Why has bigfoot not been listed as an endangered species?

[hiflier]

2 minutes ago, norseman said:

If Bigfoot is being treated in court as an animal of the forest

 

And that's an eventuality that may come up by default. But it isn't the primary argument or reason the case would get brought. As I mentioned all else about this Sasquatch will come out once an answer to why the creature got recreational status outside the jurisdiction of the USFWS comes out. Because that is the only real legal way forward that could then open the flood gates to what you are saying. Which is all good by the way

 

[Huntster]

8 minutes ago, norseman said:

........You have no physical evidence that the creature exists. Case closed.........

 

There is trace (which is physical), photographic, and testimonial evidence of existence. 

 

Quote

........You are trying to go to court in a murder case, but you don’t have the murder weapon….heck you don’t even have the dead body. 

 

This is not a criminal case, and no crime needs to be proven. This is an administrative case, and the deficiency will be admitted by the agency:

 

They have never studied the population status of sasquatches at any time in their agency history in any region of the country. And if that claim is incorrect? Please provide that study.

[Huntster]

9 minutes ago, norseman said:

If Bigfoot is being treated in court as an animal of the forest then Biology practices will apply. A type specimen is needed........

 

A type specimen isn't requested by the plaintiffs. The Norseman Manual of Science isn't the guiding rule of law in this case or courtroom. The ESA requirement is a study of status to determine if the population is endangered.

[norseman]

5 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

There is trace (which is physical), photographic, and testimonial evidence of existence. 

 

 

This is not a criminal case, and no crime needs to be proven. This is an administrative case, and the deficiency will be admitted by the agency:

 

They have never studied the population status of sasquatches at any time in their agency history in any region of the country. And if that claim is incorrect? Please provide that study.

Trace evidence doesn’t matter in Biology.

 

I know it’s not a criminal case. It’s an analogy.

 

David Paulides tried that study route already with the Park Service on missing persons.

4 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

A type specimen isn't requested by the plaintiffs. The Norseman Manual of Science isn't the guiding rule of law in this case or courtroom. The ESA requirement is a study of status to determine if the population is endangered.

Of a mythological animal. How many elves roam our park system? How many unicorns? Etc, etc…..

[norseman]

11 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

And that's an eventuality that may come up by default. But it isn't the primary argument or reason the case would get brought. As I mentioned all else about this Sasquatch will come out once an answer to why the creature got recreational status outside the jurisdiction of the USFWS comes out. Because that is the only real legal way forward that could then open the flood gates to what you are saying. Which is all good by the way

 

It’s a pipe dream. They are not going to spill the beans. They are gonna rake you over the coals as a loon…..

[hiflier]

3 minutes ago, norseman said:

It’s a nothing burger.
 

It’s a recreational pursuit because it’s a mythological animal. And it’s a mythological animal because there is no physical evidence of its existence….

 

There is no way to contest that line of reasoning unless you produce physical proof. I can already tell you how your court case is going to go.

 

And just how does the USFWS know that? Did they do an ecological study? Any investigations? What has their extensive surveillance net told them? That it ain't out there? Would they then be saying it therefore doesn't exist? Because that would be one of two possible outcomes, right

[hiflier]

8 minutes ago, norseman said:

It’s a pipe dream. They are not going to spill the beans. They are gonna rake you over the coals as a loon…..

 

 Me? Why me? And if you must know? And there's no beans to spill. The creature is outside the jurisdiction ans structure for USFWS. What does that tell you? It tell you that someone issued that policy. Why was it issued? Are they saying it doesn't exist?

 

And it okay to say yes, that means they say it doesn't exist.

 

Edited October 28, 2023 by hiflier

[norseman]

Just now, hiflier said:

 

And just how does the USFWS know that? Did they do an ecological study? Any investigations? What has their extensive surveillance net told them? That it ain't out there? Would they then be saying it therefore doesn't exist? Because that would be one of two possible outcomes, right

NO PROOF. NO PROOF. NO PROOF. Is this thing on!!??.

 

Do they conduct ecological studies on unicorns? Elves? Pixies?

 

You come at them with this line of reasoning? They are gonna shred you as a loon based on its mythological status. 
 

We seem to forget that as Bigfooters. We are just too close to the subject I guess.

[norseman]

4 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

 Me? Why me? And if you must know? The real pipe dream is shooting one.

Why do you always take things personal? Why don’t you support me when constantly asking for support yourself? No need to get nasty Hiflier.

 

I used the term “you” as anyone who takes the government to court over that line of reasoning. 

[hiflier]

4 minutes ago, norseman said:

NO PROOF. NO PROOF. NO PROOF. Is this thing on!!??.

 

Do they conduct ecological studies on unicorns? Elves? Pixies?

 

Who needs proof, proof, proof? They give it recreational status. That is to say it doesn't exist? Great, then they can say it as they confess WHY it's recreational. WHY they consider it mythological. To put it in with unicorns, elves, and pixies? It only strengthen the case...so...not real. 

[Huntster]

23 minutes ago, norseman said:

It’s a nothing burger.........

 

Were you aware that you can order a burger with no meat? A burger with no bun? A burger between two slices of lettuce?

 

Are any of those "nothing burgers"?

 

What, exactly, is a "nothing burger"? Do you have a recipe book with such a dish documented? Do you have a type specimen? Do you have any evidence at all of the existence of nothing burgers? Are there any requirement for the USDA to inspect or certify the ingredients of your nothing burger? 

 

Quote

.........It’s a recreational pursuit because it’s a mythological animal. And it’s a mythological animal because there is no physical evidence of its existence….

 

Are you aware of any USFWS document acknowledging recreational gnome hunting? Recreatiinal fairy hunting? Recreational dragon hunting? Recreational pterodactyl hunting? Why not? Why would the department approve (in writing) recreational sasquatch hunting? Have you seen the sasquatch hunting regs? Can you shoot one?

 

Quote

........ I can already tell you how your court case is going to go.

 

And I can already tell you how your sasquatch carcass hunt is going to continue, and we're both likely to be correct.

[Huntster]

23 minutes ago, norseman said:

Trace evidence doesn’t matter in Biology..........

 

That is incorrect. I can reference you to ADFG bear management reports which outline the many methods of estimating bear density populations in the various game management units. Both trace evidence as well as hunter and resident testimonies are taken into account.

 

Quote

........David Paulides tried that study route already with the Park Service on missing persons.........

 

Missing person studies or data collection is not a criteria in the ESA.

 

Quote

........Of a mythological animal. How many elves roam our park system? How many unicorns? Etc, etc…..

 

I don't know. How many reports of elves have been submitted to federal land managers or police? How many unicorns have been photographed on federal lands? Dunno......nor do I care. I'm specifically concerned with sasquatches, and I know that they have been reported to federal officials numerous times. 

 

"What, you say? You have never followed up on such reports? Ever? Why is that, Mr. Superintendent?"

[norseman]

12 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Who needs proof, proof, proof? They give it recreational status. That is to say it doesn't exist? Great, then they can say it as they confess WHY it's recreational. WHY they consider it mythological. To put it in with unicorns, elves, and pixies? It only strengthen the case...so...not real. 

I don’t know why you cannot see your defeating you own case within your own paragraph. All I can say? Is good luck!👍 

[hiflier]

27 minutes ago, norseman said:

Why do you always take things personal?

 

 

Because you said they would tear "me" apart like a loon. Popped onto right into my lap. What did you expect? And I DO support you. But people can go to jail for a recreational activity. I don't want that to happen to you, which I have said numerous times. The point is, if it's a recreational activity and doesn't fall under USFWS jurisdiction is it because it isn't real?  How do they KNOW it isn't real? Did you ask them that? Would you dare to? Well, I dared to and that's the answer they gave me. Actually what I asked was to speak to a PERSON about it. Takes more guts but if ya got 'em then why not? For the USFWS it could become a legal quagmire that, according to their response to me, could only go one way: The creature doesn't exist.

Edited October 28, 2023 by hiflier

[Huntster]

28 minutes ago, norseman said:

It’s a pipe dream. They are not going to spill the beans. They are gonna rake you over the coals as a loon…..

 

They might even have Delta Force waste you on your way home from the court house.

 

Nothing ventured, nothing gained......or lost. But it's probably safer than shooting at hairy upright figures running about on the side of the road. If you blow Little Johnny away in his monkey suit, we'd be back to the murder trial you were mentioning above..........