Yowiehunters Forum

If I were convinced beyond a doubt that "perceived as yowies" (thanks for considering our delicate sensibilities Topender) were out there, whatever that means, then I would be considering doing my field reserch with a 30-06 or at least a 270. A 12 gauge solid would likely suffice, for those on a buget.

Nothing will sway doubting skeptics more than an actual corpse.
If there's one, there's more, and if it is the last, then it was doomed anyway.

I dont suggest for a moment that I would be doing this if i had the least doubt, as It would be difficult to explain to the authorities and the family of Joe Bloggs, former owner of a yowie suit, now a bit second hand.

Has anyone bagged one of these beasts?

OK I'll bite Marius

information gather over many years from here and overseas indicates that " perceived objects" will avoid people with guns, the hominid issue has been looked at by many many well qualified people, in Aust i would suggest you look at some of the work of Prof Gary Opit.
I am not a 100% believer, my day job relies on proven research, so i tend to look at potential evidence in the field from the obvious first such as pig, kangaroo or human, but i doesn't stop me venturing out to investigate reports of " perceived objects" with an objective qualatative approach as opposed to sitting on my bum and having entertaining conversations.
But hey i think that a group like AYR needs the skeptics to keep people on their toes to ensure evidence is evidence and not perceived.

cheers

No nonsense objective comments from Gary

http://cfzaustralia.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... perty.html

topender wrote:OK I'll bite Marius

information gather over many years from here and overseas indicates that " perceived objects" will avoid people with guns, the hominid issue has been looked at by many many well qualified people, in Aust i would suggest you look at some of the work of Prof Gary Opit.
I am not a 100% believer, my day job relies on proven research, so i tend to look at potential evidence in the field from the obvious first such as pig, kangaroo or human, but i doesn't stop me venturing out to investigate reports of " perceived objects" with an objective qualitative approach as opposed to sitting on my bum and having entertaining conversations.
But hey i think that a group like AYR needs the skeptics to keep people on their toes to ensure evidence is evidence and not perceived.

cheers

I think we can dispense with the whole" Perceived Objects" thang. Save keyboard time and use "yowie" .
I think the point has been made. Whatever it was.

Was wondering what Prof. Opit was a prof. of? Where does/did he teach? Not every reference to him describes him as prof. Just curious. He has his finger in a lot of cryptoozoo pies, as well as the odd zoological one. None containing blackbirds, I assume.

The inclusion of firepower in Yowie-research expeditions is fraught with danger on many levels. The risk of injury (or worse) to the researcher, others in the group, random other people (hikers, horse riders, etc) via discharge (intentional and unintentional) is too great.

There are quite a few documented cases in which Yowies display aggression but there are almost none which involve any actual physical confrontation. This would suggest that almost all displays of Yowie aggression are, like the mountain gorilla, mostly for bluff and intimidation.

Dogs have been bashed, thrown, gutted and crushed when they have gone in against the Yowie which suggests that should the bluff fail Yowies are more than capable of permanently disabling a foe.

Even if Dean's recent encounter is taken with blind faith the only resulting damage was bruising - no bites, no clawing. I would agree with the_sleepwalker (from the "Dean/Yowie confrontation 02/01/09" thread) that it was most likely a display of dominance.

In conclusion, there is absolutely no reason to bring loaded firearms on any future expeditions for the purpose of self-defense. Furthermore, planning to kill something in order to prove it's existence is deplorable. Are we Yowie researchers or are we Yowie hunters? Could you shoot a man that was no threat? Could you shoot a Hairy Man that was no threat? If you did you had better be damn sure that you finish the job...

Live and let live.

Honestly I would never ever consider going out bush with a group with firearms (Yowie realated or not) and that has nothing to do with my Belief in Yowies.


Also I think everyone in this field knows that nothing short of a body on a slab will sway the scientific community

mikka wrote:Honestly I would never ever consider going out bush with a group with firearms (Yowie realated or not) and that has nothing to do with my Belief in Yowies.


Also I think everyone in this field knows that nothing short of a body on a slab will sway the scientific community

Thus the point raised by the o.p.

I'm totally anti-violence in any situation. I agree as well that a group of people tramping into the bush packing heat and searching for yowies, especially at night, is a recipe for disaster. Even hunting in the daylight is fraught with danger - just ask Dick Cheney!

I had a think about this post over the last day or so and came to the conclusion that the only reason to kill a yowie, if one had the opportunity, would be to indefatigably prove to others that they do in fact exist (or your life was in danger). Now, I don't know about anyone else - skeptic or otherwise - on this forum, but I would be more than satisfied with merely seeing a yowie. Killing it and having its body as proof that I had seen it would only serve the purpose of saving me from the public ridicule I would surely get if I reported a sighting without proof (i.e. the dead body). If I had genuinely seen the hairy man, then I wouldn't hesitate in telling others that he's real, ridicule or no ridicule. People's criticism, ridicule or skepticism would be water off a duck's back if I had a genuine encounter with a yowie. I would never kill one to prove it to complete strangers. It's not very ethical.

...at the start of this thread... Marius said...

Nothing will sway doubting skeptics more than an actual corpse.
If there's one, there's more, and if it is the last, then it was doomed anyway.

I dont suggest for a moment that I would be doing this if i had the least doubt, as It would be difficult to explain to the authorities and the family of Joe Bloggs, former owner of a yowie suit, now a bit second hand.

...the way that I'm looking at this is... just say that you shot the Yowie dead and the authorities did an autopsy... and the Yowie was deemed to be an offshoot of HUMANS and not classified as an animal ... and then it was officially deemed to be a HUMAN BEING according to the Law... would you then be charged for Murder??? ...

...myself... I wouldn't take the chance that it is an animal ... I don't like the idea of being locked away in a prison cell with a big fat guy that goes by the name of... "Bubba" ... and being his little love puppy forever!!!... my tip... leave the guns at home! ... cheers... Stickyfingers.

I agree with your comment Sticky, that if you shot a yowie' that it may be deemed more human than animal, leaving the shooter facing a possible man slaughter charge. I listened to a show by Art Bell on youtube , in which a hunter describes shooting two bigfoot. He and his friend ended up buirying them out where they shot them, because they realized that the creatures were very humanlike, and feared facing charges of murder. I can't say that the story is true, but it illustrates sticky's point.
I also take the view that firearms are far to dangerouse to take on yowie research, and don't appear to be a necessary item of equipment.

The shooting of specimens was standard operating procedure for taxonomists and naturalists of the past, before the days of easy photography and refrigeration in the field. Specimens were often stuffed, and at least skinned. (As in taxidermy, though they well may have been worn out by being chased by an enthusiastic naturalist)

The person that shoots an actual Yowie, despite being very brave for having the confidence to pull the trigger, is not going to be entangled in any legal hiccups.
As long as the firearm is registered and all license conditions are adhered to.
They will probably become quite well known.
These are laws that exist.
There are no laws against the killing of crypto creatures.
In order for that to happen, they have to be proven to exist. (if that sounds repetitious I do not apologize)
I don't believe they are on any endangered list.

It needs a precedent.
If you were to kill a chimp, you would not be tried for murder, or manslaughter.
You may well be charged with something else. Criminal damage, animal cruelty, poaching.

Definition of murder
The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse, with a state of mind known as "malice aforethought".

Definition of Manslaughter
The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent.

Though the wording may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Of course, you wouldn't even attempt this. Any one who points a gun a remotely human shape is a dangerous fool. They certainly do exist.

Just in case you don't realise that I am the former Opus, please read my off-topic thread before assessing this one.

I don't think that Marius (Marivs) was recommending the shooting of yowies. I think this post was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek post during the heat of the 'Dean vs Yowie' saga.

I too wouldn't want to see a group of enthusiastic researchers running around the bush trying to bag some 'proof' (I'll make another post about the topic 'proof') at a later time.

I would like to drag this thread (kicking and screaming) back to a bit normality and pose the following question. "Why has nobody put forward the suggestion of taking a 'tranquiliser' gun?

I don't know what the restrictions are on them, but that's one way that they catch rhinos and big cats, etc.

I'm not an expert on any sort of firearms but I think a solid tranq shot would afford the possibility of restraining said beast and gathering sufficient proof, whether you decided to 'bring it back' or apply the 'catch and release' strategy.

Indeed a 'tranqed' yowie could be microchipped and fitted with a transponder for tracking.

Before anyone re-appraises me of their 'elusivity' (if that's a word) and their quickness, etc. I'd be aiming for one of the less shy examples in the Blue Mountains.

Any thoughts???

I would think that tranquilizing a yowie would be a good idea.
I'm sure that if someone were to come across a yowie and that they had the chance to determine just how much..... 'knock out juice'....... it would take.....
without bringing harm to it........ .......then they should take that shot for the sake of a dna sample at least.
I am pretty sure that someone with a lot of knowledge and experience about tranquilizers would know just how much to give it. I personally would not like to be the one who does it though, if they are as big and powerful as I am lead to believe. Trev

The thing with shooting large mammals with tranq darts is as aussietrev rightly points out is dose.
Another important consideration is terrain.
The darted animal isn't going to drop on the spot. usually they like to put some distance between themselves and the point where they were stung by that really big wasp. They often head for points of safety.
So your hypothetical yowie being a creature of heavily wooded habitat, with lots of cover, is going to be
A) really hard to follow.
B) Possibly very hard to find once out of it.
C) Potentially very difficult to extract.

This has some interesting reading on this type of subject.
https://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2= ... g-l&P=6992

Good points, well made and a nice reference to some actual experience with the use of tranq's in a real (as in has happened) situation.

I agree that the dosage and type of chemical is a largely hit and miss affair until a specimen is actually caught and tested, however I still think that there would be some merit in investigating it as means to, at the very least, slowing a hairy bloke down (granted the time lag) long enough to at least get a clear, in focus picture/video at some point during the pursuit.

Any genuine, in-the-field tranq experience on the board?

I think a tranc gun might do the job, but it is not a piece of equipment the run of the mill would be yowie researcher has or is likely to be able to get. As has been already stated, you need to know about dosages, you need access to tranquilizing drugs (not some thing that you can just pick up at the local chemist). The subject of using a high powered rifle attracted replies because of the likely hood of somebody being able to get their hands on such a piece of equipment. It would seem to me that the type of people that might be able to get a tranquilizer gun are not the type of people that are interested in yowies, or if they are they most likely won’t get on any forum to discuss their research.

Yes indeed... good points TWMc.

I wouldn't suggest that tranq guns, nor the drugs are either easy to use or obtain. I also realise that they are not as easy to use as movies seem to suggest. Nevertheless I would think that they would/should be an entry on the serious researcher's wish list.

I'm coming from the perspective that the yowie is a flesh and blood critter and if it can be tracked or lured then it can be darted; but I don't suggest for one minute that it would be easy.

A taser would also be an option (although a very dangerous option to both user and receiver). However, I do also know that the import and purchase of these items is particularly difficult. Don't get caught with one!

My main concern would be that we'd be guesstimating the correct dose of a tranquilliser that should ideally be safe for humans, but which would probably require a larger dose for our big muscular hairy targets. As we know nothing about the Yowie metabolism, a trank dart could kill it, or worse, be only partially successful, meaning you have a groggy Yowie thundering about the bush, likely to be half conscious, but still highly motivated to get away from people. It could fall or seriously hurt itself, drown trying to ford a stream etc, which would take the gloss off any achievement.

Bit of a catch22 - you don't know what will work until you try it, and you don't want to try it if it won't work!

Still, if one was to attempt to 'bag a Yowie', the use of tranquillisers is probably the best idea for a capture, but then the big question is
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE YOWIE THAT IS CAPTURED?

Will it be locked away for study? Kept imprisoned? And then what? Will it survive long in captivity away from all it has known and holds safe? The ethical issues at this point are tremendous.

And who's to say one hasn't been caught in this manner already? I don't have a tinfoil hat to put on, but let's just say there are speculations that the Powers that be have not revealed all they know about other mysterious creatures/incidents. Read into that what you will.

Kind regards,
Shazz

Ah Shaz,

Good points and thank you for making them.

Yes if the dose was wrong then it could kill the beast. However regrettable that would be it would still constitute proof. Easily handled proof.

If it rendered it unconscious then well and good. It you don't want to bring it back then at the least you can get enough solid proof by way of samples and clear video and still pictures.

If it rendered it groggy then you would have a chance of bringing it down (temporarily) with a good strong net and see previous point re samples and proof.

As to the ethics of what to do with it. That would be at the discretion of the capturer.

If it's dead, bring it back.

If it's alive then bring it back, cage it and study if that's your thing.

Alternatively, restrain it safely, microchip it, tag it with a tracking transponder (e.g. sharks, geese, whales, etc.) and study it's happen to learn how to more effectively study them.

Simple, eh!!! No... I'm not that naive!!!!!

But I still think it bears thinking about. The current strategy, whilst producing results, does not produce verifiable results (yet...).

Unfortunately at present we can't even manage to get a clear picture of a yowie with a camera. The chance of capturing a yowie with a tranq gun is nill. Do you realise just how close a proximity you would have to achieve with a tranq gun, its not like a high powered rifle where you can get a shot off from several hundred yards away & achieve a clean kill if you know what your doing. Not advocating this in any way, Im trying to explain just how close you would have to be to get a shot off from a tranq gun. I would really hate to see how pissed off a yowie would get with a tranq shot in its arse.

urodacus wrote:Unfortunately at present we can't even manage to get a clear picture of a yowie with a camera. The chance of capturing a yowie with a tranq gun is nill. Do you realise just how close a proximity you would have to achieve with a tranq gun, its not like a high powered rifle where you can get a shot off from several hundred yards away & achieve a clean kill if you know what your doing. Not advocating this in any way, Im trying to explain just how close you would have to be to get a shot off from a tranq gun. I would really hate to see how pissed off a yowe would get with a tranq shot in its arse.

A tranq gun is irresponsible...these things have famalies as we do...dont even think of using invasie technology to prove them....calm inobtrusive efforts will respect them...lets move to give them their space and have encounters that way. Give them the space and respect they deserve.

In time we will observe them without hurting them. They desever our passive behaiour.

If we can observe them in that we can do the world a good service and them

Let us not destroy these miracles.

Yowielover1 wrote:

urodacus wrote:Unfortunately at present we can't even manage to get a clear picture of a yowie with a camera. The chance of capturing a yowie with a tranq gun is nill. Do you realise just how close a proximity you would have to achieve with a tranq gun, its not like a high powered rifle where you can get a shot off from several hundred yards away & achieve a clean kill if you know what your doing. Not advocating this in any way, Im trying to explain just how close you would have to be to get a shot off from a tranq gun. I would really hate to see how pissed off a yowe would get with a tranq shot in its arse.

A tranq gun is irresponsible...these things have famalies as we do...dont even think of using invasie technology to prove them....calm inobtrusive efforts will respect them...lets move to give them their space and have encounters that way. Give them the space and respect they deserve.

In time we will observe them without hurting them. They desever our passive behaiour.

If we can observe them in that we can do the world a good service and them

Let us not destroy these miracles.

YL1 I also believe a tranq is irresponsible & will be ineffective.

I agree mate. Also I would like to say that Marius using james randy's pic is irresponsiblle and the fact he started this thread with such a title did not corespond with James's level of intellect - in fact it shows an adolescent level of thought well short of James's years.

So get over yourself Marius...and use a picture that isn't so provocative.

These life forms deserve our respect. If you don't respect them go to a pokemon forum and live your age.

I am being polite to an inexperienced couch potato

What about using some sort of tracking device?
You would still need to find a yowie and get close enough to it to shoot it with some sort of GPS bullet? ...... or maybe a blow gun with
a tiny microchip on the end of it? Something that doesn't hurt it of course would be the preferable method.
I bet if you shot a whole bunch of little sticky GPS balls (like a shotgun pellet) that catch in its hair, you could probably at least track it in a direction?
Now...... I don't know the logistics of this or whether its even possible, but thats just an idea which could be used, without harming anything. ?? . Trev

Yowielover1 wrote:I agree mate. Also I would like to say that Marius using james randy's pic is irresponsiblle and the fact he started this thread with such a title did not corespond with James's level of intellect - in fact it shows an adolescent level of thought well short of James's years.

I don't recall seeing any regulations about avatar choice. Randi is a skeptic, so am I.
I don't imagine you are a Yowie with luminescent eyes, but you avatar choice is fine by me.
The title of this thread is tongue in cheek, as it most of the first post. I'm sorry that you didn't appreciate that, but the topic has a serious objective.
Has anyone shot one? Not necessarily recently, but ever?
Not everyone is moral and sensitive when it comes to game hunting.

It is a entirely relevant question, and one that Randi himself would no doubt ask

So get over yourself Marius...and use a picture that isn't so provocative.

Unfortunately, even if I wanted too, it is beyond my power, as that incarnation is unaccessible due to a recent banning/unbanning. I hope this one is more to your liking.

These life forms deserve our respect. If you don't respect them go to a pokemon forum and live your age.

I would prefer to establish their existence beyond doubt before assigning such things as respect. Interest, yes.
I respect all life, including that which I take in order to eat. But that is not the issue here.

I am being polite to an inexperienced couch potato

Er...
1)" an adolescent level of thought well short of James's years."
2)"So get over yourself Marius"
3)"go to a pokemon forum and live your age."
4)"an inexperienced couch potato"

If you disagree with me, disagree with me. Thats what debate is all about.
It is not about personal attack and name calling.
Id rather you used a well rounded argument.