If You Shot One, Would That Be Poaching?

[Twist]

 

I think they are a variant of Homo, but certainly not Sapiens.

 

 

Here lies the problem. What is a "human"? Are other Homo species "human"? If they are, then the laws that protect/govern/regulate "humans" apply to them too because when the law (at least US law) mentions "humans" it does not identify the human as H. sapien sapien, but merely human or some derivation thereof (ex "man", "woman", "child").

 

 

Since they are not recognized yet and have not been classified yet, I would argue that they could not charge you for murder of a human species if said human species was only recognized as a result and thus after your shooting.  As stated, the 2nd one shot would be a tragedy and should be subject to charges based on whatever protection they are granted.  

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

With that argument you could shoot anybody and say you did not know if they where out species or not.

Homicide does not allow for mistaken identity arguments, I presume.

No reason to expect Patty to be our species though.

Due to body proportions, head shape, brain size, locomotion, body structure, all indicate otherwise.

Only Homo Habilis would even come close.

[Twist]

With that argument you could shoot anybody and say you did not know if they where out species or not.

Homicide does not allow for mistaken identity arguments, I presume.

No reason to expect Patty to be our species though.

Due to body proportions, head shape, brain size, locomotion, body structure, all indicate otherwise.

Only Homo Habilis would even come close.

 

Not at all CM, my post was not about what I know or believe of the species, as my post clearly states, its about what is recognized and classified as a species.  AKA science, not personal opinion.  

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Then you have to know what you are shooting?

[Twist]

In a "what if" I would know I am shooting a yet un-recognized and un-classified species for science.  

 

For the record, I am of the same general opinion of Norse here, I would not want to see these animals ever hunted per say, or killed in a malicious way, that being said, I think only a body on the slab is going to solve the issue, as sad as it is to say, that may be by means of a firearm.  I would rather it be different way, but to this point, either option is as viable as the other as neither has been able to produce a body.  

[Yuchi1]

 

So, you are saying these entities are in no way a homo____ being and that there is no concern whatsoever of potential criminal/civil liability blowback from overtly killing one?

 

And, what evidence (or, koolaid) is such a position predicated upon?

 

IMO, fortune may not favor the bold, in this instance.

Who would bring a civil suit? Another Sasquatch that went to Harvard?

A criminal prosecution could be threatened but would be a circus worse than OJ. Most DAs in the country wouldn't touch it unless all the conspiracy theories about the big guy are true and come screaming out of the closet.

 

 

I'm aware of two individuals that had a BF in their rifle scope with finger on the trigger.  The first gentleman was actually on an organized hunt at the former Monster Central location in Louisiana. He observed these entities for an extended period at close (<20 yards) range but did not fire.  The second gentleman also observed a BF for several minutes through his rifle scope yet did not pull the trigger. In both instances, the reason given was "they looked too human".

 

IIRC, there is no officially documented record of a BF attacking and killing a human.

 

Therefore, to rely upon a defense that you are doing it "for science" with the precedent that you have publically announced this intention, in advance and have done no due diligence to ascertain the homo___ status of the target, is likely a cause of action against the shooter, especially if as the above poster stated, "I'm looking it square in the face" and it turns out you've just slain a hominid.

 

In 1967, given the societal views on "Boogers" at that time, P&G might possibly have gotten off had they killed Patty however, today the landscape has definitely changed and the outcome may well be 180 degrees from the shooter's expectations, before the shot.

 

BTW, am not trying to dissuade any of the hardliners here, rather, hoping the pilgrim that wanders by, not get the "whole picture" and then does something that causes them a lifetime of grief.

[norseman]

Yuchi....what your proposing is a catch 22. The landscape has NOT changed since 1967 concerning WHAT it is. So how do we figure out what it is if we cannot bring one in to figure out what it is???

There is no official documentation of anything Sasquatch anywhere, so where do we draw the line in the sand?

The Orangutan name means "wild man of the forest" in Malay. Of course Sasquatch looks human like, Apes look like us because humans are apes.

Your in fantasy land with your whole hypothetical judge judy scenarios. Nobody is going prosecute someone who has made the discovery of the century. i never saw Tom Biscardi or Justin Smeja hauled off to prison for claiming to have shot Sasquatch.....I never saw SWAT storm Rick Dyers tour bus to confiscate the body on display there. No......LE laughs their ***** of at our expense instead.

You may take this subject seriously but you really need to pull your rose colored goggles off......to most people this subject is a joke.

[Yuchi1]

Why didn't Patty get shot? P&G were armed...think about it.

 

You are ignorant in the sense a FTF encounter has not yet happened.

 

Biscardi & Dyer is a strawman tactic as both were duds.

 

Smeja got scared when the initial DNA analysis came back and (IMO) did a CYA move with the bear sample.

 

Go out and hopefully find one but think about all this, as you look upon it's face right before you consider pulling the trigger.

[norseman]

Go look at Bob Gimlin's interview on here, I asked him that very question. His plan was to shoot only if threatened. Of course neither men could envision the scientific snub the film would receive. Think about it Yuchi! Thats been 50 years ago! 50! And we are still at square ONE.

And yet? Has the habitat in the bluff creek area changed in 50 years? You bet it has.....and not for the better.

If Patty had been shot and the species proven to exist? That whole area could have been set aside as a sanctuary for the species!

No proof? No protection of habitat. Would we set land aside specifically for Grizzly bear if they officially did not exist? Of course not.

It doesnt take a face to face encounter to use logic and see that in the BIG picture one sacrifice to save a species is a no brainer.

I would have shot Patty. And then I would have fought like heck to save her species. It may be a oxymoron to many.....but I do not make the rules in Biology.

[Yuchi1]

IMO, the fatal flaw to your theory is killing one to "save" the rest and "protect" their habitat.

 

Upon what is your premise based that only one, on a slab will suffice?

 

One of the so-called icons in this field, John Green stated he was fine with multiple kills and also using them as laboratory experiment subjects. Of course, he never had a FTF observation hence, the ignorance factor, again.

 

What habitat? As they have been observed in almost every state in the country, would you want the entire country to be their "sanctuary"?

 

The only "no brainer" is (IMO) some people are not using theirs.

[norseman]

You believe they reside in every state in the union? Ill ask you the same here as in the stalled thread. Whats your hard data Yuchi? You always talk down to people as some sort of Sasquatch whisperer. Can you have a FTF with me and tell me Sasquatch numbers are on the rise in every place they reside with a straight face?

If your not concerned because this species is not recognized by science, then either you do not care about the future of this species OR you have your own data that assures you everything is fine.

Do me a favor and get on google earth and fly around the pacific NW and look at our forests. Clear cuts are beneficial to some species and to others they are death.

Elk vs Caribou

Elk love clearcuts and the brush and browse that replaces the large trees. Caribou starve to death because they stay high in winter and no big trees are left to poke through 20 feet of snow pack that they can browse lichen and moss off of.

I'm using my brain Yuchi and I honestly do not like what I see.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

In a "what if" I would know I am shooting a yet un-recognized and un-classified species for science.  

 

For the record, I am of the same general opinion of Norse here, I would not want to see these animals ever hunted per say, or killed in a malicious way, that being said, I think only a body on the slab is going to solve the issue, as sad as it is to say, that may be by means of a firearm.  I would rather it be different way, but to this point, either option is as viable as the other as neither has been able to produce a body.  

The problem will wind up being, in that case, that it is never just one body.

You get more Universities and Institutes (Zoos?) that want a body or live research specimens, museums, opportunists, and then the flood gates are opened.

Like the Ruffles add goes, you can never eat just one.

I would be as intrigued and interested in new knowledge as the next if a Bigfoot is found.

I would enjoy seeing one in the wild even more.

Perhaps we should put out a poster "Wanted, dead or alive"?

[norseman]

^^^^^^

CM, Ive thought about this as well, and i dont think that would be the case and if it was i would fight it tooth and nail.

I think the species could absorb the hit of one being taken to study, but not more.

[Twist]

In a "what if" I would know I am shooting a yet un-recognized and un-classified species for science.

For the record, I am of the same general opinion of Norse here, I would not want to see these animals ever hunted per say, or killed in a malicious way, that being said, I think only a body on the slab is going to solve the issue, as sad as it is to say, that may be by means of a firearm. I would rather it be different way, but to this point, either option is as viable as the other as neither has been able to produce a body.

The problem will wind up being, in that case, that it is never just one body.

You get more Universities and Institutes (Zoos?) that want a body or live research specimens, museums, opportunists, and then the flood gates are opened.

Like the Ruffles add goes, you can never eat just one.

I would be as intrigued and interested in new knowledge as the next if a Bigfoot is found.

I would enjoy seeing one in the wild even more.

Perhaps we should put out a poster "Wanted, dead or alive"?

The demand of bodies, dead or alive, for zoos or universities will be an issue if discovery comes about in any way.

[Yuchi1]

^^^ THIS!!!