NEW CASTLE —
Do you think it’s OK to shoot a unicorn?
Should hunters be allowed to bag dragons? And what’s the creel limit on Loch Ness monsters?
These questions might seem silly, but there are people who take them seriously.
And that may include certain wildlife officials in that state of New York — at least when it comes to matters related to Bigfoot.
I received an email the other day from someone named Peter Wiemer, who identifies himself as the director of the Chautauqua Lake Bigfoot Expo. Wiemer is apparently concerned that someone may shoot a Bigfoot in New York, perhaps even in his home base of Chautauqua County.
Wiemer’s worries seem to stem from a $10 million bounty recently offered by SpikeTV for proof of Bigfoot’s existence. Obviously, the only real way to document a Bigfoot is to produce one, dead or alive.
So SpikeTV’s bounty prompted Wiemer to write to wildlife officials in his home state, asking for an explanation of Bigfoot’s status in terms of protection.
Earlier this year, Wiemer received a letter from Mark Kandel, a regional wildlife manager with the New York Department of Environmental Conservation.
Kandel noted in his letter that New York has no official record of Bigfoots (or is it Bigfeet?) in the state and therefore regulations do not directly address the animal.
However, Kandel added: “Because it is not addressed there is no open season on Bigfoot and they may not be taken. We are confident that the current laws and regulations afford adequate protect for Bigfoot if one were to be found in N.Y.
“Under the current laws and regulations you and others are free to pursue Bigfoot for the purpose of documenting their existence provided none are harmed and you abide by the laws and regulations pertaining to trespass on private property and use of public lands.”
But this statement did not satisfy Wiemer, who persisted with his efforts. He should have quit while he was ahead.
A second letter, this one from Gordon R. Batcheller, the state’s chief wildlife biologist, was decidedly less supportive. Batcheller flat-out dismissed Bigfoot as a “mythical” animal that “does not exist in nature or otherwise.”
And as far as protective laws or regulations go, Batcheller added that “no program or action in relation to mythical animals is warranted.”
So I guess it’s open season on Bigfoot in New York. To the best of my knowledge, the same holds true in Pennsylvania.
As you might surmise by now, I count myself among the skeptics where Bigfoot is concerned, to put it mildly. While there’s a certain romance to the notion of such mysterious and elusive creatures actually living among us, I don’t believe it. Then again, my background as a journalist means that skepticism is part of my basic nature.
On the other hand, discussion as to whether or not state hunting laws should apply to, or reference, non-existent animals raises some interesting philosophical questions. For instance, should the law be silent on such matters, or should it clearly state that government cannot regulate the hunting of creatures that don’t exist?
Then again, maybe there should be a ban on hunting Bigfoot, not to protect the animal, but to protect the rest of us. You have to wonder about the mind set of someone who’s going about trying to shoot a mythical creature. Perhaps this person shouldn’t have a gun.
NEW CASTLE —
Do you think it’s OK to shoot a unicorn?
- Mitchel Olszak
Mitchel Olszak: IRS email fight clouds the issue
A scandal involving the Internal Revenue Service is now focused on missing emails. The absent data could represent the smoking gun Republicans have been seeking in their endless efforts to discredit the Obama administration.
Mitchel Olszak: Iraq is good argument for fracking
A friend of mine is a big advocate of shale gas drilling. It’s not because he owns land and is looking forward to royalties. He owns no property.
Mitchel Olszak: Government officials can’t dismiss Sunshine Law rights
There’s a fundamental problem I frequently see with government. It has to do with the people who hold positions of authority. Too often, they seem to overlook the real reason they are there.
Mitchel Olszak: Forced pooling and a clash of rights
There’s an old saying: The right of your fist ends where my nose begins. It’s a reference to the fact that in a free society, there are still boundaries that must be respected.
Mitchel Olszak: The consequence of cowardice
The anonymous letter came with a question. The writer claimed to be concerned about a decision made by a municipal governing body. Supposedly, this action was suspicious, devious and possibly illegal.
Mitchel Olszak: Jitters about the health effects of coffee remain unfounded
I drink plenty of coffee. The reasons are mainly two-fold. First, I like it. Second, it’s something of an occupational hazard. Traditionally, coffee and the news business go hand in hand.
Heartbleed raises the stakes on Internet security
My column last week dealt with Internet and related scams, along with steps people can take to protect themselves. Today’s column could be termed Part 2 of that topic, albeit from a different angle.
Mitchel Olszak: There’s no reason to be surprised by modern scams
P.T. Barnum once observed that there is a sucker born every minute. Judging from the people who complain about being caught up in computer scams, I think he was too conservative in his count.
Mitchel Olszak: Doubting the basic intelligence of ravens nevermore
Every now and then, I find myself watching the ravens around my house. That’s because their behavior is fascinating, and at times more than a little disturbing.
Mitchel Olszak: Taking a realistic look at Ukraine
Congressional Republicans have taken a tough stand against Russian President Vladimir Putin and his military moves against Ukraine.
- More Mitchel Olszak Headlines
- Mitchel Olszak: IRS email fight clouds the issue