Guest Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 (edited) One the one hand, DNA is useless without a type specimen. It will only come back as, at best, primate unknown. At worst, contaminated or bear-pig-dog-human-rug. But then on the other hand, you get the DNA is great, it can tell us a lot about a creature. What DWA said. You're for some reason taking things said by several people and mixing them all together as if we're all of the same mind. Ketchum's DNA work is laughable garbage and should be treated as such. People like Disotell say a species could be listed via its DNA alone (assuming it's a repeatable result and the chain of custody is well established etc.) and one could learn a lot about the animal from which it came. I don't disagree, but I have personal reservations that an animal such as a previously undescribed primate living in North America will be listed based solely on DNA. But who knows. In any event, it's more evidence, and we're all about collecting as much of that as possible. Preservation can lead to some very terrible outcomes such as overpopulation leading to habitat destruction and disease if a proper predator/prey balance isn't in place. Wood apes aren't deer, but I see your point and agree. All you have to do is look at the wolf hunting controversy in my home state to get a really good education in the conflicts between conservation and preservation. Edited April 3, 2013 by bipto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 ^^^Right. Know what proof is? What scientists agree it is. They aren't going to agree on a DNA sample (or much of anything but a body or discrete IDable body part) confirming this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 (edited) They aren't going to agree on a DNA sample (or much of anything but a body or discrete IDable body part) confirming this one. That's my assumption, too, but there are so many variable that come with DNA analysis, it's impossible to say. Edited April 3, 2013 by bipto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 ^^^And again it comes down to: proof is what the mainstream agrees it is. There is nothing wrong and everything right with testing samples collected under compelling circumstances for DNA. But we all know what will provide unequivocal proof. Shoot, I can't even imagine the circumstances under which a body brought into scientific custody wouldn't do it. (Which is why I guess we just assume it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachFoot Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 The end goal is conservation, if I understand correctly. You don't chafe at the idea of conservation, do you? The end goal of these operations is to harvest a specimen in the furtherance of the NAWAC's overall end goal of conservation. I'm not going to derail the thread by an attempt to turn this into another kill/no-kill debate, but that is what I was referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachFoot Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 We've tried a variety of these tactics and will continue to try them in the future, but so far, no dice. During one of the weeks I was there, we created a distraction while two of our guys cozied up to some boulders in ghillie suits to await nightfall. After several uneventful hours, they had a rock thrown at them and got growled at from over the ridge. Busted. ....I'm sorry, but that's funny. Clever little suckers, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 ....I'm sorry, but that's funny. Clever little suckers, eh? It is funny. Now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 With DNA, they could point exactly where the creature would sit on the Phylogenetic tree. In the case of a primate, they could tell you how long ago it branched from humans, who the last common ancestor was, and whether it was closer to chimps, orangs, or human. It wouldn't come back 'unknown'. That is added by Bigfooters for an excuse as to why they never get Bigfoot DNA. If you sent a piece of BIGFOOT DNA to Dr. Hawks, he could tell you far more than 'Unknown primate'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 (edited) OK. You're wrong. But it's America. if you were right, Hawks would have skin in this game. But he doesn't. And that proves him right? How nice and circular for you. Edited April 3, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanFooter Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Bipto When you and your group selected a research site , what where the points you looked for in an area for consideration ? Like food , water , certian terrian features , game routes , concentrations of certian crops , types of forest and or reports . I am sure you have been asked this question many times already but I do not get the chance to check this thread much , it moves fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Area X found us. Of course, now that we know about it, we have used it as a template to evaluate other potential areas. We can't know for certain what makes the spot so appealing to them, but there is water, forest, terrain, and a general lack of human activity for a wide area around it. I can't be too much more specific than that. The truth is, working X pretty much taps our resources, both economic and human. Even if we found another X-type location, we wouldn't be able to expend the energy on it that X gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 (edited) ^^^^Wha? You will assume that anyone stating they are speaking for someone actually IS ...???? People! Announcement. I speak for ohiobill; his views are mine. As he says, you may safely assume this. Since he can't follow my posts (they employ stuff deliberately tossed in to throw him off, like logic, humility and syntax), we should have no problems agreeing from now on. OK? When you read DWA, just think: ohiobill. We're In Lockstepâ„¢. Sure why not? I'm already used to thinking you and WSA are one and the same. Hhhhmmmpff. Everyone knows my manly silhouette is much better looking than his bullet-haided hairy self! Edited April 3, 2013 by WSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 With DNA, they could point exactly where the creature would sit on the Phylogenetic tree. In the case of a primate, they could tell you how long ago it branched from humans, who the last common ancestor was, and whether it was closer to chimps, orangs, or human. It wouldn't come back 'unknown'. That is added by Bigfooters for an excuse as to why they never get Bigfoot DNA. If you sent a piece of BIGFOOT DNA to Dr. Hawks, he could tell you far more than 'Unknown primate'. If the sample was not deteroriated correct? Probably the only "perfect" DNA sample is drawing blood from the arm of a dead squatch in a sterile setting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 (edited) /\/\/\ The pulled DNA from a bone found in a cave. The bone was buried in dirt for 30000 years. They get DNA from hair, no follicle needed. Skin flakes, spit, and poo are other ways to get DNA. Edited April 4, 2013 by Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Oh yes, it's just that easy. REALLY. Ask Melba Ketchum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts