1) They will be given protected status from the very beginning.
2) They will then be labeled as primitive human giving them “rights”.
3) Anyplace that is considered their habitat will be made off limits and given to them as reservations.
3) Greenie weenie fanatics will declare themselves guardians of bigfoot and will control all interaction with them. They will take it upon themselves to decide who will be allowed to study them.
4) People will no longer be able to go “squatchin”. Calling or knocking will be considered harassment and penalized.
5) The very people who have worked out in the field for years studying bigfoot will no longer be allowed to do so because they aren’t “real” scientists.

It won’t matter that it took decades to even find a bigfoot to study. It won’t matter if it takes more decades before getting another one. The rules will be put in place and we will be shut out.

I don’t think we have to worry too much about bigfoot being hunted. They are very good at staying hidden and it will harder than people think.

What we will have to worry about are government idiots who never take into consideration the unintended consequences of their actions.

I’m clearly talking about people who – if new legislation is put into place – still deliberately “choose to go ahead” and kill a Bigfoot. If laws are laid down, and Bigfoot is shown to be related to us, and people still choose to go after Bigfoot and successfuly kill one, I think there IS a chance of prosection. That was my specific and only point, which I made clear.

Well, I’m pretty sure that in Lawyerlandia —a.k.a. the United States of America— the hunter would have no problem in alleging he thought the Bigfoot was actually a bear, or that he fired in self-defense.

Maybe the only avenue imaginable would be to create giant natural reservations where no humans are allowed. Then again, if Bigfoots are discovered to have migrating patterns, then things get even more complicated.

You say: “You don’t like hunting? Cool. People disagree on that, but taking cheap shots on it, doesn’t strengthen your arguments.”

It wasn’t a cheap shot, it’s what I think, so I said it. I discussed the issue of hunting in relation to Bigfoot and decided to offer my views on hunting for sport.

My decision to do so had no bearing on whether it might or might not strengthen my arguments. I said what I said because I wanted to say it, nothing more. I don’t care if it strengthens or weakens my argument at all. It’s what I think, and I say what I think.

I’m not in the game of sucking up to people, or worrying if I’m saying the right or wrong thing in front of colleagues and peers, or how my arguments look or don’t look. People can agree with me or not, it’s their choice. But I’m still gonna say exactly what I want regardless (even if people think it might weaken my argument) – as I would expect anyone to do.

Re the murder angle, this is what I actually said: “…Rather than slaying a monster, has our hunter actually just committed cold-blooded murder? Could he be tried in court, sentenced, and even jailed? Probably not, due to the overwhelmingly bizarre, and certainly unique, circumstances involved.”

I’m very clearly saying that the FIRST killing would almost certainly NOT provoke any jail-time at all.

But you missed an important point: my comments about the murder issue were made if – hypothetically – new laws were laid down if Bigfoot is found to have a human-quality to it.

In other words, my comment specifically referred to what might happen if someone kills a Bigfoot AFTER new laws are put in place – NOT in the present situation where we don’t really know what they are and there are NO laws at present.

And what I also said was aimed at people who planned on specifically going after Bigfoot to kill it, not accidental events. To demonstrate there’s no misunderstanding, my words are: “…you may find yourself prosecuted to the full extent of the law if you do choose to go ahead and bag a Bigfoot.”

I’m clearly talking about people who – if new legislation is put into place – still deliberately “choose to go ahead” and kill a Bigfoot. If laws are laid down, and Bigfoot is shown to be related to us, and people still choose to go after Bigfoot and successfuly kill one, I think there IS a chance of prosection. That was my specific and only point, which I made clear.

But, as I am also very careful to state towards the end of the article: “Of course, all of the above is strictly theoretical…”

Which is absolutely true. My piece was intended purely as a look at what could happen – IN THEORY. We might never ever get 100 percent proof, in which case laws and legislation wont even matter anyway, and anything and everything in the article (the logging comments, the murder angle, the endangered species legislation etc) will be rendered utterly invalid.

I think the biggest fear for some is that in effect, we slay a dragon…especially if it’s Bigfoot, we slay one of the big three. There’s always that fascination, we want Bigfoot, Nessie, Yeti, etc. found, but on the other hand, some of it really is the thrill of the unknown. It’s that “what if” that keeps a lot of people interested in this stuff, and when we find one of our cryptozoological icons and prove it to the rest of the world, will it leave us a bit empty because we have conquered one of those iconic unknowns? Who knows–I think it will be different for everyone.

As for laws and effects on the economy and so on, I think there would be some sort of lout, but the world changes with each day and year, and personally I’d be excited to see the local and global impact–even if “bad” outcomes came along with it. That’s part of the hunt for our cryptids…we hunt in the hope we can come up with the “proof” everyone else will believe and let the trees fall where they may. Discovery always brings positive and negative with it.

While that wouldn’t make me shy away from it, I still think it’s interesting to think about just what proving Bigfoot would impact. Zoology, anthropology, genetics, would be the sciences.

AND, though we’ve talked about this before, could proving Bigfoot actually be a death sentence for it? And if it was, and we knew that it was, would we stop hunting? I doubt it.

I love it when people throw out legal terms and don’t know what they’re talking about.

Your question: “IF Bigfoot is some sort of human offshoot, primitive human. Are you saying that if, hypothetically, that IS the case and it was proved, it WOULDN’T be murder?”

YES, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I’M SAYING.

Legally, if a hunter is in the woods and spots what he, OR SHE, reasonably thinks is a legitimate target, shoots and it turns out not to be that animal, not to be a bigfoot, but an actual HUMAN BEING, that is not murder.

Ask Loren, it happened in Maine about fifteen years ago. A woman was wearing white mittens while hanging out laundry to dry. It was deer season, a guy saw the mittens through the trees and thought it was a white tail. He fired and killed her. It was a horrible accident not murder. I don’t think the guy was even prosecuted.

In terms of hunting in general, as I said, I don’t hunt, but I can understand the primordial thrill of being in the wild, waiting for prey and taking the shot. I don’t know if I’d do it myself, but I can understand it. Like I can understand why a person would be fascinated by little green men in flying discs and dedicating their life to finding them. Or wonder why literally thousands of people have reported seeing the same giant upright creature in the forest.

You don’t like hunting? Cool. People disagree on that, but taking cheap shots on it, doesn’t strengthen your arguments.

I personally believe “a good lawyer” may be harder to find than the elusive Bigfoot. You are entitled to your own opinions about the morality of hunting.

You say: “Cold-blooded murder? Please.”

You’ll note that my comments in the article on the “cold-blooed murder” angle were made in relation to IF Bigfoot is some sort of human offshoot, primitive human. Are you saying that if, hypothetically, that IS the case and it was proved, it WOULDN’T be murder? A good lawyer would strongly argue otherwise – and might well win the case.

I just find it kind of sad that people actually get a kick out of killing an animal for sport. If the hunting is for food, at least it’s serving a purpose. But, taking pleasure in mounting a head of some animal on the wall? There’s clearly a need here for the hunter to “prove” they are a big man. And if they actually need to prove it, then there’s something psychologically insecure about them. Jung would have been able to explain it.