Guest Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 Indiefoot- maybe as regular citizen, but what about academia? Why have no scientists applied for a permit to take a type specimen? I don't know , leaves me with a question. Also to be fair to the Killcamp proponents, I was wondering what the penalty would be? Maybe depending on the eventual classification? The intent or pre meditation without contacting authorities or even the degree of caring to get involved on the part of the authorities? Would love to ask someone like Dr. Meldrum if he would blast one if given the opportunity, why or why not? Would he take out a permit in his state? And agian,trying to be fair to everyones viewpoint, I never believed that the kill camps' has in their own minds any degree of malice going forward, it just seems to me that laws and regulationsguidelines are adopted to (in this case of undiscovered species) have reason behind their recognition and that the individuals reasoning going forward needs more certainty before takening of life. We aren't talking about a sick animal, game animals or forgiegn regulations, we are talking about the laws set before us by the authorities that be.
WSA Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 Leisureclass- that part of the point. In one of my earlier posts on this thread I said I had called the US Fish and Wildlife Service and asked them their view of shooting a BF. The field biologist said that they view all undiscovered animals(?) as a non-game animal. BF is not on the endamgered species act, but that non-game animals need to have a specific permit and/or administered by the states. I have also been it contact with the Calif. Fish and Game Commission and they adhere to the federal standard of any undiscovered animals or flora as non-game and hence protected unless permited specifically. As I have asked respondances to that post to do the same and call either your state or federal authorities and haven't heard back. One thing I've learned over the years from discussions with governmental functionaries, whether at the local, state or federal level, is that everyone on the end of the phone line has an opinion. Which...may, or may not, be either the law or the official position of the agency you are contacting. My advice is, always, when you receive an opinion or position from somebody along the lines described here you should ask: "Can I get that in writing?" When you do, the crawfishing will begin. Take that for what it is worth to you.
Guest Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 Would love to ask someone like Dr. Meldrum if he would blast one if given the opportunity, why or why not? Meldrum is pretty clearly on the record that a type specimen needs to be obtained. However, that's not what you're asking. Would *you* take the shot is a very different question than asking if the shot should be taken. Personally, I fully support the collection of a specimen and associate with and aid those who are trying, but would not, myself, attempt to do so. I am not trained sufficiently nor do I have the right equipment to do so.
Guest Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 Bipto- I would not shoot any animal undiscovered or non-game animal with or without a without a permit nor would I be inclined to. But reaaly, my question isn't that. My question is would Dr. Meldrum and has he thought about takeing out a oermit to obtain a type specimen. He says that a type specimen is needed, And Dr. Bingernail disagrees, but outside of the late Dr. Grover Krantz has any scientist gone out to hunt one, thats my question. Wsa- probably right about asking for in writing, however when I talked to the field biologist from the US F&W serv. I just wanted their take on shooting BF and the legal policy before I called the Ca. F&W comm. you I am corresponding with to see if their policy within the state that I live in matches up with the federal guidelines. It does as far as undiscovered flora and fuana in that undiscovered flora and fuana is considered a non-game animal and hence poaching. there is alot more to the conversations I have had with Ca. F&W comm. but that may come more relavent at a later time.
Guest Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 I would not shoot any animal undiscovered or non-game animal with or without a without a permit nor would I be inclined to. But reaaly, my question isn't that. Then you say... My question is would Dr. Meldrum and has he thought about takeing out a oermit to obtain a type specimen. So that actually is your question. Would Meldrum *personally* attempt to collect a specimen. I fail to see the point of the question as he has said numerous times that it's necessary.
Guest Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 Bipto- so has Dr. Meldrum specifically gone out to shoot a BF? Just wondering, has any scientist gone out to shoot a BF?other than Dr. Krantz.
norseman Posted May 30, 2013 Admin Posted May 30, 2013 This used to be a skeptic vs believer thread..... 1
xspider1 Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 I personally advocate temporarily capturing a Bigfoot for Scientific confirmation but, not killing one. To the notion that capturing a Bigfoot is not feasible; I can only say that I don't buy into it.
Guest Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 To the notion that capturing a Bigfoot is not feasible; I can only say that I don't buy into it. How about the feasibility of obtaining a half decent pic of Sasquatch that doesn't come with instructions, red circles or arrows to indicate where he is in the photo? I mean not even a Bushnell million dollar bounty could produce a snapshot, but I'm sure catching a live BF should be easy as pie.
norseman Posted May 31, 2013 Admin Posted May 31, 2013 I personally advocate temporarily capturing a Bigfoot for Scientific confirmation but, not killing one. To the notion that capturing a Bigfoot is not feasible; I can only say that I don't buy into it. Do you buy that it isn't feasible for a couple of weekend warriors? Sure. You get Marlin Perkins out there with his Helo, dart gun and a army of Range Rovers and nets and stuff? Sure. What does that cost? To the notion that capturing a Bigfoot is not feasible; I can only say that I don't buy into it. How about the feasibility of obtaining a half decent pic of Sasquatch that doesn't come with instructions, red circles or arrows to indicate where he is in the photo? I mean not even a Bushnell million dollar bounty could produce a snapshot, but I'm sure catching a live BF should be easy as pie. Is that clear enough for you? Or do you want me to get out my red pen? But this Todd Standing guy.........he is a hoaxer right? Right? How in the heck should I know? Do you see how this circular argument goes on and on and on and on.............????????????? Skeptics ask for a clear picture of Squatch that isn't like yanno 40 freakin years old. Well ok..........this very clear, detailed photo is from 2 years ago. It's not a tree stump........I can see that. CHECK. It's not a Bear. CHECK. It's not a owl or a badger or a moose butt. CHECK.CHECK.CHECK. But is it a dude in a suit? If your a skeptic that doesn't believe that a Sasquatch could be a real species? IT'S ALWAYS GONNA BE A DUDE IN A SUIT. Just stick with asking for a body...........no harm, no foul there. But asking for a better picture is just ad nauseum for me to hear repeatedly.......
Guest DWA Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 All I want to see is one - JUST ONE FERPETESAKE - picture of a wild animal that is clear enough for me to know what the animal is. Wait for my conditions. 1. Your camera can't be in any way ready. You have to pull it out at the moment you see the animal. If it is a cell phone it must be turned off. If there is a lens cap it has to be on; if there is a case, the camera must be in the case and the case must be securely closed. 2. The animal cannot in any way be habituated to humans. In other words: deer don't count; bears at garbage cans don't count; squirrels and rabbits don't count; any known animal within 500 feet of a building of any kind doesn't count; etc. 3. You can't plan for the shot in any way. (If you see a photo of a truly wild, non-habituated animal, weeks, minimum, went into getting that photo.) That's just the start. More qualifications - totally reasonable ones, just like those above - available on request.
Guest DWA Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 I should note that the above says: in plain English. No one will get a clear photo of anything non-habituated - never mind a sasquatch - unless they head into the field with that specific objective foremost in mind. And pretty likely not even then. Actually, for bigfoot hunters: odds practically 100% against. Remember I said 'weeks'? Three bigfoot expeditions in history did that and only one got the shot.
dmaker Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 "2. The animal cannot in any way be habituated to humans".- DWA Really? That does not seem to be your stance when you post in habituator threads... I wonder how may times people have got shots of other animals when setting out to photograph some other animal? OR is there no such thing as a wildlife photographer that takes shots of all wildlife that comes within focus? Surely such a situation could not exist..ever..
Guest DWA Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 Then you aren't paying attention to what I say about habituators. (Paying attention: critical in this field.) I believe they should be allowed to talk here, and compare notes with one another. I allow that maybe - just maybe - they know something we don't. And if they tell me that and don't show me the evidence that they are right...well, they can continue conversing but they make no impact on my consideration of the evidence. How that works. Show me what those photographers shoot. Proof, pudding, etc.
