Guest Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 (edited) Bipto...I wasn't necessarily equating all of those scenarios, or comments with D.C. Maybe I should've been a little clearer, as I was throwing out a blanket statement about the mind-set of the community in general. Be it as it may, shooting at something unidentified from the back, that stands upright, is careless, no matter who it is, or who they are affiliated with. If he was clear-minded, he should've dropped it dead to rights, though. I've seen a BF too, so I get how tough it would be to misidentify one, but it's just the way the story is laid out. Perception is a lot different than the reality. All apologies to you guys, because I wasn't there, and what I think doesn't really matter...I'd just take more of a PR type approach to releasing the information. Same goes to the OP, and General. Divulging unnecessary details that paint the event, individuals, or organizations in a negative light, especially when the public isn't owed anything, does more harm than good sometimes. I respect the TBRC, and follow a lot of their work, btw. I'm just sayin'.... Edited October 29, 2011 by PacNWSquatcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted October 29, 2011 Admin Share Posted October 29, 2011 Slugs would have done the job if he had hit the target even at 75 yards. I have watched my father drop Axis deer at 100 yards with one slug. As a 13 year old boy I was very proud of him lol. Round placement is the single most important factor in killing power, period. A shooter cant miss fast enough to turn a charge regardless of the power of the weapon even if it's .500 nitro express. I'd go 125 yards with a slugs maximum effective kill range. The problem is if you miss with that first shot, the targets starts to move, then you can pretty much hang it up-especially in a wooded area where you can't effectively lead the target. This can be a huge problem at the closer ranges being discussed in this incident as well. Buckshot I'd give 40-45 yards max but here again you've got to hit it with the first shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 (edited) I would assume that the choice of employing a shotgun was made in order to mitigate possible collateral damage or injury. I would not be inclined to second guess that, imo it was a wise decision as there's nothing better for close encounters. I was watching "Trollhunter" and noticed the hunter had warning signs that said "Blasting area, keep out" that he would leave on fences and gates when he entered an area. Some form of nondescript warning left at the entrance to the area may be a good idea. Least then people would enter knowingly at their own risk. Edited October 29, 2011 by Tautriadelta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Painthorse Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 My question is on the missed shot. Bipto, in the report it mentions the type of shot gun and ammo used but what I would like to know is what type of sights were used on the shot gun. Was it a regular bead front sight or was he using a conventional type scope, or a red dot scope? Also if using a scope how far was it set for? Was it set for 25 yards or fifty yards? If it was set at 25 yards your going to have a little drop depending on the type of scope being used. Your windage elevation either it's going to pull left or right. If the scope was set at 50 yards it's going to shoot high at the 25 to 30 yard distance. Also do you have any idea when the last time was he zeroed the gun in prior to taking the shot? Also if I understood correctly in the report, the ammo used was 00buck followed by slug or bigger ball is used by military and that normally is used for close quarters like 25". But, 25 to 30 yards a person is going to be lucky to have very few slugs in their target depending on what type of target they're aiming at. Best example would be if a person took a standard hand gun or rifle target at 25 feet and 1 at 25 yards using the same ammo, the hits are not going to be the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 (edited) Is it possible that there was another scenario? The facts of the encounter are laid out in such a way that I'm seeing things a little differently too. I may be confused. It seems like a few people were waiting on bigfoot. Two people entered the site with some iced tea. They were shot at, got in their truck in a hurry and split, leaving the iced tea behind. If you're waiting around for bigfoot, everything will look like bigfoot. Everything will be bigfoot until it is identified as not being bigfoot. It doesn't seem like it ever made it to the "not bigfoot" stage. Especially through the foliage and they couldn't see it's front. Sizes over a distance are difficult to judge sometimes. The report says long hair on the back of the head and shoulders. Did the girl have long hair that could be draped over her shoulders? This could have turned out badly. Hunters should be able to identify their targets by 100%. Not seeing the face is not 100%. Especially if were talking about trying to discern between bipedal species. If bigfoot exists, it's not the only biped out there. Yikes. Stories of hunters identifying their target by 99% or less usually make the news as a hunting accidents. Maybe it was or maybe it wasn't a bf. When a shogun comes into play the "maybe it isn't" part should be the only thing on the shooters mind, and the way this article was written, it doesn't appear that way. he was 25 to 30 yds away, If you can't identify a target from that range,your legally blind and should't be hunting anything. They said it was close to 8 ft tall, covered in hair,and huge.at 30 yds there is no mistaking that it wasn't a person. your beating this guy up and you have no idea of what the area looked like. your are trying to make statements about what happened and what should have done when don't even remember the details of what he said happened, and I would bet he is leaving out so many more details.Nobody was hurt,2 people were scared,because they herd the shots and didn't know anyone was on the property and assumed it was drug dealers. I think it is, but I'll give it another shot. Generally speaking, the creek bed is paralel to the path Colyer and Diaz were on. I can't tell you the distance exactly, but they would have been separated by tens of yards. I'd say at least 50 yards between Colyer and Lawrence. Maybe more. In the Monday morning quarterbacking we've done with regard to this event, we think had Lawrence stayed in the creek there's a possibility he would have seen the animal if it had turned and run in his direction. However, upon hearing the gunfire, he left the creek bed and moved as quickly as possible toward Daryl's position. I wouldn't even bother replying anymore,there just going to try and twisted more. Anybody knows anything about hunting knows you didn't do anything wrong in that situation. The only thing that should have happened was that the land owner should have informed people you guys were on the property. I bet the same people would be beating you up even if you said it was in self defense and it charged you. Edited October 29, 2011 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 I would like to know is what type of sights were used on the shot gun. Was it a regular bead front sight or was he using a conventional type scope, or a red dot scope? Also if using a scope how far was it set for? Was it set for 25 yards or fifty yards? If it was set at 25 yards your going to have a little drop depending on the type of scope being used. Your windage elevation either it's going to pull left or right. If the scope was set at 50 yards it's going to shoot high at the 25 to 30 yard distance. Also do you have any idea when the last time was he zeroed the gun in prior to taking the shot? I don't know the answers to all those questions, but I'll try and get them for you. I was in the area with Daryl about three weeks after his encounter and he was carrying that same weapon. I can tell you at that time he wasn't using a red dot scope, but other than that I'm in the dark. I'll ask him to clarify. ...I would bet he is leaving out so many more details. Actually, we're trying to be as detailed and transparent about the event as possible and practical. If there are details not included, it's because they're thought not to be relevant, not because we're hiding anything about it. The statement we've released is as complete and accurate regarding the events of that day as we can make it. I wouldn't even bother replying anymore,there just going to try and twisted more. I appreciate the support, but I'll stay engaged here as long as the conversation is respectful and productive. Anybody knows anything about hunting knows you didn't do anything wrong in that situation. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Painthorse Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Thanks Bipto, hoping you can get the info on if there was a scope on the shotgun, can make all the difference on placement. Nice weapon BTW. It does state that the receiver is drilled and tapped for scope mounts, that's why I was curious if he had one attached and what type. http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/tactical/shotguns/model-1100-tac-4.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 (edited) Actually, we're trying to be as detailed and transparent about the event as possible and practical. If there are details not included, it's because they're thought not to be relevant, not because we're hiding anything about it. The statement we've released is as complete and accurate regarding the events of that day as we can make it. my meaning is that there is so many little details of the lay of the land and other small details that words really can't describe that do make a diffidence in situational awareness. I see what you guys are trying to do,and I think If successful you can really help the population of them. It would help in there areas being protected.People don't understand that there are probably more harmed by logging and other like activities that it is in there best interest to retrieve one. It's sad that it has to this way because in a court of law just with eyewitness accounts and other evidence it would be enough evidence to prove it.but unfortunately science and the skeptics need phsical evidence. maybe we will all get lucky and someone will be lucky enough to stumble upon one that expired by natural causes. Good luck in the future. Ps : check out the post i made earlier on this thread about the slugs(go to there website) I think they would be an excellent set up for you. parnassus, on 28 October 2011 - 01:30 PM, said: Thanks B I must say I am surprised that no one has posted the idea that Colyer's actions were extremely ill-advised. Is this "shoot up the woods" what we should expect from Bigfoot researchers? Where will it end? Parn asked:"Where will it end"? Sweetsusiq answers: With lots of dead animals most of them innocent except they were in the wrong spot for a bullet barrage to occur, which could include humans... you guys are too much, I guess your anti-hunting,and will use any event to over play it to get people in your corner. Whatever... Edited October 30, 2011 by grayjay General Guideline 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Thanks B I must say I am surprised that no one has posted the idea that Colyer's actions were extremely ill-advised. Is this "shoot up the woods" what we should expect from Bigfoot researchers? Where will it end? So what do you think parnassus, Did DC take a shot at a human or a bigfoot? The amount of daylight at the time, would have been plenty to identify the subject, DC was investigating a knocking sound and encountered what could be nothing but a bigfoot as it was walking on two feet and covered in hair. Given your position that bigfoot doesn't exist and thus can't be human, you can't really point to any wrong doing. With a lack of any evidence that this even occured beyond corroborating anecdote, I take your posting of this incident to be for purpose of creating an infight among proponents. As for shooting at bigfoot, if the DNA work that is to be published gets published, I think there will be laws set firmly against it, but we aren't there yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 This event really is strange and not the kind of thing I would have expected the TBRC to be involved in. This group has consistently and successfully presented itself as a cut above the other Bigfoot groups and their attention to detail and scientific research methods are second to none. This comes over in most of their activities, from the long term camera trap operation they've been patiently monitoring for years, to the flashy website that Bipto designed for them. In my opinion, which I've gleaned from many sources over the years, but most notably Bipto's 'Bipcasts' series of podcasts, which I'd recommend, the individuals involved in the TBRC are an honourable and knowledgeable bunch of guys who have previously assiduously avoided techniques such as blasting away in the woods with a big ole gun on the off chance of taking down a Sasquatch. This was what differentiated them from some of the other pro-kill Bigfoot Groups in neigbouring states who have been organising annual Bigfoot hunts/cook-outs for years now. I have read the clarification statement of their newfound 'pro-choice pro-kill' position which has recently appeared on the website, but this does not take away from the fact that almost everyone assumed the TBRC was not pro-kill, probably because they just seemed so much more serious than the other groups.... I make no comment on the morality of shooting a Sasquatch. I'm one who has always believed that DNA alone will probably not cut it and, ultimately, we need the proverbial 'slabmonkey', one way or another. However, it does help if your group is all signed up to the same position and on the same page. Especially if there's a good chance someone will be pulling the trigger... By the way, does anyone know if this obfuscation of the no-kill position is one of the reasons why Craig Woolheater tendered his resignation? The plot thickens. I feel a bit for Bipto who must really, really hate the 'Derek Randles' position he now finds himself in: having to defend the actions of another and propagate what many believe to be a tall story not because he has science or objectivity on his side, but because he has faith in a friend and colleague.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 I will say that shooting a large, muscular, bipedal animal like a BF in the position that it was in relative to the shooter (its left side facing the shooter, but slightly quartering away, showing part of its back), is a very unethical shot to take. To define "unethical shot" for those who aren't hunters, it is any shot at an animal that is more likely to wound it than immediately kill it. The only possible ethical shot at that angle is a head shot. Now, the article does not state the position of the BF when the shooter saw it in the narrow opening and actually fired at it, but it does say that he never saw its front side and that it continued to move Southward, so the only other position it could have been in besides the one listed is more of a quartering away angle, which is still just as bad and unethical an angle to shoot at an animal. Before anyone accuses me of being an anti-hunter with some agenda, I will say that I have been a life-long hunter, and have taken many large game animals from across the country with shotgun, rifle, and bow. I also have no problem with the taking of a BF specimen for the sake of science. I do not consider them human, if they exist, and would be surprised if the DNA results come back with those results, but it won't shake up my world or anything it they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Parn asked:"Where will it end"? Sweetsusiq answers: With lots of dead animals most of them innocent except they were in the wrong spot for a bullet barrage to occur, which could include humans... Funny, the too many times to count, that I've been hunting in my life, I never once thought about whether the animal I was hunting was "innocent" or not.... I'm curious how does one tell ? Is it a look? A certain posture? And again out of curiosity, if only "most" of them are "innocent", what exactly have the other's done to make them "guilty"...? Eating farmer Joe's corn ? Sorry if it seems I'm picking on you Susi, or poking fun at your post, but it just strikes me as the type of stuff I've heard so many times over the years- from those who just assume that the meat they eat originates in the clean tidy white styrofoam packages at your favorite grocery store..... Take a trip to a slaughterhouse sometime, then talk to me about "innocence".... Similarly, in the Sierra Shootings thread, there where those who went off on deep tangents, arguing the ethics and correct -vs- incorrect hunting procedures, when once again they fail to stop and put themselves in the shoe's of the shooter. I've had my sights on and muzzle pointed at lots of different animals over the years, but never a large hairy biped... I'm pretty sure my heart would be trying to beat a path up and out of my throat, and it would differ drastically to any other hunting scenario I've ever been in. Until I find myself successfully dealing with that surreal event, I'll keep my correct hunting lectures to myself... That's how it looks from where I'm sitting.. Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Okay, you're right Bipto, I wasn't there. I'm only interpreting what was written there and here. That's the only picture I have. There probably is more than one story that fit the facts. You could be right. The story (the way that it was written) struck a nerve with me. I've also been reading your posts for years and I know you as being solid so I'm not trying to say anything bad about you. Zig, I'm getting from the author of the article that he didn't have a clear view, 25-30 yards or not. Between that distance and unloading a shotgun should produce results other than what was received if his view was unobstructed. I'm not anti-guns and I'm all for taking one out if the opportunity presented itself. I am for hunting properly. Eagerness to obtain a bf has to be curbed when people are hunting a biped. Just please make sure of your target when you are shooting at things that you don't have a clear view of and especially if that thing walks on two legs. Legally blind or not. You are making it sound like misidentifications never happen, and hasn't happened when the author states the subject was seen only from the side and the back and some of that time was through foliage. That's the way I have interpreted it. You're making it sound like it was posing for one of those old accordion cameras. I think it's awesome that they were doing research and also great that they were prepared to take one out for study .....but not at any price. A line should be drawn. If you say he had a proper identification, okay. The author didn't say that. He should have. The author and a few posts here told this story. http://youtu.be/-pNZ1oypbjo Only kidding. Just a little humor to lighten the mood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Bipto, is there any chance that the knocking sounds could have been car doors that DC was investigating just prior to his encounter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 I don't know the answers to all those questions, but I'll try and get them for you. I was in the area with Daryl about three weeks after his encounter and he was carrying that same weapon. I can tell you at that time he wasn't using a red dot scope, but other than that I'm in the dark. I'll ask him to clarify. Actually, we're trying to be as detailed and transparent about the event as possible and practical. If there are details not included, it's because they're thought not to be relevant, not because we're hiding anything about it. The statement we've released is as complete and accurate regarding the events of that day as we can make it. I appreciate the support, but I'll stay engaged here as long as the conversation is respectful and productive. I agree. Thanks for the details bipto. The account says the vehicle started within a few seconds. How far was the tea from the vehicle? Another question is whether or not the was permission granted specifically to use firearms to hunt on the property. Why was the nephew given $2000 if the vehicle was not struck by gunfire? Has Colyer ever hunted game animals ie has he passed a hunter safety course? And has he ever demonstrated the ability to shoot a shotgun effectively? Thanks p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts