Excellent point!
I hope Bigfoot reads that article, apparently he just needs to start wearing a bright orange jacket and people will stop shooting at him.
Aside, from something I learned from another SDMB thread: The actor playing Chewbacca did, in fact, have to wear a high-visibility vest while on location and not filming, precisely so that he wouldn’t get mistaken for Bigfoot.
This reminds me of a situation my environmental engineer friend encountered. He was wearing a white hazmat suit while collecting samples of water every 100 feet in a stream that had been polluted by a hog farm water runoff.
He heard several gunshots in the distance while working.
He told me that since it was deer season and he was wearing a white suit he thought he would be OK.
Then he realized that it only took one idiot with a deer rifle and a wish to be the first guy to bag a space alien and he’d end up dead.
Packed up his test kit and got the hell out of there.
They are called White-tailed Deer for a reason. When white-tailed deer are spooked, they lift their tails, exposing the white underside of their tail, and the white hair running down both legs of their back side, and run away. White-tailed deer also raise their white tails when they poop. And they poop a lot.
White-tailed deer hunters look for antlers, brown outlines, and white tails. Who ever told your friend to wear white, in the woods, during white-tailed deer season, probably doesn’t like him very much. just sayin’
Serious question. Someone above claimed that killing a mammal not an official game species was illegal in Maine. Does this mean that setting a mousetrap is a crime there?
Why is this important to include? Hunter’s receive licenses to kill certain numbers and breeds of animals, such as deer, ducks, pheasants, etc. within certain time periods. There is no general hunting license that permits hunters to kill animals at will.
Well unless you are killing as a part of the hunger games, and then it’s a completely different situation.
On a separate note, it’s a shame no one has verified the existence of bigfoot yet. It may require that nearly every human being on the earth to carry around a high definition camera and video camera on their person at all times so that when bigfoot does appear, then actual photographic and or video evidence could be obtained. Until our society is ready to be that prepared, we’ll only have vague eyewitness accounts of bigfoot sightings.
I don’t know about this (I would assume that mice, rats and bats are not protected wildlife?), but, in response to some of the comments above, surely it must be highly illegal to unload the old elephant gun on a target that you don’t even know what it is-- Bigfoot, a guy in a fancy dress, whatever.
Now I am no professional zoologist, but according to Wikipedia there is a real-life example of identifying a species without bagging a zoological holotype, though according to the article it appears to be controversial. Either way, it would not be done by some random drunken idiot. (“Wabbit season! — Duck season!”)
I see that two-thirds of the world population does already carry a camera, Mobile phone users worldwide 2015-2020 | Statista many of them high-definition, so the mere fact that there are no photographs extant of these mythical creatures would seem to be a good indicator that they do not exist.
Probably because it gives legitimacy to the person being out on public land with a loaded firearm with killin’ on his mind, differentiating that person from a crazed drunk on a shooting spree. Also, there are situations in which a hunter might have to shoot a non-licence animal. Being charged by a bear protecting cubs or a kill comes to mind… and what if the bear turned out to be a bigfoot instead? That person would probably be looked at much more favorably than an escaped prisoner who’s shooting at anything human-looking with a stolen hand gun while running away.
And that’s worldwide: It’s probably much higher for Americans.
But I’m pretty sure that Omar was being facetious.
EDIT:
Oh, and most states have a category for “vermin” animals, which can be killed at will whenever encountered (though there might be other relevant laws, such as discharging firearms within city limits). Mice would be a typical example.
I’m familiar with Game officials in a state where they do something similar. First rule in the book is that shooting all animals is illegal except for those subsequently listed and with the specified allowable dates. Technically, they start by defaulting everything to be illegal, then walk that back with rules. So if it isn’t mentioned in the rule book to be ok, it is defaulted to being illegal. It would appear that killing a mouse would be illegal.
No one has ever been prosecuted for that though. But, I don’t like that mentality and I wonder if it would hold up to constitutional challenge if a case were brought up.
Other states I’ve lived in go by the idea that if its not in the book than it defaults to being legal.
Anecdote: Years ago, I didn’t know if it was ok to kill chipmunks in my garden. I called fish and game. They looked…nothing says that it is illegal so I’m fine. BUT…in the other state…since it doesn’t specifically say that killing chipmunks is allowed, it would be illegal.
I think you were whooshed. This is precisely what Omar meant.
Obligatory xkcd reference:
And supplementary obligatory note that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is a stupid aphorism, because it’s so widely misunderstood and misapplied. To the contrary, when a hypothesis predicts that we should expect see evidence, then absence of evidence may be compelling evidence that the hypothesis is false (i.e. evidence of absence).
Carl Sagan meant well in promoting the aphorism in situations where it does apply, but unfortunately did more harm than good, I think.
Have only just noticed this post from 2017. Could the work concerned, be A Different Flesh by Harry Turtledove? I have not actually read same; but I understand that it’s a collection of short stories, all by Turtledove: set at various times over the span of the seventeenth to the twentieth century. Premise of the work is that the Americas – discovered by Europeans at approximately the same date as in “real history” – were inhabited not by homo sapiens; but by homo erectus (referred to by the European colonists, as “sims”), plus sundry megafauna which in “real history” were exterminated pre-colonisation, by the h. sapiens Native Americans.
I haven’t read all the responses, but no one has seemed to brought up the idea of “How can you PROVE, the bigfoot was human enough?” You can’t prove this newly discovered dead critter was sentient or more intelligent than a dog, squirrel, horse, monkey, or mouse.
So I don’t think you can charge someone with murder in the human sense if you can’t prove this critter was in that class of organism. There may be other charges, but homicide seems right out.
Sure you can. The first thing we’d do if someone really encountered a new ape-like species would be to sequence its genome, which would show its phylogeny.
Cool…so maybe its a new primate (or a weird kangaroo); killing primates is not homicide. As far as I know, DNA of newly discovered organisms cannot prove sentience. Only if the DNA proves that its human, can you bring homicide charges…but then if its human, its not bigfoot.
The genome sequence can show its phylogeny with absolute certainty. When you know its relationship to other living species, and its evolutionary divergence time, you can make strong inferences about its sentience and intelligence. It might show that it’s a type of kangaroo. Or it might show that it’s a close relative to humans that diverged from the human lineage half a million years ago.
but still does not prove sentience. Or enough to convict of “homicide”