Is It OK To Hunt Bigfoot In Texas? Not So Fast, Says One Man
Our old friend, John Lloyd Scharf, set off a media firestorm last week when he posted on Cryptomundo.com a response letter from a Texas Wildlife official about killing Bigfoot. In the letter, TPWD Law Enforcement officer, L. David Sinclair, suggested that any "non-protected, nongame animal may be hunted on private property with landowner consent by any means, at any time and there is no bag limit or possession limit."
Within minutes of the posting of the article by Loren Coleman, word of this news spread like wildfire. Many hunting websites and blogs like www.outdoorpressroom.com and www.fishgame.com picked up on this information and ran with it, announcing that Texas had given the green light to hunters desperately seeking to bag a Sasquatch.
This is what was written in the letter by Chief of Staff, L. David Sinclair to Mr. Scharf:
Mr. Scharf:
The statute that you cite (Section 61.021) refers only to game birds, game animals, fish, marine animals or other aquatic life. Generally speaking, other nongame wildlife is listed in Chapter 67 (nongame and threatened species) and Chapter 68 (nongame endangered species). “Nongame” means those species of vertebrate and invertebrate wildlife indigenous to Texas that are not classified as game animals, game birds, game fish, fur-bearing animals, endangered species, alligators, marine penaeid shrimp, or oysters. The Parks and Wildlife Commission may adopt regulations to allow a person to take, possess, buy, sell, transport, import, export or propagate nongame wildlife. If the Commission does not specifically list an indigenous, nongame species, then the species is considered non-protected nongame wildlife, e.g., coyote, bobcat, mountain lion, cotton-tailed rabbit, etc. A non-protected nongame animal may be hunted on private property with landowner consent by any means, at any time and there is no bag limit or possession limit.
An exotic animal is an animal that is non-indigenous to Texas. Unless the exotic is an endangered species then exotics may be hunted on private property with landowner consent. A hunting license is required. This does not include the dangerous wild animals that have been held in captivity and released for the purpose of hunting, which is commonly referred to as a “canned hunt”.
If you have any questions, please contact Assistant Chief Scott Vaca. I have included his e-mail address. I will be out of the office and in Houston on Friday.
Best,
L. David Sinclair
Chief of Staff – Division Director I
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Law Enforcement Division
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, TX 78744
Office 512.389.4854
Cell 512.971.2668
Fax 512.389.8400
“Texas Game Wardens Serving Texans Since 1895-Law Enforcement Off the Pavement”
For four straight days, no one really stepped up to challenge this notion that it was perfectly legal to kill Bigfoot in Texas. This was until Facebook user, David Batdorf, came along and challenged the controversial firestorm set off by the letter to Mr. Scharf.
Batdorf writes to Scharf (who loves to copy and paste articles and Wikipedia links) on Facebook:
Because I'm following this in a multifaceted way... All I can say is that John, you are the absolute KING of "out of context" propaganda. What's your deal, anyway? I still can't figure it out...obviously, you've got it all worked through. Fill me in. No Wikipedia links this time... I'll go edit them. ;)
PS-It's still illegal to kill an "unlisted" species in Texas. There are four basic categories of animal in hunting: game (what you would eat), non-game (non-edible fur bearers - that are specified, stated "pest" species, varmints, etc...), avian (migratory and non-migratory birds) and unlisted species (anything not listed in the above categories). A "non-game" species can be "fair-game" or "protected". An unlisted species is not within legal hunting rights to take. Period. That encompasses the entirety of N. America. No, Sasquatch has no "protective" status, as it is not a listed species, therefore, not legal game. Period.
- David Batdorf
Blah blah, no official anywhere is going to convict someone for presenting the first specimen. They will say, holy shit, those whack jobs were right. Ok, let's write some legislation so we dont have a million freaks trying to bag there own Bigfoot. And, in effect you will have just provided the protection you think this animal considered by society to be mythical already has, which they don't. Unlisted animals and mythical beasts are two very different things.
ReplyDeleteIt just depends on how gung ho of a city of county prosecuting attorney you have in the area. Some of these guys or gals would care less about the creature taken, but only to make a name for his or herself in the national media. I tend to think your first statement would be true, but I would not take the chance, and even if it was legal it goes against my moral make up.
DeleteChuck
For pete's sake, these aren't animals dammit. How f-ing stupid can you get, that is mere traditional lore fueled by ignorant media and entertainment business treatment. Bottom line is, the oldtimers in this field thinking it's an ape were wrong. Period. The species is not to be hunted, so you'd have to be completely mad as a hunter to want to bag primates in the first place and in this case you'd be committing murder one. Ask how Smeja feels, he probably feels bad exactly like all the others before him that went unknown.
