Guest Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Leave it to humans to encounter one of the rarest species on the planet, probably one of the closest to us, and think to put a bullet in it. Sad. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted February 7, 2014 Author Share Posted February 7, 2014 Many people who don't hunt think that hunters kill everything they see, when exactly the opposite is true. Legal hunters only kill what they hold permits to kill. Fear of shooting some giant suicidal dumbass in a fur suit will hold the majority of legal, ethical hunters from pulling the trigger on a big hairy thing not listed in the rules pamphlet. That is why I believe more haven't been shot and brought in. This makes sense and accounts for BFs not being shot at and glad of this. It's just a matter of time before the trigger is pulled or a truck skids and BF is brought in for science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Skookum Chucks post was like a breath of fresh air. As a taxidermist I speak to hundreds of "successful" hunters. What I mean by that is if they don't have something in their hand, they don't end up in my shop. Hunters are the least likely of anyone to say if they saw a Sasquatch let alone shoot one. I quiz everyone who comes here about them and I know a number of shootings. 1 was a young guy shot one in a berry patch with a 308. Norma magnum. Thought it was a huge bear. He said it stood up put both hands on the exit wound and ran away screaming. A family member removed him from the scene and to this day refuses to talk about it. Another native fellow shot one that approached his children while berry picking. It too ran and his brother tracked it until he was set upon by others. In around 1930 a group of railway workers shot one dead near Cadomin Alberta. They were Italian immigrants and decided it was a man and buried it so as not to be in trouble. That story was told to me by 2 separate people who had the tale handed down by grandparents. And no they don't know each other. They are a very rare flesh and blood creature than can be killed and they need a recognized scientific name so they can be categorized and protected. I believe somebody somewhere has something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 If I were a hunter and I saw a Bigfoot inadvertently stroll into my crosshairs I would hesitate to pull the trigger. I mean what if it was just some stupid kid in a costume pulling a prank on his buddies? Sure, that's a Darwin Award just waiting to happen but do I really want his potential death on my conscience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 ^^^And many hold off because they know it's not human but they just can't shoot something like that. (Some actually said they wouldn't shoot something - anything - they didn't have a tag for.) And some don't think their firearm will do the job. And some just watch the spectacle. Etc. Human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 There are plenty of reasons that a squatch that does take a bullet would not drop immediately. First I'll point out that people get shot or shot at all the time under similar circumstances. Chance encounters, startled weapon-holder, wild shot, lucky shot, target moving in an evasive manner, non-lethal hit, etc.; and lots of people survive these encounters, so assume that squatch enjoy an equal amount of circumstantial luck, factor it down a little bit because they're bigger targets, factor it up some because they're faster, behave in an unexpected manner, and the shooter is at least startled. Also, as big as squatch are, the ratio of vital spot volume to overall body volume is probably smaller than in a human, so that's another factor in the squatch's favor - a smaller proportion of penetrating hits will hit vital spots on the average. As a cadet my engineering specialty was Weapons Systems Engineering. In it we designed tank rounds, gun tubes, the whole danged tank. But we started with the thickness of the armor we wanted to penetrate and the distance at which we wanted to do so. To punch through thicker hair than a human has, thicker skin than a human has, denser and thicker muscle than a human has, heavier bone than a human has to reach a vital spot, a bullet has to be more than well aimed. It has to have enough kinetic energy at the point of impact (where it actually hits the squatch) to do the job. A bullet has a lot more kinetic energy when it leaves the muzzle of the gun bore, but it loses kinetic energy due to air resistance as it travels. That means that it's penetrating power decreases with distance. Some bullets tumble as they travel (losing even more penetrating power), or tumble when they hit (increasing the chance of being deflected off leaving little more than a flesh wound, or losing penetrating power as they are deflected into the body, increasing the chance that they will do damage that is not vital). Other bullets (round buckshot, for example) pack a huge punch close up, but lose penetrating power very fast, so when I hear about a shotgun being used against anything big beyond about fifteen feet, I shrug my shoulders and say, "So what?" Shot guns are designed to take down fragile animals like birds at a distance, or the guy with bad breath who is right in front of you. Also consider that as distance increases, the shot spreads out, and much of it misses the target. Also a jacketed round