Howdy
Now I have never talked to Mr. Moneymaker so I really do not know how he feels about a lot of things. But the BFRO as a whole is looked at different by most then he is alone. Most people do not even know who is the owner of the BFRO or even that one man alone owns it all. They think of it like some sort of club that every one has a say so in. Now I know that one man owns it and controls 100% of it. But I am going top talk in the rest of the post about the group overall not the one man.

I have always thought that the BFRO was not really pro kill but that at least they understood that it would take a body to prove that it is real.
Now I see they have said on their site that they are no kill. If that is true I just lost a LOT of respect for them as they might as well say they do not want to prove it is real at all. Maybe they have been making so much money with their outings that they do not want them to end lol.

Anyway do any of you know what their official stand on it is ? I know some of their members are both pro and no kill as they have different opinions. But if the official standing of the group is one thing or the other that changes things a lot for a lot of people both members and none members.

By that last statement I mean this. If someone is a member of the BFRO and are 100% pro kill then they are no longer really be a member of good standing in it. If they kill one then they would be going against what the group stands for. Also anything they done to help the group would be going against how they stand on things and that also is a bad thing. I am almost sure that is why the BFRO has always been a group that went both ways instead of just one of the other. They welcomed both sides, Now it seems they have jumped off of the fence and have landed square on the no kill side of it.
If someone is a none member it can also effect them with the BFRO making a official standing on things. Take someone like myself, I have always felt that I could go to the BFRO site and get a objective opinion on things. I could read the sighting reports or I could read other things on their site without having to disagree with what is being said for the most part.
Now if they are going to start taking sides on things like this that changes. When I go there I know what ever I am reading is taken from someone who does not think a body is needed to prove they are real. Hell they just might get their film and say that they have 100% proof that Bigfoot is a real animal. Yet here I sit and say hey they found or got a body some way when in fact it is just a film that very well could have been made in Hollywood instead of the real woods as far as I or anyone else knows.
Personally I know that most of the world is never going to believe some film that is made rather it is real or not. When the same footage could very well be faked now days by someone sitting at a computer why would they believe it ?

And with the way they said they do not want a lot of people in on the making of the film even makes more questions pop into my head. And they really do not want someone who thinks a body or at least blood from it is needed. It is almost like they are saying they do not want anyone who is going to question the film at all.

To me about the only film that would prove it is real is of someone shooting a Bigfoot and then dissecting it right on film without even shutting it off. Yup that means going from it walking or what ever to being cut up without a break in the film. And even then I think I would still question it until I seen the body in a Museum or something.

Anyway to me the BFRO has went way down hill in the past year or two. First it seemed they changed from a group that wanted to prove Bigfoot was real to a group that wanted to make money off of it. Now it seems they are even taking more steps that way instead of going back to how they used to be.

Thus the weakness of groups.

Though individuality has a price in a lack of resources, it comes with freedom.

Like the old saying goes, "I don need no stinking badge".

they sound anti kill, but they also sound like Moneymaker is in it for the mullah, so you don't know what to make of them lately. That is sad.

Oh goody! Yet another "the BFRO sucks, they're only in it for the money, and we don't like them" thread. There's way to many ifs to make some of the statements you've made Michan.


Yeah, yeah I know. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

This is getting to be a beaten horse carcass, but while it still twitches, I just would like to reiterate, it's out there because MM made some tall claims. I doubt folks will be patient waiting for proof.

Mmm...He's right...

Other groups and individuals continue, to this date, to have their odd, unbelievable and in some instances utterly ludicrous claims brought up and bashed again and again for good measure...

This is most often done so those claims are remembered by the community so any such claims in the future will be looked at with a close eye for BS...

Just because the BFRO happens to be the org getting the "raw" at the moment, doesn't mean they should be given any more slack then any other group...

Hell, if anything, they should be given even worse, being as they're supposedly the most "respected" org in our community (note emphasis on the word supposedly)...

Right Randy, but my gosh aren't there enough threads going with most of these same statements? Just add on to one of them....why start a brand new thread with the same statement?

That's all I'm sayin'.

Oh, but I still think there are too many ifs in that post.

I for one am very happy the BFRO is nokill.

Back in the day, When I was with the BFRO as a Curator. I was NEVER asked, pressured, or encouraged to be Pro-Kill.

We all just understood that the BFRO was a scientific organization. And there would be no need to shoot at a Sasquatch if we collected good data, and evidence...

