Why has bigfoot not been listed as an endangered species?

[hiflier]

7 minutes ago, norseman said:

Thanks. I misunderstood which agency you were corresponding to.

 

You're welcome, my friend, needless to say the email reply WAS a bit of an unexpected surprise. Can you imagine? LOL

 

Edited October 28, 2023 by hiflier

[Huntster]

1 minute ago, norseman said:

Trying to establish talking points from an extant species of Bear study to a mythological creature is folly. Good luck!

Thanks. I misunderstood which agency you were corresponding to.

 

Not "talking points". Valid sampling methods for estimating wildlife population densities. IE, if bear sightings and trace evidence are used to estimate numbers of bears, they can be used to estimate the numbers of unicorns, fairies, and sasquatches. So if your office has gotten 0 unicorn sighting reports, 0 fairy sighting results, 10 sasquatch sighting reports, and 4,672 bear sighting reports over a 5 year period, guess what..........?

[Huntster]

5 minutes ago, norseman said:

You aren’t serious. Your stepping on a rake handle…. I highly suggest you explore other cryptids.

 

 

 

"The question was to the national forest Superintendent, not Mr. Norseman in the gallery, Your Honor. If Mr. Norseman continues trying to submit inappropriate evidence to the court, I will ask that the bailiff remove him from the courtroom."

 

 

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, georgerm said:

Is it within the bounds of Bigfoot Forum to have volunteer members join forces to write up an application for getting Bigfoot listed as an endangered species at the federal level?

 

First things first, georgerm, my apologies for not answering sooner, although it's probably not my place to do so. I guess members could volunteer but my understanding is that it would have to be outside the Forum? Organizing, if I remember correctly, is against Forum rules and guidelines. Chalk it up to my own experiences here over the years

 

It's how I achieved my condescending Human label and persona non gratis. I still come here and criticize but only because a concerted push for the truth about the creature never seemed to materialize from either inside or outside of this member body. This thread is the closest I've ever come to seeing a clear direction to that truth even for myself outside of trace evidence from the field. The difference now, though, is that I think others can clearly see the possible way forward, too?

 

Edited October 28, 2023 by hiflier

[hiflier]

16 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

"The question was to the national forest Superintendent, not Mr. Norseman in the gallery, Your Honor. If Mr. Norseman continues trying to submit inappropriate evidence to the court, I will ask that the bailiff remove him from the courtroom."

 

 

 

"NO! We need that guy!" says hiflier from the witness stand, whom is promptly held in contempt and removed from the courtroom in irons, LOL

 

[Huntster]

20 minutes ago, hiflier said:

"NO! We need that guy!" says hiflier from the witness stand, whom is promptly held in contempt and removed from the courtroom in irons, LOL

 

Plaintiffs Lawyer:

 

"You're Honor, we have evidence that Mr. Norseman has harbored plans to kill one of these rare creatures for years just to force The Agency to perform its legal duty to recognize the plight of the species. We also have evidence that Mr. Hiflier has already attempted to coax the defendant to act within his purview to protect these creatures from the brutal norsemen of the world. This outbreak in your courtroom is a minor example of the bedlam caused by the recalcitrance of the defendant."

[georgerm]

Good replies. It would be great to protect bigfoot from hunters and Bigfoot may be compatible with logging.  

 

What is the procedure for getting a species listed as endangered?

https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ESA-Section-4-Listing.pdf

 

Here are some highlights:

 

 

"The ESA requires that we make and publish specific findings on a petition. We or the NMFS (for most marine species) are required to make a finding within 90 days of receiving a petition (to the extent practicable) as to whether there is “substantial information” indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted."

 

"What are the criteria for deciding whether to add a species to the list? A species is added to the list when it is determined to be an endangered or threatened species because of any of the following factors:

 

A. the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms: reply: the inadequacy of laws protecting bigfoot and its home site are inadequate.

 

B. other natural or manmade factors affecting its survival: reply:

the inadequacy of laws protecting bigfoot and its home site are inadequate.

 

We need a PHD biologist to write up the report so it can be submitted. Any ideas?

[norseman]

[hiflier]

Judge: "I appreciate your clarifications Mr. Huntster, but any more outbursts and I will clear this courtroom. Now, can we move on to the chief argument in this case?"

hiflier: "Your Honor, may I approach the bench?"

Judge: "Approach."

hiflier: "Thank you, Your Honor. I would like to sumbit a copy of an email from the USFWS stating that hunting Bigfoot is a recreational activity."

Judge: "Accepted."

hiflier: "i would like to further ask how the defendant came to that conclusion.

 

30 minutes ago, georgerm said:

Good replies. It would be great to protect bigfoot from hunters and Bigfoot may be compatible with logging.  

 

What is the procedure for getting a species listed as endangered?

https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ESA-Section-4-Listing.pdf

 

Here are some highlights:

 

 

"The ESA requires that we make and publish specific findings on a petition. We or the NMFS (for most marine species) are required to make a finding within 90 days of receiving a petition (to the extent practicable) as to whether there is “substantial information” indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted."

 

"What are the criteria for deciding whether to add a species to the list? A species is added to the list when it is determined to be an endangered or threatened species because of any of the following factors:

 

A. the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms: reply: the inadequacy of laws protecting bigfoot and its home site are inadequate.

 

B. other natural or manmade factors affecting its survival: reply:

the inadequacy of laws protecting bigfoot and its home site are inadequate.

 

We need a PHD biologist to write up the report so it can be submitted. Any ideas?

 

Hey, I appreciate the post and reference. It would seem to place the cart before the horse, however, in that a determination of existence or non-existence has yet to be officially or legally established. Calling it a recreational activity doesn't really firmly address that quandry. It simply assumes that a recreational activity status IMPLIES non-existence without really saying non-existence. But in truth, it also doesn't officially say existence either. This is why clarification of which it is so critical. If real then ESA. If not then its just fun and games and the public is getting hosed by spending lots of money thinking the creature is real.

