I have a feeling that you didn't read my post and just gleaned a few words that I was making the case
for Bigfoot.
Intriguing in the same way asking about unicorns in my back yard is.
I find it intriguing in many aspects specifically the folklore aspect. What I find interesting about it and something that makes Cryptozoology different than say ghost hunting is that this is a phenomena that could be empirically proven with a corpse.
We've seen this kind of handwaving before where you haven't actually said anything of substance, like surplus caloric value per acre available to a completely new species added on to the existing animal population.
You might just as well add all the food at grocery stores and people's refrigerators, as if there wasn't already people consuming them. Have you heard of steady-state equilibrium or carrying capacity?
Yes, my major is Fisheries Management and both were covered in Ecology. I stated:
"The PNW
wouldn't be the worst place in the world to support a large omnivore, assuming that's what they are supposed to be."
Observant readers will note that this is no argument for the existence of Bigfoot but an observation that the PNW is a better area than most for a hypothesized animal such as Bigfoot. The PNW may be a better biome for a huge omnivore than most areas of the lower 48.
You have to address the fact that existing animal populations are counted by professional wildlife managers, with seasons and bag limits for big game or fish established with recognition of the carrying capacity of the land & waters, reproduction cycles, hunter success rates, etc.
And they not only establish how many animals and fish we can catch and kill, but exactly what sex and size. No trout below a certain size, only bull moose with spike fork or over 50" antlers, etc. These management units are small, like individual drainages too.
Continuing to respond to your misunderstanding of what I actually said...
Tell me about it, I helped a study on Hellbender populations in a few Ozark streams. Hellbenders are not only rare but have habits that make them difficult to count and do a decent population study on. Rarer and secretive animal populations are harder to nail down. In this study we searched several miles of stream for only 2 adults. Funny, I learned that young are almost never found. The fisheries guys were pros at spotting potential daytime resting sites but actual animals were tough to come by.
That volunteer work actually put me on the path to Fisheries.
I also assisted a game manager in Texas and we used trail cams to estimate buck/doe ratios to set limits on a management hunt. They had everything, whitetail and mule but also exotics like Pierre deer, Red Deer (I think they were actually the Eurasian strain), Roosevelt and Rocky Mountain Elk, and even Zebu. Those guys didn't work for any state department but I learned so much about so many different kinds of deer species and their optimum sex ratios.
So this is a gross argument from ignorance. Because it works from the presumption that nobody knows how many animals there are, what the carrying capacity of the land is, what the sustained yield is, etc. when in fact this is known in tremendous detail with profesionals working on it every day in fish/game departments, university studies, professional journals, etc.
In general I think you are correct but again, you completely misunderstood what I said.
As I pointed out previously, there are certain cases where animal populations (at least breeding populations)can be difficult to ascertain because of their rarity or their secretive habits. But yes, that is another reason why I do not believe that Bigfoot exist.
This is not an argument for the existence of Bigfoot. Maybe I should state this before every sentence?
Likewise you can't say "oh look how there are fish in the streams" and then postulate a population of invisible bigfoot eating them. For example, the summer run of chinook salmon on the Columbia was between 20,000-40,000 fish for a quarter century beginning in the mid 1970's.
Again, my pointing out salmon runs was
not, repeat, not, repeat not an argument for the existence of Bigfoot. I was acknowledging that there is a large regular potential food source in the area.
I think that Coho represent a larger biomass in Columbia drainage but I could be wrong...
You just go ahead and explain to me now how many of those closely watched salmon, counted at each dam they pass, all the way to spawning beds - are eaten by bigfoot. Are they eating the hatchery runs or the wild runs? Why is no fisheries biologist aware of this loss?
If we are talking the Columbia I doubt if they existed they would distinguish between adipose clipped and intact fish.
Suppose they were aware of a loss, fish populations can bust and boom and in many cases the exact cause, assuming that it is unlikely to be a single cause, is unknown.
You have to do more than just say "there are fish in the river" to hypothesize an entire population of some predator species, let alone an imaginary one, is sustaining itself upon them.
Sure. I am saying that that resource is available. It may not be direct but it could be an indirectly exploitable resource.
So yeah... I think you are mistaking me for a Bigfooter... Let me make this perfectly clear: I do not believe there are native large primates running around the PNW. I believe that Bigfoot sightings fall into the category of hoaxes, outright lies or mis-indentification of native fauna.
Talk about gross mis-indentification...
For the record, I am no whelp when it comes to the outdoors. I am certainly no Bush Pilot but I bowhunted for years, fish, collect mushrooms tried my hand at trapping. Back in Missouri in the spring I would be looking for the first Morels and trying to call in Turkey and also catching the bass before the spawn. I have been known to limit out on crappie in the early spring as well. The summer I would be juglining and trotlining for catfish and hunting for the first chantells while I look for stand sites for the fall. The fall was generally trout fishing, bass fishing, bowhunting for deer and turkey. The winter was blackpowder season and late winter I would start shed hunting as well as a great time to search for Oyster Mushrooms. Not saying that I am the greatest outdoorsman that ever lived but I am no slouch t it either.
You know, your post actually kind of made me feel bad and you weren't even arguing against anything that I actually said. I have a lot of respect for you and especially your job and reading about your posts about the North Woods are excellent and are something I always find much interest in reading.
I don't think I would have minded if you attacked a position I actually held.
What about fossils?
We have no fossil record of a large primate in North America prior to Homo Sapiens am I correct?
I think you are correct but I would also point out that primates generally don't fossilize as well as other animals. Fossilization as rare as it is is even rarer in primates.
Many are known, such as
G. Blackii are known from little more than teeth which are harder and resist decomposition better than skeletal bones. Most of the teeth are found in limestone sinkholes in China which is an exceedingly rare scenario.
