Guest Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 (edited) In my opinion a law against killing an undocumented species is unenforceable. How do you expect people to refrain from harming something that, from society's perspective, does not exist? If the law says you cannot harm a bigfoot (or unicorn or leprechaun), one needs to define the protected organism. Good luck doing that without being backed up by the scientific community. Even a broad law, such as CA's (no taking of nongame mammals allowed, with certain limited exceptions) is unenforceable. You kill a bigfoot and you simply swear under oath that you did not know that the unknown monster was a mammal. Given that the prosecution can find no scientific valid reference to show that it is classified as a mammal and you should have known that, you are off the hook. Claim that the beast threatened you (what jury wouldn't believe that?) and you have a second avenue of escape. If the Smeja story is true, there is good reason why the state has not arrested and charged him with any crime -- the state would be laughed out of court. Edited April 4, 2012 by Pteronarcyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Austin M- skamanis county ordanance#1984-2 and Whatcom county regulation 92-043 probibits the shooting of Sasquatch in those counties. Georgerm and Hutch- On October 24, 2012 I filed a proposal with my assemblywomens office for a bill to mandate the Ca. DFG to establish a regulation prohibiting the shooting of and/or the taking or harming of Sasquatch for scientific research. On March 19,2012 the assemblywomen wrote me a letter referring me to the Ca. DFG who in turn had referred me to the Ca. Fish and gGame commission. I discussed the recommendation with a commissioneer and she had told me that there are about three state and one federal law prohibiting the shooting of non-game animals. Two questions, #1 what if the DNA study comes back as the Sasquatch as being a close relitive of ours, then should the non-game animal part pretain to the Sas? The recommendation then would be relevant because the Sas live in the wild but are not a non-game animal but still in the line of fire from hunters showing laxity in the fiels. Also it seems that the state only specifically list a regulation for not shooting Bobcats and nothing else. So then if the DNA study comes back as ape-like then why not address the Sas and give them the protection as the Bobcat? Let me also just say that protection only STARTS with hunting laws IMO. If the DNA study shows the Sas as being a close relitive of ours then a whole new area opens up to address the issues of legal rights, personage and the way the state and federal governments adjudicate issues pretainingn to the Sas people. Alot to think about and cosider. BTW our recommendation to the Ca. f&gc will be heard on Oct. 3, 2012 in Sacramento, Ca. All interested individuals are welcome to attend. ptangier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted April 4, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted April 4, 2012 (edited) ....If the Smeja story is true, there is good reason why the state has not arrested and charged him with any crime -- the state would be laughed out of court. Maybe? But unless or until "evidence" is presented that the event happened, it is really a little premature to know what kind of case the state may have I should think. I see the issue as a coin-flip. Ignorance doesn't really spare you from enforcement of the law. "Self defense" is not the "be all end all" when it comes to an animal tale sometimes, as you may probably learn from many a convicted poacher that has lost their pick-up, boat, firearms, dogs, equipment, etc. It is sometimes an issue of "who has the best legal representation", sometimes writes the "case law", isn't it? If I had Wally Hersom in my corner (speculation), I would not be "shaking in my boots" however. It's sort of like the American "War Between the States" losses, the deadliest loss of Americans in any American war now revised to 650000-850000 or a midpoint 750,000 deaths..... (from an estimated 618,000 previously) (Census work allowed the revision to be completed). Retrospective analysis is not always one hundred percent accurate (it depends on the analyzer). Edited April 4, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 what if the DNA study comes back as the Sasquatch as being a close relitive of ours, then should the non-game animal part pretain ... ? Scientifically speaking, humans are nongame mammals. Homo sapiens is a member of kingdom Animalia, class Chordata, order Mammalia. Unless CA wildlife laws explicitly exclude applicability to H. sapiens, our species is protected under such laws. I doubt any prosecutor in CA has ever resorted to using wildlife laws in this way, as I assume the state has explicit laws prohibiting murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 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. By my count there are 12 homes on that road over a distance of less than one mile. If there was a bigfoot there eating cereal from out of a Hannaford's bag, then that would be quite a suburban-squatch indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Pteronarcyd- If you take that one sentence out of context then maybe, but look at the whole recommendation and look at this threads subject title. The study will show what it will show, either way if a Bobcat is specifically pointed out as needing protection then why not a Sasquatch. pt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 pt, Because bobcats are known to science; bigfoots are not. Pt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Are there any laws against killing monsters? Until the law defines what bigfoot is, there will be cracks in any attempt to enforce it. "I thought it was a monster and it was going to eat my dog, or my kid, or my girl, or me" Self defense is legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted April 5, 2012 Author Share Posted April 5, 2012 State wildlife biologist should have looked at the BF evidence by this time and already made recommendations to the legislature for specific protection laws, regardless if science has a higher level of proof. It's their job to protect wildlife, and it is better to error on the side of animal welfare. BF is too important to be sidelined. State game books need a large add that details BF protection. Adequate protection is a $10,000 fine and 3 years in prison for harming Sasquatches. A reward of $4000 for the arrest and conviction of a person who harms a Sasquatch. Self defense cases can go to trial. Ptaniger, your efforts are what we need more of and hats off to you. If you could provide email addresses so we could write letters in favor of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted April 5, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted April 5, 2012 (edited) .... BTW our recommendation to the Ca. f&gc will be heard on Oct. 3, 2012 in Sacramento, Ca. All interested individuals are welcome to attend. ptangier .... assume you meant filed in October 2011 pt..... Good luck to you, is there a mechanism for a petition to be filed at such a meeting.... is it public and are comments written into the record..... are emails and written commentary allowed for those not attending? Out of state resident comments? Edited April 5, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bsruther Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 The only time I communicate with my dept of forestry is to order trees from their forestry program. Just received and planted thirty of them last week. If I go sending them emails about protecting Bigfoot, they'll probably think I'm off my rocker and not send any more trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted April 5, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted April 5, 2012 Or..... they'll start sending you the little trees with the "twists" and breaks strategically placed on 90 degree bends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bsruther Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Yeah and then when people say: Whoa, that looks like a Bigfoot tree twist. I can say: no, it came that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Can we start a pool on whether CA adopts a bigfoot protection law? I'm willing to break out the babyshoe money if we can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted April 5, 2012 Author Share Posted April 5, 2012 Bsruther, they might give you some free trees since they may feel sorry for you after you tell them all about BF! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts