hiflier Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 1 minute ago, norseman said: I don’t know why you cannot see your defeating you own case within your own paragraph. All I can say? Is good luck!👍 Are you saying that I'm making a case for it not to be real? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 11 minutes ago, Huntster said: 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. Missing person studies or data collection is not a criteria in the ESA. 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?" Does it escape you that the accepted trace evidence of a BEAR study is of a known animal? No it’s not. But they threw out a cost of one million dollars on the table to produce a study that should already exist. You dealing with the same agencies. Mr. Superintendent: Nope. Because it’s a mythological animal Mr. Huntster….. it doesn’t exist! Am I only one here sees the turd in the punch bowl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 29 minutes ago, norseman said: NO PROOF. NO PROOF. NO PROOF. Is this thing on!!??......... Huh? Is somebody saying something? Hell, I need new glasses......... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 1 minute ago, hiflier said: Are you saying that I'm making a case for it not to be real? No. I am playing Devil’s advocate. I am attacking your line of reasoning as they would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 I am gonna start calling you two the H and H law firm….. So when do you guys expect to go to trial? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 10 minutes ago, hiflier said: 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. Not taking it personal? I am not a judge…. I thought the letter was from New York State? Not the USFWS? 12 minutes ago, Huntster said: 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.......... If I blow little Johnny away in a Halloween costume? I would deserve to be hung…. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 Good, then put it all together and you'll find a counter question to every answer that would be given in court. So for the feds, UNDER OATH, the mud will only get deeper and deeper. Lawyer: "Is the Sasquatch on recreational status and out of your jurisdiction and purview because it doesn't exist?" (Witness pauses) Lawyer: "Your honor, permission to treat the witness as a hostile." Judge: "Permission granted, the witness will answer the question" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 1 minute ago, norseman said: Does it escape you that the excepted trace evidence of a BEAR study is of a known animal?.......... I just posted a map of black bear populations in 1995 and historically, and no fewer that three people posted that it was not correct. Thus, black bears were "no longer believed to exist" in southern Michigan might be "known to exist" there. A current study is needed, no? Quote .......Mr. Superintendent: Nope. Because it’s a mythological animal Mr. Huntster….. it doesn’t exist! ........ Mr. Huntster: "Mr. Superintendent, we enter Exhibit 1 here. It's a film shot in your National Forest in 1967. It is evidence that this creature did, indeed, exist in 1967 there. Exhibit 2 are footprint casts taken at the site where the film was shot. Exhibit 3 is an exhaustive analysis by a well accreditted movie industry creature special effects creator who has determined that the subject of this film is not a man in a suit. Exhibit 4 is a photograph of one of the footprints taken by one of your employees three days after the film was shot. These are not mythical legends. These are concrete facts. Did your agency look into this matter at the time or at any time since 1967?" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 11 minutes ago, norseman said: No. I am playing Devil’s advocate. I am attacking your line of reasoning as they would. Good, then put it all together and you'll find a counter question to every answer that would be given in court. So for the feds, UNDER OATH, the mud will only get deeper and deeper. Lawyer: "Is the Sasquatch on recreational status and out of your jurisdiction and purview because it doesn't exist?" (Witness pauses) Lawyer: "Your honor, permission to treat the witness as a hostile." Judge: "Permission granted, the witness will answer the question." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 10 minutes ago, norseman said: ...........So when do you guys expect to go to trial? I report for jury duty in Palmer on Monday morning. Yup, no joke. I'm already full of court proceedings for the year, thanks. I'll pass. Odds are, though, that either the DA or a defense attorney will dismiss me immediately after I offend them both with my first answer to their questions..........or throw me in jail........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 7 minutes ago, norseman said: I thought the letter was from New York State? Not the USFWS? The letter was from NY State. But the rest is from the USFWS's email to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 5 minutes ago, Huntster said: I just posted a map of black bear populations in 1995 and historically, and no fewer that three people posted that it was not correct. Thus, black bears were "no longer believed to exist" in southern Michigan might be "known to exist" there. A current study is needed, no? Mr. Huntster: "Mr. Superintendent, we enter Exhibit 1 here. It's a film shot in your National Forest in 1967. It is evidence that this creature did, indeed, exist in 1967 there. Exhibit 2 are footprint casts taken at the site where the film was shot. Exhibit 3 is an exhaustive analysis by a well accreditted movie industry creature special effects creator who has determined that the subject of this film is not a man in a suit. Exhibit 4 is a photograph of one of the footprints taken by one of your employees three days after the film was shot. These are not mythical legends. These are concrete facts. Did your agency look into this matter at the time or at any time since 1967?" Trying to establish talking points from an extant species of Bear study to a mythological creature is folly. Good luck! 2 minutes ago, hiflier said: The letter was from NY State. But the rest is from the USFWS's email to me. Thanks. I misunderstood which agency you were corresponding to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 3 minutes ago, hiflier said: ........Lawyer: "Is the Sasquatch on recreational status and out of your jurisdiction and purview because it doesn't exist?" (Witness pauses) Lawyer: "Your honor, permission to treat the witness as a hostile." Judge: "Permission granted, the witness will answer the question." Lawyer: "Mr. Superintendent, why would you create a recreational status for sasquatches but not unicorns?" Lawyer: "Mr. Superintendent, has anybody ever reported a sasquatch sighting to any office or employee in your region? How about a unicorn sighting? A dragon sighting?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Huntster said: Mr. Huntster: "Mr. Superintendent, we enter Exhibit 1 here. It's a film shot in your National Forest in 1967. It is evidence that this creature did, indeed, exist in 1967 there. Exhibit 2 are footprint casts taken at the site where the film was shot. Exhibit 3 is an exhaustive analysis by a well accreditted movie industry creature special effects creator who has determined that the subject of this film is not a man in a suit. Exhibit 4 is a photograph of one of the footprints taken by one of your employees three days after the film was shot. These are not mythical legends. These are concrete facts. Did your agency look into this matter at the time or at any time since 1967?" Once in the courtroom and the issue of the creature's "recreational activity" status is settled, then Exhibit 1 goes up....and more. Edited October 28, 2023 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 Just now, Huntster said: Lawyer: "Mr. Superintendent, why would you create a recreational status for sasquatches but not unicorns?" Lawyer: "Mr. Superintendent, has anybody ever reported a sasquatch sighting to any office or employee in your region? How about a unicorn sighting? A dragon sighting?" You aren’t serious. Your stepping on a rake handle…. I highly suggest you explore other cryptids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts