Leaderboard

Ok, first off, Hiflier, I must say I enjoy and appreciate your input and ideas, at times out the box thinking, and willingness to explore and consider various pathways of inquiry and interpretation . Kudos. However, some of the things you stated five posts up are quite rather "sapiens-centric" and somewhat display the high handed self-impressed assumptions and conclusions our species is so well known for ("I know! they always do that! like they're some 'chosen monkey' or something! like who died(or they drove to extinction) and made them the pinnacle of evolution? they don't even have fur!") Body configuration does not dictate intelligence as long as there are biologic processes that support firstly, self awareness(so like most every organism that interacts with an environment) and secondly awareness of the external reality. With these two, intelligence may expand and cognition progress. "Brain development is not open ended whereby a raccoon say, can figure out a complex math problem" Any more advanced species observing us could well say the same thing.... "these things are so limited, they haven't the capacity to progress past rudimentary string theory or quantum mechanics! it's a dead end..." We as humans have virtually no means to perceive, much less determine, the levels of abstraction within the communications and minds of other living organisms. To dismiss even the possibility of such is an act of arrogance that blinds us to potentials we've yet to conceive or realize. . "There is no doubt that it is animal and its brain will limit it to animal even though it's body type will allow it to do so much more than any other animal. Its diminished right brain capacity will insure that it never rises above that level" once again, this could just as easily apply to our species, all a matter of perspective and self-image. Even within the paradigm of body type determining limits of cognitive development, the anatomic similarity would indicate strong parallels of potentials between BF's and humans. So, consider the idea that our physically founded drive progressing us through our biologic then cognitive/social development resulted in our departure from strictly physiological guidance as our cognitive capacity allowed us to visualize then manifest new pathways to manage corporeal existence, as seen in our technology, realization and application of abstract conceptualization, social constructs, and the delivery of pizza. So, in light of the form parallels, this physically founded drive element must(for the sake of the discussion)exist within the BF in some perhaps slightly altered, but none the less potent, presence and level, which could have focused and directed their attention and intent, manifesting in development of awareness, abstraction, and environmental utilization, which while disparate from our own in content, is equal in extent. Just a thought......

True and not. It overlooks the impact of consciousness, of willful adaptation of behavior to address changes in environment. 15 seconds of thinking can do a lot more than 10K years of biological adaptation or rewiring of instinct. I would say, however, that the more recently we shared a common ancestor, the more extreme the conditions must have been that taxed both biological adaptation and conscious planning. It's an interesting puzzle .. interesting array of puzzles. Absolutely. I've been the rat in the maze. It's a little unsettling for someone used to thinking my species was the pinnacle of development, automatically in charge. (At least 'til decomposition sets in.) MIB

Hmmm ... I'll go with that, at least for now. As a trend rather than an absolute, my sense is the data supports it. Interesting but maybe irrelevant parallel ... blacktailed deer do the same thing. The does, fawns, and younger bucks are fairly diurnal. Big mature bucks go nocturnal or extremely secretive except when the rut overrules their senses. MIB

Been out of civilization lately. Great - no phones, no 'puter. Your scientific paper demonstrated extraordinary health problems, compounded by significant levels of drugs and alcohol, most resulting in restricted blood vessels. Which explains why they shucked some clothes. If you're going to present a "scientific paper," for heaven's sake, at least understand what the "scientific paper" states - or get someone to explain it to you. Get a dictionary, and look up "paradoxical," "abstract," "arteriosclerosis," "chronic alcoholism," "concomitant illnesses," and "psychotropic agents," but most important, "peripheral vasoconstriction. Then, just to make sure you're on the right track with what you've presented, at least look at supporting/similar papers/citations referenced in the post. "Methanol Intoxication Pathological Changes of Central Nervous System," or "Accidental Hypothermia and Local Cold Injury: Physiological and Epidemiological Studies on Risk," or "Cold, Casualties, and Conquests: The Effects of Cold On Warfare," or, Association of Pulmonary Histopathological Findings With Toxicological Findings in Forensic Autopsies of Illicit Drug Users," or "Postmortem Findings After Anaphylactic Reactions of Drugs in Turkey." Had you bothered, you would have easily noted you had jumped the track, and the "scientific paper" was in no way connected. Keep coming. You're doing so very well.

Remind me again .. how much experience do you have with them, first hand, face to face? Anything at all to suggest you have the foggiest idea what you're talking about instead of just yanking stuff out of your butt telling people who DO have the experience they didn't see what they saw because if they had it would inconveniently invalidate your foregone conclusion? Just checking ... MIB

Ok, Mendoza. First, they are smart. As smart as we are, just applied differently. And there's no question that they have complete mastery of whatever environment they choose to occupy. If you're thinking of them as simple animals, or applying models to them that are designed for simple animals, I would re-think your approach. Second, a data point for you: I have seen a family group of four with two pre-adolescent juveniles (shorter than waist high on the adults).

Or perhaps to demonstrate a higher mastery or prowess "We're as fast as your car(by a few reports) invisible to your trailcams, you only see when we choose, your dog's fear us most, we know where you sleep for we have seen you, we can throw boulders that weigh more than you across your campground, if we choose so, you will never hear us surrounding you, or we will bring terror with the sound of our approach...oh yeah, we see in the dark, don't feel cold, and kill deer with our bare hands, and by the way I just saw that one of your headlights was out, I was gonna tell you, but you didn't pull over or stop when I ran in front of your car a moment ago Then again, depending on the car involved, maybe it triggers a memory from its infancy...you know the sound of the engine combined with headlights takes them back to the night its mother was growling at a bear while flashing the ole eyeshine...

I've often thought that the reasons they do what the do at times is to see our reaction.

WIIA and MIB, I had a Ruger SRH in 454, but it just recoiled too much to be comfortable for me with 454's, but was a pleasure to shoot with 45 Colts. Sold it as I have other 45 Colts to shoot. Plus it would be hard to get back on target for follow-up shots with the 454. I am not too sensitive to recoil as I shoot 44 mags regularly; a 6" 629 S&W, a Ruger flattop, a Ruger SBH, and even a ported 4" Taurus, but just did not enjoy shooting the Casull. I would be reluctant to draw down on a BF unless I felt my life were in danger. Seems to be some theory that if you shoot one, others may not take kindly to it and could retaliate. I don't know about that, but don't want to test that theory.

I agree on the treestand idea...makes you a form of "sitting duck". The principals at the former Monster Central in Louisiana favored tree stands as they maintained the Sasquatch "couldn't climb trees" which I didn't subscribe to at all. That's the disagreement we had and why I wanted to be on the ground leaning up against the pine tree 30' from the deer carcass bait instead of 15' up in the tree in a climber stand. The principal of the hunt was adamant against such and why the "sniper boy" was allowed to take the first shift as there was no way he wanted to be positioned on the ground.