norseman Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Monitored? LOL...... Do you know how they counted Cougars in my neck of the woods a few years ago? They fly around in a helo and came back and reported there were only five breeding pairs in our area. We houndsman laughed in their faces. I don't put much stock in what most Biologists say concerning game numbers. And generally there seems to be politics behind it. Incidentally we lost our Cougar season for hunts up here, and none of us are laughing anymore. Concerning migration? I think an animal like this could transcend local wildlife migrations. We are talking about something on two legs that could be eating Salmon in July on the coast and be hunting Elk in the fall in the northern Rockies. Or picking berries, plants whatever. If your hypothesis is right? I've haven't found the honey hole yet in all my years of travel. The Houndsmen at least could show them Cougar pelts, and tracks of cougars, to counter their survey. The current Sasquatch survey however, stands at ZERO. Got anything to counter that, all ye Houndsmen? The Bigfoot survey doesn't stand at zero.......we have sightings reports from wildlife biologists. We also have tracks Drew........but no we don't have any pelts. BTW how is your tent experiment coming along? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Monitored? LOL...... Do you know how they counted Cougars in my neck of the woods a few years ago? They fly around in a helo and came back and reported there were only five breeding pairs in our area. We houndsman laughed in their faces. I don't put much stock in what most Biologists say concerning game numbers. And generally there seems to be politics behind it. Incidentally we lost our Cougar season for hunts up here, and none of us are laughing anymore. Agreed about Biologists. They are an egotistical bunch who will not admit they could even sightly, possibly be wrong. It's the same here with Cougars. All my life I heard from family about them, only they call them panthers. Saw one myself once when I was about 20 years old. But the TPW would insist they don't exist in East Texas and did so until game cams became common and they started finding them. One even turned up inside the city limits of the town where I live. It's the same with Red Wolves, they insist they have been extinct in East Texas for decades, but I have seen them with my own eyes on three occasions. I'm sure the know-it-all's who have never set foot in the East Texas woods will now come along and tell me how wrong I am, but I don't care. I've been in these woods all my life, not a few months like the TPW biologist who declared them extinct. I worked as a vet tech for many years and I know my canines and I've seen literally hundreds of Coyotes in my time and I know what they look like and I know what I saw were Red Wolves. http://discussions.texasbowhunter.com/forums/showthread.php?t=416718 This is why I don't automatically discount people who are actually in the woods and tell me they saw a BF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 But is there not a big difference between "existing in" and passing through? Has this not been one of the mantras of the proponents in this thread? So, how do you know the cougar you saw in East Texas was not a vagrant? If so, then the TPW was correct when telling you that cougars do not exist in East Texas, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 I'm sure the know-it-all's who have never set foot in the East Texas woods will now come along and tell me how wrong I am ^ See! There's one now! Because many have turned up on game cams and I know my family knew what they were talking about before I ever saw one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 (edited) I wasn't trying to tell you anything one way or the other about cougars in East Texas, Rock. I grew up in an area where they were said to be extinct as well. Several have since been shot and documented. My only point was to illustrate how that point can go both ways: Bigfoot in PNW? Most proponents would agree that is plausible or likely habitat. Bigfoot in New Mexico or Nevada? Most would say it is maybe just passing through and doesn't live in that habitat because that is not good bigfooty habitat. A local wildlife management authority tells you an animal has been extirpated from that area, and then someone documents one? They were lying or wrong the whole time!! I knew it! I knew they lived here!! Gubmint conspiracy!! Er, what happened to the "just passing through" argument? Edited September 16, 2015 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 ^^^^^^ What in the heck are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 We're working on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 ^^^^^^ What in the heck are you talking about? I don't know but I'm not bothering with an answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Bah, made sense in my head when I wrote it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 I think I agree with you. Or maybe not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 I live in a world in which the US fish and game refuse to tell the Idaho fish and game where they are transplanting wolves, because if they do the wolves turn up dead. The Idaho Gov. Butch Otter refused to protect wolves under the Endangered Species Act. http://www.nativetimes.com/index.php/news/environment/4441-idaho-wont-manage-wolves-under-endangered-species Gubmint? Can you be a little more specific? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 So, to get back to the topic. Can we agree, Norseman and the other rational believers, that whilst a monster might pass through nevada; it isn't likely to be a permanent part of a range. Can we get to at least that small agreement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted September 16, 2015 Moderator Share Posted September 16, 2015 Good lord. Why are so many people so invested in sasquatches in nevada? Not only do they have to exist but they have to exist everywhere? Everywhere and yet no hair, scat, bones, dens? The larger the claimed range, the larger the population has to be, the more likely that SOME piece of tangible evidence should have shown up by now. The demand for ubiquitousquatch is a problem for believers. I small population of relic animals in a pocket of wilderness not leaving evidence is a lot more likely than a population large enough to range over the entire continent. Internal consistency of one's argument should demand one or the other. So, to get back to the topic. Can we agree, Norseman and the other rational believers, that whilst a monster might pass through nevada; it isn't likely to be a permanent part of a range. Can we get to at least that small agreement? In a word, no. The reason is fairly simple. We don't know squatch about them. All us knowers know is that they exist through encounter. Beyond that very little is known! How would anyone (even habituators...) ever be able to say what their habitat actually is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 I have no idea, but I will say that if you have mountains, water and timber? You are in country that supports them. Does the Nevada side of the Sierra's have that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted September 16, 2015 Moderator Share Posted September 16, 2015 (edited) Bodhi - Not when you choose to couch it in bias like "monster". I've seen two bigfoots for sure. I've never seen any monsters. Frankly, I'd have to study the terrain and cover of Nevada in a lot more detail rather than just relying on cherry-picked photos and stereotypes before I'd be entirely convinced Nevada isn't home to any bigfoots. Change o direction dmaker: You do know that Nevada has a national forest, right? Forest ... uh ... y' know, with trees? Only the largest single national forest in the lower 48 states. Google images is your friend: look up humbolt-toiyabe national forest. Arizona has 6, New Mexico 5. You make yourself look kind of foolish overlooking National Forests as potential bigfoot habitat. MIB Edited September 16, 2015 by MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts