The Sasquatch vs. Government

[hiflier]

So. It's kind of another Catch-22. Because it's considered a recreational activity it doesn't come under the jurisdiction of USFW. And the it's not under the jurisdiction of USFW because they consider it a recreational activity. This is similar to the scientific Catch-22 where science isn't allowed to investigate the Sasquatch because there isn't enough credible evidence. But there's no credible evidence because science isn't allowed to investigate the Sasquatch. In other words, gov-speak. And also gov-rationale because their arguments loop around and fold back on themselves.

[Huntster]

12 hours ago, hiflier said:

Right away one can see from the judge's response that Todd had made the case personal by evidently claiming some kind of hardship, or an infringement on his right's, or that he thought government was somehow harming him by not recognizing the Sasquatch as a real creature………

In the U.S., the obvious basis would be the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the harm would be the complete failure of state and federal agencies to investigate reports of the unknown species, especially after the PG film. A suit challenging the agencies when they say that “no such species exists” would be the obvious approach, forcing them to either admit that (1) they’ve conducted zero investigation into the matter, or (2) (under oath in court proceedings) admit that they’ve known all along, or (3) lie.

 

The beauty of the ESA is that anybody can begin action which the government must respond to. This is why is has been a radical environmentalists dream. It could also serve as an excellent tool in the complete sasquatch hunter’s kit…….

[Twist]

I’m an idiot when it comes to court proceedings etc.   Is there a point in the US courts where this gets thrown out and never heard on the basis of eliminating frivolous law suits?   My question being, do they have a means of never hearing a case like this regarding BF, faeries, leprechauns, etc.   Is there a threshold of “evidence” one would present, for lack of a better term, in a pre-trial?  I can’t imagine any yahoo can get time in a court suing for any random reason.  
 

Does that question make sense?    What’s the criteria to even be heard by an upper level court ?  

[hiflier]

45 minutes ago, Huntster said:

A suit challenging the agencies when they say that “no such species exists”

 

But you see, Huntster, we aren't there yet. Not even close. And that's the point I've been trying to get across with this whole thing. The suit you are suggesting would be okay but only AFTER what I highlighted in your comment. The case I'm describing is only meant to hopefully help arrive at the point where "they" actually say it doesn't exist. Working to get to that point is a necessary first step. Referring to the Sasquatch phenomenon as a recreational activity means no one has to actually say the creature doesn't exist. It is only alluded to by a logical extension of what being called a recreational activity is leaving out of the statement.

 

i.e. that it's a only considered recreational activity because the creature doesn't exist, without actually SAYING i doesn't exist. It's left as a logical assumption only. It's not stated as fact which is a point that needs to be nailed down. If it ever got stated as fact then perhaps more can be done.

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by hiflier

[hiflier]

35 minutes ago, Twist said:

I’m an idiot when it comes to court proceedings etc.   Is there a point in the US courts where this gets thrown out and never heard on the basis of eliminating frivolous law suits?   My question being, do they have a means of never hearing a case like this regarding BF, faeries, leprechauns, etc.   Is there a threshold of “evidence” one would present, for lack of a better term, in a pre-trial?  I can’t imagine any yahoo can get time in a court suing for any random reason.  
 

Does that question make sense?    What’s the criteria to even be heard by an upper level court ?  

 

Your question makes perfect sense, Twist. And it's a great point, too. So I would guess it would behoove the filer of the suit in the case to base the arguments on why an entity won't admit that the creature is not real but merely implies it by calling Bigfoot investigations recreational activities. And in doing so removes the entity's own responsibility for managing the species by NOT placing it officially under its jurisdiction. In other words by saying "it exists." The recreational activity label is implying that it doesn't exist, thereby validating their position that they don't have to treat it like a normal animal that DOES exist. It gives the entity license to do nothing for it or its habitat by shifting it into a category beyond its jurisdiction. But if the creature's NON existence isn't actually stated, can an entity actually, and legally, do this kind of manipulating?

 

Does Bigfoot meet the standard for removal from a qualifying list simply by having the entity in charge imply it doesn't meet the definition of being a real animal? And the criteria, or reason, for the disregard is because it's considered a recreational activity? Or does an entity have to justify a creature's lack of qualifications by saying the entity's reason for disqualification is because the creature in question doesn't exist? I think if an animal is disqualified from under the jurisdiction of F&W's normal protections that a concrete reason should be given for why it's not on the list with all the other animals. Because considering Bigfoot a recreational activity is actually SAYING something about the status regarding its reality.

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by hiflier

[Twist]

6 minutes ago, hiflier said:

by calling Bigfoot investigations recreational activities.

You keep referencing BF being a recreational activity.   Is that from an official gov’t standpoint?   Did I miss where that is the official stance?   

[hiflier]

16 minutes ago, Twist said:

You keep referencing BF being a recreational activity.   Is that from an official gov’t standpoint?   Did I miss where that is the official stance?   

 

Yes. It was in a statement that I received from USFW. Otherwise, I wouldn't have any reason to start such a thread.

 

May I add that this is not something one would get from a FOIA.

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by hiflier

[Twist]

10 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Yes. It was in a statement that I received from USFW. Otherwise, I wouldn't have any reason to start such a thread.

 

May I add that this is not something one would get from a FOIA.

 

In a statement, but just a letter written by one representative or is this an official stance of the government?   

[hiflier]

It appears to be the official position. Not a letter. Email. What more do you want me to say? For years I have tried to get someone to hopefully back me up in doing this sort of thing. No takers. Well, I've done it. And did it with zero assistance from anyone. I'm not the bravest guy around, Twist, but this was the only avenue left to me to go down. So I took a deep breath and went down it. For better or for worse.

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by hiflier

[Twist]

I don’t need you to say anything.  I’m just asking questions to understand the situation.  

[hiflier]

Well, enough, thanks.

[xspider1]

I too am trying to understand this situation, Twist. Government and Science are very often stoic institutions.  Of the two, if either, I would expect Science to eventually begin to lead the way in regards to Bigfoot.

Edited September 20, 2023 by xspider1

[hiflier]

Believe me, I hear both of you. It was all so unusual and so completely unexpected that it took me some time to get my head around it. I've heard from members for years here that it was fruitless to do what I was saying I wanted to do. Didn't know how to go about it really as far as how to word my inquiry. Of course I wanted to know the truth about Sasquatch existence ever since I joined this Forum. But as a virtual novice I had much to learn. But no matter what I read or researched I was always trying to figure out a way through. I used to call it an end run, where I was forever working out a way to get where I wanted to go. The whole DNA thing, studying the technology and all took a lot of time and it looked promising for discovery if the "system" could be overloaded with so many samples that something was bound to eventually get through. That was the idea anyway.

 

This latest effort really did take some thought because I sensed that going straight at things with the basic question of does the Sasquatch exist or not didn't seem like the way to go. Figured I would hit walls every time I tried. I think the turning point was when I decided to not ask the question to an agency but instead, ask to be put into contact with a person I could talk to. It took a while but without going into much detail this thing about "recreational activity" just came out of the blue. The rest is history. I don't think I can take things any farther but I really don't think I have to now. I did a couple of follow up emails asking for clarity but, in truth, I would be be very surprised if I receive any more responses. Probably just as well?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by hiflier

[xspider1]

I appreciate those comments, hiflier, I really do.  And, I appreciate your tenacity.  Just please don't try to overwhelm Us.  There are really smart people here who have been actively involved in this subject for many decades.  It can be very humbling and humility is a good thing.  I perceive that your heart is in the right place: solve this damn mystery.  I hope we can all continue to post ideas and experiences without conflict because at the end of today, most of Us still don't know what in the heck these things are.  

Edited September 20, 2023 by xspider1

[hiflier]

11 minutes ago, xspider1 said:

I appreciate those comments, hiflier, I really do.  And, I appreciate your tenacity.  Just please don't try to overwhelm Us.  There are really smart people here who have been actively involved in this subject for many decades.  It can be very humbling and humility is a good thing.  I perceive that your heart is in the right place: solve this damn mystery.  I hope we can all continue to post ideas and experiences without conflict because at the end of today, most of Us still don't know what in the heck these things are.  

 

Very well said, xspider1, very well said indeed. Thank you. I'm finally in a good place in this subject so I'll tread lightly from now on.