The Texas Bigfoot Research Center has been actively involved in the search for the mysterious creature known as the sasquatch or bigfoot since 1999. In the beginning, there were only a handful of volunteers. However, as 2006 came to a close, the group featured a diverse, professional and talented membership roster of nearly 60 individuals, including wildlife biologists, law enforcement officers, photographers, teachers, business owners, managers, outfitters, ex-military, doctors, CPAs, pilots, technicians, professors, and journalists/editors, to name a few. It has been an exciting, educational, fun and enriching period.

With that said, the group’s leadership has decided that the time has come for the Texas Bigfoot Research Center to step aside to make way for a successor. Much has been learned through nearly eight years of trial and error. Board members also recognized that this field of research is still only in its infancy stages. For this research to progress, to grow, it must be better funded.

As a result, in December 2006, the group’s leaders decided to bring the curtain down on the Texas Bigfoot Research Center. In doing so, the group donated its equipment, its personnel, its database, its website domains to a newly-created non-profit research group, and on 18 January 2007, the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy (TBRC) was created. Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws were drafted and endorsed by the group's seven-person Board of Directors.

The Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy desires to take research of the elusive sasquatch to the next level. Its mission statement includes the following objectives:

“To investigate and conduct research regarding the purported existence of the unlisted primate species known as the sasquatch or bigfoot; to facilitate scientific, official and governmental recognition, conservation, and protection of the species and its habitat; and to help further factual education and understanding to the public regarding the species, with a focus mainly in, but not necessarily limited to, the states of Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana.”

The group’s Board of Advisors includes (in alphabetical order):

Dr. John Bindernagel
Loren Coleman
Smokey Crabtree
Dr. Henner Fahrenbach
John Green
Alton Higgins
John Kirk
John Mioncszynski
Dr. Jeff Meldrum
Rick Noll
Kathy Strain

With the governing body of seven Directors and approximately 60 members, the non-profit group seeks to proactively fulfill its mission statement. This includes sponsoring an annual professionally oriented bigfoot conference in the same manner as the Texas Bigfoot Research Center.

The Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy will soon unveil its new website at www.texasbigfoot.org.

During this time of transition, the current Texas Bigfoot Research Center will no longer have new information posted to its website, and the website will be taken offline once the new Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy site is launched. When the new TBRC site is launched, several recent investigative reports and field research reports will be featured. Unfortunately, it may take awhile for all the old reports to be integrated into the new database.

The new TBRC’s Board of Directors, Advisors, and Members anticipate that these changes will enhance the credibility of bigfoot/sasquatch research and facilitate a greater degree of acceptance by the scientific community and other segments of society of the likelihood of a biological basis behind the sasquatch phenomenon.

The Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy—working to turn today’s mystery into tomorrow’s discovery.

hey craig i think its wonderful of what your doing with the tbrc website. please keep up the great work on it & keep us updated ok. good morning . thanks bill

Very cool! I'll help as much as I can!

Could this be the answer we have all been looking for? An actual legitimate organizations ruled by democracy... nice to see it and good luck. If this organization is successful, maybe MM could take a page out of this book and re-evaluate his stranglehold on the BFRO.

Cheers!

Nice job!

Well, the AIBR (www.bigfootresearch.com) was formed more than a year ago as a national organization that set the framework for the TBRC. In fact, the TBRC are already an afflicate organization. We applaud any and all who are willing to be run by the people for the people ...and I congratulate the TBRC on their endeavor!

Indeed, and as such, I honestly have to question the need for a Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy - if these sorts of efforts are to be put in to Texas, by the same advisors (give or take) as the AIBR, then what is the point of two organisations?

Considering that the reports in the AIBR came in from the TBRC, then there is definitely a need for the TBRC.

That's a fair point, but the TBRC is not the only contributor to AIBR reports, and I don't think the report database is the issue. It seems to me that TBRC's new direction is more in line with what AIBR is trying to achieve - rather than following up sighting reports, trying to improve the profile of Bigfoot research within mainstream scientists.

Think globally but act locally. While national or even international groups have their purpose, I think the most effect can come at the local or regional level.

Best of luck Craig.

Knowing some of those folks, what he said.....

Ditto that! :new_thumbsupsmileyanim:

As far as I know, the two groups' similarities go no farther than being non-profit, sharing some advisors and a few members. Beyond that, and having similar mission statements, I think there are more differences than likenesses.

Some notable differences worth mentioning:

The TBRC has a rather stringent admission process with a probationary status sometimes lasting beyond a year before an individual can be admitted as a full member. As I understand it (and please correct me where I am wrong), the AIBR's process is simply to be voted in by the general membership; TBRC members are voted in by the Board of Directors. Hopefully, this process will lead only to highly qualified individuals, and prevent hostile takeover by undesirables.

The TBRC's revenues are generated in part by members' annual dues; with approximately 60 members, annual dues amount to several thousand dollars.

The TBRC really conducts concerted field efforts and is centered on teamwork; members are expected and encouraged to participate, pool resources and contribute tangibly to the organization; it is not a loosely aligned organization of independent researchers. If an individual is interested in working solo or independently, they probably won't find the TBRC suitable, since teamwork and concentrated effort is highly encouraged.

The TBRC is structured heavily around committees, appointed and empowered by the Board of Directors to fulfill certain tasks and functions.

The TBRC's membership all live within a day's drive at the most; thus most all members are at least acquainted with one another before working together. Meetings are held at various locations bimonthly and are open to the public. These meetings allow members and non-members to know each other.

The TBRC conducts an annual conference.

Investigations of reported sightings are considered of very high importance by the TBRC, and investigations are extremely thorough. Since the group is focused on its region, almost all recent sighting reports involve face-to-face interviews and on site investigations.

I could continue, but I think the point has been made.

I say all this not to say that the TBRC's way is superior or better, but just that there are stark differences in approach, and that comparing the two groups is much like comparing apples to strawberries, in my opinion.

So... would this be TBRC's official opinion of AIBR???

I'm not sure I know what you're talking about?

What I said would be the TBRC's official opinion no more or less than Paul1968UK's reply was the official opinion of the AIBR.

What did I say that you found offensive? Do you not agree that there are big differences even after I listed some of the most notable ones? After Paul1968UK stated that he thought the TBRC was actually pretty much like tits on a boar, I just I thought I would spell out the differences between the two groups to assure him that the TBRC is quite a bit more than useless tits on a boar. I guess I (and others) could have taken offense to that, but I didn't.

I didn't ask him if what he said was the AIBR's official opinion. I never assumed it was. I just assumed it was only his opinion.

Thanks, glad we cleared that up.


Pretty much your entire post where AIBR is concerned.
No, I don't agree.

Pointing out what you believe are TBRC's strong points and pointing out how "starkly" different (better) you think TBRC is than AIBR isn't the route I'd have taken especially when some TBRC members are members of AIBR and there has been a spirit of cooperation between the two groups in the past. I just wouldn't have done it that way.


It looks to me like you did take offense judging from your reply. Looks may be deceiving, but that's the way it looks to me.

If I am mistaken and your post was not meant the way it looked to me then you have my sincere apology. I hope TBRC and AIBR continues a spirit of sharing of information and courteous discourse in the future. I don't think either group is better than the other. I do think they are different, as TBRC is a more geographically localized organization where AIBR is a more global organization. One is not better than the other.

I have to admit that after reading Texas Tracker's post, it did seem like he was saying how the TBRC was better than AIBR.

Maybe that was not the intent, but that's how it looks, IMO.

Best of luck Craig...

Best of luck Craig.

I didn't get that at all from TT's post... it seemed to me he was just noting the differences in the two organizations. I appreciated his input.

IMO, what a grand total of three people say to each other on an internet forum should in no way endanger a "spirit of sharing of information and courteous discourse". These things have a tendency to spiral out of control, so I just want to keep this in perspective. We have three POVs here, no more.

From where I sit, the TBRC is a terrific organization that every bigfoot org could learn a few things from. I applaud what they've built in the better part of a decade they've been in existence. The AIBR is a relative kid in comparison having been formed less than two years ago, but they're aiming for big things. It'll be fun to see how they develop.

