Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Is it illegal to capture/kill bigfoot?...No


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 11,266 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 03 January 2013 - 01:59 AM

Ok, wanted to start this for some help more then anything. And to share the truth.

I am working on something, and as I see more and more, a excuse is made of " the Government will come in and take it "....etc,etc,etc..

We have all heard the rumor of Washington made it illegal, etc,etc,etc.....( I explained this a thousand times, a County made a oridinance, not a law, on April fools day, and also host a Bigfoot festival now )

Anyway, I have been trying to contact as many places as I can, that CAN and WILL verify the protocol if a Bigfoot were caught. So far, my reply is from Texas, my others keep coming back, it is my email server, some issue...... here is the Texas response.






Hello,

This is going to sound like a joke, but it is not. I have been
working on a write up about a possible live bigfoot caught. I
know it is all a joke, I know they could not exist. What keeps
coming up all over the place is how Government agencies would
take it away and such. This has to do with excuses why has nothing
been released.

It also has to do with the recent claim of a live Bigfoot caught....Has that made the rounds in the real world of wildlife yet?

So, can you please either tell me, or lead me to the right
place to find out if ( very big if, and just a question ) a new
large species of animal were caught, or even killed, what should
the protocol be for the person that caught or killed it?

We are taking a new species no one new exists, like Bigfoot.

Are there laws for this?
Is it the property of whomever killed or captured it?


I know, I am laughing also, but this information is impossible
to find, other then hear say, or opinions.

Please let me know.

Thank You,
Robert Lester










I would suggest contacting the Biology department of a nearby university to ask about typical protocol if a new species were discovered. I will say that new species are being discovered all the time and government agencies do not take them away. We have had several species of salamander discovered right here in the Austin area, they remain in the wild or with those who discovered them.

Mark Klym
Information Specialist
Wildlife Diversity Program
Austin, TX


http://www.facebook....224879157526926
http://www.facebook....202258796511399


http://www.conservationplate.org


Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#2    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 11,830 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 03 January 2013 - 02:30 AM

I think most people would find it abhorrent to kill such a creature unless it was a case of self defense.

  Imagination is the power in the turn of a phrase.

#3    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 03 January 2013 - 02:33 AM

Not me!

:gun:

I see a Bigfoot and I'm armed he, she, it is dead. Stone cold and without mercy. Then it goes to a university with a primate research facility for study.

:tu:


#4    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 11,266 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 03 January 2013 - 02:35 AM

 and then, on 03 January 2013 - 02:30 AM, said:

I think most people would find it abhorrent to kill such a creature unless it was a case of self defense.

Not discussing if killing one is ethical or not.....

Basically asking for others to email, or contact places and ask the same thing...

This is a excuse being used right now on a claimed live one......And has been used before.

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#5    Ashotep

Ashotep

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,085 posts
  • Joined:10 May 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

  • Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway-John Wayne

Posted 03 January 2013 - 02:46 AM

If I saw one I would want to shoot it.  Just looking at it would scare me enough to want to do so.  Then I would charge everyone to see it.

I've never heard of a law to keep you from shooting it.


#6    AquilaChrysaetos

AquilaChrysaetos

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 590 posts
  • Joined:01 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wherever the wind takes me...

  • "Some people wish to be the sun, so they can brighten your day. I wish to be the moon, which shines down upon you in your darkest hour."

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:14 AM

As long as you don't capture and kill my uncle. He's been mistaken as bigfoot before.

Jesus Christ - Matthew 28:18-20 said:

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Posted Image


#7    omerta

omerta

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 646 posts
  • Joined:26 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:19 AM

Killing bigfoot is illegal here in Canada.

"Miracles. Events with astronomical odds of occurring, like oxygen turning into gold. I've longed to witness such an event, and yet I neglect that in human coupling. Millions upon millions of cells compete to create life, for generation after generation until, finally, your mother loves a man. Edward Blake, the Comedian, a man she has every reason to hate, and out of that contradiction, against unfathomable odds, it's you - only you - that emerged, to distill so specific a form from all that chaos. It's like turning air into gold. A miracle."

#8    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 11,266 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:28 AM

 omerta, on 03 January 2013 - 03:19 AM, said:

Killing bigfoot is illegal here in Canada.

No it is not.....

My God, why did I start this thread...No one reads.

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#9    WoIverine

WoIverine

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,682 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:41 AM

Sounds like game on to me.


#10    omerta

omerta

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 646 posts
  • Joined:26 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:48 AM

 Sakari, on 03 January 2013 - 03:28 AM, said:

No it is not.....

My God, why did I start this thread...No one reads.
Brb going hunting.

"Miracles. Events with astronomical odds of occurring, like oxygen turning into gold. I've longed to witness such an event, and yet I neglect that in human coupling. Millions upon millions of cells compete to create life, for generation after generation until, finally, your mother loves a man. Edward Blake, the Comedian, a man she has every reason to hate, and out of that contradiction, against unfathomable odds, it's you - only you - that emerged, to distill so specific a form from all that chaos. It's like turning air into gold. A miracle."

#11    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 11,266 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:55 AM

 omerta, on 03 January 2013 - 03:19 AM, said:

Killing bigfoot is illegal here in Canada.

Good Luck :)

Don't worry, rumors of these laws are all over the web...Until you look at where actual laws are, you are only listening to rumor....I thought the same years ago.








Canada passes Bigfoot Law, Sean Hannity says its bull****

Canada has passed a law that will protect BIGFOOT. Sean Hannity got wind of it and indicated that they're "full of it" on his show, which aired at 9pm EDT today on FOX News. Can this be placed in the bigfoot article ? I'd do it myself, but my ISP has royally *bleeped* up. 205.240.146.147 02:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC) That(Sean Hannity's) comment aired at the end of the show. 205.240.146.147 02:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC) I'd make sure that Hannity isn't full of it himself before adding that. I can find no evidence that a law has been passed in Canada to protect Bigfoot. There was a petition presented in the House of Commons in late March, asking to have Bigfoot designated a protected species, but that isn't nearly the same as passing a law. - Eron Talk 04:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Fox News got something wrong? You're kidding me... FiggyBee 06:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC) One other thing, he claimed Al Gore said that the Loch Ness Monster had died of "Global Warming". 205.240.146.147 06:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC) I don't think Sean Hannity could be considered a reliable source for the colour of his own underwear, nevermind issues of Canadian legislature. Rockpocket 21:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Sean said that the Canadians are idiots in passing legislation regarding mythological creatures. 205.240.146.147 23:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC) At least it's not likely to get anyone killed. —Tamfang 00:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC) And Canadians care. Really we do. Even the polar bears are weeping. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC) It was mentioned on NPR too - something about using the endangered species act to protect Big Foot. It makes it illegal to shoot or trap them...a pretty harmless restriction for a mythical animal - and if by any remote chance they do exist - a very important piece of legislation. Meh. SteveBaker 01:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
By law, any petition carrying a certain number of names received by a Member of Parliament **MUST** be brought up in the House of Commons. The only exceptions are petitions asking for illegal acts to be undertaken (ie pro-pedophilia, etc.). The MP who received the petition had NO choice but to bring it up in the House. On most days there are between 10 and 20 petitions read into the record. This is no big deal. --Charlene 01:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Charlene is right of course. It's funny that so many supposedly reputable media sources[1][2][3] ran with the story that this politician himself (Mike Lake) was advocating species-at-risk protection for Bigfoot. I don't know if it was intended like this, but it does seem like an effective (albeit unethical) way to make your MP look really stupid: give him or her a crazy petition to present, and then alert the media. It's interesting that in the House of Commons Journals for the day in question it shows that Lake did not rise and say a few words to present the petition (as is usual), but simply filed it with the Clerk of the House, making no statement. --Mathew5000 08:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC) After doing a bit more research I am going to reverse myself. It turns out there is no law requiring MPs to present petitions in the House of Commons. See the House of Commons publication Petitions: Practical Guide at page 3: "Nothing in the rules or practices of the House requires a Member to present a petition he or she has received." Also note that under Standing Order 36(4), the MP must endorse each petition he or she presents. However, House of Commons Procedure and Practice by Marleau and Montpetit states that despite not being required to do so, "many Members consider it a duty to present to the House petitions brought forward by citizens" and the MP "is not required to be in agreement with the content of any petition he or she may choose to present, and no such inference is to be drawn". --Mathew5000 09:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC) On 2007-05-10 the Canadian government tabled its response to the Bigfoot petition (link to HoC Journals). The response is filed as Sessional Paper No. 8545-391-98-01 but as far as I can tell it is not available on the Internet. --Mathew5000 02:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#12    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 11,266 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:42 AM

Email in from Washington State :



Sir,

I have to say I this was the most interesting e-mail I received today. My expertise in protocols associated with newly discovered species, specifically a Big Foot, is limited………..but hey, you asked, so here is my best shot from a Fish and Wildlife Police Officer perspective (pun intended):

In order to determine the agencies regulatory authority, I had to consider a number of factors. The first question that must be answered is, does Big Foot fall within the classification of wild animals ? As you know, the name of this animal varies on the location; i.e. bigfoot in America , sasksquatch in Canada and yeti in Asia. My understanding is that all these references are used interchangeably with respect to the same animal in America, which can be confusing. Not to digress too much, if I ever have anything to say about it, I would advocate eliminating those apparent regional designations to reduce confusion over whether we are talking about the same critter, an aberration of the same critter, or a completely different critter. Recognizing that sub-species may exist, some separation could be made up front, such as “lesser Big Foot, Greater Big Foot, Mountain Big Foot”…..etc. At the end of the day, at least we know we are talking about a “big foot”.

Anyhow, I couldn’t find where Big Foot was specifically defined as a wild animal anywhere. But if it could be determined that a big foot was indeed a wild animal, I could pinch the captors for poaching a big-foot closed season because “to hunt” and its derivatives mans an effort to kill, injure, capture, or harass a wild animal or wild bird. Some believe its ancestor to be Gigantipithicus, an ice age great ape, who roamed the continents thousands of years ago. I guess if apes were running around in Washington in a wild state, I could regulate it, given that Wild animals" means those species of the class Mammalia, whose members exist in Washington in a wild state. The term "wild animal" does not include feral domestic mammals or old world rats and mice of the family Muridae of the order Rodentia. I don’t think Big foots are either.

Whether we would actually cite or arrest someone given such a large discovery would be an interesting discussion in itself. I am guessing that if the critter was captured unharmed and turned over to “science”, we would exercise officer discretion and take no action. In all seriousness, if this ever happened, we wouldn’t know what to do………….the shock would be too great.







RCW 77.08.010

Definitions.


65) "To hunt" and its derivatives means an effort to kill, injure, capture, or harass a wild animal or wild bird.

(73) "Wild animals" means those species of the class Mammalia whose members exist in Washington in a wild state. The term "wild animal" does not include feral domestic mammals or old world rats and mice of the family Muridae of the order Rodentia.


RCW 77.15.430

Unlawful hunting of wild animals — Penalty.

(1) A person is guilty of unlawful hunting of wild animals in the second degree if the person hunts for wild animals not classified as big game and, whether or not the person possesses the wild animals, the person has not purchased the appropriate hunting license issued to Washington residents or nonresidents under chapter 77.32 RCW.

(2) A person is guilty of unlawful hunting of wild animals in the second degree if the person:

(a) Takes or possesses a wild animal that is not classified as big game, and owns, but does not have in the person's possession, all licenses, tags, or permits required by this title; or

(B) Violates any department rule regarding seasons, bag or possession limits but less than two times the bag or possession limit, closed areas including game reserves, closed times, or any other rule addressing the manner or method of hunting or possession of wild animals not classified as big game.

(3) A person is guilty of unlawful hunting of wild animals in the first degree if the person takes or possesses two times or more than the possession or bag limit for wild animals that are not classified as big game animals as allowed by department rule.

(4)(a) Unlawful hunting of wild animals in the second degree is a misdemeanor.

(B) Unlawful hunting of wild animals in the first degree is a gross misdemeanor.

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#13    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 03 January 2013 - 12:29 PM

 omerta, on 03 January 2013 - 03:19 AM, said:

Killing bigfoot is illegal here in Canada.

Well, we all know you Godless Candians do weird stuff up there.

:w00t:

Edited by keninsc, 03 January 2013 - 01:19 PM.


#14    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,565 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:14 PM

Even if it were illegal to kill one, there would be such a world wide media circus surrounding the event that I highly doubt anything would happen to you.  You just proved that Bigfoot actually exists for Christ's sake.

Besides, I think it would be fairly easy to argue that you killed the thing in self defense as I can't imagine anyone not feeling threatened by a close encounter with a 9 foot tall manbeast.

As for the ethical question, I would most certainly kill one as that would be the only way to prove their existence and actually protect the species - much like the naturalists of old shot and killed the animals they were studying.  You know all of those beautiful bird drawing that Audubon did?  Most don't realize that he shot and killed the specimens first.


#15    WoIverine

WoIverine

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,682 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:56 PM

 Rafterman, on 03 January 2013 - 05:14 PM, said:

Even if it were illegal to kill one, there would be such a world wide media circus surrounding the event that I highly doubt anything would happen to you.  You just proved that Bigfoot actually exists for Christ's sake.

Besides, I think it would be fairly easy to argue that you killed the thing in self defense as I can't imagine anyone not feeling threatened by a close encounter with a 9 foot tall manbeast.

As for the ethical question, I would most certainly kill one as that would be the only way to prove their existence and actually protect the species - much like the naturalists of old shot and killed the animals they were studying.  You know all of those beautiful bird drawing that Audubon did?  Most don't realize that he shot and killed the specimens first.

Might be able to tranquilize one, don't really need to kill it.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users