Saturday, December 17, 2011

Why it is illegal to kill a Bigfoot in California

Justin Smeja was introduced to Derek Randles after an encounter with a Sasquatch in the mountains of Northern Ca.  Texas native, he now makes his home near Sacramento California and works in the construction trade.  Avid hunter, tracker and fisherman, Justin specializes in scent control and camera set up.

Two days ago, Sierra Kills Bigfoot shooter Justin Smeja spoke on the phone with us and talked about what he's been up to lately. Lately, he's been going back to the scene of the shooting near the Sierra Buttes with a BFRO investigator, and he tells us he's been trying to get the authorities up there to investigate. Much to his surprise, the rangers told him they didn't want to hear about it anymore. "They didn't want to have anything to do with it," Justin said.

We talked about the repercussions of shooting an unknown creature like Bigfoot and Justin seems pretty certain that California laws didn't apply to him.

After getting off the phone with him, we had to see if there were any discussion on the internet relating to laws about shooting an unknown creature. And lo and behold, a couple of clicks later we got a lead. We stumbled upon a blog post by NABS, the North American Bigfoot Search organization, the group spearheading the Bigfoot DNA project.

The post was about an interview between John Green and Daniel Perez where Green said that he would probably shoot a Bigfoot if given the opportunity. “That was our intention in the beginning. It is still the only thing anyone could do that would immediately settle the matter beyond argument, but not being a hunter of anything I don’t know if I could actually do it,” said Green.

Read below:

Killing a bigfoot/ sasquatch

There are a few researchers that are very straight-forward on their views of killing a bigfoot/sasquatch as a specimen. In October 2009 John Green was interviewed by Daniel Perez and was asked a very lengthy list of questions. One question that was asked by Perez was, “If you were a big game hunter, would you think twice about shooting a sasquatch should opportunity arise?” Green’s response was, “That was our intention in the beginning. It is still the only thing anyone could do that would immediately settle the matter beyond argument, but not being a hunter of anything I don’t know if I could actually do it.” Well, Mr. Green did make trips to the Bluff Creek area in the 1960’s. He may be referring to that era as a time that killing was his intention… We also respectfully disagree with Mr. Green’s statement that killing would the only thing anyone could do to settle the issue, how about finding a body, bones with hair, etc? If DNA studies are completed on tissue that show that this specimen is very close to humans on the genetic scale and is a new species, isn’t that a wake-up call to science and the world?

Since Mr. Perez asked Mr. Green a question about killing a sasquatch, we decided to research our archives to see what Mr. Perez’ mindset is on the issue. ON 10/30/91 Mr. Perez gave an interview to the Press Enterprise newspaper. The article states, “Perez wants to bag a sasquatch not just for his sake, but for theirs.” “It will determine that all of those people who said that they saw something were not off their rockers.” The line below Perez’ photo of him holding his rifle is, “Danny Perez, hardcore sasquatch investigator/ hunter.” At one point in the interview Perez states, “Every year in the United States there are about 20 reported sightings, in the past 100 years he estimates there have been 7000 sightings.” Yes, that is a quote from the article attributed to Mr. Perez. NABS sent Mr. Perez an email asking if he still went out and hunted bigfoot/ sasquatch as he described in the article? Mr. Perez never responded to our email.

NABS would direct Mr. Green and Mr. Perez to the following laws in California that would make the killing of a bigfoot or sasquatch highly illegal.

California Fish and Game Code
Nongame Mammals

§ 4150. Definitions; Restricted Taking or Possessing
All mammals occurring naturally in California which are not game mammals, fully protected mammals, or fur-bearing mammals, are nongame mammals. Nongame mammals or parts thereof may not be taken or possessed except as provided in this code or in accordance with regulations adopted by the commission.

Section 2000 California Fish and Game Code

It is unlawful to take any bird, mammal, fish, reptile, or
amphibian except as provided in this code or regulations made
pursuant thereto. Possession of a bird, mammal, fish, or reptile or
parts thereof in or on the fields, forests, or waters of this state,
or while returning there from with fishing or hunting equipment is
prima facie evidence the possessor took the bird, mammal, fish or
reptile or parts thereof.

California Administrative Code Title 14 Section 472-475 are the sections that you would be arrested under for shooting a non game species in California. If the species is not listed in the code as an animal with a hunting season or an animal listed in the code, you cannot kill or possess it. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor and up to one year in jail.

182 California Penal Code
Conspiracy- If two or more people conspire to commit any crime, this is a felony.
A felony is punishable in the California state prison system for no less then 16 months or in the county jail for no more then one year.

As of this moment we do not know if bigfoot would be classified as a human or an animal, nobody knows. The above law definitions work to explain if the biped was killed and it was determined to be an animal. If the biped was found to be human, then the following law section would apply.

If people went into the woods with the intent to kill a bigfoot or sasquatch and the biped turned out to be human, that killing with malice aforethought would be prosecuted as:
187 P.C. Murder- With intent, planned and designed to kill, first degree murder with the penalty of life imprison without parole or death.

NABS has read many accounts of people shooting a bigfoot and even some of the people finding the body. If a bigfoot does appear quite human, as in Mr. Pratt’s sketches, there may be good rationale while people are not turning in the bodies or going to law enforcement with the carcass. Maybe, just maybe, these people are quite concerned that they would be prosecuted for a very serious crime. NABS is quite aware of other researchers that are actively hunting for a bigfoot. We don’t put much credence in their work and doubt they will ever be successful, but if they are, we will be the first group that is demanding prosecution based on the knowledge and intent these people had when they initiated their search.

Questions & Comments to:
Always hike the woods with a friend.
Enjoy the great outdoors.



  2. Any creature shot in the back was no threat to the stupid shooter.

  3. You cannot shoot that which does not exist.

  4. This would fall under mistaken game with Justin Smeja, he thought it was a bear.
    but the guys like that fire paintall wacko,
    he is stating that he is hunting that animal,
    and if he were to shoot one in california,
    Imo he could be arrested.

    I'm was thinking that shooting one would be
    good to prove they are real but now I'm thinking
    why should we kill it just to satisfy the skeptics and so the people that do see them
    can prove their not seeing things.
    to end it's life just to comfort man's own arrogance and pride is not only a crime but a sin.
    A great line from the movie unforgiven,
    "it's a hell of a thing killing a man,you take away everything he ever had and ever will have"

    as far as doing it to save them, it seems like their doing fine without proof of a body,we waited this long and they are getting closer
    to proof with dna. With so many groups searching
    for them now, someones probably going to find a body.

  5. Thank you Autumn. Couldn't have said it better myself. Or the 40 lb menacing child for that matter.

  6. Ya know, that if this was the case, no field biologists could take specimens of unknown species. (which they can) I'm not sure about California, but in mosts states animals that have np known species designation are not protected. A species has to be collected, described and cataloged before it is covered by any fish and game...etc regulations.

  7. The killing of this human relative is MURDER.

    Chuck in Ohio

    1. I agree completely this would be in all reality concidered killing another human being because tchnicly thats all they are (If they exist)

  8. You will also get a really stiff fine for killing a unicorn.

  9. Unicorns don't exist, Sasquatches do and obviously it should be considered murder to shoot one, hence why selfrespecting hunters won't once they realize what the target really is. Some kind of human. Only creeps will then shoot, such as Smeja.

  10. I have read that 36 (at least) have been killed in the last couple of hundred years. That may be the reason that most of them have a healthy fear of man. Most people never admit to it for fear of prosecution. Farmers have quietly gotten rid of them for killing their stock. I don't live in the country anymore, but would have no problem shooting something like that on my land if it even made a move in my direction. These 'animals' have in the past killed humans. Do some research. They have bashed skulls in with huge rocks. Thrown rocks as big and bigger than bowling balls at people. There is some history of them stealing Indian children to eat. This isn't some cute Hollywood fantasy. In fact, we will probably never know how many humans they have killed. This is a creature that can leap a tall fence with an Elk under one arm! Think about how strong a Chimpanzee is and multiply that by the weight...Some worry about Bigfoot, but have no problem with sending (even drafting in the past) kids to fight wars and using them as cannon fodder.

  11. The problem lies in the interpetation of what Sasquatchis. Is it a mammal, as we are? then how would a regulation that would apply to us be non specifically inclueded in a hunting pamphlet for game and non-game animals? Why? because the Sasquatch choose to live in the wild, in the line of fire if you will. IMHO a specific regulation should be adopted that specifically address the Sasquatch; as the Ca. DFG has specifically adopted a regulation prohibiting the shooting of a bobcat. Is the Sasquatch merely a non-specified non-game mammal? Certainly the Ca. DFG could address this issue because of the field the Sas people choose to live in. Once the DNA report comes out we should no more on how to approach this issue and go from there. ptangier

  12. It would be concider 1st Degree murder punishable by death

    1. its not a human so, no. now shut up PETAtard

  13. A Chimp shares 98% of our DNA and I believe Bigfoot share 99% there are a very close relative but they are not Human they are a wild animal that will kill you if it needs to.