The Scientific Collection Debate........

[hiflier]

Hello All,

 

I could post in this topic as I have done in several places but it would only amount to rewording anything I've already offered. So It's time to bow out of the subject and concentrate if I can on organizing the current research sources/databases which I think are sorely in need of just that.

 

Norseman I wish you luck on your endeavor and a safe journey. No one knows their own back yard like an animal and one this large should it exist would be no exception. In the face of it it may be exceptional in it's awareness of it's surroundings and any interlopers like whales know where the boats are. That being said they will know you are there before you know that they are. If The hairy One exists then it knows about Humans as hunters who take game in the area and the thunder sticks that they use.

 

At 64 years old I won't offer to go with you but a younger me just might have. Take care in the expedition and I sincerely mean that as one Human to another. And now, onto research.........

[Guest]

.. As I have said elswhere, Maine alone has a Black Bear population of over 250,000 and rarely if ever are they seen in winter.

 

Wow... those must be "humpback" bear... they have been busy... where did you get those numbers?

 

Maine's Black Bear:

 

Additional restrictions on hunting season length have increased bear survival during the 1990s, and the population increased to 22,000-23,000 bears in 1998.

 

Edited June 16, 2013 by RB.

[Guest]

ptangier -

 

while I agree with the no-kill position you are trying to promote, what you've said is not entirely true:

 

all flora and fuana is property of the federal and/or state governments

 

This is only true of native animals.  A counter example would be african antelope deliberately introduced on "high fence" properties in Texas specifically for commercial hunting.   These are NOT owned by the state or feds.  Management .. beyond obtaining necessary permits for possessing the animals, import, export, etc ... is entirely at the discretion of the land owner. 

 

I don't want a type specimen collected.  For me that's an ethical issue.    However, when we're talking about the legality of the activity, we have to be careful to focus on what the law says, not on what we wish it said.  As norseman has discovered, no agency is stepping up to claim jurisdiction. 

 

MIB

 

Doesn't matter if they "claim" it or not.  They have the jurisdiction.  No permit = no taking.

That's the law.

 

Period.

 

So if you were to either bag (by accident) or find a dead squatch, be prepared for legal trouble if/when your identity goes public.  They will come and will take it.

[hiflier]

Hello RB,

OOPS! In truth I have a problem with double vision in my right eye and didn't have my specs on. I'll be more careful in the future. You are correct in your correction. Latest I saw for 2011 was around 25,000. Alaska leading the pack with 200,000. Still in all that's a lot of dens, not all caves of course, but a lot of dens nonetheless. Thank's for the "hump" humor too.

[ShadowBorn]

ptangier -

while I agree with the no-kill position you are trying to promote, what you've said is not entirely true:

all flora and fuana is property of the federal and/or state governments

This is only true of native animals. A counter example would be african antelope deliberately introduced on "high fence" properties in Texas specifically for commercial hunting. These are NOT owned by the state or feds. Management .. beyond obtaining necessary permits for possessing the animals, import, export, etc ... is entirely at the discretion of the land owner.

I don't want a type specimen collected. For me that's an ethical issue. However, when we're talking about the legality of the activity, we have to be careful to focus on what the law says, not on what we wish it said. As norseman has discovered, no agency is stepping up to claim jurisdiction.

MIB

Doesn't matter if they "claim" it or not. They have the jurisdiction. No permit = no taking.

That's the law.

Period.

So if you were to either bag (by accident) or find a dead squatch, be prepared for legal trouble if/when your identity goes public. They will come and will take it.

Mulder

How can they take some thing that does not exist? This would be admitting that they knew all along that these creatures existed and never said nothing to public. There would be an outrage if it was known that any entity of our Government knew and never said a word.

Edited June 18, 2013 by ShadowBorn

[hiflier]

Hello Shadowborn,

That is the exact wording used on UFO sites. It's uncanny. But you have a good point. So.....that's why no one waits around for the info to be handed them. They take the only viable route: Research- or hunting. With the latter though personal philosophies WILL butt heads. Either way though, it could be time to get serious and take some kind of action whether by sword or by pen. I'm taking the pen route myself. Norseman? What can I say, guy's got guts. The hog hunting story alone is enough to keep me outa the deep woods.

Edited June 18, 2013 by hiflier

[daveedoe]

http://www.skamaniacounty.org/ordinance/Ord_1984-2.pdf

 

maybe this ordinance would be enough in its discription for a national forest permit, of coarse out side of Skamania County.

 

In Skamania county the coroner is involved. Scary if found to be huminoid.

Edited June 18, 2013 by daveedoe

[hiflier]

Hello daveedoe,

Well I'll be....Nice going. So it would appear that there is precedence. At least in that county anyway. I don't see provisions for self defence but injuries or video would probably suffice.

[norseman]

http://www.skamaniacounty.org/ordinance/Ord_1984-2.pdf

 

maybe this ordinance would be enough in its discription for a national forest permit, of coarse out side of Skamania County.

 

In Skamania county the coroner is involved. Scary if found to be huminoid.

 

All I can say is good luck to them.......

 

There is another ordinance somewhere in Washington as well.

[Guest]

Norse- the other ordinance is from Whatcom County, Wash. 6-9-92, ordinance 92-043. Also the 1995 Kings County Wetland protected list inclues Sasquatch( you need to call the county recorder to get the report), and Sasquatch is inclued in the Army Corp. of Engineers flora and fuana manuel for Wash. 

[Guest]

Norseman- excuse me but on the Kings County, Wetlands ordinamce, Sasquatch is listed as sensitive NOT protected.