Kiwakwe Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Not current, there are documented cases of wolves in even Nebraska. The map excludes a variety of states where they're established and breeding. As for mountain lions / cougars, they've greatly extended their range in the past 40 years. One was captured near one of the busiest intersections of my home of Omaha a dozen years ago, or so. It currently resides in the Henry Doorly zoo. Cougars are found and reported in an enormous amount of their former known territory. In other words, wolves, coyotes, and cougars are currently expanding their territory at a rapid pace. My point was more towards the human response to apex predators. I am aware of the comeback for the wolf and cougar, have seen one of the former here in ME and know 5 folks who've sighted the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Hello Incorrigible1, Or Silverton.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Hiflier, would look forward to looking you up in the gulch, my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Academically, from the bigfoot's perspective, I don't think they will be better off. But I do agree with you that discovery is important, albeit for different reasons. OK, I'll play along. Let's say for a second they are people and not animals. Reservations used to be a curse to native Americans............but now they are a boon. What is the down side to being recognized by the government? The Sinixt in Canada are fighting for exactly that right after being deemed "extinct" by the crown early in the last century. Of course they exist as individuals unlike Sasquatch but not as a group. So no tribal rights such as fishing, a reservation, rolls, etc........ Let's be real, nothing is going to change with discovery other than benefits for the species. The downsides brought up in this thread were very real threats 100 or 200 years ago............but not today. Today the Federal government values a grizzly bears life over that of a human. Any one that has shot a grizzly bear in self defense and found themselves in Federal court understands this. What value does a undiscovered bipedal ape/early human have? Seriously? Could you imagine the amount of eco tourists flocking into the country? The occasional attack/kidnapping would be completely overlooked. It would be huge, sensational and global. As I said earlier? You would not be able to fart with in 200 miles of the epi center of the "find". Sasquatch would be a celebrity of epic proportions, that's a fact. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwakwe Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Norseman, Do you think the protective stance on the grizzly bear has something to do with the fact that they've been reduced to a population of 1200 in the states, down from say 50,000 in the 19th century? If 48,000 griz dropped from the sky tomorrow, history and human nature says we'd kill them back to a comfortable 1200, maybe 1500 if we were feeling generous that day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 (edited) Hello Incorrigible1, Yep, we'll need a good stepping off point to stop the motor of the world. It's as good a place as any. Any Sasquatch run around those parts? If they were good enough as allies for the Seminoles they oughta be good enough for us Hello Kiwakwe and Norseman, The dynamic is different now. Grizzlies are established in limited geographic range. If Sasquatch exists there's no evidence that it's the same. Sightings are all over and they are in some very sensitive areas of serious economic pursuit. Edited April 9, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwakwe Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Hello Kiwakwe and Norseman, The dynamic is different now. Grizzlies are established in limited geographic range. If Sasquatch exists there's no evidence that it's the same. Sightings are all over and they are in some very sensitive areas of serious economic pursuit. Hey hiflier, Are you saying you think SSQ would have less of a chance for protection in areas of economic pursuit? My guess is If you're an apex predator who's good at what you do and humans can't control your numbers nor geographic range, you're not getting protection from us puny bipeds till you meet the above criteria. That, and protecting you doesn't interfere with the profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 (edited) Hello kiwakwe, Not at all. My issue with protection is that the only way it will happen is by official recognition. That's just not going to happen unless it's forced. There's just too much at stake with the huge industries so active and dependent on public AND private lands and there's strategic issues as well. There's some threads on this aspect. One being "Is Sasquatch A Secret" started by none other than yours truly. Edited April 9, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Norseman, Do you think the protective stance on the grizzly bear has something to do with the fact that they've been reduced to a population of 1200 in the states, down from say 50,000 in the 19th century? If 48,000 griz dropped from the sky tomorrow, history and human nature says we'd kill them back to a comfortable 1200, maybe 1500 if we were feeling generous that day. Are you suggesting there are 50,000 Sasquatch in North America? Anyhow we have 30,000 grizzly bears living in one US state. Can you point to the whole sale genocide of grizzly bears there? You can't. Why? Is because of modern day conservation practices! Except we cannot apply these same practices to squatch? Why? Because they don't exist. Hello Incorrigible1, Yep, we'll need a good stepping off point to stop the motor of the world. It's as good a place as any. Any Sasquatch run around those parts? If they were good enough as allies for the Seminoles they oughta be good enough for us Hello Kiwakwe and Norseman, The dynamic is different now. Grizzlies are established in limited geographic range. If Sasquatch exists there's no evidence that it's the same. Sightings are all over and they are in some very sensitive areas of serious economic pursuit. The dynamic is different because we have data on one species and we are you know what in the wind with the other. But if Sasquatch was as common and as urbanized as some claim? We would have had a body by now. Let's just say I take some reports much more seriously than others..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest keninsc Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Wow, you guys need to focus and stay on the subject, which is a subjective subject to begin with, but we're not re-establishing slavery, grinding the Redman under our heels or declaring open season on Bigfoot. Once a real creature is established then you simply pass laws that say, "Ya'll leave Bigfoot alone." Naturally, it'll have to be done by ten Philadelphia lawyers and take up five legal length pages, but that another matter. Me thinks you make must ado about nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwakwe Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Are you suggesting there are 50,000 Sasquatch in North America? Anyhow we have 30,000 grizzly bears living in one US state. Can you point to the whole sale genocide of grizzly bears there? You can't. Why? Is because of modern day conservation practices! Except we cannot apply these same practices to squatch? Why? Because they don't exist. No, not suggesting that at all, no suggestion whatsoever about alleged bf populations. Yes, 30,000 griz in Alaska, 1200 for the contiguous states where previous estimates were 50,000 according to what I've read. You live in Alaska because of things like that, because of its wildness, not so, us sissies in the lower 48. It really was a question, would we tolerate 50,000 griz in the lower 48 today? I've my doubts, it's possible SSQ will get protection post discovery but it would be the exception to how we've historically dealt with predators of their caliber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 No way, grizzly bear populations are protected and growing in the lower 48 under the ESA. Not sure what the target population is but it's way more than what it is...... Goggle YtoY sometime...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 (edited) Hello Kiwakwe, This is not to say that the few reports of Sasquatch being shot isn't the tip of the iceberg. Humans to include NA's, Europeans and later settlers, military, explorers, trappers and hunters may have decimated the Creature to whatever low levels of population there are now. Maybe took 'em down like bears. There's been discussion on the Forum on whether or not their numbers are now o the increase so sasquatch may have indeed gone the way of the Bison and Grizzly and so many other species. North American mega fauna took a real hit once Humans crossed the land bridge so say many historians and their studies. So a type specimen seems the next logical move since we have specimens of nearly everything on this planet. Science requires this as a rule. It's why I think springtime searches for cadavers who succumbed to winter for various reasons is as important an endeavor as the actual hunt for a live one. Edited April 9, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Hiflier- a type specimen is not the next logical step unless you are in a money rush.Start to try thinking about what would truely be benificial for the Sas. Federal protocals are already established for taking extant creatures stated to me by a field biologist at the natl. hdq. at the USF&W serv. and killing one is not on the list simply stated that you don't know what you are shooting and that DNA would sufficent if recorded properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 (edited) Hello ptangier,Well, I'm not in this for the money as it is nevermind being in a rush. There are folks out to kill one UNLESS one is found already dead. So I think searching for a dead one is a good endeavor. It may not be a noble cause but, if populations are low, then taking a live one for the sake of scientific acknowledgement kind of should be low on the list. Not out of the question, but not the highest priority either. If they live they die. Period. And IMHO the BEST time to look for one is at winter's end or seasonally a bit before. EVERY YEAR. BY EVERYBODY who wants closure. Come to think of it? It may be a noble cause afterall. Logging trucks have grappling hooks.....makes me wonder if any of 'em have ever stopped to toss a road-killed specimen on top of the logpile in their travels. Edited April 9, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts