See-Te-Cah NC Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Hey, guys - I know there has been discussion about protecting bigfoot and if you can protect an undiscoverd species. It appears that some are already making an attempt. This may be old news, but I happened upon this today: http://fob.l7space.com/nuspa.php Comments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 He lost me at homocide. Until you know what it is, you won't know what fines or punishment is appropriate. If you respect one human right, then all human rights apply, and who knows if that is appropriate? I can't see matriculating bigfoot children into public schools. If I were a teacher I would quit, human children are wild enough as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 (edited) I agree with that point, Jodie. After all, they may not want or need our human "rights." Just putting it out there... Edited December 1, 2011 by See-Te-Cah NC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 (edited) my take on penalties is this- that to have penalty for murder you would need to have very conclusive PROOF not just evidence that the Sasquatch are classified very close to modern humans. I am a little fuzzy on just protecting Sasquatch in general; as a prohibition from recreational hunting or weekend warriors out to make a buck in taking on down in the name of science. It would seem to be the same BUT until they sort out the classification issue there sould be something in place., IMO there should also be some sort of identification so that hunters that have never seen a Sasquatch can have a rough idea what to lookout for ; maybe something like an insert in the hunting regulation pamphlet, or a public service announcement. ptangier Edited December 3, 2011 by ptangier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 In most cases if not all the natural resources which include the wildlife belong to the govt There may be some sort of exception for reservations and hunting preserves but I doubt it. When you buy your hunting license your granted the right to harvest that resource within the rules. Hence the logic would follow (Which I'm sure has no place on this forum unless it's in the form of a pretzel:) ) Bigfoot belongs to the govt. unless of course it's human. So Bigfoot is already protected since you can't legally hunt them! Ok big guys and gals you can all come out of hiding now it's all ok!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Cervelo- Did you say you can't legally hunt Sasquatch? Since when have and where are they prohibited from being shot except in Skamania Co. and Whatcom Co. Washington state? Was it LEGAL to shot an unknown mammal in the sierra buttes? I didn't see any laws on the books preventing that incident . Maybe I've misunderstood you but there are no laws currently to my knowledge prohibiting someone from shooting a Sasquatch in California. ptangier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 P, You are confusing a moral issue with a legal issue. In most states there are things you can kill and everything else you cannot kill. Hence the wildlife known or unknown is protected. They don't call out every species that you can't hunt. An example would be you can't hunt migratory birds during certain times of the year maybe not at all in some states. According to VA there are no mountain lions in VA but if you shot one you could be in trouble for killing something that belongs to the state because you do not have a license to hunt mountain lions. The natural resources=animals=Bigfoot belong to the state if you don't have a license to hunt that animal it's illegal to hunt it! Now if Bigfoot was declared a pest then it would be open season on Bigfoot. This is all my opinion based on what I know about the hunting regs in Va your results may vary! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 P, You are confusing a moral issue with a legal issue. In most states there are things you can kill and everything else you cannot kill. Hence the wildlife known or unknown is protected. They don't call out every species that you can't hunt. An example would be you can't hunt migratory birds during certain times of the year maybe not at all in some states. According to VA there are no mountain lions in VA but if you shot one you could be in trouble for killing something that belongs to the state because you do not have a license to hunt mountain lions. The natural resources=animals=Bigfoot belong to the state if you don't have a license to hunt that animal it's illegal to hunt it! Now if Bigfoot was declared a pest then it would be open season on Bigfoot. This is all my opinion based on what I know about the hunting regs in Va your results may vary! That is correct. In the majority of states, species that are not specifically listed as having an open hunting season may not be hunted at all. Most states contain such wording in their hunting regulations, which can be found online on the website maintained by the state's DNR, Fish & Game Department, etc. It would be interesting to see what the hunting regulations in California and Nevada say in regard to that issue. Federal laws only come into play in regard to endangered/threatened species, imported/invasive species, and species that are largely migratory across state and/or national boundaries (at this point in time, only migratory birds have hunting regulations that are federally regulated due to their classification as a migratory species). The problem with reporting something like the Sierra shootings incident to the CA or NV wildlife authorities at present is that if you report that someone shot and killed two sasquatches in the Sierras, they would probably ask you if the sasquatches were riding on unicorns when they were shot, or if maybe you were smoking lefties with the BF family when the shooting occurred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 S, Thx for the back up! Just a little research can go a long ways sometimes:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 It sounds to me like it would be illegal to go out with the intent to shoot a bigfoot in California. Shooting one on accident or self defense may be another story. I don't know what that would be legally speaking. Shooting it for science doesn't sound to me like it would be legally defensible. The fine probably wouldn't be that much but it might mean that you also lose legal possession of the animal. There might be other penalties as well. California regulations: link §472. General Provisions. Except as otherwise provided in Sections 478 and 485 and subsections (a) through (d) below, nongame birds and mammals may not be taken. (a) The following nongame birds and mammals may be taken at any time of the year and in any number except as prohibited in Chapter 6:... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 BobZenor- universities usually just have to submit for a specimen permit and they can get samples for study in or out of season. It's a totally different ballgame than hunting.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 I wasn't thinking of universities when I made the comment about it being basically legally indefensible. I was thinking of the bigfoot hunter that thought he could just go out and get one for science. As far as a university goes, I can't imagine any scenario where any hypothetical indigenous ape would be fair game to any collector for any reason unless it posed a public safety threat. We aren't talking about some squirrel here. The only way it would be deemed to be a serious threat is if one killed someone or at least seriously threatened them. That pertains to the hypothetical ramification of the species having been being verified and not some circular logic world where they don't exist so anything goes. That circular logic world is the same world by the way where the documentation of another extant hominid is a blurb on the news and forgotten in a couple of weeks. This is California we are talking about and it isn't the 1950's. In this hypothetical example, I rather doubt they would get permission to even tranquilize one without a few years of jumping through hoopas/hoops. I would hope that the authorities would recognize the potential for a black market and make the penalties for killing one far worse than killing any other species. The current fines of endangered species wouldn't really be that much of a disincentive for something like a bigfoot trophy. I hope they would give them more protection than some toad. Punishment for Violating the Endangered Species Act Penalties for Taking The first category of penalties for violating the Endangered Species Act is taking, which includes killing, injuring, capturing or harassing at-risk species, as well as collecting parts and destruction of habitat that would endanger the species. The maximum penalty for a first offense of killing is $3,500, rising to $13,000 for a third offense. The maximums go from $2,000 to $10,000 for wounding, injuring, hunting or capturing a listed animal. A first offense of harassing a species can be as little as $1,000 or as high as $10,000, but the third time maximum is $7,500. Collecting parts garners penalties from $500 to $10,500. The penalty for habitat destruction adjusts "to fit the facts and circumstances of a particular case," according to a schedule published by the NOAA. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 As far as a university goes, I can't imagine any scenario where any hypothetical indigenous ape would be fair game to any collector for any reason unless it posed a public safety threat. I would be gobsmacked if someone shot and hauled in a stinking, 8', hairy, 600 lb bigfoot carcass and faced any serious legal ramifications at all. The creature's size alone would be all the justification someone would need to claim that they acted in self defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 BBF Members- thanks for your input and links folks. Cervelo- you are right in the part that you should morally know what you are shooting and/or going out to shot; not just shoot anything that comes along. My fear is that since this happened there has been zero follow up or investigations done by the Ca. DFG. No deterents means - hey maybe the authorities don't really care at all - so it gives the impression that there is no responsibilities morally or legally to hunting a BF and there could be big dollars in taking one without any ramifications. Why the authorities didn't run down the shooter when he says in his own words that they know who hw is? My take is that not to many people really care enough to prohibit shooting a Sasquatch or feel that they are to burdened down to take it upon themselves(DFG) to pass regulations on their own; which they can do. Who's to benifit- certainly not our forest friends. Certainly not the citizens in losoing a natural resourse. I stioll feel that some sort of responce from the government should be given. ptangier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 As far as a university goes, I can't imagine any scenario where any hypothetical indigenous ape would be fair game to any collector for any reason unless it posed a public safety threat. I would be gobsmacked if someone shot and hauled in a stinking, 8', hairy, 600 lb bigfoot carcass and faced any serious legal ramifications at all. The creature's size alone would be all the justification someone would need to claim that they acted in self defense. I agree with that but that isn't the same thing as the state of California giving someone in a university permission to shoot one for science after they were verified which I took as the premise of the thread. I was pretty much complaining how I doubt the penalty would be sufficient to stop poaching without some serious new laws. Someone without official permission could always claim they were threatened by it. The state and the federal government would have to take serious steps to remove the possible financial rewards of shooting one and that would include giving it to a university to study. I would want it studied in a university so it would be something difficult to put into effect. Even now, they could probably legally confiscate the body. That would be a minimum fist step. There are all sorts of other penalties I could imagine that would discourage poaching. They would need to make examples out people that collected one for science as well as those that tried to do it for personal gain. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts