More on the Sierra Kills and Bigfoot DNA

Regarding the Sierra Kills, in which two Bigfoots were shot and killed in Plumas County, California, in November 2010, new evidence has surfaced casting doubt on the shooter’s story.

The shooter claims that he went back two weeks later and dug through the snow to find a 7 inch long by 4 inch wide by 3 inch deep “Bigfoot steak.”

Many people have suggested that finding such a huge chunk of a dead Bigfoot in the snow two weeks later is dubious.

Bigfoot steak was carved off a body with a knife. We now have information that Dr. Melba Ketchum, who is running the DNA project, said that the Bigfoot steak seemed to have been carved off of a dead body with either a knife or some sort of tool. This suggests that the story about the shooter finding it two weeks later in the snow is not true. Instead, the logical suggestion is that the shooter carved it off the body before he left that day or took one or more of the bodies or parts with him and carved it off later.

Shooter wants amnesty from prosecution. Sources on Taxidermy.net continue to believe that the shooter took one or more of the bodies or parts of them with him that day and that he continues to hold evidence. They say that unless he gets an amnesty for prosecution for shooting the Bigfoots, he will disappear all of the evidence. I support giving the shooter amnesty. In fact, I put an attorney in touch with him for just that reason.

Erickson/Ketchum Project chaos. Ketchum and Adrian Erickson continue to have a huge falling out. For a long time, she was not even returning his phone calls. This is all because he won’t sign one of her  fancy new NDA’s that gives her all the rights and him none. However, she did call him recently because she was upset at all of the leaks and was wondering who was behind them.

Ketchum paper accepted for peer review? According to a comment on Cryptomundo, Ketchum submitted her paper to a journal for peer review in early December 2010 and the journal accepted it early February 2011. That means that the paper meets the required scientific standards for the journal, and that, even if some reviewers have critical comments during the peer review process, it will still be accepted with some sort of changes, ranging from major to minor. If true, this is excellent news.

However, on June 11, 2011, Rich Germeau of the Olympic Project stated on a forum that the paper had not been sent out yet. So the situation is very confused.

However, if the commenter is correct and Germeau is wrong then the Ketchum paper is in much better shape than I thought it was.

Bigfoot steak DNA tests positive for a Bigfoot. On a recent radio show, JC Johnson and Derek Randles suggested obliquely that DNA tests on the Bigfoot steak had tested positive as coming from an actual Bigfoot.

Is the Sierra Kills story a hoax? Some people say that the Sierra Kills story is a hoax. They believe that the shooter hoaxed the story by making it up. He went to Taxidermy.net and made up a big story about killing two Bigfoots. Then he fooled the Olympic Project into believing his story. Then he somehow hoaxed the Bigfoot steak sent to Ketchum’s lab, though in order to do this, he would have had to have cut a slice off of a very hairy human cadaver.

Sources who believe in this say that there could be various reasons why he would do this. For one, they say he is an extreme redneck and an ultra rightwinger who supposedly did not believe in Bigfoot before. They say this is just the sort of person who creates a Bigfoot hoax. They also feel that he is a highly disreputable and unreliable person, and this sheds doubt on his tale.

In addition, according to a thread on Taxidermy.net, two Black bears, a mother and a cub, were reportedly shot dead near the Dixie Mountain Game Refuge at the beginning of November 2010. The sources suggest that the shooter shot a female bear and her cub and turned that story into the shooting of two Bigfoots. Adding weight to this, the Nevada Department of Fish and Game, asked about the Sierra Kills story, said that it was two bears that were killed and not two Bigfoots.

As far as the Bigfoot steak, sources say that judging from the shooter’s character, he would not be below slicing a piece off the thigh of a human cadaver.

I don’t believe that this story is a hoax.

Shooter very religious, a polarizing personality. We have more information on the shooter. He moved from Texas to another state, apparently with his family, at at least age 16 and has lived in this state ever since. He is extremely religious – a fundamentalist Christian. I have seen a photo of him at age 16 after killing two bucks. His hair is dyed punk rock flame red and he has a pro-Christian t-shirt on.

I’ve been accused of harping on the shooter’s character. It’s true that I don’t like him, and a lot of others don’t either. However, he has a wife who loves him and a wide circle of friends.

Some people are just bad. Everyone agrees. Not so with this guy.

The shooter instead is more of a polarizing figure, something like his hero George Bush. The very things that those who don’t like him hate about him are what make a lot of others think he’s the greatest thing since sliced bread. As he says on his webpage: “I’m the type of guy you either love or hate. I’m fine either way.” This is a much better way of looking at his character as opposed to flat out saying he’s a bad guy.

Possible Sierra Kills government coverup. Supposing that the Sierra Kills actually happened, the Nevada wildlife officials’ statements is evidence of the government coverup that I have long said must be happening in the realm of Bigfoot.

Possible government investigation into the Sierra Kills and the Bigfoot steak. A new piece by Loren Coleman reveals some very strange emails he has gotten about the Sierra Kills. He has received some emails from folks claiming to have some sort of government connection. They say that federal investigators are closely watching the Sierra Kills investigation. They are monitoring the web forums and blogs and they know who all the players are and what their roles are. When they feel that laws have been broken, they will act.

What is interesting about all of this is that it suggests that the Sierra Kills may have actually happened and that it was not a hoax. Or at least the government seems to think that it happened, or that something happened anyway, as the emails are confusing.

This all smells of Men in Black stuff, but I have said for a long time that MIB are involved in a coverup of Bigfoot evidence.

A Bigfoot is found dead in a man’s yard in Washington state in 2003. He calls the police, but instead of police showing up, a black helicopter lands in his yard and MIB’s get out armed with automatic weapons. They order the man into his home, load the Bigfoot into the copter and fly away.

A sheriff’s deputy responds to a Bigfoot killed by the side of the road in Ohio. He radios for help, and backup shows up. They rope off the scene. Then state police show up. Then the National Guard shows up. Then a black van pulls up, two US soldiers get out, and they cart the Bigfoot to the van and drive away.

There are many more such stories. MIB’s actually exist, but hardly anyone talks about them. Guys dressed all in black, black helicopters, black vans – that’s all military intelligence, top secret, classified. I understand that a black helicopter was used in the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Here are the emails about the Sierra Kills case and Ketchum’s lab using the Bigfoot steak:

I did hear from one of my retired federal investigator sources who still works for them as a consulting evidence expert. He told me essentially they know what is going on and are watching the situation. They have all the forum reports, know where the supposed samples came from, who is and who is not involved and what roles they’re playing.

I get the feeling from him that national security is somehow involved. I don’t know how except perhaps it might have something to do with release or misuse of technology that’s considered vital (educated guess). This is a new area in advanced research and puts a real dent in the how much anyone working on new technology can say or release in any form.

Beyond this he can tell me nothing in specific except that when and if they decide laws have been broken they will act. I know he holds a Top Secret clearance with compartmentalizations. He has multiple degrees in scientific fields and consults for several agencies on evidentiary issues. My work for him was routine but he’s really an interesting person.

He made no reference to any hoax other than to say they know what’s going on and who’s responsible. They will act if and when they decide the situation warrants it. It isn’t quite as bad as portrayed in the Indiana Jones movies but almost so.

And this, also:

I suspect there’s more beyond this supposed hoax than we’ll ever know. This business with the so called Dr. Ketchum smells like another stinking hoax and you’ve done a good job of reporting like you did in 2008. However, this time I’m not buying into it. I don’t know what’s up but when one of the people I’ve done work for in my past government careers tells me for my own good to stay out of a mess I should take his advice.

It’s an interesting twist with the feds watching the whole deal and I wonder what’s up and why but like I said when a friend says stay out I stay out. I suspect that we’ll never know the whole story. So much information is hidden in the name of national security that it’s ridiculous.

