The Kill Club

[Guest Cervelo]

Pricey...but wow this might be the ticket for a long shot!

http://tracking-point.com/

[norseman]

Pricey...but wow this might be the ticket for a long shot!

http://tracking-point.com/

pretty impressive

[Guest]

I've thought about this subject for a good spell now. My conclusions are......only a kill shot if in danger. Other wise, my intentions is to knee cap the subject if a clear shot can be got......1st one to slow the subject down, 2nd shot to the other knee.  A 300 WSM is what would be used. I roll my own and get consist 3 inch groups ( or less ) at 700 yards.

 

If the subject can't stand, then subject can run.

 

Now that is taken care of, the question is getting hairy out. No conclusions have been ascertained. Still scratching the head,

[Guest]

You're going to try to extract a wounded animal?  Good luck with that.

[Guest]

treadstone- like I have stated in prior posts on this thread and have encouraged members that it would be benificial to check your state regulations on the taking of (killing, wounding or harassing) ANY non-game animal(?) and if the state adheres to the federal policy of undiscovered which are considered non-game animals or flora. This issue was touched upon on the recent H2 "book of secrets" program. States have a responsibility to set their own policies so I would respectfully ask that you contact your regional wildlife enforsement office and know the guidelines. I have also asked a few other members to contact the US Fish and Wildlife service for the federal policies they have and that request to this date has not been followed thru with. Please be informed of the guidelines in protecting public property. 

[norseman]

I've thought about this subject for a good spell now. My conclusions are......only a kill shot if in danger. Other wise, my intentions is to knee cap the subject if a clear shot can be got......1st one to slow the subject down, 2nd shot to the other knee.  A 300 WSM is what would be used. I roll my own and get consist 3 inch groups ( or less ) at 700 yards.

 

If the subject can't stand, then subject can run.

 

Now that is taken care of, the question is getting hairy out. No conclusions have been ascertained. Still scratching the head,

 

A sling and a helo........but his hands are still free, so while your attempting to load him into the sling he will be trying to rip your face off.

 

If you know how to tranquilize animals without killing them that would be a an option. You may not even have to knee cap it first.

[Guest]

Norseman- would you like to address the legality of your endevor, or are you avoiding the ethics. 

[norseman]

Norseman- would you like to address the legality of your endevor, or are you avoiding the ethics. 

 

I'd like you to walk me through your phone call with US Fish and Game again........

 

Norseman- to answer your questions to posts# 67 and 69. #67 why don't you just call the US F&W serv. and ask the field biologist, I did and we talked about BF for 35 minutes.

Edited June 14, 2013 by norseman

[Guest Rick1013]

Remember guys, Sasquatch does NOT exist. No state or federal wildlife agencies recognize its existence.

 

Worrying about the legal repercussions of shooting/killing a Sasquatch is like worrying about what would legally happen if you shot a unicorn or baited a Havahart trap with Lucky Charms and caught a leprechaun.

 

The worldwide ramifications of actually bringing a Sasquatch specimen to science would be so huge that the shooter would likely be left in the dust (with a much healthier bank account, I would think.)

 

Is it really possible to be prosecuted for shooting something that doesn't officially exist? I'm not one for believing in little, grey aliens. But if someone killed one and retained the body, I don't think they would be tried for murder or "hunting aliens without a license".

[Guest]

Rick1013, Norseman- You can refreash your memory by re-reading the 

"ethics of taking a voucher specimen" thread and post # 335 of this thread and try and view the History @ channel "americas book of secrets" - bigfoot, but really just call the US Fish and Wildlife service and run your intent by them and see what they say. In short they have told me that though Bigfoot or Sasquatch is not a recognized species, all undiscovered animals are inherently a non-game animal and that a special permit is needed for hunting non-game animals(?). The reason I ask you to call them is that by doing so you will be informed that federal guidelines and policies are set pretaining to extant flora and fuana(not regulations which are set by the states) and that most states adhere to the federal guidelines. Also you may want to call your stae regional office about their policies about hunting non-game animals.  Good luck on your search for information that may help you.

[Guest Rick1013]

ptangier, since you have actually talked to U.S. Fish & Wildlife personnel, you know more about their position than I do. So I respect your understanding.

 

But did they actually tell you that heretofore "undiscovered" animals are actually considered "non-game" animals? That is kind of a "guilty until proven innocent" position, isn't it.

 

I don't understand how a federal agency can set up guidelines (laws) to protect animals that they do not recognizing as even existing. I don't doubt you, ptangier, I am simply questioning their logic.

 

For example: If I killed a fish from a river before science even knew that fish species existed, how could they prosecute me after using that specimen to IDENTIFY the species in the first place?

 

"I'm sorry, sir, but the fish you killed was apparently from a rare species we didn't even know about. Since we have determined that it is rare and we now know about it (thanks to your sample), we have placed it on the endangered species list. An animal on the endangered species list is inherently a non-game animal and killing a non-game animal is illegal. Therefore, the fact that you did kill this previously unknown, yet non-game animal, makes you subject to retroactive penalties because you killed it before it was recognized as existing." 

 

I know our government can be messed up, but that is REALLY messed up.

 

My expectation is that if Norseman could kill a Sasquatch he would, regardless of the legalities involved. If he has to pay a $10,000 fine for killing a non-game animal, he gladly would, as the fine would simply be pocket change from the money he would receive from media appearances and other venues after killing the thing in the first place.

