Blockbuster News

[Guest vilnoori]

We need some of that up here in Canada, 'Mulder'. Our Charter of Rights contains something called the 'Notwithstanding Clause', kind of a catch all safety plug designed to head off unintended consequences of unforseen events. I could see that type of thing being applied to our national wildlife policies if something like that does not already exist; and I fear it does not! It would probably get knocked down to the Provinces and Territories which would require numerous individual efforts towards implementation. Ugh, lots of hard work yet to be done for the Big Guy up here.

- Dudlow

On the contrary, all animals in Canada belong to the Crown and there is no permission given to hunt or harm them unless explicitly stated in the hunting synopsis, for example, crows, and furthermore there are laws limiting hunting and shooting near roads, houses, towns, etc. If this shooting had occurred in Canada it would have been illegal on several different levels.

On the other hand, if the subject is determined by DNA testing to be human, it falls under the protection of laws which protect humans, of whatever kind. And again, the law must have been broken though if there is no proof any more in the form of a body which may be examined for evidence of violence then there is no case.

So in other words, don't go shooting/hunting sasquatches in Canada, the law will get you in any way they can if you keep the body. Plus the body if found will be confiscated.

I know for certain that even road-kill does not belong to the driver, if a deer or moose is killed and the body is picked up fast enough for the meat to be good it never goes to the driver but is donated to the local food bank or parcelled out by LE to poor families in the area.

[bipedalist]

....trying to hog the project money-wise.

Let's see, so far it's all her expense, except for shipping of samples to her lab (and people paying their share for the testing). Folks paid for tests of their samples but the call

from her was for voluntary submission of samples as I recall.

If others have contributed services then they do so either voluntarily or with a written contract of what they provide and how they are

remunerated. It sounds like it would really be that simple.

Are you referring to the intellectual property? If she is creating novel products or tests I would think it is a no-brainer that she is not going to give that technology away. Do you mean hog the genome?

I don't get the impression she has stolen anyone's work. She has a cadre of volunteers that are interested in the search for BF and obviously she has some that are contributing some specialized skills of their own. Hopefully, this is the "behavioral and field element" described by Paulides in one of his most recent blogs. I would think that the first paper will be the tip of the iceberg. There is such a thing as multi-staged scientific papers that are numbered as they knock one domino down at a time.

Don't be surprised to see such a development if this team is as hot as they sound like they might be.

[Guest Silver Fox]

Let's see, so far it's all her expense, except for shipping of samples to her lab (and people paying their share for the testing). Folks paid for tests of their samples but the call

from her was for voluntary submission of samples as I recall.

If others have contributed services then they do so either voluntarily or with a written contract of what they provide and how they are

remunerated. It sounds like it would really be that simple.

Are you referring to the intellectual property? If she is creating novel products or tests I would think it is a no-brainer that she is not going to give that technology away. Do you mean hog the genome?

I don't get the impression she has stolen anyone's work. She has a cadre of volunteers that are interested in the search for BF and obviously she has some that are contributing some specialized skills of their own. Hopefully, this is the "behavioral and field element" described by Paulides in one of his most recent blogs. I would think that the first paper will be the tip of the iceberg. There is such a thing as multi-staged scientific papers that are numbered as they knock one domino down at a time.

Don't be surprised to see such a development if this team is as hot as they sound like they might be.

Apparently she had some nice NDA's at first that were fairly written. Then she got herself some Hollywood lawyer to rewrite the NDA's to give her 99.9% and everyone else peanuts and a lot of folks bailed. Erickson has to do this day refused to sign her fancy new NDA's.

She makes tons of money off this stuff. Erickson paid $70K for the sequencing of 6 different BF samples. She ain't hurting moneywise!

I haven't the faintest idea what she is trying to hog or patent with her fancy new contracts. I know there was mass exodus from her team after she laid them out though. Anyone who signed one of her new contracts would have to be foolish IMHO.

[Guest slimwitless]

Gotta say:

Gotta say that's some of the best deductive reasoning/speculation I've seen on this matter.

[georgerm]

Gotta say:

Ketchum has acknowledged receiving a "steak" sample from the shooting incident.

The sample has been analyzed and Dereck has made a statement suggesting that its import is not insignificant.

The "steak" sample could not have been taken from a living individual, and was, according to Ketchum, cleanly cut with some sort of tool.

It is improbable that a scrap of a dead bigfoot could be found under snow weeks later and still provide the "steak" sample as described.

got that right.......It is highly unlikely that the hunter, with a legal bear tag, would be prosecuted for shooting an unknown animal that he thought was a bear and leaving the body in the forest. It is also unlikely that he would be prosecuted for shooting a second unknown animal that was threatening him.

Just don't bring it home to find out.

The circumstances may have been different than described above, but no one knows the "truth" other than those who were there. If investigated, all they have to do is make the appropriate statements (thought it was a bear, definitely wasn't human, self-defense in the second case, also definitely wasn't human), and the account is written off. No missing persons reported in the area, no dead human bodies discovered, no foul. Worst case is a slap on the wrist for a hunting accident involving the shooting of something that wasn't a bear, but looked like one.

But the hunter/taxidermist wants amnesty according to Silver Fox, and is concerned about prosecution according to others (Dereck?). Why? What has he done to perceive that he requires amnesty, or should be concerned?

He must have collected the bodies. The bodies represent both value and liability. "Amnesty" eliminates the liability and allows the hunter to capitalize on his acquisitions.

How can one get amnesty since their are probably over lapping county, state, and federal game laws that can be imposed at any time after the bodies are shown? Sounds like a high priced thing for an attorney to do. Call my brother to do it. Medford, Oregon, attorney.

On the other hand, a witch hunt causes the bodies to disappear, eliminating both the liability and the value.

Or stuffed Bigfoot bodies turn up in foreign museums after several million is paid. Let American federal authorities haggle with the Chinese Museum of Natural History to prove BF was shot on American soil..........good luck. This may be the best way to prove bigfoot exists and for a shooter pay off.

Bigfoot hunters will need a attorney with BF interest to get this all set up 'legally'. Eliminate the chance for confiscation, prosecution and no hunter pay off.....imho

Silver Fox has provided information that is said to go beyond the facts of the case.

Dereck has provided, as I recall, the "pertinent facts" (a subjective term that also indicates there is more to the story) as related to him by the hunter (this allows Dereck to truthfully report what he knows second hand from someone with reason to be circumspect, and distances him and the Olympic Project from any inconvenient future revelations).

such as story modifications so one can have his cake and eat it too!

The truth is in the Goldilocks zone and isn't likely to be tied up in a pretty bow - nor is it ever likely to be completely revealed.

Sounds like Melba is Goldilocks! go Melba..............

I do, however, believe the bodies will turn up shortly after the peer reviewed paper is published, or some other event occurs that documents to the public's fascination that bigfoot exist. Arguably, their value will peak at this point.

My friend had a wounded River Otter to nurse back to health, and the state police showed up and confiscated it. The cops will probably dig up some grounds to confiscate BF, then the powers to be can make it disappear.

Edited July 18, 2011 by georgerm

[southernyahoo]

Apparently she had some nice NDA's at first that were fairly written. Then she got herself some Hollywood lawyer to rewrite the NDA's to give her 99.9% and everyone else peanuts and a lot of folks bailed. Erickson has to do this day refused to sign her fancy new NDA's.

She makes tons of money off this stuff. Erickson paid $70K for the sequencing of 6 different BF samples. She ain't hurting moneywise!

I haven't the faintest idea what she is trying to hog or patent with her fancy new contracts. I know there was mass exodus from her team after she laid them out though. Anyone who signed one of her new contracts would have to be foolish IMHO.

Silver, just remember that some of the submitters have not sent all they have to her, but a small portion of it. People like Erickson wouldn't have paid Ketchum if they really had some way of doing the testing themselves. Their payback was the discovery, not to own everyones samples, work and control of intellectual property. Ketchum needed control to make the paper go through without it being compromised by disgruntled participants.

[Guest JimF]

I think all involved said it was hairy. But that is not where the legitimacy lies, its with Ketchum, in my book.

I think it is reasonable to assume, given that Ketchum DID in fact test it, that it was hairy.

I usually take the BBB with a grain of salt. But this many claims against one lab, makes me wonder if everyone isn't jumping the gun on a reasonable time-frame or on the ability of said lab or the good Dr. to get a thing done.

For my money, I'll beleive it when it happens, and given what I've seen so far I doubt it ever will.

[indiefoot]

Apparently she had some nice NDA's at first that were fairly written. Then she got herself some Hollywood lawyer to rewrite the NDA's to give her 99.9% and everyone else peanuts and a lot of folks bailed. Erickson has to do this day refused to sign her fancy new NDA's.

She makes tons of money off this stuff. Erickson paid $70K for the sequencing of 6 different BF samples. She ain't hurting moneywise!

I haven't the faintest idea what she is trying to hog or patent with her fancy new contracts. I know there was mass exodus from her team after she laid them out though. Anyone who signed one of her new contracts would have to be foolish IMHO.

If everyone else was paying 200 dollars he needs to work on his negotiating skills.

[Guest Dudlow]

On the contrary, all animals in Canada belong to the Crown and there is no permission given to hunt or harm them unless explicitly stated in the hunting synopsis, for example, crows, and furthermore there are laws limiting hunting and shooting near roads, houses, towns, etc. If this shooting had occurred in Canada it would have been illegal on several different levels.

As I understand it, 'vilnoori', your contention only applies to Crown Land, not private lands. So any one could still shoot a BF on private property with the owner's permission and get away with it.

- Dudlow

Edited July 18, 2011 by Dudlow

[Guest]

Silver Fox- You ask what has the hunter done wrong? It is punishable by law in California for shooting known or un known wild mammals ; punishable by up to ( i think) $10,000.00 and/or 1 year in jail. That is what he did wrong. The hunter probably relized this afterwords with the first kill, and might be able to claim self defence or that he did identify the subject in a timely manner. But killing the juvenile- come on man that doesn't fly, and IMO opinion the state would prosecute the hunter. ptangier

[Guest BDK]

Silver Fox- You ask what has the hunter done wrong? It is punishable by law in California for shooting known or un known wild mammals ; punishable by up to ( i think) $10,000.00 and/or 1 year in jail. That is what he did wrong. The hunter probably relized this afterwords with the first kill, and might be able to claim self defence or that he did identify the subject in a timely manner. But killing the juvenile- come on man that doesn't fly, and IMO opinion the state would prosecute the hunter. ptangier

Not 100% sure on that. The Sierra Story at least paints it as a double self-defense shooting. NOW, yes it would be a hard sale to the prosecutors but it is conceivable that the story is plausible, and said prosecutor if the case went to a jury would have a VERY hard time painting this as a non-self defense killing, but I do not know what CA Law would says towards killing unknown mammals in self-defense or if it says nothing to that point.

[Guest]

Silverfox, at what point did you actually start caring about the facts?? Thank you, I needed a good laugh today. Really want to quit posting here on this but there is one thing I would like to clear up. The piece of flesh was not a thick steak. It was a piece of flesh. It did not look like it was cut of a body. It had a cut line because it was cut in half, and then cut again to remove a small piece for the study. Believe what you want, but it's just one more thing to clear up. I have the original photos, and the way it keeps being described here is completely wrong. Just saying.

[BobbyO]

I usually take the BBB with a grain of salt. But this many claims against one lab, makes me wonder if everyone isn't jumping the gun on a reasonable time-frame or on the ability of said lab or the good Dr. to get a thing done.

Well, complaints happen..

Me personally, i try my damndest to satisfy & communicate with ALL of my Customers & potential Customers but i still receive complaints for this & that every single day unfortunately & some are my own fault, others aren't..

I read all of the complaints against DNA Logistics, there was nothing mega that stood out to me in a negative way to be honest..

[southernyahoo]

If everyone else was paying 200 dollars he needs to work on his negotiating skills.

Indie, the 200 likely only covered the preliminary screening process. The cost of sequencing the entire mitochondria and beyond would well exceed this fee.

[JDL]

Silver Fox- You ask what has the hunter done wrong? It is punishable by law in California for shooting known or un known wild mammals ; punishable by up to ( i think) $10,000.00 and/or 1 year in jail. That is what he did wrong. The hunter probably relized this afterwords with the first kill, and might be able to claim self defence or that he did identify the subject in a timely manner. But killing the juvenile- come on man that doesn't fly, and IMO opinion the state would prosecute the hunter. ptangier

The degree of the offense comes down to intent.

"No Sir, I went out to shoot a bear and I thought it was a bear when I shot it. I still don't know what it was for certain."

If the guy is ever investigated/prosecuted, it will depend on what verifiable public statements can be attributed to him and whether or not they are admissible.