Jump to content

Bigfoot Hunting in Oklahoma?


Recommended Posts

hiflier
BFF Donor

Ran across this: https://ktul.com/news/local/oklahoma-rep-files-bill-to-establish-bigfoot-hunting-season

 

Is Southeast Oklahoma Representative  Humphrey serious about this? Does he know about NAWAC? Or any of the group's people personally?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

From a different article:


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/great-outdoors/oklahoma-rep-bill-bigfoot-hunting-season.amp

 

Quote

........"Here at the department, we use science to make management decisions, and we do not recognize Bigfoot as a wildlife species in Oklahoma," said Holmes.........

 

So won't a sasquatch carcass complete the science for Scientist Holmes?

Link to post
Share on other sites
VAfooter
Admin

Scheduled to open on 1 November, if passed. I doubt it would be, if for nothing else, the potential liability issues.

 

3 hours ago, hiflier said:

Is Southeast Oklahoma Representative  Humphrey serious about this? Does he know about NAWAC? Or any of the group's people personally?

 

Probably not. I suspect this is just to garner greater name recognition in the state.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, Huntster said:

From a different article:


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/great-outdoors/oklahoma-rep-bill-bigfoot-hunting-season.amp

 

 

So won't a sasquatch carcass complete the science for Scientist Holmes?

 

Yes, indeed it would, Huntster. One thing I've learned, even with my own F&W is that nor recognizing the creature doesn't mean non-existence. I wrote an email to Rep Justin Humphrey because I have a pile of questions to ask him. Anyone who knows my MO could easily guess that I would do that. I'll be presenting some of those questions here in a little while. The first being WHY is he introducing this bill in the first place. Tourism? Revenue from issuing more hunting licenses? Were people lobbying him to introduce such a bill? He's on a committee for agriculture and rural development so would the bill have any kind of potential future impact on any committee decisions? And I bunch more questions I would ask him if and when he gets back to me.

 

The Wednesday announcement is only a day old so my email requesting that he open a dialogue with me may be a surprise. At least I hope it is ;)

 

 

Edited by hiflier
Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
26 minutes ago, VAfooter said:

Scheduled to open on 1 November, if passed. I doubt it would be, if for nothing else, the potential liability issues.

 

 

Probably not. I suspect this is just to garner greater name recognition in the state.

 

 

Yes, I saw that. Even if just for greater name recognition I don't think he knows what a door he has just opened. If he contacts me he's going to find out ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
2 minutes ago, hiflier said:

.......I'll be presenting some of those questions here in a little while. The first being WHY is he introducing this bill in the first place. Tourism? Revenue from issuing more hunting licenses? Were people lobbying him to introduce such a bill? He's on a committee for agriculture and rural development so would the bill have any kind of potential future impact on any committee decisions?.......


All valid questions, but all meaningless to me. I have only two questions:

 

To those opposing this, would you also oppose an open hunting season on Gaboon vipers and/or flying dragons? If so or if not, why?

Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

Just political grandstanding....

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

For me? I wouldn't be opposed to hunting those two critters but I'd want to see the blurry photos first ;) IMHO they need to held to the same high standards as our Hairy friend. So if the man wants the bill to pass because he knows LEO's in the Honobia area and read their non-publicized reports, or has heard from farmers and other rural constituents who have lost pets or livestock, then maybe he's a believer. The problem is, if the bill passes next Fall and someone brings one in, what will it do to timbering in the Ouachita National Forest? It's why I want to discuss things with him, I think his idea hasn't been thought through very well. You know, it's a cart before the horse kind of thing unless he wants to somehow go all out because science hasn't moved on discovering the beast. So Humphrey may be thinking this would be the quickest way to solving the issue.

 

Yep, just thinking out loud here and tossing my two rocks into the camp.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
1 minute ago, norseman said:

Just political grandstanding....

 

Yes, maybe, but if that's the case, he may be opening a Pandora's box that he would be ill-prepared for. I doubt he'll get out unscathed by the same people who've yelled at NAWAC at conferences. Especially since he's in NAWAC's back yard. There are many Indigeneous tribes there, like the Choctaw, and I know at least three BF researchers there who are not BFRO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Arvedis

It's a great idea. They should revisit what was discussed a while ago among OK folks when rural families were being harassed. Set up a kill zone. Leave meat outdoors and let them come for it. After unloading semi auto rounds you won't get a carcass but you can collect pieces of them for lab analysis.

Edited by Arvedis
Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

Right now, as we all know, killing one would be is illegal. If Humphrey gets his way it won't be. It would be an OK state law at which point NO ONE, including federal institutions, could say anything without admitting that the creature is real and then stick it on an endangered species list. The way I see it, what is starting out as a simple looking bill, is actually anything but. That's why I don't think Rep Justin Humphrey has spent time looking before he leaped.

Edited by hiflier
Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

Me also, Marty. I look at it this way, if the creature doesn't exist then the bill passes to increase hunting license revenue and boost tourism. Even out of state hunters who are believers might jump at the chance to be the first. Science won't touch it because for them it's a win-win: They don't have to say it exists or lift a finger to get a body on a slab. F&W can't say anything without getting into the quagmire of proving the creature is real in order to fight the bill. Federal? DOA? DOI? US Forestry Service? US F&W? Negative on all of them for the same reason.  Because one can't stop anything that is geared toward hunting something that doesn't exist and that no agency to date has, or will, recognize Bigfoot as a real creature.

 

These have been my arguments all along for putting pressure on agencies to tell the truth. So far I have struck out. And most here have informed me why the effort was useless. Of, course, I've never agreed with the reasons......for my own reasons. So much more to say about the introduction of this bill, if it has even reached the point of introduction that is.

Edited by hiflier
Link to post
Share on other sites
VAfooter
Admin
21 hours ago, hiflier said:

I don't think he knows what a door he has just opened.

 

I think you are very correct on that (or can o' worms)...

 

 

20 hours ago, hiflier said:

Right now, as we all know, killing one would be is illegal.

 

I did not realize that OK had a law protecting BF.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
29 minutes ago, VAfooter said:

 

I think you are very correct on that (or can o' worms)...

 

 

 

I did not realize that OK had a law protecting BF.

 

No state needs a law to protect a Bigfoot. All one needs is to NOT have on the list of legally hunted animals that people can get licenses for. Pretty sure all states say that anything not on that list would be illegal to hunt. We know about the about the county in Washington that actually has the creature protected by at least a fine. And outside of maybe one county in Texas, it IS legal to hunt a Bigfoot in the state, although I don't know the actual wording on that.

 

35 minutes ago, VAfooter said:

I think you are very correct on that (or can o' worms)...

 

Yeah, ya got that right. I would estimate at least 95% of believers are no-kil. If they ever band together the case for passing the bill would have all kinds of dynamics and threats surrounding proving existence. I've always thought at least the county in Washington state should be saddled with that task. But, if it's not on the state's list of animals one can hunt, then the law is redundant and is only what it's supposed to be, a beacon for tourism. Rep Justin Humprey may be thinking that as well. With any luck, he'll be in for quite a surprise. I would LOVE to see the bill end up in a court battle. It would make Todd Standing's case and Claudia Ackley's look amateurish by most standards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...