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

[Yuchi1]

It's not like we haven't heard this kind of thing in the past or discussed it internally. We're comfortable with where we are with regard to laws covering the hunting of mythic animals and the specifics of our setting. Feel free to keep typing your POV on the subject, but you're not going to say anything new on the topic nor do you have all the facts. That's about all I'll say on this topic.

 

My intent was not to change NAWAC's mind as the die is cast with you all.

 

IMO, the only real "fact" in play is that no one really knows what these things really are, classificationwise.

 

When (if) someone is successful in killing one, remember this when the SHTF.

[WSA]

I would just interject these points of (I hope) clarity, and I stand to be corrected if anything I write  here is not true, or if I've omitted anything material:

 

The Echo Incident occurred on private property and the shooter was there with permission of the landowner, and while conducting an activity the landowner sanctioned.  No game or non-game animal was being hunted. No game or non-game animal was harmed. No officially recognized and scientifically classified animal was harmed. No human was injured or assaulted. No firearm in the possession of any NAWAC member, including the shooter, violated any federal BATF regulations.

 

If somebody is able to cite a section of the OK or U.S. Codes that prohibits the activity as it occurred, I'd be all ears.  

 

If not, and all this being the case, all that ever seems to happen here on this subject is a lot of shoulda-coulda-woulda, and this is just the latest round of that.  

Edited May 8, 2014 by WSA

[Yuchi1]

From a standpoint of omission, some of the ammunition used was prohibited.

 

There appears to have been mention of only one type of firearm so we really don't know if there were any others that weren't kosher.

 

As NAWAC by definition, defines UHS/BF as an "ape" which would be automatically protected under CITES ( .."They include some whole groups, such as primates".. ) *  there might be a federal issue with killing one.

 

We really don't know if a human (homo sapien) was harmed, or for that matter any other member of the homo genus, as the forensic evidence collected was allegedly botched.  In other words, they really don't know (forensically) what they shot.

 

Not saying they couldn't however, we don't know if all the (armed) participants could pass the form 4473-ATF and/or if the appropriate licences were held per state and federal regs.

 

* http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/species.php

[BC witness]

Yuchi1, the "T" in CITES is "Trade". I don't believe that NAWAC has any intent to trade a body, when they eventually obtain one by their efforts. If you feel that their intent is to sell a specimen to a foreign buyer, then CITES would have some meaning here, otherwise it's just a distraction.

 

I understand your position on the subject of killing a type specimen, though I would be interested in your thought process in converting from "pro" to "anti". Like hiflier, I'm not sure what your agenda is in bashing NAWAC's efforts. Since the establishment biological sciences are not publicly interested in persuing the possibility of our subject, private groups, with their own money and MOs are all that is left to us. Since having your conversion experience, have you come up with a workable no-kill plan to conclusively prove the existance of a N.A. primate, to ensure it's future protection?

[WSA]

Since you don't cite me any regulations regarding this alleged "illegal" ammo Yuchi1, I'll consider that matter closed.

 

You sort of miss the point of the whole venture, I'm seeing. They (or any of us for that matter) CAN'T know what they shot until they kill it and look at it. They can't KILL it without shooting it. Your objections would only apply to the SECOND documented BF killed, not the first one.

 

 

The NAWAC will be the first to tell you, I think, they are not sure of the the exact taxonomy of this animal, only what their best guess is. If I thought a deer was my Uncle Jed, would you then say I was attempting murder by shooting at it? My idea of what it is does not matter, only what it turns out to be. The NAWAC has accepted the calculated risk of possibly finding out the hard way. Only if they actually confirm a kill will it matter at all, so you are a little ahead of the game with your w.a. speculations. 

 

Really, just quit while you are behind and we can all start over, 'kay?  

Edited May 8, 2014 by WSA

[norseman]

http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

I didn't realize that the NAWAC opened up a gun store in the woods........

Evidently citing random gun and animal laws that have nothing to do with nothing make you look smart, or something.

Edited May 8, 2014 by norseman

[Cotter]

From a standpoint of omission, some of the ammunition used was prohibited.

 

There appears to have been mention of only one type of firearm so we really don't know if there were any others that weren't kosher.

 

As NAWAC by definition, defines UHS/BF as an "ape" which would be automatically protected under CITES ( .."They include some whole groups, such as primates".. ) *  there might be a federal issue with killing one.

 

We really don't know if a human (homo sapien) was harmed, or for that matter any other member of the homo genus, as the forensic evidence collected was allegedly botched.  In other words, they really don't know (forensically) what they shot.

 

Not saying they couldn't however, we don't know if all the (armed) participants could pass the form 4473-ATF and/or if the appropriate licences were held per state and federal regs.

 

* http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/species.php

 

A little something called the 2nd Amendment would protect them until they fired anyway....

[Yuchi1]

Since you don't cite me any regulations regarding this alleged "illegal" ammo Yuchi1, I'll consider that matter closed.

 

You sort of miss the point of the whole venture, I'm seeing. They (or any of us for that matter) CAN'T know what they shot until they kill it and look at it. They can't KILL it without shooting it. Your objections would only apply to the SECOND documented BF killed, not the first one.

 

 

The NAWAC will be the first to tell you, I think, they are not sure of the the exact taxonomy of this animal, only what their best guess is. If I thought a deer was my Uncle Jed, would you then say I was attempting murder by shooting at it? My idea of what it is does not matter, only what it turns out to be. The NAWAC has accepted the calculated risk of possibly finding out the hard way. Only if they actually confirm a kill will it matter at all, so you are a little ahead of the game with your w.a. speculations. 

 

Really, just quit while you are behind and we can all start over, 'kay?  

 

As far as the ammo requirement, from page 31 of the ODWC annual Hunting Guide, ..."with a shotgun and rifled slug, or any rifle or

handgun larger than .22 caliber rimfire"...* http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/laws_regs/2013_huntingguide.pdf

 

This pertains to the only non-game animal that can be hunted year-around (feral swine) such as in July and deals with the legal weapons/ammunition that can be used.

 

The shooter broke the law, OK, it's water under the bridge.

 

I guess we'll just have to wait until the DNA analysis comes back (complete, this time) to see who's right.

[WSA]

My friend, you simply are talking gibberish. What in the world do regulations pertaining to the taking of hogs, or any other managed game animal have to do with it? Pigs are GAME (See, they are managed by these regs....that's how you know..with liberal rules, but GAME nonetheless ) but they are not WILDLIFE.  Under this kind of twisted, tortured logic, any animal that is not described in these regs is huntable, but only with a weapon legal for a pig? You really,  really need to just quit. (Please)

[Guest]

The NAWAC will be the first to tell you, I think, they are not sure of the the exact taxonomy of this animal, only what their best guess is. If I thought a deer was my Uncle Jed, would you then say I was attempting murder by shooting at it? My idea of what it is does not matter, only what it turns out to be. The NAWAC has accepted the calculated risk of possibly finding out the hard way. Only if they actually confirm a kill will it matter at all, so you are a little ahead of the game with your w.a. speculations. 

 

I think that's right. We have made a determination as to what we think they likely are based on observation and experience. We feel confident in that. But, as I have said already several times, we are in the business of finding answers and learning. If our observations lead to the conclusion they are anything more than apes, we will adjust our tactics accordingly.

 

The problem with those on the other side of the argument is they don't like that we've come to a different conclusion than they have on what a wood ape is. As I said, we have based ours on direct observation of their behavior. They do lots of things apes do and none of the things people do, at least in X.

[Yuchi1]

Yuchi1, the "T" in CITES is "Trade". I don't believe that NAWAC has any intent to trade a body, when they eventually obtain one by their efforts. If you feel that their intent is to sell a specimen to a foreign buyer, then CITES would have some meaning here, otherwise it's just a distraction.

 

I understand your position on the subject of killing a type specimen, though I would be interested in your thought process in converting from "pro" to "anti". Like hiflier, I'm not sure what your agenda is in bashing NAWAC's efforts. Since the establishment biological sciences are not publicly interested in persuing the possibility of our subject, private groups, with their own money and MOs are all that is left to us. Since having your conversion experience, have you come up with a workable no-kill plan to conclusively prove the existance of a N.A. primate, to ensure it's future protection?

 

BC,

 

A former firm I was associated with had some ivory tusks (gift from a client) that had to be certified as pre-CITES as (per in-house counsel) mere possession of a protected species (or part thereof) was affected by this legislation, hence my reasoning for mentioning it.

 

When I initially got involved in this area (2002) the idea was to kill one for the (alleged) bounty that was being offered for the first body. Plain and simple, it was all about the money plus the book deal and speaking fees, et. al..  We had already spent most of it (rhetorically) before the first trip out, such was the hubris so associated

 

Then, roughly 18-20 months into the effort, I started to realize we were after something that was for sure, smarter than the average bear and could have (had they wanted to) terminated my/our existence on the planet at multiple instances while I/we were stalking through the bottoms at ohdarkhundred hours, in some cases separated from each other by hundreds of yards in the timber/brush. 

 

When the alpha decided to slam over the 1200# towerstand (~75 yards from our position) and chunk softball size stones to within feet us in lieu of simply snapping us in half, after we'd chased it 3X one night trying to get the kill shot, it finally dawned on me that this was a whole different kettle of fish than what was initially thought.

 

Tribal elders confirmed what I was beginning to realize and the thought process began to rapidly evolve to the point that I knew in my heart of hearts, it would be morally and ethically wrong to harm one (short of pure self-defense) and the expected riches and fame would likely transpire instead, into a life of heartache, pain and misery, much like a large percentage of lottery winners.

 

Besides, these guys have apparently done quite well, for centuries, without the "protection" of white people's ideas of such. Heck, they only had to look at the 400+ year history and current plight of NA's to see where that train would be headed.

 

So, contrary to the belief of some, I am not on a crusade to **** the NAWAC or anyone that feels the same as they, rather, to offer a contrarian point of view that might be of benefit in causing some pilgrim from making possibly a disastrous decision w/o looking at both sides of the coin.

 

I also commend Bipto, et. al. for his/their forbearance and wish no ill to come of anyone and do feel he/they are basically, good people who have a different perspective on this matter.

[Guest]

The shooter broke the law, OK, it's water under the bridge.

 

It's also worth remembering that we had multiple conversations with local law enforcement after the Echo Incident (as reported in our statement) and they saw no reason to file any charges. 

[Yuchi1]

My friend, you simply are talking gibberish. What in the world do regulations pertaining to the taking of hogs, or any other managed game animal have to do with it? Pigs are GAME (See, they are managed by these regs....that's how you know..with liberal rules, but GAME nonetheless ) but they are not WILDLIFE.  Under this kind of twisted, tortured logic, any animal that is not described in these regs is huntable, but only with a weapon legal for a pig? You really,  really need to just quit. (Please)

 

W,

 

First, feral swine are not game animals (..."Hogs are not wildlife; see Small Game / Hog Regulations for shotgun provisions."...)*  rather, nuisance animals with free depredation permits available to landowners and they can be hunted 365 days unlike "game" animals such as deer, elk, etc..

 

Gibberish, it probably does, until you put such into context of the event/situation.

 

Say, it had gone something like this:

 

As Mr. Colyer stood there with the ejection port of his Remington shotgun still wafting the wonderful scent of fired shotshells in the air, and a ODWC CO walks up on the scene.

 

CO; sir, what are you hunting/firing at?

 

DC; Bigfoot.

 

CO; really?

 

DC; yes sir

 

CO; what ammunition were you using (while he looked at the 8-9 hulls lying on the ground)

 

DC; buckshot & slugs

 

CO; opens up his citation book

 

CO; did you hit it?

 

DC; I think so, there's blood everywhere

 

CO; and, what is it you shot?

 

DC; I think it was a BF

 

CO; radio for backup.....

 

 

* http://www.eregulations.com/oklahoma/hunting/general-hunting-regulations/

It's also worth remembering that we had multiple conversations with local law enforcement after the Echo Incident (as reported in our statement) and they saw no reason to file any charges. 

 

Do you have copies of the incident reports they filed or can direct people to the particular LE agency involved?

Edited May 8, 2014 by Yuchi1

[Incorrigible1]

Yuchi, beg pardon, ma'am, but your agenda is showing.

[BC witness]

Thanks, Yuchi1, for your detailed reply. I now understand your progress from "pro for gain" to "anti from personal encounter". We obviously disagree on the need for protection of the as yet unclassified species, but I do get your take on the track record of that, too. My outlook on the subject agrees with bipto and norseman regarding a type specimen, so we part ways here, for now.