[Guest]

plus 1 Rick

 

 

dav

[norseman]

ptangier, since you have actually talked to U.S. Fish & Wildlife personnel, you know more about their position than I do. So I respect your understanding.

 

But did they actually tell you that heretofore "undiscovered" animals are actually considered "non-game" animals? That is kind of a "guilty until proven innocent" position, isn't it.

 

I don't understand how a federal agency can set up guidelines (laws) to protect animals that they do not recognizing as even existing. I don't doubt you, ptangier, I am simply questioning their logic.

 

For example: If I killed a fish from a river before science even knew that fish species existed, how could they prosecute me after using that specimen to IDENTIFY the species in the first place?

 

"I'm sorry, sir, but the fish you killed was apparently from a rare species we didn't even know about. Since we have determined that it is rare and we now know about it (thanks to your sample), we have placed it on the endangered species list. An animal on the endangered species list is inherently a non-game animal and killing a non-game animal is illegal. Therefore, the fact that you did kill this previously unknown, yet non-game animal, makes you subject to retroactive penalties because you killed it before it was recognized as existing." 

 

I know our government can be messed up, but that is REALLY messed up.

 

My expectation is that if Norseman could kill a Sasquatch he would, regardless of the legalities involved. If he has to pay a $10,000 fine for killing a non-game animal, he gladly would, as the fine would simply be pocket change from the money he would receive from media appearances and other venues after killing the thing in the first place.

 

I started a thread in the General forum titled "Scientific Collection debate".

 

It really sums up my experience today that indeed.........nobody administers to unknown animals. You definitely need permits to harvest known animals and where you do it, defines which federal or state agency is in charge.

 

But of course on the permit they ask for the common and scientific name of the animal.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/39579-the-scientific-collection-debate/

Edited June 14, 2013 by norseman

[Guest]

ptangier, since you have actually talked to U.S. Fish & Wildlife personnel, you know more about their position than I do. So I respect your understanding.

 

But did they actually tell you that heretofore "undiscovered" animals are actually considered "non-game" animals? That is kind of a "guilty until proven innocent" position, isn't it.

 

I don't understand how a federal agency can set up guidelines (laws) to protect animals that they do not recognizing as even existing. I don't doubt you, ptangier, I am simply questioning their logic.

 

For example: If I killed a fish from a river before science even knew that fish species existed, how could they prosecute me after using that specimen to IDENTIFY the species in the first place?

 

"I'm sorry, sir, but the fish you killed was apparently from a rare species we didn't even know about. Since we have determined that it is rare and we now know about it (thanks to your sample), we have placed it on the endangered species list. An animal on the endangered species list is inherently a non-game animal and killing a non-game animal is illegal. Therefore, the fact that you did kill this previously unknown, yet non-game animal, makes you subject to retroactive penalties because you killed it before it was recognized as existing."

...

 

I think it's more akin to the state and federal government tell you what species of fish you can take, say trout.  Say, trout greater than 16" are considered steel head, and you can take them here and at this time of year.  That is to say, you can take (hunt/fish) what the state and federal government allow you to take, but cannot take what they haven't given you permission to take.

 

I have had the conversation with an Oregon State Police officer.  They are the fish/game/wildlife enforcement in Oregon.  The officer I spoke with did say that since bigfoot is not classified you wouldn't be breaking any fish/game law in taking one, which, after additional research, I think is contrary to the intent of the fish/game laws in my state.  But, it's what he said.

[norseman]

 

ptangier, since you have actually talked to U.S. Fish & Wildlife personnel, you know more about their position than I do. So I respect your understanding.

 

But did they actually tell you that heretofore "undiscovered" animals are actually considered "non-game" animals? That is kind of a "guilty until proven innocent" position, isn't it.

 

I don't understand how a federal agency can set up guidelines (laws) to protect animals that they do not recognizing as even existing. I don't doubt you, ptangier, I am simply questioning their logic.

 

For example: If I killed a fish from a river before science even knew that fish species existed, how could they prosecute me after using that specimen to IDENTIFY the species in the first place?

 

"I'm sorry, sir, but the fish you killed was apparently from a rare species we didn't even know about. Since we have determined that it is rare and we now know about it (thanks to your sample), we have placed it on the endangered species list. An animal on the endangered species list is inherently a non-game animal and killing a non-game animal is illegal. Therefore, the fact that you did kill this previously unknown, yet non-game animal, makes you subject to retroactive penalties because you killed it before it was recognized as existing."

...

 

I think it's more akin to the state and federal government tell you what species of fish you can take, say trout.  Say, trout greater than 16" are considered steel head, and you can take them here and at this time of year.  That is to say, you can take (hunt/fish) what the state and federal government allow you to take, but cannot take what they haven't given you permission to take.

 

I have had the conversation with an Oregon State Police officer.  They are the fish/game/wildlife enforcement in Oregon.  The officer I spoke with did say that since bigfoot is not classified you wouldn't be breaking any fish/game law in taking one, which, after additional research, I think is contrary to the intent of the fish/game laws in my state.  But, it's what he said.

 

 

 

Laws are enforced by human beings.......I really like your point about talking to the Warden. He is not going to enforce a law on something that is not real from his perspective.

 

I challenge anyone to show me the permit needed to harvest a Sasquatch type specimen. I've contacted Meldrum and maybe he can shed some light on this topic.