Drew Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 How did the bears get there? Arkansas went and got some from Minnesota and Canada in the 1950's and 60's. http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/hunting/bear.htm In the late 1900s, however, black bears began making a comeback in Oklahoma after the successful reintroduction of black bears in the Ouachita and Ozark Mountains of Arkansas. That initial relocation of about 250 bears from northern Minnesota and Manitoba, Canada, turned into thousands of bears in the mountains of Arkansas, which then expanded into southwest Missouri and eastern Oklahoma. How are there so many animals on remote islands that were formed by volcanic deposits instead of tectonic plate shifts? Here is a great website detailing how animals and plants got to the Galapagos Islands. of course that was over 5-10million years. The time frame we are referring to in Oklahoma would be since 1900 or so. http://www.galapagos.org/about_galapagos/species-arrival-and-evolution/
Guest Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 I've already shown you that the deer herd in Oklahoma was down to 150. I've shown you that that Black Bear, Cougar, Bison, Wolves were completely wiped out. I've shown you that Kathy's statement that Oklahmoma's Ouachita Forest was protected in 1907 is incorrect. I've shown you a 7th grade lesson plan from a National Heritage website says the forests in the Ouachitas were so decimated that few animals lived there, and the trees were over-cut, and burned every year by cattle farmers. My interpretations are spot-on, and not based on ignorance. That wasn't my question. You're doing that Drew thing where you say one thing, it's countered, and you switch to something else. I want to see where the entire Ouachita range, as you've suggested on several occasions, was so totally destroyed such that no animals like sasquatch could live there. Back it up. Where's the reference? Find me a quote. The Ouachitas are almost 50,000 square miles big. Find the link that says all 50,000 square miles of them were cut down all at the same time. Because what's going to happen, based on experience, it you'll lead us down a distraction rat hole and then spring back up with the claim that the forest was, at one point, totally gone. As if you've already proven it. And you haven't. At all.
Painthorse Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 I just got off the phone with my local forest service--------------> The Ouachita National forest <Arkansas and Oklahoma> HAS NEVER BEEN ENTIRELY CLEAR CUT! PERIOD! Pick up the phone Drew and let your fingers do the walking. 3
Cotter Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 ran out of plusses.... Sorry for the last couple posters, I'll get you tomorrow!
chelefoot Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 Why is this thread no longer pinned? What do you have to do around here- habituate a physic squatch who contributed a sample to the Ketchum study?? Good point. It was probably an oversight. Thanks!
Drew Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 I haven't switched anything. I am answering direct questions posed to me. The forests that you have now are nothing like what they were 200 years ago. While I'm sure they are dense, they are not what the landscape looked like back then. I have said the animals were wiped out, I have shown links, one from a 7th grade study guide, and one from Oklahoma Wildlife. I never said all 50,000 sq miles were wiped out at the same time. You know that is impossible. However, once the virgin forests were cut, 50, 100, or 1000 years is not going to restore them to their original state. This is why you have the tangle dense mass of forest that you talk about at Area X. I am not distracting anyone, I am simply answering questions asked of me. I will provide one more link, and a quote. perhaps this will help you understand the devastation that logging had on the ecosystem. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/ouachita/home/?cid=fsm9_039689 Travelers in this region prior to European settlement described the landscape as dominated by pine (Pinus echinata), pine-hardwood and mixed-oak (Quercus spp.) forest communities with fire-dependent and floristically rich grass and forb understories (Du Pratz 1774, Nuttal 1821, Featherstonhaugh 1844). Large grazing herbivores including elk (Cervus elaphus), bison (Bison bison) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) found suitable habitat there (Smith and Neal 1991). Fire return intervals averaged less than 10 years for most sites (Masters et al. 1995). Tree densities averaged 170 trees per acre (420/ha), and the mean diameter was 11.4 inches (29 cm) (Kreiter 1995). Today the Ouachita mountain landscape is still dominated by forests, but the structure and composition of these forests have changed dramatically. The density of trees has increased to 200 to 250 trees per acre (494-618/ha) and the mean diameter is now 9 inches (23 cm) (Kreiter 1995). Understories are now dominated by woody vegetation and certain once-dominant grasses and forbs are uncommon (Fenwood et al. 1984, Masters 1991, Sparks 1996). Elk and bison have been extirpated. Other species, such as Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) and the brown-headed nuthatch (Sitta pusilla), have been affected negatively by habitat loss (Jackson 1988) and the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides borealis) is endangered (Neal and Montague 1991). Average fire return intervals now range from 40 to more than 1,200 years (Masters et al. 1995).
Painthorse Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 I haven't switched anything. I am answering direct questions posed to me. The forests that you have now are nothing like what they were 200 years ago. While I'm sure they are dense, they are not what the landscape looked like back then. I have said the animals were wiped out, I have shown links, one from a 7th grade study guide, and one from Oklahoma Wildlife. I never said all 50,000 sq miles were wiped out at the same time. You know that is impossible. However, once the virgin forests were cut, 50, 100, or 1000 years is not going to restore them to their original state. This is why you have the tangle dense mass of forest that you talk about at Area X. I am not distracting anyone, I am simply answering questions asked of me. I will provide one more link, and a quote. perhaps this will help you understand the devastation that logging had on the ecosystem. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/ouachita/home/?cid=fsm9_039689 Travelers in this region prior to European settlement described the landscape as dominated by pine (Pinus echinata), pine-hardwood and mixed-oak (Quercus spp.) forest communities with fire-dependent and floristically rich grass and forb understories (Du Pratz 1774, Nuttal 1821, Featherstonhaugh 1844). Large grazing herbivores including elk (Cervus elaphus), bison (Bison bison) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) found suitable habitat there (Smith and Neal 1991). Fire return intervals averaged less than 10 years for most sites (Masters et al. 1995). Tree densities averaged 170 trees per acre (420/ha), and the mean diameter was 11.4 inches (29 cm) (Kreiter 1995). Today the Ouachita mountain landscape is still dominated by forests, but the structure and composition of these forests have changed dramatically. The density of trees has increased to 200 to 250 trees per acre (494-618/ha) and the mean diameter is now 9 inches (23 cm) (Kreiter 1995). Understories are now dominated by woody vegetation and certain once-dominant grasses and forbs are uncommon (Fenwood et al. 1984, Masters 1991, Sparks 1996). Elk and bison have been extirpated. Other species, such as Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) and the brown-headed nuthatch (Sitta pusilla), have been affected negatively by habitat loss (Jackson 1988) and the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides borealis) is endangered (Neal and Montague 1991). Average fire return intervals now range from 40 to more than 1,200 years (Masters et al. 1995). Ok so what? The virgin forests aren't like what they were 200 years ago, 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years. I'm not attacking you but your argument, JMO, has turned into "useless banter". You HAVE NO PROOF that every acre of the one million seven hundred acres "HAS ALL BEEN CLEAR CUT" at sometime in the past. The argument of virgin forests JMO is a derailment.
Guest Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) Here are some pics I took in Oklahoma Ouachitas two years ago. Note there are some places deep in there with pretty large Cypress and just wanted to share a variety of views. How old might they be? Edited July 25, 2013 by GEARMAN
Guest Robert2 Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 What a beautiful place. If I was a Wood Ape I would want to live there too.
Cotter Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 Y'know, the more I think about it, I could really care less if the whole durned area was clear cut, nuked, and napalmed in the early 1900's. Today, there's plenty of cover to support many large animals. How they got there? At this point, who cares? Maybe they road trains from Illinois? Maybe they tunneled from the Himilayas. Maybe a giant bird dropped them from the sky. If Bipto's crew can settle this mystery once and for all, we'll worry about that detail (and about a million others) later. Let's not put the cart before the horse here. 1
Drew Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) Cotter I'm totally fine with that. I am simply responding to direct questions. But am happy to stipulate that the condition of the forest in the early 20th century has no bearing on whether the apes are here now, based on our lack of knowledge of locomotion, and nutritional requirements of the apes. I hope you would stipulate that the likelihood of them surviving and sticking it out through the logging operations is very low. I think the idea about the trains bears some research however. Edited July 25, 2013 by Drew
Guest Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 The trains was reference to Stan Courtey's shared possible sighting he reported a while back that spurred another possible report from another that weas similar. As far as BF and Bears being in OK, then declining, then returning with the better grow back and such... Pretty sure they walked quadrapedally and bipedally to get there Probably from the East
Guest Robert2 Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 Cotter I'm totally fine with that. I am simply responding to direct questions. But am happy to stipulate that the condition of the forest in the early 20th century has no bearing on whether the apes are here now, based on our lack of knowledge of locomotion, and nutritional requirements of the apes. I hope you would stipulate that the likelihood of them surviving and sticking it out through the logging operations is very low. I think the idea about the trains bears some research however. I think I heard Stan Courtney say he actually saw one riding on a train. As I recall, it was sitting between boxcars facing away from him in a rural area.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 But am happy to stipulate that the condition of the forest in the early 20th century has no bearing on whether the apes are here now, So what was the point of those posts?
Recommended Posts