In a bizarre bit of local politics, the supervisors of a county in California recently had a lengthy debate over whether or not to pass a resolution that would punish any individuals who purposely kill a Bigfoot. The strange matter came up during an otherwise routine meeting of the Trinity County Board of Supervisors last week. Alongside mundane governmental issues such as increasing the animal control budget and awarding a liquor license to an area restaurant was an eyebrow-raising proposal aimed at protecting Sasquatch.
Specifically, the resolution argued that “there is evidence to indicate the possible existence in Trinity County of a nocturnal primate mammal variously described as an ape-like creature or a subspecies of Homo sapien” colloquially known as Sasquatch, Yeti, Bigfoot, or “Giant Hairy Ape.” Noting that the purported presence of this creature in the region has not only drawn interest from researchers, but also gun-toting individuals looking to take down the beast, the bill called for “any premeditated, willful and wanton slaying of Bigfoot” to be punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment in the county jail for a period of one year.
Political junkies who are also paranormal enthusiasts will be delighted to know that the actual meeting in which the Trinity County Board of Supervisors debated the issue was broadcast on YouTube. The surprisingly long and decidedly amusing conversation can be seen in the video above. It begins with board member Bobbi Chadwick, who put forward the proposal, reading the resolution to her colleagues and then opening up the floor to questions or comments. After a somewhat uncomfortable spell of silence, fellow board member Keith Groves laughingly asks “why is this on the agenda?”
In response, Chadwick explains that there is “enthusiasm regarding the Bigfoot” throughout the county and that the purpose of the resolution is “to help facilitate the well being of this creature, we don’t want anyone hunting or shooting” Sasquatch. Groves’ concerns about the unorthodox nature of the proposal were echoed by another board member, John Fenley, who told the group that he had “received quite a few emails” from irritated constituents wondering “what the heck is going on with all of this” and groused that “I got beat up.”
Despite the pushback from her colleagues on the board, Chadwick posited that there were possible educational and tourism-related benefits to the bill. Fenley simply responds, “I get it, but my constituents just…” before bursting into laughter. Following some positive comments from members of the public who attended the meeting, the final debate over the proposal takes a surprisingly heated turn when Groves declares that, rather than being hilarious, “I actually find the resolution to be insulting” as it “encourages laxity in the use of firearms.”
“I’m not sure if we’re trying to be funny or if we’re trying to be serious or what we’re trying to do here,” Groves says with an air of exasperation, “we have spent more time on this than we should.” A few moments later, he somewhat dramatically spins around in his chair as if to say that he is finished discussing the matter. Ultimately, the nearly 20-minute-long debate concludes with a majority of the board agreeing to table the resolution so that it can be resubmitted as some kind of proclamation rather than an actual law.