norseman Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 http://www.animalethics.org.au/policies-and-guidelines/wildlife-research/voucher-specimens Conservation needs are impossible to assess without the ability to recognise and differentiate species. Thus, identification, although often taken for granted, is fundamental to any animal-based study and particularly important when studying native animals. And; The fundamental bases for identifications are whole animal specimens, usually maintained in a museum or similar institution. If necessary, identifications can be confirmed by reference to such collections. In some situations, e.g., distinctive species, a non-essential part of the animal such as a hair sample, or a photograph, sound recording or some other non-destructive record may be adequate for identification. These, however, have limited value. They do not offer the range of information as do whole body specimens, initially or through re-examination, nor are they suitable for detailed study by alternative means, including new technology (e.g., biochemical). There are many species for which these are not valid alternatives. Accurate identifications can only be made if there is one or more specimens already available for comparison and examination. If an animal is thought to represent a new species, a specimen should be taken. Types (the basis for taxonomic descriptions of new taxa) should always be specimens; other kinds of samples are not suitable alternatives. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted March 17, 2015 Admin Share Posted March 17, 2015 Not sure why you posted this... Is there anyone trying to claim it is not so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 What if they turn out to not be an "animal" and justification for biologic research or teaching, et. al. is not relevant because of legal issues? After all, you're trying to kill something of which your are totally ignorant thereof such as actual populations.* *..."A voucher specimen of such a species may be warranted, but consideration must be given to what effects this may have on the viability of the local population. Factors to be evaluated include the species' abundance (local and overall), life history characteristics, role in ecosystem, ability to recolonise, size of area in question, age and sex of the animal to be collected, etc."... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 17, 2015 Author Share Posted March 17, 2015 Not sure why you posted this... Is there anyone trying to claim it is not so? Ohhhh boy......,; What if they turn out to not be an "animal" and justification for biologic research or teaching, et. al. is not relevant because of legal issues? After all, you're trying to kill something of which your are totally ignorant thereof such as actual populations.* *..."A voucher specimen of such a species may be warranted, but consideration must be given to what effects this may have on the viability of the local population. Factors to be evaluated include the species' abundance (local and overall), life history characteristics, role in ecosystem, ability to recolonise, size of area in question, age and sex of the animal to be collected, etc."... But you cannot cross that bridge until a specimen is collected, right? And; /////////////////////////////// If an animal is thought to represent a new species, a specimen should be taken. ////////////////////////////// Is Sasquatch a new species? Versus a sub species of shrew or sparrow? Absolutely. Compound the problem with all of the past hoaxing? I don't hold out much hope for vocalizations, photos, or foot casts.....as we already know. A specimen should be taken....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Call me wild and crazy but I'll be watching for the news story when they lead you downtown in cuffs (and bulletproof vest) while an angry crowd screams murderer and spits in your face. Your home will be besieged with protesters, the media and every form of nutjob imaginable to haunt your family and friends. If the DNA results come back as lower primate you will likely only be charged with felony animal cruelty, but probably lose your home, guns, job and the right to vote. Should the results come back as a level of homo sapien classification, the charges will only escalate and the pain level even more intense, for you and yours. After the criminal case is concluded, the raft of civil actions will commence, effectively wiping out any remaining assets you have worked years to accrue. If the kill occurs on federal lands, amp up the ante exponentially. Then, a few years later while you're standing on top of the bridge railing, looking into the murky water below, a sparrow alights beside you and without a sound you hear the words, I told you so.... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Extenuating circumstances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Call me wild and crazy but I'll be watching for the news story when they lead you downtown in cuffs (and bulletproof vest) while an angry crowd screams murderer and spits in your face. Your home will be besieged with protesters, the media and every form of nutjob imaginable to haunt your family and friends. If the DNA results come back as lower primate you will likely only be charged with felony animal cruelty, but probably lose your home, guns, job and the right to vote. Should the results come back as a level of homo sapien classification, the charges will only escalate and the pain level even more intense, for you and yours. After the criminal case is concluded, the raft of civil actions will commence, effectively wiping out any remaining assets you have worked years to accrue. If the kill occurs on federal lands, amp up the ante exponentially. Then, a few years later while you're standing on top of the bridge railing, looking into the murky water below, a sparrow alights beside you and without a sound you hear the words, I told you so.... That's just a tad melodramatic (hyperbolic, even), no? I especially liked the bit about the suicidal bigfoot hunter. Classy touch! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 17, 2015 Author Share Posted March 17, 2015 Call me wild and crazy but I'll be watching for the news story when they lead you downtown in cuffs (and bulletproof vest) while an angry crowd screams murderer and spits in your face. Your home will be besieged with protesters, the media and every form of nutjob imaginable to haunt your family and friends. If the DNA results come back as lower primate you will likely only be charged with felony animal cruelty, but probably lose your home, guns, job and the right to vote. Should the results come back as a level of homo sapien classification, the charges will only escalate and the pain level even more intense, for you and yours. After the criminal case is concluded, the raft of civil actions will commence, effectively wiping out any remaining assets you have worked years to accrue. If the kill occurs on federal lands, amp up the ante exponentially. Then, a few years later while you're standing on top of the bridge railing, looking into the murky water below, a sparrow alights beside you and without a sound you hear the words, I told you so.... You seem to live in the land of la la a lot. An 8 ft tall hairy creature that lives in the wild will never be classified as us. Patty exhibits morphology different from our own. How the foot has a mid tarsal break, how the knee rotates while walking and the limb proportions that are all wrong for human. Add to that they use no tools or fire and can live in cold that would kill any human? They are not us........... So it's not murder, but I could be charged with some form of poaching from Fish and Game. But being that it is a type specimen I doubt it. And I could bring charges back against the dept. for dereliction of duty of not telling the public that a large ape man prowled the woods. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerhunter Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) If I shot one as part of a group, who would know who fired the kill shot? Self defense should be strongly considered based on BF size, strength, speed, and our humble human need for personal self preservation. Besides, MSM has preached these creatures don't exist - even the Government agencies say as much. Edited March 17, 2015 by beerhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Your home will be besieged with protesters, the media and every form of nutjob imaginable to haunt your family and friends. Then, a few years later while you're standing on top of the bridge railing, looking into the murky water below, a sparrow alights beside you and without a sound you hear the words, I told you so.... You left out the part about the black SUVs & MIBs, surveillance of his phone calls & emails, constant nightmares, & bad luck following him for the rest of his increasingly-miserable life..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 If bigfoot were not so darn humanlike there would be no debate here. Since they could be a subspecies of homo, killing one becomes a bridge you cross with no return. Ignoring this for the sake of another argument about it is pointless. I think we all get what science wants for new species of "animals", but this is a rather barbaric requirement if we are dealing with a new species of extant hominin. Yes, maybe you can't know before you shoot, and you can't take the shot back either. It's just a matter of what each person chooses that they can live with. Like I've said many times, if there is a new species out there, it's DNA would say so, then collection can be evaluated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) I think that Yuchi1 overlooks an important reality concerning public opinion about the sanctity of BF life. Do we need to be reminded at all that John Q. Public doesn't give a furry rat's posterior about BF? Is that suddenly and remarkably going to change because Norseman or anyone else plugs one? If there was that potential for outrage out there, we'd be seeing a magnitude larger interest in just the idea of the animal roaming wild. In this BFF bubble, some might have lost sight of the fact that this issue doesn't matter to the vast, vast majority who Yuchi1 is predicting will mutate into a howling mob clamoring for vengence. You've got to give a rip before that happens. (Nearly) nobody does. Edited March 17, 2015 by WSA 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) IMO, the above rhetorical narrative I posted has a foundation in past history as the (Louisiana) hunt organizer's DNA results from the samples collected, apparently had something to do with his frenetic fervor to get our samples back (after he'd originally told us they were ours) into his custody. If, the DNA results do reveal that "they" are "us", aka, close enough to interbreed, the shooter probably has incurred a host of legal troubles. The self-defense angle is moot as people such as Norseman have made their premeditated intentions public on numerous occasions. PETA would have a field day. Norseman, you do realize it costs ~$5K in legal expense to answer a single motion? Many civil actions have motions that easily run into the dozens. If you do not answer it, you risk a default/summary judgement against yourself. Just ask the bigfooter that did so and now has a $1.2 million judgement against him. Go for it dude, I've got the sparrow on call. Edited March 17, 2015 by Yuchi1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 If bigfoot is out there, then it stands to reason it has probably been taken down before, so you have to ask what stopped the recognition process. I think the answer lies with bigfoot itself, he stands on the line between man and animal and we can't have something that is neither and both at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 This is another bigfoot special dispensation plea. For something that some claim to know a great deal about yet when push comes to shove the knowers cry insufficient data. So unless I've missed something there's potentially this big biped hair clad creature that exists without technology and without language as we know it but it could be human. No it can't be human. We are human Homo Sapiens Sapiens. The only capital crime for killing is when Home Sapiens Sapiens kills Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Everything else that may be protected is by decree and even when that decree is in effect it is not a capital offence to kill. Could any judge or jury convict the shooter of one of these things. They are reportedly huge, frequently bad tempered and aggressive. Any person that shoots one can hardly be held to account that they were not potentially or directly in danger. It might be shame to do it but it'll carry no more of a penalty than offing a chimp or gorilla. If such a beast is ever actually analyzed it'll be no doubt much like the other great apes. It'll share a with us and them but it will not be Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts