Guest Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Moneymaker has a corporate entity called something like bf adventures or whatever, owned with his girlfriend. That may be for the expeditions. Not sure.
Guest Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Thanks, Bip. I was curious if any of them were run as a non-profit. So by having membership dues that entitles you to be able to participate in certain events, and expeditions, and be privy to info, research etc? I wasn't prying for any reason, btw, about contracts, money, etc. I was just curious how events of that nature, and discovery were handled. Greatly appreciated! And it's funny....I thought that it could be a possibility that TBRC could be a non-profit, but never thought for a second that the BFRO would be:) Not that profiting is bad, or anything..It's just obvious that it wouldn't be.
Guest Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 I hate to beat a dead horse, but...Would attempting to harvest a BF be viewed as hunting? I know in Washington it's against the law to hunt with a shotgun that carries more than a few slugs. I have no idea what OK game laws are, but doubt that using a 9-shot tactical shotgun would be alright. Not that it matters to me, because going after a Sasquatch is unprecedented, but I just wouldn't talk about it. And choice of weapon seems odd. A tac. shotgun is more of a home defense/house clearing weapon. If he had a regular hunting style 12 gauge, I doubt he misses. My brother has a similar weapon to Colyer's in his F&W truck, along with an AR-15, but it's more for dispatching, or extremely close range combat. Choice of weapon, IMO, cost them a kill that day. It's a d*mn shame. I haven't heard too many shooting stories, but I'd imagine it was probably the closest shot ever taken. I, like Parn, use a .44 as my side arm(Ruger SuperBlackhawk) when I bow-hunt, and would think that a weapon like that would be a better suited for a close range shot on a BF, mainly because it is easy to carry, and you wouldn't have to go back to grab a rifle, and isn't cumbersome like lugging one around on your shoulder through the woods. Like was touched on earlier in the post...If your intent is to kill a BF, be prepared. I've seen some movies and TV shows where men were carrying a shotgun or a rifle holstered across their back, and they could just reach back and pull it up and out for firing. Is that possible, or is that just TV and movie land trying to look hot? I agree about having a side arm holstered on a hip for an easy draw in emergency situations.
Guest Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 So by having membership dues that entitles you to be able to participate in certain events, and expeditions, and be privy to info, research etc? We have two levels of membership. Only those who are investigators have access to encounter reports as their being investigated as well as certain other information regarding our research, but all members are welcome to participate once they've established they're sufficiently healthy to go into the field. There areas we typically go are pretty remote and rugged. And it's funny....I thought that it could be a possibility that TBRC could be a non-profit, but never thought for a second that the BFRO would be:) Not that profiting is bad, or anything..It's just obvious that it wouldn't be. There's not a darn thing wrong with having a for-profit endeavor, but there is in wrapping one in the label of "The only scientific research organization exploring the bigfoot/sasquatch mystery." It's misleading and flat out wrong, but that's not the topic of this thread...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Here we have the founder of the BFF telling folks on this site what happened and all these ridiculous questions and he still has the courtesy to respond with dignity and respect. Thanks Bipto. Xs 2 !
indiefoot Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Couple questions to Bip or the forum members. If the family had not been involved would this have become public knowledge? Would the public stance on kill/no kill have remained as it was?
Guest BDK Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Sounds like a general plan that just went to crap on contact. Just learn and grow from it and ignore the stranger criticisms. One reconmendation if the crew is dead set on harvesting a body would be to instead of a few buckshot and then slugs, staggering them 1x1. That way the 2nd round would have been a slug and might have stood a better chance. One thing I think should be added to procedure is to make sure the family informs others that use the property to stay away as best they can, I'm not sure of Oklahomas self defense laws, but had the couple had a firearm, legally if they had returned fire it may have been ruled justified, tragic but justified. Things could definatly have gone a lot worse, an angry injured Sas could have realized the shotgun was empty and turned on the attackers or torn the couple apart on its flight.
Guest Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) If the family had not been involved would this have become public knowledge? We were not able to set our own timetable, but I expect the events from Echo would have been released eventually, just not like they were. We have more information we're preparing now regarding the entire Operation Endurance event that will put Echo into perspective. It was just one weekend out of six weeks, after all. Would the public stance on kill/no kill have remained as it was? Alton's statement regarding that was published last December. The idea that the TBRC was masquerading as a "no-kill" group is false, though to say it's "pro-kill" would also be incorrect. As Alton said at the time, the organization has no official position. Members are free to think about this however they wish. Edited October 31, 2011 by bipto
Guest Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) Yikes! I think some of you have dreamt up a wild scenario in your heads about how this played out, and you're just running with it. Trying to figure out how anyone left those woods alive? Really? Last I checked, the report was not that he entered the woods with a Bradley Fighting Vehicle and pumped 10,000 50cal. rounds into the countryside indiscriminately. He fired a guage at a clearly identified target and missed. As far a hunting regulations go, there are no defined seasons, tags required, or even an acknowlegement of this animals existence. This would have been the starting point of putting those protections and definitions together. When this topic started I was having a very female moment, and got way overexcited and distressed at the thought of 2 people being in possible range of an 18 gauge shotgun. I'm sorry.Please forgive me. I removed my all of my posts that I could, but truthfully, the shooting episode really scared me on behalf of everybody, but I do understand fear, and shooting under not the best nor sometimes the safest of conditions happens, not just there, it happens a lot probably without injuries thankfully. It happens, we've all learned, and I've moved on. Edited October 31, 2011 by SweetSusiq
Guest Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Sounds like a general plan that just went to crap on contact. Just learn and grow from it and ignore the stranger criticisms. One reconmendation if the crew is dead set on harvesting a body would be to instead of a few buckshot and then slugs, staggering them 1x1. That way the 2nd round would have been a slug and might have stood a better chance. One thing I think should be added to procedure is to make sure the family informs others that use the property to stay away as best they can, I'm not sure of Oklahomas self defense laws, but had the couple had hen ever a firearm, legally if they had returned fire it may have been ruled justified, tragic but justified. n so why would you stagger them,after you shoot,the animal is to run and be farther away,buck shot is for close range,so that would not make any sense to load it staggered. so what your saying is when ever anyone hears a gun shot in the woods that is close to them, could shoot back at them ? you are extremely misinformed.the shots were not even in there direction.and even if they, were they would have to prove that they were trying to harm them and had no other alliterative but to return fire.
Sunflower Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 I am NO KILL. I am also no zoo, no aquatic shows with sick dolphins, no feeding the giraffes, and all the sad and sick situations that we often read about in the newspaper. Too late for a lot of wildlife and that is sick. I'm curious why the owner says that the hairy people are "nice" and then is complacent when the gunfire commences???? What is the answer to this question? Is the owner kill or no kill? 1
Guest parnassus Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) B How large is this property? Were the team members camping there? How long had they been there on that occasion? Thanks p Edited October 31, 2011 by parnassus
bipedalist Posted October 31, 2011 BFF Patron Posted October 31, 2011 One thing I think should be added to procedure is to make sure the family informs others that use the property to stay away as best they can, I'm not sure of Oklahomas self defense laws, but had the couple had a firearm, legally if they had returned fire it may have been ruled justified, tragic but justified. Certainly some sobering advice that is well thought out.
Guest Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 One concern I have with any and all shooting at animals is that the shooter should know what is in the background should the hunter miss. Over the 17 years that we have lived in this area which is on the edge of our city limits, I have often heard loud gunfire coming from the open land area in front of our home. At first I was alarmed but soon discovered that hunters were hunting near here. Through the years I have been out walking my little dogs and have heard the shot followed by a buzzing sound past my head heading towards the golf course. Needles to say, we soon put in an enclosed dogrun for our dogs only along the back of the house where bullets would have to go through the house first to hit our pets.(and me ) I'm still startled by the loud booming sound when shots are fired sounding as being fairly close to our home. Thankfully, There has not been as much shooting in the past few years, so I'm hoping that perhaps the hunters have found a better spot, plus new homes are being built over near that area and may have made the hunters look for new hunting areas. Needless to say, sounds of gunfire close by frightens me since those experiences, and this subject reminded me of being close to a discharged bullet myself..
Guest Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 How large is this property? Were the team members camping there? How long had they been there on that occasion? I'm not sure how big their property is, to be honest. It's a fairly large parcel. We have both camped in tents and stayed in the cabins on different occasions. The Echo team was the fifth team in. By that point, we had had members present for one month.
Recommended Posts