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

[Yuchi1]

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. 

 

Bipto,

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

I will say this, NAWAC's "hypothesis" does have some striking parallel to how white europeans viewed and described NA's when they first invaded this continent.

 

Also, regarding NAWAC's publication the basis for killing one is to save them from extinction because of habitat loss, et. al., does NAWAC have any actual verifiable evidence of such (populations/habitat loss in SE Oklahoma) or is it just another hypothesis based upon something else (feelings?) or perhaps a simple, lack of understanding?

Edited May 12, 2014 by Yuchi1

[Guest]

I will say this, NAWAC's "hypothesis" does have some striking parallel to how white europeans viewed and described NA's when they first invaded this continent.

 

And I find that insulting on many levels. 

 

...does NAWAC have any actual verifiable evidence of such (populations/habitat loss in SE Oklahoma) or is it just another hypothesis based upon something else (feelings?) or perhaps a simple, lack of understanding?

 

The loss of prime habitat is well documented for many large animals in North America as are the resulting consequences. As an example, I'd direct your attention to this recent article regarding habitat loss in Canada as the kind of thing that serves as a prime motivator for us. 

Edited May 12, 2014 by bipto

[Drew]

I agree, that habitat loss due to human encroachment is the number one threat facing wild primates/apes across the globe.   

I do not see the point in arguing that fact.

[Guest]

Mark your calendars, folks. Drew and I are in agreement!

[Guest Stan Norton]

When studying for my undergraduate degree here in the UK twenty years ago, we studied the Spotted owl as a perfect case study of the impacts of profound land use change on a protected species and the implications for land management and planning. We also used Conservation Biology by Meffe et al which, if you care to read it, is chock full of examples of what bipto is talking about. It's not rocket science: it's ecology.

[Hairy Man]

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Yes Drew, that is what I already said.  Yuchi1 said that barred owls ate spotted owls, which isn't true. It's human behavior that has allowed for the barred owls to expand.

[Will]

When studying for my undergraduate degree here in the UK twenty years ago, we studied the Spotted owl as a perfect case study of the impacts of profound land use change on a protected species and the implications for land management and planning. We also used Conservation Biology by Meffe et al which, if you care to read it, is chock full of examples of what bipto is talking about. It's not rocket science: it's ecology.

In "profound land use change" are you talking about the small pockets of timber being logged or the spotted owl having a nest in a Kmart sign?

[Drew]

Yes Drew, that is what I already said.  Yuchi1 said that barred owls ate spotted owls, which isn't true. It's human behavior that has allowed for the barred owls to expand.

 

You said Barred Owl expansion was due to clear cutting in post #141.

 

The Barred Owls have spread their habitat due to human clear cutting. 

 

That is the only point I was trying to counter.

I agree that 'human behavior' has allowed Barred Owl to expand, however clear cutting doesn't help either species since they both require mature/old growth forest, and it certainly wouldn't lead to the expansion of the Barred Owl.

[Guest Stan Norton]

In "profound land use change" are you talking about the small pockets of timber being logged or the spotted owl having a nest in a Kmart sign?

Haven't really got a clue what you're on about but the Spotted owl was and is an exemplar of the impacts of profound changes in land use on a species generally associated with old growth or any least relatively undisturbed natural/semi-natural woodland habitats.

As far as I am aware, the Barred owl is more common and widespread and less reliant as a rule on old growth forest. It's akin to our Eurasian Tawny owl which is quite catholic in its habitat.

Edited May 12, 2014 by Stan Norton

[Guest DWA]

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

A little read-up on the California condor and the red wolf should clear this right up.

[Drew]

As far as I am aware, the Barred owl is more common and widespread and less reliant as a rule on old growth forest. It's akin to our Eurasian Tawny owl which is quite catholic in its habitat.

 

The Barred Owl is an indicator species for old growth forests.  It's existence in an ecosystem is indicative of old growth forests.

Edited May 12, 2014 by Drew

[Guest DWA]

^^^Absolutely not true, says this guy who has hiked extensively in second and third growth and seen lots (and heard lots more) of barred owls in that habitat.

 

(And in suburban neighborhoods.)

 

Spotted, yes.

 

Barred:  no.

And the Eurasian tawny is likely from a common ancestor; they're almost eco-clones.

Edited May 12, 2014 by DWA

[Guest Stan Norton]

The Barred Owl is an indicator species for old growth forests. It's existence in an ecosystem is indicative of old growth forests.

That would be the (northern) Spotted owl. Barred owl is widespread and found in a wide range of wooded habitats. It may well be found in old growth forest but its presence alone does not indicate old growth.

Edited May 12, 2014 by Stan Norton

[Yuchi1]

And I find that insulting on many levels. 

 

It certainly is, nonetheless, a matter of history.

 

 

The loss of prime habitat is well documented for many large animals in North America as are the resulting consequences. As an example, I'd direct your attention to this recent article regarding habitat loss in Canada as the kind of thing that serves as a prime motivator for us. 

 

Are there any documented studies on habitat loss for Oklahoma?

 

Any on UHS/BF/Wood Ape population densities?

[Guest DWA]

^^^That's not serious.

 

Pick any of the states but AK.  Habitat loss severe to catastrophic is the norm.