LOL it would take a lot more than what I think or say to drive a rift in the sharing spirit or friendly discourse between AIBR and TBRC. I'd like to think I have that sort of power but I don't, and even if I did, it would not be something I'd ever suggest, advise, or endeavor on the basis of a post on a forum. You're right, three POVs is what we have here, and that's all.

How dare you suggest that I would use such vulgar language on this forum, and I suggest that if you plan on keeping your posting priviledges here at BFF, that you smarten up your own language.

Ok, what is the percentage of the reports received by the TBRC and the percentage received by other means?



Ok, how is the AIBR doing that and how is it any different than what the TBRC or any other org was doing before?

So Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy doesn't have any members at the moment, since it hasn't been operating for more than a year?



So?



What makes you think that the AIBR is a 'loosely aligned' organisation? It sounds to me as if you have a real problem with AIBR.




As is AIBR




Ah well, you got me there - AIBR is working more on a national level




No, the Texas Bigfoot Research Centre *used to* hold an annual conference until 2005. The Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy has never held a conference.





I agree, but I don't see how that differs, unless you are suggesting that AIBR investigations are not thorough.




Please continue if you so wish.....




That I'm afraid is exactly how TBRC is coming across right now, which considering TBRC is associated with AIBR, I find it very surprising that you would take that attitude.


Lets at least be honest about this - the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy is no different to the Texas Bigfoot Research Centre except for it's new 'not-for-profit' status.

Please TexasTracker, explain the differences between TBRC and TBRC - that is something I would be interested to hear about, since Craigs post above doesn't actually explain anything, and four months into the 'new' TBRC, the website still refers to the Texas Bigfoot Research Centre.

Actually, I would like to know that, too. Maybe I'm being thick, but there's not a lot of reason behind the decision that I've read anywhere. Not that it really matters to me, just wondering.

Well, gee, maybe because it's in response to this:


Which for the same reasons is just as surprising, especially considering that when the AIBR started it had absolutely nothing in regards to reports, and the TBRC gasciously shared them with you (BTW, how is that sightings database coming along?). Not to mention that the TBRC's excellent yearly conferences allowed AIBR's leadership to make friendships with who would later be their advisors, that's a heck of a lot of usefullness that the TBRC provied to make the AIBR possible.



And let's be even more honest, that's really what this is all about when you talked about:


The only real difference here is that the TBRC went "Officially" non-profit. Let's not sugar-coat this by saying the AIBR or TBRC actually are improving the profile of Bigfoot research within mainstream scientists, unless you actually can show how that has happened. The list of advisors is pretty much just that, a list of names. Anybody could find some piece of evidence or even the final piece and present it to any one of those people and they'd get involved.

I'm not bashing the AIBR or the TBRC or comparing them, but this argument is based on a comment that, if you really think about it, is pretty ungrateful.

I think you are when you say...


It's clear that Paul's gotten under your skin.

I think his original question is still a good one. The answer, though, is that if the AIBR was currently as effective and well organized as the TBRC, then the TBRC would be redundant. Someday, that may be the case. However, the AIBR will need many more members and a lot more organization than it has now before it gets there.

Personally, I think there's a lot to be said for strong regional organizations in this field. It may be that this country's just too big for one chronically underfunded group who's membership population has traditionally looked askance at authority*. Who knows. All I know is we have one group (TBRC) that's got solid contributions and accomplishments to its credit and another that's hoping to achieve great things, both of which are run by their members, are affiliated with respected individuals, and are not converting their credibility into currency that does nothing to advance the field. What's not to like about that?



* When I say "membership population", I mean bigfooters in general and not the membership of the AIBR in particular.

