Once again, I absolutely betray my ignorance - this time, about hunting, and guns (more broadly). AND - I sincerely do not want to turn this into a fight, or a debate, or a rumble, over the subject of hunting OR guns ... TRULY!

I was browsing another thread, and there was a discussion of "wilderness", and also a discussion of why, if BF is "out there" roaming around, crossing roads, skirting trailer parks and towns, etc, etc, one hadn't been hit by a car, or shot, by now.

Lets leave aside, for the moment, the question of cars hitting BF (or not hitting them).

(1) My question is... for those of you who hunt... do you think the average hunter, if coincidentally armed with a weapon that could conceivably bring down a BF, would take a shot at one if the hunter did not feel he/she was in any danger?

I ask this because there seems, to me (a nonhunter!) to ALMOST be a mindset among skeptics that "surely" a hunter would blast a BF on general principles. I don't buy this, but I have NO basis for my gut feeling. I honestly have almost no acquaintances within the "hunting culture".

I can "see" the counterargument - it may well be that the person who "bagged" a BF could expect a certain amount of fame and fortune. That would certainly motivate some, I guess.

I suppose what I am asking is for the views of more hunting-savvy folks ... and I want to ask this in as unbiased a way as I can muster.... do you think that a lot of folks with no hunting experience misread the likelihood of hunters shooting a BF "just because"?

(2) More broadly... I don't think that most who have BF sightings (and lets face it, most sightings are BRIEF), even if they are armed at the time or have ready access to a gun (in a nonhunting situation) would find it their first inclination to shoot at a BF unless they felt very much threatened. No empirical way to study this, and maybe I am wrong. But there does seem to be a school of thought that with BF roaming areas with substantial gun ownership, SURELY someone would have shot one (if BF is real, of course). But again... I don't think that, in "real life", folks are nearly as trigger happy as some "skeptics" seem to assume (again, with the caveat that the people do not feel threatened). Thoughts?

Shadow

Very good question ShadowPrime. and I think you worded it well.

This has been discussed in bits in different places, but maybe everyone would like to focus on this one small particular issue, in one thread.

I haven't hunted in a long time, nor did I hunt for very long. But I come from a family of hunters, and a traditional hunting area. And I think that if one of the many hunters I know, saw a BF they would be in such shock that they wouldn't think of pulling the trigger until after it was gone.

I think that probably, 98% of the hunters I know would not shoot at anything that they couldn't identify. I think that is another reason a hunter has not shot one yet. By the time they would think "Bigfoot", or realize it was an animal and not a person, then the BF would probably be gone.

Another thing to consider is that if it doesn't have a season, or if the state they are in has already outlawed the shooting of a Bigfoot, they they could get in trouble.

Yup. Good question. And you gave an excellent answer.



I agree.



Again, I agree. Further, I suspect the more legal hunting experience a person has, the less likely he/she is to shoot such a creature.



That is one of the reasons why I think someone with lots of legal hunting experience is not likely to shoot such a creature.

Another reason is that such a person would likely realize that what he is looking at is extremely rare.

Another reason is that such a creature looks "too human."

Another reason is that such a person has likely killed many animals, and doesn't have the "bloodlust" commonly attributed (wrongly) to hunters in general. Such people don't kill indiscriminately. They're good hunters, and often even pass up shots at appropriate, legal quarry in hopes for a better animal.

Here in Washington State, the First Commandment - The Golden Rule, is YOU DO NOT SHOOT AT ANYTHING ON TWO LEGS. And as a result, the number of hunting deaths has dropped considerably. When I hunted, in Yakima County, there would be several hunting deaths per season. Now it has been a couple of years since I remember reading of a hunting death. So now it is identify what you arew looking at. And if not sure - don't shoot.
Plus the shock and awe of seeing a bigfoot. And the unsure factor will keep most hunters from pulling the trigger on The Big Guy. Now most hunters will shoot in self-defence as the distance gets down to 30 feet, 20 feet and "oh my god, he's not going to stop" in a charge situation. But that is different from the conventional hunters circumstance. Not to mention the preverbial "I got to get a bigger gun" type of sighting.

