Huntster Posted January 6 Posted January 6 20 minutes ago, norseman said: Imagine if we had 100000 hunters in the woods?....... There are many more than that. Alaska alone sells @ 125K hunting licenses per year. Quote ......Thought experiment. Pick one. Would you rather have a 100000 signature petition sent to Washington DC? Or a dead type specimen in your control? I'd prefer not having "hunters" shooting willy-nilly at bipedal boogermen out there. I've been shot by a hunter before. It hurt like Hell.
hiflier Posted January 6 Posted January 6 1 minute ago, Huntster said: The policy is not restricted to those known to exist. It can only apply to known populations until more get discovered. THEN and only then would it apply. But it's a moot point anyway where Bigfoot is concerned. "Humaness" comes with built in qualifiers. 4 minutes ago, Huntster said: Okay, how's this: "The Huntster theory of the government hands-off conspiracy is based upon the supposition that government long ago examined sasquatches physically and in the wild, determined that they were a relatively peaceful and reclusive species of the genus Homo, and decided that the best course was to simply give them as much space as possible and discourage disclosure in order to keep the public from disturbing them collectively and causing problems for both the species and government." It would mean, therefore, that the truth of the creature's existence would have to be a government-known reality. But hunting them is officially deemed a recreational activity. Does one policy supersede the other?
norseman Posted January 6 Admin Author Posted January 6 3 minutes ago, Huntster said: There are many more than that. Alaska alone sells @ 125K hunting licenses per year. I'd prefer not having "hunters" shooting willy-nilly at bipedal boogermen out there. I've been shot by a hunter before. It hurt like Hell. Not for Bigfoot. And he probably thought you were a Moose.🤷♂️ What I am saying is that the amount of researchers out there taking grainy photos and dental resin footcasts in some misguided effort to prove the creature real is folly. I don’t even care if you’re going out there with a biopsy dart. Just bring back physical evidence.
hiflier Posted January 6 Posted January 6 (edited) 19 minutes ago, norseman said: What I am saying is that the amount of researchers out there taking grainy photos and dental resin footcasts in some misguided effort to prove the creature real is folly. I don’t even care if you’re going out there with a biopsy dart. Just bring back physical evidence. BINGO! But doesn't the issue regarding the topic here hint a bit at what stake the gov may have in not allowing physical evidence, or even the test results of physical evidence, to ever reach the public? What would stopping such endeavors aimed at discovery even look like? Edited January 6 by hiflier
Huntster Posted January 6 Posted January 6 22 minutes ago, hiflier said: It can only apply to known populations until more get discovered. THEN and only then would it apply. But it's a moot point anyway where Bigfoot is concerned. "....... Discovered, yes. Disclosure is not necessary. Quote ........"Humaness" comes with built in qualifiers........ Yup. And if only one entity knows of them, it's their qualifiers that qualify. Everybody else's don't. Quote .......It would mean, therefore, that the truth of the creature's existence would have to be a government-known reality. But hunting them is officially deemed a recreational activity. Does one policy supersede the other? Why would it? You may "hunt" them. If you see one, few will believe you. If you shoot one and successfully get it publicized, you "win".......I suppose. Your favorite Maine moose rifle should suffice. Good luck. 1
Huntster Posted January 6 Posted January 6 27 minutes ago, norseman said: Not for Bigfoot........ True. The general statements in the regs prohibit taking an animal that isn't listed with a season, but there is no shortage of "hunters" ignorant of that fact and are just itching to shoot something. Quote .......And he probably thought you were a Moose.🤷♂️ No, just shot in my direction. It was a pure accident, but it still hurt. And if you invite any and everybody to be the first to bring in a sasquatch, you'd better deck out in orange with flashing lights out there.
hiflier Posted January 6 Posted January 6 40 minutes ago, norseman said: But you won’t pack a gun in the woods. So get off your high horse! No high horse, Norseman. Just a discussion on the realities of the real-world situation. And for the record, packing a gun wouldn't automatically put me on a high horse. And it certainly doesn't make me less than you in any way regardless of the veiled implication.
hiflier Posted January 6 Posted January 6 It would be really, really good if there were 15 or 20 people in on this discussion. Especially since noting that 67 members so far have voted on the poll. Where are they?
norseman Posted January 6 Admin Author Posted January 6 1 hour ago, hiflier said: No high horse, Norseman. Just a discussion on the realities of the real-world situation. And for the record, packing a gun wouldn't automatically put me on a high horse. And it certainly doesn't make me less than you in any way regardless of the veiled implication. You’re already on a high horse. You talk down to anyone who doesn’t comply with your demands. You read that completely backwards. Go buy a crossbow and build a biopsy dart. Go get physical evidence. Writing politicians is a waste of time. The ABC branches of government have our secret. Not Congress.
hiflier Posted January 6 Posted January 6 (edited) 30 minutes ago, norseman said: You’re already on a high horse. You talk down to anyone who doesn’t comply with your demands. You read that completely backwards. Go buy a crossbow and build a biopsy dart. Go get physical evidence. Writing politicians is a waste of time. The ABC branches of government have our secret. Not Congress. Actually I've been waiting a looong time for someone, anyone, to talk straight across from me. And I make NO demands. All I do is encourage members to take action and make suggestions on how to do that. For instance, one would think collecting DNA to determine a primate presence other than Human would be something that could help so I gave s all the info I could find on it and posted it on this Forum. I suggested people contact their F&W and pop the question. And yes, I did it because the ABC branches, as you say, have our secret. That's why this Forum, you included, have seen me go after the Dept. of Ag, USFS, and USFWS. I don't know where you think writing to politicians fits this at all. It's why this Forum now knows that hunting Bigfoot is a recreational activity according to the USFWS. Who else did that in the ten years that I've been a member here. That is NOT a statement coming from any high horse that I know of. It is simply a reality that anyone in the community COULD have engaged in, including the famous Bigfoot stars, and we know who they are. But I go at it alone and STILL do not understand why that is. This isn't ego tripping. It's doing work and taking risks that no one else has been willing to do in the last ten plus years that I've seen. And if telling it like it is looks like condescension to you then that's just too bad. I stopped caring what people think around here a long time ago when I took my first deep breath and started writing the feds. And I'm not done yet. So say what you will, my friend. It matters not. Edited January 6 by hiflier 1
Huntster Posted January 6 Posted January 6 1 hour ago, hiflier said: It would be really, really good if there were 15 or 20 people in on this discussion. Especially since noting that 67 members so far have voted on the poll. Where are they? Planning a revolt on Capitol grounds. They've had enough, and they're not standing for it. 1
hiflier Posted January 6 Posted January 6 (edited) 34 minutes ago, norseman said: Go buy a crossbow and build a biopsy dart. Go get physical evidence. You and a bunch of others have that covered. And none are dealing with the feds. Just thought I'd fill that void and cover THAT empty base. Edited January 6 by hiflier 1
Huntster Posted January 6 Posted January 6 39 minutes ago, hiflier said: You and a bunch of others have that covered. And none are dealing with the feds. Just thought I'd fill that void and cover THAT empty base. And I wish you good fortune. I simply don't think you'll get far with those fine folks. I've got a bit of experience with them, and they have a habit of making decisions and sticking to them, come Hell or high water.
norseman Posted January 6 Admin Author Posted January 6 54 minutes ago, hiflier said: You and a bunch of others have that covered. And none are dealing with the feds. Just thought I'd fill that void and cover THAT empty base. No. We don’t.
Recommended Posts