 

Fishing and hunting for the most are recreational, too, but USFWS recognizes and manages those species and activities. Not Bigfoot. And I think the law carries enough specifics to get the official truth behind why that is. Calling it mythical implies non-existence. But USFWS does not call it mythical. They call it recreational. That it doesn't fall under their structure for fish and wildlife. Why doesn't it? Not real? Then say so and stop the ambiguous beating around the proverbial bush. America has been through a lot...She deserves better than being jerked around by an animal agency.

 

Edited October 28, 2023 by hiflier

[hiflier]

12 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

HAH! Thanks, bud. One of my all-time favorite shows.

[xspider1]

They can simply say that Bigfoot research is considered to be a 'recreational activity' because there is no proof that the animal exists.  I don't think that the USFWS is tasked with investigating  reports of Bigfeet, mothmen, unicorns, or any other paranormal??  That would be a very difficult project to pitch to any hierarchy in Government, at any level.  If I was on the stand as a Government official (even a person who perhaps knows that they exist), I might say: "Sure, just get our boss to approve it and my Department will be all over it."  And, then summons their boss, his/her boss's boss's boss, etc. etc. all they way up to the Supreme Court and even the POTUS and you will get then same response:  "There is no reason, at this time, to devote Government resources to investigate Bigfoot."  And, about 99% of US voters would agree.  At this point, court proceedings re: Sasquatch would be a hard pass dead-end, in my opinion.

[Huntster]

9 hours ago, xspider1 said:

They can simply say that Bigfoot research is considered to be a 'recreational activity' because there is no proof that the animal exists.........

 

Why state that at all? Do they get a multitude of reports from visitors? Do they get multiple requests fir bigfoot hunting permits? Do they not mention recreational dragin hunting permits because nobody mentions it?

 

Quote

.......I don't think that the USFWS is tasked with investigating  reports of Bigfeet, mothmen, unicorns, or any other paranormal??  That would be a very difficult project to pitch to any hierarchy in Government, at any level........

 

 

The federal government invested at least $50 million in SETI in the 1990's. Why? Because of reports of UFOs, which might have nothing to do with extraterrestrial life?

 

Quote

.......If I was on the stand as a Government official (even a person who perhaps knows that they exist), I might say: "Sure, just get our boss to approve it and my Department will be all over it."  And, then summons their boss, his/her boss's boss's boss, etc. etc. all they way up to the Supreme Court and even the POTUS and you will get then same response:  "There is no reason, at this time, to devote Government resources to investigate Bigfoot.".......

 

Under the auspices of the ESA, there is. If their numbers are so low as to even make people believe they don't exist, they may be going extinct.

 

Quote

.......And, about 99% of US voters would agree........

 

Many Americans don't care about snail darters, especially if they want their air conditioners to work. That's why the ESA was passed as law.

 

 

 

[hiflier]

9 hours ago, xspider1 said:

They can simply say that Bigfoot research is considered to be a 'recreational activity' because there is no proof that the animal exists.

 

Good, then they can explain why there's no proof. There is no proof because they don't do the research and they don't do the research because there is no proof. Same Catch-22 science uses. Is it because they did a thorough investigation by at least looking through all the eDNA they collect while looking for other rare species? That they KNOW what creates all the howls on their recordings? That none of their thousands of trail cams have nabbed anything? The USFWS may not be tasked for paranormal investigations but there is trace evidence being left by something in the wild.

 

A judge could order that a full investigation be conducted. And if it takes the Supreme Court then the same questions will be asked:

 

How did you determine that Bigfoot is only a recreational activity? Have you conducted any investigations or research to arrive at that conclusion?

Is supposed Bigfoot's recreational status based on your opinion, or on the fact that the creature doesn't exist?

And if you are taking the stance of the scientific null hypothesis that you don't know if it exists then why don't you know?

Do you in fact have proof that the creature is a myth?

You seem to be able to track and find even small animals and this animal is supposed to be quite large. If it exists then explain how you have missed it in, say, the last 100 years?

 

 

[hiflier]

What would be nice to see here, since we could be talking about getting a potentially endangered species listing for quite a marvelous creature, should it exist, is that more members take the side FOR the creature. Devil's advocates are fine but where are the proponents? What would be helpful is to get some real ideas for presenting the case instead of reasons for why it would fail? Any takers or believers that think 56 years of having no proof, even after everyone's efforts in the field, is quite enough time? or why the whole thing is always left to us when the people and agencies that should have the answer are left out of the equation?

 

So how about more brainstorming in a positive way by more members who DO want to see this creature officially recognized and why the official truth of its existence or non-existence has never reached us. Hasn't it been long enough? Does anyone have a friend who is a lawyer that they could at least broach the idea of bringing something like this to court? Or is opinion on the matter, which is mostly negative, all that we have?

 

Edited October 29, 2023 by hiflier

[hiflier]

10 hours ago, xspider1 said:

They can simply say that Bigfoot research is considered to be a 'recreational activity' because there is no proof that the animal exists.

 

45 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Why state that at all?

 

A fair question. When they say it it is a recreational activity it would be just as easy to follow it up by saying because it doesn't exist. Or simply say sorry, there is no such creature in the US. Why bother quantifying it as recreational at all? it's not under their jurisdiction and doesn't fit their structure for fish and wildlife. Are they saying that it does not exist? Because if it did then it would HAVE to go under their jurisdiction. Just SAY it doesn't exist and be done with the whole mess of dealing with the public's mistrust.

 

Edited October 29, 2023 by hiflier