Spader Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Im just throwing this out there. Are there any laws in any state that protect Sasquatch? What I mean is, is it illegal to kill a Sasquatch in any state? Would it be considered Manslaughter or Murder? I Know this brings about whether Bigfoot is more human than Ape, but what about sentience? Please correct me if I am wrong, but is'nt sentience defined as self awareness? IMO they ARE self aware and thus considered sentient. Killing one in the name of science is just wrong. I know ill take some heat about this but I would like to hear some thoughts about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Twilight Fan Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Skamania County in Washington state has had an ordinance against killing Sasquatch since 1969. Whatcom County, also in Washington state, passed a resolution against killing Sasquatch in 1992. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Isn't there a general presumption against killing anything other than those specific things you are allowed to kill? I don't know the answer.........that's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Mike there are designated hunting seasons and time frames for hunting many different species of game. If you hunt them out of season or time frame, that would be considerd poaching and against the law. Seeing how most states or counties don't recognize it (BF), or have a no hunting BF law then I don't know how anyone would get in trouble for taking one. Now. After one is taken, then I believe it would be protected like most other rare & endangerd critters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 There is also a law on the books in Whitehall, New York (I believe). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) In most if not all states in the US wildlife is considered a natural resource. The state and/or federal govt regulates the harvesting of these resources. You get a license to hunt certain game at certain times. All others are illegal to hunt, and in some cases even interfering with certain animals (harassment) is an offense. Some animals that are deemed pest can have an open season, but you still have a license. So by default an unknown animal/resource is protected. I would hazard a guess that if you killed a Bigfoot you most likley would be given a free pass on the first one but don't make a habit of it!!' Edited February 21, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I'm not sure how that would go, Cervelo. I believe the hunting laws are meant to include all known species, those which may be taken, in what amount and when, and those that may not anytime. Again, known species. So unless the law specifically includes all undiscovered animals, the law is rather ambiguous. Not to argue, just putting it out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) In Arizona there is a state statute making it a felony to injure or kill a primate. Interesting isn't it? A desert state? Commenters are correct in many regards, but given our current understanding, well almost, it is more about consequences and whether a violation is prosecuted. By who? The relevant agency (whether F&G or DA) only (or by interested citizens)? Will it be criminal or civil? Restitution? BF probably won't be filing any complaints, and as one person pointed out, hunting laws carry small consequenses in relation to the apparent prize (for now anyway?). Unpacking all the current regs and laws would be tough, long journey via agencies, etc. and literally years effort after "proof" and one paper won't do it. I think our best and fastest solution would be some Federal law addressed at all Great Apes (or primates?) such as Spain passed in 2008. They granted Great Apes a Right To Life, which means their needs must be considered and explotation is forbidden. I have not read the entire law, just an article, nor am I up on any real conseqences in their society. But, such a single legislative act could happen quickly (sneak it by on behalf of known apes) and be designed to afford citizens the right to sue on behalf of BF (or a guardian ad litem) or any number of measures (including a forbidding of gene patents, or allowing physical defense of property - hi Texas!) under the Commerce Clause (since they are interstate and so on, we can squueze it in I am sure).... And that could happen without total "proof." It some ways it might be superior to going the ESA route on both sides of the coin.... it is a very deep question, how do we respond? A grassroots movement, otherwise big money will define this? Edited February 24, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerhunter Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 So what happens to a vehicle driver who hits and kills a deer, bear, or pheasant out of season? If memory serves me right, ranchers in Wyoming can be held liable if their cattle roam loose and cause a car accident. In certain situations, people get little or no penalty for killing other people. I have a hard time believing any hunter can be punished severely for killing a BF if they use the old it was me or it/him defense. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 The only two animals I am aware of that you can just kill whenever wherever (at least in Texas) are coyotes and hogs. At least on private land. Public lands may have different rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 If it's not a game animal it can be considered a non-game species and ok to shoot. There was just a write up in the paper about kids growing up with bb-guns and shooting birds off the back fence not being illegal, because they are not a game animal/non-game species; therefore no license needed. I've also asked this question of a game warden (first-hand, no my cousin knew a guy that went to school with) and been told Sasquatch is a non-game species and therefore not protected in any way or by any "season". This was a game warden that "knew" they existed because his father was a game warden that saw one in the road. By the way, I'm saying game warden as a more generic term. Our game wardens are Oregon State Police officers. They handle Fish & Wildlife enforcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 So what happens to a vehicle driver who hits and kills a deer, bear, or pheasant out of season? If memory serves me right, ranchers in Wyoming can be held liable if their cattle roam loose and cause a car accident. In certain situations, people get little or no penalty for killing other people. I have a hard time believing any hunter can be punished severely for killing a BF if they use the old it was me or it/him defense. What do you think? Most of our common understanding of accidental injury or self defense will be applicable as it is to any object/biological entity, your comments would be applied to a human as well..being shot or hit by a car. The differnece might be if BF is given a "right to live"...then perhaps an advocate might actually pursue a civil case on it's behalf (or criminal laws in place)...whereas now, the only vehicle to prosecute is through Gov. agencies and our only say is Public pressure, which cn and does work. If they were proven then other laws might be applicable, such as the Endangered Species Act, NEPA or Wetlands (among literally dozens of laws that might be impacted)...and there are ways for citizens to sue the agency to perform...I am not recalling if there is a direct standing for an individual to sue another individual, I would have to look it up... But, what you point out is, the consequenses are what counts, Currently many states only regulate game animals, varmints can be killed year round (it varies State to State). It is apatch work of laws crossing agencies, municiplaities, states and so on. One Federal Law addressed at all Great Apes (which includes BF and feral humans I suppose by definition) would make that pretty simple. I think most can agree on intentional harm....but the bigger questions will be (and the resistance) can Labs collect BFs for study? Those regulations of medical research are important and we as citizens should have a say....what our say will be depends on us..not necessarily proof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knuck Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Something to ponder; In a lot of states, the hunting laws, (unless it is small "varmint" type animals,) state that hunter is required to have a "stamp" (tag) for the type of animal being hunted. No other animal may be taken with this permit. Say for example, if you are hunting deer with the proper tag, and you see a bear, or moose, or a gator, you are in total violation of the hunting laws if you shoot/kill that animal. This should serve as the minimum safe measure in the protection of the Sasquatch species from hunters. Since it isn't a "tagged animal, to be considered game, (whether it is proven to exist or not) it should be a violation of law to wound/kill one. Should one be killed deliberately, a full scale investigation should ensue to determine "self defense" claims. My opinion only.-Knuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wudewasa Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Ace, Labelling a species as "nongame" does not mean that it can be harvested automatically. Federal laws protect many nongame species, and some states have passed laws to afford greater protection for certain species. Tennessee makes it illegal to possess any native reptile or amphibian, unless a person is granted a waiver or permit to do so, which is very rare. Apehuman, I'd suspect that the AZ law focuses more on animal experimentation with primates in research facilities than bigfoot. Special interest groups can use riders on bills to push their agendas through legislative sessions, and many laws/funding appropriations are passed this way. I'm not talking politics, but describing the legal process. Many obscure laws like the AZ primate abuse get on the books and few are aware of them unless you are involved in that particular sect of the workforce or society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) I didn't follow it thru to legislative notes. Kitty (of Gunsmoke fame) was an early important AZ resident (kept big game in backyard..as kids we snuck in) and a few other Hollywood types, I assumed they had a hand in it. However it got there it stands as it's own statute now. Which does point ot the patch work of laws. Had Justin shot his quary in AZ he would be charged with a felony by State criminal enforcement rather than Federal game wardens/officers. Which reminds me, I was startled to see that Tom Slick founded the SW Bio-Medical Institute (may have name wrong slightly) in Texas and it now houses 3,900 non-human primates (wonder if injurying primates is addressed in Texas law?)... That raises a lot of questions in my mind....if he died in 1962, and had for almost a decade been funding BF/Yeti types....well, it makes one wonder just what was in his personal memorabilia....I did not realize he was oriented toward medicine, etc. Or, that the facility is still so large, and somewhat controversial...recent story on their practices wrt to retirement of Chimps...something we should all read about... and actually perhaps this week I will go back and look at that info given I know a bit more than when I ran into it... Okay, I have to go... thanks for input. Edited February 24, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts