Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Official Says He Was Misquoted About Legality of Killing Bigfoot

Photographs purportedly show a large, apelike creature in Central Oklahoma -- evidence they may also live in Texas, some say. (Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy)

It looks like our old friend, John Lloyd Scharf, is in trouble again for the media wild fire he started regarding the Texas law suggesting that it was OK to hunt Bigfoot. This time, it's Chief of staff Lt. David. Sinclair leading the charge. Sinclair claims that the reply he sent Scharf was "a straight description of the law" and that Scarf's letter to him didn't really mention Bigfoot. "This guy never really alluded to Bigfoot, though it seems maybe he said something about Sasquatch," Sinclair told FoxNews.com. "He took my statement and said that it was safe to hunt an ‘indigenous cryptid,’ whatever that is. He misquoted me."

Here's the article from FoxNews.com:

Texas has no position on the existence of Bigfoot -- but go on, hunt it anyway.

John Lloyd Scharf, a Bigfoot fan from Oregon, emailed the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department last week about hunting unknown creatures.

Chief of staff Lt. David. Sinclair told FoxNews.com he responded with a straight description of the law -- which hinges not on whether the mythical beast exists, but on precisely how the government would label it.

“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),” Sinclair wrote back to Scharf.

“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.”

The law boils down to provenance, Scharf decided. If Bigfoot is indigenous to Texas, it can be killed.

But Sinclair told FoxNews.com his response has been taken wildly out of context.

“This guy never really alluded to Bigfoot, though it seems maybe he said something about Sasquatch,” Sinclair told FoxNews.com. “He took my statement and said that it was safe to hunt an ‘indigenous cryptid,’ whatever that is. He misquoted me.”

Scharf did not respond to several FoxNews.com requests for more information. But the rules Sinclair cites are clear: It would be legal to shoot Sasquatch.

“Nongame” means wildlife indigenous to Texas that aren’t deer, sheep, geese, alligators, or any other animal hunted for food. If the Commission doesn’t specifically list a beast -- and needless to say, Bigfoot doesn’t make the list -- it isn’t protected.

So Bigfoot a Longhorn? Absolutely, said Brian Brown, media coordinator for the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy.

“We’ve got hundreds of sightings going back decades. I don’t think we’d have any problem proving it’s indigenous. We think they’re all over the region,” Brown told FoxNews.com.

Oregon resident Scharf worried that the policy could be interpreted as “kill it first, ID it after.” He thinks it could even lead to premature extinction of the Bigfoot species.

“Individuals of an unknown species, and therefore not be listed as ‘endangered’ under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, could be exterminated without criminal or civil repercussions – essentially causing extinction?” he asked on an enthusiast bulletin board.

Brown argued that killing a Bigfoot is a necessary way to prove its existence.

“Our primary mission is to conserve these animals. They cannot be conserved until they are accepted as fact. They will not be accepted as fact until a type specimen is produced. It's as simple as that,” he wrote on the group’s website, texasbigfoot.com.

Laws prevent hunters from killing people, of course. Such regulations wouldn’t govern Bigfoot, Brown told FoxNews.com.

“It’s not murder, it’s an animal,” he said. “They don’t do anything that makes you think that they’re humans or some lost tribe. They don’t really have attributes or do anything that one typically associates with humans.”

Open-minded Sasquatch seekers in the Lone Star State all seem positive that the numerous regional sightings mean something is out there.

"I have been immersed in Sasquatch research for a number of years, and I can tell you in my mind a mountain of evidence supports the existence of these creatures," Ken Gerhard, a San Antonio cryptozoologist who co-wrote "Monsters of Texas," recently told the Houston Chronicle.

Gerhard, who also heads up the Gulf Coast Bigfoot Research Organization, said Texas has one of the nation’s highest incidents of Bigfoot reports, outranked only by Washington, California, Oregon, Ohio and Florida.

That doesn’t mean the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department is tracking them, of course.

“Here at Parks and Wildlife, we don’t have any evidence that Bigfoot exists,” Sinclair told FoxNews.com.