DeleteIts just a bunch of hoaxters in Bigfoot uniforms anyway....shoot to kill so we can get rid of bigfoot once and for all
DeleteAnon 0605 Justins Smeja is a liar trying to sell a book. His taped interview sounded like a 5th grader lying about who broke a window with baseball. Why ask him anything, seriously?
DeleteBecause he actually exposes you bigfoot trolls, here is a guy who's done what you've screamed for and still you complain. LOL
DeleteAin't that the truth!
DeleteI feel pretty confident stating that if someone did manage to shoot a Bigfoot in Maine, they would have a hell of a legal battle on their hands to retain possession of the body. In Maine all wild animals are considered property of the State of Maine. Even dead animals you might find in the woods are considered the property of the State. There was a legal case a few years ago, where a hunter came across the remains of two moose who have died in combat with each other. Their Antlers were locked together. Now while it is legal to pick up "sheds" defined as Antlers that have been knocked off to make way for new growth, a intact skull with horns attacked does not fall under that description. As one might imagine two skulls locked together have considerable value, (I heard estimates as high as $70,000 for the set the hunter found). As the hunter was leaving with his price he ran across a Game warden, who upon hearing about his awesome find, took possession of the skulls. After a very expensive and lengthy court battle they settled by agreeing to share ownership of the skulls. The state has the set part of the time in the Museum in Augusta, and the hunter rents them out to (Cabelas I think) a sporting goods store the other half of the time. Now consider the value of a dead Sasquatch. It would be worth millions and millions of dollars. There is no way in hell the State of Maine would allow that kind of cash flow to leave without them getting a piece of the pie. I suspect many other states would follow suit if someone did manage to kill a Bigfoot. SWP
DeleteThanks SWP, wonderful input as always based on common sense reasoning, something I suspect you guys will feature on the Extinct podcast someday. I can see the title now- "Where has Common Sense Gone? Alas we can find none must be Extinct!" ;)
DeleteYes, and Smeja did a great job collecting the evidence! No, that's right, he shit himself and ran off. I'm the first poster in this thread. I would definitely shit myself as well. But after a moment I think I could pull it together enough to lop off an arm or a foot and then haul ass out of there as fast as possible. Though I guess it would be pretty easy for any other Sasquatch in the area to track you when you have shit dripping down your leg. Would probably help to have a team at the ready to contact by radio and have them swoop in. I'm just asking everyone to stop taking themselves so seriously. If its a type of human, then it's still an ape. The argument that humans don't hunt apes is really funny too. I don't understand how that supports your argument at all. Doesn't matter if it is in the line of man, there isn't a Texas judge alive who would convict for this. But, then again I live in Texas so I might actually know. John
DeleteThen commit yourself to not profiting off of it and do the right thing. Screw donating it to the state, just donate it to the Smithsonian with a contract which guarantees that the autopsy and taxonomy work be televised live and worldwide. John
DeleteShawn, Please add these as links...
ReplyDeletehttp:tpwd.state.tx.us/regulations/fish_hunt/licenses/hunt_licenses/
http:tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/nonpwdpubs/media/cs_bk_k0700_284_2011_2012.pdf
The loophole and language from L. David Sinclair seems to allude to "nuisance fur-bearing animals", which refers to coyote, hogs and other depredating animals... meaning, if Sasquatch are causing your farm loss by destroying or stealing your crops or livestock (and you can prove it), then you can protect your property. -IF- it falls within that category of animal upon classification, which you would be expediting. Otherwise, you'd better hope for the statutes to run out...
For all other wildlife, the appropriate licenses, tags and bag limits are required on public or private property.
Yes, that is an out of context stretch and may not even apply, because it is so specific.
David from the PAC/NW
(yeah, that's my response... I try to keep a level head, but I get annoyed sometimes too - wasn't thinking Shawn would post that)
We appreciate the direct response, most of us ignored his post because he is obviously new on the scene and pretty chaotic with his posts. He might be learning as he posts, is some growth in his perspective apparent? Maybe. I quit reading them some time ago, and I shouldn't if others take him seriously!
DeleteSee chaotic, angry, and attention seeking posts by JLS below.
DeleteAlmost funny, if it were not for the topic.
Tragic actually.
