Leaderboard

Seeing respected members getting too hot under the collar and not focusing on getting the federal biologist out in the field to collect bigfoot evidence is dismal. Meanwhile Bigfoot's territory is diminishing and disrespected. I was hoping we could work together to move the endangered species process to move forward if the administrators approve. My opinion is bigfoot needs the federal endangered species classification so it can't be shot and probably wounded. If the federal Fish and Wildlife Division department would push to gather bigfoot evidence then it has a chance to be listed or at least protected from being harmed. What is the procedure for getting a species listed as endangered? The ESA requires that we make and publish specific findings on a petition. We or the NMFS (for most marine species) are required to make a finding within 90 days of receiving a petition (to the extent practicable) as to whether there is “substantial information” indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. How do species get listed? The Process of Listing When an application, or “petition”, for a species to be listed is received, the relevant government agency (FWS or NOAA Fisheries depending on the species) has 90 days to review the submission and decide whether or not listing might be called for.Mar 20, 2023 How long does it take to put an animal on the endangered species list? “While the law lays out a process time of two years for a species to be listed, what we found is that, in practice, it takes, on average, 12.1 years,” says Emily Puckett, who recently received her doctorate in the Division of Biological Sciences at the University of Missouri. What are the 5 criteria for listing an endangered species? Five factors are considered when determining if a species needs ESA protection: the decline of a species' habitat. over-utilization of the species. disease impacting the species. impact of inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms. other factors, manmade or natural, that could impact its existence.

Thank you, Huntster, and thank you for your input. I really don't have anything more to add to all of this other than I don't think the believing community as a whole would take kindly to the creature not existing should a continued pursuit of the truth shows that to be the final outcome. Lots of money could be at stake. Lots of red faces, and maybe even some angry public torches and pitchforks. If it goes the other way, though, then a lot of things would get corrected and clarified, with possibly even more red faces, public torches, and pitchforks. Like I said, I'm fine either way. Always have been. Truth. At the very least, on the side of existence, it would obliterate the stigma and years of ridicule which one would hope could vindicate the knowers and lift the mostly self-imposed restrictions on study by the science community.

Thanks. Sure. You could start a thread that could be responsible for a petition letter to the USFWS. But I don’t think it will be successful without physical proof. Thats why I advocate shooting a type specimen. After the creature is proven to science? I would be very much in favor of protecting the species forever. I see this as putting the cart in front of the horse.

I went out for a late afternoon run up Dewdney Peak today. It frames the west side of the entrance to Norrish Creek watershed, the location of my sighting and trackway find 40+ years ago. I guess I keep hoping that lightning will strike twice in the same area, lol. There had been a fair bit of logging on the slopes of the mountain in the last couple of years, so the steep access road had been in fairly good shape, but I discovered today that the road had been recently aggressively cross ditched to prevent longitudinal washouts, so the 6 km climb now takes about 90 minutes of careful driving to avoid damage to my 4x4. This also indicates that there probably wont be any more logging up there for the next few years. It was a very clear fall afternoon, but cool, about 5C (40F), with great views in all directions. When I reached the end of the road, overlooking the upper Fraser Valley, I met a young couple and their 2 sons, both under 10 years old, enjoying a campfire after riding up in their SxS 4 wheeler. We chatted for a while, and after mentioning my old Sasquatch encounters in the creek valley, the young man mentioned having heard very heavy bipedal footsteps in the upper reaches of the next valley to the east a couple of years ago. I'll probably head up that way in the next few weeks. I saw no wildlife at all during the entire trip up and down, and no tracks in the few small patches of snow in the shaded areas near the summit. Here are a few pics of the views from the logging road; zoom in on the first one, and the far ridge shows the snowy peaks of Mt. Cheam on the left, and Mt. Slesse on the right, with the city of Chilliwack in the valley below. It doesn't look like much from up there, but it's a rapidly growing city of about 50,000.

They can simply say that Bigfoot research is considered to be a 'recreational activity' because there is no proof that the animal exists. I don't think that the USFWS is tasked with investigating reports of Bigfeet, mothmen, unicorns, or any other paranormal?? That would be a very difficult project to pitch to any hierarchy in Government, at any level. If I was on the stand as a Government official (even a person who perhaps knows that they exist), I might say: "Sure, just get our boss to approve it and my Department will be all over it." And, then summons their boss, his/her boss's boss's boss, etc. etc. all they way up to the Supreme Court and even the POTUS and you will get then same response: "There is no reason, at this time, to devote Government resources to investigate Bigfoot." And, about 99% of US voters would agree. At this point, court proceedings re: Sasquatch would be a hard pass dead-end, in my opinion.

I just posted a map of black bear populations in 1995 and historically, and no fewer that three people posted that it was not correct. Thus, black bears were "no longer believed to exist" in southern Michigan might be "known to exist" there. A current study is needed, no? Mr. Huntster: "Mr. Superintendent, we enter Exhibit 1 here. It's a film shot in your National Forest in 1967. It is evidence that this creature did, indeed, exist in 1967 there. Exhibit 2 are footprint casts taken at the site where the film was shot. Exhibit 3 is an exhaustive analysis by a well accreditted movie industry creature special effects creator who has determined that the subject of this film is not a man in a suit. Exhibit 4 is a photograph of one of the footprints taken by one of your employees three days after the film was shot. These are not mythical legends. These are concrete facts. Did your agency look into this matter at the time or at any time since 1967?"

Why do you always take things personal? Why don’t you support me when constantly asking for support yourself? No need to get nasty Hiflier. I used the term “you” as anyone who takes the government to court over that line of reasoning.

Specifically? You have no physical evidence that the creature exists. Case closed. You are trying to go to court in a murder case, but you don’t have the murder weapon….heck you don’t even have the dead body.

I developed this a couple of years ago and I think it's apt for this one. I would call this an indirect Warhol hoaxer. Profile: Hoaxer Baseline- With the advent of social media and portals such as Youtube, hoaxers have access to a virtual unlimited audience. This access provides added incentive to continue the hoax and increase the recognition. Recognition is the key element to a hoax and is the driving component which ties them all together. I. Classification of hoaxers- Professional: This level of hoaxer is motivated by the possibility of obtaining a profit from the hoax. The professional tends to have a high level of understanding of the subject matter and will go to extensive lengths to produce a believable and convincing incident. The incident will receive a very high level of scrutiny and will need to be able to withstand a critical analysis by others with knowledge of the subject. Since the motivation is profit and the professional knows the hoax will eventually be discovered as a ruse, obtaining the profit quickly will be a key. The hoaxer will seek a source willing to pay for exclusive access to the incident, probably with a local or national news organization. The professional will hold themselves out as an expert on the subject and profess to have an extensive background, which will add credibility to the incident. Credibility is a key to being able to sell the incident to an unsuspecting audience. Serial: The serial hoaxer is motivated more by obtaining attention than by the possibility of obtaining a profit. The attention garnered can be either positive or negative. This person will attempt to hide behind a false identity and use many aliases since quantity is more important to ensure the lineage can be continued. Timing of the release of the incident to the public will be quick. The method of exposure will be to the widest possible audience. Silly: This level has no regard for sophistication and is only motivated by getting a laugh. The hoax is usually obvious and ultimately harmless to the cause. The hoaxer doesn’t try and hide behind an alias and will publish multiple incidents. The release will be sporadic and usually on a medium that is easiest to access. Warhol: This level of hoaxer is only seeking recognition and the attention that comes with it. They are looking for their 15 minutes of fame and are not seeking to profit and have no intention of doing it in the future. Nefarious: The level of hoaxer has a grudge with a person or the subject and intends harm to the overall reputation by perpetrating a sophisticated hoax that will eventually be revealed. The hoax will be in line with the professional hoaxer by obtaining acceptance by the community and then coming clean with the intent to discredit the entire group. The release will be to a very narrow audience where immediate acceptance can be obtained allowing for a high degree of credibility. II. Types of Incidents- · Video · Still Pictures: · Prints or impressions (Foot, Hand, Body) · Stick Structures · Audio · Eyewitness Testimony · Biological Evidence (Hair, Saliva, Scat, Skin) III. Type of Hoax- Direct: This approach has the hoaxer fabricating the incident and releasing it for consumption. Indirect: This approach has the hoaxer fabricating the incident and having a third party view it and ultimately report it. This method is reliant upon the third party to act upon what was witnessed and removes the hoaxer from the incident and all trails leading to them. IV. Target Audience- General populace: This approach allows for the greatest coverage only requiring a single individual to witness the hoax and release it for consumption. Specific Individual: This method will focus the incident at locations the hoaxer knows an individual will frequent. Since recognition is needed by the individual, the hoaxer will have knowledge of the individual’s schedule along with the location. V. Analysis- In the event of an incident, analysis needs to be done based upon varying factors to determine whether a hoax exists or if the evidence is plausible for an actual event.

Good, then put it all together and you'll find a counter question to every answer that would be given in court. So for the feds, UNDER OATH, the mud will only get deeper and deeper. Lawyer: "Is the Sasquatch on recreational status and out of your jurisdiction and purview because it doesn't exist?" (Witness pauses) Lawyer: "Your honor, permission to treat the witness as a hostile." Judge: "Permission granted, the witness will answer the question"