• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

Rattlesnakes don't eat bird eggs, although you didn't mention which species. There's a rat snake already there (KY), black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta) that is an excellent predator of bird eggs. Years ago in Missouri there was an even more ridiculous story about the state Fish and Game agency dropping rattlesnakes with small parachutes from airplanes.
 
That was not a real secret govenrment mail exchange. They never mentioned the trucks and cars must be black.
 
William Parcher said:
Chris, I don't want you to stop believing the govt release stories and conspiracies. I don't want you to become skeptical like the JREF folks are about these things. None of that suits your personality. You would be lost as a skeptic or denialist of these things. Think of it like a friend nearby when you are trying on new clothes. It just doesn't look good on you.
Click to expand...

Don't forget, I am a skeptic about many things. Bigfoot's existence is not one of those things though.
 
You're a skeptic about what, Chris? So far you appear to buy any ridiculous wildlife story you're exposed to.

In PA, the bumpkins actually credit an accident on I-80 involving a coyote-laden semi trailer with the appearance of the Commonwealth's common wild canine. That's almost as silly as the idea of egg-eating rattlesnakes brought in to KY to keep turkeys in check.

Here's how wildlife reintroductions actually work: years of research and public comment followed by a media blitz and photo-op on release day, followed by years more of highly public monitoring.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
The coyote showed up here in the 1980's.
Click to expand...

Ooh, so close: 1954 in Kentucky. Although intentional releases of coyotes have happened numerous times in the southern US (apparently by fox hunters of all people), these releases appear to have been negligible in the persistent eastern range expansion of coyotes that has been well documented for at least the past 100 years.

It is also possible that the expansion of coyotes in the South has come from two directions: the range expansion across the Great Lakes states and into New England happened more rapidly, with New York's first coyote confirmed by 1925. Kentucky could've taken on coyotes from either the west or the north. The latest geopolitical area to now host coyotes? Newfoundland, colonized in the 1990s.

Of course, coyotes were well distributed in eastern North America during the Pleistocene, with fossils from Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Brunswick. What we're seeing now is more a re-colonization than a range expansion.

Anywho, isn't it great to actually invest a few minutes to see what the data might say about a particular topic?

I can recommend The Wildlife Conservation Society's "The Ecology of Northeast Coyotes" (2002) by Matt Gompper. A pretty good source specific to Kentucky is Cox et al. (2001): The taxonomic status of wild Canis in Kentucky. Proc. Annu. Conf. SEAFWA. In the latter source, the authors used 143 known canid skulls to classify 56 unknown skulls. No wolf skulls in the lot . . .
 
bruto said:
I wonder if this is another example of the F&W authorities holding out as long as they can against acknowledging the possibility of a native population, because they don't want to be responsible for it.
Click to expand...

Another example?

Please list the examples.
 
The Shrike said:
Ooh, so close: 1954 in Kentucky. Although intentional releases of coyotes have happened numerous times in the southern US (apparently by fox hunters of all people), these releases appear to have been negligible in the persistent eastern range expansion of coyotes that has been well documented for at least the past 100 years.

It is also possible that the expansion of coyotes in the South has come from two directions: the range expansion across the Great Lakes states and into New England happened more rapidly, with New York's first coyote confirmed by 1925. Kentucky could've taken on coyotes from either the west or the north. The latest geopolitical area to now host coyotes? Newfoundland, colonized in the 1990s.

Of course, coyotes were well distributed in eastern North America during the Pleistocene, with fossils from Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Brunswick. What we're seeing now is more a re-colonization than a range expansion.

Anywho, isn't it great to actually invest a few minutes to see what the data might say about a particular topic?

I can recommend The Wildlife Conservation Society's "The Ecology of Northeast Coyotes" (2002) by Matt Gompper. A pretty good source specific to Kentucky is Cox et al. (2001): The taxonomic status of wild Canis in Kentucky. Proc. Annu. Conf. SEAFWA. In the latter source, the authors used 143 known canid skulls to classify 56 unknown skulls. No wolf skulls in the lot . . .
Click to expand...

I really have no desire to investigate coyotes. I'm not really sure what your point is? You responded to my reply where I said that coyotes showed up here in the 80's. Well they did. During the 1980's people from Hart County KY area started seeing them and hearing them. No local reports here before then.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I really have no desire to investigate coyotes. I'm not really sure what your point is? You responded to my reply where I said that coyotes showed up here in the 80's. Well they did. During the 1980's people from Hart County KY area started seeing them and hearing them. No local reports here before then.
Click to expand...

So it's Hart county then. Two hundred years ago there were already thousands of European-descent people living in Hart County. That was more than ten times the population density of where I live now, centuries ago.

Looks like mostly agricultural parcels. If the big fella likes tobacco, he's in good shape there.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Another example?

Please list the examples.
Click to expand...
Only anecdotal, but there are those who assert that the reluctance of officials to acknowledge sightings of big cats in New England is partly because once acknowledged, they require conservation and management. Of course the controversy of the South Dakota cougar that managed to get hit on the Merritt Parkway in Connecticut could well be the fluke it's said to have been, but it seems worthwhile to note that the sightings of that very cat before it was hit were considered not only dubious but undoubtedly incorrect and impossible.

As I think I've mentioned before, back around 1990 my mother, who lived in rural Connecticut, saw a coyote carry off her dog in broad daylight. At that time numerous other persons in the area had reported seeing and hearing coyotes. The Fish and Wildlife officials flatly denied that there were coyotes in Connecticut. Not "none confirmed so far," but "You're wrong, there are none." Not long after, enough bodies showed up as the population had grown rapidly, and if you look now at various Connecticut sites, you will find acknowledgement not only that they are there, but that they have been reported to be there for decades. But officially they weren't there in 1990. I've no doubt there were very few before then, but that is a far cry from saying they could not possibly have existed at all.

I doubt very much whether crypto-animals like sasquatches exist, but it's hard to say the same of animals we know do exist somewhere, and that we know can wander. I don't mind a bit if wildlife authorities remain skeptical of critters they do not have good confirmation on, but I think some have gone overboard in denying the possibility that they even might exist, and, as I have said, I have heard it said that one reason for this is that new species are an administrative headache.
 
bruto said:
Only anecdotal, but there are those who assert that the reluctance of officials to acknowledge sightings of big cats in New England is partly because once acknowledged, they require conservation and management.
Click to expand...

This isn't even an anecdote. It is an alleged existence of wild speculation that goes against bureaucracies' budget-maximizing behavior. The existence of a new and exciting management opportunity is a benefit, not a detriment, to budget maximizing bureaucrats.


Of course the controversy of the South Dakota cougar that managed to get hit on the Merritt Parkway in Connecticut could well be the fluke it's said to have been, but it seems worthwhile to note that the sightings of that very cat before it was hit were considered not only dubious but undoubtedly incorrect and impossible.
Click to expand...


This assertion is made repeatedly without evidence. Go ahead and quote for us official statements about the impossibility.
 
Bruto, Wildlife officials in CT were well aware of coyotes in the state before the 1990s. I haven't looked up a specific date, but I suspect it was sometime in the 1950s or 1960s.
 
The literature I am seeing on the Connecticut cat issue rarely quotes actual wildlife officials, but this one does:

http://www.damnedct.com/mountain-lions-litchfield-hills/

The statement is that there are no breeding pairs, and other indirect sources are making statements about breeding populations. That is a pretty far cry from the "impossibility" assertion made above. What they have said about breeding pairs has not been disproven by this outlier.

Note that wildlife officials also suggested this may too be one that escaped captivity.

The history of wildlife in Connecticut is also quite important. Deforestation, farming, and extermination efforts drove out the cougars. In more recent history there has been re-forestation and increasing populations of prey animals. Were this to continue, it should be expected that cougars would eventually return. These professional managers need evidence that it's actually happened and would be considered pretty stupid if they were making statements that breeding populations had returned before they had proof.
 
Well, time to slink off on this one, I guess. I will just mention that whether or not CT fish and wildlife officials were aware of coyotes long ago, when a Cornwall citizen complained of a coyote attack she was told there were no coyotes, and was wasting their time reporting an attack by some neighbor's dog, and though I do not have records of this, I was around, and neighbors reported that they also had similar responses when reporting packs of coyotes in Northwestern Connecticut in the late 80's and early 90's. Maybe they just called the wrong office.

Here in Vermont the Fish and Wildlife service is severely underfunded and undermanned. They may wish they were budget-maximizing bureaucrats, but there's not much budget there. Conspiracy theorists may well be having a field day with this, but it's also true that cougars would be expensive, and I'm willing to bet they're glad there aren't any yet.
 
bruto said:
Well, time to slink off on this one, I guess. I will just mention that whether or not CT fish and wildlife officials were aware of coyotes long ago, when a Cornwall citizen complained of a coyote attack she was told there were no coyotes, and was wasting their time reporting an attack by some neighbor's dog, and though I do not have records of this, I was around, and neighbors reported that they also had similar responses when reporting packs of coyotes in Northwestern Connecticut in the late 80's and early 90's. Maybe they just called the wrong office.
Click to expand...
Not to belabour the point - but perhaps the citizens were just wrong. Misidentification is easy to do, but calling someone on it usually causes them embarrassment, so rather than admit to a mistake, they dig their heels in and insist/persist with their story.

That is another possibility.
Here in Vermont the Fish and Wildlife service is severely underfunded and undermanned. They may wish they were budget-maximizing bureaucrats, but there's not much budget there. Conspiracy theorists may well be having a field day with this, but it's also true that cougars would be expensive, and I'm willing to bet they're glad there aren't any yet.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, if a population were demonstrated to exist, the state could just apply for federal funds to manage it. Such a high profile animal might actually improve their overall funding and manning.
 
Actually, what folks fail to realize is that the USFWS and state agencies had been spending money to investigate claims of cougars during the latter 20th Century, and I assume they still do. The only policy they might have had on this was to wait until someone had physical evidence of a cougar before agreeing that ther was a cougar in their state. Why so conservative? Because they'd revved thousand of photos of bobcats, housecats, and golden retrievers that people swore up and down were cougars.

You can't bottle up a dispersing predator, you can't keep it quiet if it's really happening, and there's no reason to try. Untenable and unnecessary conspiracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom