Guest Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 It's ok to have differenct opinions so what do you propose for adequate protection. Different opinions are expected, georgerm.. and is never a problem, for me. We don't even know exactly.. what squatch is yet, and I think we need to learn a whole lot more, before worrying about protecting it. How do you propose adequate protection, for something we know almost nothing about yet ? (what it eats, where it lives and breeds, how large it's territory is, how many of them there actually are... ect ). Horse, before the cart ... so to speak. Besides.. it's been doing pretty **** good, keeping out of my sight.. along with most of the other folks I know, out in the field. As long as it has it's environment intact, it will probably be just fine. This means.. I don't have any proposal, at present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eightonesix Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Once again, we don't really need the Conservation Dept. to explicitly state that you can't shoot Bigfoot. If they had to list every animal alive in your state and say whether yea or nay to shoot, do you know how long your Wildlife Code would be. No body would ever bother to pick one up, rather it is streamlined, more efficient and easier to understand to just list the game species and seasons of what you could hunt and when. How hard is that to understand? For an example; we don't list explicitly in writing that Bluejays, Owls or Herons and everything else not mentioned as don't shoot animals here in Missouri-unless there is "open season" on it, you're expected to know not to shoot it and would be prosecuted if you did if they (Conservation Dept) found out. This also gives the "long arm of Law" an upper hand when they prosecute you because it broadens the laws. Fines are determined by judges and are pretty broad itself depending on what you shot and the circumstance. Larger/heavier or rarer animals illegally shot ( out of/no season or invalid tags) seems to command higher fines from what I have heard/witnessed in the past. Wildlife fines are pretty stiff already, I've heard of fines ranging from $50 to over $50000 not to mention court cost, loose your right to hunt again, you would also loose your equipment/gear/boat involved and possible your vehicle if you drove there and maybe jail time depending on the severity. This is already the current game law/penalties of a lot of states, at least where I have hunted. I have known of poachers who were caught and people who "accidentally" shot stuff that they weren't suppose to also get prosecuted. I have been an avid hunter for almost 30 years. As of the Smedja shooting, I would think if he had came out publicly with a body, things would of been ugly for him legally and the body would of been confiscated from him as evidence to shooting out of season or no tags, possibly up to murder if it is as close human as some claim. Even he knew this as he stated in his interview when he said something to his buddy like "we need to get out of here, we don't have a tag for this." Most serious hunters are well versed in wildlife codes of the states they hunt. Even if they don't follow them, most of the time they know when they are breaking the law. If the Game Warden really believed Smedja did indeed shot something, they would of searched his house, car or anything else they wanted to associated with him and probably do so without needing a warrant as most States specify when you accept a Hunting License or Tag, you surrender your right to be searched anytime for what ever reason as it is stated in most States Wildlife Code. A Game Warden can walk up to you in the field, in your car/boat or at home, anytime, without warrant to make sure game laws and limits are not broken , you agreed to that by the actions of buying a license, don't believe me, give them a call and ask. I know in the states I have hunted, this was so. In Smedja's case, I believe that they thought it just didn't happen and when they showed up at his place, they did that just for show or curiosity because of all the internet bigfoot sympathizers that probably called their office moaning and groaning once they heard of the shooting. In my opinion, if he really shot something, then he's not telling the whole truth. If he shot a bigfoot, him being a avid hunter and all, he would of known he would be in trouble and realize he couldn't make money off of a body that would be confiscated from him. Fines and jail time, even when not that significant, can seriously turn an average working person's life down hill quick. What would be the next logical thing to do after the fact, coming from another hunter's take on the situation, I would take the body in pieces or whole depending on size, trophy hunter just can't resist. It would be hard to keep that secret to myself so even if I told people of the shooting, which he did, don't ever-ever admit you have the body because you would know if they (Game Warden) knew, they would legally take it from you. I think this is how it went down, either that or it didn't happen at all. I been around a lot of hardcore hunters all my life, I know how most of them think. Yes people are different but there are striking similarities. Here in Missouri if you have to shoot something not in season and don't have a tag for