Law Considering Bigfoot

[Incorrigible1]

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.

That ain't necessarily so. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act has a large list of protected species.

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/RegulationsPolicies/mbta/gmebrd.html

[Guest]

I thought that was obvious/self-evident wudewasa and incorrigilbe1. Federal migratory bird laws, or specifically protected species, do not govern shooting bigfoot in Oregon, unless bigfoot is a bird or specifically listed as protected.

Every state is different and there are city, county, state and federal laws that govern the taking of animals; however, in my state, in the State of Oregon, I have personally spoken with more than one game warden/Oregon State Police Officer (they handle game enforcement in Oregon) and have been advised that on it's face there is nothing that would preclude a person from shooting a bigfoot (they are not federally protected). Federal game laws related to migratory birds, or other protected species (not bigfoot) do not appear to relate to shooting a sasquatch in Oregon per enforcement officers. There may be laws the preempt Oregon's lack of laws related to shooting a bigfoot. Hope that helps.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Ace

[Guest]

Until we know the results of a first recognized court case involving BF, there is no precedent. Without a precedent or specific law, I think that BF is "fair game." Woe to the hunter that shoots a person in a suit, however. I think that the law would be less lenient in that case. Negligent manslaughter? Unlawful discharge of a firearm, if not during a hunting season (or depending on the location)? A whole different thread, I know, but related...Like Cervelo, I think that the first to shoot one will be given a "pass," no matter what they turn out to be.

My thoughts: A person in a suit will be injured and make news before a BF is "officially" bagged. Then some things will change, legally. It is coming down the road, with the entertainment industry and eco-tourism cashing in on BF. Or maybe some youtube art filmmaker on a mountaintop...

[Guest]

BBF members- Can I chide in here, JMO. Much of the fault which would involve shooting a Sasquatch would, IMO, be due to misidentification. Education is important in these times especially as the general public spends more time in our wilderness/public lands in the course of recreational pursuits. the odds of encountering a Sasquatch increases as the general public uses these lands so we need to educate the public so that they can indentify. Also regulations prohibiting shooting the Sas people is needed until the governmental agencies classify and properly address the issue of how to treat the Sasquatch. This IMO will take years of politicing and footdragging until the Sas people get their due recognition. This is why a "stop gap" application addressing the Sas in the way of hunting regulations are/will be sorely needed. ptangier

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Ptangier, you know that I respect you and your opinion. However, I feel that the step described above is a bit much too soon.

How do we go about educating a public - the majority of which don't think sasquatch is even real - that we should identify and protect such a creature?

Also, how do you draft legislation protecting something that hasn't been proven to exist yet? This just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Another thing to consider: In this politically-correct society, why is the sasquatch the only cryptid to be afforded protection before it's discovery? What about the chupacabra? The Mothman? The Jersey Devil? Personally, I feel that legislation proposed before the actual discovery of any animal is putting the cart before the horse. I believe that to pursue such action before the discovery would only add another layer of cynicism and ridicule to an already controversal topic. Besides, it would be a waste of governmental resources and manpower required to implement such legislation, education and enforcement.

I'm all for protecting an animal that I honestly believe exists. However, I don't think that pressing for legislation at this point is going to accomplish as much as would be hoped. There would be those that make this out to be what I feel it is at this point - Unnecessary. I can hear it now - "What's next, protection/education for unicorns, fairies and ghosts?"

This is just my personal opinion and is by no means meant to demean your opinion or to belittle any efforts you believe in. We just disagree on this.

See

[Guest]

See - I knew it would be an uphill battle and your points may be overiding my zeal, however there willsoon be enough evidence one way another to proceed

no matter which way the results come out. Why, you ask , wll Jim Le bus, pro-kill maniacs, and as I have stated the overall need to educate the general public so that if/when an encounter happens folks can intenify and handle themselves in the proper fashion, JMO. your stance has a lot of crediance however and points well stated, but the case for the Sasquatch is not unpecidented(and that helpes) so that later laws can have something to go on and/or amend; a foot in the door sort of speak. ptangier

[Oonjerah]

 

Given that Squatch already has some protection in WA state (Skamania, 

Whatcom & Kings counties), his big foot is in the door a crack, so the

issue must be/can become relevant.

 

Did not Tx (humorously) make it legal to hunt Bigfoot there? TBRC has

nothing to do with that I assume, since they seek a single specimen, 

not open season. 

 

While CA generally prides itself in being the most outrageous - er, trend

setting - that's in Hollywood, not Sacramento. 

 

Bump. 

