Ethics Of Collecting A Voucher Specimen

[Guest wudewasa]

Yes!

BRILLIANT!

[southernyahoo]

^^^^ Um extinction of a species...........that's the harm possibly done by your unscientific illogical mindset.

 

As far as twisting your words? I'm not. If they are the same species as us, sexual attraction I think is a good marker stick to judge by.

 

While Patty has two arms and two legs? I find her hideous and bizarre........... So she many be of a species related to me, but I don't consider her one of my own species.

 

I really don't get the assertion that someone is being illogical or unscientific in pondering the level of humanity of habitually bipedal great apes. Everything science says agree's with the notion.  Also, the attraction might not apply to both sexes equally since there is no Sasquatch maternal lineage to speak of.

[norseman]

^^^^^

Making a desicion to not scientically collect a type specimen to study based on the assumptions of a layman is logical and scientific?

Look at it this way? we know how smart a chimp is as we have dissected its brain!!! So it is kinda hard for anyone to back up their assumptions untill we get a slab monkey in our possesion! Yes? Is that logical?

[Guest]

BFF Members- when amatuer researchers try to transend  the policies and guidelines of governmental authorities with their own logic and will, it becomes a dangerous world. Please get informed on the federal guidelines for extant wildlife before we regress to the law of the wild wild west

and just start blasting away at things we have never seen or know for a fact what we are shooting ahead of time, not being educated or taking the time to be informed.

[Guest wudewasa]

Daggone amateur researchers...

 

So where is the accredited training program to become a professional bigfoot researcher?  How many box tops and coupons do I need to collect before I can be admitted into the program and get my decoder ring and golden ticket?!

 

So ptangier, are you a law enforcement officer or judiciary member?  If not, where do you get the right to interpret the laws regarding shooting something that doesn't officially exist? 

[Guest LarryP]

 

 

So ptangier, are you a law enforcement officer or judiciary member?  If not, where do you get the right to interpret the laws regarding shooting something that doesn't officially exist? 

 

The second you have a dead body of a BF that you shot and killed then it officially exists.

 

IMO, at that point you potentially have a lot of big problems on your hands.

 

One of the reasons I stopped hunting years ago was because there too many other trigger happy Deer hunters out there who tended to shoot first and ask questions later.

 

Then you throw in people who are hunting a bipedal Hominid into the mix, and you've really got a recipe for disaster.

[bipedalist]

BFF Members- when amatuer researchers try to transend  the policies and guidelines of governmental authorities with their own logic and will, it becomes a dangerous world. Please get informed on the federal guidelines for extant wildlife before we regress to the law of the wild wild west

and just start blasting away at things we have never seen or know for a fact what we are shooting ahead of time, not being educated or taking the time to be informed.

 

 

Not all researcher's have a plan to hunt a squatch.  Norseman does bring up some good points in his threads about when does harassment, baiting and "research" cross over the line/law into hunting.  This nuance is important in many states.  To use the amateur researcher as the whippping boy of everything BF is as inappropriate as trying to make one law fit all ---across state lines.  There are plenty of correspondence school professional BF researchers that showed us how not to do it (research).... of that I am sure. 

Edited June 4, 2013 by bipedalist

[MIB]

Then you throw in people who are hunting a bipedal Hominid into the mix, and you've really got a recipe for disaster.

It certainly should give any hunter who loads up on camo or uses a ghillie suit pause to reflect on their mortality.

 

I hunt, probably will as long as I'm physically able, however, I certainly do my best to find places as far from where others will be as I can.  I focus on deep, brushy canyons nobody in their right mind (which disqualifies me, right? ) would go.  Tradeoffs.  I think I'm still safer in the woods than on the highway getting there.

 

MIB

[Guest]

Bipedalist- right you are and excuse me for whipping ALL amatuer researchers, I should of said the ones that are out to blast away and ignore feredal guidelines.Sorry but i just don't think that blasting away or intending to murder a possible close relative (hey maybe not) is using forsight either,  As John Bingernail points out that nowadays a type specimen is not needed, and as a matter of fact is not nessesary for verification.

After verification studys could be done by observation to study behavior. Let me point out the challenge I raised to some of our members about contacting the US F&W service or their state wildlife agencies and as far as I can tell no contact was made, or the challenge not taken up. Hmmmmm. So I question their motives when the protocal is ignored. Will they try to obtain a permit? Or will they pretent that their own reasoning

transends the policies that have been enacted for the benifit of publically held property.

Edited June 4, 2013 by ptangier

[norseman]

^^^^^^^

Its true that dna can be used as a type specimen. but the sample is almost always a flesh sample. so where are going to get a squatch flesh sample from?

and with my research i have done concerning take permits this is the best i can come up with.

http://www.fws.gov/forms/3-200-37.pdf

Do you see something wrong with the permit?

[southernyahoo]

^^^^^

Making a desicion to not scientically collect a type specimen to study based on the assumptions of a layman is logical and scientific?

Look at it this way? we know how smart a chimp is as we have dissected its brain!!! So it is kinda hard for anyone to back up their assumptions untill we get a slab monkey in our possesion! Yes? Is that logical?

 

I look at it like this. Science doesn't kill hominins to find out they are indeed hominins.   They have good reasons for that. 

 

Take this example below. When Science studies tracks like this which are fossilized,  they see "Human" tracks. When a bigfooter finds these same tracks in fresh muddy soil, lets say a remote place in the PNW , they are seen as being made from some convergently evolved ape which seemingly slipped under the radar for millions of years. Who's being more scientific?

 

 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060803-footprint_2.html

[norseman]

^^^^^^

your missing something. your link shows a homo sapien sapien track........you and i. the laetoli tracks;

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laetoli

were made by hominids.......but not humans or homo. but possibly an ancestor.

youll notice that no where in the species name will you find the word homo

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis

but i digress instead of fighting over the color of a pixies wing? without a body? we have no idea what it is, what it eats, where it sleeps or for that matter its IQ!!!!!!!!!!!

All of this bandwidth is simply conjecture! Until proven to science.

And boiled down to brass tacks? If i shot one? and invited you over to view the body? would you refuse on principle? would you boycott the discovery?

[Guest DWA]

^^^^^

Making a desicion to not scientically collect a type specimen to study based on the assumptions of a layman is logical and scientific?

Look at it this way? we know how smart a chimp is as we have dissected its brain!!! So it is kinda hard for anyone to back up their assumptions untill we get a slab monkey in our possesion! Yes? Is that logical?

I look at it like this. Science doesn't kill hominins to find out they are indeed hominins. They have good reasons for that.

Take this example below. When Science studies tracks like this which are fossilized, they see "Human" tracks. When a bigfooter finds these same tracks in fresh muddy soil, lets say a remote place in the PNW , they are seen as being made from some convergently evolved ape which seemingly slipped under the radar for millions of years. Who's being more scientific?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060803-footprint_2.html

Well, both are to some degree assuming. And both are to some degree making deductions. And in both cases it's justified. Edited June 4, 2013 by DWA

[southernyahoo]

^^^^^^

your missing something. your link shows a homo sapien sapien track........you and i. the laetoli tracks;

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laetoli

were made by hominids.......but not humans or homo. but possibly an ancestor.

youll notice that no where in the species name will you find the word homo

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis

but i digress instead of fighting over the color of a pixies wing? without a body? we have no idea what it is, what it eats, where it sleeps or for that matter its IQ!!!!!!!!!!!

All of this bandwidth is simply conjecture! Until proven to science.

And boiled down to brass tacks? If i shot one? and invited you over to view the body? would you refuse on principle? would you boycott the discovery?

 

I might not boycott it, but would want to see pictures before making the flight. Atleast I'd be able to see one and finally make up my mind. Science on the other hand might not credit the discovery of a new species pending what it's DNA looks like.

[norseman]

you have missed my point.