“We don’t want to get drawn into the debate about it.”

Comments

  1. It still all boils down to Yes it's ok to kill Bigfoot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No it does not, sorry. Still murder.

      Delete
    2. Murder is the killing of a human being. If bigoot is human, then its not a new species, because guess what? Ee already know humans exist.

      Delete
    3. Sorry, I meant the jist of the article still all boils down to the guy still says" the law says" "Yes it's ok to kill Bigfoot".

      I agree that it is murder in my book to, was just saying the guy still says what he was reported as saying earlier.Don't really understand what he's trying to clarify it's still the same result.

      Delete
    4. At common law, murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought.

      Human is generally defined as members of homo sapien sapiens.

      Unless Bigfoot is an unshaved Greg Oden, it's not murder.

      Delete
    5. I believe it is still legal to have ones own opinions and make up ones own mind in the USA.

      Delete
    6. The only cloud over the human definition is that even scientists cannot agree on what a homo sapiens sapiens is. The picture gets more blurred everyday as we discover for example that most seem to have Neanderthal genes. Some like the Basques seem to have a higher percentage that others. So the definition of human is actually moot. Solve that dilemma first before deciding whether the term murder applies to something that "may" be closer to neanderthal than the rest of us. We don't know of course until we have the full genome. This may turn out to be a complete can of worms. We will have to leave it to not just scientists but also lawyers and politicians, and my eyes just glazed over at the thought of that.

      Delete
    7. Truly if left in the hands of lawyers and politicans theres little hope.

      Delete
    8. That might be revamped if Bigfoot is found to be any assortment of Homo. But for the sake of argument, lets say there is no Bigfoot and one of these idiots shoots one? Then that would be murder and a whole new can of worms. Because if Bigfoot does not exist, then he just killed a man either by mistaken identity or someone trying to pull off a hoax. Then the argument would be Manslaughter (He thought it was something else) or Murder 1 (it was premeditated... He went into the woods looking to shoot something that does not exist that resembled a human and he had all the time in the world to decide weather or not to pull the trigger. And since Texas has no bears, he can't use the "I thought it was a Bear!!!" defense.) So Manslaughter, Murder 1 or insanity is what will be argued. It is better just to kill the whole possibility and label it as "Protected" weather it exists or not.

      Delete
  2. We'll have a specimen any day now... I mean any year now... I mean any century now...

    ReplyDelete
  3. “This guy never really alluded to Bigfoot, though it seems maybe he said something about Sasquatch,”

    Bureaucratic semantic contradiction is at work here. This guy is trying to save his job right now by talking in circles. I hope people can see through this blatant attempt at self preservation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow...That guy really knows how to stir the pot, I'll say that for him!

      Delete
    2. Bureauctatic semantics is exactly what it is. I agree with Avion.

      Delete
  4. Member of Texas Leprechaun Research: "Hey, is it legal to hunt leprechauns?"

    Texas Wildlife Official: "Uh, I guess not..."

    Newspaper headline: Government Official Says It's Open Season On Leprechauns!

    Texas Wildlife Official: *Facepalm*

    ReplyDelete
  5. Now, that was interswting and somewhat informaive. Especially the fact this made it to a "conventional media outlet" (Fox anyway).
    That implies to me the very controversial nature of the "kill to prove" stance. If it were a no-brainer to do so, or endorsed by the many, this wouldn't be news...because, we all know (or Fox and F&G know) that BFs don't exist...hummm. But, it's here in black and white...hummm.
    Newsworthy even before proof. Can you imagine the hail storm should someone bag a Bigfoot?


    If I lived in Texas, I wouldn't rely on this take, by this official. It might not be up to him.
    But, then I don't.
    Nor, do I desire to kill a Bigfoot to prove to everyone I am right and they are wrong. Animal, or Human, or real at all.
    I don't want a BF killed by the self appointed, with callous ambitious hearts, to give to science and the world.
    That is a gift I don't want.
    Too bad I only have this post to try and stop those like Brian Brown.
    Maybe that will change in the near future, who knows anymore. The clamouring for a body and proof is seemingly at a high....why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. or..."interesting," and any number of other typos...sorry!

      Delete
    2. Because to not do so would be to stay in the same state we find ourselves in now, with no conclusive evidence that leads to the protection of any species. God damn, my state may be behind in some people's minds, but I sure as hell am glad I'm a Texan. It is all about being logical sir, otherwise your weekend jaunts every few months will continue along with this money making machine that has been created around it. End the foolishness, look at it for what it is. In the "line of" human or not, they aren't human beings. They need to be confirmed and classified so that true protection of their homes, as well as further protection of the vast wild places in this country can be had. Stop labeling those that don't agree with your personal beliefs as murderers. Does nothing but show you are good at name calling and have no sense of reason. John

      Delete
    3. It's ok apehuman, I'm sure the anonymous spell police will be by soon.

      I have this vision of someone sitting all day and scanning blogs for spelling errors just so they can correct them. LOL

      Delete
    4. John,that was a respectful post, but it's have meant more if you'd left God off the damn part.

      Delete
    5. lol Blondie!
      On the issue of proof...to anon above

      so you "kill one to prove to protect" I get that, I am in the it's 2012 we have better ways camp. So, moving on...

      Who will you deliver your proof, body to?
      By what venu will you have BF proved? Legal. or scientific, or popular press, How and who will declare your body proof?
      Will that result in the protection you claim to seek?
      What type of protection for Bigfoots are you seeking?

      are you the guy who promised "no profit, tangible or intangible, as well?)

      Delete
    6. To you maybe, I believe in writing the way I think. If the post means less to you because of my choice, then that is your choice sir. I'm just tired of the name calling. I won't do it to those that are presenting the same evidence that has been presented for 50 years, and I also don't want to be labled a murderer for being pro specimen. Not pro Bigfoot hunting season, pro specimen for protection. Please let's not make this a discussion about God and politics as well. Drop the semantics, learn to share with each other no matter your stance. This will lead to true discoveries. John

      Delete
    7. Yes, I refuse to pay $300 dollars to go on a glorified camping trip and pitt money into the pockets of the BFRO, TBRC or any other BF organization. I also refuse to profit in anything associated. Who's to say if a body would be confiscated, this could very well happen. Our Government is not beyond the suppression of information. I would just call a lawyer and have a contract written for whatever scientific entity you chose to donate the body to. Not a contract of ownership, but a contract outlining a public display, via live TV, of both the autopsy and taxonomy analysis. The most you could hope for. John

      Delete
    8. Hey man, totally understand about God and politics. I just don't like to see God and damn as a compound word, that's all I was requesting. Sorry I've got a thing about that, comes from having my mouth washed out with soap one to many times and respecting the Lord. Plus it just helps your delivery in what you write.

      Delete
    9. Understand this. They may not be exactly like us of course they aren't, any fool can see that, but they're human enough not to be shot just to be morbibly proven real. DNA can do that first and since it with almost 100% certainty won't say ape it's insane to shoot. You don't need to turn to murder like Smeja did in a frenzy.

      Delete
    10. oops I didn't get back fast enough, but looks like all sides represented..
      I will say I did not call you (is it John?) or anyone a "murder" if you read my post.
      But, I do think if you focus on the aftermath..and just how ineffective or effective your task will be, it might change your mind. thre is not a clear path, IMO, from the field and a dead Bigfoot to proof, especially by the self appointed with intent to kill.
      Might it not be better to let the summer slip by and see if the Sierra Kills and DNA are forth coming? What is the rush?

      Delete
    11. No rush, just an approach. The approach when this DNA study either shows itself as total hoax or is received without any show of support as the majority of our country STILL probably won't buy it. Just what I foresee, not saying its what you see. John

      Delete
    12. I think it is as possible that any body, delivered to who?, what genetist will take it, or biologist? And who else will be notified? Will a peer review paper be produced? And, how will you control the handling of that body? What if you go to the press and everyone has film, and then it goes to the "lab" and the "paper" never comes out? is that proof? And how does that play into protection? The key claim many make is they want to prove to protect...and the question is how will you protect? How will "knowing"...even for the niche scientific community that ought to really care translate to protection? Might it go the other way? Might Texas declare them a game species? So, I just think it is not so straightforward as getting a body may sound...is there just a BF in Texas then? That ranch? and so on...it really is not an effective way to go, carries tons of "baggae" for the shooter, and may not effect any change at all, or any faster, or better and with as uncertain outcome as we have now. So, given all that, there just aren't the strong arguments for amateurs trying to lill a Bigfoot to prove it to us all. I think there are much better ways, many outlined by posters.

      On the strength of a peer review paper and who "buys it." That is complicated too, depending on what audience you need to "buy it." We could concievable protect Sasquatch now...without proof, if the people so decide and require their legislators to pass an "unproven species" or some such bill...that would work? Too hard to pass? With no cash outlay for Gov...b/c the species don't exist anyway (surprise!) and it's national Treasure/Mascot.... no harder a bill to pass than if they ARE proven, in fact maybe easier in some ways! So, it is just not the old 1859 priving gorillas by shipping a body to London thing anymorw...IMO.

      srry typos too long to edit...

      Delete
    13. I just don't think it will work out this way. John

      Delete
    14. How do you think it would play out, all the way to protection?

      Delete
    15. Obtain specimen. Contact lawyer. First have contract drawn. Have Lawyer contact Smithsonian. Work out unveiling of body being televised. Have them come to the body. You see, the way I saw it was that if Dyer had really had a body in that freezer, the press conference was the way to go. It just shouldn't have been Dyer or Biscardi presenting it. Had it been real, they should have had people there with actual scientific credentials. As long as you made it clear that you were passing off ownership of said specimen, no one will have a reason to expose who you are allowing you to remain anonymouse. So from this poin there is no telling how long the path to protection would be, but at least there is something to protect in the eyes of the WORLD. Everyone keeps acting like you can protect an animal without any evidence that it is real. So far, after 50 years of the same forms of evidence, there is one law for one county in Washington, and it is doubted whether it would even hold up in court. This is a fantastical idea that one would be able to gain the protection sought without it. And if this DNA study doesn't come out or have any kind of impact... Let's just say I'm not holding my breath. Many have also made the comment that they don't need our protection. I can agree to a point. The United States has a ton of National and State parks, and the officers who protect them do a great job. But what about all of the sightings that aren't in a protected area? What about the encroachment on those already protected areas by the logging and coal industries? Our country owns that land, our states own that land and a little bit more is sold off every year. There are products out there that could reduce the need for both of these industries. What if one major Biological discovery is all it takes to get our country moving in this direction? The point is that yes, it would take time but right now we are just wasting it. John

      Delete
  6. can't help but laugh at everyone arguing about shooting something that doesn't exist

    ReplyDelete
  7. Replies
    1. Yes!!! but you can't kill them.

      Delete
    2. Can we suck a ghost up in a vacume and never turn it off?

      Delete
  8. My head hurts from reading all the legal bantering. From what I understand, Mr. Scharf was and is correct in what he stated.
    I got the complete opposite impression from the Canadian government some time ago. They alluded that Bigfoot would be considered endangered. I'm guessing because Bigfoot has not been scientifically discovered they needed to put it in a category.
    The reality is that we don't know if they're endangered, or if they're animals or a human relative.
    I would think that people might err on the side of caution about killing a Sasquatch. I would rather see them undiscovered than to have one killed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Killing a Bigfoot under any kind of pretense, except self defense, is Murder. If a person can look down the scope of a gun and see a living creature that looks so much like us, could you pull the trigger. Hundreds if not thousands of hunters have already said NO, it looked to human. Could anyone here shoot a gorilla or chimp?

      Chuck

      Delete
    2. Only in the direst of circumstances like the pet chimp that attacked that woman's friend and ripped her face off. Of course it was loaded up on a bunch of medication for humans.

      Delete
  9. Jesus, somebody just shoot one of these things and drag it in and let's get on with it. Nothing, absolutely nothing is going to happen til that happens. Then everyone on here can get back to UFO's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To add, though in reality they've done pretty well surviving without recognition. Without the help of the white man. Just as everything that has been recognized has gone down the toilet. Maybe we can get them to sign some treaties and move to a reservation to gaurentee the timber industry can continue the forestry practices it now enjoys. Not to mention land developers and gas and oil companies.
      Once these babies go on the endangered list they are toast. Cause every special interest group with enough clout will make sure they get squeezed or exploited.

      Delete
    2. DNA will work its scientific ways, after that who knows how the study will continue guess video surveillance and more field search.

      Delete
  10. Verification and protection does not require a type specimen. Many, many species have been discovered on the basis of a few bones or Dna. You may want to consider what you are trying to kill, a possible close relative hominid of ours and possibly an act of murder. Many, many reports have come back as hunters sighting in a Sasquatch only to withdraw their arms saying it looked to close to human to shot.
    Also what if the Sasquatch is proven, then what? Protection from shooting one would just be the start, a determination of cognitive abilities and adjudicating the level of rights atibuted to the Sasquatch would be the next big battle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right, step 1: protection
      step 2: getting someone qualified to go out there and study them.
      Proved the point with that one.

      Delete
    2. That's exactly the way it'll be yes.

      Delete
    3. Hey! Smeja got himself a bear. He had a licence for bear, and he shot, so it must have been a bear. So the sketch that RL put up must be a bear if it was a sketch of what he shot. Then again it could have been a nudist human with Hypertrichosis who was in the wrong place at the wrong time who just happened to look like a bear. I want to see a law that says that all Sasquatch hunters must wear wookie suits while hunting in the woods.

      Delete
    4. Im waiting for a guy in a ape suit to get shot accidentally then bigfoots will be protected not for there protection but tp protect the idiots who dress up in ape suits to scare people.

      Delete
    5. Not a tool user, doesn't watch tv (not his anyways) or drive or go to work. Not eligible for SS or Medicare, doesn't pay taxes. Not human. OK to shoot. Just like a rampant escaped chimp or gorilla. OK to shoot. Close to human. Not human. Not murder. OK to shoot. Unless your're in Skagit County Washington. Protected. Don't shoot. Unless you slap him in a truck and go to the next county and splash some blood on a tree behind where you drop him.

      Delete
    6. Nobody is gonna study squat without a body. Just like now. Especially with the likes of Melba Toast doing the DNA.

      Delete
    7. I'm pretty sure sasquatch would be eligible for SS and they would also probably be eligible to open up casinos.

      Delete
  11. Well since it is now officially o.k. to hunt bigfoot should we now start discussing the best weapon for the hunt? How about recipies. Squatch chops marsalla.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am really looking forward to the day some other studies come out. They will probably beat the one we all are waiting for. I know they are happening, or have been stated to be happening by various blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Come on!!! NO ONE would do time for taking down a squatch.

    In fact, no one would do time for shooting a guy running around the woods hoaxing people with a sasquatch costume.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have a question about this whole ape suit business. Has anyone ever came forward and said that they dress up as an ape just to go out and mess with hunters?

    Also, if every sighting is an ape suit sighting, the ape suit industry must be booming cause it's happening all over the planet.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Really good point. May take some stock investigation in the market to see if it's true.
    Could be more evidence for or against. As good as Melba's DNA study.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Interesting blog! Is your theme custom made or did you download it from somewhere?
    A theme like yours with a few simple adjustements would
    really make my blog shine. Please let me know where you got your theme.
    Many thanks

    Check out my page :: bokk of ra

    ReplyDelete
  17. Excellent post! We are linking to this great post on our site.
    Keep up the great writing.

    My site; book of ra kostenlos spielen download

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hey would you mind sharing which blog platform you're working with? I'm going to start my own blog soon but I'm having a difficult time choosing between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal. The reason I ask is because your design seems different then most blogs and I'm looking for something unique.
    P.S Apologies for getting off-topic but I had to ask!

    my blog post: book of ra apk downloaden

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?

Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story