will be more likely to do the job against a squatch than a round that is designed to deform when it hits. A bullet that deforms will create a larger wound, but on an animal with thick material protecting vital spots, it is less likely to penetrate to a vital spot. It may do large amounts of superficial damage that can result in fatal blood loss, or secondary infection, but the squatch would probably still be able to escape without an immediately fatal wound. There's nothing magic about a squatch's ability to take some damage and keep on moving. It's just physics and physiology. I could go on, but it would be more valuable if those with knowledge of physiology, and some hunters who can talk about vital spots and soft targets on game animals versus squatch were to weigh in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Some actually said they wouldn't shoot something - anything - they didn't have a tag for. This is a very practical reason not to shoot a Bigfoot even if you are absolutely certain that your target is a Bigfoot. In many places shooting an animal that you don't have license to hunt (outside certain circumstances, like protecting yourself from a rabid bear) can net you a fine or even get your existing license revoked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 It's probably a rare opportunity to start with, then it takes a person that will shoot what they can't identify and don't have a tag for. Most who do indentify also recognize it's human traits and forgo the shot or fear retaliation if they don't make it a kill shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skookum Chuck Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Thanks Skywalker. My Dad always said that "You never see any elk in your living room, so you gotta get out there." I've always enjoyed the logistics of the hunt and camping with my family and friends the most. Harvesting an animal is frosting on the cake. Now I get the most joy from teaching my teenage sons all I can about the world away from their electronic gadgets. Ipods, Ipads, Iphones........make me Irate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted February 8, 2014 Author Share Posted February 8, 2014 Some bullets tumble as they travel (losing even more penetrating power), or tumble when they hit (increasing the chance of being deflected off leaving little more than a flesh wound, or losing penetrating power as they are deflected into the body, increasing the chance that they will do damage that is not vital). Other bullets (round buckshot, for example) pack a huge punch close up, but lose penetrating power very fast, so when I hear about a shotgun being used against anything big beyond about fifteen feet, I shrug my shoulders and say, "So what?" Shot guns are designed to take down fragile animals like birds at a distance, or the guy with bad breath who is right in front of you. Also consider that as distance increases, the shot spreads out, and much of it misses the target. Also a jacketed round will be more likely to do the job against a squatch than a round that is designed to deform when it hits. A bullet that deforms will create a larger wound, but on an animal with thick material protecting vital spots, it is less likely to penetrate to a vital spot. It may do large amounts of superficial damage that can result in fatal blood loss, or secondary infection, but the squatch would probably still be able to escape without an immediately fatal wound. Will a copper jacketed round such as a 180 grain 30-06 go through a 500 pound BF? Doesn't this round deform somewhat? Is the 223 the only round that tumbles? I did my duty as Marine Combat Engineer and we shot the M-14 which shoots 308 rounds. Would this copper jacketed round go through a bigfoot? Now if the round simply passes through with out tearing up the tissue, then the animal may not go down. Is this correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I used to have an M14 at the Academy, but never fired it. We used it for bayonet drill and for parades and carried it on runs. A copper jacketed 180 grain 30-06 should do the trick if fired at a close enough range. According to the ballistics charts, it has a muzzle velocity of 2,800 feet per second and loses about 200 fps in velocity about every 100 yards. At about 425 yards, the round has lost half of its energy. This takes about half a second of flight. Bullet deformation is a matter of degree, and it is a rare bullet that shows no deformation. Whether the round goes through or not, it will drop the bigfoot if it hits a vital spot and does enough damage. I'm certain .308 fired by an M14 could also do the trick, again at close enough range. I knew a lot of vets who said the M14 was superior to the M16 in accuracy and distance. Any round that does not gain enough spin from rifling (has an insufficient twist rate) has the potential to tumble in flight. This isn't desirable because it increases wind resistance during flight, decreasing both its accuracy and punch when it impacts a target, but when they hit, they tended sometimes to tumble around inside the target causing a lot of damage. There were reports of .223's fired from AR-15's doing horrible things in Viet Nam and this led to adoption of the M16 despite the fact that the .223 rounds are perfectly stable at an adequate twist rate. The M14 had a twist rate of 1:12, the AR-15 had a twist rate of 1:16 or 1:18 depending on the