Speaking from past experience I would never have shot a bigfoot, or anything else I wasn't out specifically hunting for. GOOD hunters don't go out in the woods simply blasting at things that move or make noise, there's a lot of thought process involved before the safety is taken off, let alone the trigger squeezed, or arrow released. In time that process becomes automatic, and you don't even realize you've done it until it's all over and done with. You've sensed or seen the movement, you've recognized what it is, you've made the decision if this is or is not the quarry you're seeking, you've checked, double checked and triple checked that this is indeed what you believe it is, you've decided if it's best to take the shot now or wait, you've checked and made sure there are no other hunters or anything else between you and the game that may be endangered, you've checked beyond the target to make sure the same exists anywhere your bullet or arrow may travel if you miss the shot, you've decided where to best place your shot, you've brought the quarry into your sighting picture, you check again to make sure this is what you're after, and then and only then, does the safety come off. And the whole process starts over, reaffirming all the conclusions you've come to. You come to realize that there is a finality created by the action you ultimately take, when your ammunition reaches your prey, and because of that, there can be no doubts before the final second.

Yup - I agree... No hunter in his/her right mind would shoot something that shows the basic same anatomical structure as a human and moves bi-pedally in a similar gait... if for no other reason than being unsure that they may indeed be shooting at a human... guy in gorilla suit or whatever... that inability to identify exactly what kind animal they are looking at other than something with a very human-like appearance and locomotion is enough (IMO) to keep virtually all hunters from pulling the trigger (unless directly confronted/threatened by the animal)... and most all accounts of BF's with Hunters seem to indicate that these creatures will hi-tail it out of the area immediately when they see a human with a firearm...

I think the '...a hunter would have shot one by now' skeptical argument is a glossed-over, poorly-rationalized argument without much merit in most cases.

If these things exist, they undoubtedly possess both the intelligence and skill to identify dangers (like firearms) and deftly avoid human interaction when appropriate... just my opinion...

That said, part of me also wonders how one has yet to be shot and confirmed - whether by a yahoo with a gun shooting at an obstructed view of something they can't identify or say a sentry protecting dope crops, etc. Not a likely chance encounter, but the type of scenario that would most likely yield a kill IMO...

As for dope crop sentries... who knows, they may have already shot one and buried it... not like they would be likely to report anything revealing the location of their crops...

Good, VERY good question ShadowPrime!

I have been giving this a lot of thought...I can think of two sighting reports that were by hunters who watched a sasq over the sights or through a scope. BOTH of them thought the creature they were observing was 'too human looking' to shoot. That phraseology may be confusing...I do not think they mean it looked HUMAN, I think they meant it was ON TWO LEGS.

I grew up hunting, though I haven't hunted in several years. I have had occasion to hunt with dozens of folks, and I have never encountered an indiscriminate shooter in the woods. I have never even come close to getting beaned by someone in another hunting party. I DO know a guy who has a reputation for shooting deer that are too small, does etc...But because he HAS that reputation, no one I know has hunted with him more than once.

I was surprised to find that judging the size of an animal can be very difficult in heavy brush, especially from a stand near dawn or dusk. I once passed on a shot at a wild hog I was sure was very young...He even had stripes and spots like a young piglet would...I watched him over open sights for a good five minutes, and was sorely tempted...But knowing that I would catch a ration from my fellow hunters, I let him go. When I finally got down from the stand and went to where he was, I was shocked to find that judging from a slash in the tree he was standing near, that he would have measured 30 inches at the shoulder, PLENTY big enough to take.

I think that Huntster and Little Searcher have it exactly right...A hunter (and by that, I think they mean a LICENSED and KNOWLEDGEABLE hunter would have a real moral struggle with shooting a sasq. Additionally...I would be very afraid of shooting some high school kid in a monkey suit.

Thanks for asking the question! It is increasingly rare for NON hunters to ask actual hunters this kind of questions. Most people who do not hunt (or who had an idiot parent that didn't teach them what real hunting is) take it for a fact that hunters shoot anything that moves.

I would add, having been present on some dangerous game hunts in Africa, that shooting a large, threatening, charging animal is one of the scariest things I have ever witnessed. I have NEVER seen my father scared of much...But his Cape Buffalo kill frightened him so badly he couldn't light a cigaretter after...The guide had to light it for him. Keep in mind, he was well equipped, a cracking good shot, and backed up by an armed guide. Still, the buff took three .375 bullets, one behind the shoulder, one through the front chest as it charged, then a THIRD in the same center chest area as the second...And he STILL managed to charge over 150 yards, dying within 40 feet of where my dad was standing.

My point is that most hunters are KEENLY aware of having enough gun to kill what they are shooting at. With non dangerous game, this is about humane hunting. With dangerous game, it is about getting home alive. I think we can all agree that sasquatch, if they are 7-10 feet, 800 to 1000 pounds, would qualify as dangerous game.

I know for sure, that even given the sure knowledge that what I was shooting was NOT human, and that it was okay to shoot (which is NOT what I think), I would think twice about shooting a sasq with most commonly used deer rifles, shotguns, or bows. I hunted mostly with a Winchester lever 30 30...Loved it for brush, and sometimes with a Ruger .270...NEITHER of which would be very comforting for something as large as 800 pounds.

Smitty

maybe we can have a special section on everything related to hunting bigfoot and guns. there are a gazillion threads with 2 or 3 prominent ones.

Shadow, the comment made by some: "surely a hunter would have blasted one by now" is indicative of a basic ignorance of hunters in general. I for one would probably not be in shock, but I would simply not be able to bring myself to shoot at a creature that is doing me no harm (unless I have a tag for bigfoot in my pack!) Secondly, unless I have an up close and personal encounter, there will be in the back of my mine the possibility that the creature is part of a hoax, of worse, discovered to be human enough to have me regret to the end of my days having shot one.

I'd be willing to bet, if this creature is real, the vast majority of sightings are probably by hunters who probably don't tell anyone about it, or share the information with confidantes who keep the secret.

Dan

this is a great thread worded prfectly and answered the same as a hunter i agree if you cannot confirm what it is,you don't shoot and like others have said the shock factor of seeing one would probably take a few mins. to figure it out ,and the situation i'd fear the most is people who play pranks and if you shot and it was a dumbass in a bf suit just imagine what would happen! even though it would prove to the non-believers of bf to have a bf body.but i do and suggest when in wooded area carry some sort of defense because if you were in a threatning situation its better to have a weapon than to need one just my .02

More subforums devoted to special topics are needed if BFF is to function as a research resource, rather than a slow-motion chat room. It'll be more awkward to browse, using the method of visiting each forum in turn. But the solution is to use the "View New Posts" button.

Hasn't Skamania County, WA got an actual Law against shooting/killing a BF ???

Yes... good questions and good answers!
I could ramble a bit about what I think, but I'm not sure it would help. I could speculate all day about what I think about other people, but it would be just that - speculation.

One thing that comes to mind though... Grover Krantz, a non-hunter to my knowledge. If ever the opportunity had presented itself, would he have taken the shot? He roamed around the back country with a rifle with the intent of shooting one, but after seeing it with his own eyes, would he have changed his mind? Who knows???

I've wavered on whether or not I'd shoot one if I got an opportunity. I finally reasoned that I should, for the reason that putting an end to the mystery would lead to biological knowledge that might save the species from extinction (if they are threatened, and I have reasoned that they might be).

Yet the Roe story and the "Mr. M. M." story (in "Raincoast Sasquatch", pg. 71), both including armed men who had such a creature in their sights but who didn't shoot because they felt the creature was "too human", makes me wonder if I could do it.

Last year I saw a Bigfoot 40-50 yards from our camp at Onion Lake as I lit up the woods with my 3 million candlepower spot light. I had a .270 Ruger rifle loaded with 140 grain bullets in arms reach and the thought of shooting the Bigfoot did'nt come to mind until the creature was long gone because I was in shock at what I just saw. So it does not surprise me at all that the Big Guy has'nt been brought down by a hunter.

BluffCreek35

Oh, I think ole Grover would've done it without a doubt!

Bluff...Did you have one of those Chief Brody "I think we're going to need a bigger boat!" moments?


I loved my Ruger .270. I had the single shot Model 1. Ahh...Good times.

'Bout the only thing I miss about living down there is my guns. But B.C. has it's advantages!

Smitty

Very good questions and answers.

I am a hunter and would NEVER consider dropping a sasquatch regardless of how much gun I was packing although I'm sure there are some out there that would.

I'm sure I'd be a bit stunned at first if I saw one and I'm sure that shock would be one reason no one's shot one (if they exist). Heck, some people are too stunned even to remember to take a pic. until the sighting's over.

You're probably right about Grover.

I think MooseMan is right... one could have one of those moments when time stands still. You're mesmerized by what your eyes are relaying to your mind as the eight foot Sasquatch walks away into the mist... then you slap your forehead and say... "damn it, I forgot to shoot the thing???"

No. I don't think I could shoot anything that looks that much like a man. Especially siince the possibility exists that it really could be a man....in suit. On the other hand...if I felt threatened, yes, I believe I could and would.

BluffCreek....Out doing a little poaching???

I don't know many guys with spot lights and loaded guns at night ,doing anything else.

But to answer the question ... most hunters would never consider shooting something that walks on 2 feet. We've been trained to shoot only what your hunting for, and only after a positive identification of the target.
Leading the hunter to believe they maybe witnessing a human .

If one is shot by a hunter , it will have been done by someone who has thought about the possibility of shooting one and be prepared to do just that.

Neverless, the thought of shooting a human being(biped) will probably kickin at the sight of such an animal , if one truly exists.

I know of individuals that are very much pro-kill and specifically go into the field to hunt and kill sasquatch for proof of their existence. They have done this for years, claim to have proof that the creatures are in the area and aware of them, the hunters, by the growl and brush rattling being heard nearby, yet have yet to "bag" one. I believe these individuals when they tell me that there are sasquatch that close to them, yet the creatures never show themselves out in the open to be shot.

There are many ideas of just how intelligent sasquatch is, but it seems to me that they recongnize firearms and know what those firearms can do.

Living in one of the heaviest hunted areas of Wisconsin I've heard of alot of "I thought" stories, "I thought it was a buck." "I thought it was a deer." It usually happens to weekend warrior types coming in from big cities or from people just not knowing what they're doing. Trust me I work for a LARGE discount chain store and I work overnights, and usually the night before opening day of hunting season, and 75% of the people should not be allowed to be hunting. They are either drunk (at 3 to 5 in the morning) or do not even know what ammo they need for the guns. I would not want to be in the same zip code as most of these so called hunters.

I've heard of the following being shot and mistaken for deer: holstein cows (black and white), horses, car driving on roads, dogs, wolves, coyotes, people walking on roads, other hunters (with blaze orange on). The local rules around here during hunting season are, wear blaze orange if you're outside, even to the mailbox, don't let your dogs run loose, and stay off the roads the friday night before opening day.

So I guess my thoughts are yes it could happen, but hopefully most of the bad hunters are sleeping they're hangovers off when the big guy walks by. The only way I'd ever shoot would be in self defense.

Regards to a bigfoot knowing what a gun is, it doesn't take the deer long to figure out what time of year it is, the first few shots and most head for the deepest cover they can find.

dstroyr666

Have only read the first few posts on the first page of this topic.

But, IMO, this thread IS the premier thread on a discussion of BF and guns (or to put another way, what would a hunter who could have a choice of weaponry do if encountering a BF). And it began with a great question. Kudos, ShadowPrime!

I do not hunt, but know many true hunters. And the respect they have for wildlife and the regulations governing quarrying their prey is tantamount to a religion where if one transgresses its rules, the result will deliver the transgressor to a hell of of their own making.

Spectacular thread that addresses head on one of the most common, and inane, complaints wielded by skeptics of the BF phenomenon...

"So, why hasn't a hunter shot one?"

Duh.

I can't say I wouldn't be shocked, but I can say I'd be a tad incredulous and extremenly thoughtful about what I was seeing or had just seen. I know from experience (trust me on this) that when faced with something simply amazing, incredible and unexplainable, I have not lost the ability to think and act clearly.

The only way I'd consider shooting at one, is if it was charging like a lion and then, I'd probably mess my drawers.

Dan

Sounds to me your an anti-hunter...

I don't disagree with your statement that different things have been shot over the years , but I can't believe that 75% of ther hunters in your area are drunk in the morning or don't know what ammo they need.

I bet one thing for sure, there are more non hunters drunk at this time in the morning than hunters.

Hunting is actually safer that most other sporting events, and most hunters are extremelyconcerned about safety.

That's more probably the reason a " hunter" hasn't shot a BF yet.

Only First Nation Tribal members can hunt with lights at night... there have been a few reports where they have shot a couple deer and low an behold a Bigfoot pops up and takes the game they just shot - under the arm and runs off with it. They don't shoot at it because of their belief system. Even the young bucks would not do that. If all these people out there with cameras cannot get a good shot on film (they have to be much less precise in their aim) it isn't surprising in the least that Bigfoot hasn't been shot, killed and drug into town on purpose. The stories we have heard about someone shooting at one were most likely over it's head to scare it off or see if it would move and prove itself not a stump.

You have made a good point though... hunters have it taught to them from the very beginning to not shoot at anything resembling a human. This equates to a small hesitancy in favor of the animal escaping. Imagine looking through a scope as you lay prone in some grass and see a 6 point come out of a forest line and right behind it you see a sneaky looking dark humanoid thing. First off the scope field of view may hinder you from seeing the dark form in the first place... but be that as it may... I would bet a poll here or anywhere would have people stopping in the hunt knowing in their mind that another human hunter was there, possibly in the way. They would pull their finger away from the trigger. They may just watch. The hunter has switched off their hunting mode to that of some one just observing. There could be twenty other deer laying but yards from this hunter but now his attention is elsewhere. Watching something unfold as if a voyeur.

Another scenario more fitting to the usual Sasquatch encounter is that you round a turn or clear an obstruction hiding visibility further along your pathway and you see a dark form hunkering down or standing up... humanoid in shape. Even with a gun in hand, shooting is not one of the first things that come to mind even for a hunter. Bigfoot researchers typically carry more in cameras then firearms... and even if it is a firearm, it is usually a side arm and holstered. I think the first thought coming to some one in a situation like this is to seek shelter from view... either for protection or to prolong the animals ignorance of your presence. A gun is pulled only when feeling threatened. A hunter has their weapon clearly more at the ready then a Bigfoot researcher would of course but a hunter knows that the animals he is seeking out can be deadly real. They take aim quickly. Bigfoot hunters seem to be a little slow on the uptake.

Even if the dark furry form is not recognized as human in shape, hunters would be reluctant to shoot it unless specifically going for bear. This is why I believe that the only hunters where this might happen would be from bear hunters. It is in their mental search image to look for large, dark and furry animals... but they also know that to shoot one they must take very good aim and wait till they see the right body section. I often wonder how many bear hunters walked away from a Bigfoot encounter because the animal didn't present a good shot and offered nothing that looked different from possibly just another hunter, in shadow or supine positioning.

There were two men bear hunting at Skookum Meadows and they came across a Bigfoot crossing the road in front of them. They didn't shoot at it. They yelled at it thinking it was a man in dark clothing, then a fur suit, then they didn't know what to think. Both worked with wildlife. Both had guns up and at the ready. Both agree that it wasn't a man or a bear that crossed in front of them. It crossed less than 50 yards in front of them and turned towards them when they yelled at it.

There was or is a group of Bigfoot hunters that have regular monkey hunts from tree stands. Even though they have a standing order that no one gets down till day break so that no one is mistaken for a Bigfoot I think they are just asking for trouble.

You sure about that DDA? I don't know about the states (I'm Canadian) but I thought that was more a safety issue than a hunting one. Anyone hunting at night just seems ridiculous to me.

...just wondering

I think the hardest part for me to take an animal like that would just be the fact that the vital organs would (assumingly) be that of a human, that just sends redflags for me all over: This is the same way you would kill a human.

Thats what I understand... they can hunt anytime, almost anywhere by any means and amount.

I don't want to start any arguments here but I'm going to straighten a few things out in your post.

I'm 41 years old, I started hunting at 12, I went hunting ever season until I started working nights. So I am a hunter and proud of it.

I did not say 75% of all hunters were drunks, I said that of the people that come in the store opening morning 75% should not be hunting, big difference.

For ammo an example is 7mm, there 7 different loads that I can think of right now. Last year a guy came up with 7mm-08 ammo and asked if they would work in a 7mm Remington Mag. Or 12 and 20 gauge slugs, do you want 2 3/4 inch or 3 inch?

99.9% of all hunters are safe and law abiding but there are always a few that give the rest a bad name.

dstroyr666

[quote name='dstroyr666' date='Aug 26 2006, 08:07 AM' post='337697']
75% of the people should not be allowed to be hunting. They are either drunk (at 3 to 5 in the morning) or do not even know what ammo they need for the guns. I would not want to be in the same zip code as most of these so called hunters.

I'm not looking for a debate either, but it was your quote not mine.

Unfortunately for us, there are those few that give us all a bad name.

Really? Is there any native american friends that can answer this? That would fall under federal regs. wouldn't it ?

Absolutely. I wouldn't know what to do. I'd probably be so scared I'd forget I had a weapon for a minute.This is very true also. The vast, vast majority of hunters are out there in pursuit of a specific quarry, are equipped to take such, and they aren't just out there to shoot anything that moves. That's not the way hunting works. There seem to be lots of people wh can't understand that because they've never done it nor do they have an appreciation for it. These are probably also the people who always argue that BF can't exist because one hasn't been shot yet. That doesn't wash, in my opinion.

All the people I know who hunt are not trigger happy maniacs. They go out and pursue game responsibly and do it methodically. They aren't hillbillies with AK-47s who go out in the bush and blow away everything that moves.

Is it possible to shoot a BF? If they exist, I think it is. But, there have to be enough people out there actually hunting them in the first place, and if they exist, those people would be hunting a very thinly populated, highly elusive, and potentially intelligent animal that knows its terrain far better than any human. The odds would not be in the hunters' favor.

Yup.

You might want to check into how much the Nations are regulated by the Federal Government. In the US, if my memory serves me correctly, Native Americans (First Nations), are considered a separate governmental entity and are not bound by the same Federal Regulations that we (non-tribal members) are. This is why they can have Casinos in states were gambling is not otherwise legal.

Found this to help explain it...



LINK= American Indian Law

RE: Hunting at night... This is a quote from the Wisconsin Hunting Regulations for 2006



I'm guessing that IR Scopes would be acceptable, but would have to find out for sure. I've known a lot of people who have hunted, especially raccoons, at night. It makes sense because that's when they are most active.

This thread is very interesting. Some great responses from all the hunters.

What exactly are the penalties if the authorities catch you tromping around the woods with a rifle out of season? Would you get pinched on a poaching violation or would it entail a more serious firearm violation? To be clear I don't intend on ever going on a Sasquatch hunt I'm just interested.

Furthermore if somebody did bag a Sasquatch I can imagine that depending on the location of the kill they would have a hell of a time getting the carcase out. My thought would be to chain it to a four-wheeler but dragging for a long distance might damage the body depending on the groud cover. Furthermore if there are other Sasquatches in the area who knows how they might react. Being stalked by an angry Sasquatch in the forest sounds like a pretty bad situation to be in to me, I don't care what you're packing.

Now when you did manage to get the carcase loaded up on a truck what exactly would you do with it? Would you head to the nearest university with an anthropology department, or to the nearest TV station? Any thoughts.

Good points, but I do see the possibility of a "slob hunter" (like those that anti-hunters like to point out, who shoot cattle and the wrong species) could theoretically kill one.

In fact, I've read a report from the 1940's or some such that such a misidentification shooting did occur.



I've let bear, moose, caribou, wolves, and other animals go their way because I didn't get a good shot opportunity.



Up here, between early November and late February, it's dark most of the time.

Hunting season continues for plenty of species.

In Alaska, there is no big game hunting with artificial lights.

Shooting some species under a trappers license, however, does provide allowances for the use of lights (because during trapping season, in winter, there is little available natural light). Those species include wolves, wolverines, coyotes, fox, the weasels, beaver, etc. It does not include bear (which anyone, not just natives) can shoot in the den.

There is a "subsistence" hunting program in Alaska which is a political conundrum. There are both state and federal programs, and they are not based on race (which would be a violation of the 14th Amendment). The feds base their program on where you live. They designate areas as "rural" or "urban", depending on the population of the area. "Rural" residents have increased hunting and fishing opportunity, and greater limits, but those limits aren't "limitless".

They really don't need to be, though. All Alaskans can take up to 5 caribou per day, each and every day, in some areas, but those areas are very tough and/or expensive to get to (and get the meat out).

In Alaska, no law is broken if you're just wandering about in the woods with a rifle. In fact, it's standard practice.



Call Dr. Meldrum immediately. Tell him he can have the carcass in return for providing all the financial assets necessary to legally defend yourself for doing the dirty deed. Begin building a crate. Write up a receipt and legal agreement for him to sign upon transfer, to be signed in front of a notary. Take lots of photos, a hair sample (making sure to get hair roots with it), and a small piece of flesh or some blood for DNA.

Then call a good lawyer.

When the press shows up, hide in your house. Don't talk to them until after all criminal charges have been dropped.

From Oregon Reg's. 2005

I may be wrong, but I've always had the impression that reservations are sovereign and the tribes control all reg. within their boundaries. This reservation may have different rules/reg. than another one. I also believe native Americans have hunting/fishing privileges on some (maybe all) federal lands and perhaps state lands, too. I don't know what the limits are, if any.

Thank you for your response. It sounds like shooting a Bigfoot would be a great way to wreck your life and be an object of intense hatred. I'll pass. Personally I would be satisfied just seeing one with my own eyes. That would be enough for me.

From some folks, no doubt about it.



I felt the same way for a long time.

Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife used to regulate firearms to the extent that a rifle could not be carried during bow season (for instance). That was changed by the Legislature and the courts....

Quoted from ODFW hunting reg. 2005



It never has been illegal to carry and use a firearm out of hunting season in our forests. Target shooting and plinking are a favored pastime for many and can take place at any time of the year in most any safe place outside of city limits. My sons and I often go out into the hills or mountains to target shoot....and, yes, we always carry out more than we carry in.

Thanks for the info Jack. I like your website. Good Work.

Jack, regarding firearms when out in the woods at any time, Oregon is quite different in that respect than many states here in the eastern half of the US. When I was in Oregon I carried a firearm with me in the woods about 90% of the time, depending mostly on how far in I was going, whether alone or with someone else, and how long I was going to be gone. Of course in Oregon there are a few beasties that have the ability to kill you. Here in Illinois, well, there isn't much a bunny rabbit can really do to you. Also Oregon has the CCP (Concealed Carry Permit) where Illinois and Wisconsin don't, two of the last holdouts for allowing people to exercise the right to protect themselves.

Excellent responses on this thread from my fellow hunters, and I cant add much to what has already been posted by other dedicated hunters (and I can tell which ones you are), other than one of the reasons we hunt is to enjoy the overall outdoor expierence of hunting.

Such as the thrill of matching wits with elusive animals with much greater senses than ours on there home turf (non-hunters dont realize the animals have the advantage), and the spirituallity of being in the mountains at that time of year. The Fall, when the majority of the hunting seasons occur is truly a magical time to be in the mountains.

Then there is the adventure element to it, the mountains themselves can kill people. There are severe storms that blow in out of no were, sudden rock slides, cold fronts that blow in and drop temperatures below freezing, flash floods, etc.. Some times just making it home alive is an acomplishment in itself.

There is also the companionship element. I prefer to hunt alone, but when I do go with other people (except when guiding, thats a whole different ball game), it is with close friends that enjoy and appreciate the mountains as much as I do and it is a pleasure to share an evening camp fire with people that are cut from the same cloth, so to speak.

As far as why hasnt a hunter killed one. Dedicated hunters believe in clean one shot kills, they will do everything possible to not wound an animal, including using enough gun (but I also prefer bow hunting for the additional challenge). I prefer to hunt predators and smaller species of game animals with a .223. However, bear season is also open during those seasons, but I would never even think about shooting a bear with a .223. I know that it would 90% of the time just run off (and die slow a painful death after infection set in), but I also know that 10% of the time it will charge and a .223 is not going to stop a charging bear. The only encounter I have had with the squatch that offered an opportunity for a shot I was not armed. It was my first encounter and I was in such a state of shock (I didnt believe at that time, I thought it was all BS) I couldnt have raised a weapon if I had one. In the 32 years that have passed since that first encounter, I have only been close enough to this animal to be aware of its presence on a very few occasions (I can count them all without taking my shoes off (joke for those that think hunters are hick hillbillies)!!). In the six encounters since, none offered a shooting situation, and though I was armed each time, I was not armed with a weapon I would have shot an animal of that size with anyway.

And my last two cents worth, dedicated hunters are also conservationists. Encounters with this unique animal are so rare, I dont think I could bring myself to remove one from the wild, even if it was a perfect shot opportunity, and I was carrying enough gun.

Sorry for the long post, just wanted to get in my thoughts on a good thread

Thank you, OleE. I think I need to work on it some to bring it up to date. One of the many things I don't seem to find the time for.

I always carry at least a handgun out in the forest. It may come in handy for things other than protection. A firearm makes a good signaling device if you get lost. It also might mean food in that same scenario.

I have a brother in Freeport. Wave to him next time you're there.

When they say, "It's a Small World" they aren't kidding. I have a brother that use to work at an Insurance Company that was based in Freeport. It's just a tad over 50 miles from here, and I use to end up over that way quite a bit before I got divorced. Some friends of the In-Laws owned a bar/restaurant downtown there, and the name escapes me for the minute but it was, something (thinking Pepper Street) Station. The owner had handbuilt all of the tables and the bar using just some pine lumber, then using a hand-held propane torch and spreader he heated up the wood to raise and char just the grain, then covered it all in a urethane varnish. In any case if and when I do get back over that way, I'll just wave all the way through town so I don't miss him. Also what would really make this more strange, is if you tell me he lives on Hwy 75, which is the road I live on that goes right into Freeport.