ShadowBorn Posted July 19, 2014 Moderator Posted July 19, 2014 Have you ever hunted a Dogo before ? Are you a houndsman? No? Then please don't tell me how Fido acts! It's irrelevant!!! Norseman You must mean if I have ever hunted with a dogo before? and the answer is no since I have never heard of this breed of dog before. I can see why you believe that this breed of dog might work well for hunting these creatures. But I am not going to argue how I know why these creatures are good at defending against dogs. But as a hunter I can tell you that if you are in the right place at the right time and you have the guts to carry out of placing shot. Then you should have no problem at taking down one of these creatures. These creatures are sensitive to our scent and can hear our move ment. This is why hunters see these creatures more often since we are always in camo and scent free. We also do not make much noise as we walk with in the woods. If you were to place your self in the right place no one should have no problem taking a shot at one of these creatures. Just takes the guts to place the target and pull the trigger.
Yuchi1 Posted July 19, 2014 Posted July 19, 2014 (edited) If I had only one wish to be granted, it would only be that we could move past the firearm safety uber-analysis. If I had to predict one of the straws that broke the back of Bipto, this would top the list. They feel they are acting responsibly (and they are there, we aren't), they have permission from landowners, they are all adults, and they've repeatedly confirmed they are willing to face the music if the unlikely does occur. If they were deer hunters (and I know plenty who don't take the precautions they do) they'd probably be getting an NRA paid Attorney to get injunctive relief at this point. Enough with the gun safety "concerns." Am not sure what these precautions you're referring to as the publicly available reports/videos show (IMO) an apparent total lack of regard for basic firearm protocols. Based upon this (public) evidence, it isn't a leap in logic to conclude a homo sapien (or, bear(s)) may well be shot before any UHS/Sasquatch. Back in the early days of my experiences with this endeavor, similar wild-eyed type behavior was observed with people in the forest, carrying firearms, having a heightened level of (self-induced) anxiety and seeing things (i.e., "boogers") that were not there, in the form they so imagined. Edited July 19, 2014 by Yuchi1 1
Incorrigible1 Posted July 19, 2014 Posted July 19, 2014 Yuchi1, just wish to throw out a little encouragement. You, my friend, have come a far piece in my estimation. You're providing local perspective that's tough to come by, otherwise. Thank you. 1
Wingman1 Posted July 19, 2014 Posted July 19, 2014 gun safety should always be a concern....firearms handling 101 and basic knowledge among most credible outdoorsmen / hunters , or should be. fwiw, that " willing to face the music" stance might vary depending on which end of the weapon you're standing on. That is a well illustrated point Doc! and couldn't agree more. Firearm safety should always be the first concern when you you first pick up the weapon in any situation ---- + 1 2
chelefoot Posted July 19, 2014 Posted July 19, 2014 Yuchi, I am just assuming (I realize the dangers in assuming! so I am asking) from what I have read from you, that you are not pro-kill?
WSA Posted July 19, 2014 Posted July 19, 2014 Points concerning gun safety are axiomatic to me...a gun owner and shooter for 45 years. My point is that it is hardly our business to police adults from our armchairs and does nothing to further the real discussion of evidence in X. 2
Yuchi1 Posted July 19, 2014 Posted July 19, 2014 Yuchi, I am just assuming (I realize the dangers in assuming! so I am asking) from what I have read from you, that you are not pro-kill? Initially, (2002) I was in it for the money as we had been advised of the various bounties on the first body. Even Mr. Branson (video on the NAWAC website) mentioned he was aware of such which (IMO) makes me question the motives of that organization (purely science-minded or, purely $cience-minded?). As I grew in knowledge and awareness, and with advice and counsel from tribal elders, led me to the crossroads of discovery that I was truly on the wrong path, from a humanity perspective. Once you have allowed yourself to grow up by virtue of becoming aware of the real situation, a decision has to be made as to whether you truly desire to strive and live as a real human being or something less. Also, to address WSA's comments, while I harbor no personal animosity for pro-kill adherents (IMO, they are still in the position of repeating the first grade (humanity-wise), over and over and over), I do harbor a level of disdain for people operating firearms who openly demonstrate a serious lack of emotional capacity to both apply and implement the very real aspects of lethal force.
Popular Post norseman Posted July 19, 2014 Admin Popular Post Posted July 19, 2014 Oh jeeeeez.......... 9
Popular Post norseman Posted July 19, 2014 Admin Popular Post Posted July 19, 2014 Initially, (2002) I was in it for the money as we had been advised of the various bounties on the first body. Even Mr. Branson (video on the NAWAC website) mentioned he was aware of such which (IMO) makes me question the motives of that organization (purely science-minded or, purely $cience-minded?). As I grew in knowledge and awareness, and with advice and counsel from tribal elders, led me to the crossroads of discovery that I was truly on the wrong path, from a humanity perspective. Once you have allowed yourself to grow up by virtue of becoming aware of the real situation, a decision has to be made as to whether you truly desire to strive and live as a real human being or something less. Also, to address WSA's comments, while I harbor no personal animosity for pro-kill adherents (IMO, they are still in the position of repeating the first grade (humanity-wise), over and over and over), I do harbor a level of disdain for people operating firearms who openly demonstrate a serious lack of emotional capacity to both apply and implement the very real aspects of lethal force. Where to begin...... 1) From day one you have attacked the NAWAC, Project Grendel and the pro kill stance in general. And while you were not able to dig up any dirt on me, you and I traded barbs in my Kill Club thread quite a while ago philosophically. But for the NAWAC this isn't true...... You have done your best to undermine public opinion against the NAWAC! 2) Specifically? Area X ! You openly admit you do not know where area X is.....but you SUGGEST it's Mr. Branson's 10 acre plot. That's simply slanderous....... 3) The Echo incident. STOP! You feel pro kill proponents are bad people, bad people shouldn't carry guns.......fine! That's your opinion! The bill of rights disagrees with you! Get over it!!!!!! It is not illegal for me to carry a gun in the woods because I believe in Bigfoot, Zombies or the Mothman. 4) Pro kill proponents are in it for the money? What money? You would be better off taking your money and playing powerball! 5) There are no squatches in area X? Again you have no idea where area X is! Do you deny that reports come from this region of Oklahoma? 6) What about you? What did the tribal leaders teach you about them that made you shuck your evil ways? 5
Yuchi1 Posted July 19, 2014 Posted July 19, 2014 (edited) Where to begin...... 1) From day one you have attacked the NAWAC, Project Grendel and the pro kill stance in general. And while you were not able to dig up any dirt on me, you and I traded barbs in my Kill Club thread quite a while ago philosophically. But for the NAWAC this isn't true...... You have done your best to undermine public opinion against the NAWAC! Attacking an organization and asking pointed, yet valid questions (as many others have) are seperate functions and trying to comingle the two are not serving you well. 2) Specifically? Area X ! You openly admit you do not know where area X is.....but you SUGGEST it's Mr. Branson's 10 acre plot. That's simply slanderous....... Reading NAWAC's own material indicates Area "X" is the Branson place. I placed a caveat in later posts as by virtue of the behavior of some of its principals, that material may be suspect. 3) The Echo incident. STOP! You feel pro kill proponents are bad people, bad people shouldn't carry guns.......fine! That's your opinion! The bill of rights disagrees with you! Get over it!!!!!! It is not illegal for me to carry a gun in the woods because I believe in Bigfoot, Zombies or the Mothman. Where are the quotes I have specifically said pro-killers are bad people ? Where have I specifically said bad people should not carry guns ? I have stated that people lacking the (apparent) emotional maturity and common sense to use a firearm sensibly are (IMO) a public safety menace. NAWAC's own publications indicate some of their operatives likely fit this catagory. Unlike yourself, I have had encounters with UHS, so does that disqualify me for owning firearms? 4) Pro kill proponents are in it for the money? What money? You would be better off taking your money and playing powerball! I know several pro-killers with the primary motivation for their efforts being financial gain. Numerous bounties are/have been offered (per, Mr. Branson) and one person has even paid ~$50K for what turned out to be a rubber suit in a freezer. IMO, there's no shortage of pilgrims and koolaid in this area. 5) There are no squatches in area X? Again you have no idea where area X is! Do you deny that reports come from this region of Oklahoma? What I've repeatedly stated is there is no evidence of UHS/Sasquatch on the lease and as said lease lies within ~600 yards of the Branson plot and as NAWAC has repeatedly stated said plot is their base of operations, it is reasonable to conclude the lack of evidence being brought forward to substantiate claims being made leads a prudent person to reason something other than the claims themselves may be transpiring. 6) What about you? What did the tribal leaders teach you about them that made you shuck your evil ways? I would not classify it as evil ways rather, ignorant thinking. Your own visceral reaction appears (IMO) a product of lacking an understanding of what you are dealing with (UHS/Sasquatch-wise) and as such, symptomatic of the broader issues of many pro-killers. Edited July 19, 2014 by Yuchi1 1
norseman Posted July 20, 2014 Admin Posted July 20, 2014 1) Questions? What questions? Your stating your assumptions as fact. I.e. Area X is the Branson property for starters....... 2) Do they state the Branson property is Area X? Or can you prove this to be true? Do you have a statement from Branson? A picture of Brian Brown on the property? 3) Pro kill proponents evidently repeat the first grade concerning humanity.....your words, own them. Not exactly what I would call "nice" people if it were true. Fortunately it's not. Regardless nobody voted you Sheriff, if you care to read Project Grendel's mission statement, guns are big boy's toys. If your not a responsible person and don't know your gun or game laws it's nobodies fault but your own. It's certainly not something that is going to be resolved on a internet forum....it's moot. 4) As I said......by the time you figure out your time, gas, gadgets, etc, you would be better off playing the lottery. I can only speak for myself, but I would not accept money, I would rather see that money go to the preservation of the species. 5) You also stated that you came to this conclusion based on talking to Rangers, LEO's, etc...... Can they point you to a location in which it's certain to come into contact with "UHS"? 6) Enlighten me then....why should Science give this species a free pass? The pro kill mindset isn't the ignorant mindset, it's the pragmatic one. Unless of course you can convince me otherwise.
Doc Holliday Posted July 20, 2014 Posted July 20, 2014 Points concerning gun safety are axiomatic to me...a gun owner and shooter for 45 years. My point is that it is hardly our business to police adults from our armchairs and does nothing to further the real discussion of evidence in X. the discussion about X would get very real should one of those researchers poor gun handling practices result in a bipedal non-BF death. explain that one to a judge. considering how much negative publicity firearms / shooting gets these days it is our duty , imo, to promote safety first and discourage any risky behavior involving guns. no BF is worth accidently capping a neighbor, regardless of how much of a hot spot a property may be. 2
Recommended Posts