model (worse). A .223 fired from a rifle with a 1:12 twist rate is stable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Extremely interesting posts JDL. You know your stuff... By & large we hunters use a weapon sufficient for our licensed target species, but rarely larger, for a number of good reasons, among them recoil (large caliber weapons kick although recoil can be mitigated by weight, a muzzle brake, etc), weight (by itself, the pack I carry for even close to the yard hunts is probably 40 pounds, so why carry a 9 pound rifle if a 7 pound one is sufficient), and meat damage (there is a long standing debate about meat damage of big & slow versus small & fast calibers in our world). Over the years I have come to even tailor my weapon choice to the location & conditions day to day and have purchased/collected (use what word you will) a substantial variety of rifles & calibers to do this. A week of deer hunting around my farm often means I will use 3 or 4 different rifles and may even opt for a handgun. The exception to this is for example, if you are hunting smaller game in an area frequented by large dangerous game such as the big bears of Alaska. Were I to say, go up there for blacktail deer (a fairly compact sub-species compared to our big prairie whitetails, for personal safety I might well use my 338 magnum or 45-70 rather than something small like a 270, 257 Weatherby, or a 308. One of my low profile BF world brothers hunts deer in an area where the have boogers, and these boogers are not singing kumbaiya. Why are they pushy & aggressive, who knows? But he has no particular desire to kill one, nor is he of a mind he is going to let them run he & his family off their lease (I came to much the same decision back in the early 90s while on a guided bear hunt in Canada). Hence it is not unusual for him to carry a caliber for their deer that many deer hunters would consider too much gun. In his situation, I don't blame him... I want to address the second part of the OP's question, why are not dead BF brought in? I presume he means as a whole body carcass. Ask any elk or moose hunter why they don't usually bring in animals of this size as whole carcasses, and see what they say. These animals are usually hunted in the most difficult & inaccessible country you can imagine and recovering the carcass is hours upon hours of back breaking labor, and that is boning out the meat of quartering the carcass. Many if not most big game hunters who encounter a booger do so in the same country. Back in the 90s I drew a once in a lifetime moose tag and ended up taking a cow which dressed 700 pounds on the last night I had to hunt. I was told up front by G&F that the easiest part of the hunt was drawing the tag and that all the work started when the moose hit the ground. The locals who were helping me hunt & recover were adamant that WHERE the moose went down was of paramount importance. I found my moose at the bottom of a mile long, 600 or so feet deep coulee (canyon in the rest of America) and I shot her only because she seemed to be standing very near a snowmobile trail (she actually fell about 100 feet of that trail in willows & bush we had to chainsaw a path through to get to her). Back then & even now, my state's laws dictate that we cannot quarter or bone out big game in the field so we were faced with a 700 pound whole carcass recovery. When my group saw where the cow was, they were less than thrilled. It took 3 of us to dress her & get her propped open that night. We were back at first light the next day with a 3/4 ton 4WD truck, a Toyota Land Cruiser (both equipped with winches, snowmobiles, 8 adult males and my ex-wife. It took from first light until well after dark to get that moose out, skin, and quarter it. That part of my state is tough country but a walk in the park compared to hunting in the mountain states & PNW to our west. Even if someone killed an adult sized booger, I think a full body recover is nigh onto impossible... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) Hello NDT, Great post! A sobering piece of logic too that non-hunters who are pro-kill fail to fully consider. I know this will appear naive to one with experience such as yourself but I had a thread a while back regarding Sasquatch on roads. It happens often ehough that I have always thought that securing a type specimen in a road situation would be a sight better logistically than any attempts deep in the field. I read a proponent encouraging the hunt be isolated to farms for the same reasons. Better chance for finding one as well AND hauling it out. Edited February 8, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I've read several reports of a hunter killing a bigfoot, but the bodies never seem to make it to science for proof? Are the hunters afraid of prosecution? Are bigfoots hiding so well, that very few are shot and killed each hunting season. Can you find a report of bigfoot that was shot and killed? I think all these reports are made up in a desperate attempt at attracting attention. If BF existed, there would have been a body a long long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Hello summitwalker, .....If BF existed, there would have been a body a long long time ago. I'm with you 110% on that. Yes, there would have. Might you have a reason to consider that there perhaps isn't currently a body somewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts