Justin Smeja Incident?

[Huntster]

8 minutes ago, vinchyfoot said:

 

I highly doubt that unless they was a legal threat for doing it.

 

There IS a legal threat for killing an ape, but that didn't exist prior to @ 1912, so can you point to a trophy hunter from the period 1856-1912 with gorilla trophies? Teddy Roosevelt, perhaps?

 

Every stuffed gorilla I've seen was in a Hall of Science. Every single one. 

 

[Arvedis]

10 minutes ago, vinchyfoot said:

 

I highly doubt that unless they was a legal threat for doing it.

 

Everyone has private collections of shrunken heads. Are you saying you don't?  If you lived in New Guinea you would be kicked out of the clan.

[Huntster]

I have personally held war "trophies" in my hands. Their sheer numbers boggle the mind.

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

I would do that. In fact, I'd take the shot if I had permits to do so from both the USFWS and the state Fish and Wildlife agency. Moreover, I think a permit application should be submitted to USFWS and wildlife management agencies of the states of Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, and Alaska just to get the ball rolling. Their denials need to be dealt with legally. It's long overdue. "Science" refuses to accept it without a piece of one, so they can't refuse the attempt to get it without explanation.

 

Didn't understand the downvote. I actually like that approach. Thinking of ways in which agencies would have to defend their mostly unknown positions on the subject isn't a bad tactic at all. That's why I had hoped Claudia Ackley's case in San Bernardino would have somehow been able to stay on track. I've seen nothing on that for over three years now.

 

 

 

Edited June 14, 2021 by hiflier

[Huntster]

7 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Didn't understand the downvote. I actually like that approach. Thinking of ways in which agencies would have to defend their mostly unknown positions on the subject isn't a bad tactic at all.......

 

A couple dozen pages would get it started. A simple, straightforward document explaining why the assassination approach is the best course of action, and a plan of action. The most difficult part would be finding a "scientist" or three with enough cahones to put their John Hancock to it. The follow up would likely be tough, especially if you subscribe to the theory of government discouragement or coverup on discovery, but putting them under the gun for a change would be enough fun in and of itself to be worth the effort. Once it goes to court, however (and it eventually would, guaranteed), all bets are off.

[norseman]

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

I would do that. In fact, I'd take the shot if I had permits to do so from both the USFWS and the state Fish and Wildlife agency. Moreover, I think a permit application should be submitted to USFWS and wildlife management agencies of the states of Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, and Alaska just to get the ball rolling. Their denials need to be dealt with legally. It's long overdue. "Science" refuses to accept it without a piece of one, so they can't refuse the attempt to get it without explanation.

It’s a cart vs horse argument.

 

The species would have to be scientifically recognized before any permits could be issued. Which for me is self defeating as my only purpose for hunting them is recognition.
 

I think what Huntster is saying here is that he wants to be legally protected front, back and sideways before pulling the trigger.
 

Which is understandable. 

[Wooly Booger]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

A couple dozen pages would get it started. A simple, straightforward document explaining why the assassination approach is the best course of action, and a plan of action. The most difficult part would be finding a "scientist" or three with enough cahones to put their John Hancock to it. The follow up would likely be tough, especially if you subscribe to the theory of government discouragement or coverup on discovery, but putting them under the gun for a change would be enough fun in and of itself to be worth the effort. Once it goes to court, however (and it eventually would, guaranteed), all bets are off.

I didn't down vote you by the way.  I actually agree with you to some extent, as I suppose killing a type specimen would be the quickest and most efficient method of documenting the species existence.  If that is what ultimately needs to be done, then so be it.  It is better that one specimen be killed than for the entire species quietly go extinct.  As I mentioned earlier, I am not "No Kill." For an animal as magnificent and unique as a Sasquatch I simply would like for all non-lethal avenues of species documentation to be exhausted before the decision is made to kill a type specimen.  But that is just my personal preference.  If you think killing a type specimen is the way to go and you have one in sight then by all means go for it.  But I personally only intend to do so as a last resort.

 

And I have nothing against trophy hunting.  It isn't my thing personally, but to each their own. I prefer hunting for sustenance.  My primary concern regarding the Sasquatch after species documentation is conservation.  If one specimen needs to be killed in order to prove the species exists, that is fine. But it needs to stop right there.  That was the only point I was making. 

[norseman]

31 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

I didn't down vote you by the way.  I actually agree with you to some extent, as I suppose killing a type specimen would be the quickest and most efficient method of documenting the species existence.  If that is what ultimately needs to be done, then so be it.  It is better that one specimen be killed than for the entire species quietly go extinct.  As I mentioned earlier, I am not "No Kill." For an animal as magnificent and unique as a Sasquatch I simply would like for all non-lethal avenues of species documentation to be exhausted before the decision is made to kill a type specimen.  But that is just my personal preference.  If you think killing a type specimen is the way to go and you have one in sight then by all means go for it.  But I personally only intend to do so as a last resort.

 

And I have nothing against trophy hunting.  It isn't my thing personally, but to each their own. I prefer hunting for sustenance.  My primary concern regarding the Sasquatch after species documentation is conservation.  If one specimen needs to be killed in order to prove the species exists, that is fine. But it needs to stop right there.  That was the only point I was making. 

There is no distinction in the US that I’m aware of between trophy hunting and meat hunting. You have to harvest the meat of a game animal by law. Varmints excluded. If you legally hold a tag and you shoot an animal and only cut the horns off it and leave? You have broken the law. If caught it could cost you your horns, rifle, pickup and future hunting privileges.

 

In the US all a trophy hunter means is that the hunter seeks an animal worthy of the Boone and Crockett and Pope and Young record books. Depending on the weapon used....

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, norseman said:

It’s a cart vs horse argument.

The species would have to be scientifically recognized before any permits could be issued........

 

Why? We now even have agencies (Ohio DNR) publishing educatio al videos on the species. If government was presented with a sound plan, and endorsed by a "scientist" or three, it would behoove the community to read their reason for denial so that defeating that would be the next true hurdle.
 

Quote

 

........I think what Huntster is saying here is that he wants to be legally protected front, back and sideways before pulling the trigger.
 

Which is understandable. 

 

 

That's correct, but it also puts the onus on the very peopjevwho should be "researching" the phenomenon; government biologists. If they deny the permits, they'd have to give reasons why, and those reasons must be known by all. 

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

There is no distinction in the US that I’m aware of between trophy hunting and meat hunting........

 

There are in Alaska, but the entire "subsistence" issue was a political ploy that was originally intended to create entitlement for some and a legal barrier for others. That said, I again point to African apes as victims of subsistence meat poachers, not trophy hunters. African ivory poachers (which we also have in Alaska) are also local villagers marketing ivory into a worldwide criminal market similar to Mexican or Columbian drug cartels. Could sasquatches end up as commodities in such criminals markets? I doubt it, at least on a major scale.

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

Why? We now even have agencies (Ohio DNR) publishing educatio al videos on the species. If government was presented with a sound plan, and endorsed by a "scientist" or three, it would behoove the community to read their reason for denial so that defeating that would be the next true hurdle.
 

I know. I posted the video. Those videos are aimed at kids visiting state parks asking too many Bigfoot questions. IMO.
 

Because in order to issue a hunting permit there would need to be Biologists and studies involved. Biology says there is NO such creature.
 

So it’s a catch 22.

 

Huntster wrote-“That's correct, but it also puts the onus on the very people who should be "researching" the phenomenon; government biologists. If they deny the permits, they'd have to give reasons why, and those reasons must be known by all.”

 

We know why. They claim it doesn’t exist. So either we drag one in by the feet and rub their noses in it. Or we go fishing like Huntster and drop it!😉

 

I guess there is another option. The alien option. Some how some way we get the government to admit that something is roaming N. America’s hinterlands. I won’t hold my breath.

 

[hiflier]

23 minutes ago, norseman said:

Some how some way we get the government to admit that something is roaming N. America’s hinterlands. I won’t hold my breath.

 

Been saying that for years now. Even presented the "Some how some way"......way. No takers. If folks won't, or can't, broach the subject with their local officials then a government level focus becomes virtually a non-starter. Or follow the usual pattern of waiting for someone else to do it. Daniel Perez? Peter Byrne? Dr. Meldrum? Any suggestions on the "somehow" part? Anyone?

[Wooly Booger]

21 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Been saying that for years now. Even presented the "Some how some way"......way. No takers. If folks won't, or can't, broach the subject with their local officials then a government level focus becomes virtually a non-starter. Or follow the usual pattern of waiting for someone else to do it. Daniel Perez? Peter Byrne? Dr. Meldrum? Any suggestions on the "somehow" part? Anyone?

I plan to do so with my Fish & Wildlife officials here in Tennessee. Ohio has all but admitted the existence of Sasquatch. As has the Oklahoma State legislature and Skamania County Washington. If more and more state and local agencies continue to do so, then the feds will be forced to give up the charade of secrecy. 

Edited June 15, 2021 by Wooly Booger

[hiflier]

Eye on the prize...always.

[Wooly Booger]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

I know. I posted the video. Those videos are aimed at kids visiting state parks asking too many Bigfoot questions. IMO.
 

Because in order to issue a hunting permit there would need to be Biologists and studies involved. Biology says there is NO such creature.
 

So it’s a catch 22.

 

Huntster wrote-“That's correct, but it also puts the onus on the very people who should be "researching" the phenomenon; government biologists. If they deny the permits, they'd have to give reasons why, and those reasons must be known by all.”

 

We know why. They claim it doesn’t exist. So either we drag one in by the feet and rub their noses in it. Or we go fishing like Huntster and drop it!😉

 

I guess there is another option. The alien option. Some how some way we get the government to admit that something is roaming N. America’s hinterlands. I won’t hold my breath.

 

Most biologists have not looked at he overwhelming evidence for the existence of Sasquatch. Some even flat out refuse to look because of the unfortunate and indeed unnecessary stigma attached to the subject. Those few biologists and scientists who have gone against the prevailing academic grain and have actually examined the evidence usually conclude that it is at least possible that such an animal exists. 

 

We as Bigfoot researchers need to be advocates for the evidence and present it in a scientific and analytical manner. Divorced from any and all paranormal poppycock. If we succeed in doing so, we could win at least some wildlife biologists and other scientists over to our side which seems to have been the case with the Ohio DNR. 

 

Maybe we can even ignite a State Fish & Wildlife Agency "Spring" so to speak which will undermine the federal government's likely unofficial policy of secrecy.