WHY DO THE FEDS WANT BIGFOOT TO REMAIN UNDCOMENTED & MYTHICAL?

[georgerm]

The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management rule over federal forest lands with a primary goal of providing lumber for the nation's building industry and for sustaining a large work force. They have hired top wildlife biologist, yet bigfoot remains a mythical creature. They also know that if bigfoot becomes a scientifically proven primate species, large areas of present and future timber production will probably be shut down in the same manner as what happened with the Spotted Owl but at a much larger scale. Is there a reasonable solution for this potential problem or should there be no effort to prove bigfoot as a new species?

 

 

Edited September 16 by georgerm
more detail

[Backdoc]

The Fed's view of Bigfoot is a lot like my view of my neighbor's tree.  Until it falls on my roof, I don't consider it or think about it.

 

To the extent they might have concerns AFTER the fact I don't see one overriding government concern.

 

You mention various considerations which might come into play.  But they are not going to come into play until they need to come into play.

 

Look at what our government did on a known creature:  The Condor.   

 

At no time did all lumbar industry shut down because of the condor.  Obviously when they knew the condor numbers were going down, they took many actions.

The Bald Eagle was in trouble.  That known animal was on the endangered list.  Then, the government took many actions.  Today the bald eagle is pretty common thankfully.  At no time did they limit or stop fishing, tree cutting, and so on.  They did have big time fines and possible jail time for killing a bald eagle.  I am not saying they didn't have any restrictions.   But the whole world didn't stop.

 

 

We can see what the government would concern itself with and how it would base on some real-world examples.  I really doubt the government knows bigfoot is real.   Just like the condor, bald eagle or any other example I admit the government would take SOME action.  I just doubt the logging industry and others would suddenly come to an end.    Sure, a more dangerous animal might increase limitations of what the public could and couldn't do.  i have to think even with bears, people are able to still go into the woods.

 

 

 

[Bonehead74]

What if they know bigfoot are human? That would open a HUGE can of worms.

[TD-40]

Partly because of the major complications that would come with having to designate the species as Endangered, which would mean having to seal off large swaths of land for their protection. And when they realize all the areas they live in, then imagine the politics of it all.

 

And which federal agency would be in charge of ownership or managing the species? Look at what transpired after they found the carcass of 'Kennewick Man'. Even the Army Corps of Engineers got involved and wouldn't cooperate with the public, the state, or other federal agencies. It was a disaster. Now take that example and multiply it by 10,000 with a newly discovered and recognized primate all over North America.

 

Seriously though, read the story of what happened with 'Kennewick Man'. It's a good starter for all things federal dysfunction.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/kennewick-man-finally-freed-share-his-secrets-180952462/

 

I have changed my mind and no longer want the US federal government to recognize or manage the species. What an awful mess that would be. Just leave it alone.

Edited September 17 by TD-40

[georgerm]

On 9/16/2026 at 7:45 PM, TD-40 said:

Partly because of the major complications that would come with having to designate the species as Endangered, which would mean having to seal off large swaths of land for their protection. And when they realize all the areas they live in, then imagine the politics of it all.

 

And which federal agency would be in charge of ownership or managing the species? Look at what transpired after they found the carcass of 'Kennewick Man'. Even the Army Corps of Engineers got involved and wouldn't cooperate with the public, the state, or other federal agencies. It was a disaster. Now take that example and multiply it by 10,000 with a newly discovered and recognized primate all over North America.

 

Seriously though, read the story of what happened with 'Kennewick Man'. It's a good starter for all things federal dysfunction.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/kennewick-man-finally-freed-share-his-secrets-180952462/

 

I have changed my mind and no longer want the US federal government to recognize or manage the species. What an awful mess that would be. Just leave it alone.

The forest service should manage bigfoot, so logging, hunting and bigfoot are ruled by law and protected. It can be done with some determination. The Kennewick man was an archaeological problem and bigfoot is a biological and forest issue and the forest service has many wildlife biologist who can handle protection of a new species. They need to get off their rear ends and do it. 

[Huntster]

31 minutes ago, georgerm said:

The forest service should manage bigfoot, so logging, hunting and bigfoot are ruled by law and protected...........

 

I think they already do. My hunting regulations in Alaska specifically prohibit the hunting of any "animal" that is not specifically listed with an open season. Granted, that is a state regulation, but hunting on federal lands here sometimes include more restrictions, especially hunting methods and access restrictions. There are some reports of hunters shooting a Bigfoot, the are rare and tend to be in years long past.

[georgerm]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

I think they already do. My hunting regulations in Alaska specifically prohibit the hunting of any "animal" that is not specifically listed with an open season. Granted, that is a state regulation, but hunting on federal lands here sometimes include more restrictions, especially hunting methods and access restrictions. There are some reports of hunters shooting a Bigfoot, the are rare and tend to be in years long past.

Thanks for the reply Huntster and the Forest Service does not recognize bigfoot as being a living animal, and they call it mythical creature. It's probably against the law to shoot any animal that is not shown in any state or federal hunting regulations. Do you remember the Justin Smeja case where he supposedly shot and killed a bigfoot in California. Seems like he got in trouble with the law. Maybe someone on the forum can explain what happened. 

Edited Thursday at 08:40 PM by georgerm

[Huntster]

19 hours ago, georgerm said:

.........Do you remember the Justin Smeja case where he supposedly shot and killed a bigfoot in California. Seems like he got in trouble with the law. Maybe someone on the forum can explain what happened. 

 

Indeed, I do.

 

First of all, if my memory serves me correctly, the feds did not get involved at all, even though the incident occurred in a National Forest. The only official response was from California Fish and Wildlife.

Secondly, The official response came subtle and rather late in the game. The department waited until the online furor was well established and Smeja and his partner had posted quite a bit of "testimony". Finally, they showed up at his door. We can safely assume they had checked both men out against their records and knew if they did or did not have the proper licenses and permits to harvest a bear, and if they'd either had past brushes with the law. Then their investigation began like so many do these days with a visit and questions with primarily serve as a perjury trap. I'm also quite confident that after talking with the men, they paid a visit to the site.  

[georgerm]

On 10/1/2026 at 11:50 AM, Huntster said:

 

I think they already do. My hunting regulations in Alaska specifically prohibit the hunting of any "animal" that is not specifically listed with an open season. Granted, that is a state regulation, but hunting on federal lands here sometimes include more restrictions, especially hunting methods and access restrictions. There are some reports of hunters shooting a Bigfoot, the are rare and tend to be in years long past.

Nice to hear from you way up in Alaska. It's probably best to keep bigfoot restrictons that way but there is a downside to the law. If bigfoot shooting was open game for only one dead bigfoot then a dead bigfoot would help prove the species. Once one bigfoot is taken and the law can then change to have big fines for killing one. Somebody has to bring one in or proving its existence will take way too long. Alaska would be a good area to find one and bring it in for proof. Once it's proven it will be easier to protect. 

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, georgerm said:

.......... Once it's proven it will be easier to protect. 

 

That's what many believe, but I believe that laws to protect them are only necessary after they're proven to exist. As long as they remain a myth, they're safe from there vast majority of mankind. The occasional accidental shooting like this is always possible, even after discovery:

 

 https://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=9552

[georgerm]

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

That's what many believe, but I believe that laws to protect them are only necessary after they're proven to exist. As long as they remain a myth, they're safe from there vast majority of mankind. The occasional accidental shooting like this is always possible, even after discovery:

 

 https://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=9552

Yes, I agree that after they are proven to exist, they need strict laws protecting them from being shot. If their nesting area is discovered should these areas have limited access by hunters and loggers?  How many acres should have limited access? Thanks for finding that report from Canada and I have been looking for it.