Jump to content

Bigfoot Hunting in Oklahoma?


Recommended Posts

VAfooter
Admin
11 minutes ago, hiflier said:

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.

 

I would like to see the court case where the state is prosecuting a hunter because he/she killed an animal that supposedly does not even exist. Not that it does not exist in that state (Badgers in Florida...), but does not exist anywhere. And if all else fails, plead self defense ("It charged me, your Honor...").

 

14 minutes ago, hiflier said:

I would estimate at least 95% of believers are no-kil.

 

You really think it is that high? I would guess, completely un-scientifically, that maybe 60-75% as no-kill. Nothing to really back that up, just a gut feeling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

And you're probably right, I have no stats either. Even so, I'll bet most also would like to see science somehow get proof. I know some don't want it to be discovered in a public way because of potential poaching but who's to say that's not going on now? I really doubt, though, that if a Game Warden came across a hunter with a dead one in the back of a truck that he would let the matter slide. The problem with Justin Humphrey is that he more than likely doesn't know what bringing one in would mean for resource harvesting in his state. That's why I said "cart before the horse". Makes me wonder if any harvesting company, like timber or mining, would try to force a nay vote on the bill.

 

You know, VAfooter, stuff like this comes up and it would be easy to toss out a comment or two, or say "I don't want them killed", but the fact remains that it's so much more complicated than that, and could carry enormous implications if not handled carefully. I really don't think Humphrey realizes any of the potential fallout, economically or otherwise, of what he's proposing. Haven't heard back from him either. Probably won't. The four counties in his district do not include LeFlore which is where I think Honobia is located. But being a state level bill, it may not matter.

 

Boy do I ever wish and hope the right people make a huge fuss over this, like the ones who attend the Bigfoot conferences in the state. I seriously think they need to speak up and talk about litigation to fight the bill. That could wake up the argument enough to hopefully see some of these points addressed at the official level.

 

I also think, just for the exposure it would bring, that any BFRO state field reps and Matt Moneymaker, could really raise a ruckus if they wished to take advantage of the opportunity for advancing the organization's public profile. 

Edited by hiflier
Link to post
Share on other sites
VAfooter
Admin

I think we had a poll on here once about kill/no kill, but do not remember the exact results. I do think it was in favor of no-kill though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

Yeah, can't find it. Be that as it may, I've always found the subject of what discovery would mean very intriguing. Mainly because if anyone outside the BF community ever gave the matter some serious thought they would realize the the creature not existing could have quite a large economic and social  impact as well considering the number of people in the US that supposedly believe it it's existence. I think it's somewhere around 40%, though ICBW about that.

 

The Oklahoma representative, I'm sure, is thinking this would only affect his state? My opinion, however, is that the man needs to be thinking much bigger than that. If he's doing this because maybe a family member is a scientist who believes the creature is real and wants one for study? Then the bill would be coming for the right reasons.

Edited by hiflier
Link to post
Share on other sites
Believer57
BFF Donor
17 hours ago, hiflier said:

If he's doing this because maybe a family member is a scientist who believes the creature is real and wants one for study?

Hey, that reads like a book excerpt. ;)

 

I keep going back to how a capture/kill may steer public opinion. From my point of view, I am pissed off that I didn't know about these things for most of my life and consequently let my kids go off and play in the Adirondack woods like I did as a kid. We always lived in the suburbs so going to the mountains was a real treat for us. In fact, my only good recall of a possible encounter was in college in the Catskills when several of my buddies heard whispers in the wind and what I now know as "samurai chatter". It was so strange that I remember it today. I've read stories about possible encounters with school kids in the woods. Having your children in danger makes you real angry, real fast. Would we willingly do this if we knew of the possible dangers?

 

 

 

Edited by Believer57
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

No. Because I think the dangers would be far greater than a Bigfoot. Bears may outnumber BF's a thousand to one so there at least that. Mountain lions and all kinds of other threats lurking from rabid 'coons and foxes....you name it. So no, the risk just isn't worth taking any chances with children being alone. Even adults who go into forests unarmed isn't all that wise depending on the location and isolation they might be seeking.

 

The people in my novels (second book done in about three weeks) have a hand from a dead Bigfoot in California and solid DNA evidence and encounters in Minnesota and Wisconsin. They have enough on their plate right now without a catch and release trapping situation ;) Who's to say where the next tale will lead. Thinking of the trilogy here if I have it in me to write it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Believer57
BFF Donor

I used to think the worst we had to fear (as unsuspecting campers or vacationers) was black bear in NY state. To me, Bigfoot doesn't fall into another wild animal category. It is an intelligent apex predator! Further, most people think Bigfoot may only exist in the Pacific Northwest region. The numerous reports seen in every state are an eye opener...but you have to know how to look for them.

 

So at the very least, I feel that the public should be warned of the potential at all State Parks. Without the creature being designated a true species (wood ape or human hybrid, etc.) most of us walk around the woods like prey. For me, my wood ventures are over. But how do I tell my five grandkids? It should be taught that way in school. Hopefully, we are close to some sort of crossroad.

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
On 1/21/2021 at 12:43 PM, hiflier said:

........he may be opening a Pandora's box that he would be ill-prepared for.........

 

The box will never be opened. But in opposing hunting, the biologists will ALWAYS use the "they don't exist" reason and NEVER the reason that, if they DO exist, they are clearly primates.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BeansBaxter78

So, he released a video on Facebook and pretty much said it was a tourism stunt. He also walked back on "hunting season" and now says it's a "trapping permit" and the goal is to take one alive.

 

All in all, I think I get what he is trying to do, he's trying to generate revenue and interest in the Honobia Bigfoot festival. I kinda feel bad for the guy, he's taking a lot of flak and he's just trying to generate some income.

 

How cool would it be to have an actual Govt. issued bigfoot trapping/hunting license? Like he said in his video, several people have already contacted him wanting to purchase one, just to frame.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
MODERATOR
On 1/22/2021 at 11:48 AM, hiflier said:

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.

 

Not correct.   There are two paradigms.   Under the first, only animals listed as huntable can be shot.  This is what you are describing.   California would be an example.    Under the second, all protected animals are listed and anything not listed can be shot .. open "season".    Oregon is an example of this.   Yep, here if it is not protected explicitly by federal law or state law, I can shoot it ... year around.   As I understand it, the reason was to allow people to exterminate invasive species without having to go through a complex process.    From the standpoint of protecting native wildlife, Oregon's scheme makes a lot of sense.   (I would say before you start shooting here, you better know what you are shooting at because the list of protected species is **long**.)  

 

MIB

Link to post
Share on other sites
okieman

I'm not sure how anyone would think the shooting of a BF in Oklahoma as the laws stand or lack thereof would be illegal. There is nothing prohibiting the shooting of one as this creature is not a recognized species to even have a season to begin with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gambacha1311

My understanding of this is it's pretty much just a publicity stunt, the town has some Bigfoot festival every year and they are trying to bring more notice to bring more money and people to their city for this event. Technically you can't kill one but if you capture it they will give you a reward (I heard somewhere around 25k$). But I feel like this is the wrong way to go about it they would of been better off coming out with something protecting these creatures from being killed, just putting it out there that they are a real creature would of been good. We will probably get some dummies going out there all strapped up trying to hunt down one of these things now and are either going to have a terrifying experience and get ran out of the woods. Or someone is going to get hurt and it's probably not going to be the sasquatch that get's hurt. They are hands down better survivalists than we are and there sole existence revolves around hiding from us. The aren't going to let themselves get captured easily. If someone does capture one and the cat is out of the bag then cool I hope they don't hurt it but that's probably too much to ask for. The big "I told you so!" comes out, I don't wish harm on anyone but if they go out there trying to hunt these creatures bad things are going to  happen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
okieman

Again, there is nothing illegal about killing a squatch in Oklahoma. It's not a recognized species and therefore no hunting seasons and no laws in Oklahoma prohibiting shooting and killing one.

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