Leaderboard

Alright, after working for about 11 days straight, I had time today to talk with the USFWS. I called this number first: 1-800-344-WILD I explained that I was interested in collecting a type specimen and needed to know where and how to get a permit for that. The receptionist asked me what state I was in and I stated I was in Washington state. So she gave me the number of the USFWS Law Enforcement division in Region 1. http://www.fws.gov/info/pocketguide/regionalcontacts.html I called and again explained that I was interested in purchasing a permit to take a type specimen. The receptionist asked what I meant by a "type specimen", I explained that if I was to harvest a completely new species in the name of science, what permit did I have to have in order to do that? She had never heard of such a thing and would have a enforcement officer call me back. Within about an hour I got a call from a USFWS LE agent and again explained to him what I was doing.........he was stumped as well, but he asked me directly where I planned on doing this. (evidently they don't deal with new species much) To make a long story short? The USFWS as I thought only administers to the US wildlife refuges in giving out permits. So if your going hunting for a new species on a Federal wildlife refuge? Then yes you need a permit. I then asked him if I was to go looking for a type specimen on National Forest Service land or the National Park Service did I need a permit? He had no idea if I needed a permit or not but he did not have jurisdiction over those areas (again as I had thought). I'm fairly sure that you will need to get a permit directly from the National Park Service for this endeavor. I'm also quite sure that you do not need a permit on the National Forest, and the reason why is that State wildlife agencies administer the National forests and State forests. I grew up outside of Colville, Wa and know many people who work for the NFS in the Colville forest HQ (my wife was one for awhile) and I also know the local game wardens. So here is the scientific collection permits for Washington, Idaho and Montana: http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/scp/ http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/licenses/scientificWildlife/ http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/licenses/?getPage=68 If you open any of those PDF files listed on any of the three state agencies your going to notice two things right off. 1) You must list your scientific credentials. 2) You must list the type of species your studying. Other problems crop up as well, like........WHERE are you going to be doing your research, like as in GPS coordinates. Obviously these permits are curtailed to universities that are going to be studying a warbler nest in a specific tree in a specific locale. So? Does any of our scientifically accredited members want to step up to the plate? I'll cough up the money to pay for the permit. I have a sneaking suspicion that when the cat gets out of the bag, and we list in the species section "Sasquatch" that there will be giggles coming from the other end of the line. But I was challenged to do this by another member who is concerned about the laws of this great nation. I have ran this out to the best of my ability and my conclusion is? Ummmmm there is NO agency that is administering a scientific collection permit for the species known as Sasquatch. I mean I can spend the 117 bucks for a Washington permit and it gives me a box to check for "Firearms are being used for this collection". But I cannot give them a scientific and common name, nor do I represent an agency or institution....... So this elusive permit? Is as elusive as the creature itself.

Re: Cats http://www.imaginiquebengals.com/dnacatevol.pdf includes : The Late Miocene Radiation of Modern Felidae: A Genetic Assessment

Pay no attention to the scientist behind the curtain............... The only thing I see on that page is a lot of pandering and the occassional well thought out question that goes unanswered. I'll echo the above comment, Where is the video and pictures that were to go along with this study? I hope the ones we've seen aren't all they have....

weaker! As in the evidence for BF is somewhere between weak and non existent. Eye witness accounts are nice for campfire stories, but a whole lot of people make things up. And most stories change drastically from the original version almost immediately. I wish BF were real, then I could justify all the years I spent looking into it and looking like a clown to all my friends and family when I brought the topic up. But, unfortunately, BF is a mythical creature, it just doesn't exist. There is no way a breeding population of large bipedal primate is looming on the edges of civilization and is still, in this day, unknown to science...and other than a few fringe scientists, not even on the radar! Prove it. I can go out on a golf course and hit a ball 10,000 times and not get a hole in one. I can then positively conclude that holes in one are impossible. *shakes head*

I'm just glad it sounds like Les has dumped the idea of teaming with Todd Standing.