Guest Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 This topic has once again stopped being about the NAWAC and has turned into a pro/anti-science conversation and debate over how many angels fit on the end of a pin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 @Yuchi. If I'm not mistaken, handguns carried on your person, on private property (not within a city limit), in any state have no restrictions - so long as the firearm is legal (not fully auto or otherwise federally restricted), no? I'm not up to snuff on OK open carry laws in public, but I'm confident on my assessment of private land carry use. Please correct me if I am wrong. A couple of reference sources where you'll find the answers: http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws.aspx http://www.ok.gov/osbi/documents/SDA_Lawbook_NOV_2013.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) Does NAWAC have a legal defense fund in place? Edited May 9, 2014 by Squatchy McSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) I should just know better, but... Yuchi1: Hogs are "wildlife", huh? You need to read page 14 of the hunting regs you posted, s-l-o-w-l-y and carefully. I'll wait. Listen, you don't want to burn your credibility with some of the very well informed forum members on such a piddling point. They, and I, look forward to seeing your contributions in the future. First rule of "holes" my friend. You know it? Good. I stand corrected on the "wildlife" and feral hogs as although they are not game animals in the regulatory sense, they are nontheless regulated by the ODWC and now classifed as nuisance animals. Prior to a couple years ago, the issue was whether swine running loose in the woods/fields were actually feral (wild) hogs or escapees from a commercial operation and/or hogs turned out by their owners to forage the open range. Cattle are also handled in this fashion in many parts of SE Oklahoma and commonly referred to as "woods cattle". Because of rampant depredation caused by feral hogs, the ODWC changed the rules to basically include any swine running loose as feral and therefore subject to being shot and removed from the environment. Hopefully, this clarifies things and (per, Bipto) we can get off the head of this pin. BTW, didja notice the pellet size restriction, as prescribed on p. 14? http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/laws_regs/2013_huntingguide.pdf Edited May 9, 2014 by Yuchi1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 There ya go. Moving on..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Bipto: I feel you man. I wish more would get up to speed before coming on here and acting like they got this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Regarding the nut cracking evidence (original thread), on a property in Rogers county, there is a large rock (~5-6' across) sitting over an outcropping with a "bowl" indentation (~6-7" deep by ~12-14" wide) that was ground into it, complete with a pestle shaped stone that pretty much matched the indentation's dimensions. The next door neighbor (of Cherokee ancestry) stated it was used by NA's to grind nuts (acorns, pecans and some hickory) as a part of their food base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 As I remember it, the nut cracking evidence referred to here wasn't anything like the sophistication of what you are describing. It is, however, consistent with what is documented for chimpanzees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 (edited) Or, mimicry of what they were observing NA's doing in their daily lives. Plus, if "they" tend to live a more migratory lifestyle, the lack of longer term habitation would possibly lend to more rudimentary forms of evidence left behind from the previous location. Edited May 10, 2014 by salubrious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 As I remember it, the nut cracking evidence referred to here wasn't anything like the sophistication of what you are describing. http://thebigfootshow.com/2013/06/25/aw-nuts/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Crows have been shown to solve complex problems in attaining food. How intelligent are crows? As birds go, some crows are very intelligent. A species found on the South Pacific island of New Caledonia manufactures and uses tools from objects such as twigs. American crows also use tools and are adept at learning new tricks, such as getting food out of plastic garbage bags.* *source: http://www.nwf.org/news-and-magazines/national-wildlife/birds/archives/2008/bird-watching.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Man Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Clear cutting was also blamed for the Spotted Owl predicament in the PNW...until, wildlife professionals examined the situation and found that logging was not the problem, it was Barred Owls moving into the Spotted Owl range....and, killing/eating them.ent estimated the whitetail deer herd at ~12,000 animals. In 1970, that estimate was 2,000,000 animals. The major difference in habitat during that time period, yep, clear cutting. How very odd. I was out with a biologist and a timber person today and they stated very clearly that we know that clear-cutting was indeed what caused the problem with Spotted Owls. Barred Owls? No way. Goshawks or Red-Tailed hawks may eat juveniles but barred owls are only in competition for resources. You don't sound like someone who is that educated in either wildlife or conservation. Humans have and will continue to have an affect on the environment. That is why wood apes need protection. Let me help you out just for a minute. I have a BA and an MA in Anthropology. I work professionally as an anthropologist/archaeologist for the last 25 years. I am both a scientist and a wood ape "knower"...I've seen them. With all that knowledge, there is NO doubt that science requires a body - that is how science works. This is not an emotional issue - wood apes are not humans - they are an animal. The idea of conservation is not based on individuals of the species, but the whole of the species. Those of you that are no-kill really haven't looked into yourself and asked why it is you are so selfish. You don't want to lose one for the greater of the whole? Do you want to doom an entire species because you have an emotional relationship with the one? If you are worried about wildlife laws, why do you care? If shooting a wood ape violates some state law, the violation falls on the head of the person making the shot. Don't you think all of the NAWAC have considered this and are willing to take the risk? If you are worried about the safety of a human, your worries are misguided and unwarranted. I've spent 4 weeks there and haven't seen any disregard for safety. I'll be back for another lengthy time period this year. I wouldn't be going there if I was worried a NAWAC member could kill me. Who has time for that? If you are no-kill, fine. Everyone has the right to their opinion. This thread is about the NAWAC field studies and if you don't support it, then great...move on. I would ask moderators to make sure this thread stays on task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 How very odd. I was out with a biologist and a timber person today and they stated very clearly that we know that clear-cutting was indeed what caused the problem with Spotted Owls. Barred Owls? No way. Goshawks or Red-Tailed hawks may eat juveniles but barred owls are only in competition for resources. You don't sound like someone who is that educated in either wildlife or conservation. Humans have and will continue to have an affect on the environment. That is why wood apes need protection. Let me help you out just for a minute. I have a BA and an MA in Anthropology. I work professionally as an anthropologist/archaeologist for the last 25 years. I am both a scientist and a wood ape "knower"...I've seen them. With all that knowledge, there is NO doubt that science requires a body - that is how science works. This is not an emotional issue - wood apes are not humans - they are an animal. The idea of conservation is not based on individuals of the species, but the whole of the species. Those of you that are no-kill really haven't looked into yourself and asked why it is you are so selfish. You don't want to lose one for the greater of the whole? Do you want to doom an entire species because you have an emotional relationship with the one? If you are worried about wildlife laws, why do you care? If shooting a wood ape violates some state law, the violation falls on the head of the person making the shot. Don't you think all of the NAWAC have considered this and are willing to take the risk? If you are worried about the safety of a human, your worries are misguided and unwarranted. I've spent 4 weeks there and haven't seen any disregard for safety. I'll be back for another lengthy time period this year. I wouldn't be going there if I was worried a NAWAC member could kill me. Who has time for that? If you are no-kill, fine. Everyone has the right to their opinion. This thread is about the NAWAC field studies and if you don't support it, then great...move on. I would ask moderators to make sure this thread stays on task. Does the PhD that presented the info about Barred Owls trump your MA? IMO, the tenor & tone of your post appears to indicate I may have struck a nerve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 For the record, I do not condemn the NAWAC in any form or fashion, If my sins are asking questions, so be it. As an outsider, here's the way it looks to me: Science "demands" a body and while that may well be true (especially if you manage to force a carcass down mainstream science's throat) I would submit, there is more than one way to attain a body. NAWAC has conducted multiple operations of a number of years and what do they (publically) have to show for it? ~$50K sunk into the project, some empty shotshell hulls and a few blood-stained rocks. Several members of that group postulate themselves as "knowers" and I am not disputing those claims. Personally, I "know" that UHS/BF appear to possess a level of intelligence quite a ways above any chimpanzee behavior I'm familar about. And, if you really want to save a species from extinction, isn't it good policy to get to know a lot more about it (such as at least a well grounded estimate of the actual populations) in order to at least make educated decisions regarding the best route? If Fossey & Goodall did it, surely it wouldn't be that much more difficult to facilitate such with mere Wood Apes? These UHS/BF have made fools out of better people than me, for sure. Rather than being emotional (as some have accused) my perspective is (to the best of my knowledge & belief) grounded in common sense and how I feel decent human beings should comport themselves. The mercenary approach is certainly one avenue but unfortunately, those on that path often appear to be so hidebound to the dogma, other options may not be viable, especially in order to save face. Just remember that bed may have more than a few lumps, at day's end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 For the record, I do not condemn the NAWAC in any form or fashion, Pinocchio was a bad promotional speaker. You might not wish to try your hand at it, either. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts