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

[Yuchi1]

^^^That's not serious.

 

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

 

DWA,

 

What is being ignored is the ability to adapt and survive by many species. If whitetail deer are one of the primary food sources of UHS/BF/WA, there should be a corresponding increase in the predators as the prey (deer) populations are at all time highs.*

Feral hog populations are also increasing at epidemic rates providing yet another food source.

 

Some people accuse no-kill advocates from operating primarily on emotion yet, the other side of the aisle appears to be omitting the cause/effect engineering of changing land useage and the positive effects derived therefrom.

 

 

*

Although the recovery of

deer populations from only about

500,000 nationwide in the early 1900s to

more than 15 million today is considered

a wildlife management success story,

many people increasingly view the situation

with mixed feelings.

 

source: http://wildlifecontrol.info/pubs/Documents/Deer/Deer_factsheet.pdf

Edited May 12, 2014 by Yuchi1

[Guest DWA]

^^^Increases in prey aren't the only factor in population size for predators.  They're a major one; but they aren't the only one.

 

It's highly doubtful that sasquatch subsist mainly on deer and hogs.  These animals could actually be considered competitors for some foodstuffs; and the decreases in those foods can more than offset predation opportunities.

 

It's much harder killing large prey than foraging for vegetable food stuffs, one of the primary reasons that omnivores are omnivores.

Edited May 12, 2014 by DWA

[Guest Stan Norton]

Do you not think that an exponential increase in deer numbers might actually be detrimental to general biodiversity and possibly be indicative of ecosystem imbalance? Especially when coupled with predator persecution, habitat degradation, encroachment, fragmentation, increasing homogeneity blah blah blah...

The UK deer population is at an all time high and this is without any doubt seen as an ecological problem of the first order rather than a cause for celebration.

[Guest Stan Norton]

In addition, predator-prey relationships are not a simple matter of numbers: more prey does not equal more predators. Population dynamics are a little more complex.

You can bet your last dollar that the folks at NAWAC are aware of the subtleties of ecological science. As stated clearly in their MO, the first step is to provide evidence that will gain the species acceptance...conservation will follow. Don't like that approach? Well, front up your own evidence and save the forest folk.

Edited May 12, 2014 by Stan Norton

[Yuchi1]

In addition, predator-prey relationships are not a simple matter of numbers: more prey does not equal more predators. Population dynamics are a little more complex.

You can bet your last dollar that the folks at NAWAC are aware of the subtleties of ecological science. As stated clearly in their MO, the first step is to provide evidence that will gain the species acceptance. Don't like it? Well, front up your own evidence.

 

Stan,

 

The basic benchmark with predator species populations rise/fall has long been correlated with it's prey species population fluctuations. Granted, there are other factors however, if habitat conditions are degrading, prey species should also been following suite however, such isn't the case.

 

The angle that their salad bar is diminishing (for predators) as prey populations increase is still lacking any science when it comes to UHS/BF/WA populations.

 

In other words, the case for the causal relationship between (alleged) declining habitat conditions and (alleged) predator population decline is a huge leap in logic when the facts show their food chain base is increasing by leaps and bounds.  As they say in Tennessee, that dawg won't hunt.

 

Additionally, the lack of any data on actual UHS/BF/WA populations makes any position regarding their possible extinction hazard as nothing more than unadulterated speculation and conjecture.

 

IMO, NAWAC has their cart in front of the horse.  Prove the habitat conditions (for the range of UHS/BF/WA) are degrading and that their corresponding food source(s) are also diminishing and then you'll have the science and possibly legislative/judicial backing/authority to "save" the UHS/BF/WA's. What's shooting one going to prove (regarding the extinction hypothesis)? Nothing, unless you can find a real skinny one to shoot.

 

In other words, there really is no way to pick up a turd by it's clean end.

[Guest DWA]

Well, wrong, but thanks for playing.

 

When one doesn't have a true scientific baseline, of any kind, for an animal, one assumption is safe:  habitat loss, bad.  Another one:  habitat loss is happening, as this sentence is typed.

 

Another is as well:  the "salad bar" is indeed diminishing for everything else when the population of one salad eater is out of control.

Again, deer are not sasquatch's "food chain base."  

 

The things deer eat?

 

Yes, they are.

I am utterly at a loss as to how anyone who walks around with his eyes open can be in doubt about ecosystem collapse pretty much throughout North America.  One doesn't need to do studies; one just needs to get outside more.

Sitting on one's hands waiting for proof is like waiting for one's gas tank to empty to ascertain whether forward progress might subsequently be an issue.

[Guest]

^^^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.

 

FWIW, there's a healthy population of barred owls in the Ouachitas. Much of that is second or third growth. 

 

And I find that insulting on many levels. 

 

It certainly is, nonetheless, a matter of history.

 

 

If you're suggesting Native American human cultures are/were equitable in any way to whatever bigfoot is and how it lives, you're not a serious person and I won't waste my time on you. 

Edited May 12, 2014 by bipto

[Guest Stan Norton]

But the deer example is duff. Deer are thriving because of anthropogenic factors. Habitat changes brought on by human activities tend to favour generalists and there are no more generalist herbivores than deer: catholic foodstuffs, adaptable, widespread and they have us taking out most of their natural predators. Deer are having a time. Big hairy fierce things? Not so much. Anywhere on the planet.

[Yuchi1]

FWIW, there's a healthy population of barred owls in the Ouachitas. Much of that is second or third growth. 

 

If you're suggesting Native American human cultures are/were equitable in any way to whatever bigfoot is and how it lives, you're not a serious person and I won't waste my time on you. 

 

What I am referring to was the prevailing attitude and belief system of the white europeans toward NA's (during that time period) and the potential correlation to NAWAC's position on UHS/BF/WA.  If they were truly on a par with gorilla's, chimps, etc. they would be relatively easy to find and kill as those primates have so been for the past ~100 years.  The fact people have been gunning for UHS/BF/WA for decades with basically nothing to show for it (forensically speaking) clearly indicates the subject has intelligence superior to the great apes. I not saying UHS/BF/WA's are necessarily Rhodes Scholars, however, they've outwitted many people for extended periods and at least the NA's had sense enough to not mess with them unless in self-defense. 

[Yuchi1]

But the deer example is duff. Deer are thriving because of anthropogenic factors. Habitat changes brought on by human activities tend to favour generalists and there are no more generalist herbivores than deer: catholic foodstuffs, adaptable, widespread and they have us taking out most of their natural predators. Deer are having a time. Big hairy fierce things? Not so much. Anywhere on the planet.

 

Stan,

 

Cannot speak for your locale however, here in Oklahoma as well as much of the southeastern USA, the whitetail deer populations have dramatically increased over the past century.  I hunt, fish with and have as clients several department biologists and we've had numerous conversations whilst sitting in the duck blind or in the boat, about wildlife.  Their opinion is these increases are due to a variety of factors with two (2) being at the top of the list. First, is clear-cutting as it continually provides a huge base of forage (years 1-4) after the timbering is done. Mature forests and their canopy simply do not allow for such a bonanza of edible habitat.

 

The second factor is LE in nature with poaching becoming more of a focus and the apparent diminishment of such activities. In many jurisdictions it is now a felony with incarceration, fines and property forfeitures.

 

And yes, we are polluting our nest (earth) at an alarming rate and future generations may well feel the wrath of mother nature as she will restore equilibrium at some point and may well do so with a catastrophic hand. Meanwhile, flora and fauna are adapting as best they can with some apparently doing better than others. As such, shouldn't it be incumbent to actually indentify (via real science) those life forms that truly need conservation efforts rather than rely on SWAG logic to foster a mandate that may be based more upon conjecture than reality?

Edited May 12, 2014 by Yuchi1

[Yuchi1]

Do you not think that an exponential increase in deer numbers might actually be detrimental to general biodiversity and possibly be indicative of ecosystem imbalance? Especially when coupled with predator persecution, habitat degradation, encroachment, fragmentation, increasing homogeneity blah blah blah...

The UK deer population is at an all time high and this is without any doubt seen as an ecological problem of the first order rather than a cause for celebration.

 

Stan, not to sound untoward, but in this country, hunting is a business that produces revenue into the billions of dollars and is an endeavour available to people from virtually all stations in life, not just the province of the well-heeled so, it that respect, it is a cause for celebration, here.

[Guest DWA]

Stan,

 

Cannot speak for your locale however, here in Oklahoma as well as much of the southeastern USA, the whitetail deer populations have dramatically increased over the past century.  I hunt, fish with and have as clients several department biologists and we've had numerous conversations whilst sitting in the duck blind or in the boat, about wildlife.  Their opinion is these increases are due to a variety of factors with two (2) being at the top of the list. First, is clear-cutting as it continually provides a huge base of forage (years 1-4) after the timbering is done. Mature forests and their canopy simply do not allow for such a bonanza of edible habitat.

 

Sasquatch, from all evidence, are primarily forest animals.  Ergo, the case for habitat destruction, you just prima facie made.

 

 As such, shouldn't it be incumbent to actually indentify (via real science) those life forms that truly need conservation efforts 

 

This is - precisely and couldn't be more so - what NAWAC is doing.  

 

rather than rely on SWAG logic to foster a mandate that may be based more upon conjecture than reality?

 

This isn't SWAG.  The evidence is overwhelming that sasquatch is real, yet the mainstream is still ignorant of the evidence.  Here's how science works:  evidence narrows down the search; you go where the evidence tells you to go; you collect the type specimen.  What's happening here.  If you've been present for this thread:  NAWAC knows they exist.  They are acting upon PROOF, not SWAG.  That the proof sufficient to the society hasn't been obtained yet couldn't be more irrelevant.

Edited May 12, 2014 by DWA

[Cotter]

@Yuchi - It's funny I read your posts and agree with about 1/2 and disagree with the other.  Oh well....se la vi.

 

If I may ask (please do not answer if you do not want to)......are by chance of Native American descent?

[Yuchi1]

 

Stan,

 

Cannot speak for your locale however, here in Oklahoma as well as much of the southeastern USA, the whitetail deer populations have dramatically increased over the past century.  I hunt, fish with and have as clients several department biologists and we've had numerous conversations whilst sitting in the duck blind or in the boat, about wildlife.  Their opinion is these increases are due to a variety of factors with two (2) being at the top of the list. First, is clear-cutting as it continually provides a huge base of forage (years 1-4) after the timbering is done. Mature forests and their canopy simply do not allow for such a bonanza of edible habitat.

 

Sasquatch, from all evidence, are primarily forest animals.  Ergo, the case for habitat destruction, you just prima facie made.

 

As are whitetail deer (forest dwellers) yet they have successfully adapted to clear cutting and even thrived by virtue of such. To postulate UHS/BF/WA hasn't done the same seems a tad myopic, wouldn't you say?

 

 As such, shouldn't it be incumbent to actually indentify (via real science) those life forms that truly need conservation efforts 

 

This is - precisely and couldn't be more so - what NAWAC is doing.  

 

You say science and others have said, an agenda driven by greed and ego.

 

Is there anywhere in NAWAC's documents (Mission Statement, etc.) where it states that all proceeds derived from the killing of a UHS/BF will go into a trust/foundation designated solely for the benefit of the UHS/BF?

 

rather than rely on SWAG logic to foster a mandate that may be based more upon conjecture than reality?

 

This isn't SWAG.  The evidence is overwhelming that sasquatch is real, yet the mainstream is still ignorant of the evidence.  Here's how science works:  evidence narrows down the search; you go where the evidence tells you to go; you collect the type specimen.  What's happening here.  If you've been present for this thread:  NAWAC knows they exist.  They are acting upon PROOF, not SWAG.  That the proof sufficient to the society hasn't been obtained yet couldn't be more irrelevant.

 

IMO, you're a bit off on a tangent as my contention is not the protocol of modern scientific method rather, the subject targeted may well be something more than a mere ape. The many years NAWAC's own field work and frustrations are IMO, the "evidence" of such. If this entity was a mere great ape, what are the odds they would have tagged & bagged one by now?  NAWAC people are not obtuse individuals, they are intelligent persons and IMO, know they're chasing something that possesses a higher level of intelligence than Cheetah. 

 

 

 

[Guest DWA]

 

 

Stan,

 

Cannot speak for your locale however, here in Oklahoma as well as much of the southeastern USA, the whitetail deer populations have dramatically increased over the past century.  I hunt, fish with and have as clients several department biologists and we've had numerous conversations whilst sitting in the duck blind or in the boat, about wildlife.  Their opinion is these increases are due to a variety of factors with two (2) being at the top of the list. First, is clear-cutting as it continually provides a huge base of forage (years 1-4) after the timbering is done. Mature forests and their canopy simply do not allow for such a bonanza of edible habitat.

 

 

As are whitetail deer (forest dwellers) yet they have successfully adapted to clear cutting and even thrived by virtue of such. To postulate UHS/BF/WA hasn't done the same seems a tad myopic, wouldn't you say?

 

No.  Whitetails are primarily EDGE animals; they're increasing because deforestation is giving them more of what they prefer.

 

You say science and others have said, an agenda driven by greed and ego.

 

That (like the they're-human! take) is a subjective judgment.

 

Is there anywhere in NAWAC's documents (Mission Statement, etc.) where it states that all proceeds derived from the killing of a UHS/BF will go into a trust/foundation designated solely for the benefit of the UHS/BF?

 

That's angels and pinheads.  I don't care.  They're doing what needs to be done to confirm.  Period.  It's beyond funny to think anyone in this is in it for money (the ones like Dyer and Biscardi - who actually are - are WAY beyond funny.  There is no money in this).

 

rather than rely on SWAG logic to foster a mandate that may be based more upon conjecture than reality?

 

 

IMO, you're a bit off on a tangent as my contention is not the protocol of modern scientific method rather, the subject targeted may well be something more than a mere ape.

 

Which is the actual tangent, as no evidence supports it, and apes aren't "mere" anything; and this separation of humans (which we kill indiscriminately and primarily for no good reason) and "mere" apes is more angels and pins silliness.

 

The many years NAWAC's own field work and frustrations are IMO, the "evidence" of such. If this entity was a mere great ape, what are the odds they would have tagged & bagged one by now?  NAWAC people are not obtuse individuals, they are intelligent persons and IMO, know they're chasing something that possesses a higher level of intelligence than Cheetah. 

 

 

Nope.  Too many people who understand little if anything about science fail to understand that NAWAC is pretty much on schedule, for people whose involvement couldn't be charitably called 'part-time.'  Who's written the book on hunting this species yet, and honed that book for thousands of years, the way we have for everything else?  Nobody.