It resembles a garoyle to me

bat wings.. pterosaur like

horse of a head
retpillion tail..

the gargoyles have reptillian tails.

i hope this isnt off topic.. cause i think we should have this into this.

plus the sightings and the pictures shown look like gargoyles…

The closest thing federal law has to defining a person, as far as I have found, is this:

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. For Kelsey, thats 1 USC 8.

That statute really does not define a person, it makes sure that laws relating to people also cover infants. I’m not sure who thought this needed to be cleared up.

Murder is usually prosecuted under state law, but the federal law says:

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.

Any other murder is murder in the second degree.

So, the definition of human being as including infants of the species homo sapiens seems to imply a limit on the meaning of “murder” to the killing of homo sapiens.

In my home state of Illinois, the definition of person has a similar meaning. Again, for Kelsey, see 5 ILCS 70/1.36.

Oddly enough, the Illinois law on homicide does not mention the killing of a person or human being, it refers to the victim as an “individual.” 720 ILCS 5/Art. 9 heading. “Individual” is defined throughout Illinois law as a “natural person.”

Based on that 15 minutes of research, I’m going to stick to the position that killing a non-homo sapiens hominid (or any other animal) can’t count as a murder. But, as I say on my blog, don’t consider that to be legal advise. If you are going Bigfoot hunting, you are on your own.

Red Pill Junkie is MY legal name!

And the red sky mask I wear every day is MY real face, too!!

I think a law protecting the Sasquatch could be useful also for having the indirect purpose of preventing a tragedy of some hunter shooting a hoaxter wearing a monkey suit. But to me it would be a win-win situation, since it would also protect the life of these creatures, even if they haven’t been ‘officially’ found yet.

Then again, there have been cases reported of people shooting at hairy beasts with no apparent harm done (Skinwalker Ranch et al), so maybe the law would be pointless

Also, as apparent hominids, Sasquatch et al. might well be protected under existing homicide laws. Two interesting legal questions:

1) If sasquatch is a person within the meaning of the relevant homicide statue

2) If a person killing a sasquatch acted intentionally, recklessly, or negligently in killing a “person.” It might useful to look at cases involving hunting accidents.

As a criminal matter, the state of course would have to decide to prosecute the case under homicide laws.

Excellent point on hunting DWA.

As a second year law student myself, I ‘d be quite interested to see the final paper. Loren, could you ask the student to post it to the site?

Hunting is illegal.

With exceptions, which exceptions form the bulk of the hunting regulations.

Since cryptids are not listed in any state’s hunting regs (except, um, Skamania County), they do not count as exceptions to the general prohibition against hunting.

Ergo, you cannot kill them. (Legally.)

Sakten Wildlife Sanctuary
was set up as the exclusive habitat of the Mirgo. This 650 sq km (253 sq mi) sanctuary, in eastern Bhutan, is unique as the only reserve in the world created specifically to protect the habitat of the yeti, known in Bhutan as the migoi (strong man). The migoi differs from yetis found (or not) in other Himalayan regions. Its body is covered in hair that may be anything from reddish-brown to black, but it’s face is hairless. It smells pretty bad apparently and has the power to become invisible, which explains why so few people have seen it. Another feature which helps the elusive, hairy fella escape detection is that many have their feet backwards confusing possible trackers.
The village, or goemba, of Sakten is the place you need to be to jump into the wilderness of the Wildlife Sanctuary. Head to Trashigang, and then drive the extra 60km (37mi) to the border of eastern Bhutan, a total distance from Thimpu of 660km (211mi) which in Bhutan is a two day drive.

The Fish & Wildlife Service will not protect any animal via the Endangered Species Act until it is placed on the list of endangered species. That means that the animal is threatened with extinction or with the loss of a large amount of its habitat. That seems to imply that the animal has to be scientifically verified (otherwise it is hard to show it is threatened or to define its range).

The Lacey Act allows the Department of Interior to restore populations of game animals and birds. Since your typical cryptid would not be “game,” it seems of little application.

I did an electronic search of the US Code and US Code of Federal Regulations and found no instance of either “sasquatch” or “Bigfoot.”

I did find a reference to a strip club called “Bigfoot” in a 2004 decision of the Seventh Circuit.

There appear to be no federal laws or regulations using the term cryptozoology.

I found this in an article from the Antitrust Law Journal (Blumenthal, 63 Antitrust L.J. 1): “Like the sasquatch or the yeti, the ‘sham transaction’ seems to be the subject of literature and search that far outstrips its terrestrial existence. n152 Despite sporadic reports of sightings, n153 no specimen has yet been captured in connection with an ordinary merger negotiation.”

I assume that your basic animal cruelty laws and hunting regulations would apply. So, if you are out for whitetail deer, don’t come back with a sasquatch unless you expect to pay a fine.

That, as we say, is all I’ve got.