06-17-2008, 11:49 PM
You asked basically the same question tlspyder13 asked. Please read my post responding to him just above yours first before the stuff below.
Again, what you are proving to me is that a dedicated group of researchers whos job is to research bears finds them. You will see in my post that I talk about Dr. Lynn Rogers, a bear biologist. What you are proving is completely different from the argument that was originally put forth.
Yellowstone is not a completey natural setting for this particualr issue either. Almost every single bear there is monitored so nothing is coincidental, casual, or random. Same thing with the wolf situation you describe. They were re-introduced as you well know. Most of the time, the biologists know their movements and can predict them easily.
The quotations you put in your post from me were intended for a different context. I wrote them to answer why Bigfoot carcasses should not be expected.
The fact that you and other hunters find these dead animals does not necessarily make my question invalid. I intended it to be interpreted literally. It does not say that such animals are never found. Only that it happens relatively rarely when all hunting trips are taken into account. The small number of carcass and remain findings, like yours really make no difference in the overall average of finds, which is low. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to say that such cases are rare, almost zero if the mathematical statisics are done.
I am getting my information mainly from two books written by anthropologits and primatologits/biologits. If you go way back to the beginning of this Bigfoot discussion, when catfish_logic posted some Bigfoot news in California, you will see that I repeatedly mention the book:
Sasqautch:Legend Meets Science, written by Dr. Jeff Meldrum from Idaho State University. He does a much better, heck of alot better job of explaining your questions and what I have written so far. This is why I kept mentioning and braggin about it. In this book you will see mathematical analyses, distrubutions of remains, carcasses and such. Basically it addressed the very things we are talking about here.
If you were serous about reading, I would love to give you page numbers and paragraphs and such. I would also suggest looking up Dr. Lynn Rogers and reading some of his stuff. The new generation biologists at the Wyoming Game and Fish have probably benefited much from his research.
[signature]
Again, what you are proving to me is that a dedicated group of researchers whos job is to research bears finds them. You will see in my post that I talk about Dr. Lynn Rogers, a bear biologist. What you are proving is completely different from the argument that was originally put forth.
Yellowstone is not a completey natural setting for this particualr issue either. Almost every single bear there is monitored so nothing is coincidental, casual, or random. Same thing with the wolf situation you describe. They were re-introduced as you well know. Most of the time, the biologists know their movements and can predict them easily.
The quotations you put in your post from me were intended for a different context. I wrote them to answer why Bigfoot carcasses should not be expected.
The fact that you and other hunters find these dead animals does not necessarily make my question invalid. I intended it to be interpreted literally. It does not say that such animals are never found. Only that it happens relatively rarely when all hunting trips are taken into account. The small number of carcass and remain findings, like yours really make no difference in the overall average of finds, which is low. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to say that such cases are rare, almost zero if the mathematical statisics are done.
I am getting my information mainly from two books written by anthropologits and primatologits/biologits. If you go way back to the beginning of this Bigfoot discussion, when catfish_logic posted some Bigfoot news in California, you will see that I repeatedly mention the book:
Sasqautch:Legend Meets Science, written by Dr. Jeff Meldrum from Idaho State University. He does a much better, heck of alot better job of explaining your questions and what I have written so far. This is why I kept mentioning and braggin about it. In this book you will see mathematical analyses, distrubutions of remains, carcasses and such. Basically it addressed the very things we are talking about here.
If you were serous about reading, I would love to give you page numbers and paragraphs and such. I would also suggest looking up Dr. Lynn Rogers and reading some of his stuff. The new generation biologists at the Wyoming Game and Fish have probably benefited much from his research.
[signature]