of like a little war you got going. Cs, I'm guessing the friendly fire comment was directed at my statement. The idea is to NOT have friendly fire by knowing where each other are. It's moot anyhow because it's not a very good tactic in terrain described in Mayo2's last post. From what has been discussed previously in this thread I suspect these guys are pretty good at not shooting each other. That is not meant in a snarky way. Just that my opinion so far is that they are competent in firearm safety. It's my opinion that a lot of people underestimate a lot of animals intelligence or instinct. Mayo2, if you can answer this have you all tried treestands and do you try to practice scent control as much as possible for the primitive conditions there? As far as shooting at just eyeshine without being able to see the animal, would you all do this? Edited October 8, 2012 by mdhunter
Guest Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 Yes I agree squatting, as much as I am more in the connection with humanity camp,the fact that run off at the reach for a weapon is not anything surprising. Someone mentioned feral children here, and that's an interesting note. Feral children behavior is far from Human at times, and even after Human intervention, exposure, and counselling, they have been know to revert back to their feral behavior at time. The definitions of Human may be tested before all this is done. I am in the no kill camp, but, I have slowly come to realize that the TBRC intent to collect a specimen will end the discussion,and debate real fast.
Guest crabshack Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 Cs, I'm guessing the friendly fire comment was directed at my statement. ~ no, not intended. The idea is to NOT have friendly fire by knowing where each other are. It's moot anyhow because it's not a very good tactic in terrain described in Mayo2's last post. From what has been discussed previously in this thread I suspect these guys are pretty good at not shooting each other. That is not meant in a snarky way. Just that my opinion so far is that they are competent in firearm safety. ~ yes so it sounds as such, but in my experience, under stress people do lose track of where they and others are. It's my opinion that a lot of people underestimate a lot of animals intelligence or instinct. ~agree
Guest mdhunter Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) Since it just came up, and from a skeptic, I'll throw a little of my animal observations out there. Several species(deer, groundhogs,fox, etc.) will typically allow me to get close on tractor,atv, or bicycle (30-40 yds.) without running for some time. When I raise my arms like I'm holding a gun or drawing a bow they turn inside out and I would never have time for a responsible shot. I personally don't find the claims far fetched about the behavior witnessed. EDIT: Cs,remind me not to be around those people when they have guns. LOL. The people I go in the woods with aren't like that. Edited October 8, 2012 by mdhunter
Bonehead74 Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 It is an interesting situation, but one I expected. I think they've had the opportunity to "know" as much as I do. They have willfully stayed away from the DNA efforts until recently. Perception of what they are governs their actions, not a scientific knowledge from biological evidence. I simply advocate a "know before you shoot" policy and they are not hamstrung on this. Sykes says he can extract DNA from hair shafts, and I doubt that if DNA is there, it degrades rapidly. They have other samples but didn't test them. I don't think they "really" want to know until "they" take a specimen. SY, What do you know? Is there "scientific knowledge from biological evidence" that proves BF are human? I absolutely respect your position, but it seems to be based on anecdotal evidence just as the TBRC's position seems to be. Also, you didn't answer my question. Shooting at a pop bottle on a fence at 60 yards is not what is going on here . I don't have much experience with civilian cartridges . I did a little looking based on a hunch . A shot with a 45-70 would be easier at 200 yards than 60 because of its ballistics . With anything over 250 grains for the bullet. With a 100 yd zero, my 1895 shoots approximately 2 inches high at 50 yds using 350gr & 405gr JSP bullets. Nothing hard about it. A good number of deer would agree with me.
Guest HamrFoot Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 as a longtime lurker but rarely post I have to reply. Mayo's posts paint a wonderful picture of the situation. I thank him and hope he hangs around. I'm on the fence kill/no kill, but his description of events, actions, situations now have me closer to supporting their mission. Good luck and God's speed!
Guest Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 Hairy, Mayo2 or Bipto Does the TBRC have a stance about using dogs to aid in taking a BF? Has any dog been to X? If so, how did it react? Thanks.
Guest Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 dogs have been there and activity is unchanged as far as we can tell. Remember, it is not as though the apes are standing there saying shoot me. Our sightings are brief. Either it is a chance sighting of one walking away, or if its stationary and realizes that we noticed it, the ape takes off. Has nothing to do with raising or going for a gun. It is usually gone before that can be done. No, we do not shoot at every eyeshine. If we did there would be no more foxes, deer, or bear in that area.
Guest mdhunter Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 ^ Thanks, that's the answer I figured.I was trying to help you make your point.
Guest Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 Mayo2 - thanks for the response. In particular, I'm wondering if the use of trailing hounds has been considered and if not, thoughts on why it would/would not be useful? The second part of the question was more about the dogs behavior - you know - all the stories of big mean dogs turning into wimpering cowards at the first scent of BF....any input on that subject based on what has happeened at X?
southernyahoo Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 What I'm saying is this: I would expect anyone with a modicum of moral integrity who is twisted around the axle about the TBRC (or anyone else) attempting to kill a BF because they know unequivically, based on rigorous scientific proof, that the creatures in question are humans, to disseminate that evidence as widely as necessary to prevent the killing of a hairy forest person. We'll try this again. I can't give proof of what they are until a paper is published on it, and I'm sure nothing will change some peoples perception of them until then. So it won't matter or do anything , to get all up in arms about the TBRC and what they are doing. It is entirely their responsibility to make sure of what they shoot at and know what it is before they do. I haven't seen any evidence that this is happening, which leads me to conclude that (a) either Dr. K and others do not have definitive proof that BF=humans as some have claimed, or (2) if they do have said proof, they are more concerned about their own agendas than to release what data they have to possibly prevent a murder (especially if the paper has actually passed peer review and all they are waiting on is publication). You say you haven't seen evidence of people raising concerns about shooting sasquatch because they could be human, or that the DNA is pointing to that? Really? Take another look around. I'm sure you and or the TBRC would simply consider anyone who raises the issue to be taking someone else's word for it. We all have to do that when we allow scientists to give a determination on evidence. I can only offer that much of the evidence points to a member of the genus homo and that doesn't exclude DNA. There is fair warning, even in the TBRC's evidence. If there is proof to the contrary, I would love to see that more than you think. If the TBRC kills one and it turns out the DNA says human, the blood is on their hands and theirs only. They will have to live with that.
Bonehead74 Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) SY, What I'm saying (again) is I've seen no one raising concerns about shooting one by citing any legitimate biological proof, DNA or otherwise, pointing to sasquatch being human. That's it. Pretty straightforward. I admittedly waver day to day on the kill/no-kill debate. I just want to know if there is something more solid than experiences to base the BF=human stance on. You seem to be saying that there is, but the scientific establishment discounts it. If that's correct, what would that evidence be? It's not a loaded question, really! I'd truly like to know. Edited October 8, 2012 by Bonehead74
Guest Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 None of us are geneticists here That's awfully presumptive of you... Anyway, I'm firmly in the 'one kill' camp; whilst DNA work is brilliant, nothing is as arresting, immediate, definite and absolute as a body (or large part thereof). A genuine question for those who have so far shared their experiences and answered questions based on these Operations: You get your shot, You drop your target, You allow for the adrenaline to subside and are able to rationally assess the situation. How does one recover an eight hundred lb (plus) body from dense woodland? I'm a big, strong guy (over 6'3", around 250lb, can dead and squat twice my body weight, and when at full fitness, can still manage a full rugby match) but I know for a fact that in 40 degree heat I couldn't lug 200lb of meat (based on the note that there are only ever four members on site at a time) plus my own kit out of the kind of terrain described for more than about 3/4 of a mile before severely struggling. Is it a case of securing the body and sending a member of the team far enough back into civilisation that they can call for backup?
southernyahoo Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 SY, What I'm saying (again) is I've seen no one raising concerns about shooting one by citing any legitimate biological proof, DNA or otherwise, pointing to sasquatch being human. That's it. Pretty straightforward. I admittedly waver day to day on the kill/no-kill debate. I just want to know if there is something more solid than experiences to base the BF=human stance on. You seem to be saying that there is, but the scientific establishment discounts it. If that's correct, what would that evidence be? It's not a loaded question, really! I'd truly like to know. Maybe you'd like to join me in the Ketchum report thread then. 1
Recommended Posts