Having belonged to neither group, nor would either have reason to let me join. The whole thread save for the first post seems rather pointless (and one could argue the usefulness of the op). AIBR as I understand it is a trying to focus a global, more general overall effort, and the TBRC (T stands for Texas right?) is focused more locally...hence why members required to be less than an hour away. So why the posturing? I don't get it. I'm not taking side or anything, but Paul's first post struck me as a bit defensive, when no attack was made. There was Craig's original post, followed by a series of congrats, then bam out comes some teeth, and then the poo flinging continued from both sides from there. Oh and Texas Tracker's opinions of the AIBR were about as subtle as a fist to the face. Ok sorry for interrupting carry on, now that I've annoyed everyone...I'll go hide now.

Well, you can take it how you want, but the fact remains that the TBRC's cooperation by sharing their reports from their database with the AIBR, which still doesn't have a database, makes the TBRC not only useful to the AIBR but also very valuable. If that's insulting to both you and the AIBR, would you also be offended if you had a flat tire and no spare and somebody gave you theirs? Would you think they are useless, pointless, or redundant, now or sometime in the future when you finally did get a spare?

From what I understand, TBRC doesn't have a database either in the sense of a fully indexed and searchable relational database, which is what AIBR is building, and yes, building a database takes some time, and I make no excuses for that.

AIBR is of course very grateful to Craig for passing on some reports to them. My question remains though - if the goals are largely the same, then why have two organisations? This wasn't and still isn't a question intended to be critical of TBRC in any way, but clearly that is how some took it, but rather a question intended to illicit some long overdue detail on where exactly the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy is headed and how it differs from AIBR.

That question has not yet been answered, with the exception of TexasTrackers rather insulting post, and I am yet to hear a sensible explanation as to what the difference between TBRC and TBRC is.

One of the things that I found distressing about the TBRC, when I showed an interest in membership, is their signed requirement that any "BF evidence" a member finds belongs to the TBRC, to do with as they please. For instance, if I filmed a BF, the TBRC would own the rights to the film. I am not giving that privelege to anyone.

As a member of the AIBR, my "evidence" is "mine" to share as "I" please.

Are you saying at any time any evidence you find belongs to TBRC or while on one of their expeditions? For example if you were on vacation with the family and a BF stepped out as you had a video camera running and you obtained good footage, are you saying that, then would belong to TBRC even though you weren't on a TBRC function at the time?

okay - whatever this thread is, it isn't intended to be a Them v Us thread, because that won't get anyone anywhere, so lets stop that discussion now.



The point of the thread was really to stimulate an explanation from those at TBRC as to WHAT the new direction of TBRC actually is. The post by Craig suggests that this is an entirely new organisation with a new direction, but the post from TexasTracker suggests that the TBRC has only really changed in name, with a new not-for-profit configuration (which shoudl be applauded loudly - especially when there are BFRO people in the room )

But apart from that, what is actually new or different between the old TBRC and the new TBRC?

Organisational structure? Probably - again, it should be applauded.


But what exactly is the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy 'conserving' ? We haven't found proof of bigfoot yet, so we can't conserve that - they can conserve habitat, in which case I really want to hear some detail about it.

Or, as the new title suggests, is the TBRC conserving 'research' itself?

I really wish someone would answer these questions, becuase it looks to me like a case of new name, new non-profit status and a committee, but otherwise, business as usual, in which case, why the fanfare?

oh if my question was construed as an "us v them" I'm sorry... didn't mean it that way at all. I just found it hard to believe TBRC whether the "Center" or the "Conservancy" would do what Pywacket claims he experienced so I wanted to ask. Carry on.

I think that is the trouble ARSquatch - a few of us have made comments in this thread that have been perceived as Them v Us, which couldn't be further from the truth - thats why I thought it better to try and turn the thread so that it was a little more constructive, since I know from talking to a few people, that there are plenty who would like to know exactly what TBRC v2.0 is heading.

Well, I for one have been following this thread, only because I'm a curious person... so maybe I'm really naive in making the following observation of what I thought at the time of the announcement was likely the reason for the "V.2.0" of TBRC.

Was not part of it a protective measure undertaken to protect the TBRC 1.0 when the whole "pancake video fiasco" erupted in lawsuits being thrown around?

That might be a little simplistic, but it WAS the first thing that came to my mind.

Hmm. Hadn't thought of that. Sounds plausible to me.

I was just wanting some info if you all could supply it.

Conservancy-An organization dedicated to the conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitats in the United States.

Sounds like that is the difference between TBRC and TBRC. They now are taking a step up to actually get out there and document this creature, and when they do they are going to work hard to protect it through all the proper channels.

So a couple questions comes to mind since I am newer to this game then most

1.) Which other groups are actually making a group effort to document this animal? And I don't really mean taking people on trips for money or making a database. In my opinion those are not very helpful in documenting anything (and now we don't need a thread about importance of database because I do understand that).

2.) What other group actually has several areas where they have placed over 20 cameras or so into the deep deep deep woods and are trying to obtain photo/video evidence 24/7 year round, and as well goes out to these cameras regularly to check them/re-supply batteries/add more cameras?
(maybe some group is doing that, but is it being done in numbers of cameras?)

All right go for it and by the way this is not meant to be a smack in the head to any group out there, because I don't really know any of them.
BTW why was there ever any mud slinging to start with?

Well, the mud slinging wasn't started by me, I can tell you that much

You are at least beginning to answer the question posed, but conservancy is very different to trying to prove and document this creature - what is the TBRC 'conserving' ? I presume it is habitat, in which case, I am genuinely interested in how and where, since this sounds like a very interesting project.

All we have heard so far in this thread is 'TBRC is great, we are doing more than anyone else' etc. etc. and I'm not denying that, but it just doesn't sound to me like 'conservancy' - that's all.

Is it coincidence that this all started around the time of the law suit?

could be related to the lawsuit, but I think it is wise to have a group that is incorporated and non-profit.
That way the individual members and officers are not liable should someone get injured for instance.
Furthermore, I don't think that lawsuit was about TBRC anyways was it?

I also think conservancy would be meant to protect not only the habitat, but also the squatch. However, you can do neither unless you first prove its existance.
In my opinion all the "ancillary" data gathering doesn't help without proof of the animal itself. Of course when the "money shot" does come then all the ancillary research that has been done will help.
However, I think that first you must document the species, then you document the habitat, then you document behavior. Or something like that.
The only way to do that is identify the animal and "conserve" the land it is on and then send a bunch of professional photographers/videographers, biologists, conservationsist in.
You can't do that with once a month weekend outings with a camera around your neck and some beef jerky.

TBRC was mentioned in the lawsuit, but thinking about it, Craig didn't post the Pancake video until March, and states that the new TBRC commenced back in January, so I don't see how the two could be connected.

I agree - organisations like BFRO, TBRC, AIBR, SRI, NESRA etc., should be incorporated, above board and accountable. More importantly, if they are making money, then they should be paying their taxes too.

But it is the 'conservancy' that I find difficult - surely the right time to move to a conservancy is when you have proved the creature exists, not before?

Conservancy vs. center...I suspect they just wanted to keep the initials "TBRC" so nobody had to get a new t-shirt or something. I think we're over-analyzing it.

That was my thought Bip. I can just imagine Craig and Daryl and a few others sitting around together reviewing the "C" section of the dictionary.

LOL !


Should have taken a leaf out of the Bigfoot Ranger Team, and called themselves Texas Bigfoot Research Commanders That would have sounded like a professional bunch of guys.

The meeting to finalize and adopt the bylaws articles of incorporation to file with the appropriate govertmental agencies was held on Dec. 16, 2006. The link to the video was posted on Cryptomundo on Feb. 9, 2007. The first lawsuit was filed Feb. 13, 2007.

The use of the word "Conservancy" was used to retain the acronym of TBRC, as it was a rather identifiable one.

The Center donated all of the equipment, the information, including reports on the website, etc. to the Conservancy.


I agree with Bipto.

So in other words Craig, nothing new except for the name and non-profit status.

So it's either...

The People's Front of Judea.

Or the Judean People's Front.

Either way, just so long as I can always look on the bright side of life.

DR

I don't care who you are, that's funny!

It's always great to meet another Python fan!!!

How 'bout the Tyrannical Bigfoot Renegade Commandos?