Guest zenmonkey Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 This is the second time you've posted this. Apparently on many deaf ears. Plussed. Yep thats ok as long as they keep fighting over the wrong location then were all good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David NC Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Did anyone ever think that it was called Mr. Branson's place because it was a place that Mr. Branson knew about and got them into. It does not have to mean that he owned it. And Yuchi seems funny that with all the LEO you have in your hunting lease that you have not given them the information about NAWAC' s "gun handling" I am sure they could get something done about it before anyone on this forum could, unless it was just something else to try to discredit NAWAC with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 David NC, In the referenced articles, Mr. Branson indicated the event took place on his property and with the only property in LeFlore county, Oklahoma listed in his (and, Mrs.) name(s) being the 10 acre mountaintop plot, I'd suggest that trying to spin such into another location may prove futile. BTW, the lease principals were notified (several weeks ago) about the comings/goings we've been discussing with their greatest concern being any possible trespassing by those people. And, while it is understood that people are free to do as they please (within the law) on their own property or that which they have legal access to, bullets flying off the mountain and impacting others' property and/or persons, is an entirely different affair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Yep thats ok as long as they keep fighting over the wrong location then were all good! Are you (zenmonkey) going on record (to the membership) as catagorically stating, Area "X" is not the 10 acre Branson place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Why not? You haven't shown us proof that it is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David NC Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 I reread The echo incident . it does state that happened on a property Mr. Branson owns. It also states something you "conveniently" left out , it was reported to Mr. Branson and Mr. Branson's son " A LOCAL COUNTY SHERIFF" . I never seen you bring that up in all this hoopla about them breaking the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 ..."I never seen you bring that up in all this hoopla about them breaking the law"... What laws have I specifically accused NAWAC of breaking? Why not? You haven't shown us proof that it is! zenmonkey has alluded in multiple posts that Area "X" is not on the Branson property. Mr. Branson stated that it was located there. So, which is it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Yuchi1 thanks for your input and thank you for answering the questions asked of you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zenmonkey Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 An experiment needs as many controls as possible and not as many variables. Thats all I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Area X could be the designation for the whole entire Kiamichi mountain range. I did some poking on their website yesterday and I think it's very obvious that their operations encompass more than 10 acres. It's quite possible that Branson's place was used as a base camp at one time, but it may or may not be now. I've also been told in good confidence by a NAWAC member and respected researcher, that you do not know what your talking about. Either your dead wrong or your information is outdated. It would seem if your property butts up to Bransons? It would be easy for you to validate your claim....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Far enough if the person somehow got between the gun and the backstop unannounced...... Gee whiz Drew. I tried to pull the old "If everyone obeyed your orders, then why the Code Red?" from A Few Good Men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Put it this way? If I gave you permission to go hunting on my ranch? I would not allow another party to do the same without your knowledge of their location on the property and they yours, that's prudent. Hunters safety certificates are fine and dandy, but there has to be a safe overall hunt plan as well. Unannounced walk ons are not safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David NC Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 The beginning of this thread you accused Nawac of hunting out of season, hunting a nongame species. when these were pointed out as not viable it was hunting with a possible illegal weapon and definitely an illegal ammunition. Then it was assault with a firearm in the Echo incident. You might want to go back and reread your comments so you do not spin yourself up in your own web. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Who did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 (edited) A brief summary: David NC says I accused NAWAC of illegal weapons. Is there a post number that can be cited? David NC says I accused NAWAC of illegal ammunition. I stated that the ammunition (00 Buck) used by Mr. Colyer was not legal for any game animal in Oklahoma (www.wildlifedepartment.com) and while the rifled/foster style slugs were legal for whitetail deer, there is no legal deer season in July for Oklahoma. Drew (post #229) made reference to statutes regarding fireams and discharge circumstances. zenmonkey has made multiple posts alluding that Area "X" is not on Mr. Branson's property. When asked to affirm such posts via a direct question...the silence is deafening. Now, Norseman is saying Area "X" is some vast area encompassing basically the entire region. Problem for zenmonkey and Norseman is the landowner (Mr. Branson) has gone on public record as stating Area "X" is his property. The 10 acre plot is the only parcel listed in his name per the official land records (tax roll) for LeFlore county Oklahoma. So far, I have not found any property listed in his name for the adjacent counties (Latimer, McCurtain & Pushmataha) in the Kiamichi region. Bipto (post #545) makes mention of the cabins (enhancements built onto it) on this place, as their base of operations. In a possible effort to create plausible deniability, Norseman is now regurgitating information from anonymous sources within NAWAC. If...NAWAC is operating and has permission to trespass on parcels adjacent to the Branson place, that's all well and good, as long as they shoot to the south and not in the direction of the lease. If...NAWAC is operating in other areas, such as public access land, which is distant from the lease, bully for them as at least someone else is possibly having to deal with errant rounds flying around. The above two comments derive their basis from the written Echo Incident report and video evidence, as publicly offered by NAWAC and/or it's operatives. IMO, those incidents involve participants losing composure and firing off rounds in a fashion that could be construed as unprofessional (at best, especially considering Mr. Coyler has military experience) and/or reckless (at worst) by a reasonable person. Again, IMO, the hardcopy and video evidence I have observed regarding NAWAC's operations, appear to indicate a high level of rank amateur behavior despite being cloaked in military jargon. Outside of some catchy military style titles, I see little that seperates them from the other (publicly known) groups trying to accomplish the same end. It's quite possible that Branson's place was used as a base camp at one time, but it may or may not be now. Is that statement code for, Mr. Branson threw us off his property (once he discovered NAWAC's true purpose?), so now we've had to set up elsewhere? Edited July 22, 2014 by Yuchi1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts