Why has bigfoot not been listed as an endangered species?

[norseman]

1 hour ago, georgerm said:

The deceased bigfoot would need to be delivered to Washington DC.  by airplane on ice or it will remain mythical. This only happens in a perfect world, and it will probably vanish in transport. Since 1980 when a bigfoot snuck up on our campsite, and I plainly spotted it about 50' away the creature has been an ongoing study subject. Since then, I have been doing a private study of the evidence on the bigfoot research organization.com and bigfoot forum.com.

 

When during the Summer of 1964, I worked in a lumber yard and then later as a logger called a 'choker setter' behind a D-6 "CAT" on steep ground. When I was a landscape architect for the Rogue River National Forest there was plenty of forested land left after using the 'sustained yield' method of harvesting trees. It takes 40 years for Douglas Fir (cut into very strong lumber) to grow back to full sized trees so 1/40th of the land is logged each year. 

 

It must be proven that our timber forest will remain healthy and dense for years to come if bigfoot is proven to be an endangered species. In my opinion present timber tree harvesting levels will not be diminished if Bigfoot is shown to be and endangered species. 

Bigfoot will not have a negative impact on the logging companies and home building in Oregon and a few other states. In 40 years, the areas of cut timber will have grown back to a markable size to 40' to 80' tall. Vast expanses of timber remain even after 1/40th or two percent of the trees are cut each year .

 

My estimation is a bigfoot family in Oregon needs 100 square miles before they encroach on another clan's claim. My opinion is bigfoots can adapt and move if one habitat is burned or the timber is harvested. It's the job of the Department of Interior's biologist to conduct studies and field work to verify this.                                     

 

 

It doesn’t need to be delivered to DC. It just needs to studied by a Biologist and a paper written. Any University would do or any accredited Biologist would do.

 

Ive set choker in the woods, but for myself. I own 100’s of acres of Doug Fir in NE Washington. You have my respect.

 

And yes I agree that Biologists need to verify what is going on with the species. That’s why I advocate shooting one! That study will never happen until we rub science’s nose in it. Maybe a black helicopter will come whisk it away….but we have to try!🤷‍♂️

 

At some point? The dam will burst open just like Ufology. You can only call something “swamp gas” for so long…. But the government is only going to reveal the truth when they think they are backed into a corner. Physical evidence…. not plaster casts, not audio or video but physical evidence wil

 go along ways to back them into that corner.

 

My personal belief is that they don’t want to admit to the public that a 800 lbs primate is roaming around our hinterlands and oh by the way we have all of these missing people we don’t keep track of…..and we have been hiding it all along? We knew and we said nothing? Did nothing? It’s not a good look to have with the public…. If a person is attacked by a Bear or a Cougar? What happens? Accountability happens….

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, georgerm said:

Let's do more than discuss bigfoot and move to action.

 

Can we make up a letter dealing with bigfoot facts, we all sign, and send it off? 

 

Don't know if your serious or not because in truth there are no Bigfoot facts.  It would be a moot point anyway because there is no such thing as a consensus for moving forward in the Bigfoot community.

 

Edited October 28, 2023 by hiflier

[norseman]

3 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

Don't know if your serious or not because in truth there are no Bigfoot facts.  It would be a moot point anyway because there is no such thing as a consensus for moving forward in the Bigfoot community.

 

There is NO moving forward with a letter…. Your state Biologist letter PROVES that.

 

The only consensus moving forward should be keeping your eyes peeled for physical evidence while in the woods. At some point in the future SOMEONE is going to get lucky. One tooth! One pinkie bone! If it’s suspicious? Bag it. If he runs out in the road in front of you? Aim for center mass! We need a chunk of this creature, any way, anyhow…. We can peel it out of a grill.
 

I think petitioning government is a waste of time. We don’t have any F/A 18 FLIR footage to crack this open…. We are on our own. If we get a novel unidentified DNA sample? Then we have them by the short hair. Then we can call our congressmen. We will have a leg to stand on.

[hiflier]

7 hours ago, norseman said:

I think petitioning government is a waste of time.

 

AGREED! No petitioning. It wouldn't be required. Just sue the USFWS on ethical grounds and when in court pop the question of how they determined that Sasquatch is only a recreational activity. It will open up the doors to other questions regarding any scientific analysis, or not, done by the agency that resulted classifying the creature as a mere recreational pursuit. You wouldn't even need physical evidence in order to do that. That was the whole point underpinning then "Sasquatch vs. Government" thread when I said that next would be phase two. Taking the USFWS to court is phase two.

 

[Huntster]

15 hours ago, norseman said:

It doesn’t need to be delivered to DC. It just needs to studied by a Biologist and a paper written. Any University would do or any accredited Biologist would do.........

 

True. But the government land and wildlife management agencies have such scientists, have both authority and responsibility over both land and wildlife, and the ESA was written to address these matters and included the provision for anyone to begin the process to force said agencies to study endangered animals when they resist.

[Huntster]

10 hours ago, norseman said:

There is NO moving forward with a letter…. Your state Biologist letter PROVES that..........

 

Proof. That is precisely what is needed. The letter from the state biologist PROVES that they will not take action studying whether or not these creatures are endangered. That proof can be taken to the courts.

 

Quote

........The only consensus moving forward should be keeping your eyes peeled for physical evidence while in the woods........

 

The EVIDENCE of these creatures that you might find is taken with you to the courts to refute the state biologist when he says that these creatures are a myth. When he vociferously claims that it's. hoax, you simply cross examine him with the question: "How do you know? Have you studied these or any other purported footprints? We have. By accredited scientists.........."

 

Quote

........I think petitioning government is a waste of time.........

 

I think that arguing about it on an internet forum is the waste of time. Taking it to court is more likely to be a waste of money.

 

Quote

........We don’t have any F/A 18 FLIR footage to crack this open….

 

We have the PG film to support hundreds of footprint casts (including the casts recovered from that very film event), and that isn't the only film that supports existence. Moreover, we have an excellent study (among several) of that film, courtesy of the hard work of Bill Munns.

[Huntster]

3 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

AGREED! No petitioning. It wouldn't be required. Just sue the USFWS on ethical grounds and when in court pop the question of how they determined that Sasquatch is only a recreational activity. It will open up the doors to other questions regarding any scientific analysis, or not, done by the agency that resulted classifying the creature as a mere recreational pursuit. You wouldn't even need physical evidence in order to do that. That was the whole point underpinning then "Sasquatch vs. Government" thread when I said that next would be phase two. Taking the USFWS to court is phase two.

 

 

Sue on the grounds of inaction and the refusal to act in any way, manner, or form. That inaction puts them in an extreme disadvantage to even respond to the studies of pro-sasquatch testimony. In fact, they'll be forced to study the evidence just to defend themselves in court.

[hiflier]

Any follow up action by the feds will be court ordered. So the important goal is to present an iron-clad argument that a judge will rule on. So I need to ask this. Am I/are we the only ones that this has occurred to? The answer to that question may shed light on why such a motion by anyone in the community has never been brought up.

 

It's like Bigfoot has this giant-sized pay wall which we pay to go through but there's nothing on the other side. We get TV, documentaries, conspiracy theories, conferences, museums, and books galore-mine included, discussions, and reports, but nothing that I know of has ever advanced the community past those things. Why not?

 

Edited October 28, 2023 by hiflier

[Huntster]

9 minutes ago, hiflier said:

.........It's like Bigfoot has this giant-sized pay wall which we pay to go through but there's nothing on the other side. We get TV, documentaries, conspiracy theories, conferences, museums, and books galore-mine included, discussions, and reports, but nothing that I know of has ever advanced the community past those things. Why not?

 

Your answer is in your post; the money flows primarily one way......into the pockets of the carnival class or into the pockets of the support industries of researchers. Nobody is going to want to pay lawyers to fight the government into action, and I can't blame them. Paying lawyers is extremely distasteful. That's why I'm quite confident that it won't happen, and I'm pretty sure government both knows that and is counting on it.

[MIB]

9 minutes ago, hiflier said:

The answer to that question may shed light on why such a motion by anyone in the community has never been brought up.

 

I think it has.    Todd Standing tried it and Claudia Ackley tried it.  I guess their arguments weren't found to be as iron-clad by the judge as they hoped.   We all generally think the sum of the evidence is tantamount to proof, we just can't get "necessary others" to agree with that assessment.     So what is needed?    We're not addressing a rational "audience", we're attempting to convince scoftics .. judges, biologists, etc .. who have chosen not to be convinced to change their view.    It's akin to getting the JREFers to change their view.   I've said it before, I'll say it again .. though I am no-kill I think a body on a slab is the only thing that is going to be convincing.   Everything else has been tried and has been rejected.

[hiflier]

17 minutes ago, MIB said:

Everything else has been tried and has been rejected.

 

I respectfully disagree. Not everything has been tried or we would've had something by now. The trick is teasing out what hasn't been tried. And if you read back you'll see why Standing failed and Ackley dismissed her own case the day before it was supposed to be heard. Standing wrote her deposition complaints which pretty much says it all. Both were suing with the argument that they were harmed by the state. That wouldn't be the grounds within the current lawsuit concept.

 

For instance, a few very simple questions in a court of law could be these: "Do you agree with the section of the 2012 letter from NY state that states the creature is mythical and that there is no such creature anywhere in the world." "Do you think that statement only applied to New York State? And if so,would "anywhere in the world" include the US and Canada?"

 

As far as lawyer fees, two ways to go, find a Pro Bono attorney (they exist) or....Wally Hersom or other wealthy person who either thinks Bigfoot exists (like a Tom Slick type) and who just wants the truth and already has lawyers on retainer who would understand the case's arguments.

 

Edited October 28, 2023 by hiflier

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

........Todd Standing tried it and Claudia Ackley tried it.  I guess their arguments weren't found to be as iron-clad by the judge as they hoped.........

 

Yes, they did. But they did not sue under the provisions of the ESA and the agency's lack of investigation into the status of the species. They sued to demand admission of existence. A suit under the ESA is a demand to study endangerment status. It is more than obvious that either government has not looked into the phenomenon (doubtful), or they refuse to comment on it in any other than a mockingly way (more than obviously so). Thus, when private sasquatch researchers present their evidence of a dangerously low population (easily done), and the agency replies with "But they don't exist" (which they obviously will), the obvious line of questioning goes thusly:

 

1) "Do you have any documented study establishing your claim of non-existence?"

2) "How can you state non-existence when the plaintiffs have all this documented evidence of both existence and low population, both based upon commonly accepted wildlife management principles and evidentiary rules of the court, and you have brought nothing but opinion."

3) "How can you refuse the demand of remedy, which is that you study and document a status of endangered or not, in accordance with the ESA, since you have admitted right here that you have conducted no study on the species whatsoever, even to establish your claim of non-existence, which is itself an admittance of endangerment if they ever even existed in the past?"

[MIB]

I think ya'll are grasping at straws you only imagine exist.   Trying to talk others into spending their money instead of you spending yours .. well, good luck with that.

[hiflier]

A beautiful piece of writing, Huntster, if I say so myself. In your opinion then, might this be the road to take that could eventually lead to an official admission of existence or non-existence under oath?  As well as the issue of ESA inclusion? And the issue regarding the categorization as recreational activity?

 

Do you think any lawyers who are proponents read this Forum? If so and they are looking at these arguments then they would probably have to be certified to practice in DC or at least bring a federal case to a DC court. It could start out in federal circuit court, or federal district court?  

[hiflier]

8 minutes ago, MIB said:

I think ya'll are grasping at straws you only imagine exist.   Trying to talk others into spending their money instead of you spending yours .. well, good luck with that.

 

See? it's always zero support from you for any progress or move for discovery. Why is that? Point of fact... there are no straws here. Only sound legal arguments.

 

Edited October 28, 2023 by hiflier