Guest Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 Oh, BF is real from his perspective. His family had been in law enforcement for at least a couple generations. His father saw one cross the road very near where I was camping/fishing. He wanted to check my fishing license and then he asked me about the firearm I was carrying. I was carrying a pretty new Ruger revolver and he thought it and the holster was a nice set up, so I unholstered it and handed it to him to take a look. We got to talking and I said something about the area seemingly being good for bigfoot. At that point he said bigfoot is real, his father was patrolling the area years earlier and watched one cross the road. He then told me if I had a chance I should shoot one. I said something about it not being a game animal and he said it's not illegal to shoot one. After more research it appears the law is written to allow you to take game animals and those not listed as game animals or varmints are not to be taken. I don't believe we have the right to shoot animals not allowed by the state. I think the officer was making the comment because he'd like one to be taken and wasn't really thinking through the legality of it. Also, laws have to be followed by individuals. So, me as an individual shoots one, it doesn't matter at all if an officer told me one day it was ok. The officer wouldn't be the one in front of the judge/jury. It'd be me, all alone, to defend myself for breaking the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 Norseman- actually I talked to a field biologist at the US F&W headquarters in D.C. I asked the recieptionist if I could talk to a field biologist instead of going thru the scenario with her, I was promtly connected to the field biology dept. and ran the kill- no kill issue and thats where I got the federal policy about BF. First off the field biologist said that BF is not on the endagered species act because it hasn't been verified. He said that process is usually started by the state in which the "discovery takes place(states have their own protected species list ) and from there once placed on the state list a recommendation can be asked for on the federal level, however the feds can enact that process also but much study such as population distribution etc.; he said that wasn't his part in the process so he didn't want to be quoted on that. So now that BF is not on any list he said that all fuana and flora are property of the federal or state governmants and jointly managed except in the case of private property and that states set regulations about property rights etc.but that any (in this case animal, and he wouldn't go into the relect human/animal issue) that doesn't have a hunting season is non-game and cannot be taken at any time unless you obtain a permit.Most states adhere to this policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 (edited) That's what I found as well ptangier. ETA: although an officer told me there's no law against shooting one, I don't think that's the intent of the laws on the books and I would be prosecuted for something, just not sure what until it happens. Edited June 15, 2013 by Ace! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 Ace- you would be fined for shooting a non-game animal (which have no season) without a permit. As far as state non-game regulations, you might be either fined, jailed or losr your hunting licience, inCa. anyways. you just best hope that BF is not a relic himinid, just saying or other factors probably would plat into the issue of intent and not knowing WTH your shooting. BTE- I find the attitude of some of my fellow posters as considering BF a varmit as offensive and showing a great deal of laxity about the whole phenom but that just my impression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 (edited) Ptangier, Let me clarity my position. The discussion has revolved around the legalities of "hunting" a Bigfoot. I've stated here a long time ago/and have kown what you guys have just figured out....in most if not all states, if you don't have a license to hunt/harvest it....it's illegal to do so/and it belongs to the state as a natural resource. There are some exceptions in regards to NA and hunting for food. My comment about varmint hunting is how you get around the why your out there armed to the teeth. As far as the morality of killing a Bigfoot that's an issue for me regardless of what it is. I can't look a zoo gorilla/chimp in the eye without feeling guilt but I also know what gorrilas/chimps are capable of and would kill one in a heartbeat if they were threatening. They are capable of what could be percieved as very human/compassionate actions but they are not human. In addition my often expressed disdain for those that don't practice immaculant target identification, biggie may not have to worry about me but if given the opportunity, under the right circumstances I think I could pull the trigger. But until someone can convince me otherwise 99.9% of the evidence, attributed behavior, habitation claims ect ect is completely unfounded malarkey IMHO. So if that's considered lax...guilty as charged...but until a body or significant part shows up...we really got nothing. Edited June 15, 2013 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TedSallis Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 Ptangier, Let me clarity my position. The discussion has revolved around the legalities of "hunting" a Bigfoot. I've stated here a long time ago/and have kown what you guys have just figured out....in most if not all states, if you don't have a license to hunt/harvest it....it's illegal to do so/and it belongs to the state as a natural resource. There are some exceptions in regards to NA and hunting for food. My comment about varmint hunting is how you get around the why your out there armed to the teeth. As far as the morality of killing a Bigfoot that's an issue for me regardless of what it is. I can't look a zoo gorilla/chimp in the eye without feeling guilt but I also know what gorrilas/chimps are capable of and would kill one in a heartbeat if they were threatening. They are capable of what could be percieved as very human/compassionate actions but they are not human. In addition my often expressed disdain for those that don't practice immaculant target identification, biggie may not have to worry about me but if given the opportunity, under the right circumstances I think I could pull the trigger. But until someone can convince me otherwise 99.9% of the evidence, attributed behavior, habitation claims ect ect is completely unfounded malarkey IMHO. So if that's considered lax...guilty as charged...but until a body or significant part shows up...we really got nothing. And the thousands of eyewitness reports, many from very reputable individuals...are uniformly and completely, either misidentification or outright lies? Every single one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 No just 99.9% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 15, 2013 Admin Author Share Posted June 15, 2013 Norseman- actually I talked to a field biologist at the US F&W headquarters in D.C. I asked the recieptionist if I could talk to a field biologist instead of going thru the scenario with her, I was promtly connected to the field biology dept. and ran the kill- no kill issue and thats where I got the federal policy about BF. First off the field biologist said that BF is not on the endagered species act because it hasn't been verified. He said that process is usually started by the state in which the "discovery takes place(states have their own protected species list ) and from there once placed on the state list a recommendation can be asked for on the federal level, however the feds can enact that process also but much study such as population distribution etc.; he said that wasn't his part in the process so he didn't want to be quoted on that. So now that BF is not on any list he said that all fuana and flora are property of the federal or state governmants and jointly managed except in the case of private property and that states set regulations about property rights etc.but that any (in this case animal, and he wouldn't go into the relect human/animal issue) that doesn't have a hunting season is non-game and cannot be taken at any time unless you obtain a permit.Most states adhere to this policy. Are we to take your word for it or do you have some data to back that up? Look, your busted...........I didn't talk to a USFWS Biologist........I talked with USFWS LAW ENFORCEMENT. They have no jurisdiction for the taking of a new species outside of our National Wildlife Reserves system. Here is a list of Reserves if you have any qualms about where it is or isn't legal to shoot an undiscovered species per Federal oversight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Wildlife_Refuges Ace- you would be fined for shooting a non-game animal (which have no season) without a permit. As far as state non-game regulations, you might be either fined, jailed or losr your hunting licience, inCa. anyways. you just best hope that BF is not a relic himinid, just saying or other factors probably would plat into the issue of intent and not knowing WTH your shooting. BTE- I find the attitude of some of my fellow posters as considering BF a varmit as offensive and showing a great deal of laxity about the whole phenom but that just my impression. STOP!!!! Start backing up your assertions with FACTS or pack your bags up and kick your can down the road......... You do realize there are 49 other states in the Union besides California correct? With California being notorious as having the most red tape? If you would like to research each state and display the FACTS here? Great. But I'm not interested in hearing any more of your opinions on what is and is not "legal". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 (edited) Norseman- I've seen your lists and all that shows is that you have linked to a few sites and spotted them on the BFF. You talked to a Law Enforsement officer and I have talked to a field biologist, so whats your problem? As in past posts I had told you where I got my information and you didn't follow thru to talk to the same people I had previosly talked to. I won't even address your "your busted" comment. other than to say if you want to post links- hell you can do that all day, I had asked you to talk to the same people I did and you have done nothing but get defensive. However I appreciated the permit posts you looked up, even though anyone can do that. So now that you know a permit is needed you can either address the issue in a law abiding ethical manner or risk the consequences, it's your choice. And as previously stated most states adhere to the federal policies. Edited June 15, 2013 by ptangier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 No permit needed, I'm out varmint hunting and killed a Bigfoot opps sorry...mystery solved! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 16, 2013 Admin Author Share Posted June 16, 2013 Norseman- I've seen your lists and all that shows is that you have linked to a few sites and spotted them on the BFF. You talked to a Law Enforsement officer and I have talked to a field biologist, so whats your problem? As in past posts I had told you where I got my information and you didn't follow thru to talk to the same people I had previosly talked to. I won't even address your "your busted" comment. other than to say if you want to post links- hell you can do that all day, I had asked you to talk to the same people I did and you have done nothing but get defensive. However I appreciated the permit posts you looked up, even though anyone can do that. So now that you know a permit is needed you can either address the issue in a law abiding ethical manner or risk the consequences, it's your choice. And as previously stated most states adhere to the federal policies. Whatever dude....... You claimed that the USFWS had jurisidiction over ALL Federal lands..........they don't. Don't believe me? Call the USFWS Region 1 office and ask the question. "Do I need a permit to collect a type specimen on US Forest Service property?" The answer? "We have no jurisdiction on US Forest Service property..........we administer the US Wildlife Refuges". I'm done with this debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 Norseman- I will call the USFWS regional office here in Sacramento Co. BTW it is the responibility of the states to adopt regulations, and most of them adhere to the policies set forth by the federal stadard. But you haven't spoken to the field biology dept, have you? Anyways, ah dude, your going to do what you want no matter what the law says so why ask this board for approval? And why don't you call the state of Washington while your at it and ask them if you need to have a permit for non-game animals?Try and be specific OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slabdog Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 Gents and ladies: Fair warning... Keep the debate spirited...but keep the debate civil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 19, 2013 Admin Author Share Posted June 19, 2013 Well, things have taken off in Project Grendel and the fur is flying and the blood is flowing............. I thought Dmaker and DWA were bad! (just kidding guys) Lot's of ideas being discussed that I'll just touch on here for our BFF folks. Team vs. Individual Your goal is to bring in a type specimen, do you bring a small team of say four men? Or do you go about it yourself? Also, one member that shall remain nameless is insisting that a few body parts will not seal the deal.........instead the full body is needed for proof. What do you guys think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 It's best if it's an individual, not a team. It also doesn't matter if you bring in only one piece of the animal; however, I'm partial to a lower leg to use later as an umbrella stand, or a hand that can be fashioned to hold a Waterford crystal ashtray, on the coffee table, as a conversation piece. Those are the correct answers to your questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts