Guest OntarioSquatch Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 I have trouble imagining a live capture happening. If people are having so much trouble obtaining one using firearms, then what are the chances tranqs are going to work? It's easy to sit on a chair and fantasize about how it would go down, but once you're out there in the forest, it never really goes down like one hopes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 My thing with this is that if they are so sure that they are ape and that they have already been shooting at it why stop.If you have a clear shot to pop one of these creatures then take it and bring it in..Let science sort it out after wards and keep the shooter a secret.The only way that this will ever be proven will be a dead one or a live captured one and the odds of getting a live one well ? thats i think of that.Take the shot and follow it with a second to make sure it is dead other words you are going to be in a world of hurt.Just my suggestion and by the way the ones in Texas are very aggressive and will put a hurt . But they have been. A half dozen shootings and still no body. Take that for what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 It's a shame there is not an Operation Evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 There is no debate poignant. It is a matter of people coming up with excuses why tranq guns are so ineffective and tranquilizers themselves so mysterious that proper dosage is like divining the lottery numbers. The right thing to do is respect life and try to do it as little harm as possible when not necessary. There are no facts being used to counter the non lethal approach. Crazy and wild speculation about animals becoming more energetic and hostile after being hypothetically tranquilized when TBRC has shot and wounded these animals with live ammunition and not had any reaction like what they Bipto has put forth. It is saying they are more dangerous when tranquilized than when winged with a shotgun. That is not truth and it isn't even logical or realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 (edited) Here's the thing: tranquilizer risks a great deal of suffering and possible retaliation from an 8ft tall 400 pound critter. A 12 gauge with a proper load likely ends the deal quickly with the least amount of suffering from anyone. Now, I would love for the animal to be discovered/recognized by "science" without the need to "harvest a specimen" but if you want the scientific community to pay attention, you have to play by their rules. That unfortunately means bringing in a specimen. Edited November 11, 2012 by James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 (edited) Brilliant! If I felt there was the faintest chance that I would come across one that was temporarily disabled or incapacitated, like I drove a logging truck and had a million to one shot of stunning one, thud, then I'd be tempted to carry something like that around with me, so I could subdue it. But otherwise it would be combo UFC squatch wrestling and rodeo for 2 minutes while it held it's breath or while it kicked in. Edited November 11, 2012 by Flashman2.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 A real good picture will satisfy most of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 It's a shame there is not an Operation Evidence. So clever. Meh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 (edited) Here's the thing: tranquilizer risks a great deal of suffering and possible retaliation from an 8ft tall 400 pound critter. A 12 gauge with a proper load likely ends the deal quickly with the least amount of suffering from anyone. Now, I would love for the animal to be discovered/recognized by "science" without the need to "harvest a specimen" but if you want the scientific community to pay attention, you have to play by their rules. That unfortunately means bringing in a specimen. Still waiting. The fact that there has been no new evidence since 1967 should tell everyone something. It's called marketing. Edited November 11, 2012 by FuzzyGremlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 I think there has been plenty of new evidence since 1967......heck Bipto has told you about a ton of it on here. Or did you mean proof, if you meant proof,then you must consider the PGF proof....lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 I do not buy the notion that the BF would die anyways, peroid. I am not going to speculate your organizations motives but the "it would die anyways" doesn't fly. I never said it'd die anyway. As I said several times in this thread already, there are many issues with tranquilizing including the possibility of killing the animal inadvertently. However, it would likely run off and be lost to us before it died. The number of instances when you have enough time to take action are already small enough. We're not going to waste them on experimenting with which little feathery darts fly the truest and is 50cc is enough or should it be 100cc. Tranquilizing simply isn't a realistic option. I could tell you we've considered it at length already and rejected it, but I'm not sure that'd make people stop making the suggestion over and over. This: I think what you all are missing is that tranquilizing a wild animal is not a sure thing, or even a safe thing. A real good picture will satisfy most of us. "Us" isn't who we're trying to satisfy. The fact that there has been no new evidence since 1967 should tell everyone something. Only someone being intentionally obtuse would say there's been no evidence since 1967. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Bipto- so IF I understand you correctly, in the name of your valuable time you are willing to kill a creature that would be much more valuable alive than dead, correct? Have you even looked into the fact that you may be violating a USF&W regulation about shooting a non-game animal(because of your time, of course) and just shot first. For your sake you might want to make sure it's the only BF around (that is if you have enough time that is). You also might want to look in your scope and take a ddep look at what you are shooting and ask yourself this- am I willing to shot a mother, father, brother of someones family member because my time is sooooo valuable. Hey, I understand that funds had been invested in your organizations indever, however a context without a pretext is no text at all. Consider what you are shooting and question yourself if a dead BF would satisfy your curiosity or validate your investors time and/or money; in the name of science of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 (edited) If people are having so much trouble obtaining one using firearms... WOOD APES HAVE GUNS NOW?! Seriously people, Bipto has said on his podcasts that they want to get one for science, if they can find a dead body, then that is an option, if someone puts a round through it's boiler, then that is an option. The idea of using a tranquilizer is silly. A. What if the dose isn't enough, and you waste a good shot on the creature? B. What if the dose is too much, and you put the thing into a permanent sleep., Tranquilizers are a lose-win, however, If you use a .450 Nitro Express, and put it through the boiler room, it is a win-win. (unless it is a dude in a suit, then you'd rather have the lose-win odds ) Edited November 12, 2012 by Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 ... in the name of your valuable time you are willing to kill a creature that would be much more valuable alive than dead, correct? Both would be valuable. And I don't think the group that's put the most people in the field for the longest uninterrupted time in, as far as I know, the history of bigfoot research should be accused of looking for the most expedient solution. We're looking for the solution that delivers what science demands with the highest degree of probable successful outcome. Have you even looked into the fact that you may be violating a USF&W regulation about shooting a non-game animal(because of your time, of course) and just shot first. For your sake you might want to make sure it's the only BF around (that is if you have enough time that is). You also might want to look in your scope and take a ddep look at what you are shooting and ask yourself this- am I willing to shot a mother, father, brother of someones family member because my time is sooooo valuable. You might want to read this whole thread because there's nothing in the above quote that hasn't already been addressed several times. Also, we don't have "investors." We have members. As hard as it may be for some to believe, this isn't about personal gain. Why is it that that's the first place those opposed to the scientific method go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigtex Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 (edited) Posted this in another thread, and applies here too......IMO, good videos, pictures, and even bodies have turned up over the years, as some of you have already suggested, but never main stream. The 'official' stance will always be the same. Apply logic here, and follow the money........in other words, if legitimate proof & official acknowledgement existed, then every State & National Parks brochure would have to be re-written. These publications are well written, informative, and expensive. Each one has a section on wildlife, and some quite extensive (SEE Yellowstone). What the heck would they say about Bigfoot, and would this be enough for the family to take a Cruise instead? If you were a business man, and were in charge of the State & National Parks, Bigfoot would be very bad for business. Of course you'd get the nuts like us heading to a Park near you, but the target market would surely suffer. Nah........better (and more fun) to leave the big guy within the realm of creepy & Cryptozoology. Yeah......just my idea of fun, be 'the one' with definitive proof, and see who shows up at your door:( Edited November 12, 2012 by Bigtex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts