Guest Silver Fox Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 georgerm, I do not believe Derek said that the bear hunter was using a 25-06. I am pretty sure that is what Ken Walker, aka "BH" in the interview said, when he said the guy was poaching on a refuge on the NV/CA border & the BF was stuck in a road and was waving at the hunter to get him to move out of the way (yeah right). No real bear hunter would use anything less than a heavy bullet (180 gr+) for bear, except me....I use 100 gr Muzzys on the end of a 30" shaft! Bear Hunter no longer says that the shooter was poaching. It is true that various folks alleged that the shooter was poaching, including some huge people in Bigfootery, but BH has no evidence that this is true. Supposedly, the shooter was hunting out of season, but my research indicated that bear season was still open at the time, so I can't corroborate any allegations of poaching. Also, BH alleged that the shooter was hunting on the edge of a game refuge. I'm not sure he said that he was hunting inside the refuge. If he was, then I think he would be poaching. The refuge is located in Plumas County, CA, near Frenchman Lake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Do you have latitude & longitude? I can pull it up, but like I said in any earlier post, I am not optimistic about an physical evidence of a carcass remaining after this long. Edited for spelling It was near the Dixie Mountain Game Refuge west of Frenchman Lake on the Plumas National Forest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Bear Hunter no longer says that the shooter was poaching. It is true that various folks alleged that the shooter was poaching, including some huge people in Bigfootery, but BH has no evidence that this is true. Supposedly, the shooter was hunting out of season, but my research indicated that bear season was still open at the time, so I can't corroborate any allegations of poaching. Also, BH alleged that the shooter was hunting on the edge of a game refuge. I'm not sure he said that he was hunting inside the refuge. If he was, then I think he would be poaching. The refuge is located in Plumas County, CA, near Frenchman Lake. Yes, I remember you saying that. I was referring to the original story, but I have not read it after the corrections were made. Sometimes, when people are poaching, they will use a smaller caliber rifle with less powder to lessen the sound it makes (they usually go for head shots, too), although with the velocity of that round, there would be a nice ballistic crack to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Silverfox, would it be too much to ask that you not divulge any more about the area please. The study is ongoing. He was not poaching for the second time. He was legally hunting in a legal area with the appropriate tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 georgerm, I do not believe Derek said that the bear hunter was using a 25-06. I am pretty sure that is what Ken Walker, aka "BH" in the interview said, when he said the guy was poaching on a refuge on the NV/CA border & the BF was stuck in a road and was waving at the hunter to get him to move out of the way (yeah right). No real bear hunter would use anything less than a heavy bullet (180 gr+) for bear, except me....I use 100 gr Muzzys on the end of a 30" shaft! Agree with your take. Well placed shots do help when using lighter bullets. What is meant by the BF was stuck in the road? Was it refusing to move and might attack the truck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 It was near the Dixie Mountain Game Refuge west of Frenchman Lake on the Plumas National Forest. So . . . wasn't that Jeff Meldrum dude working on some bigfoot tracking dogs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 (edited) post removed by me because my points had already been addressed...sorry for taking things backwards... Edited June 30, 2011 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 lmao! This has always been the most ironic part. Kill one to verify they exist then make laws so that we cannot kill one. Sasquatch needs to be discovered to be protected from ourselves. Such is the position YOUR side has forced us into with your Slab Monkey Absolutism. Not that it really matters. This is just the right time for this to happen. Every few years people get bored and make up some story about a "Bigfoot" body. It's always the same, shot by someone unidentified. Big secret being leaked. Being tested as we speak with mind-blowing results anticipated. Depending on how much publicity it gets, is how big the story will grow until it finally pops and people are either disappointed or in complete denial and it's yet another that got away. Bossburg mine shaft, Marx's Cripplefoot, Minnesota Iceman, Georgia Iceman, the various southern shootings, Manitoba, on and on, all the same, all the same result, a big goose egg... Apparently ANY time is the right time for Skeptic cynicism and snarkery. As the above clearly demonstrates. We have NEVER had this sort continued effort by scientists whose results SHOULD be good enough for any open-minded, truly scientific enquirer. DNA is DNA. Having said that, I fully expect some Skeptic to start spinning a theory about deliberately altered/falsified/spliced DNA any time now...anything other than admitting the truth is fair game in the Skeptic playbook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 I don't believe that the killing of these creatures will be a legal issue and, in my opinion, nor should it be. Unless there is a specific law that addresses this scenario, I don't see how this hunter would have any consequences. I As has already been pointed out on this thread, Bigfoot does not exist and has not been categorized in even the most basic way. Therefor, shooting one is not against the law; unless you happen to be in Washington or certain counties in other states. As far as the authorities are concerned, it's just as legal to shoot a Bigfoot as it is to shoot a werewolf, zombi or ghost; with the assumption that you do so in an area that's legal to discharge a firearm. This little bit of misinformation keeps getting bandied about, but it is factually incorrect. Virtually every state F&W regulations (and Feds as well) has a catch-all clause that limits hunting to ONLY those animals for which there is a specified manner, permit, and season. If it is not EXPLICITLY permitted to hunt it, you may not hunt it, take it's corpse, or any part thereof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 This little bit of misinformation keeps getting bandied about, but it is factually incorrect. Virtually every state F&W regulations (and Feds as well) has a catch-all clause that limits hunting to ONLY those animals for which there is a specified manner, permit, and season. If it is not EXPLICITLY permitted to hunt it, you may not hunt it, take it's corpse, or any part thereof. Claim it was a threat to you and you were afaid for your life........case closed, and you get to bask in all the glory of being the "one who got Biggie" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Agree with your take. Well placed shots do help when using lighter bullets. What is meant by the BF was stuck in the road? Was it refusing to move and might attack the truck? It was a part of the story that I believe was inaccurate. It was in the original interview, and may not be in the one that has been corrected. In the original one, the hunter was leaving the refuge on a road that was the only way in or out of the refuge, and it was also the only way in or out for the BF for some reason. The consensus on the forum was that was unlikely because BF can navigate rough terrain, and most animals can, so why would they need to travel on a road? Anyway, it was apparently trying to get the guy to stop so that it & its two young ones could get through (the young ones were hidden in the brush or among the rocks I don't remember which). When Derek told the story, the hunter was on foot in the woods actually hunting, and saw the adult BF. He shot it thinking it was a bear standing on its hind legs. There was no waving, and no road, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, guys... So . . . wasn't that Jeff Meldrum dude working on some bigfoot tracking dogs? I saw where he was on "Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide", and I've also read that, but I think the kind of dogs he was working with are search and rescue dogs, being trained to respond to ape scent, or something similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 (edited) This little bit of misinformation keeps getting bandied about, but it is factually incorrect. Virtually every state F&W regulations (and Feds as well) has a catch-all clause that limits hunting to ONLY those animals for which there is a specified manner, permit, and season. If it is not EXPLICITLY permitted to hunt it, you may not hunt it, take it's corpse, or any part thereof. Thanks Mulder, That info is good to know! I guess a dead body (natural death) can be harvested. Edited June 30, 2011 by SweetSusiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Surveyor, I'll correct you right now. I never said he was in the woods hunting on foot. He drove around a corner on a dirt road in his hunting area and saw what he thought was a extremely large strange looking bear standing in the distance with it's front paws above its head. When I started relating this story I was correcting things that Silverfox had gotten wrong. Don't believe me, go back and check. This aspect was not covered in my previous posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted June 30, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted June 30, 2011 Silverfox, would it be too much to ask that you not divulge any more about the area please. The study is ongoing. He was not poaching for the second time. He was legally hunting in a legal area with the appropriate tag. I do have one additional question of Derekfoot. Since bear hunters in other states use trained dogs, to your knowledge were dogs being used on this particular day by this particular hunter? If they were being used were multiple dogs being used? If any dogs were being used did they have tracking or radio collars? If dogs were not used the day of the shooting have they been used since in the continuing recovery/research in the area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Surveyor, I'll correct you right now. I never said he was in the woods hunting on foot. He drove around a corner on a dirt road in his hunting area and saw what he thought was a extremely large strange looking bear standing in the distance with it's front paws above its head. When I started relating this story I was correcting things that Silverfox had gotten wrong. Don't believe me, go back and check. This aspect was not covered in my previous posts. Roger! Because he was not poaching, I assumed he was in the woods hunting, and was not on a road. I don't need to go back & check. I don't doubt you a bit! Plus, I don't mind being corrected anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts