The Sasquatch vs. Government

[Catmandoo]

I am not a legal beagle but I am not following this scenario.  Federal Court does not decide the existence of animals, especially unclassified animals.  Can you cite Case Law concerning what I posted?  From my dashboard, you want to go into Federal Court without the ability to cite Case Law.  It is OK to get thrown out of Federal Court as long as the Judge does not say " bailiff, whack his......."

Apparently you have never pissed off a judge and they got vindictive.

Small steps.

[JustCurious]

I think any government organization or bureau will respond to the question of the existence of Sasquatch clouded by the court cases regarding non-human rights and/or personhood.  The Nonhuman Rights Project and PETA are two organizations who have sued on behalf of monkeys and apes for rights for these non-humans.  If it were determined that Sasquatch is indeed a relict hominid, the situation would be even worse.

 

 

[hiflier]

7 hours ago, Catmandoo said:

I am not a legal beagle but I am not following this scenario.  Federal Court does not decide the existence of animals, especially unclassified animals.  Can you cite Case Law concerning what I posted?  From my dashboard, you want to go into Federal Court without the ability to cite Case Law.  It is OK to get thrown out of Federal Court as long as the Judge does not say " bailiff, whack his......."

Apparently you have never pissed off a judge and they got vindictive.

Small steps.

 

And this is where it's been difficult to get the concept across. A court will not decide the existence of animals. It would decide if a party was responsible or irresponsible when it comes to performing its responsibilities. In the case of USFW those responsibilities are to ensure the care of animals and their habitats. So a question along the lines of, " Why do you consider a creature commonly referred to as Bigfoot or Sasquatch to be only a recreational activity?" That question alone would open up the world of just how USFW had determined the decision to place the creature in the category of recreation and not in the category of an extant animal, which would place Bigfoot squarely under the jurisdiction of the USFW to manage.

 

And that is just for openers. Because the only answer to that question could only rationally be, "Because the creature doesn't exist." After that the argument would expand into the ethics of the business side of Bigfoot and how government silence on the truth of the creature has allow revenue to be generated from the public. And that revenue comes in because gov allows people to believe in something that they won't manage because they say it doesn't exist. It's a legal quagmire but the way forward is clear.

 

Looking at it from the other direction, if USFW sees the real problem facing it and gov for admitting the creature doesn't exist, then it may try to get out of it by saying it DOES exist. In which case the long time excuses of not enough credible evidence for scientists to begin studies of the creature, or for USFW to claim Bigfoot is "recreational" and so is outside their jurisdiction would all have to go away. But that would be a huge error because, then and only then, would it send the Bigfoot issue down the same road as the Spotted Owl on its way to the Endangered Species list. Believe me when I say that I've been thinking about this for a long, long time. And I'm pretty sure a lot of current and past members over the years have as well. But here's the kicker for me, folks, why haven't any of our big BF community influencers thought of this? I think now you may understand why I get so passionate about this whole Bigfoot thing at times

 

Okay, I've laid it all out. Whaddya think?

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by hiflier

[Huntster]

15 hours ago, hiflier said:

……..It was in a statement that I received from USFW. ……. 

Did you get that in writing?

[hiflier]

1 minute ago, Huntster said:

Did you get that in writing?

 

See on page 2.

[Huntster]

The beauty of the ESA is that it forces study to determine the status of the species. If a plaintiff sues the DOI with the charge that their policies don’t adequately protect sasquatches, and the department replies with “they don’t exist”, then the evidence that they do is laid out, including testimony, photographic, footprint casts, police reports, etc. The evidence is, frankly, *overwhelming*. It could literally go on for months. Eventually, the department will have to admit that they’ve never studied the phenomenon, and have no scientific knowledge about it whatsoever.

[Huntster]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_Species_Act_of_1973#:~:text=Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969,-Main article%3A Endangered&text=L.,-Tooltip Public Law&text=91–135) amended the Endangered,the list of protected species.

 

Quote

……..To be considered for listing, the species must meet one of five criteria (section 4(a)(1)):

1. There is the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range.
2. An over utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.
3. The species is declining due to disease or predation.
4. There is an inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
5. There are other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence……

 

 

[hiflier]

14 minutes ago, Huntster said:

The beauty of the ESA is that it forces study to determine the status of the species. If a plaintiff sues the DOI with the charge that their policies don’t adequately protect sasquatches, and the department replies with “they don’t exist”, then the evidence that they do is laid out, including testimony, photographic, footprint casts, police reports, etc. The evidence is, frankly, *overwhelming*. It could literally go on for months. Eventually, the department will have to admit that they’ve never studied the phenomenon, and have no scientific knowledge about it whatsoever.

 

Good points, Huntster, but I see all of that coming out later after the question of "Why is Bigfoot or Sasquatch relegated to the recreational category?" Second question, Why isn't it under USFW jurisdiction?" I see both questions leading to the same answer.

[hiflier]

10 minutes ago, Huntster said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_Species_Act_of_1973#:~:text=Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969,-Main article%3A Endangered&text=L.,-Tooltip Public Law&text=91–135) amended the Endangered,the list of protected species.

 

 

 

 

Actually, number one on that list of criteria SHOULD read "It is an extant species?" Which is kind of like the first instruction in an owner's manual for trouble shooting an electrical device: "Is the device plugged in?" So in this case? "Is the species real?"

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by hiflier

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

……..I see all of that coming out later after the question of "Why is Bigfoot or Sasquatch relegated to the recreational category?"……..

