The Sasquatch vs. Government

[hiflier]

17 minutes ago, Huntster said:

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

 

Paraphrased, for the time being: No efforts being made to place the creature on the (words are important!) endangered species list. At least the reference is clear. Since there is only ONE endangered species list the "the" is really only semantics.

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by hiflier

[hiflier]

https://www.nwf.org/Educational-Resources/Wildlife-Guide/Understanding-Conservation/Endangered-Species

 

"Under the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service oversees the listing and protection of all terrestrial animals and plants as well as freshwater fish." (my bolded/underlined)

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by hiflier

[Huntster]

44 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Paraphrased, for the time being: No efforts being made to place the creature on the (words are important!) endangered species list. ………

Correct, because they have not been ordered by the courts to do so.

[hiflier]

29 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Correct, because they have not been ordered by the courts to do so.

 

But the courts won't make them do that until the species is proven to exist. Now you can see that focusing on square one is key to it all.

 

Square one is:

"Have you categorized Bigfoot as a recreational activity and placed it outside of your jurisdiction because the creature doesn't exist?"

 

Or simply:

"If Bigfoot exists, then why would you categorize it as a recreational activity rather than bring it under your jurisdiction?"

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by hiflier

[Huntster]

5 minutes ago, hiflier said:

But the courts won't make them do that until the species is proven to exist. …….

Unless the plaintiff’s allegation is that the agency has intentionally ignored valid evidence that the species exists, and has made absolutely zero effort (unless it has secretly) to determine if it indeed exists. 
 

Quote

…….  Now you can see that focusing on square one is key to it all.

 

Square one is:

"Have you categorized Bigfoot as a recreational activity and placed it outside of your jurisdiction because the creature doesn't exist?"

 

Or simply:

"If Bigfoot exists, then why would you categorize it as a recreational activity rather than bring it under your jurisdiction?"

Bingo! 
 

“If the contention is that they don’t exist, why would you categorize Bigfoot search activity at all?”

 

”What regulations are in place governing Bigfoot search activities?”

 

”Is the harvest of a Bigfoot for the purpose of proving their existence regulated? If so, how? If not, why not?”

 

”How does a recreational search for Bigfoot differ from a scientific search for Bigfoot?”

[hiflier]

22 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Unless the plaintiff’s allegation is that the agency has intentionally ignored valid evidence that the species exists, and has made absolutely zero effort (unless it has secretly) to determine if it indeed exists.

 

That's pretty close to what Todd was claiming in BC and told the court he had the evidence. But my understanding is that they wanted to go and see the evidence but he wouldn't tell them the location. Also Todd's case read more like an injury law case and the court didn't find injury by the state nor activities occurring against him personally by the state.

 

The case as presented in this thread is far different. And it also has a stated dialogue in writing to work with which gives its legal argument some (pardon the pun) standing.

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by hiflier

[Huntster]

52 minutes ago, hiflier said:

That's pretty close to what Todd was claiming in BC and told the court he had the evidence. But my understanding is that they wanted to go and see the evidence but he wouldn't tell them the location. Also Todd's case read more like an injury law case and the court didn't find injury by the state nor activities occurring against him personally by the state.

 

The case as presented in this thread is far different……..

Agreed. The injury is to the species, not to the plaintiff. My bet is that the Canadian version of the ESA gives government more wiggle room. 

[hiflier]

Okay, time for a bit of clarity on what got me starting this whole thing. In my initial inquiry last March all I wanted was some info on a PERSON I could speak to about the existence of non-existence of the creature. In other words, I did not ask about existence. I asked to speak to a person about the existence question. And that's exactly what I did this time around as well- Ask to speak to a PERSON. Until the very end of the email, nothing that was said in it the was anything that I had requested to know. I found that odd right off the bat. It was like it was info that was volunteered even though the info in and of itself wasn't requested.

 

The only info that directly addressed my initial request was at the end when it was said that there was no spokesperson who handled such topics. And that prety much addressed my only request to speak to someone. In retrospect that was all I should have gotten as a response. Well, it wasn't all I got. All the other stuff added in was a complete surprise. In a way I don't get that. Any thoughts on it? I mean, in a way, it sounded like the response came from someone who was sincere and wanted to be helpful by giving an explanation of how things officially stood?

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by hiflier

[Twist]

I’m with Huntster here.   If you think you have the “smoking gun”, the ultimate “gotcha” against the gov’t based on “recreational activity” then post it up here!  It ain’t like the gov’t don’t have what they sent you!  It’s from them!  Starting a thread that’s cornerstone is a gov’t statement, then not putting it out there is worthless.   We are how many pages in and you are the only one that has all the information.    Context means everything.   Holding it back makes this whole thread worthless.   There is no discussion to be truly had if you are withholding the key piece.   

