N A W A C - Field Study Discussion (2)

[Guest]

No, Penski. It was daylight so the thermal wouldn't have been necessary to see the animal had there not been foliage in the way. It couldn't have been used to collect a specimen in any case because it wasn't sighted-in. The reticule on the scope was not yet aligned.

[Drew]

If the scope had been sighted in ahead of time, would you have collected a specimen?

 

Possibility of a new rule stating that all weapons should be sighted in before bringing them to area X?

[Guest]

I doubt there would have been a shot there, but it's hard to say. He only would have taken a shot if he could have positively identified the animal. 

 

A .45-70 can't be sighted-in just anywhere. The weapons and the scopes were brought together on-site so they have to be sighted there. As I said in the interview, the weapon was being sighted at that time because we had changed the configuration of the scopes on the rifle (removing a red dot scope and using the therm's reticule alone in order to increase field of view). 

[southernyahoo]

Daryl Colyer sits on the fence too much. He needs to be more assertive...

 

You mean when he is describing the creatures intelligence and how it seemingly knows that it has to use cover when so close to the cabins?

 

I wonder if the potential shooter has looked at the Mike Green thermal footage and compared what he was looking at to the subject that got the Zagnut.

[Drew]

Isn't Daryl the guy that unloaded 10 rounds from a shotgun at a Bigfoot?  Doesn't sound like a fence-sitter there, does it?

[southernyahoo]

Not sure if Stan's comment was meant to be sarcastic, but I did feel that Daryls comments about their intelligence was very likely the truth about the subjects they have engaged.

 

Bipto, do you feel that your group would have taken a shot at the Mike Green thermal footage subject as it is seen and with all members accounted for?

[Guest]

Bipto, do you feel that your group would have taken a shot at the Mike Green thermal footage subject as it is seen and with all members accounted for?

 

Assuming there were no team members down-range and they were all accounted for, yes, that would very likely have been a shot someone in our group would have taken. But the decision to take a shot has many factors, so it's hard to say for sure. 

Not sure if Stan's comment was meant to be sarcastic, but I did feel that Daryls comments about their intelligence was very likely the truth about the subjects they have engaged.

 

Daryl doesn't pussyfoot around.

 

WRT to the stealthy nature of that specific contact, all we can do is extrapolate based on observed behavior. As we said on the show, whatever was creeping around over there did not act like any of the other indigenous wildlife we've observed through the thermal scopes (bear, deer, etc.). The animal in question was tracked intermittently through foliage starting in a location from which a rock was thrown, down the slope, to the cover of that bush right on the edge of a clearing, over several minutes (approximately 15, if I recall correctly). The animal was slow, methodical, and extraordinarily cautious. These traits are shared, in general, by cougars but they don't throw rocks and they're not as large as the animal observed. 

 

Based on all that and in context with the area and our history there, we believe the animal observed was a wood ape. However, since positive identification was never established (i.e., it never stood up or stepped out), no shot was taken. We don't shoot at amorphous hot spots. 

[WSA]

Great show. I'm interested now in the idea that many of the tree-breaks that have been reported might just be the result of immature BF's overestimating the weight a particular tree can bear. Case in point, apparently. When you think about it too, it seems like such would be bound to happen, and maybe more often than you'd predict.

[Guest]

That's definitely on the list of possibilities. 

[Guest Stan Norton]

Sarcasm is wasted on the written word: my apologies...it was simply my way of showing my admiration at Daryl's no nonsense talk. The bit where he said (I think the discussion was about the kill/no kill thing) "well, we don't care" tickled me. I couldn't agree with him more. As you were.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Stan Norton

[southernyahoo]

^ He's always been that way, but it's not always a good thing to be certain you are doing the right thing. Five years were lost doing the camera trap project. It seemed worthy to try it, but the lack of field observation feedback from boots on the ground in the same area sustained false hopes in it.

Live and learn.

[Guest Stan Norton]

^ He's always been that way, but it's not always a good thing to be certain you are doing the right thing. Five years were lost doing the camera trap project. It seemed worthy to try it, but the lack of field observation feedback from boots on the ground in the same area sustained false hopes in it.

Live and learn.

 

Well, I only know the guy through listening to him on a few podcasts but his views on sasquatch are pretty straightforward. Whether his approach is right or wrong or to my taste or yours, the bottom line is that he is answerable to no-one but himself and his colleagues. I think he's on record as saying that, with hindsight, the camera trap studies were an obligatory field method that didn't pay off. NAWAC have evolved their MO over the years and continue to do so - the current position has been years in the making, not some snap judgment by gun toting hillbillies. I agree with them and you: live and learn.

[Guest]

The camera operations were, in hindsight, a huge waste of time and money. However, we would not be here had we not gone there. No regrets. 

[Drew]

Are any of the photos you took, while purportedly unconvincing to those who have not been there, clear to those who experienced the action there at X?

[Guest]

The game cam photos? Many of them are archived for use by members if they want them. Mostly bears but some other local critters, too.