That silliness would come out as the department tries to use it to defend their refusal to act. In short, it has been relegated to a recreational activity because the department doesn’t want to touch it with a mile long pole.

 

Quote

……..Second question, Why isn't it under USFW jurisdiction?"…….

It is under their jurisdiction with regard to the ESA. 
 

Even if the UDFW tried to weasel out of a forced study continent wide, forcing a study on federal lands in the Bluff Creek region could be a possible ruling. 

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

Actually, number one on that list of criteria SHOULD read "It is an extant species?"………

It would be legally critical to stick to ESA criteria. “Is it in danger of extinction?” Obviously, their low population numbers and densities lend a positive answer to that question, but most importantly, the goal is to force government to act.

[hiflier]

41 minutes ago, Huntster said:

It would be legally critical to stick to ESA criteria. “Is it in danger of extinction?” Obviously, their low population numbers and densities lend a positive answer to that question, but most importantly, the goal is to force government to act.

 

44 minutes ago, Huntster said:

That silliness would come out as the department tries to use it to defend their refusal to act. In short, it has been relegated to a recreational activity because the department doesn’t want to touch it with a mile long pole.

 

It is under their jurisdiction with regard to the ESA. 
 

Even if the UDFW tried to weasel out of a forced study continent wide, forcing a study on federal lands in the Bluff Creek region could be a possible ruling. 

 

In danger of extinction can only be addressed AFTER its reality has been admitted to. THEN the proof supporting that admission needs to come out. THEN a showing of proof that the creature is in danger of extinction. A forced study would also be down the road of a court case, AFTER an admission of its existence.

 

The primary goal has to be an official pronouncement of existence or non-existence. And that hinges on asking questions specifically concerning the creature's already-stated recreational activity status and how it got that status. Because that recreational status is DIRECTLY referencing the creature's existence status- as in real or no, right?. Everyone is so used to throwing the creature at government as if it already has been proven to exist when it hasn't been proven to exist. That's why zeroing in on the recreational activity categorization is so critical to pursue FIRST.  Because, as I said, it goes right to the heart of the existence question. So I will repeat this: "Why is Sasquatch/Bigfoot considered a recreational activity by USFW?" And follow that with: "And why is Sasquatch/Bigfoot not under the jurisdiction of USFW.

 

The only answer that USFW could possibly respond with to justify their position on either of those questions, or BOTH, would be to say the creature doesn't exist. And they would actually be stuck saying that because we all know that they won't respond to those questions by saying: "Because we didn't want the public to know that it exists."

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by hiflier

[Huntster]

24 minutes ago, hiflier said:

……..The primary goal is that of an official pronouncement of existence or non-existence…….

And the ESA requires study to determine if a species qualifies for ESA protection. Since the government *presumably* cannot show any study whatsoever of the species, as suit could require them to perform one.

Remember that any official proclamation of either existence or non-existence puts the USFW Service on the hot seat. 
 

Quote

………So I will repeat this: "Why is Sasquatch/Bigfoot considered a recreational activity by USFW?"……

And I answer again:

 

Because this is the legal position they have taken which doesn’t require acknowledgement, action, or the denial of activity to bigfooters, which would generate resistance.

 

Quote

……..And follow that with: "And why is Sasquatch/Bigfoot not under the jurisdiction of USF……..

And I repeat again:

 

They are under an ESA ruling. Until that comes, the USFW Service is free to treat the issue like the military treats the UFO issue.

 

Quote

…….The only answer that USFW could possibly respond with to justify their position on either of those questions, or BOTH, would be to say the creature doesn't exist……..

Correct. And when presented with the question, under oath, on whether or not they’ve studied the reports they and others receive, and the evidence presented that suggests that they do indeed exist, they will have to admit that they have not studied it, or present their study results, or lie about any knowledge that they have.

 

Quote

……..And that hinges on asking questions specifically directed at the creature's already-stated recreational activity status. Because that recreational status is DIRECTLY referencing the creature's existence status……..

 

The recreational status applies to bigfooters, not Bigfoots. This activity allows citizens to look for the creatures, and actually indicates the department’s semi-acceptance of existence.

 

Quote

……..we all know that they won't respond to those questions by saying: "Because we didn't want the public to know that it exists."

They won’t respond to anything until a federal judge tells them to respond. That is the precise reason why the ESA exists and was written the way it was.

[hiflier]

3 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Because this is the legal position they have taken which doesn’t require acknowledgement, action, or the denial of activity to bigfooters, which would generate resistance.

 

This has nothing to do with Bigfooters. It's about the USFW stating that hunting (read that however you will) Sasquatch IS a recreational activity.  Not just "considered to be" etc, etc. And I interpret that to mean "and with no other considerations." You would have to read the whole statement to see how it fits in with what you're saying regaring the ESA. But, to tell you the truth, I'm not quite ready to present it yet and need to think about it some.

 

[Huntster]

37 minutes ago, hiflier said:

This has nothing to do with Bigfooters. It's about the USFW stating that hunting (read that however you will) Sasquatch IS a recreational activity.  Not just "considered to be" etc, etc. And I interpret that to mean "and with no other considerations."………

It’s the same designation as recreational gold mining, among other recreational activities, there are “other considerations “ with every statement they put to writing, and you’d better believe that they reviewed those considerations before they put that to writing.

 

And it is specifically a position regarding people who claim to be “Bigfooting”, not Bigfeet themselves.

 

Quote

……..You would have to read the whole statement to see how it fits in with what you're saying regaring the ESA………

Can you post it to this thread, please? Just the verbiage, no names or particular offices needed.