I still don't know why people claim that they are "pro-kill". It's just not true.

Maybe cause of things like this?
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...c=2472&st=0&hl=

Interesting Jim. Seems MM problem with the foot in mouth disease is very well documented.

Ok so let me understand this, ...acccording to some here, only certain individuals and ORGs are NOT allowed to have a change of policy, heart or mind?

Whoops.....!
:pinch:


Well, That's gonna leave a mark ....! :blacknblue:

The problem with the BFRO taking a 'no-kill' stand is that it places them that much more firmly into the category of a buisness geared to making money, no pun intended.

I was quite interested in attending some of the BFRO's expeditions until I found out about the staggering fees they're charging to those in attendance. When that kind of money is involved, the BFRO immediately becomes suspect in everything they do, because they now have a vested interest in perpetuating the 'Sasquatch mystery'. If Sasquatch were to be proven to exist tomorrow, the BFRO would pretty much instantly be shoved aside by government and formal academic groups who would bring in the professionals to look at the matter.

Grover Krantz once astutely pointed out that a significant segment of the Sasquatch research community stands to lose their livelihood if Sasquatch is ever proven to exist. Definitive proof is the LAST thing such groups want.

If the BFRO is in fact taking a no-kill stance, they've just damaged their credibility that much more, at least as a serious research organization. They're fast turning into a glorified eco-tourism company.

Ummm I can say 100% that I am pro kill and can give you many good reasons for it. I do not believe at all that Bigfoot will ever be proved as real without a body. Now that body could be a road kill or killed by someone it does not matter. But the fact is as far as I see it a body will be needed.

But that is not what this post was about and kill no kill has been talked about a LOT on these forums.
I was asking the official policy of the BFRO on this.

Jim,

Thanks for that link. I never saw this before. I really do appreciate you sharing this.

It may be splitting hairs here, but I read that to be Matt giving advice about the legal ramifications if a sasquatch were shot and killed. I didn't see anything in there that would make me as a reader believe he was telling someone to go shoot one. Did I miss something? Reading it objectively I didn't make a connection between pro-kill and Moneymaker with the exception of giving legal ramifications if such were the case.

I've always been told the BFRO is No-kill. That is not to say if a member's life was in peril from a rogue animal said animal wouldn't be shot. I think we'd all shoot to kill if our lives were in peril. I think every organization needs a plan of action should a dead sasquatch become available. To not plan for such an event as many times as we've heard of one being shot at or hit by a homeowner or hunter, would be derelict in my opinion. I'm no kill, but if a body became available I'd like to have my ducks in a row with a good workable plan.

That's just me though.

Teresa

The part where Dr. Meldrum (after years and years of studying sasquatch) is suddenly curious about the legal ramifications of shooting a sasqatuch.
Something was a catalyst to bring that question to the front of his mind and choose to pose it to the rest of the BFRO members.


Plus, it's a significant idea, killing a bipedal primate. If you're of the no-kill philosophy, you don't hesitate to say so and you say why. The BFRO doesn't, if they were against the idea, they would say so. Although, their new "need help" area of the website seems to be heading in that direction.

I believe the BFRO is a questionable organization. I mean they always have reports of Bigfoot vocalizations and footprints were as the common man can't come across one. I'm not talking about merely the Bigfoot fanciers but your average everyday skeptical hunter. Look at it this way, if I'm going hunting bear then i'll likely come across wolves and foxes. If I hunt cougar I'll likely cross coyotes or other predators. How is it that they go on those expeditions and find what your everyday skilled hunter never sees? Also, I haven't heard report of them being threatened by more common animals. It's funny business to me.

it helps when timely reports are submitted to know where to look.

That's weird, every person from the BFRO I ever talked to about this has said the BFRO is no kill.

The problem being that for a no-kill philosophy to be in place all 100+ investigators and curators would have to agree with it.

I'd have to say based on what I've read,heard and know,both now and in the past,that each individual has probably made up thier own mind as to what constitutes final proof in both thier eyes and in the eyes of science.

Add another question into the mix. I'm a pro-kill advocate myself,and yet my reason for being in this is soley to see one myself. I would not pull the trigger my self yet harbor no animosity to someone who would..

So what does that make me exactly? A pro-kill who won't kill? thjere are several others here on this forum who have mentioned the same thought in the past.