In Sweden there is a purported cryptid named "Storsjöodjuret" in a deep lake up north. This creature has never been accepted by science and it probably doesn´t exist, people have been searching for it quite seriously for a long time. Nevertheless it has been sighted for 500 years and it was decided a few years ago to protect the species. It is now forbidden and punishable to hunt, kill or pursue the creature. It can be done.
ReplyDeleteJN
Sweden
JN
ReplyDeleteThe US should implement something to that effect-unfortunately it probly won't happen. I hope that someone doesn't go out with the intention of bagging a bigfoot, actually kills one, and becomes subject to retaliation by others in the area. It's not a farfetched idea-if they share any kind of emotions with us, revenge may certainly be one of them.
Tell me Ok. Do the squatch let thier hair grow long and shaggy,like the hippys out in San Francisco co do???
DeleteWorth the risk.
DeleteWe didn't challenge it because we know better. Your new poster is certainly ambitous, Mr Loyd, but misdirected. Not worth the responses IMO. But thanks DPW, it did need to be said.
ReplyDeleteBesides, we have TBRC to test those waters. Go for it boys. I am sure that particular Wildlife Officer will have the ear of the Texas AG.
This might actually be an issue if Bigfoot was a real animal, unfortunately it isnt. I cant believe you geeks are making such a big deal about this anyway, when a much better issue to address would be the cruel trapping and killing of coyotes, which is basically encouraged by law enforcement. Ever seen a coyote a week after one of those baited cyanide shells blew off half her head, but she was still rolling over and over while her pups tried to nurse. You people should be defending torture of cattle in texas, treatment of immigrants, instead its a 10 ft invisible ape that doesnt even exist fuck people how can you be so damn heartless???
ReplyDeleteI believe some of the people who said they saw a BF, AND you are absolutely stunningly right.
DeleteHave you ever been to Texas? Ever owned any land? Ever owned animals which are preyed upon by coyotes? Ever? Oh, that's right, you haven't. When dealing with a population of animals which often outnumbers the human population within a Texas county you learn what a pest they can be, not to mention the hogs around here that will dig up any piece of land they get comfortable in. I have seen these hogs dig so deep they uproot entire plots of trees. But I guess our trees don't have as much a right to life, nor our livestock for that matter. Stop arguing against things you don't understand. John
DeleteIf you dont believe in sasquatch, why are you here? Those other issues are for other forums.
ReplyDeleteThank you Okie, they exist here to torture the rest of us.
DeleteYes trolls abound here!
ReplyDeleteOkie, Ive had sightings in PacNW. Can you give me more info on Squatch in OK? Terrain? Area? Very interesting.
And, do you buy into Arla Williams stories? What do native tribes in OK say about Squatch? Thanks in Advance
well believer, Arla should make you think twice. She is convinced Bigfoot builds birthing centers and outpatient clinics out of trees and twigs! Soon Oklahoma Medicaid is getting involved too because you see Arla is their protector of the four winds. Oh and people dont forget Melba Catch 'um is Arla's BFF and they share a habituation site. Nuts and whackjobs all
DeleteActually Arla just might prove to be right if these beings are not wild animals, like only nutjobs still believe then why wouldn't they do those things. Get a grip troll realize you're probably not the only intelligent bipedal primate on this planet, when you understand something as basically simple as that then you can return and talk sensibly with the rest of us.
DeleteIsn't that the truth anon at 8:01am.Many times when here I feel like I've gone back in time to when they believed the earth was flat.
Delete8:01 and 8:04...both of you are dumbass hell with this "its not a wild animal" crap. How the hell do you 2 idiots come to this absolute conclusion when no one can even get a decent pic of one?
DeleteThe only real nutjobs are those who resign themselves to absolute conclusions with no evidence or proof to back their claims up.
And don't forget the fools with limited vocabularies including defensive/oppositional posturing who main strengths are calling people names and using profanities.Oops I forgot that's you anon at 8:57am isn't it?
DeleteThe very fact we have so few photos goes a long way in explaining why it's likely no wild animal.
Deleteyeah its fake so no photos. It isnt an animal in existence thast for sure
DeleteGood point but many just justify that by saying they don't exist.
DeleteBIG SUR: Check out my blog I posted some information about bigfoot stories I've heard from this area and a little about Southeast Oklahoma. As far as Arla's credibility with me, I'm not sure. I'd LOVE to believe what I've seen from her. What I've seen is plausible, in my opinion. But honestly, this is the first time I've heard of her. I've only really been digging in deep to the bigfoot research for about a year. Before that it was really sporatic.
DeleteThe most ignorant comments are absolutes from "anonymous," like "Blah blah, no official anywhere is going to convict someone for presenting the first specimen."
ReplyDeleteFirst, many States assume ownership of all wildlife and if there is no permit for taking it, it is poaching.
Second, no official convicts anyone of anything in the US without their permission. You can volunteer to have a judge or they have to provide you with a jury.
Third, when you speak in absolutes about any subject, you are almost certain to be wrong.
Fourth, in Oregon any private citizen can make an arrest, subject to civil liabilities, or file a criminal complaint. So, whether an "official" is involved is a moot point.
Fifth-what you gulp down to see Bigfoot
DeleteThe state of Oregon is for tree-hugging hippies and sissys. Not too much unlike the JLS poster above.
DeleteGo take your meds and take a nap. Isn't it time for your nap Grandpa?
DeleteSo many rude people here there can't be many left anywhere else in the world?
DeleteJLS, I made that original post and I stand by it. If brought to court, a Texas judge would laugh you out the front door. No one is going to convict you for downing an animal which is thought of as mythical. John
DeleteIt was charging at me and growling, BANG, end of story!
ReplyDeleteKill it, Texas allows you to kill humans who threaten your life Id say a 10 foot tall ape would qualify to "make my day"
DeleteLeon,where have you been? I could have used your input last night.:)
DeleteExcept it's no ape and you a murderer.
Delete8:03...and you know this as a fact how?
DeleteIt was coming right at me.
DeleteBecause we'd caught one by now if so. To think you have giant wild apes running loose in the US is as mad a thought as it gets.
Deleteexactly bigfozot is fake as hell
DeleteRegarding David Batdorf, I produced evidence that I was not happy to hear about Texas. It is him who is propagandizing and grandstanding. If he has a bone to pick, it is with the State of Texas. I invite you to write them yourselves:
ReplyDeleteDavid Sinclair ;
Peter Flores ;
gdavidson@governor.state.tx.us ;
Scott Vaca ;
My name is John Scharf, and I am a twit.
DeleteTo be clear, I did not write Lt. Sinclair.
DeleteDavid from the PAC/NW
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYes, can you shut up for good?
DeleteDavid Sinclair David.Sinclair[at]tpwd.state.tx.us
ReplyDeletePeter Flores Peter.Flores[at]tpwd.state.tx.us
gdavidson[at}governor.state.tx.us
Scott Vaca Scott.Vaca[at]tpwd.state.tx.us
One thing I will not do is waste these officials time and energy in settling a now public argument. I will, however, read the referenced sections for their intended context and what the actually refer to, with regard to the statement from L. David Sinclair.
DeleteI will apologize for the publicity this has gained, as that was not my intent.
David Batdorf/David from the PAC/NW
Hey Sharf, no body is falling your lead, shut up all ready!
DeleteTo the other Anonymous who said:
ReplyDeleteThe loophole and language from L. David Sinclair seems to allude to "nuisance fur-bearing animals", which refers to coyote, hogs and other depredating animals....... For all other wildlife, the appropriate licenses, tags and bag limits are required on public or private property.
Yes, that is an out of context stretch and may not even apply, because it is so specific.
David from the PAC/NW
David, obviously, you were ignorant of the context the question was post in. This is the question I posed:
If a species is unlisted and an unknown new species, is there an open season and blank permit to take that species? Several groups of individuals claim they have talked to game officials in Texas about this issue. They have framed it within the supposed existence of the "Bigfoot." I have said no wildlife may be taken without the permission of the people of Texas.
So, my question, generally, is whether they are allowed to kill and take wildlife that may be native to Texas without a season or a permit?
The only thing we'd see - or rather not see - is the shooter immediately realizing his mistake thus either burying or leaving it there. In other words, we'll probably never know because most people would be too scared to come forward. That is why the Ketchum study's result is so important, it'll hopefully set the record straight and warn of future mistakes.
DeleteJohn don't you have any friends? Go outside and play for a while.
DeleteJLS, if you didn't shoot it on state land, and instead shot it on privately owned land in Texas, then yes you are within your legal right. Many of our state owned lands are open for licensed hunting as well, and I doubt anyone would be convicted in that situation as well. The state may take ownership of the body, but at that point what's done is done. John
DeleteLon's got a good article on this too,definitely a no no in Tennessee.
ReplyDeletehttp://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2012/05/killing-bigfoot-texas-yestennessee.html
This is an issue that needs to be interpreted by all states asap. When states adopted their regulations most likely those regulations did not have Sasquatch in mind or considered. the question that lies at the heart of this (but not the only question) is Sasquatch an animal, non-game or other wise. While this question is still unanswered and/or unaddressed directly via DNA or not IMO an injunction of some sort should be recognized until a determination can be adjudicated. Until then I ask that you use restraint and reframe frompossibly commiting an act you may regret when all the facts come to light. Thanks David. ptangier
ReplyDeleteDave, what about the federal lands and parks? I know Sasquatch/Bigfoot is protected in some if not all. Right?
DeleteBlondie, glad to see you back. Missed your input and sensible ways.
Deletelllegitimi non carborundum ( google it )
Chuck
LOL love it!
DeleteThanks Chuck, could have used your input last night.
I had to choose between a few family emergencies or battling the trolls for a week or so, not really a choice if you know what I mean. ;)
Thank you for your kind words and WONDERFUL advice! Priceless, thanks again!
Yes, screw fixing economic problems, we have mythical creatures to pass legislation for! I get that you and I may want this to happen, but unless someone comes forth with true physical evidence, it won't. Be still your bleeding heart for 5 minutes and think logically, and from the standpoint of those who make these laws. We are talking about the 99% of society that doesn't believe. John
DeleteAnybody can drive down to the local Walmart and pick up a hunting manual that covers all of the hunting laws in your particular state. Most likely any questions regarding this will be in that manual. I know that in Kentucky, if you own your own land you can take just about anything without a license as long as it is coming from your own property.
ReplyDeleteIt can be found online too.
DeleteOnly in this case people really shouldn't shoot, since no one's prepared for the storm that's coming down if you do. That storm is twofold, first your own conscience and how you'll deal with the mental aftermath of the murder you just committed, secondly if you go public with it and create serious outrage risking your own safety.
DeleteTrue and wise words to remember anon at 10:07am.
DeleteHow can I shoot what isn't there, and never will be?
DeleteI guess it depends on where you are?
DeleteSo here is the problem that so many have already pointed out. There is no classification for Sasquatch, therefore I cannot tell reasonably tell you how they are protected... but you also cannot explain why they are "fair-game"
ReplyDeleteHere are the highlights...
In section 67.001, they define a “non-game” species as, “those species that are not classified as game animals, game birds, game fish, fur-bearing animals, endangered species, alligators, marine penaeid shrimp, or oysters”.
They go on in section 67.002, to state that, “The department shall develop and administer management programs to ensure the continued ability of non-game species of fish and wildlife to perpetuate themselves successfully.”
62.061 states that, Only commissioned, licensed wildlife may be taken on state regulated property. “61.022(a) No person may hunt or catch by any means or method or possess a wildlife resource at any time and at any place covered by this chapter unless the owner of the land, submerged land, or water, or the owner’s agent, consents”, has its language reversed, not within the statutes, but on the Texas Parks and Wildlife website and in Lt. David Sinclair’s response, basically from that site.
This is obviously not the going interpretation, however, I found no direct language that stated anything to the contrary, I would suggest that Texans ask their Parks and Wildlife Service to amend the statutes to include more specific language. May I suggest something like this, from the state of WA:
RCW 77.15.140 *** CHANGE IN 2012 *** (SEE 6135-S.SL) ***
(1) A person is guilty of unlawful taking of unclassified fish or wildlife if:
(a) The person kills, hunts, fishes, takes, holds, possesses, transports, or maliciously injures or harms fish or wildlife that is not classified as big game, game fish, game animals, game birds, food fish, shellfish, protected wildlife, or endangered wildlife; and
(b) The act violates any rule of the commission or the director.
(2) Unlawful taking of unclassified fish or wildlife is a misdemeanor.
We'll worry about raising the penalty, if we get real verification...
David Batdorf/David from the PAC/NW from the PAC/NW
Looks like I wasted half the day on reading Texas Statutes when Lt David Sinclair would have just done it for me via interview... NOT interesting stuff to read, BTW. I was having trouble finding contrary language anyway. You almost got me there, John...
DeleteDavid from the PAC/NW
^^^61.022 has its language reversed "WHEN ON PRIVATE PROPERTY"... that was a fairly important omission on my part.^^^
DeleteHey, I think your site might be having browser compatibility issues.
ReplyDeleteWhen I look at your blog in Firefox, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping.
I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that, very good
blog!
My page - Ipad Tilbud