Comments on: Put Bigfoot On The Endangered Species List To Protect Hunters?

By: sjgilley

sjgilley — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 06:24:06 +0000

I think we should do this. Have it listed as Protected in case it should be encountered. No person could legally kill, capture, or harm in any way the creature known as Sasquatch. There are ways to get this done.

By: DWA

DWA — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 00:47:05 +0000

I agree with dogu4.

Anyone who knows hunting regs well – and if you don’t you shouldn’t have a gun – knows it’s already illegal to shoot anything that is not specifically named in said regs as being OK to shoot.

Besides. Anyone who thinks this will give him big-time notoriety – and needs that to think something of himself – will take his chances against the regs anyway.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Sun, 30 May 2010 05:52:19 +0000

I appreciate the interest in trying to elevate Bigfoot to some form of protected status. It is a noble sentiment and I would not be against doing so if it were indeed possible.

However, as Matt has pointed out, it just is not going to happen with an animal that has not been demonstrably shown to actually exist. Even animals that we know for a fact do exist can be hard to elevate to any sort of protected status and there are existing species that could benefit from such status that are not getting it. These things take a good amount of legislature as well as money to implement. I cannot see this pushing through with an animal whose existence is not only in doubt, but outright dubious to many.

It’s unfortunate, but there is no chance that a proposed animal is going to get this sort of protection unless it has been verified to not only exist, but to also actually be threatened in some way. Bigfoot on the endangered species list is a nice idea, but a long way off I’d say. It just doesn’t work that way.

This would not be the first time that cryptids have been attempted to be elevated to protected status. If I remember correctly, a similar thing was tried with the Swedish Storsjoodjuret. In the 1980s, it was placed on the endangered species list, however this status was removed in 2005. This reason for this removal was due to the fact that the species was not recognized in the greater scientific community and in fact it lacked any sort of scientific classification or nomenclature. It could not even be demonstrated whether the creature in question was a fish, a reptile, amphibian, or whatever.

In this case, an inability to classify the creature as a species helped lead to it’s removal from the list.

This same sort of problem would probably plague efforts to elevate Bigfoot as well. Not only do we have no direct proof that it is even there to be protected, but we do not even know what sort of taxonomical classification it would have. Is it a type of ape? A close relative of humans? Can anyone really say for certain? We don’t know. Before you place a species in protective status, you need a species to protect.

For now, I think Bigfoot is going to have to do without such status until we simply know more about what it is, and more importantly can more ably demonstrate that it is actually there.

By: proriter

proriter — Sun, 30 May 2010 01:39:52 +0000

Oh, come on. This letter is clearly a sarcastic jab against environmentalists who want to placce everything on the protected species list. Sheesh.

By: MattBille

MattBille — Sat, 29 May 2010 02:14:55 +0000

In 1978, the Colorado Springs Gazette-Telegraph pulished an article saying Bigfoot has been put on the Endangered Species List. When I wrote to the USFWS, a staffer wrote back (I still have the letter somewhere) that this “imaginary creature” had never been considered for protection. He added that, if the animal were proven to exist, it might be considered as a candidate for listing. I still don’t know how the article originated. No one I talked to at the paper had any idea.
There’s no reason to think the USFWS implementation of the ESA has changed. Absent an amendement to the law by Congress allowing reported species to be addded (not going to happen), Bigfoot is not going on the list until there’s a bigfoot type specimen in hand. (Speculation: IF there is a type specimen available for scientific examination, protection might not wait until the formal species description is published: the Secretary of the Interior has emergency powers that, in a case as remarkable as this, might be used to protect the area the type specimen came from.)

By: dogu4

dogu4 — Fri, 28 May 2010 21:15:19 +0000

I can understant the desire to do this as a form of consiousness raising strategy which in turn could lead to something beneficial, but as it stands now I don’t know of anyplace where hunting means you can shoot anything that is not specifically protected as would be the case with any unusual, unrecognized or unknown animal. I may be mistaken but I seem to recall that the principle under which virtually all game managment operates in the modern world is that every freely moving wild animal at large whether on state lands or private is already protected as a resource and property of the state and one’s hunting is confined to only those species and conditions (such as antlers, size, sex, specific location, reproductive state, etc) of those specific animals as spelled out in the regulations and permit. There may be a few species that are widely regarded as pests, or invasives but even then it is specifically for those animals, not for any species that is not protected. Of course if you or your property is in danger of destruction a person may shoot in defense.
I don’t hunt but live in an and around a hunting culture and have no qualms about it for the most part, but perhaps a more seasoned and informed opinion could exand on this idea for us. Cheers.