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, Twist said:

I’m with Huntster here.   If you think you have the “smoking gun”, the ultimate “gotcha” against the gov’t based on “recreational activity” then post it up here!  It ain’t like the gov’t don’t have what they sent you!  It’s from them!  Starting a thread that’s cornerstone is a gov’t statement, then not putting it out there is worthless.   We are how many pages in and you are the only one that has all the information.    Context means everything.   Holding it back makes this whole thread worthless.   There is no discussion to be truly had if you are withholding the key piece.   

 

Well, that was pretty amazing to read. Bigfoot hunting was recreational and I went through as much paraphrasing as I could. Mainly because I didn't know if publishing someone's email was legal to do and I was too busy today to look into it. As far as I can now read and tell, the email was not sent to me asking for confidentiality. And why would it? Nonetheless, I just wanted to be cautious. Can you understand that? I have done nothing but work on, and honor, people's trust, but after looking carefully at the email I can see that it's probably okay to do. Two relatively short paragraphs and the only issue I might have is that the first paragraph looks automated, but the second paragraph has a smaller font so it may have been added on by someone as an original comment.

 

If that was the case then it could make publishing the email a copyright issue. Being a writer and author I'm fully cognizant of that possibility. If the email was all one size font I would be more comfortable posting the email in its entirety. It's two two small paragraphs, yes, but each with different size fonts and that raised a flag for me. Even so, this is in the public's interest which, as I understand things, makes it okay to do. I took a screen shot of the contents and so left out the privacy stuff. And for your information, Twist, I did NOT hold out on the "key piece. This whole thread is about nothing BUT the "key piece. The email is from USFW Headquarters if that matters to you or anyone. Also, I found the use of the words "our" and "we"  interesting:

 

 

I responded with this but haven't heard back and I probably won't:

 

"Just to be clear then. Are you saying Bigfoot doesn't exist and is only a recreational activity? I think this to be a fair question to ask at this point. Thanks."

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by hiflier

[Huntster]

Thanks for that quote! It is indeed interesting. It is pretty boilerplate official sidestepping. 
 

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

……..The email is from USFW Headquarters if that matters to you or anyone………

Washington DC? Yeah, that could be important.

[hiflier]

24 minutes ago, Huntster said:

It is pretty boilerplate official sidestepping

 

The first paragraph would seem to be. The second paragraph though? I'm not so sure.

[Huntster]

21 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

The first paragraph would seem to be. The second paragraph though? I'm not so sure.

I thought so. Standard denial stuff, even with the added discouragement of not knowing anybody who would be  responsible.

 

Frankly, whoever wrote that is likely correct: if sasquatches are of the genus homo, a wildlife management agency isn’t responsible for managing them. And if they aren’t homo sapien, the BIA can argue that they are also not responsible, though I would say they are. 
 

I wonder if they’ve all discussed this…….

 

(Answer: yes, they have, and somebody admitted it right here on this forum……..)

 

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by Huntster

[hiflier]

53 minutes ago, Huntster said:

if sasquatches are of the genus homo,

 

But the crux of the whole thing is if they exist at all. Because if they do then "hunting Bigfoot" as a "recreational activity" calls into question what is allowed. Because under the heading of the ESA's definition of illegal activity is this: Take as defined under the ESA means "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."

 

But since "there are no efforts to put such on the endangered species list" then none of the above infractions would apply? There are others laws that would come into ply of course, but ONLY if an animal is extant. And being extant is the pivotal point that isn't stated in the message. It implies that the creature doesn't exist which easily, and effectively, pigeon holes the creature into the category of recreation. And also strips it, and its habitat, of any protections under the law. That's why saying that hunting Bigfoot is a recreational activity carries so much weight. They don't say it doesn't exist right out, but they may as well have. Because as you say, existence sends it right to the ESA, and as genus Homo it envelope of protection would be much larger.

 

No one has ever gotten something like this from a book, a conference, a documentary, or via a FOIA. But the question now is: Is there a way forward from here? Maybe that can be covered in phase two of this thread. Because, as you may have guessed there IS a phase two. Has to be, right?   

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by hiflier

[Huntster]

12 minutes ago, hiflier said:

........It implies that the creature doesn't exist which easily, and effectively, pigeon holes the creature into the category of recreation. And also strips it, and its habitat, of any protections under the law. That's why saying that hunting Bigfoot is a recreational activity carries so much weight. They don't say it doesn't exist right out, but they may as well have........

 

This is precisely what we should expect from a government trying to hide what it knows, and it also screams of internal discussion on how to officially treat the issue.