Can You Really Shoot A Bigfoot?

[gigantor]

41 minutes ago, Huntster said:

This is an excellent subject and experiment to pursue. Even if one was confident of rejection, getting an official denial (and reasoning for it) would be worth the effort of putting together a permit proposal.

Here in Alaska, ADFG would be the agency to issue a permit to hunt/harvest a sasquatch, but since the best sasquatch habitat are federal lands, a harvest would still be legally tenuous. In fact, I'm pretty sure that ADFG would defer to the federal government, simply to get somebody else to juggle that hot potato.

 

If the permit proposal included a sound plan with methods and means, a sound post-harvest plan, was managed by an accredited biologist (or team of them), and the hunting activity was supervised by a registered Alaskan big game guide, it would be difficult for ADFG to deny a permit. The feds? I'm pretty sure they would deny it.

 

Private lands in the Oklahoma/Texas/Florida/etc areas would defeat that potential problem.

 

 

Next week Expedition Bigfoot will read this and attempt to obtain a permit.

 

 

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

This is an excellent subject and experiment to pursue. Even if one was confident of rejection, getting an official denial (and reasoning for it) would be worth the effort of putting together a permit proposal.

Here in Alaska, ADFG would be the agency to issue a permit to hunt/harvest a sasquatch, but since the best sasquatch habitat are federal lands, a harvest would still be legally tenuous. In fact, I'm pretty sure that ADFG would defer to the federal government, simply to get somebody else to juggle that hot potato.

 

If the permit proposal included a sound plan with methods and means, a sound post-harvest plan, was managed by an accredited biologist (or team of them), and the hunting activity was supervised by a registered Alaskan big game guide, it would be difficult for ADFG to deny a permit. The feds? I'm pretty sure they would deny it.

 

Private lands in the Oklahoma/Texas/Florida/etc areas would defeat that potential problem.

 

I called the US Fish and Game and asked them about taking a type specimen. What I learned.

 

1) They only administered federal wildlife refuge areas.

https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wildlife-refuge-system

 

BLM, Forest Service, etc defers to state wildlife agencies. Except for the Park Service. 
 

2) They handle customs importation of animal skins, horns, feathers, etc of species.

 

3) They only give out permits for studying species to accredited scientists. Laymen need not apply.

 

Our local refuge is this one…

 

https://www.fws.gov/refuge/little-pend-oreille/visit-us/locations/little-pend-oreille-national-wildlife-refuge

 

 

[Huntster]

58 minutes ago, gigantor said:

 

Next week Expedition Bigfoot will read this and attempt to obtain a permit.

 

 

 

I hope so. The application and official response alone would be appropriate programming for one episode.

[dlaw]

I am an attorney and realistically, I do not believe a jury would convict you for shooting a BF, particularly since the public primarily sees them as "monsters".  Also,

It would not be difficult to prove self-defense since you could say you were in fear for your life. I doubt that any DA would pursue prosecution unless the DA wanted the publicity, but it might turn out to be bad publicity or ridicule.

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, dlaw said:

I am an attorney and realistically, I do not believe a jury would convict you for shooting a BF...........

 

Maybe, but I'll let somebody else pay you to make sure of that.

[norseman]

9 hours ago, dlaw said:

I am an attorney and realistically, I do not believe a jury would convict you for shooting a BF, particularly since the public primarily sees them as "monsters".  Also,

It would not be difficult to prove self-defense since you could say you were in fear for your life. I doubt that any DA would pursue prosecution unless the DA wanted the publicity, but it might turn out to be bad publicity or ridicule.

More importantly? Our understanding of the natural world is based on the collection of type specimens. According to science Bigfoot does not exist. No amount of foot casts or photos or video have convinced academia. So science is ASKING for a type specimen.

 

Physical proof that this creature exists. 
 

How can they say “thank you for physical evidence of a new species and oh BTW you are going to be prosecuted for proving it”? 

 

If they are seeking to protect the species? Science has to proclaim it a species first.
 

 

[7.62]

10 hours ago, dlaw said:

I am an attorney and realistically, I do not believe a jury would convict you for shooting a BF, particularly since the public primarily sees them as "monsters".  Also,

It would not be difficult to prove self-defense since you could say you were in fear for your life. I doubt that any DA would pursue prosecution unless the DA wanted the publicity, but it might turn out to be bad publicity or ridicule.

My take on prosecution depends on the range just like most cases of dangerous animals . You fire on one during a charge no problem but fire on one 100 yards away then a case could be made your life wasn't in danger .

[Backdoc]

On 9/26/2022 at 8:57 PM, dlaw said:

I am an attorney and realistically, I do not believe a jury would convict you for shooting a BF, particularly since the public primarily sees them as "monsters".  Also,

It would not be difficult to prove self-defense since you could say you were in fear for your life. I doubt that any DA would pursue prosecution unless the DA wanted the publicity, but it might turn out to be bad publicity or ridicule.

 

Just another Q:

 

A guy shoots bigfoot thinking it's bigfoot and having a long history of looking for bigfoot and thus believing bigfoot exists.   

 

yet, after the shooting he discovers it's a man in a suit hoaxing people.   

 

What happens to him?

[Doug]

 Good point.

When a person kills an animal that it is illegal to kill, such as wolves and such, the common saying is "SSS" shoot shovel shutup. I don't think that would work in the case you laid out.

[Huntster]

26 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

.........A guy shoots bigfoot thinking it's bigfoot and having a long history of looking for bigfoot and thus believing bigfoot exists.   

 

yet, after the shooting he discovers it's a man in a suit hoaxing people.   

 

What happens to him?

 

Aggressive legal prosecution of voluntary manslaughter. Government would love this case. It would effectively shut the door on sasquatch discovery for the long count. All problems solved.

[Backdoc]

^^^

 

When Law and Order is ready to have a 'Jump the Shark' episode, they can do this.

 

Some guy goes out and shoots Bigfoot only to find out it's a hoaxer in a suit.    

 

Roll intro....

 

 

 

[Silverback Sax]

Ok 1st post. Time to stick my neck out.  We'll see if it gets past the mods ;>)

 

Evidence:  Isn't the thousands of eye witnesses reports from decent everyday folks (who never asked to see one of these things) enough evidence? It is for me.

 

Proof:  So I read that as a dead body of whatever these things are.  I tend to think they are less like primates and more like us than we want to think.  Killing becomes a different thing when they have features like ours.  Also, it would seem these things outclass us in just about every way.  We are not talking about dropping a huge bear.  What makes anyone think they travel alone?  IF you could successfully execute one, what makes you think their clan/tribe/pod would allow you to have the body let alone your life?  Seems like a bad idea.  

 

I believe the governments know full well about these beings.  They don't want us to have proof.  That's why all of those folks who didn't ask for an encounter are ridiculed when they tell their truth.  A body won't change that.

[Backdoc]

3 hours ago, Silverback Sax said:

 

 

I believe the governments know full well about these beings.  They don't want us to have proof.  That's why all of those folks who didn't ask for an encounter are ridiculed when they tell their truth.  A body won't change that.

I don’t understand why the government would have any motivation to repress or hide such a discovery.

[Twist]

9 hours ago, Backdoc said:

I don’t understand why the government would have any motivation to repress or hide such a discovery.

Not that I subscribe to this theory but I believe it may have to do with religion and origins of man.  Some ppl believe it would disrupt religion, similar to extraterrestrials.

 

Another theory I do not subscribe to is the belief it would negatively impact national parks if people are afraid of BF.   
 

The last theory is about the hunting of BF and the idea that there will be a plethora of hunters trying to bag the elusive creature. 🤷  

 

Just a few I’ve heard in the past, I’m sure there are many more.

Edited October 7, 2022 by Twist

[Huntster]

9 hours ago, Backdoc said:

I don’t understand why the government would have any motivation to repress or hide such a discovery.

 

Governments today exist primarily by withholding information of every kind from its citizenry. This is how they maintain power.

 

The responsibility to enact and management the coexistence of homo sapiens and another human species brings a whole new level to "racism". Can you say "speciesism"? 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism