I remember some years ago that there was a caveat and the end of the Alaska Fish and Game regulations book that any species not specifically listed in the game regs was closed to all hunting.

I just looked for that statement and couldn't find it. I remember a conversation or reading an article that the statement was included in the regs to cover the shooting of a creature like a sasquatch as well as a species which might be expanding it's range into Alaska or into new areas within Alaska (like the cougar and mule deer are doing now, and the coyote had done over the past 50 years).

So (if that statement is still in the regs somewhere) it would be illegal to shoot a sasquatch in Alaska, and I have no doubt Fish and Feathers would prosecute if you did so under other than DLP conditions (Defense of Life or Property).

But I doubt it would be a felony, even if a jury convicted you. The penalty would be minimal compared to the book deal.

If it was a fool in a costume, you'd have to hire a real loser of a lawyer who couldn't get an acquital, at least here in Alaska. I know folks around here pretty well. If you walk around up here in a gorilla suit, you're asking for lead, and folks would figure that if you're that stupid, your genes have been appropriately removed from the pool.

Yeah, I'm not too worried about the whacko left wingers though..I've had to deal with them a lot. I just think there'd be more support than you would have opposition. Can't please everyone all the time.

Uffda

I only wish you did. You have no idea.

Not a BF but damn!!! April issue of Georgia Outdoor News has article on a 700lb wild hog that was shot and killed in my county. A 4wd pickup had to be used to drag the body to a road, then a chain thrown over a tree branch to hoist it in the air. Then a second pickup had to be backed up underneath the carcass so that it could be lowered into the bed of the truck. No scanner so can't post the pics but of course you get the idea of the difficulties inherent with getting an animal that size out of the woods.

That's a serious hog. What did they use to take him down?

.300 mag, one shot to the base of the neck

Hey all, just some thoughts...

one of my concerns with regard to shooting a BF/Sas is that... if this did occur, shortly there after we could see hundreds if not thousands of curious and $ hungry folks out in the woods with guns, dogs and other means to round up and shoot another one and possibly endanger an already threatened species.

However, if one was killed and its reality confirmed, we could also see immediate proposals to protect this species and vast areas of its habitat. If you think the spotted owl caused the timber industry problems, imagine the results of finding a new species of higher order ape skulking through our woods.

So, killing one could open up a pandoras box of unintended issues many of which we and the environmental, logging and land use movements could try to use politically. All interesting possibilities....

My greatest fear, indeed. It's not that I fear for the timber industry, or any other industry. It's my own freedom to access wild public lands as a hunter.

They're trying to cut me off now, big time, with all kinds of increasing, encroaching regulations and limitations. A new species of North American ape would be all the "antis" need to finish us hunters off.

That's why I hope they never learn the truth.

OK....This is from a friend of mine in the Arkansas Game and Fish dept..Sadly it is going to take someone shooting one to prove the existence. Once this has happend they can be classified as a protected species and therefor illegal to harm...Still "and I say this with much animosity to all pro kill people" live by the sword and die by the sword...

Eveyone dies my freind. At least the sword is swift.

well, a dead body will never be found. the only option is to kill one. i will never be up to the task, but if i were to shoot at one, i would aim at the head. i am not entirely pro kill. but it is the only way to prove it does exist. but wont that spoil the fun and mystery?

Its people like many of you that gives the Forest Service reason to keep their secret knowledge of the existence of these creatures under wraps. It should be obvious by now that many are privy to the existence of these creatures, and that they are classified above Protected and Endangered. They ARE intelligent, are family oriented, and are keenly aware of their surroundings, numbers, etc. I hope anyone who is fortunate enough to run across these creatures in the wild would have the decency to keep their location a secret. There are too many people out there trying to make a name for themselves, get their pictures in the paper, or "distinguish" themselves. Stick to deer-hunting if you need a name for yourself, too many of those things around!

Huh?

Classified by whom?

Everything I've read indicates that they officially don't exist.

Ditto: "Huh?"

If you and "many" know about it doesn't that mean it's not secret?

What are your sources for the specific details of their behavior? Official documents, rumor, public text, internet, or personal observation?

Never heard of, "classified above Protected and Endangered". Is that like double secret probation or something?

Men in Black?

Actually, one of my most favorite sasquatch reports involved officials and some measure of secrecy. A logging cruiser found a sasquatch nest on Alaska Native land on Prince of Wales Island and reported it to the Native corporation. He specifically said that he didn’t think it wise to report it to newspapers (in order to avoid a circus atmosphere and trespassing on private Native lands), but thought it wise to notify the landholder. The corporation officials decided to notify both Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game and the U.S. Forest Service. Officials from both agencies investigated, found the site interesting, sent hair and fecal samples to a forensic lab, and then dropped the matter. No official conspiracyon the part of the government officials, and no “classification”, but the timber cruiser and corporate landholders knew better than to widely publicize the matter.

Why? For fear that “hunters” would shoot it?

No. For fear that:

1) Irreverent bozos (including media types) would trespass and foul the site
2) Environmental groups might seize on the opportunity to stop logging on private lands



That's my plan.



I agree, and many of them don't own guns. They have cameras and dreams of book deals.



Please note that a very high percentage of sasquatch sightings (especially those in Alaska) are reported by HUNTERS, who DON’T SHOOT.

I hunt deer, moose, bear, and caribou for food. Hunting does nothing for my "name". I started trapping wolves, coyotes, fox, and wolverines a couple of years ago because fur prices are rising again, and there are so many wolves and bears up here that they're crashing the moose population. A wolf or wolverine is worth over $400 now.

As an unexpected benefit, I also find great pleasure in doing something legally that enrages the environmental community.

Are you with the forestry service yourself? What proof do you have they exist? What does the forestry service have for information on Bigfoot?

Here's the question I have.....how can it be illegal to kill an animal which technically doesn't legally (or scientifically) exist? Isn't there a law in Skamania Co., WA regarding this?


Besides, you could claim it was DLP situation (which would authorize use of deadly force) simply if the thing was facing you.

I would do two things in the following order.

Step 1> Rock and Roll all night

Step 2> Party every day

btw yowie -

The bison were not killed for trophies
They where shot for money by contract hunters paid for each that they killed.

They were eliminated to acheive a political end to the "native problem". They were eliminated to take away the native peoples ability to live off the land thereby driving them in famine to the reservation system.

This cleared the plains of brown people so white people could have it.

Who did it - The railroads - this gave them the ability to move large groups of people (for a fee) to lands made newly safe so that these people could consume goods from the east (paying the railroads lots of money for freight cost).

And as an added bonus, these people grew crops that needed to go east on the return trip - also paying lots of money for freight costs.

The government didn't pass any laws because the end result was exactly as they wanted, all indians on reservations. Also, environmental protection was not even invented yet - and there were so many bison that they probably thought there could be no end to them. (think carrier pigeon)

The analogy just doesn't wash - you think killing one to prove they are real would lead to their wholesale slaughter - stacking them up like cordwood eh.
What a dim opinion you hold of Americans. We all must be a bunch of bubbas to you.

Also - you indicated that "smart and cunning enough to avoid humans for centuries" but shooting one leads to... "The day you do that,is the begining of the end for these animals"

Tell me please is the collection of a type specimen going to make them less elusive, stupid and easier to hunt - or will this collection mean that people are going to get better at finding them for the sheer joy of bloodsport?

Its likely that neither will happen and in the case of a sasquatch - the polical/power motivation (unlike the bison) would not be its elimination - but as others have said - keeping it a myth.

Maybe that's what you would prefer - keep them in the same category as dragons and unicorns.

It's my understanding that unless you have a license for that particular animal, it's illegal to shoot it. Might make for an interesting court case.

From the Alaska Hunting Regulations, No. 45, Effective Dates July 1, 2004-June 30, 2005:

“GENERAL INFORMATION
Ignorance is no excuse – You must know the law!
If you violate a game law you are responsible for your actions.
Seasons and bag limits are listed by unit on pages 35-130 of this book.
You may hunt for any species for which there is an open season listed in the unit in which you wish to hunt.
If the species is not listed, you may not hunt it.”
(page 6)

Interestingly, the definition of “hunt” isn’t included in the list of definitions. But “take” is (page 23):

“Take - Taking, pursuing, hunting, fishing, trapping, or in any manner disturbing, capturing, or killing or attempting to take, pursue, hunt, fish, trap, or in any manner capture or kill fish or game.”

I wonder, then, if “pursuing” a sasquatch in the state of Alaska is illegal?

A few other interesting definitions:

“Game – Any species of bird, reptile, or mammal, including a feral domestic animal, found or introduced in the state, except domestic birds and mammals; game may be classified by regulation as big game, small game, furbearers, or other categories.”

“Harass – To repeatedly approach an animal in a manner which results in animal which alters its behavior.”

what I would do with a body: contact someone else about its disposition instead of handle it myself. Let THAT person be murdered, stalked, harrassed by govt, eco-terrorists, religious fanatics, jealous bigfooters, resource extractors, etc. As I write that, I realize that anonymity is a pipe dream.

Who to contact? You may prefer someone else, but my first choice is Matt Moneymaker of the BFRO. He's well-connected and I bet my bottom dollar he's already planned for THE call, figured out the details (who, where, how) and made arrangements in advance. I would NOT contact the govt (shady and deadly), not education or research institutions (counterproductively cutthroat, think hungry dogs fighting for crumbs), and not any specific scientist (don't know that they've planned for the call.) I select Matt M because I believe his motives involve bigfoot "discovery", documentation, research. Whatever else his motives may involve is of no concern to me as long as I believe he wants bigfoot studied. So do I. Whatever extra bonuses he can win for himself, more power to him. He can name the thing, do the interviews, write the books, rake in the cash (or not), be famous. Fame and fortune, by the way - fame looks like a curse and fortune isn't going to happen anyway.

Not that I wouldn't take some pictures for myself first. Of course, this all assumes bf's family didn't kill me and I managed the logistics of getting it out of the woods.

Trying to visualize the event, I THINK I can imagine that scene, but really cant know. I'll just say I HOPE I can kill it. I had a stalker once. One night I got the guy cornered in my backyard and was about to shoot him (laws and morals be damned) when he slipped through a hole in the fence. I wasn't going to pursue him into the darkness, so I shot in the air to tell him I'm serious...and that's a human. Shoot a sasquatch for an even better reason? You bet! (At least I hope so.) Nonlethal research apparently wont begin in earnest until somebody produces a specimen. Ridiculous but that's how it's looking.

Jailtime is worth it. Unpopularity is worth it. Being murdered myself is worth it. And not because I don't value my own life, but because my life is so valuable, and would be even more so for having done it.

I would have no guilt in shooting a menacing SAS.. self preservation is the number one priority in the woods as far as I am concerned...the only problem I would have is whether or not there was another one close by that saw me take his buddy out.... .

I would imagine sasquatch's motis operandi is also "self preservation in the woods", hence the thousands of BFRO reports and NONE (nada, zip, zero) that reference a sasquatch attack which requires a person to fight for "self preservation".

I agree, always looks out for #1 first.........but I wouldn't imagine a "threatening" situation when there is nothing to suggest such. Statistically, you're significantly safer hanging out with a sasquatch in the woods than driving on the freeway. Heck, you're probably safer with a saquatch in your woods than not, as I don't think bears like to hang out in sasquatch's territory.

[QUOTE=chronic,Aug 3 2004, 01:51 PM] [/QUOTE]
I agree, always looks out for #1 first.........but I wouldn't imagine a "threatening" situation when there is nothing to suggest such. Statistically, you're significantly safer hanging out with a sasquatch in the woods than driving on the freeway. Heck, you're probably safer with a saquatch in your woods than not, as I don't think bears like to hang out in sasquatch's territory. [/QUOTE]
Personally...I feel a "Bluff Charge" is threatening..is it not?

95% of the time I am hunting Turkey or Deer one of my little boys are usually with me of course not while I Bow hunt...but during Rifle season they are..and
if a human being approached me in an aggressive manner miles from help in the middle of nowhere..the human would meet the exact same fate...or any animal for that matter

I would be more afraid of what would happen after shooting a bigfoot. The media intrusion into that persons life would be tremendus. The negative outcry would also be huge. Animal rights people would hound and protest every appearence the person made. Threats on the shooters life might be commonplace I would think. So much so that the person would almost have to go into hiding and change their name. Imagine the effect that would have on a persons family too. In some states bigfoot is a protected animal so there is also the danger of prosecution for shooting one. If it were me I could only take the shot as very last resort. I would fire a shot into the air first if time allowed. I hope I would never get into that kind of situation. Ive read reports of hunters who have had the oportunity to shoot a bigfoot but could not bring themselves to shoot because the creature looked too human. I think thats a good thing.
Aero

It Texas it would be listed as non-game, not protected. No closed season and no bag limit.
BSF

Sounds like everything in Texas.


Open beverage containers and whackin squatch are ok.



WHEN CAN I MOVE THERE!

Shooting a sasquatch....just my two cents...

"Researcher's" are "invading" these magnificent creature's lives, lairs and territory....which begs the question....if someone invades our home we have the right to protect our selves, our loved ones and our property...why should sasquatch not have the same rights....

Only in the protection of an innocent bystander...is killing a sasquatch justifiable....a researcher is... for all practical purposes a potential threat or an invader...JMHO...in Texas we have an expression...."mess with the bull...ya get the horns"....the exception is in self defense of unprovoked aggression....JMHO

If you are willing to venture into the big folks lair, threaten it or it's family or habitat...make no mistake...you are the interloper...not them....JMHO

Only an asshole would intentionally kill such a magnificent creature....what a dubious legacy...."Mommie...he killed sasquatch"....JMHO

seeing is believing...

ole bub and the dawgs

I would kill the sasquatch. We don't know what it is and you would probably help the species if you killed one. I would guard the body well and donate pieces of it at a time so scientist can see it is undoubtabley real and there can be no cover up. I would not sell the body untill it was anounced by scientist to the whole world that without a shadow of a doubt we have the body of a bigfoot. It's something that has to be done. I don't think the creature is as human as alot of people think either. If it was so human than why wouldn't it allow it self to be discovered. It lives alongside wildlife so why can't it come and treat us like everything else we have seen. Don't you think if it was human it would find us and be discovered. The closest primates to humans wonder in cities in curieusity. It's a mystery and will remain a my one if action is not taken place. Call me crazy but if bigfoot is real I think it's more supernatural than it is normal. Similar creatures have only been reported around the whole world and as far as we know not one of them has been captured. Doesn't that make you feel suspiscious. I know we are still discoverying new animals (mainly in places in the deep sea) but for a creature to have been known about so long, and so many expeditions set out to find it with pretty much s**t video footage and pictures that give us close to nothing it just seems a little bizare. If the creature is real it NEEDS to be shot. That's all I know.

O.k. If this creature is human, you'll need to be incarcerated. Why don't we find some, study them - surely we can do that without mortar fire - and then leave them the hell alone.

What troubles me is that the early Spanish Conquistadors debated about 50 years and killed about 20 million Native Americans before they divined ( with a Papal decree), that the natives were humans and had a soul, and that their wanton killing was murder.

How many Sas do we shoot before we say "Gee, they have a culture - they are humanoid - let's not kill anymore - uh - whoops I think we shot them all. "

Ummm... just one, that's all I am asking for. Then they can protect them all they want, Just get me the first one.

Ok, you are crazy...... :new_tiredsmiley:

[/quote]
Ok, you are crazy...... :new_tiredsmiley:
[/quote]

You are right :new_thumbsupsmileyanim:

Crazy is a relative word.
I should know - I have lots of relatives who are crazy...

?
If it is a human that you shot then you didn't shoot a sasquatch.

If you are saying that if you kill it and it turns out to be say a homo - whatever species, then you will not be incarcerated either.

You cannot be incarcerated for something that is not against the law. Unless in the state that you kill it in there is a law on the books stating that it is against the law to kill a Gigantopithicus or a Neantertal or whatever it turns out to be, then you are OK to fire away.

So you are comparing Native Americans to 10 foot tall hair covered beasts that leap, run and climb like animals, sleep outside and yell and scream at the top of their lungs at night.

And I think we would need to be successful at shooting one before we are in danger of shooting them all.

We must be related LOL


Im pretty sure Joppa was just making the point Native Americans were once treated like animals. And it might be a mistake to start killing indiscriminately. Or you were you just being sarcastic?

As for your 2nd point, how true.

The 'shooting a fool in a fur suit' hypothesis is always worth a chuckle but it seems no more 'real' than the actual creature, so far. As much as we laugh at the stupidity such a move would require, none of them (if there's ever been any) have ever been shot either, that we're aware of. The obvious reason being exactly what Huntster™ mentions above. But, could all (some?) the supposed 'gunshot not taken' incidents actually be with these elusive fools-in-the-suits and the common "such a human appearance" comment actually be truth and not just perception? Is it possible Real® fake fur (or is that fake Real® fur?) can't totally disguise our humanness? My labored point being, maybe it isn't so 'dangerous' to yuk it up 'so stupidly' in a rented ape costume. This offer void in Alaska. :new_whistle:

At least those dumbass Conquistadors found the natives in order to "intentionally" slay 20 million of them with mere swords and spears.

There have been recent papal decrees regarding the humanity of human fetuses (go figure.........I guess the Pope's a friggen biological scientist), but this incredibly wise, intelligent, and superior society still hasn't figured that out yet.



Funny.

The wise and intelligent people who taught you history can't even seem to find a damned sasquatch to shoot, probably wouldn't know how to operate a gun in order to do so, or would probably just wet their pants, anyway.

I suspect you're right. The problem is that Hernan Cortez wasn't a diplomatic envoy. He was as described; a conqueror.

The church came later, and it was a contentious relationship between the friars and the New World governors and military leaders.

And the conquerors didn't kill 20 million people. Smallpox did.

Finally, with regard to sasquatch, what we need right now is precisely a conquistador.

Later, after sasquatches are "conquered", bring in the priests.............

I think it's real dangerous here. This place literally bristles with guns and people who like to shoot bears. And remember, even if they don't recognize it as a bear, that "misidentification" argument works both ways; if you can mistake a bear for a sasquatch, you can mistake a sasquatch for a bear.

The Hollywood Hills? Other than some street punks who like to shoot handguns sideways, it might be relatively safe. But a sasquatch suit anywhere near Hollywood might not even stand out as out of the ordinary.

Ok so if we don't shoot it how are we EVER going to protect it or discover it. Film will NEVER EVER prove a bigfoot is real unless we have a night vision camera set up on a tree that just happens to catch a perfectly clear footage that gives us enough scientific evidence that it is real. But people holding cameras will not ever be able to capture enough footage or clear enough footage to prove it real. The creature would not sit there and pose for you will you filmed it or took it's picture. It's also a creature of the night in the thick cover of the woods. And even a camera set up on a tree in the woods probably wouldn't do the trick just because it would most likley never get footage and if it did the creature would walk in front of it for only like two seconds unless it just sat and laid down there which that will never happen. Out of all the expeditions that have been set out, all the video footage and pictures that have been taken, all the footprints we have had there is NOTHING that even comes CLOSE to PROVING the fact that the creature is real. Although I believe there is at least something out there (have no clue to how it can go without being discovered so long though against thousands of people who search for it) we don't have enough proof to prove it scientifically or make the world believe there is one out there. The most powerful evidence of an underdiscovered creature that is probably ape like is the hair captured in the himilayas of a probable yeti like creature that had DNA extracted from it to prove there is an unknown animal out there. Footprines can be covincing but they are possible to hoax. Patterson film was convincing at times but I have my doubts about it. The only way to prove the species is real is to shoot them. For the good of the creature. The creatures are not human and if they were they would probably walk up and try to cumminicate with us somehow? There not human or at least not completley. Shooting it is the only option. It acts more like an animal than a human so why should we believe it to be human?

Huntster, I am glad that you mentioned the small pox issue.

I was trying to figure out how many sword strokes, slashes and jabs it would take to kill 20 million people.

If all of Spain got involved, they'd have to have been in really good physical condition before they began............

It won't be accepted until a carcass is delivered with much pomp and circumstance.

I'm just not going to be the one to deliver the goods because I doubt I'll ever get a shot, if I did I don't know if I'd take it, and if I did kill one I don't know if I would be able to get it out and presented in a way that would eliminate doubt and rejection.

Some critters found but now close to extinction probably had wished they had done a better job hiding.

Being found by man ain't a recipe for a long life.

DR

I guess if that happened, you could always say it was self defence if that person came after you. That's if you got caught.

The whole thing is really a "catch-22" senario. In order to prove whether or not sas actually exists, unrefutable proof will have to be brought to the forefront. And from the reading the entirity of this thread, the problem is apparent. You would have to bee 100% sure it wasn't something else, and how could you be absolutley sure that it wasn't some yahoo hoaxer trying to stir something up (some people have wierd hobbies huh? :wink: )
Even with a clear image, mainstream science will accept nothing less than physical proof....i.e a body to prod and study. The unfortunate circle of thought is that in order to protect the species, one must be sacrificed. Then you get into the pro-kill vs. no-kill camps and the whole issue gets even muddier.
I feel, and this is just MY opinon, that a body is necessary to further the reasearch. If that puts me into the pro-kill camp/mindset, so be it.
All this brohahah about it being a supernatural creature and of certain unnamed people who feed it pancakes and have long chats with family groups is delusional self promotion. PROVE IT!.
It is a bipedal primate, if you want to debate that, have fun. Facts are simple....it is an animal of sorts, it walks upright, is capable of predatory cunning and is better adapted to it's environment than we are. It's level of intelligence is still a matter of conjecture..and we will probably never know.
The hard science is simple. If you want to prove sas exists, the nay-sayers must be quelled with undeniable and irrefutable evidence...
The moral question shouldn't be an issue....if one is quessy about pulling the trigger, then don't. It's an individual choice. If you do decide to pop the top on a sas, make sure you do it for the "right" reasons....and those reasons are your own, don't let anyone else influence your choice. You have to live with yourself afterwards, we don't...just make sure you can look at ypourself in the mirrow afterwards. IMHO.