Can You Really Shoot A Bigfoot?

[ShadowBorn]

In the state of Michigan this creature is not even recognized as a living being. So, shooting one would not be a problem. The problem would come after the shot. When the creature is placed on the books as a living being. This is when laws would then be placed on the books and enforced in the state of Michigan. It only takes that one shot. 

 

The only thing that would hold someone accountable would be. That its DNA turned out to be Human. As far as I know most DNA has all turned out to be human and has been discarded due to contamination. Does anyone really want to take that chance? 

[Huntster]

4 hours ago, Backdoc said:

I wonder what the average call to a DNR or a talk with a game warden would tell us.   I doubt many would even take the Q as a serious inquiry      Maybe a letter or Email would at least make it to someone which would create a response.  

 

 

If you're actually successful in getting them to put anything in writing, I can assure you that they will be exceedingly careful.

[Backdoc]

3 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

If you're actually successful in getting them to put anything in writing, I can assure you that they will be exceedingly careful.

They probably send a boring letter but then probably a statement added like , “but let me emphasize again, even though we at this time cannot acknowledge the existence of Bigfoot, we cannot guarantee at this time any successful killing of such a creature would be allowed under present or future laws”.   

[Huntster]

3 hours ago, Backdoc said:

They probably send a boring letter but then probably a statement added like , “but let me emphasize again, even though we at this time cannot acknowledge the existence of Bigfoot, we cannot guarantee at this time any successful killing of such a creature would be allowed under present or future laws”.   

That would be the expected answer if one asked, "Is the harvest of a sasquatch legal?"

 

That's why that question is not to be asked. You want the permit, which makes it legal to kill one.
 

Your harvest permit application must include a section listing reports documented in the area you propose to hunt and your complete reasoning why you believe they are in that area, including food sources, expected seasonal movements, etc. This establishes the baseline that they're there, not if the agency acknowledges it or not. If they insist that they don't exist, their reasons for refusing the permit also don't exist.
 

Your plan to harvest one is outlined, and you request a permit to do the deed. Force them to deny the permit on the details in or missing from your plan, which you then circumvent with a solution. For example, they say that you might shoot a man in a suit. You counter with  the argument that your operation will not be publicized (another likely plus, from their point of view), so hoaxers won't know you're there. You will also have an experienced and licensed hunting guide on your team to oversee the actual shot if the agency insists. 

 

The entire goal really isn't to shoot a sasquatch, or incur the costs of doing so. The goal is to corner governnent into documenting the reasons why they refuse to allow anyone to fulfill the demands of science to provide the carcass, or corner them into the requirements to do so, whether that is on private or public lands.

[Backdoc]

^^^^
 

I’ve never hunted.   That is an interesting take

[MagniAesir]

I can't comment about the USA, but here in BC there would be no onus on the ministry to waste time on this.

If they replied at all, it would probably only state that the wildlife act is quite specific and only designated species may be hunted during designated seasons by lawfully authorized individuals  (licence and tag holders)

[Huntster]

5 hours ago, MagniAesir said:

.........If they replied at all, it would probably only state that the wildlife act is quite specific and only designated species may be hunted during designated seasons by lawfully authorized individuals  (licence and tag holders)

 

That is why a special permit is being requested; to make the harvest legal. And the harvest is necessary to establish the scientific existence of the species. 

 

If sent certified and ignored, you have legal record of the request. If denied, you have the name of the official who denied it. In both cases, it can be appealed.

 

Again, the intent is to approach a harvest (necessary to establish existence) legally, and to put the onus on government, where it has belonged all along.

[MarkGlasgow]

Finally found the blogspot I was looking for. Remember Robert Lindsay? Yeah, I won't dwell on him too much but he did actually pull together a pretty great list of historical BF reports of BF being shot, shot at or killed by some other method. The sources are decent: Track Record, John Green, BFRO etc. If anyone ever says 'well how come no one has ever shot one', this is a pretty good response.

 

Lindsay is/was a controversial character for sure,  but there is 61 pages of shooting reports here. I've read many of them previously but putting them together like this is a solid piece of work. Fascinating.

 

https://beyondhighbrow.com/2014/07/12/bigfoot-news-july-12-2014/

[MikeZimmer]

On 11/19/2022 at 3:35 AM, MarkGlasgow said:

Finally found the blogspot I was looking for. Remember Robert Lindsay? Yeah, I won't dwell on him too much but he did actually pull together a pretty great list of historical BF reports of BF being shot, shot at or killed by some other method. The sources are decent: Track Record, John Green, BFRO etc. If anyone ever says 'well how come no one has ever shot one', this is a pretty good response.

 

Lindsay is/was a controversial character for sure,  but there is 61 pages of shooting reports here. I've read many of them previously but putting them together like this is a solid piece of work. Fascinating.

 

https://beyondhighbrow.com/2014/07/12/bigfoot-news-july-12-2014/

Other than remembering the name, I don't remember anything else about Robert Lindsay. What was the controversy all about?

[MarkGlasgow]

On 11/21/2022 at 1:37 AM, MikeZimmer said:

Other than remembering the name, I don't remember anything else about Robert Lindsay. What was the controversy all about?

I can't remember the specifics but he blogged about various topics and I think he had some strange views on certain groups of people. I had zero interest in his general posting, so had no idea what he was spouting about, but WordPress suspended his blog which was unusual and some folks felt he had it coming, so..... 

Edited November 22, 2022 by MarkGlasgow

[xspider1]

On 10/19/2022 at 9:14 PM, Huntster said:

The entire goal really isn't to shoot a sasquatch, or incur the costs of doing so. The goal is to corner governnent into documenting the reasons why they refuse to allow anyone to fulfill the demands of science to provide the carcass, or corner them into the requirements to do so, whether that is on private or public lands.

 

I think I understand what you're saying and it's a good point.  This thread is interesting in that it highlights the issue at hand which is: Science requires a type Specimen for this animal but; no one is authorized to kill one.   I personally think that we should not kill one although I understand that is a problem.  Skeptics are fond of pointing out that we have type Specimens for many very scarce animals so, why not Sasquatch?  To me, that is because Sasquatch are very unique in the challenges they pose to Science.  They are probably closer to humans that even chimps, perhaps not old enough as a species to have been fossilized (10,000+ years?) and apparently very adept at avoiding us when they want to.  

 

I think Science and Governments need to acknowledge that they exist (even if un-classified) based on the physical evidence and the overwhelming number of eye-witness reports.  To me, it's ok to admit that something is here even if we don't know exactly it is.  And, Sasquatch are not the only things that fall into that category.

Edited November 24, 2022 by xspider1

[hiflier]

7 hours ago, xspider1 said:

This thread is interesting in that it highlights the issue at hand which is: Science requires a type Specimen for this animal but; no one is authorized to kill one.

 

The program should be to collect DNA and show science that there's something out there. Then make SCIENCE go collect the specimen if they need one so bad. Then....it will be legal because science will be sanctioned to go get/study one. Anyone who doesn't agree with this kind of program is still in the Dark Ages and has failed as a modern Sasquatch researcher.

 

7 hours ago, xspider1 said:

I think Science and Governments need to acknowledge that they exist

 

That would be the alternative. But it would require lots of believers to form a consensus behind a well respected influencer  and raise enough of a public fuss to force government into action. And who's going to initiate that kind of a movement? Meldrum? Barackman? Moneymaker? NAWAC? Coleman? Or any other high profile Bigfoot researcher? What if they all did it together and got a thousand BF believers to sign on with them?

 

Answer: It ain't never gonna happen. None of them are going to do that- and they never will. Why? I don't know. Should've happened a long time ago. But they all are happy to play the game, right? And the kicker is you all know it, because you play the game right along with them.

 

This is the side of potential Sasquatch discovery that I will never understand. People complain about ridicule from the public...but they won't lift a finger against those who control the public narrative. And even though I've brought this up many times over the years, nothing has changed, here on this Forum or anywhere else. Oh but the dialogue that keeps researchers all going their separate ways is alive and well. Hey, let's all talk about that new footprint photo! That'll solve everything. Because all anyone who's living the lie has to do is ignore anything that goes against that dialogue. Works every time. Keeps people like me marginalized and ineffective. It's the only thing everyone actually gets together and does. Good job everyone

[hiflier]

Read the second line of my signature. Then on on to the interwebs and type in "best way to prove Bigfoot is real" and see what comes up. There is nothing that addresses that query. Compare the results to my second signature line and it should tell anyone everything they need to know which is that Bigfoot discovery is shut out of the internet altogether. And who controls the content allowed on the internet? Researchers are allowed to prop up each other to buy stuff and go look for the creature, but those methods don't work. The scientific alternative is not publicly available. And I'm the only one who ever brings up that scientific alternative and I bring it up here on a Bigfoot Forum. No takers, why is that?

 

In this day and age everyone should be taking DNA samples out of their respective environments and/or supporting each other to do so. It should have become a common dialogue here by now. It isn't. Again, why is that? My answer is that instead of talking about serious discovery it plays into the money side of the subject. Truth. 

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

The program should be to collect DNA and show science that there's something out there. Then make SCIENCE go collect the specimen if they need one so bad. Then....it will be legal because science will be sanctioned to go get/study one..........

 

If a permit is successfully obtained to harvest a sasquatch in an area with lots of report history and continued, occasional activity, perhaps Science might be more interested in participating. This approach is no different than your goal of finding and identifying dna, except this approach is legal instead of genetic. Eventually, this permit will have to be obtained. Period. I agree that a geneticist proclaiming that dna proof means that there truly is a sasquatch out there, but my premise is that government already knows this, and they aren't going to issue the permit under any circumstances. The point of the permit application is legal pressure.

 

Quote

........Anyone who doesn't agree with this kind of program is still in the Dark Ages and has failed as a modern Sasquatch researcher..........

 

I'm not a sasquatch researcher, either modern or antiquated. I'm Joe Public, and. firmer federal government official, and if there's one thing I understand, it's government officialdom. I used the legal pressure ratchet daily in my 36 year career, and I had sockets to fit every hardened heart. Even retired I continue to apply my ratchet to Alaska ADFG officials. It's how the word turns, and it's how the world occasionally stands still. 

 

In my opinion, the very demand for a type specimen is a relic of the Dark Ages, yet here we are. All of us, collectively, whether representing Science or just observers. 

 

So much for enlightenment...........

[hiflier]

24 minutes ago, Huntster said:

If a permit is successfully obtained to harvest a sasquatch in an area with lots of report history and continued, occasional activity, perhaps Science might be more interested in participating.

 

Never happen.

 

25 minutes ago, Huntster said:

I agree that a geneticist proclaiming that dna proof means that there truly is a sasquatch out there,

 

Me, too. And that's the point.

 

27 minutes ago, Huntster said:

In my opinion, the very demand for a type specimen is a relic of the Dark Ages, yet here we are.

 

Yep, said as much. Here's a scenario to consider. Someone with a gun enters someone else's house. The resident goes to defend their home and the gunman pulls out the gun and shoots the resident. Who's at fault? This is the way I think when I read someone saying they will only shoot a Sasquatch in self defense. BUT they will set up the Sasquatch to BE shot by entering its home. IMO there is no justification for the takedown. It's one thing to legally cull the deer or elk population. It's entirely another to shoot something that so rare as to hardly ever be seen just because it showed its face.

 

But this mentality is here for the reading. I thought anything that promoted an illegal act was against Forum rules. I'll have to go and look at them again to be sure. In either case, both scenarios are completely unnecessary in this day and age. Science has gotten way more sophisticated in how they do things. It's time members embraced a more sophisticated approach as well. DNA is good enough for Meldrum, Mayor, the Olympic Project, and others at that level including USFS and F&W. And yet those examples have moved way ahead of this Forum to the point that nearly everything here is archaic in the accepted research methodologies that get all the respect and support. It's all old school thinking that promotes old school activities.

 

Hey, I love the outdoors as much as anyone else- even to the point of doing my own winter research looking for trackways to sample. Because one CAN teach this old dog new tricks and I've taken the time to research those new tricks and found then sound. Otherwise there is no way I would stay with this dialogue for one second at my age if it was a red herring. It isn't. The dialogue is as sound as the science behind it. The heavy lifters in Bigfootdom are, and HAVE been, collecting DNA. And that says it all in my book. It's been said here that I am a one trick pony. So what.

 

A couple of years ago someone in their mid seventies saw their first Bigfoot. Water samples were taken from the immediate area. Obviously that person didn't think shooting the creature was necessary. They were correct- it wasn't. Results are in, assessments of the data are being conducted. Any one of us could be in that very position. This person has my total respect on so many levels.