norseman Posted September 20, 2019 Admin Posted September 20, 2019 Like Huntster? He isnt against collecting a type specimen he just doesnt want to deal with the ramifications
NatFoot Posted September 21, 2019 Posted September 21, 2019 2 hours ago, norseman said: Like Huntster? He isnt against collecting a type specimen he just doesnt want to deal with the ramifications Actually, he IS against it...personally.
Huntster Posted September 21, 2019 Posted September 21, 2019 Both. No way do I want another court date, criminal or civil. And I wouldn't kill somebody who didn't need killing just to satisfy the demands or ideological needs of others. When I thought it was an ape, I would'a done it. As I've evolved to believe that they're a hominin.......a human species, and pretty much peaceful...........well, I think I'll pass on the killing stuff. 1
norseman Posted September 21, 2019 Admin Posted September 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Huntster said: Both. No way do I want another court date, criminal or civil. And I wouldn't kill somebody who didn't need killing just to satisfy the demands or ideological needs of others. When I thought it was an ape, I would'a done it. As I've evolved to believe that they're a hominin.......a human species, and pretty much peaceful...........well, I think I'll pass on the killing stuff. 10-4. Sorry I misspoke.
Huntster Posted September 21, 2019 Posted September 21, 2019 Just now, norseman said: 10-4. Sorry I misspoke. No, my opinions and positions evolve with deeper consideration and/or evidence. You didn't misspeak.
MIB Posted September 21, 2019 Moderator Posted September 21, 2019 I can't, in good conscience, donate to the defense fund. I perceive that as promoting a kill, something I stand firmly against. MIB 1
hiflier Posted September 21, 2019 Posted September 21, 2019 (edited) I've given this poll a lot of thought and I understand the reasoning behind the LDF, gigantor, and it's a good idea. And sure, if there was such a fund it might help defray legal costs incurred from taking a live specimen? But I also think legal costs could be part of a court case stemming from finding a dead one and removing it or a piece of it. Folks seem to think a fund would be only for killing one and it doesn't have to go down like that if priorities are as they currently are: finding a dead one first and foremost.That said, I would vote yes if certain conditions were imposed. But if anyone wants to know (prolly NOT) what I really think? I would lean more toward a fund to buy equipment for taking e-DNA samples and having them tested. Because I truly think that for the thousands spent in legal counsel for dealing with a creature that was either shot or found dead? 30-50 e-DNA samples could be tested. The Olympic Peninsula nest samples had cost $5000 for 5 tests. So the trick would be finding a way to get costs down and then actually PAYING someone to learn the procedure, go into remote habitat to take samples, document the locations, and then deliver the samples to a reputable lab, either academic or otherwise. Maybe a separate thread that has a poll for some kind of e-DNA program would satisfy most if not ALL of the no-kill proponents and the pro-kill people as well. Because many of those in the pro-kill camp would rather NOT have to kill one if it could be avoided. Especially if existence and taxonomy could be proved otherwise. I mean if we can stay with a more scientific approach which has been shown to be extremely accurate then all of the dynamics and legal ramifications of killing one disappear. Of course, finding a dead one would be still on the table. In fact, if a dead one is found? It's location could be documented, the creature itself thoroughly photographed, and then multiple e-DNA samples could be taken of IT!. That way most every other creature will not be a part of the sample. Just tossing my two rocks into the camp here to see what folks think. Bottom line for this thread though is I would be FOR a Legal Defense Fund under certain conditions. Edited September 21, 2019 by hiflier
gigantor Posted September 21, 2019 Admin Author Posted September 21, 2019 2 hours ago, hiflier said: I would be FOR a Legal Defense Fund under certain conditions. Which are?
hiflier Posted September 21, 2019 Posted September 21, 2019 A dead one gets found or one gets dead in a hunter's self defense. In other words, someone not actively out to kill one. Needless to say, even though I know science needs a body, All I'm interested is securing proof of existence which I firmly think can be done with an intelligent environmental DNA program. But since there isn't a category for any of these ideas there isn't much of a choice so I won't be too fussy about my vote. Too much is at stake unless some kind of proof is obtained in whatever manner. I just thought it was important to present a good scientific alternative. I mean, HUH? NO NESSIE? C'MON NOW! LOL What's next? No Unicorns? No Leprechauns? What's the world coming to?
gigantor Posted September 21, 2019 Admin Author Posted September 21, 2019 4 hours ago, hiflier said: But since there isn't a category for any of these ideas there isn't much of a choice... I guess you missed question #3. 1
hiflier Posted September 21, 2019 Posted September 21, 2019 Maybe? Don't recall. I did say I would donate and I did list an amount. As far as #3 goes I think id did choose the first category even with the reservations I have explained. So yeah, however a sample of a Bigfoot gets obtained I think it's important enough to do without splitting too many philosophical hairs.
7.62 Posted September 22, 2019 Posted September 22, 2019 I don't see how the person could be charged unless he hunts and kills one in Washington state or if the thing is 100% human . They are not on the endangered species list or protected like birds or a closed or open season on them . I think if they were to try and charge the person it would not stand . The biggest worry the person should have is the nuts that will try to destroy his life.
bipedalist Posted September 22, 2019 BFF Patron Posted September 22, 2019 (edited) Definition of hunting vs assassination in place here. If one was found and it was proven that it was dead and not shot does not mean it wasn't hunted and killed. If decay had set in and a post-mortem and toxicology could not be done that doesn't mean the specimen was not poisoned or otherwise killed in a planful way--call it hunting or what have you. Sure the old logging truck with a sasquatch embedded in the brush guard thingy would be a noncontroversial way to get the proof. But the gov prolly got one out of the Mt St Helens eruption and knows all about them anywho. I, like Huntster (and others), believe it is an evolved hominin of some kind, and will not condone hunting for resultant proof of existence. Had I been of a different mindset I could have fired into one at 5 1/2 ft. one night (not quite point-blank but it would have been hard to miss if it is a corporeal specimen). Edited September 22, 2019 by bipedalist
gigantor Posted September 22, 2019 Admin Author Posted September 22, 2019 5 minutes ago, bipedalist said: I, like Huntster (and others), believe it is an evolved hominin of some kind, If that were true, it would use tools.
bipedalist Posted September 22, 2019 BFF Patron Posted September 22, 2019 My research shows it uses symbolic representations and improvisations, graphic (visual/kinesthetic/tactile/motor) and auditory. Sure it could be one of any number of things. It probably buries its dead and thinks symbolically. Can't explain the tool and maybe the fire thing. It is probably an offshoot around or before Neanderthal in my thinking. 1 1
Recommended Posts