N A W A C - Field Study Discussion

[Painthorse]

So what was the point of those posts?

Exactly, good question!

[Guest Silent Sam]

What a beautiful place. If I was a Wood Ape I would want to live there too.

If you're lucky enough to be there you're lucky enough.

[Guest Robert2]

If you're lucky enough to be there you're lucky enough.

 

Have you been there, SS? 

[Guest]

A 7th grade study guide? Are you serious?

 

When I was in 3rd grade (in the 1970's) my History textbook said that Bison were EXTINCT. I told my teacher that they were not extinct, and that I had seen them. She told me that I was mistaken. While we were visiting my grandparents, my mother took a picture of me with four Bison in the background. The Indian reservation next to my Grandfathers farm had several breeding pair which were practically as tame as all of the other livestock. If you approached quietly and slowly, you could hand feed them grass at the fenceline.

 

I just did my own search, and what I found claims that the ESTIMATED deer population fell as low as 500 individuals. Thats 350 animals off from your source. If you are an experienced bow hunter, than you understand how easily most wild animals can evade humans. Do you understand how animal populations are determined? There is no possible way that people at that time (or even now) someone can definitively determine an actual animal population in an area that large.

 

Frankly, these points have become very tired issues.............

[Guest]

The argument of virgin forests JMO is a derailment.

 

Exactly. Par for the course. 

I am simply responding to direct questions.

 

Hardly. You've brought up this tired old saw about twenty times and prevaricated your way out of the discussion each time only to resurrect it again. I can only wish this will be the last time we see it here.

[norseman]

There is absolutely no question that wildlife and forests took a big hit by the end of the last century.

On my mothers side they were loggers in the ozarks that moved to the cascades at the turn of the last century. Because the trees were bigger there were less people which equaled bigger opportunities.

With that said? They were still cutting trees and eating venison when they left Missouri. They never were forced to become cobblers or blacksmiths. But obviously it was bad enough they left.

My opinion is is that it never got as bad as what is usually portrayed which is a moon scape. Iceland and Lebanon are devoid of trees despite having large forests at one time. So if we are talking zero then it still would be zero......there would have been nothing to rebound from and rebound it did. With human help as well as good ole Mother Nature.

I'll be open in the fact that I have been skeptical about a eastern Sasquatch in the past. Bipto's group I feel has had some compelling things happen to them that has reshaped my thinking.

Ultimately the past doesn't matter.... Whether squatch fled before the onslaught or hid out in the past is a mystery. What is important is the here and now. The NAWAC is a skeptics best friend......your asking for physical evidence and they are attempting to deliver! Rejoice in that fact! Not many organization's attempt or agree with that approach!

Skeptics are right to point out the improbabilities of such a creature existing, I see that. But I don't understand the attempt to undermine those that are taking an honest approach with a definitive objective with this mystery. They are doing so because they experienced something not of the ordinary.

So lighten up!

[Airdale]

Plus, Norse. Where I live, in the western foothills of the Elkhorn Mountains, I know there was logging going on because one of the jobs my dad had in his late teens in the early 1920's was driving a WWI surplus army truck modified to haul logs down McClellan Creek Road that runs about 1/4 mile from my house. Brakes were poor on those and he had to chain 3 logs as a drag brake to keep control. Despite the logging and mining, and some major forest fires as recently as 1988, the forest and the game seems to have recovered well:

 

 

View west from my deck

 

View south west from my driveway

 

View south from my front yard

 

View SSE from front yard

 

View into backyard from basement door

 

There's lots more, but I think these are representative. Are these forests "virgin"? Not according to Drew's map. Nor are they an impenetrable tangle of undergrowth (except in my creek bottom). They do seem to be fully functional however.

[Guest]

Great post (as usual) Norseman. (+)

[Drew]

I was correcting Bipto's claim here: 

 

Yes it has. By an employee of the US Forest Service who, in her line of work, has learned how to look this kind of stuff up. 

 

Which is referencing A US Forest Service worker who made an incorrect statement.

 

Her statement was that the Ouachitas in Oklahoma fell under the Arkansas National Forest declaration in 1907, which it did not.

 

I wish she would come on here and correct that.

Then Irish73 asked how the bears got there, so I posted how the bears got there.

[the parkie]

IMG_4980.JPG

View SSE from front yard

 

IMG_3776.JPG

View into backyard from basement door

 

 

 

Great photos, thanks for sharing. It would appear that your house is slap bang on one of those 'weather borders' I keep reading about. If you want some summer you go to your front yard and if you're in the mood for some snow and cold then you just go out the back. Absolutely amazing.

Edited July 26, 2013 by the parkie

[Drew]

Are there any lakes or ponds in the area?  A place for them to cool off when the summer gets too hot, and streams dry up?

[Guest]

Drew, the streams do not dry up and this is key to the area and other "hot" spots in Oklahoma.

 

[Painthorse]

BEAUTIFUL area Airdale!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Drew, found this----->The Forest Service estimates that about 800,000 acres of Ouachita National Forest is covered with old-growth timber, never logged because the pain of removing the timber was more than the timber was worth.

 

That's basically  just a tad bit less than the 1,700,000 acres. (never logged)

 

Now, even though I found that info in ref to the Ar side, I'm currently waiting for a call back or an e-mail from the Ok forest service.The person I spoke to this morning believes that even though the declaration of 1907 is named under Arkansas, he believes that it still included the Oklahoma side of the Ouachita national forest, but wants to be sure so I'm waiting on a response.

 

But, again, I still don't think this has any bearing on the activity for X.

[Drew]

http://web.saumag.edu/aas/files/2012/09/11_2008.pdf

 

The Oklahoma portion was not part of the Ouachita National forest until 1926.

 

I have no doubt that there are 800000 acres of Old Growth Timber in the Ouachita National Forest.  Remember that the Arkansas portion of the park was protected from unregulated logging starting in 1907.  However, this forced the lumbermen into Oklahoma, which wasn't protected until 1926.   I'm sure some of that true Old Growth forest is in the Oklahoma side of the Ouachita National forest.   Oklahoma says only 200,000 acres of Virgin Timber remains in Eastern Oklahoma, how much of that is on the Oklahoma side of the Ouachitas?

 

http://www.forestry.ok.gov/lost-forest

 

 

 

From the USDA FS document about the History of the Ouachita and Ozark NF http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5143491.pdf

 

 

On December 3,1930, President Hoover fulfilled theproposal of President Coolidge and extended theOuachita NF into Le Flore County, Oklahoma. This

became possible when the National Forest Reservation Commission approved for purchase more than53,000 acres of cutover and burned timberland fromthe Buschow Lumber Company (Stuart 1931). RangerWally Prater predicted that it would take 60 years before the forests would ever produce marketable pines. In 1931, additional acreage was secured to protect watersheds on the Canadian and Poteau Rivers

 

 

Edited July 26, 2013 by Drew

[Painthorse]

 

http://web.saumag.edu/aas/files/2012/09/11_2008.pdf

 

The Oklahoma portion was not part of the Ouachita National forest until 1926.

 

I have no doubt that there are 800000 acres of Old Growth Timber in the Ouachita National Forest.  Remember that the Arkansas portion of the park was protected from unregulated logging starting in 1907.  However, this forced the lumbermen into Oklahoma, which wasn't protected until 1926.   I'm sure some of that true Old Growth forest is in the Oklahoma side of the Ouachita National forest.   Oklahoma says only 200,000 acres of Virgin Timber remains in Eastern Oklahoma, how much of that is on the Oklahoma side of the Ouachitas?

 

http://www.forestry.ok.gov/lost-forest

 

 

 

From the USDA FS document about the History of the Ouachita and Ozark NF http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5143491.pdf

 

 

So, we have established that the entire ONF has never been entirely clear cut, dates of proclamations, history, virgin vs non virgin, etc.

Soo, in a nut shell, what the hell does this all have to do with what's going on in area X ?  I forgot how we even got to this point and I'm not going to waste my time and re-read back to where the topic first began, I don't have enough Tylenol left.

 

I'm more interested in what's going on in area X vs the above history b/s. So I'm done dragging out with you in this thread something that I no longer deem as usable data in ref to activity in X.