Leaderboard

Here is another example where truth-telling is important to credibility. By definition, a cabin on a road is not wilderness. I don't even say I live in the wilderness despite bordering millions of acres of it. I saw that discussion of "bona-fides" earlier in the thread. By our standards up here you don't have any wilderness bona fides. Staying in a cabin? I do that permanently. I have a three year old that does more actual camping than you do. There are three tiny wilderness designations in Oklahoma, the largest of which by far is the Upper Kiamichi, bordered on the North by highway 1 and having NF 6032 running right through the middle of it. (This is one of those cases where the government declared it a wilderness despite a road running right through the middle of it.) There are innumerable studies on the wildlife, the geology, the forest, and even the visitors to this area. A fellow named Kuzmik wrote his dissertation on visitor characteristics, and can be viewed here: http://books.google.com/books/about/Characteristics_of_Visitors_and_Reacreat.html?id=ntCqXwAACAAJ One of the pretenses that makes this NAWAC "research" non-credible is the pretense that they are in an area that doesn't have much human use and that revealing the location will somehow interfere - when thousands upon thousands of visitors per year are roaming all over the area. Someone can look this publication up in the library and get visitor use estimates from the 90's in here and see what they are all up to - and none of them are hunting or reporting bigfoot. Were that the case, this dissertation would become some kind of Bible for believers. How many vehicles have driven through on highway 1 over the decades? Staggering millions. In terms of how things actually "are", no - that isn't you. That would be the professional studies and the professional management personnel charged with overseeing Oklahoma lands and wildlife. A casual occasional visitor staying in a cabin OUTSIDE the wilderness making fantastical claims can't be treated seriously alongside professionals conducting long-term studies INSIDE it. They are charged with protecting the wildlife, and do that not by pretending they have secret populations of animals in secret locations - but by publishing in professional literature and making sure everyone knows the exact details. Science of course requires repeatability. In this case you have one (predisposed) group of casual visitors making fantastic claims and the other thousands upon thousands of visitors, the managers, the professional scientists doing long-term studies saying no such thing.