Bf And Your State Wildlife Department.

[georgerm]

Many on the forum don't want to see BF trapped or darted and especially shot dead. The latter is not what I want to see. Howerver, by leaving bigfoot alone, this really means let them be chased, shot, and disrupted all across America. By not recognizing them as a new species so protection laws can be passed, we allow BF abuse. We can blame much of this on state wildlife departments that refuse to act due to ignorance and lack of duty to encourage enactment of penalities for shooting or harassing BFs. Many are not willing to put their jobs on the line for the wildlife they are hired to protect.

Write or call your wildlife department and ask them if they protect BFs. Simply google your state wildlife department and you should be able to find email addresses for most of the biologist. Ask them their opinion, and let us know their opinion on the existence of BF. If would be interesting to know what percentage actually acknowledge BF.

[Guest wudewasa]

Protect a species that is not described by science?

INCONCEIVABLE!!!

[Doc Holliday]

i suspect the % of those departments that acknowledge BF would be even lower than the general public, mainly due to job security & the fear of losing funding .

if some of them are supposedly reluctant to admit mountain lions in the midst, they sure as heck probably arent going to out BF,much less offer protection beyond a tounge in cheek "yeah sure, we'll protect it" , imo.

[Branco]

In this, and most states I would guess, a person or group wanting to take any wildlife, classified or unclassified, as a specimen must apply for a collection permit and have a defined plan for the specimen to be examined by an approved scientific organization. Fact.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Branco

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I think this could be directed at those who sit on great evidence, although the community is divided on whether any great evidence other than a body is worth enough in terms of proof. I have said it a few times here on the forums, that I believe bigfoot may actually be better off once recognized as a legitimate species. What you posted is a legitimate concern I have for them. I sometimes wonder about how many hunters HAVE shot and killed, or worse wounded, a bigfoot while hunting.

I would be willing to bet this happens more often than most of us realize, or would care to know. We know hunters see them more often than non-hunters, on average, which is understandable given their tendencies, yet the hunter stories we hear almost always end in one of the animals backing down. Those times that the hunters shot a sasquatch are the encounters we don't hear about, because most hunters would NEVER admit this information to the general public.

I am also willing to bet that had sasquatch already been recognized by science, 90% or more of those undocumented killings or injuries could have been avoided. That's mere speculation, but don't let it override the fact that a situation like described above is statistically apt to occur every so often. I actually would expect instances of injuries or killings to be on the rise as the years pass, as the bigfoot population is bound to increase, therefore they will venture further to obtain food to support the larger numbers. This probably will not have an affect on anyone for many years to come, but it will get worse for the sasquatch until we can protect them. IMO of course.

[Guest eightonesix]

The laws are technically already there. Being an avid outdoorsman here in Missouri, I pretty informed about Missouri's Wildlife Code, which is similar to other State's laws. Our Conservation Dept. does a pretty good job with laws protecting all wild animals in our state. Other states have similar laws concerning what could be hunted and when also. In Missouri, weather a specific wildlife species is listed or not, unless there is "open season" on it and you're licensed to pursue it, it is illegal to "pursue, chase, molest, take, or kill" wildlife as defined by our Wildlife Code. So, technically here is Missouri, unless you were defending yourself, you would be in trouble for shooting a Sasquatch. People who don't hunt probably don't realize/understand that you just can't go out and shoot anything you want-whenever you want, that is illegal in most states that I have hunted. You are only allowed to pursue/shoot/take something during "open season" and only if you have a valid license to pursue that game. Wildlife codes don't list every creature that can't be hunted, there is too many to list. Instead most, if not all States, only list animal that can be hunted and when. That pretty much covers/protects all animals in the woods unless there's specifically an "open season" on it. I am pretty sure if someone really does come forward publicly with a body of a bigfoot, it will be confiscated by the States Wildlife Dept. and they will most likely be fined/jailed for shooting something out of season and no valid license to hunt it.

[georgerm]

Wow, your first post and welcome to the forum. Thanks for the information.

I would like to see wildlife laws specifically state that shooting a BF amounts to prison time and a huge fine to get the point across. Here in Oregon we have many poachers and jerks who shoot road signs, and game out of season. It takes a powerful law to get their attention. People seem to think that when they are way out in the forest, they won't get caught, and can do what ever they want which is unfortunately true sometimes. If they feared being reported for shooting BFs and rewards are offered for their arrest, then BF might live a more peaceful life. Just my three cents worth..................now I need to find the stairs off my soapbox.

[Guest]

I don't know that they need protection, but honestly, if people were serious about protection and conservation, I'd start at the tribal level, and individual counties, or towns. The Gov, and individual states aren't going to recognize them without definitive proof, which is completely understandable. You'd be better served with the baby steps approach. You already have counties, like Skamania Co. in Wa. St. that have some sort of protection in place already. I know from personal experience how Sasquatches are viewed within the tribal mindset, and the disdain for people who are out harassing them.(I don't necessarily share the same viewpoint) If you've seen Navajo Cops, you already know that certain tribes take the BF issue somewhat seriously. Tribes have the ability to enact laws within their boundaries, and aboriginal hunting areas with relative ease, compared to any government entity. Even if you are not taken seriously at the county, and town level, the flip-side to any argument is that it may affect tourism in a positive way if there is some sort of stigma attached to a certain area if there is some sort of protection, or recognition of BF. You may even be able to approach some of the mountain towns Chamber of Commerce, and approach it as a marketing scheme for the town. If you had a huge BF carving when you enter the town, and had signage regarding the protection laws within the town, it could turn into a tourist attraction with very little effort, and cost.

One of the problems people who are seriously interested in BF research would be that if there were some sort of recognition of the species, then all the knocking, whooping, researching, etc, would more than likely become harassment, and would probably be against the law too.

Edited April 4, 2012 by PacNWSquatcher

[Guest]

I think right now BF is in a gray area. When I reported my sighting to the Alaskan Fish and Wildlife, from the conversation I can tell they are well aware of BF. Which is what the guy stated, and that they call them "Wildman".

Why hasn't it been made public tha we have another tribe of humans living along side us?

[Guest Hutch]

California's codes read as follows:

Chapter 6. Nongame Animals

§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: English sparrow, starling, coyote, weasels, skunks, opossum, moles and rodents (excluding tree and flying squirrels, and those listed as furbearers, endangered or threatened species).
  
• ( Fallow, sambar, sika, and axis deer may be taken only concurrently with the general deer season.
  

§478. Bobcat.

§485. American Crow.

That pretty much protects them right there. Problem is, a law is a law and will not stop things from happening. I believe Murder, Rape, Arson, and Drunk driving all have some pretty strong laws written to prevent them as well. Yet they happen time and time again. With our prisons full, I beg to ask how those are working out? What law will prevent poaching?

California's law did not prevent Justin Smeja from supposedly bagging two of these animals in 2010.

Bearing the above in mind, what law would you propose?

[bipedalist]

Yes, poaching will always exist. It is even an ingrained cultural phenomenon to some. I'm not sure that can ever be

extinguished and is basically forever (not to be pessimistic).

[Guest]

You can't really abuse, what hasn't been found consistently.. and is just as elusive, as it seems. This is a very minor concern.. to me, anyhow. I think writing a letter to the NY DEC, would be a waste of my time.. since they already stated that there are no sasquatch (or cougars, for that matter) in the state . In a case where they have been seen more frequently ( a possible sub species of squatch, that is).. there is already some protection in place (within the village and town limits) . I'm seriously doubting.. whether they ever had to enforce this yet, though :

http://www.is-bigfoo...tehall-bigfoot/

edited to add

Edited April 4, 2012 by imonacan

[georgerm]

Imonacan, it's ok to have different opinions. You can't really abuse, what hasn't been found consistently.. and is just as elusive, as it seems. If its been found at all, it can then be abused.

This is a very minor concern.. to me, anyhow. I think writing a letter to the NY DEC, would be a waste of my time.. since they already stated that there are no sasquatch (or cougars, for that matter) in the state . This is not acceptable since BFRO has 110 bigfoot reports from New York. Doing nothing allows abuse.

Read this one of a kind New York state report:

OBSERVED: I was driving on a backroad in Rhinebeck, NY. I was heading to a rehearsal at the Rhinebeck Center of Performing Arts at about 6 :30 in the evening. The road is called Pilgrims Progress Road. While I was driving on this road, I passed a 20 mph road sign because it's a sharp right turn, but on the same road. The road is very curvy. I passed this turn, and in the middle of the road was a Hannaford bag with an open cereal box, and a log placed in the bag. I had to go in the left lane to miss the bag. As I passed the bag, something darted behind my car from the left. I looked in my rear view mirror, and saw this big, black thing right where the bag was. At first, I thought it was a bear because it looked like it was on all fours. I kept driving, looking in my rear view mirror. After a few seconds, it was out of my vision. I kept driving down the road until I pulled into a driveway on the right, and turned around to see what it was. As I got to the location where the bag was, I noticed the bag was missing. I kept driving for about 0.2 miles down the road, past the 20 mph sign. As I turned, I saw something walking on two feet about 50 yards in front of my car. It was walking on the side of the road. I could see that it was definitely not a bear. It was black, and it looked as if the hair was short. It's back was towards me, and the shoulders were very broad. It looked like it was slouching, and I couldn't really see it's arms. I don't know if it was holding something, or if it was the way it walked. I'm about 6'5", and It looked like it was taller than me from what I saw. I saw it for a good three to four seconds, until it leaped up this little hill to the right. I sped up to the location I saw it leap from, and got out of my vehicle. I looked all around because there weren't many trees. The grass was very high though. I didn't see it after that.

I was nervous, confused, and excited at the same time.

http://www.bfro.net/...rt.asp?id=26205

Was the BF sending a message that it was hungry?

In a case where they have been seen more frequently ( a possible sub species of squatch, that is).. there is already some protection in place (within the village and town limits) . I'm seriously doubting.. whether they ever had to enforce this yet, though :

There is no real protection unless the state game pamplets have a picture of BF and under it says shooting a BF is a minimum of $ ???? fine and ???? years in jail. $??? reward for the arrest and conviction of those who harm a BF without cause. This is what needs to be done in my opinion and what numbers would you fill in? It's ok to have differenct opinions so what do you propose for adequate protection.

Edited April 4, 2012 by georgerm

[Guest]

I live in Washington, and apparently it's illegal to shoot one? Where does this say exactly?

[bipedalist]

Skamania County (is one)....