it, unless it was self defense, you have to call them first, get permission and surrender whatever you shot to the warden that WILL come out to investigate to determine if they want to prosecute. Free roaming wildlife is consider State's property here, even on private land, and we are only privileged to use/take according to game laws. Here's another example to keep in mind: the "Missouri Monster" a trophy world record whitetail deer ( Boone & Crockett score 333) was found dead near St. Louis years ago by some hikers. The Conservation Dept found out about it, came out to investigate to make sure it wasn't poached and confiscated the rack. The story checked out that it died of natural cause. Next the legal fight between the hikers and the Dept for the valuable rack followed. In the end it was considered the State's property because they owned the wildlife in the state and we are only privileged to use it. They are still the legal owners of that rack as of today. That is what will happen to a bigfoot body if one ever comes up. In the end laws are laws and people are people. Laws and steep penalties won't stop criminals, just look at rapers, murderers and so on. Sorry if I got off topic.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 (edited) Georgerm- or any Bff members, anyone can PM me and I will get in touch. Inclued your e-mail address and your location. As a side note there is a lot more that I really cannot devulge online as it is highly unethical to discuss such matters that are pending in the state agencies online. However personally is something else. pt BTW I keep getting a warn status whenever I do discuss this pending agency regulation and it makes me very, very uncomfortable, would one of the administators please tell me what the rub is? Edited April 5, 2012 by ptangier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted April 5, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted April 5, 2012 Once again, we don't really need the Conservation Dept. to explicitly state that you can't shoot Bigfoot. .......In the end laws are laws and people are people. Laws and steep penalties won't stop criminals, just look at rapers, murderers and so on. Sorry if I got off topic.. There is a lot of sense in this post, plus one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 BTW I keep getting a warn status whenever I do discuss this pending agency regulation and it makes me very, very uncomfortable, would one of the administators please tell me what the rub is? What in the heck are you talking about? You have received no warning and your warning status is at an perfect 0. I suspect what you are seeing is your warning status. Only you and Staff can view that and each and every member sees the same thing on their screen. You can't view other members warning status and they can't view yours. Should you post in a manner that breaks the rules of the forum and your warning level increased, you will be notified by a member of Staff and you'll see a red line in your warning status bar. So far you are good friend. No warning increases and no advisory/cautionary PM's. Wish I could say the same for everyone. Hope this explains things. If not then PM me and we'll sort any remaining confusion out. I started to just PM you but felt like an advisory post within the thread would be better should anyone else be confused. Keep on keeping on ptangier. You've done absolutely nothing wrong and I think/believe you are just unaware of how the system format works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted April 5, 2012 Author Share Posted April 5, 2012 (edited) Once again, we don't really need the Conservation Dept. to explicitly state that you can't shoot Bigfoot. If they had to list every animal alive in your state and say whether yea or nay to shoot, do you know how long your Wildlife Code would be. Isn't Bigfoot an important enough animal that deserve special recognition in the game books? We could place BF with the muskrats, mice, and corws but this defies logic. As laws get stiffer, fewer and fewer people will break them since this is standard procedure for the criminal justice system. To agrue this point is futile. Sure we will have those who follow no laws so shall we just reduce all laws to 10 cent fines because a small percentage won't follow them anyway. This argument makes little sense. A few emails here and there could help Biggie. Edited April 5, 2012 by georgerm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eightonesix Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Isn't Bigfoot an important enough animal that deserve special recognition in the game books? We could place BF with the muskrats, mice, and corws but this defies logic. As laws get stiffer, fewer and fewer people will break them since this is standard procedure for the criminal justice system. To agrue this point is futile. Sure we will have those who follow no laws so shall we just reduce all laws to 10 cent fines because a small percentage won't follow them anyway. This argument makes little sense. A few emails here and there could help Biggie. I didn't mention anything about fines were small or should be lowered-where did you get that from? I stated from what I have seen/heard in the past, fines were usually based on the situation, size or rarity of what was shot. If bigfoot is as big as they