Guest CaptainMorgan Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 (edited) Assuming that they exist, the discussion of which is the purpose of your being here, then would they benefit in the same way as the cougar? The cougar population rebounded because we shoot them on sight. So being protected affords them protection and enough longevity to procreate. Since we do not shoot BF on sight (as a rule, not that we havent) it's not quite the same analogy. However, with the increase of lands devoted to the Designated Wilderness Areas, it's possible they can can flourish to a greater extent than would otherwise be possible. I have no idea how this could be measurable. Most of our sightings are not in the wilderness areas, because there are far fewer people constantly in those areas. . Edited June 12, 2011 by CaptainMorgan
Guest Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 The first call I'd make is to the Honey Bucket Corporation, because as soon as the word gets out, you're going to need their facilities.
Guest CaptainMorgan Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 You got that straight. My god man, you should see what the hell happened to the best Bumping camp sites last year, it was ruined. I swear it appeared that an entire scout troup had pooped a solid perimeter around the camp and it smelled that way too. There was a near solid line of TP wads around the camp, they had increased the fire pit to some 6' across and moved, removed every structure that had been placed there by other campers. Not to mention, now there is hardly any viable wood to gather within 200' of some of these spots. So the LAST ^%$#@! thing I will ever do, is tell anyone about any particular site that has promise. .
georgerm Posted June 13, 2011 Author Posted June 13, 2011 Why would protecting something, that hasn't been proven in the first place, make their population grow any more than it has now? Right, and this is why BF needs to be accepted as a fact by the science community, then federal protection laws will follow. The science community has a procedure for moving from a theory to a fact. This process is called a peer review paper.
georgerm Posted June 14, 2011 Author Posted June 14, 2011 Jane Goodall has expressed proponent sentiments in the past (despite the best efforts of her staff to keep it quiet). It's too bad since scientist are subject to ridicule even though BF evidence is documented. This is a real impediment to BF research.
Guest Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 Right, and this is why BF needs to be accepted as a fact by the science community, then federal protection laws will follow. But, federal protection laws only apply to species requiring protection. How do you know that bigfoot, if it exists, requires protection?
georgerm Posted June 14, 2011 Author Posted June 14, 2011 But, federal protection laws only apply to species requiring protection. How do you know that bigfoot, if it exists, requires protection? You are hitting the heart of the problem. It's a long process that starts with BF proof, then studies to show BF numbers, then finally protection.
Guest Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 (edited) Been awhile since I have done much of this and somehow came up with a double post.. (sorry grayjay ) I guess in a nutshell that if these creatures are governed by biological law then.. due to the sizeable amount of land and incredible wildlife management being done then there is an excellent chance left alone, they will continue to do what they apparently are doing... reaching more and more areas around the country and continent. Original thoughts follow: Edited June 15, 2011 by treeknocker
Guest Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 (edited) Regarding cougar, in some states where they officially do not exist, (at least as a sizeable population.. but in some cases.. at all) cougar populations have sharply risen. Ask around. Also, politics suggests anything regarding endangered species, and the load of head aches that go with managing it, is not welcome with open arms by everyone. Management tactics for an endangered species that has historically in recent times been eradicated (and is a species that potentially can eat your family) costs money. If states are resisting admitting that Felis concolor (cougar, mt lion, puma, or any number of other local names that are attributed to it) exists in not only small numbers but potentially sizeable populations, imagine the complications regarding a ten foot primate. I think we have a ways to go. Even once proven. Regarding specifics, I suspect there is going to be a ton of scrambling (what are they?) to deal with not only the psychological effects on everyone from wildlife managers, but to archaeologists, sociologists, etc. (not to mention the general public) depending on how the taxonomy falls. In addition to that, what if we are dealing with a series of creatures (that ARE different from one another taxonomically ?? ) that bend the present ways we do things ? Just some thoughts.. I guess I do not see it as a simple in the box management procedure. IF they are another species of Homo, it would be interesting to see how people in general deal with that. If they are something many would refer to as an ape or at least some of them being apelike, then its apparently more wildlife related than if we were dealing with something very close to us. And maybe we are (I suspect so for a load of reasons). Enough people continue to point to that. Or both perhaps. Intriguing. From my point of view, at this time it seems to me, and I am limited in my knowledge and understanding, that if the natural resources are there for them, they will be there. When existing used land areas become either exhausted or too chaotic from human activitity/change they move on. Wildlife managers state by state are knowledgable in making sure existing wildlife corridors connect. The Mississippi River is one. Tributaries running east and west are as well. Mountain ranges, state forests,etc. If you could cover 100 mi in a day or even half that.. I dont see a problem in moving out. I understand family situation but it could undercover and gradual. I dont think we know the limitations and capabilities of what we are dealing very well since they continue to outdistance our efforts to learn more at OUR PACE.. in other words they are slowing us down and stalling us typically. Sunflower mentions how she now sees them different than she used to.. I think we should listen. I think they are on the increase due to the excellent wildlife natural resources that are being restored state by state. Sure, there are areas that suck due to overpopulation by us but there are plenty of areas where.. people just dont go much or if so, seasonally and are easily avoided. Just some more thoughts and possibilities.. lol Edited June 15, 2011 by treeknocker
georgerm Posted June 16, 2011 Author Posted June 16, 2011 I think we should listen. I think they (BF) are on the increase due to the excellent wildlife natural resources that are being restored state by state. Sure, there are areas that suck due to overpopulation by us but there are plenty of areas where.. people just dont go much or if so, seasonally and are easily avoided. Just some more thoughts and possibilities.. lol We just don't know. Well funded primatologist probably avoid BF like the plague.
georgerm Posted June 18, 2011 Author Posted June 18, 2011 (edited) Does anyone know of university trained primatologist who are actively researching BF? It would be interesting to email some of these people to get their opinions on BF. Dr. Frans B.M. de Waal Director, Living Links Center C.H Candler Professor of Psychology, Emory University E-mail: dewaal@emory.edu Curriculum Vitae Frans B.M. de Waal (born 1948, the Netherlands) was trained as a zoologist and ethologist in the European tradition at three Dutch universities (Nijmegen, Groningen, Utrecht), resulting in a Ph.D. in biology from the University of Utrecht, in 1977. His dissertation research concerned aggressive behavior and alliance formation in macaques. In 1975, a six- year project was initiated on the world's largest captive colony of chimpanzees at the Arnhem Zoo. Apart from a large number of scientific papers, this work found its way to the general public with Chimpanzee Politics (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982). In 1981, Dr. de Waal accepted a research position at the Wisconsin Regional Primate Research Center in Madison, Wisconsin, USA. There he began both observational and experimental studies of reconciliation behavior in monkeys. He received the Los Angeles Times Book Award for Peacemaking among Primates (Harvard University Press, 1989) a popularized account of fifteen years of research on conflict resolution in nonhuman primates. Since the mid-1980s, Dr. de Waal also worked with chimpanzees at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center and their close relatives, bonobos, at the San Diego Zoo. Edited June 18, 2011 by georgerm
Guest 127 Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 Call In Who To Habituation Sites? Call in no one. Sign onto the internet and brag about it on web forums and offer no substantiated proof. Refuse to take any photos or offer a reason why you cannot gather any evidence. Then get angry when people question you about why you will not assist in one of the largest discoveries of our time.
Incorrigible1 Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 Call in no one. Sign onto the internet and brag about it on web forums and offer no substantiated proof. Refuse to take any photos or offer a reason why you cannot gather any evidence. Then get angry when people question you about why you will not assist in one of the largest discoveries of our time. You catch on quick. The most damning is those that claim to wish to protect the creatures but can't help posting their every experience (or story, since absolutely nothing will be substantiated).
Guest rockinkt Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 Call in no one. Sign onto the internet and brag about it on web forums and offer no substantiated proof. Refuse to take any photos or offer a reason why you cannot gather any evidence. Then get angry when people question you about why you will not assist in one of the largest discoveries of our time. Game, set, and match!
Guest Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 You are hitting the heart of the problem. It's a long process that starts with BF proof, then studies to show BF numbers, then finally protection. We can't protect a species that is undocumented, but the decision as to whether to afford them protection or not is more than a matter of numbers. Assuming we're talking about protection under the Endangered Species Act, the demographics of the species has to be documented -- where does it live, in what numbers, birth rate, death rate, migration rates. Of course, the public might demand another reason for protection -- e.g., aesthetics -- the desire to afford protection to the only other primate on the continent just because we want to. But even then, many will be rightfully concerned about the consequences of affording such protection when not much is known, and will argue for a delay in decision until further study is done.
Recommended Posts