Guest Posted June 1, 2013 Posted June 1, 2013 This used to be a skeptic vs believer thread..... There should be a thread on how people become skeptics. I don't know about other skeptics, but I used to be a firm believer. In fact, I was just emailing back and forth with an xmember here and we were discussing just that and here is the summary of how I went from believer to skeptic. "Wow, that is interesting about the mermaids. It is the same formula. It seems people want to believe. That has a lot to do with how I started becoming a skeptic. Back in the day, I was completely sold. I had read everything, had a recorded from TV version on the PGF. Belonged to some newsgroups that came by mail (still have this stuff in storage), was corresponding with Green and Krantz. Met up with a local investigator named Thomas Steenburg (he was in Calgary then), and on and on. When I was in university (studying Physical Anthropology), we even had an older prof (no longer teaching but still kept his office) named Vladimir Markotic who I met with a few times to discuss BF, he even gave me a signed copy of his book. Like I say, I was 99% convinced. Looking back, that mermaid formula likely applied to me. But it was the Internet that changed it for me. I was on the early forums, more like a newsgroup back then, heck, maybe it was even the earliest incarnation of the BFF. Anyway, once I was on there and started to get a sense who the people into BF were (aside from the real players putting out books and appearing on TV shows), and more importantly, where they were geographically . I started to see people claiming to have set up research groups in places like Kansas, Texas, New York, Ohio....and all over the eastern states. These guys were all serious and putting up the same type of claims that we were seeing in the PNW and Alaska. That really made me sit up and second guess my own thinking. I was able to accept BF in the PNW or Alaska (talking NA here) but no way in the east. I even had a hard time with Steenburg's claim for the eastern side of the Rockies, though I suppose, because he was an intelligent well spoken dude, I was able to come around to it. Plus, one of the highlighted sightings he investigated (referred to as the Crandel Lake sighting) from Waterton Park was really quit interesting, given the number of people involved. But there you go, I bit on that one too. But overall, the fact that people in the areas I refused to accept BF could be were claiming serious BF activity, well, that made me stand back and second guess my own thinking. Maybe I was just wanting to believe in BF, and I had formed this ideal scenario in my mind that let me go on believing in such a thing. But that, and life, cooled my interest for a few years. The next thing that affected my BF stance was maybe even more of a BF downer haha. I worked in the mountains for a few seasons at a place called Lake O'Hara Lodge (awesome spot, best hiking anywhere). I became good friends with a wildlife biologist staging out of the same staff accommodations I was in. He studied bears all summer and wolves all winter. We discussed BF a lot, I tried to convince him, using all the standard BF believer arguments, but he would not budge, in fact, he gave me a large dose of the reality behind such a thing being possible or not. That really had an effect, though it took me a while to let it sink in. So I ended up moving on from BF, and anthropology, and into a new degree and new career path, which had no relation to primates and such. BF went to the back-burner, but not quite into the trash just yet. In fact, for quite a while. I floated in and out of the BF world. Whenever I saw a new book, or something on TV, I would check it out. I was the go to guy among friends and family for anything BF haha, and I knew all the classic stories, which was great for freaking out the wife on camping trips. But I had really lost any passion for most things BF. Fast forward to a few years ago. For some reason I had wondered what Steenburg was up to, whether he was still in the game or not. So I hit the Google search and started reading up on his status, watched some YouTube video on presentations, and somewhere in all that ended up on the BFF. I had a bit of a resurgence. I delved in to find out if there was anything new, any new evidence in the last ten years. Nothing! But still, I was believing again, I even got pissed at Kit when I read his posts...'who does this guy think he is?' But as I read Kit's posts, and got past my bias, I started to see what he was saying made sense. And he was backing things up, laying it out there so people could follow along. Most didn't, they just piled on, I did, it made me think. And it wasn't just Kit, it was other skeptics too. And it was the believers who really turned my off BF. Their arguments seemed so hollow, so devoid of substance. And slowly I turned from mostly believer to skeptic. If someone took the time to go through my posts on the BFF they could see the transition taking place. "
Recommended Posts