Cryptids: Legal obstacles to research?

[amyasleigh]

Am making two posts concurrently, on a similar theme; in their respective appropriate sub-sections re the two different creatures concerned. These are Tasmania's thylacine; and the US and Canada's Bigfoot: differ greatly zoologically and in (alleged) appearance -- but besides being the two cryptids which nowadays, overall, would seem to receive the most interest and attention from the "fancy", they are the object of not totally dissimilar paradoxes of legality and status.

The legal stuff concerning Bigfoot would appear simpler than that re the Tasmanian beastie; in that there is very little specifically on the law-books, about a creature whose existence is officially not recognised. (One gathers that Skamania County in Washington State , is unique in having a local ordinance which forbids killing or harming a Bigfoot.)

The issue about killing a Bigfoot -- just one -- in order to get the species recognised and classified by science (after which strict measures seen, as being put in place for protection of the species), is argued about ad infinitum in Bigfooting circles, from a variety of angles. I'll just keep to the legalities. There seems to be a quite widespread view, that anyone who killed a Bigfoot would very likely be facing time in prison, or at least a heavy fine; because in the USA (and I gather by implication, also in Canada), everywhere in both countries, fish and game laws prohibit the killing of any wild creature whose killing they do not specifically allow. Like anything to do with Bigfoot, this has been argued about endlessly -- some insist that it's universal, others assert that it varies by state and province: I don't think any full consensus has ever been reached ("full consensus" does not, anyway, happen on the Bigfooting scene).

Also a "rider" to this -- some who lean toward Bigfoot being definitely on the "human" tree, talk of the killer of one, being in danger of finding himself on trial for murder. I have difficulty seeing this -- on the general basis that in civilised societies, laws are not to be made retroactive. Your doing something which wasn't against the law when you did it (the creature you killed, was at the time of the killing, an "unknown" -- not yet classified as human) does not make you liable for punishment for it when a law which is subsequently passed, forbids it. I'm no legal expert, but get the vague picture that in sane places, that idea is generally held to...

"Finding Bigfoot" (to borrow the name of a much-alluded-to silly TV programme), if not by killing one to be the type specimen: while I have not seen any legal arguments advanced, about live-catching a specimen (I'm sure this is something which had been, and is, argued about; just, such debates have not come my way) -- the practical difficulties, are considerable. (Perhaps not as extreme as some argue -- if I'm not mistaken, civilisations in antiquity managed to capture large pachyderms, and to continue to keep them in captivity.) Tranquiliser-darts are talked of; but who knows what is the correct tranquiliser dose for an unknown and unstudied, 7 or 8 feet tall and broad and strong to match, primate? In absolute terms, one feels, not impossible -- but not an easy undertaking, and requiring much back-up in terms of resources and finance.

One could feel that the best and all-round safest "finding Bigfoot" strategy might be, to habituate some of the creatures to the company of hom.sap.sap. -- hopefully, this getting over time better and better, with increasing co-operation between us and them. There are various accounts by people who claim to have done / be doing just this. Somehow, though, no impartial observers have ever been able to visit the scenes concerned and -- at however much of a distance, however respectfully -- to without-doubt see the creatures. And, a famously ongoing theme here, somehow the self-styled habituators are never able to supply even vaguely likely-looking photographic evidence. These supposed Bigfoot-habituation scenes never seem to go anywhere -- it's hard not to think, "something here smells not right".

The potential legal tangles can be seen as possibly tending to discourage some who might be moved to undertake research to try to clarify things re Bigfoot, or the thylacine. Ironic, perhaps -- this particular obstacle, affecting the world's two probably most prominent and most-discussed cryptids. I'm not aware of any other cryptid which is affected by legal measures of any kind -- would be interested to hear if anyone has knowledge to the contrary.

 

[amyasleigh]

Legal obstacles to research?

Am making two posts concurrently, on a similar theme; in their respective appropriate sub-sections re the two different creatures involved. Tasmania's thylacine; and the US and Canada's Bigfoot: differ greatly zoologically and in (alleged) appearance -- but besides being the two cryptids which nowadays, overall, would seem to receive the most interest and attention from the "fancy", they are the object of not totally dissimilar paradoxes of legality and status.

The thylacine -- known for sure (unlike Bigfoot) to have once existed -- is in an odd legal limbo. Regardless of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species's recently withdrawing their sanction on trading in various deemed-extinct species, including the thylacine: although the thylacine is officially accepted as extinct, it also remains protected by Australian federal and Tasmanian state law -- it is forbidden to harm, trap or in any way molest a thylacine. (Scientific expeditions post-1936 have on occasion been granted special permission to live-trap thylacines -- sadly, the thing never happened.)

Picture generally got here is -- in the highly unlikely event of a few thylacines still being alive in the wild in Tasmania in 2013: if someone managed to live-trap one, and submitted it to those biologically qualified and interested -- it's almost certain that the punishment technically applicable by law, would be waived. As explained by Eric Guiler, long-time researcher of the species, not long before his death -- the creature would be studied and examined and analysed, and then set free as near as possible to where it had been captured -- anything else, would be pointless. Possible crazy-optimistic tendencies, suggest the ultimate-best-possible-case of trapping a pregnant female: in that circumstance, pragmatic best idea would seem to be, off to the most luxurious possible zoo accommodation, hope for pups of both sexes, and thence, "who knows?" -- others might feel otherwise.

Hypothesising a scientifically-minded person encountering a thylacine in Tasmania today, and killing it and then taking it to the biologists to prove the survival of the species up to 2013 -- in view of the species's desperate rarity, one would feel, at least -- "not cool". On emotional and aesthetic grounds, numerous people would scream for the full rigour of the law (or much worse) to descend on the killer; and the act of killing would IMO seem on the whole to be, even in the scientific sphere, a sterile, "cutting-off-nose-to-spite-face" exercise -- better that the encounter stay as another bit of "nothing-proving" anecdotal data.

The legislation to protect the thylacine could be seen as to some extent counter-productive; as with, someone who is not a passionate zoologist happening to catch, or accidentally killing, a thylacine. It would be understandable for the "perpetrator" -- not wanting to get into trouble -- to keep quiet about what had happened, and not let it be known -- although letting it be known, would allow the biologists onto the scene. There are anecdotal accounts of exactly such things having happened, post-1936.

The potential legal tangles can be seen as possibly tending to discourage some who might be moved to undertake research to try to clarify things re the thylacine, or Bigfoot. Ironic, perhaps -- this particular obstacle, affecting the world's two probably most prominent and most-discussed cryptids. I'm not aware of any other cryptid which is affected by legal measures of any kind -- would be interested to hear if anyone has knowledge to the contrary.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Two very similar threads on the possible legal implications of future cryptid research joined and moved to, Cryptozoology - general. It doesn't matter whether the cryptids are two legged, or four footed, it's the possible legal implications of killing, capturing, cloning, or otherwise meddling with, cryptids in general, which are being discussed.


P_M

 

[amyasleigh]

PM -- thanks. We're all a bit new to the "multi-headed" "Cryptozoology" situation. Was debating with myself whether to put this material in "General", or "one in one, t'other in t'other". Thanks for sorting as you see fit.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

No problem, amyasleigh. It was pretty clear from your posts that they both overlapped in the key area of the legal question.

 

[oldrover]

Also a "rider" to this -- some who lean toward Bigfoot being definitely on the "human" tree, talk of the killer of one, being in danger of finding himself on trial for murder. I have difficulty seeing this -- on the general basis that in civilised societies, laws are not to be made retroactive.

I think you're right there, if you shot a bf and it turned out to be human then surely it'd come into the same category as a normal hunting accident, i.e when they shoot another 'normal' human in the mistaken belief that they were aiming at an entirely different kind of animal.

As for the thylacine, I think it's Bailey who said on the documentary I put up recently, that any sort of molestation would likely end in severe punishment.

 

[amyasleigh]

It can all easily get to be a most tangled, tangled business. The Bigfooters endlessly discuss on their sites, the multitude of ramifications of the "killing" issue -- if you shoot and kill what you think is a Bigfoot, but it turns out that it was an idiot human prankster dressed in a Bigfoot suit -- judge and jury's response is likely to be, "you thought that you were shooting at a WHAT ??" -- (defendant could perhaps suggest, a moose or something) -- to some extent, I feel, people like to argue this stuff to death and beyond, for the sheer sport of it -- but it has potential almost-endless twists and turns.