[Airdale]

I foresee this issue running headlong into the proscription on political discussion in the BFF. Once someone proposes specific legislation (as opposed to supporting generic protection), it becomes difficult if not impossible to argue a contrary viewpoint without at least dipping your toes into the political ocean. I am not trying to play moderator here, nor am I expressing an opinion pro or con, simply stating that in my experience, once an issue enters the legislative arena it becomes, de-facto, politicized. Very likely the "powers that be" will, sooner-or-later, have to take this under consideration.

[Guest]

Good topic. Over the years I've become very familiar with wildlife laws and regulations at both the state and federal level so I thought I would share a few tips.

When researching or comparing take or possession laws at the state level there are five categories species generally fall into. They are game, nongame, varmint (nuisance), protected, and undefined. Usually states establish regulations by either explicitly defining species into one of these categories or by not defining a species in a category (i.e. only game & protected species are explictly defined therefore everything else is considered nongame). Because hunting and take regulations/laws usually have a revenue and/or safety nexus in addition to species management purposes, most all states have more regulation and definition for game species. This makes comparing take and possession of game species in or out of season fairly easy. What this means in relation to this thread is if BF isn't quickly found listed as a game species or as an explicitly prohibited game species, you're going to have to dig a lot deeper to find which category BF would fall into for that state. Of course this is all under the presumption that BF would be considered as wildlife or varmint in that particular state.

On a side note, yes Melissa I'm still working on that list of state by state wildlife laws.

[Guest DWA]

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

There is a general presumption, yes.  But there appear to be exceptions.  TX, for example, has made it explicit that killing a sasquatch is not in violation of applicable laws.  In OK, the NAWAC's operations include attempting to take a specimen with a firearm (see the Operation Persistence thread).  Knowing them, they aren't afoul of any laws there either.

[Guest]

BFF members- as stated previously in other threads, states differ in regulating flora and fuana within there boundaries. In Calif. (where I live) the state treats unknown animals as non-game and therefore are prohibited to shot according to the USF&W service and the Ca.F&W comm. In my conversations with the commission they say that if and when BF is verified via DNA and proof of a population within the borders of Ca., then they will accept recommendations from the public and regulate the topic of BF at that time. BTW there is more to protection than just hunting regulations, and has been touched on in this thread0 also the issue of private property, classification penalties(depending on classification) study  and research guidelines, etc. etc. etc.  It took the DFG almost 3 years to regulate the taking of sharks for only their fins as an example so it would be a very lengthly process involving administrative law, public and academic testimonies and conference sessions. 

DWA- if I am not mistaken the shooting of BF in Texas is only allowed on private property if I am not mistaken.

Edited May 15, 2013 by ptangier

[WSA]

Lots of good discussion here, yes. Of course, there are laws on the books both at the municipal and possibly the state level too. As far as I know, there are no U.S. Code or Administrative regs/rulings specifically addressing this contingency. Not to say an ambitious U.S. Attorney couldn't "bootstrap" a prosecution under other existing laws. My experience is they are very creative in that regard! State prosecutors too.

As a lawyer, I can tell you too there is no one definitive answer to the question of whether a hypothetical killing of a Sasquatch would be, or would not be, criminally actionable. Prosecutorial discretion will always play a role, whether it is a matter subject to state or federal jurisdiction. The location of the occurrence, the attendant circumstances and especially the intent of the killer will all be weighed. It is this uncertainty that probably keeps a lot of good evidence out of the database.

Me-my-own-personal-self? I believe if a Sasquatch is even willfully and wantonly slain with malice aforethought,and widely publicized, the media clamor over just the event-ness of the whole thing will overshadow any prosecutor's appetite to make any kind of criminal case. The second time it happens? Oh yeah. Count on that.

[Guest wudewasa]

We're not the only culture that creates policies regarding creatures that some people still believe in-

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avq9ABxMOys

[Guest]

MOCrk, thank you for bringing a little fact into the conversation rather than just spewing what you "think" to be true. 

 

In 1842 in Martin v Waddell, the Supreme Court established that wildlife is held in trust by the public.  Certain species are managed at a federal level, while most are managed at a state level.  This is true even of endangered species.  For instance, wolves are no longer listed as endangered in Idaho, and there is a wolf season, while populations are still struggling in other areas. 

 

No matter where a species may be taken, I would venture to say that the first one to tag one gets a "get out of jail free" card.  The second one to tag one will probably not. 

 

beerchaser - most anywhere, if your livestock gets out and causes a wreck, you can be held responsible, except for in open range areas.  In Idaho if you wreck into a cow on open range YOU are responsible and can be held liable to the rancher for the value of the cow.  Idaho code 25-2118.

[norseman]

Each state is different and I highly suggest that a person checks the regulations before venturing out to hunt.