And again, I see way to mch anthropomorphosizing and speculation on what a BF is and how to protect them. The problem is, you cannot protect that which technically does not exist. And even if it is a technicality in that category, there's little or no proof in either direction that help is indeed needed.

It seems that despite how little is known,and say the speculation falols to the opposite end of what has been writen about thier population and the species is on the decline as opposed to either an increasing or upswing in thier genetic diversity, what then? Let them fall into extinction rather than prove thier existence?

Either way, wether through human action,or through the above scenario,we, and the BF still lose IMO.

Not to mimic jim too much, but I'm in the same boat. I wouldn't villify someone for killing a sasquatch to prove it's existance, but if I saw one with a gun in my hand I probably wouldn't pull the trigger (escaping would be a good word for my activity...as would scared ****less.)

As far as BFRO goes...the impression I get is that none of their big people are going to actively hunt a sasquatch, but I'm sure there are members who would, and I don't think BFRO would hide a body if someone turned one into them.

Jim, in my opinion, that makes you a no-kill guy. Let me explain...

I feel the same way. I would not personally kill one of these animals, unless it was a case of self-defense for myself or a team member. To me that's no-kill.

However, if someone were to resort to the antics of members of Greenpeace or PETA, ie, that they would resort to whatever means to prevent someone from killing one, even at the expense of human life, that to me would be in the category of anti-kill.

If someone wants to try to harvest a specimen, that's their business. More power to them. All I can say is good luck. You're going to need it.

Works for me Craig..minus the Greenpeace and PITA. Buncha nuts.

Peta would not be my first choice. Their track record of handling things is bad enough in the media. Given that the public tends to think of BF as fringe anyway, Peta wouldn't be a helpful addition to the mix imho.

So, basically, you are no different from the BFRO. You wouldn't kill one, but wouldn't hold anything against people who would, and you also have allies who would kill one. You might even keep your views to yourself to get no kill members into your group.

Now, let's say you changed your views to no kill, what are you going to do about the pro kill members in your org?

What's weird is I post a 2 word question "BFRO position?" that only requires a 1 word answer and Frontman types paragraph after paragraph on that thread without actually answering the question. It takes skill to tap dance around a 1 word answer. :dancedude:

Whether the BFRO/MM has an "official" stance or not, the fact is that among the individual investigators there are both pro- AND no-kill members. That's about as simple an answer as there is to this question.


edited fer typoz

It looks like your question was answered Chronic.

Individual choice by each individual member.

Same as I don't hunt in general, but don't tell others who do its wrong. It's Not. I like venision just as much as the next guy.

And when was the last time I kept any of my views to myself? Or are we talking in general and not me specifically?
That being the case..I still go with the above,if I had the power or the authroity withing an org. , to make everyones view the sdame as my own, then I don't even have the right to lead it ,let alone posture that I deserve the title.Thats not an org. or a research group, thats a cult. When any org. outgrows the people who made it what it is or lose thier voice or right to thier individual thoughts ,ideas and opinions then I see that as nothing other than sad.

If all you have are people who constantly ageree with you it stagnates both growth and new ideas. Some of the people I respect most on this forum and elsewhere, are those I can debate with rationally and logically,with out all of the emotion or angst that seems to involve so much of the BF field.
For all the world it looks like a knock down drag out argument,Its's not and the sooner people stop assigning thier own.or non existent emotional states to others,based soley in some cases on a lack of emoticons in the posts, the better.

Any other questions?

Yeah, I don't get what the problem is. Is the BFRO kill or no kill? I mean, I thought it was no kill, though I've been told there are members that believe a body is necesary for proof. But as far as I've been told the group itself doesn't condone a kill hunt for a squatch. Is that true?

But then you said this:


And then this:


So if they are no kill, people can still be members (and it be a healthy group) yet hold a pro kill philosophy? Or not? And if they do have pro kill members, how does it create a problem when you said that a healthy group should allow individual opinions and choices?


First time I ever heard this one.




No idea who you are talking about here, but I doubt anybody in the sasquatch field hasn't gotten emotionally involved or based a debate on emotions or angst in this field and I know for a fact we all have at one time or another.

Again I is not clear to me who are we really including when we mention BFRO ... is MM beliefs, statements & actions alone?? (statements like the one published recently in the BFRO site)

Does all the members are obligated to follow MM decisions/ beliefs if they want to continue in this organization?? Can MM just set up and change the positions of the BFRO as a group on certain topics (he was pro-kill for a while, now he is no kill)

Well I wonder what would happen if any of the BFRO members goes out and actually kills one ... Will this person would be kicked out of the organization? or would MM would change the BFRO stance on the issue (again) to "share" the possible "glory" of the kill? (just in case I'm being sarcastic with the glory term)

I still don't understand how the BFRO works so that is why I ask.

Wolf,

You and I have had disagreements in the past and we've gotten past them, I hope we can get by this one too.

I think you're blocking. There is no agreement that you sign, or even imply, when you join the BFRO that you are pro-kill or no-kill. Remember when anything comes from the BFRO officially it is Matt's views and not necessarily the views of the membership. Members have many different opinions. To ask if the BFRO as a whole is one way or the other is a question that has no answer.

If I were to speculate one way or the other I would think by Matt claiming his to be a scientific organization that he would not be opposed to having a body as evidence. That is a lot different than him making an effort to collect a body by hunting one, although I have no idea what his thoughts are on that subject.

I do believe that he is interested in making money off of the search for BF, and he wants to be at the forefront of the discovery. That does not mean that any individual member feels the same way. People have different motivations in this field and the best ones I've met are more interested in knowing for themselves either what they suspect is true or whether what they saw was not just an anomaly and are more interested to learn more about it themselves than actual monetary reward or public fame.

It seems to me that you are pigeonholing the people who won't profess a hard no-kill stance as condoning the hunting and purposely killing one of these things. That just isn't true in all cases. I certainly don’t, but if one gets hit by a logging truck and is autopsied and is proven to be an undocumented species I will accept it as evidence, although I can’t honestly say I would celebrate that day anymore than I celebrate when any other animal is killed.

You'd have to ask the BFRO, or the members involved what thier individual opinions on it are. Yes? I fail to see the problem.If they are all no kill that means they have to all agree to it right? If even one doesn't, then that person is pro kill, and not neccesarily representative of the org. Itself in belief and ideal as to what science requires as proof.. Ask MM directly what his stance is and then each member. I know mine and that the only person I'll speak for without their consent on the matter.



Yes ,In my personal opinion if it were my org. in question, not the BFRO, Your earlier question,which I clarified in both personal and in general terms. regarding it.. If pro kill no kill is the main issue within the group, then I feel sorry for that group. There are definatly better things to do and discuss other than an issue that is never going to be resolved, because its based on everyones personal beliefs in what the cratures are or may possibly be. Its ludicrous without proof of it in either case and it gets brought up enough every few weeks to have been done to death at this point. Nope, I've said it before. More than once,,its on the forum somewhere. Take your pick,plenty to choose from.

Yep, you're my bud, always will be, nothing personal here between you and I, and I don't see how it could be interpreted as such.



I suppose I'll have to pay greater attention, lesson learned.







Nope, not blocking, not pigeonholing, not starting another pro vs. no debate, just want to figure out where everybody is coming from in this thread. Like I said, from what I understood, the BFRO is no kill, specifically they don't want to go out and hunt one. Yes, I've been told some people in the org believe a body is the only way. Not my own stance, we all know that, but just trying to figure out why this thread even exists if nobody really knows the answer on whether the BFRO has changed to no kill, or left that vast grey area, especially when many are in that grey area.

Not really,,I think at some point there's enough topics and rehasing of things already discussed over the years that alot of us simply stop paying attention to certain things. I know I do.

Micahn:

Quit looking for approval.

Just dust one.

Then deal with it.

DR

Sure enough, like the navel gazing, or "Bitch" threads that seem to dominate the boards and about the only contribution some people make.

How in the world am I looking for any type of approval ? Do you even understand what that word means ? I am not sure you do if your saying that to me about this post.

I was actually referring to things like rehashing the nothing new with "Patty" again for the 30th time in 6 months. Pro-kill /no kill debates, (yet again). The ambigous photos that show up over and over every again for years on end .(Trog, anyone?) It gets old. Either that or I'm getting old.

I'm actually waiting for the "I think we should cavity search BFRO members because I believe they are concealing evidence from the public" thread, but something tells me that's been talked about many, many times.

ooohh ooohhh search me search me would ya? huh huh huh????








Redwolf

I'm your huckleberry.

me too! me too!!

allll righty then! :willynilly:

Step right up!

Wildman's photo is sure going to kill off the direction this thread has headed

If you're going to use the surgical approach search the guys instead