N A W A C - Field Study Discussion (2)

[Yuchi1]

Really, sir?

 

I referenced National Geographic and a public education website and you counter with Wiki, arguably the National Enquirer of web publications.

 

Please consider obtaining better quality optics as it may be of benefit in your search for the fly specs within the black pepper.

[georgerm]

Let's get off the owl debate since it's side tracking the more important discussion.

[Guest]

I actually think that anthropomorphizing animals overmuch fails to give them enough credit ...and gives our odious kind far too much.

 

There's some interesting psychology at work in those who look at any animal and see it as superior to us. 

Two separate incidents involved armed humans and UHS/BF (FTF, at varying distances) with the first during an organized "hunt" in Louisiana where a shooter (retired military) observed a female and juvenile at ~20 yards for ~30 minutes (NV scope), yet did not pull the trigger. When later asked by the hunt organizer as to why not, the reply was "their faces looked too human".

 

The other was a daylight sighting (Rogers county, Oklahoma) by an experienced deer hunter (previously, he had taken an 11 point & 14 point buck from the same stand) observing the UHS/BF (binocs & rifle scope) walk (~15:00 HRS) along an open meadow for ~1100 yards. When I asked him (3X) why he didn't take a shot the answer was always the same, "the face looked so human, that I felt murder would have been committed had I done so". In each separate interview, DJ's voice tone level did not rise nor did his pupils dilate. Have known this man for 21 years and if he is anything, it is forthright. The experience so shook him, that was the last year of his participation on the hunting lease. 

 

Take a trip to the large primate house at a zoo and tell me how disturbingly human gorillas look. Even orangs. Paul Du Chaillu, the man who is most responsible for bringing gorilla specimens out of Africa, eventually stopped shooting them because they looked so much like us. 

 

Thing is, though, they aren't. And neither are wood apes. I don't need their DNA to tell me that. Their behavior does it just fine. 

Edited May 11, 2014 by bipto

[georgerm]

There's some interesting psychology at work in those who look at any animal and see it as superior to us. 

 

 

So far my posts have indicated that bigfoots are 'cave men' type animal people. I've posted several pictures, yet your answers skirt the issue or now go to this extreme view that a tiny minority of the membership believes; that is BFs are superior when it comes to intelligence and in all other areas. This is not what I believe. My assertion is they are superior hunters and evaders. If you go  and live in the woods 24/7 then you would develop the same talents.

 

Take a trip to the large primate house at a zoo and tell me how disturbingly human gorillas look. Even orangs. Paul Du Chaillu, the man who is most responsible for bringing gorilla specimens out of Africa, eventually stopped shooting them because they looked so much like us. 

 

Thing is, though, they aren't. And neither are wood apes. I don't need their DNA to tell me that. Their behavior does it just fine. 

 

 

So far, none of my questions have an honest reply.

 

This is another tactic to avoid the truth. The truth is BFs are superior to these 'apes'. Let's say we magically replace all of the BFs that you are hunting with groups of chimps and some groups of gorillas that are magically adapted to the environment. How long would it take you to shoot and kill one of each group?

 

If your conscience is bothering you in regards to killing bigfoot, then 'let your conscience be your guide'. I don't want to shoot BF but I might................just don't know. If it pisses me off and hits me with a big rock then I may.

 

Something needs to happen to stop the wounding of BFs each year and to have its habit protected. BIPTO, I admire your drive to solve possibly the greatest biological of all time.  Your denial and continued use of 'wood apes' is a conscience problem.

[Guest DWA]

^^^Wait.  You'd kill something because - in an effort to protect itself - it hit you with a rock and pissed you off?

 

I'd place NAWAC's motivations far, far loftier than that.

 

It's not "denial" that motivates this nomenclature.  It's an effort to get the discussion on the proper intellectual footing, the lack of which has been the largest contributor to our not knowing, not any attribute of the species under discussion.

 

Every single attempt I have seen to assert that these animals are human amounts to a subjective reaction, not a reasoned conclusion. 

 

I'd rather wait for a taxonomist to make that call.  But evidence so far makes me pretty confident it won't be "us."

 

Which of course shouldn't matter.  And generally doesn't.  We only imagine it does.  The species to which we apply the greatest and most sustained cruelty has been our own.

[georgerm]

Lofty is not my ideal.

 

loftier: Affecting grandness; pompous. 4. Arrogant; haughty.

 

Let's say you are wandering through the woods with your 44 pistol on your hip. Suddenly a huge black bear charges out of the brush and locks its teeth on your leg. Are you going to kill it? It's protecting its cub that you had no intention of hurting. The bear misinterpreted your intentions. It's in the wrong, are you going to kill it?

 

I like animals and have only killed one deer and one bear since both kills caused my conscience to bubble. I skinned, hand tanned the fur, packaged the meat, ate the meat and made my wife a bear tooth neckless. My Indian beliefs are to honor your kill. Fishing for salmon, killing ducks and digging clams is fine with me. I have heart strings for mammals.

Edited May 11, 2014 by salubrious

[Guest DWA]

^^^This is all fine, but "loftier" doesn't only mean that; and heartstrings can motivate many things...including a desire to do what one sees as necessary to conserve and protect.

 

Let any without sin cast a stone; but keep in mind that that's only your judgment and not the whole truth of the matter.

[Guest DWA]

I should probably note, as part of this, that on a recently completed trip to California I saw four wild members of a species that went extinct in the wild in the 1980s.

 

Know who made it extinct in the wild?

 

The people who made it possible for me to see those four in the wild.

 

Nothing's perfect.  But people who act tend to get important things done.

[Guest thermalman]

If they're existing in the wild now, how can they be extinct in the wild?

[Yuchi1]

There's some interesting psychology at work in those who look at any animal and see it as superior to us. 

 

Take a trip to the large primate house at a zoo and tell me how disturbingly human gorillas look. Even orangs. Paul Du Chaillu, the man who is most responsible for bringing gorilla specimens out of Africa, eventually stopped shooting them because they looked so much like us. 

 

Thing is, though, they aren't. And neither are wood apes. I don't need their DNA to tell me that. Their behavior does it just fine. 

 

 

 

IMO, gorillas and chimps do not possess enough homo sapien features to make them indistinguishable, in the field. UHS/BF (per the above referenced sightings) render an appearance that is markedly different and caused two experienced shooters/hunters to refrain from taking the shot, face on.

 

In doing a search on the term, "wood ape" the only references that come up indicate it is a moniker (as created) by TBRC/NAWAC. Is this scientific in basis or simply a euphemism for doing something that the participants know is quite possibly wrong?

 

With NAWAC's predicate for the end result being "to save the species from extinction", I can find no evidence they (NAWAC) have any reasonable basis for what the UHS/BF populations actually are, not to mention any evidence that human activity, such as clear cutting is having a negative effect upon them.

 

Absent such evidence, your position is a weak basis for justification of your activities.

 

In other words, show the tangible (and, verifiable) evidence for your assertions, and I wager the public support would be forthcoming.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Moderator Statement:

 

This topic is closed until further notice.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

This topic is now open.

 

Please refrain from making unfounded implications about other members. The staff will be monitoring this topic to ensure civility among the participants.

 

Please take heed of this staff directive.

[Guest]

Just want to say i hope NAWAC bags a booger soon

[Guest]

Every single attempt I have seen to assert that these animals are human amounts to a subjective reaction, not a reasoned conclusion. 

 

Agreed. They look human or they're too smart to be animals or they walk on two feet or whatever it is. Rick Noll once told me the more you learn about gorillas, the more you're learning about sasquatch and I think that's true. Most of those who think wood apes are nearly human or human generally have a very poor understanding of other great apes, their behaviors and abilities. 

 

I'm no expert, but I and those in my group have done our homework. We call them apes because that's how they act, period. We've not found them to behave in any way inconsistent with other apes. If and when then demonstrate abilities above and beyond that, we would adapt our assumptions accordingly. 

 

We don't think it's our job to have a point of view and then go into the woods and make the facts support that idea. We strive to approach our work as clearly and objectively as possible. Our hypothesis regarding wood apes are based on our observations. No one else's. Not from stories we read on the internet. Not from the findings of deeply flawed DNA studies. Only what we have seen and heard and smelt and felt. 

 

I don't know how to say it any more clearly than that. 

[Drew]

No PhD has said Barred Owls EAT Spotted Owls. They compete for the same resources.The Barred Owls have spread their habitat due to human clear cutting. Humans are the reason for the decline in Spotted Owl populations.

 

You haven't stuck a nerve at all. As I stated before, you are welcome to your opinion. The NAWAC will continue on with its mission.

 

They don't eat them, but they do attack them, compete for nesting, and try to interbreed with them.

Barred owls are larger, more aggressive, and more adaptable than spotted owls. They displace spotted owls, 

disrupt their nesting, and compete with them for food. Researchers have observed barred owls interbreeding 

with or attacking spotted owls in a few cases.

 

 

The main theory on how Barred Owls got to the PNW, is not that people clear cut the PNW, it's that pockets of woods in the Great Plains popped up due to human settlement.

Barred Owls and Spotted Owls both live in Mature forests.  The Great Plains were a Natural Barrier to their expansion until humans settled the area.

 

Now that Barred Owls have made it to the mature forests of the PNW, they are outcompeting the Spotted owls in areas where they both exist.

 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/NorthernSpottedOwl/BarredOwl/Documents/FAQ.Printable.pdf

 

Barred owls were recognized as a threat when the spotted owl was listed, but our understanding of the magnitude of that threat has grown significantly 

since then as their populations continue to expand throughout the forests of the Pacific Northwest. We are concerned that the spotted owl is likely to go extinct in some or all of its range without barred owl management. 

 

 

 

Edited May 12, 2014 by Drew