say and as rare as it is, believe me it will be expensive base on that assumption. Way back in my teens, while dove hunting I misidentified a similar looking bird for a dove while it was in flight and shot it down. Long story short, I was fined $300 for shooting an that bird. Years later, a friend of my dad, shot an owl because he wanted to mount one, he was search in the parking lot and ticketed. He was fined in court around $1500 or so with court cost. He probably got fined more than me because it wasn't an accident and owls being rarer commanded a stiffer penalty. In Iowa and Illinois, I know for sure if you shoot a Boone & Crockett 150 or higher and get caught, you are going to be fined $5000-$20000 + 80 hours community service and maybe jail time too depending on score, lower than 150 B&C and your fines are lower. This example shows how the rarity of poached animal can drive fines up. I don't know that every state's laws are the same but most are similar to a point. Like I said before, I've been around ethical and non-ethical hunters over the years, they all got stories to tell of the time when they got caught doing something they shouldn't. Fines aren't cheap my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted April 6, 2012 Author Share Posted April 6, 2012 I didn't mention anything about fines were small or should be lowered-where did you get that from? I stated from what I have seen/heard in the past, fines were usually based on the situation, size or rarity of what was shot. If bigfoot is as big as they say and as rare as it is, believe me it will be expensive base on that assumption. Way back in my teens, while dove hunting I misidentified a similar looking bird for a dove while it was in flight and shot it down. Long story short, I was fined $300 for shooting an that bird. Years later, a friend of my dad, shot an owl because he wanted to mount one, he was search in the parking lot and ticketed. He was fined in court around $1500 or so with court cost. He probably got fined more than me because it wasn't an accident and owls being rarer commanded a stiffer penalty. In Iowa and Illinois, I know for sure if you shoot a Boone & Crockett 150 or higher and get caught, you are going to be fined $5000-$20000 + 80 hours community service and maybe jail time too depending on score, lower than 150 B&C and your fines are lower. This example shows how the rarity of poached animal can drive fines up. I don't know that every state's laws are the same but most are similar to a point. Like I said before, I've been around ethical and non-ethical hunters over the years, they all got stories to tell of the time when they got caught doing something they shouldn't. Fines aren't cheap my friend. Your statements are right on and fully agree. Someone else mentioned that fines make little difference and this makes no sense. Fines do get your attention, Just wish the country would move in this direction but am afraid there aren't enough people that know or even care about BF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 (edited) BFF members- not to confuse threads, but what would the NPS charge for BF researchers to conduct their due deligence in the parks? If the DNA report comes back as a relic hominid roaming through the parks(and I relize that is a assumption at this point) then how would the park system regulate hikers or hiking going through suspected habitation areas, disclaimers? Just saying. Ant thoughts? ptangier Edited April 6, 2012 by ptangier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted April 6, 2012 Author Share Posted April 6, 2012 The situation would be similar to hiking in parks with Grizzly Bears where hikers enter knowing the danger and therefore assume the liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Isn't Bigfoot an important enough animal that deserve special recognition in the game books? "Special recognition" is not needed. As eightonesix so extensively put it: it it isn't on the "permitted list", you can't shoot it, except in self-defense. It's that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted April 7, 2012 Author Share Posted April 7, 2012 (edited) That's not enough protection imho. We can agree to disagree which is fine. 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 $10,000 fine and 2 years in jail. $5000 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 7, 2012 by georgerm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) Like the baby step approach and getting to know the field personnel in local DNR (Dept of NAT Resources) offices. In our cases if you take a cougar track cast in to show them .... they might lose it (two stories of that in our county) after they promise to get it back to you.. I have had better luck with our police department. One sasquatch report that way so far in my county and in another county I had a great exchange with a guy after I got caught for speeding. Thats a long private story but he shook hands and was excited to talk about the subject and wanted to tell the other guys on the force that I was the bigfoot guy and any reports can get directed to me. Unfortunately still waiting and I suspect the other dudes and dudettes probably didnt hold the same degree of enthusiasm. I try not to speed now... Edited April 11, 2012 by treeknocker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts