Leaderboard

If that's the case then it will expose a double standard in science. I don't think people realize how serendipitous it is that Sykes, one geneticist that just completed a study of the genetic diversity of people in the USA "DNA USA" is now doing another study on alleged Sasquatch samples. Sykes runs Oxford Ancestors............... http://www.oxfordancestors.com/ And also has a neat package for people to check their ancestry on both maternal and paternal lines.......... http://www.oxfordancestors.com/component/page,shop.product_details/flypage,flypage/product_id,20/category_id,7/option,com_virtuemart/Itemid,67/ Cost is 590.00 USD. I don't think anyone should think for a second that this data brought forth by Dr. Ketchum isn't being taken seriously. In Paulides' comments he say's the father is novel. This could only mean a new Y clan lineage and within the hominin genus homo. If Sykes concurs I think this is a done deal folks. Even if we declare the samples are from humans, the implications drawn from the fact that the discovery emanates from bigfoot researchers will be a real kick in the rear for human population geneticists.

Plotts are ok.......but they don't tree as hard. Karelians are a eastern angle of approach being apart of the Laika family to hunting. Dunno, would have to go out with some Russians or Finns and see....... Del Cameron used Blue Ticks...........with one especially cool story of his big Blue Tick that knocked a bear out of a tree that was climbing up after Del. http://www.americanhoundsmen.com/cameron.html I've owned Redbones and Treeing Walkers..........and have been around Blue Ticks. I like them.

This is a fascinating proposition. There will be winners and losers if biologists/zoologists acknowledge the existence of BF in the North American forests. However it is hard to tell who exactly will be the winners and the losers. Maybe we all can win with real federal budgets for the study and protection of BF and better guidance given to backpackers, hunters, and forestry workers. A lot of the attitude from hunting outfitters, wildlife management offices, and national forests offices are based on their assumptions on potential scenarios about how the species will be protected. But we don’t really know. I just read the Hoopa Project book about the situation in Northern CA, and in that area Paulides found two opposite responses to the presence of BF. On one hand, the District Ranger of the Six Rivers National Forest believes that as long as BF brings recreation and interest to the district, he was supporting the staff biologist to spend time on the subject. (Paulides, p 54). This makes sense since more tourists will visit their forests and wilderness areas with the hope of spotting a BF. On the other hand, “the Tribal Forestry Management Group is concerned about Bigfoot becoming a protected species and what that designation would bring to the organization. If Bigfoot is deemed endangered, then it is possible that the tribal forestry lands could become protected, and this may have a profound effect on their ability to cut and harvest their landsâ€. (Paulides, Page 290) Not sure why much has to change since no hunters are hunting BF, and existing wilderness areas appear to be good habitat and are already protected. I think people just fear the unknown and what could happen to their business. IMHO, these hunting outfitters in CO appear to be over reacting, even though I fully understand their fear of loosing their livelihood. I have not heard about this behavior happening with hunting outfitters in CA (but who knows maybe it is happening quietly). And I hope that when they say shoot, shovel, and shut – they mean Grizzly’s and not BF. I am with Norseman on this one, we only need one BF body and then no more.