dmaker Posted August 23, 2013 Posted August 23, 2013 " Each year that goes by, more BFs get shot" - georgerm Uhm, where exactly are you getting that from?? Do you have a source you could cite?
Rockape Posted August 23, 2013 Posted August 23, 2013 <Uhm, where exactly are you getting that from?? Do you have a source you could cite?> It's all super secret stuff, MIB and all that ya' know.
dmaker Posted August 23, 2013 Posted August 23, 2013 I would say the problem is precisely the opposite--not enough BF getting shot. As in, not a single one that could be dragged out and verified by science.
norseman Posted August 23, 2013 Admin Posted August 23, 2013 Again, not everyone thinks it is necessary to try to kill one. Once you do the field work and actually learn a little bit about what they really are, you could not rationally shoot one. Neither science nor our our government needs or wants more evidence. The situation is being handled as best it can be for the benefit of both species. Forget the rifles; just get in the woods and have fun and learn. Baloney. The situation is is that the PGF is nearly 50 years old, Bob Gimlin had Patty covered with his rifle, he chose not to shoot thinking the film would be proof. So how much forest has been chopped down in 50 years? How many dams have been built eradicating fisheries? Egads man......the situation is far from being handled "as best as it can be". They deserve to be recognized as a real species and the sooner the better! As far as having fun in the woods? I do that regularly with a rifle.......Iam an avid hunter. Which has nothing to do with Sasquatch, I don't advocate Sasquatch hunting seasons or heads over the mantle. But science does need a type specimen to establish a species. So I advocate taking one specimen for the good of the whole. No good can come out of them remaining in the realm of pixies and gnomes
Branco Posted August 23, 2013 Posted August 23, 2013 " Each year that goes by, more BFs get shot" - georgerm Uhm, where exactly are you getting that from?? Do you have a source you could cite? Well, here are a few such reports by date. At least one - and maybe more - is a hoax. But some are very real and true. http://www.lawnflowersjerkyandbigfoots.com/Pages/BigfootShootings.aspx This one made the news for a while. Had the lawmen and hunters been able to get closer while it was screaming and throwing rocks at them from the mountain side above them, it would have had several pounds of "lead" thrown at it. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/flintville.htm
Branco Posted August 23, 2013 Posted August 23, 2013 But science does need a type specimen to establish a species. So I advocate taking one specimen for the good of the whole. No good can come out of them remaining in the realm of pixies and gnomes Science must not need or want a body very bad. Do you know of any scientists out there in the boonies with a .300 mag looking for one? If you are going to shoot one "for the good of the whole", I'll suggest you be extra careful in taking one down by making sure that first shot does the job instantly. You likely won't get that second shot if you wound it. Since they usually do not travel alone, they might justly feel that you should also be "taken" for for the good of the whole. One thing I have learned is that if one of the males is approaching you and is deliberately making noise as it walks; you danged well better be looking behind you for the one that is really trying to get close to you to show you who is the real pro of the woods. Maybe you can get one of those "professional trackers" who can track a bare foot man over a quartzite ridge and just have him follow the BF for a a few days. picking up hair from it bed and scat from its porta-potty. Like the lab frog you mentioned whose body divulged information for years, a big pile of BF scat and a bunch of hair samples ought to be all the scientists need to do satisfy their need to know for years . They are only "pixies and gnomes" to those that don't have a clue. Those folks don't need to know anything more. It would serve no useful purpose to the "whole" of either group. 1
norseman Posted August 24, 2013 Admin Posted August 24, 2013 Grover Krantz comes to mind as a scientist with a rifle in the boonies. Not many like him. RIP. I also know the risks involved with what I've been doing, thanks for the concern. And it would be great if scat or hair would bring about species recognition, but I no longer hold much hope of that. How many unclassified hairs have already been collected that lack a medulla? Ultimately you don't put much stock in science's recognition of this species, but I do, I think it's key to their survival, and we will just have to agree to disagree on that point. Later.
georgerm Posted August 25, 2013 Author Posted August 25, 2013 Grove Krantz was a fine BF scientist who was not afraid to speak his mind. Hikers, campers, and hunters often see BF which probaby forces BF to withdraw farther into the remote country that other BF clans have claimed. Do they battle each other when two clans try to survive off the same territory? Sometimes BFs seem to hang out around farms to survive. Are these young BFs that have been forced out of the clan's territory? This can be dangerous since farmers may see them as a problem animal that needs to be done away with.
Recommended Posts