Not sure why everyone would be all up in arms about this either. What would be wrong with a sport hunter eradicating your family at a barbecue, huh?

(I really should have answered this one back when.)

Animals aren’t just for shooting; and no “natural defenses against a hunter’s bullet” shouldn’t automatically be, OK, sure, why not shoot ‘em? How are your “natural defenses against a hunter’s bullet,” just out of curiosity? Should we check how fit you are? What makes you different from a deer species, or me, and hint, not much? OK, we’ll let you and your family alone, although I’m not sure why, exactly, but hey, got a dog or two we could try out their fitness and “natural defenses against a hunter’s bullet”?

I’m not a WOO-HA! advocate of killing deer, but I understand that killing happens in the natural world, and that there are defensible reasons for hunting MOST of the animals we hunt. (Grizzly bears and wolves: none. Black bears and cougars: not really. I said MOST.)

But something that might exist and we’re not sure yet? We don’t want to take any precaution we can to help us find out what it is before we kill them all?

Come on. Try to show at least the level of interest that I would consider the minimum justified to come here and post, OK?

If it doesn’t have enough natural defenses against a hunter’s bullet then maybe we should just let natural selection and survival of the fittest take its course.

For the meantime, Bigfoot may want to avoid jogging trails in the Austin vicinity.

Legal probably isn’t even the right word. Its not like the law says you can kill Bigfoot; it simply doesn’t take BF into account. Outside the current legal framework is more like it.

You don’t protect Elves and Trolls from Poachers: you protect known species. Sasquatch will not be proven by photos films hairs DNA “Finding Bigfoot” or even (dare I say it ) Dr. Phil. Only a live specimen, a dead specimen, or major body parts of a physical, not photograph, physical specimen will do. Until then, we look like doofuses living in fantasyland drinking pop-culture snake oil.

What’s next? Fighting to give ETs civil liberties?

Then, once the existence of Sasquatch was proven, immediate steps could be taken to attach an endangered/protected status to both the species and its habitat.

For people who claim, “It could be the last one,” remember:
1. It takes more than a single individual to perpetuate a species;
2. Very few creatures in the wild die of old age;
3. If Bigfoot exists as a flesh-and-blood creature, then death – be it via injury, sickness, accident, or a hunter’s bullet – is a certainty at some point in its life!

How can you expect a State or Gov’t Agency to logically/legally protect a species which hasn’t been proven to exist?

And not just for TX, by the way, but the simple revenue possibilities of Texas, The Home of Bigfoot, combined with the considerable evidence, might make it more than worthwhile for a visionary, risk-taking (and this ain’t that big a risk) governor to pay somebody to beat the bush for a year.

OK, we’ll wait for a governor like that.

I apologize to all caring thinking Texans before I say:

Figures this would be the state.