Check out Bigfoot Forums for the best in Bigfoot discussions.

Another Interview Up

Here.

Same subject, the Sierra Kills, where two Bigfoots were shot dead on the Plumas National Forest in November 2010 and a slice of one of their bodies was sent in to a DNA lab for testing.

This interviewer had a better delivery than the last one. However, he did endlessly harp on the fact that I don’t like this shooter guy, and he claimed it made me biased. True, I don’t like the guy, but lots of people don’t. The guy’s an ass, straight up. You can tell just by looking at his face. If you read his Facebook and Myspace pages, it becomes even more clear.

He’s got some statements on there saying something like, “I don’t like gay pride dope smoking hippies on welfare. I can’t show you how to roll a joint, but I can show you how to drive a tractor.” Ok, look, right there, with those comments, that guy just declared war on me. He’s got pictures of George Bush up there; that’s his favorite politician. He’s from Texas.

He says he “supports the troops,” and he’s got some poster up there with a gunsight and a bunch of Muslims in the sight. It says something like “Kill Em All.” He likes country music. His wife is just as nasty as he is, and so are all of his Facebook friends. They’re like the worst rednecks on Earth. Of course this is precisely the type of backwoods yahoo that would kill a couple of Bigfoots, so it all makes sense.

So this is what kind of guy we are dealing with here. A first class A-1 Fox News ultra rightwing super-redneck, old style backwoods yahoo shoot anything that moves hayseed with a grass twig hanging out of his mouth saying, “Hey y’all! Let’s go beat up some hippie faggots!”

I remember assholes like this very well from the 1970’s, and I hate them to this very day. Mostly because they always hated me. It’s pretty typical that rednecks think I’m a “fag,” even though I am 10

This same idiot, who knows me as well as anyone, taunted me for years for supposedly being homosexual. He also accused most of my friends of being gay too. There was never any evidence for any of this, and there was a universe of evidence against it. During this period of my life, I’d dated maybe 100 females and slept with about half of them. A lot of them were beautiful. Every time you turned around, there was a new one on my arm. I don’t say that to brag, I say that to show you how retarded homophobes are.

Sound gay to you? See what I mean? Welcome to the wacko world of the homophobe, where the most notorious playboys on the block are continually badgered about being “faggots.” There is something incredibly fucked up about homophobes, let me tell you.

The war between me and these idiots is never going to end. This stuff is personal.

Anyway, the charge is that because my sources don’t like guy, and I don’t like guy, I’m “biased” against him. Well, I hope not. We journalists try not to be biased about individuals when doing investigative reporting. I’ve been aware of my dislike for this clown from the very start, but I am trying not to let it get in the way of the search for the truth here.

Investigative reporting is like detective work. Sure, a detective may not like a suspect much, and he admits it, but a good cop doesn’t let that get in the way of a good investigation. Just because he doesn’t like the guy doesn’t mean that the guy committed this or that crime.

Same here. My version of the shootings and the version of the shooter’s buddies don’t even differ all that much. The only major difference is on motivation. I am going by the original story on Taxidermy.net. According to that story, he knew it was a Bigfoot, but he shot it anyway. His friend yelled at him not to, saying, “Don’t shoot! It’s a man in a monkey suit!” But he went ahead and shot anyway. He also shot it while it was running away. His rationale for shooting it was he thought it was threatening him.

As far as shooting the juvenile Bigfoot, he just shot it. No one knows why. According the early conversations on Taxidermy.net, he didn’t think it was threatening him.

The shooter’s story now has changed in many ways. He now says he thought it was a bear. Case of mistaken identity. In the case of the second one, he now says it was threatening him.

There’s no bias hindering my story at all here. I am simply choosing to go with the earlier versions of the story as opposed to the latest, greatest version.

New Robert Lindsay Interview Up

Here.

It goes on for a couple of hours, but I don’t say much past 1:10 into the broadcast.

It’s about the purported killing of two Bigfoots in Plumas County, California in November, 2010. I believe that this incident did take place. Incidentally, comments from Derek Randles and JC Johnson during the interview obliquely suggest that the slice of dead Bigfoot taken from the shooting site did indeed test out as coming from a real Bigfoot via DNA testing. That’s not confirmatory, though, only implied.

Update to the “Sierra Kills” Story

Updating the story of the two Bigfoots shot and killed in California in November 2010, we can now report that the shooter appears to have taken one or more of the bodies or parts of them with him on the day that he shot them.

Shooter may have taken bodies with him. Although the shooter has never admitted that he took the bodies that day, the evidence seems to indicate that he did.

There is a rumor flying around Taxidermy.net that the shooter said he cut the bodies into small pieces and hid them in a large number of different places or possibly with different people, scattered all around. They are on ice if this is true. This lines up perfectly with the timeline where the Olympic Project went around to Bigfoot forums soon after the killings saying that they had enough samples to last for years. The reason they said that, presumably, is because they have access to two dead Bigfoot bodies.

The shooter said he went back to the site two weeks later and found a small piece of flesh by digging through the snow, which was then sent in to Dr. Melba Ketchum’s DNA project. However, the piece of flesh sent in was 7 inches long by 4 inches wide by 3 inches deep. That’s as big as a steak!

There is no way that a gunshot would have sawed off that big of a chunk of flesh. There is also no way that a chunk of flesh that big would be left from animals eating the body. Further, Bigfoots bury their dead. If the two Bigfoots were left there, then other Bigfoots would have probably come soon after to carry off the dead and bury them somewhere else. Bottom line is that the story about going back two weeks later and finding the Bigfoot steak in the snow may not be true.

Is it possible that the shooter carved off the steak before he left that day? It’s possible, but I talked to taxidermists, and they told me that that story does not ring true. The shooter is a taxidermist himself. The taxidermists told me that no taxidermist would just saw off a piece of a thigh of an animal. A taxidermist would want to take the whole thing. They told me that he must have taken both bodies with him that day, probably putting them in the back of his truck.

One argument is that if the shooter really did kill two Bigfoots, why didn’t he go to the media with the news and get famous? Or why didn’t the Olympic Project do the same thing? The word from my sources is that everyone is afraid of going to jail, and that’s why they didn’t go to the media. A lot of people say they don’t believe that would stop anyone, but that’s the typical dynamic in these Bigfoot shootings. People shoot these things, then they look at the body and see how much it resembles a man, and they are afraid they are going to go down on homicide.

Friends tried to stop him from shooting the Bigfoot. We can also now report that the other man with him tried to stop the shooter from shooting the first Bigfoot. He yelled, “It’s a man in a monkey suit! Don’t shoot!” But he shot it anyway.

Shooter comes out of hiding. The shooter himself appears to be posting on internet forums lately. Here is one thread that appears to be from the shooter. Compared to writings from the shooter’s Internet pages, the writing style seems quite similar.

The probable area of the "Sierra kill" Bigfoot shootings is circled.

Shooter is a “maniac hunter”. The shooter caused quite a stir on Taxidermy.net in a thread about wolves by showing up and saying he would personally kill very single wolf in North America if he was given a chance to. This statement made a lot of people mad and caused a minor furor on the site. This goes in line with the general line about the hunter that he’s a “maniac hunter,” as we described earlier.

Shooter needs amnesty, or else. Sources also tell me that unless the shooter is offered amnesty for the shootings, whatever dead Bigfoot evidence he has stashed away from the shootings is going to disappear. In that case we will have to wait until another Bigfoot is killed, and it will happen again.

I believe that this is true. The shooter should obtain an attorney and begin negotiations with law enforcement in order to obtain an amnesty for the killings, possibly in the name of science or for whatever other reason they can come up with. I strongly support an amnesty for the shooter, if only in interests of science.

“Bigfoot steak” from the Sierra Kills tested 10

Endless delays in Ketchum DNA Project. We can also report now that as of June 11, 2011, Melba Ketchum’s DNA study had still not been completed. The paper has supposedly been written, but they are waiting for the last few samples to come in. After that, the paper will go out for peer review. Why don’t they close enrollment on the samples and say they won’t accept any more for the study? That would seem to be the reasonable thing to do.

In December, on a radio show, Ketchum said exactly the same thing. That the paper was written, but they were waiting for the last few samples to come in. Here it is 5 1/2 months later and she is still saying the same thing. In the early part of the year, we were told that the paper was already out for peer review. Now, 4 1/2 months later, it hasn’t even gone out yet.

These delays are insane. I really don’t think that Ketchum is ever going to publish her paper. I’ve given up hope.

Check out Bigfoot Forums for the best Bigfoot discussion on the web.

Chronology of the Recent Bigfoot Shooting Story

I know most of the players in this story, and I believe that it is true. At least the shooting part. Here is what happened.

1. The shooter shows up on Taxidermy.net and starts a thread saying I just shot 2 Bigfoots, now what do I do? The shooter is well known on the site and is a frequent contributor.

2. Thread quickly spins out of control going to 60 pages. The story is revealed on the thread.

3. Mods get messages that shooter is being harassed and threatened by people as a result of the thread, apparently mad that he killed two BF’s.

4. Thread is shut down.

5. A man named “Bear Hunter” from Taxidermy.net gets involved, calls up the shooter and questions him at length. The story outline results:

The 25 year old shooter, a transplanted Texan who left Texas nine years ago, was a passenger in a truck near the Dixie Mountain Game Refuge on the Plumas National Forest west of Frenchman Lake in the Sierra Nevada on the border of California and Nevada. It was mid-November 2010, and they were bear hunting. There was already snow on the ground. They hoped to find a bear just before it went into hibernation.

They came around a bend, and there was a dirty white female Bigfoot in the road 80 yards away. The shooter grabbed his 25.06 rifle and jumped out of his vehicle. As he jumped out, the Bigfoot started running towards him waving her arms. When the Bigfoot saw the gun, she turned as if to start to run away. The shooter’s companion yelled, “Don’t shoot! It’s a man in a monkey suit!” But he shot anyway. The shooter shot her in the side of the chest, and the bullet penetrated her lungs.

The shooter says he shot her because he thought she was a bear, but that’s not true. He knew what she was. The reason he shot her is because he thought she was threatening him.

She went down, then got to her feet. She ran off, sometimes on two legs and sometimes on four. After a while, she crashed off into the brush and died.

The men went to go look for the female Bigfoot. Suddenly two small, strange creatures appeared, sometimes on two legs, sometimes in four. They looked like a cross between a bear and a gorilla. The creatures had very large heads. They were on either side of the hunters, communicating back and forth.

The shooter raised his gun, fired and shot one of the creatures dead. The other small creature apparently escaped. As the shooter cradled the dying creature in his arms, both men realized that it was a young creature of the same type the shooter had just shot. At this point, they figured out that he had killed two Bigfoots. The juvenile Bigfoot died in his arms.

The shooter says he shot the young Bigfoot because it was threatening him. This is not true. He just shot it for some unknown reason.

The other man with the shooter was so hysterical and upset about the shootings at this point that he took the shooter’s gun away from him and pointed it at him, threatening him. He told the shooter that if he tried to shoot another one of those animals, he would shoot the shooter instead.

The story is that they both were so upset by that point that they left the area. The shooter said that they left the animals in the field and that he was not going back to the area until next fall.

The basic outline of the story is uncontroversial and is acknowledged by everyone who believes the story. The only differences are about the motivations of the shooter and what was or was not left behind.

6. Bear Hunter puts the shooter in contact with the Olympic Project (OP) in Washington State. The OP says, “We’re just trying to keep the shooter out of jail!” The shooter is very frightened of going to jail over the killing of the two Bigfoots. At this point, the story seems to die.

7. Suddenly Bear Hunter realizes that the shooter is deeply involved in the OP. This seems odd. Why is a guy who just shot two Bigfoots suddenly a major part of this organization?

8. Mysteriously, the OP appears on various Bigfoot forums, bragging that they have enough Bigfoot DNA samples to last for years. Bear Hunter regards this as curious and suspects that the shooter may have harvested one or both of the killed Bigfoots or parts of them and is keeping them on ice somewhere and giving the OP access to them.

9. Bizarrely, someone in California, apparently the shooter, submits a very strange sample to Melba Ketchum’s Bigfoot DNA project. It resembles a large slice off the thigh of a human cadaver, except that it is very hairy. The slice is about seven inches long by four inches wide by two-three inches deep – it’s a Bigfoot steak. The color of the hair is the same color as that of the killed mother Bigfoot. It appears to have been carved off of a body with a knife or some sort of a tool.

Dr. Ketchum freaks out because she thinks she is in possession of tissue sliced off a dead Bigfoot. She is worried that police will raid her lab to take away the sample and everything else she has, because that’s what the government does with Bigfoot evidence. She tries to get others to hold it for her instead. The others decline to take it off her hands.

11. The Bigfoot steak tests out as “no known mammal.” However, the DNA (probably MtDNA) tests as “human.” Nevertheless, according to a recent radio show, two men associated with Ketchum’s DNA project implied that the Bigfoot steak tested out as coming from a Bigfoot by DNA.

12. I break the story.

13. Pandemonium ensues.

14. The OP appears on forums, agreeing with the basics of the story: that the two Bigfoots were shot in the time and place where they were killed. They differ on the motivations of the shooter and certain other relatively non-important things.

They also reveal that the shooter went back to the site two weeks later, dug through the snow and found a nice chunk of the dead Bigfoot mother. Someone, apparently the shooter, sent the Bigfoot steak to Ketchum’s lab from California.

Credibility:

Adrian Erickson, Melba Ketchum, the Olympic Project, Bear Hunter and the shooter all think that the Bigfoot shooting story is true in its basic facts. They also agree that a chunk of one dead Bigfoot was sent to Ketchum’s lab.

Adrian Erickson, Richard Stubstad and Ketchum agree that Ketchum freaked out when she got the sample because she thought it was from a Bigfoot, and she thought the authorities would raid her lab to seize the Bigfoot steak and the rest of her samples, since this what they do with Bigfoot evidence.

People associated with Taxidermy.net agree that the long thread existed until it was shut down.

Possibility of a hoax: The general conclusion on the Net is that the story itself is fake.

Let us look at that possibility.

We know that the Taxidermy.net thread is real.

What if the shooter just made up the whole story? It’s possible, but I do not think he made up this story. His character is open to debate, but he’s not a faker or a hoaxer. On the other hand, some say that he is a very unreliable person and that at one point at least, he did not believe in Bigfoot. So it’s conceivable he made up the story as a gag, since that is what non-believers do.

What if the OP is making up the story? They don’t make stuff up. They are good researchers with excellent integrity. They don’t hoax. However, it is possible that they were hoaxed by the shooter, although I don’t believe that this happened.

The hunk of flesh adds credibility to the story. The OP says it’s a chunk of Bigfoot flesh from one the killed Bigfoots. Could it have been hoaxed? Possibly.

However, someone would have had to have had access to a human cadaver and then sawed off a chunk of the thigh. How likely is that? Further, this would have had to have been a very strange human cadaver, one covered with hair. And the hair would have had to have been the exact same color of the hair of one of the Bigfoots that got shot. How likely is that? In addition, two men made statements on a radio show implying that the Bigfoot steak tested out as coming from a Bigfoot by DNA.

Conclusion: As you can see, there is a great deal about this incident that seems to point away from a hoax or a lie. In fact, I believe it is neither, and I believe the basis for the story is true.

The two Bigfoots were indeed shot dead in California in November. At least one piece from one of the Bigfoots was sent in by the OP to Ketchum’s DNA lab for testing. The director thought that it was a slice of a killed Bigfoot, and she requested others take it off her hands in case the police raid the lab and seize the sample as they tend to do with Bigfoot evidence.

There you have it.

Breathtaking News from the Erickson Project

The leaks from people close to the Erickson Project continue to come in fast and furious.

Surely the most breathtaking news so far involves the sequencing of Bigfoot DNA. We already reported previously on the sequencing Bigfoot mitochondrial DNA, which is coming out 10

However, we can now report on the sequencing of the nuclear DNA from the male side. The report is that it is absolutely non-human! It is very far away from humans. In the chart below, various hominins are measured according to their distance away from humans in terms of polymorphisms (P* distance).

Hominin spp.   P* Distance   Date of split

Neandertal     9,200         508,000?
Denisova       18,400?       840,000
Bigfoot        68,300?       2.25 M?
Chimpanzee     182,000       6 M

As you can see, Bigfoots are approximately 1/2 way between humans and chimps. More precisely, they are 37.

We only have DNA from three hominids: Homo sapiens, Neandertal and Denisova. We have no DNA from Flores Man, Erectus or any of the rest. One reason for this is that DNA degrades, and it is impossible to get DNA from samples more than 50,000 years old. Flores Man samples were too degraded to get any DNA yet.

Therefore, evidence indicates that Bigfoots are a hybrid species. Some “thing,” some “monster,” some “subhuman,” mated with human females somewhere in Europe possibly ~20-50,000 YBP. Shades of King Kong!

What this “thing” was is completely unknown. It must be a hominid. It quite possibly was Homo erectus. Therefore, Bigfoots may be Erectus-sapiens hybrids.

The closest thing to an Erectus-sapiens hybrid is Heidelberg Man, or Homo heidelbergensis. This was late Homo erectus trending into archaic Homo sapiens. There is suggestive evidence that a heidelbergensis skull was found in China dated 13,000 YBP.

If Bigfoot is part-Erectus, this explains certain things. Erectus still had a midtarsal break in Europe 300,000 YBP. Erectus had a saggital crest.

It is clear by now that the “Bigfoot is an ape” theory lies in the dust. Bigfoot is a man, an ancient man, a blast from our ancient past, a subhuman, a human ancestor. He’s one of us, but he’s not.

In addition, we can report that the Erickson Project Bigfoot DNA study has isolated DNA from 20 separate Bigfoot individuals from around North America. They received hundreds of samples, but many were not useful. Of the 20 separate individuals, Adrian Erickson’s samples represented six individuals.

One of the samples was called “unknown hand.” This was hand of a “something,” but no one knows what. Inside the Project, people were taking bets on what the hand was from. Dr. Melba Ketchum bet that it was a bear. Others bet that it was not a bear. Ketchum never got any money from the bet. Whatever this strange object was, it was not a bear paw. No one knows what it was. Maybe it was a Bigfoot hand.

Don Monroe found the hand in a dump somewhere in Montana or Idaho. A skinned bear paw that has the claws removed and resembles a human hand to a great deal. The hand was a bone with some relict skin remaining on it. All of the hair was gone. It’s not known if Ketchum’s lab even tested the hand for DNA.

One of the samples was a bone from a stream in Oregon. It may have been a femur. The bone looks like a human bone, but it is much too large. It was submitted by David Paulides’ North American Bigfoot Search (NABS).

We also have some updates in the story about the killing of the two Bigfoots near the Dixie Mountain Game Refuge in California’s Sierra Nevada in November 2010. There were two other men in the truck with the shooter at the time. At least one of the men was absolutely hysterical that the shooter shot the two Bigfoots. The other man was also not happy about the situation.

We can also report that the section of Bigfoot thigh sent to the Erickson Project DNA test from the shooting was auburn haired, and it also had a lot of grey in it. This slab was from the mother Bigfoot that was shot dead. She was probably a middle aged Bigfoot, ~45 years old in human terms or ~25 years old in Bigfoot terms. Her two offspring, one of which was also shot dead, were ~10 years old in human terms or ~5 years old in Bigfoot terms.

To this date, we do not know what the shooter did after he killed the two Bigfoots.

I know the name of the shooter, but for some reason, I am not releasing it, though I probably should. It will come out later anyway. His name can be found by industrious web sleuths who are intelligent about Internet sleuthing. The shooter has changed his story many times, and is very afraid of going to jail over killing of these two Bigfoots.

He is wise to be afraid of this, because I know some wealthy and connected people who told me that they are dedicated to seeing that the shooter goes to prison over killing the Bigfoots. These people think Bigfoots are humans, so killing one is homicide. So if I were the shooter, I would not be straight up about this matter either. Further, I would retain a good attorney. If the Olympic Project has any sense, they will have also spoken to attorneys too, because their mitts are all over these two killed Bigfoots.

The shooter is a narcissist and a redneck, and I don’t like him. You can tell he’s a narcissist. Look at his photos. Just look at that smug, smarmy look in eyes. I don’t think he’s a good person.

There are different kinds of hunters. Most hunters are good people, but a minority are not. The bad guys have the same mindset about hunting. They basically just like to kill things because they like to kill. You can tell who the bad ones are. You can see it in their eyes. They will shoot just about anything as long as it is not illegal. This guy has that look about him.

This is what kind of a person and hunter the shooter is. He is well known in the hunting and taxidermy community and is not well liked at all. In that community, he is thought of as a “maniac hunter” and an “unethical hunter.”

He could change any time he wants, quit being bad and start being good. His choice. I don’t think he will ever change though, because he is very happy being the smug ex-Texan prick that he is. Most of his friends are the same as he is, and so is the California woman who became his wife two years ago, who is now expecting.

Most narcissists never feel guilt about anything that they do. There are some reports that the shooter feels bad about killing the two Bigfoots. Perhaps he does. He may have some sort of a conscience. I bet he’s more afraid of getting caught though.

The Olympic Project has changed their story about this shooting several times now. I actually do not blame them. If I were in as deep as they are, I would get myself a nice, fancy story too.

For several months after November, their line was that the OP never went out to the shooting site.

Then they said that the OP did go to the shooting site 2 weeks later, and they found a chunk of Bigfoot flesh in the snow.

Now the OP says that only the shooter went back 2 weeks later and found the piece of flesh.

The story about going back later and finding a hunk of flesh strikes me as dubious, but maybe it happened. Who knows, right?

In addition, the OP said for a long time after the shooting, “Let’s make one thing clear! There were no two Bigfoots shot and killed!”

But after I broke the story, they changed their line to saying that a man that the OP knows well did shoot and kill the two Bigfoots.

They say he shot the first one because he thought she was a bear and shot the second one because it was threatening him.

Neither report is true.

The shooter knew she was not a bear. His line is he thought she was threatening him. And the second one wasn’t threatening him either.

The shooter was a passenger in the truck with three bear hunters near the Dixie Mountain Game Refuge on the California/Nevada border in November 2010. They came around a bend, and there was a grayish white female Bigfoot in the road on all fours. The shooter grabbed his gun and jumped out of his vehicle. As he jumped out, he saw the Bigfoot get up on two legs and start running towards him waving her arms. When the Bigfoot saw the gun, she turned and started to run away. The shooter shot her in the side of the chest, and the bullet penetrated her lungs.

She crashed off into the brush and died. The three men went down into the brush and saw her there. It was then that they realized that she was not a bear at all. They walked back up onto the road.

When they got to the road, they saw two small, strange creatures running towards them, sometimes on two legs, sometimes on four legs. The shooter raised his gun, fired and shot one of the creatures dead. The other small creature apparently escaped. As the shooter cradled the dying creature in his arms, they all three realized that it was a young creature of the same type that had just gotten shot. The juvenile Bigfoot had a huge head, and the shooter said it looked exactly like the Jacobs creature photo.

The shooter did not shoot the young Bigfoot because it was threatening him, which is his story. He just shot it for some unknown reason.

At this point they figured out that they had killed two Bigfoots. The two men with the shooter were so hysterical and upset about the shootings that they took the shooter’s gun away from him and pointed it at him, threatening him. They told him that if he tried to shoot another one of those animals, they would shoot him instead. The story is that everyone was so upset by that point that they left the area. The shooter said that they left the animals in the road, and he was not going back to the area until next fall.

There is a lot of fighting inside the Erickson Project. Adrian Erickson and Melba Ketchum are not getting along well. At least one reason is that Erickson paid Ketchum $70,000 for the sequencing of six Bigfoot samples. To this date, he has not received results from these samples, even though those samples do represent six separate confirmed Bigfoot individuals. He did receive results from one DNA test, the test he had done on himself. Most of the principals had their own DNA tested to avoid contamination.

Erickson had an agreement with Ketchum that if his Bigfoot samples tested out as coming from real Bigfoots, they would then be used in the final writeup. One or more of his samples were from real Bigfoots, but Ketchum is apparently threatening to not include them in her paper due to their falling out. So Erickson is threatening to sue her for violating their agreement.

Erickson has also threatened to sue a couple of other folks, including Dennis Pfohl and Mike Rugg, but I am not sure of the reason. Erickson is well liked, and he is also deeply respected. At the same time, the respect seems tinged with fear. He has sunk $3 million into this project, and he is not going to get it back.

One great thing to come out of the release of the Erickson Project results is that maybe Bigfoot witnesses will not be so persecuted. Roger Patterson was not an honorable man, but he did shoot a real video of a Bigfoot in California in 1967. He was so hounded by skeptics that they may have driven him to an early grave.

Bob Gimlin was so upset at the hounding that he more or less retreated from the public eye for over 20 years after the shooting of the video. He only came out in 1989. Gimlin is a tough man, but all of the attacks have still hurt him. Entire books and countless articles and Internet pieces have been written about how he hoaxed the famous video.

From Canada, word comes that Bigfoots are much more common around Indian communities than around non-Indians. It seems that Bigfoots are more comfortable around Indians than around non-Indians. One may speculate about reasons.

Updating a previous story, a trapper in McBride, British Colombia has told people that he was recently kidnapped by Bigfoots, who took him back to a cave and tried to make him have sex with a female Bigfoot. It’s an updated Albert Ostman story.

Another trapper somewhere in British Colombia is living by himself way out in the woods far away from anyone else. He is reportedly nearly living with a group of Bigfoots. He sees them every single day. This may possibly be the same man who says he was kidnapped by Bigfoots. The stories should be followed up.

A previous post reported on some Canadians who dug up a muskeg and found a Bigfoot hand skeleton in it. It was a Bigfoot burial ground. In northern Canada, Bigfoots use muskegs as burial grounds. This particular muskeg was in northern Saskatchewan.

The Bigfoot shooting and DNA stories are powerful news, maybe the stories of the year. Bigfoot is on the verge of being formally discovered by science.

*******

In 1958, the Russian scientist Dr. Boris Porchnev concluded that relict hominids, cavemen from the Stone Age, continue to live among us to this very day. His prophetic views have been vindicated. The implications are nothing less than breathtaking. It’s nearly the story of the century already, and we’ve only just come round the bend. Hold onto your seats.

Check out Bigfoot Forums for the best Bigfoot discussion on the web.

References

Porchnev, Boris and Heuvelmans, Bernard. 1974. L’homme de Néanderthal est toujours vivant (Neanderthal Is Still Alive). Paris: Plon.

Bear Hunter Interview Part 2: More Outrageous Bigfoot Allegations and Revelations

Here is the second part of my interview with a fellow I will call Bear Hunter. The widely read first part is here.

It deals with a wide range of subjects, including why we have a hard time getting good trailcam videos of Bigfoots, Bigfoots burying their dead in peat bogs, Bigfoot gravediggers who dug up a Bigfoot grave and found a skeleton of a Bigfoot hand, a trapper who is more or less living with a group of Bigfoots, an wilderness area with a huge number of disappearances that may be Bigfoot-related, and most outrageously of all, a man who claims that he was kidnapped by Bigfoots and  taken to their lair where they tried to force him to mate with a female Bigfoot a la the famous Albert Ostman story.

I think we ought to send someone up to Canada to try to find the guy who is reporting the Albert Ostman Redux story. At the very least, it deserves to be investigated.

RL: Do you think Bigfoots avoid trailcams? Some people say that they avoid those cameras.

BH: They do avoid them as a matter of fact. They can hear the cams. The cams give off a lot of noise. It’s at a low frequency that humans can’t hear, but the Bigfoots can hear it. Other animals can hear it too, but they are not as wary as Bigfoots. For instance, some of your great big trophy deer won’t go near one. Bigfoots can hear them for quite a ways away, and they just stay away from them. The manufacturers know that the cams give off a lot of noise, and they are working now to reduce the noise that they give off.

RL: What do you think Bigfoots do with their dead? I say they bury them.

BH: They do bury their dead. In Canada, they bury their dead in peat bogs. These bogs are funny places, sort of like swamps, but they are almost like quicksand. You can sink down and get trapped and die in them if you are not careful. I know some guys who dug up a bog and found some Bigfoot bones. They put all the bones together and ended up with a Bigfoot hand skeleton.

RL: Why don’t they go public with it?

BH: You have to understand the way these guys are. These types…they just don’t care. They don’t care about getting famous or going public or anything like that. They are outside of all of that. These guys who found the skeleton have a cabin way back in the woods that they use for recreation. The Bigfoot hand skeleton is there, mounted on a piece of wood. They have a few beers, get drunk, bring this thing out and laugh about it and make jokes. That’s all they want to do with it.

RL: Are you aware of any habituation stories we haven’t heard about yet?

BH: There is a guy in British Colombia, a trapper who lives way out in the woods. He’s supposedly totally habituated some Bigfoots. He’s more or less living with them in a sense. He sees them every single day.

RL: What do you think of the Albert Ostman story? Is it true?

BH: It’s a true story. What’s even more strange is that there is a fellow up in British Colombia, a trapper, who has a similar story. He was talking to a friend of mine, telling him about Bigfoots, and then the trapper mentions that he got kidnapped by Bigfoots once! My friend said that at that point, he stopped listening to the guy, forget it.

The guy said a Bigfoot kidnapped him and took him back to a cave where the Bigfoots were living and tried to force the guy to have sex with a female Bigfoot! Just like the Albert Ostman story, no? So it looks like maybe Bigfoots do kidnap humans sometimes for breeding purposes.

RL: Is this guy who got kidnapped by the Bigfoots for breeding the same as the guy who is living in a habituation situation with the Bigfoots?

BH: He may well be. They are both trappers in British Colombia living way out in the woods.

You know, we also have people in Canada who disappear on a regular basis. There is one area of British Colombia where 21 people have vanished without a trace over many years. It’s also an area with many Bigfoot sightings. A lot of people are scared to go in there. I know a lot of outdoorsmen who refuse to go anywhere near that area. It seems like there is something creepy going on there. I am wondering if the Bigfoots are behind the disappearances, and if any of this involves kidnapping humans for breeding purposes.

Check out Bigfoot Forums for the best Bigfoot discussion on the web.

New Erickson Project News: Bigfoot DNA Project Using Two Dead Bigfoot Bodies for Samples

Note: Long, runs to 24 pages.

I was recently put into touch with a hunter from Western North America who is quite well known in his field. You might even say that he is famous. He and others were the subject of a recent book, and he often gives talks at various forums. He was formerly employed at America’s foremost science museum but is no longer working there.

He is considered to be at the top of his field, which I will not reveal here. He is also a hunter and travels around North America hunting. He especially likes to hunt bears. This puts him in touch with many other hunters. He is also active on taxidermy boards. He has deep ties to the Erickson Project and the Olympic Project.

He will be known anonymously as Bear Hunter in this article, as he only talked to me on the grounds that his identity was kept secret.

Robert Lindsay: Hi, what made you decide to get in touch with me?

Bear Hunter: Well, I read your article where you interviewed Richard Stubstad, and I thought, “Wow! This guy is hot on the trial! He’s really close. He’s closing in. So I decided to fill in some blanks for you.”

RL: Is there a reason why you decided to spill the beans on this hot news to me just now?

BH: Yes, I am getting very impatient with the pace of this project. You know, it’s always coming out this year, then next year, then this year again, then next year again, then this spring. I’m getting tired of it. I want to jumpstart this project and tell them to get going and finish it up.

RL: You say you have some blockbuster news regarding the Erickson Project Bigfoot DNA study, right?

BH: Yes I do. This all started from a thread on Taxidermy.net, a website where I hang out. There are sometimes threads on Bigfoots, and in this one thread, in November 2010, a guy said that he had just shot two Bigfoots! The guy is a trapper, a taxidermist and a hunter. This was huge news of course, and pretty soon there were lots of followup posts. Somehow the guy’s name and number got out, and there were reports of people bothering him and harassing him. He asked the webmaster, George Ruff, to shut down the thread. George shut it down.

Well, afterward, I got in touch with the guy and talked to him for a while.  Adrian Erickson, Matt Moneymaker and Tyler Huggins all got involved. Moneymaker and Huggins are with the BFRO (Bigfoot Field Research Organization). Erickson had heard of Bigfoots getting shot; actually, he has lots a number of stories from Canada where they get shot pretty regularly. But, as he put it, “I’ve never been two weeks behind a shooting before.” Everybody was scrambling after this guy!

RL: How was it that the Bigfoots came to be shot, and were they killed?

BH: In November 2010, [name withheld] was hunting on the border between Nevada and California, inside California, near a game refuge. (RL: Based on my investigation, it took place in or near the Dixie Mountain Game Refuge west of Frenchman Lake on the Plumas National Forest in Plumas County. It borders Washoe County in Nevada. See a map here).

On one side of the game refuge, there was this single road in a canyon leading into and out of the refuge. Bigfoots were apparently using the game refuge, since they are safe from hunters there.

The guy was on this road when he came upon a large dirty-white (RL: supposedly female) Bigfoot standing in the road. Since the narrow road was the only route in and out of the place, the Bigfoots were forced to use this road whether they wanted to or not. The Bigfoot was standing there waving her arms at him. I thought maybe she was telling the hunter to back up so the Bigfoot could move through, since the Bigfoot was stuck on the road, no?

The guy stopped his truck and jumped out. He knew it was a Bigfoot, but he thought she was threatening him. The Bigfoot knew his intentions by now, and she started to run away. He shot her with a 25.06. He shot her through the side of her chest, piercing her lungs. The Bigfoot took off into the brush, but he heard her crash down soon afterward.

Next thing he knew, he heard barking sounds coming from the side of the road. There were two young Bigfoots there that popped up out of nowhere. They were brown-colored. The hunter shot one of the young Bigfoots dead! He’s an idiot, right?

It died in his arms. 4 feet tall, 80 pounds. He said it had a huge head, and then I knew it was a young Bigfoot, because the young ones have gigantic heads while they are still young. The head is more normal sized as they get older. Remember that “Pancake Video” from the Kentucky Project, where the young Bigfoot has a huge head that everyone was saying was a human with some birth defect? Well, that is what they look like when they are young.

Have you seen the Jacobs footage that they say is a mangy bear? The shooter told me the juvenile he shot looked just like the Jacobs creature.

RL: Yes, what is it? A bear?

BH: No way. It’s a juvenile Bigfoot. You can tell by the hips. And the neck. The thing has no neck. I know bears. I love bears. No way is that a bear.

RL: Why did he shoot the adult Bigfoot? He says he thought it was a bear.

BH: No. He knew what it was. Because of the color. Bears don’t come in off-white. Anyone knows that. He shot it because he thought it was threatening him.

RL: Why did he shoot the juvenile Bigfoot? He says it got up on an outcrop and was threatening him.

BH: No, that’s not true. Why did he shoot it? He’s that kind of guy. I know a lot of hunters. Most are good people, but some are not. There are a lot of guys like him out there hunting. People shoot things just because they can, just to kill them. That’s why he did it. He did it because that’s what kind of person he is.

RL: What did he do with the Bigfoots?

BH: He told us that he left them lying there. There was snow on the ground, so we figured that there might still be enough time to go in and get the bodies. Pretty soon, we decided that the guy was probably lying. We thought he probably took the bodies, because taxidermists are hoarders – they never leave anything they shoot in the field.

RL: The Olympic Project says they went back to the site over two weeks later and found a bit of flesh on the ground, left over from the shooting. They used this bit of flesh to slice up and submit to the DNA project.

BH: No, they told me they never went back there.

RL: What happened to the dead Bigfoots?

BH: Well, we put the hunter in contact with the Olympic Project that is working on Bigfoots in Washington State. We didn’t hear much for a while, only that the OP folks kept saying, “We are just trying to keep [name withheld] out of jail.” The hunter was convinced that if California figured out he shot these two Bigfoots, he was going to jail. He was really afraid of going to jail.

RL: Ok, then?

BH: Moneymaker and the BFRO were in on this too. It was a mad rush for those bodies!

We didn’t hear much more for a while until the Olympic Project starting sending samples to Melba Ketchum for her DNA project as part of the Erickson Project. Some of the samples that the EP was getting were of tissue, and they looked like they were carved off a dead body!

(RL: One sample appeared to be carved off of the thigh of a human or hominid cadaver. Dr. Ketchum was so freaked out by the sample that she called people up asking them to hold it for her in case the police came to her lab, because she was afraid of going to jail.)

The samples had two different colors of hair. Obviously, the Olympic Project was sending Ketchum samples carved from the bodies of the two dead Bigfoots? Isn’t that incredible?

RL: Who has the Bigfoots, the hunter or the Olympic Project?

BH: I think that the hunter still has the bodies or he has parts of the bodies. Maybe he cut parts off them before he left. If he has the bodies, he has probably cut them up, cut off the heads and has them on ice. They can last a long time like that. I don’t think the Olympic Project has the bodies.

We did a lot more digging, and we found that now the hunter is associated deeply with the OP. He’s part of their project. The OP is not admitting to anything. They deny it all, they say they have no dead Bigfoots, and they don’t have access to any. 

RL: Incredible news!

BH: Yes, there’s more too. Notice how the Olympic Project is all over the Internet boards talking about how they have enough Bigfoot samples to last for years? Guess why they say that? Probably because they have access to two dead Bigfoot bodies! Think about it.

RL: Too much…Do you know about any leaks from the Erickson Project DNA study?

BH: Yes, I do. They are very close to humans. Say if chimpanzees are 2 clicks away from humans, these things are maybe 3/4 of a click away.

RL: Ok, and they are in the Homo line?

BH: Yes, I am sure of that. Recall that say 50,000 YBP, there were maybe five different hominids on the planet. Homo sapiens sapiens, Homo erectus, Homo Floresiensis, Denisova, Homo heidelbergensis and Neandertal Man. All of these other hominids are gone. What happened to them?

RL: We killed them all.

BH: Yes, we killed them all. So the only thing that could survive was something that was huge, very stealthy and wary, hated humans, favored the most remote areas, had the use of bad smell to ward off enemies, used an intense EMF field to paralyze and disorient enemies, was very strong and had a very thick skin that was hard to penetrate. They’re the ultimate survivors of our genocidal wars.

RL: Do you think they are humans or apes?

BH: I don’t know. You know Bindernagel wrote that book, America’s Great Ape, but then after he saw the Bigfoots in Kentucky, he changed his mind. Now he thinks that they are hominids. But I know one fellow who saw one face to face on a trail. He said it’s ape-like; it’s an ape-man. So who knows?

RL: Do you have any info on the Kentucky Project?

BH: I do. Erickson bought that place, and he got a lot of great video out of there. He installed Dennis Pfohl and Leila Hadj-Chikh there, and they shot quite a bit of Bigfoot video. Erickson said he had so much good Bigfoot video that he was getting tired of taking pictures of them. At one point, he brought Bindernagel down there to see the Bigfoots. Bindernagel was able to see them. He also wanted to bring John Green down there, but he was very sick with prostate cancer and could not make it.

A friend of mine saw the famous video of the young female Bigfoot walking in the forest. She walks towards the camera, then sees the camerawoman, growls and turns away. He said there is no way that this could be a costume. They also shot video of a huge male at that site, but everyone is keeping very quiet about that.

RL: Do you believe that Erickson is in it for the money?

BH: I get tired of hearing this. Erickson has sunk $3 million of his own money into this thing. $3 million! He hasn’t made one nickel back.

RL: Do you have any information about Erickson’s movie about Bigfoot?

BH: Yes, it’s finished! 10

RL: Do you know if Dr. Ketchum has any TV or film interests in the works?

BH: Yes, she is involved with National Geographic. They want to do a special on Bigfoot, and she is involved in that.

RL: What’s the relationship between Bigfoots and trappers?

BH: Bigfoots hang out along traplines and raid them. I heard of one case where a Bigfoot got caught in a trap. The Bigfoot got himself out of the trap by bending the solid steel! Unbelievable!

RL: You say you hear a lot of stories of Bigfoots getting killed?

BH: Yes, I get a story about every 2 months. They range from recent to pretty far back in time. There are many stories coming out of Canada too. Erickson also has many stories. It’s the same story every time. People kill it, and it looks so much like a human being that they leave it in the field because they are afraid they are going to be prosecuted for murder.

RL: I say that if you believe in Bigfoot, you must also believe in a few things. 1) People are shooting at and killing these things fairly regularly. 2) There must be a government coverup. 3) We are photographing and videotaping Bigfoots on a fairly regular basis.

BH: I agree. As far as a government coverup, of course the government must know about these things. And I know that the timber industry knows about them. And people shoot them all the time.

There was a recent case in Alberta where the Fish and Wildlife people were poisoning wolves. They are supposed to tell trappers about this, but they didn’t in this case. A trapper found a dead wolf partly eaten and huge tracks leading away from it. The tracks were of a Bigfoot that had been poisoned by eating the wolf. The guy tracked it for a while but then lost the trail.

He reported it to the Game people, but they paid him $20,000 to shut him up. They kept saying, “So, you lost 5 cougar dogs tracking that thing. That’s worth about $20,000.” He hadn’t lost any cougar dogs. He finally figured out they were offering him money to shut him up, so he took the money.

RL: What’s the motivation for the coverup?

BH: In Canada, they are worried about resource lockup. They are afraid it will shut down logging. I know that up there, as soon as there is a Bigfoot sighting, the timber people get word of it and come in and clearcut the area. They do that to drive the Bigfoot off, because they don’t want the Bigfoot on their logging land. They’re afraid it will keep them from logging the land.

RL: Do you think Bigfoots are getting habituated to humans in any way?

BH: Yes, a friend of mine in Alberta told me about a Bigfoot that was living on the outskirts of the Nordegg dump, living off the garbage, foraging food out of the trash. People tracked the thing way back into a remote area and found its nest. All sorts of stuff from the dump had been hung in trees 8-10 feet up, bicycles, chairs, you name it. The Bigfoot was decorating its home with that stuff.

RL: Wow!

BH: Yes, I have so many stories. When I go to give my talks, I always say if you have any Bigfoot stories, come up and talk to me afterward. Every time, people come up to talk to me. All sorts of people. They haven’t told many others about their sightings, and every case, they have not reported it to any private or public agency.

One guy told me how he was hunting in a swamp in the Southeast US, and he passed out from the swamp gas. The stuff can overwhelm you and make you pass out.

He woke up, and he was next to a spring. There was a huge 8-foot Bigfoot crouched down next to him, offering a cup of water from the spring. The cup had been hanging from the spring. People sometimes hang metal cups from springs. He took a drink, passed out again, and then woke up again later on. The Bigfoot was still there, and it offered him another drink. He drank it and passed out again. He woke up the third time, and the Bigfoot was gone.

RL: Do you think that tracking dogs are good for tracking Bigfoots, say in order to capture one? Jeff Meldrum has been talking about that a lot lately.

BH: I think dogs are useless when it comes to tracking these things. You know, I am a hunter, and I use tracking dogs all the time. We take people out on guided hunts, and I hunt myself all the time using guides. Dogs will track anything, but they won’t track these things. The meanest dog on Earth will be left pissing, shivering and whimpering by his master’s legs.

I knew one guy who sent six dogs after a Bigfoot. Only five of them came back; the sixth was torn up. The other five dogs were so traumatized that they were useless as trackers. They would never track another animal again. And these were good tracking dogs.

RL: What do you think of Bigfoots’ use of infrasound?

BH: I am not sure that they use infrasound. You see, all animals have an EMF field that they give off, and these things do too. One of my theories is that these things have a very strong EMF field that they give off, and they may be able to manipulate it. One thing you notice is that when these things are around, everything goes quiet, and most of the animals around take off. That’s because of the strong EMF field that the Bigfoots give off. It scares the crap out of other animals.

I know that they use this field to disorient people. Erickson said he was being chased out of the forest in Canada by one once, and he was so disoriented and delirious that he had to keep looking at the moss on the trees, because you know, moss only grows on the north? That’s because the Bigfoot was disorienting him so much that he kept getting lost.

I am going to test this theory out by buying an outfit that they sell for $100. It neutralizes your own EMF field. Supposedly, you can wear it and walk right up to animals and touch them.

RL: Were you always a Bigfoot believer?

BH: Not at all. I was a skeptic until five years ago. Then I started looking into this thing, and all of these people started coming forward, including people I had known for years and trusted completely. I started getting swamped with these stories, even people I had known a long time had stories, but they had never told me! I dove into it, started doing a lot of research, and soon it became completely obvious that these things exist. People can ridicule me all they want to, and they do, believe me. But I don’t care; I know they are real.

RL: Have you met any skeptics who saw one?

BH: Many times. And a lot of them were hardcore skeptics. But then they saw a Bigfoot, and they all changed over to believers. They said that their lives were changed completely.

Check out Bigfoot Forums for the best Bigfoot discussion on the web.

Owen the Hippo and Tortoise Mr. Mom

Repost from the old site.

I bet you did not know that the horrible Tsunami that hit South and Southeast Asia a while back, killing 275,000 humans, also hit Kenya. It did. There are lots of critters still running around in Africa that the increasingly advanced Africans have not yet killed off.

There are hippopotamuses and giant tortoises. These tortoises are really giant, not like our desert tortoises here in California that are about as big as a football.

During the tsunami, the baby hippo, Owen, 350 pounds, and its hippo Mommy (name and weight unknown) got swept down the Sabaki River into the Indian Ocean. Though hippos can swim ok, they don’t like floods and tend to die in them. Owen’s Mom got killed, and Owen landed in the Indian Ocean. Then the tsunami waves swept him ashore with lots of other critters.

Somewhere in all this mess, Owen landed on top of a giant tortoise, male, age 100, name unknown. He probably landed on his shell and they both rode the tsunami waves onto the beach where they both kicked back and caught some rays of exhaustion until they were rescued.

Even though the tortoise is a dude, Owen either could not figure that out or didn’t care. He decided that Tortoise was his new Mom. They bonded well, and Tortoise, though being a guy and all, does not mind being Mr. Mom. They eat, swim and sleep together.

Owen follows Tortoise just like he followed his Mom, and he growls at anyone who tries to approach Tortoise. Hippos stay with Mom for four years, so Owen will probably live at home for another few years before moving out.

I thought it was interesting that Owen showed so many advanced emotions in these photos. He shows tenderness, love and kindness, and appears to be trying to kiss Tortoise, though I can’t see how any animal could kiss a tortoise. Tortoise either also has advanced emotions, or has undecipherable reptilian emotions, or I’m hallucinating. But some tortoises do mate for life, which is awfully advanced behavior for a mere reptile.

Photos at the link.

Bigfoot DNA Is Not Modern Human DNA

A commenter writes:

Achilli A, et al. The Molecular Dissection of mtDNA Haplogroup H Confirms That the Franco-Cantabrian Glacial Refuge Was a Major Source for the European Gene Pool. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 75:910–918, 2004.

“These findings have major implications for the origin of Europeans, since they attest that the Franco-Cantabrian refuge area was indeed the source of late-glacial expansions of hunter-gatherers that repopulated much of Central and Northern Europe from ∼15,000 years ago.”

In other words, according to what has been presented here, it is most likely that the mtDNA in Stubstad’s samples originated from humans of European ancestry. Thus while there is neither evidence of a new primate nor of a hybrid species, there is the suggestion that that those who submitted tissue were either sincerely mistaken as to the actual source or actively participated in a hoax.

First of all, the samples show no evidence of a new primate or a hybrid species. Based on the samples alone, the conclusion is, bizarrely enough, that Bigfoots are some sort of human!

It’s not true at all. The two samples matched very well for ancient European DNA from that glacial refuge. There were 9 samples from that region, and those were the best matches for the 2 samples. Modern European DNA looks quite a bit different from the ancient glacial refuge DNA. Some modern European DNA looks somewhat like the glacial refuge DNA, that is people from Spain, Portugal and Southern France.

However, even that is not nearly as good a match as the glacial refuge DNA, which almost a complete match, with both samples matching all 8 glacial refuge samples very well.

What are the chances that the DNA was a hoax or that of any two matched humans of whatever type? According to Stubstad, statistically, there is a 9

Furthermore, hoax appears to be ruled out as the two groups are from opposite ends of the US, and they don’t even like each other enough to cooperate on anything. In fact, they hate each other. Furthermore, Stubstad met one of the submitters and did not feel that the man was even capable of such an elaborate hoax.

Check out Bigfoot Forums for the best Bigfoot talk on the web.

Interview with Richard Stubstad: Is Bigfoot Human?

I recently conducted an interview with Richard Stubstad on the subject of Bigfoot. Stubstad was an early player in Melba Ketchum’s genetic studies of Bigfoot which later branched into the Erickson Project, among others. Stubstad himself has no relationship with the Erickson Project at all.

Lately, he has been publishing his own analysis of the samples that he worked with. His job was to analyze the initial samples as a statistician to determine their MtDNA and the probability that they were finding something real and not a hoax or misidentification. Stubstad’s website is here. You need to hit the click here button to read the pdf on his analysis.

Stubstad’s paper deals with two samples. Sample 1 is apparently a bone from the southwestern US. The location is not known. Sample 2 is blood and tissue gathered from the northeastern US, possibly Vermont, but I am not sure.

The two samples lined up almost totally, a very surprising result. A hoax was ruled out because the two locations were very distant from each other, and the two groups did not cooperate with each other. Thus these two samples have a 9

The kicker is that both samples came back 10

*******

Robert Lindsay (RL): You say that these samples come from the Franco-Cantabrian glacial refuge in Europe 10-20,000 YBP. Does that mean that no modern humans have MtDNA like this? Were there any samples in GenBank of modern Europeans showing similar MtDNA to these ancient Europeans? What I am asking is if it is possible for the samples to be from modern humans existing today, or is that impossible?

Richard Stubstad (RS): Well, this is one of the caveats. There are some modern populations who have MtDNA which resembles the ancient European samples. They tend to be Spaniards, Portuguese, Catalans, Basques, southern French, etc. So a human today with predominant ancestry from these regions could have DNA that looked like that from the Franco-Cantabrian glacial refuge. However, there is a 9

RL: Do you think that the samples were of Bigfoots?

RS: I really do. I don’t think it was a hoax because the two groups who submitted these samples do not work together at all. In fact, they don’t even like each other. I can’t imagine them working together for any reason. Also, I went to the southwestern site, and I believe this fellow really does have some Bigfoot activity at his site. I’m no expert, but that’s my impression. I also felt this guy was simply incapable of such an elaborate hoax. I won’t go into the reasons for that, but let’s just leave it at that.

RL: So Bigfoot is human then? What kind of sense does that make? It makes no sense at all.

RS: Well, in my opinion, Bigfoot is probably a hybrid species, part human, part something else (a related hominid of some kind), that has the ability to have viable offspring. The MtDNA only means that there was a human female from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge in the Bigfoot line during that time frame. That’s all it means. It doesn’t speak to the females of the Bigfoot line before that, nor does it speak to the male lineage.

RL: One of the leaks from the Erickson Project said that Bigfoot was partway between a Neandertal and a human. Jeff Meldrum was said to be surprised that they were that close to us. He thought they would be more distant. Is there any evidence of Neandertal MtDNA in the sequence?

RS: There is none whatsoever. Neandertal differs by ~200 polymorphisms on the mitochondrial side, and that was not indicated in this finding at all. Even Neandertal MtDNA is quite a bit different, so this should have shown up. Dr. Ketchum is a likely supporter of the hybrid theory. This is something that she knows a lot about due to her work with animals – hybridized species.

One of her theories was that there could have been what she called “seepage” of Neandertal DNA into the Bigfoot mitochondrial genome. However, I don’t really see much evidence of this. Perhaps there is more compelling evidence on the nuclear DNA side; I just don’t know.

RL: Does GenBank even have any Neandertal sequences in it?

RS: As a matter of fact, they do, and I believe they have more than one – there are in fact several in there.

RL: In the paper, you list two dates – 10-20,000 YBP and 20-30,000 YBP, for the samples. Which one is correct?

RS: The samples themselves matched best with nine samples in GenBank. Eight of these were dated to ~15,000 YBP in the Franco-Cantabrian glacial refuge. However, I believe that this sequence can go back all the way to 20-30,000 YBP in that same area. So it could be anywhere from 10-30,000 YBP in that refuge.

RL: I have been trying to put this all together, but I just get more and more confused. This still does not make sense to me. However, a human-Neandertal or human-Erectus hybrid is at least conceivable.

One thing I find interesting is that the Franco-Cantabrian refuge is where the Neandertals made their last stand on Earth before they went extinct. The last Neandertals are known from caves at Gibraltar ~27,000 YBP. So possibly, the last remains of the Neandertals mated with one or more human females in this area, and Bigfoot was born. The Neandertals went extinct, but Bigfoot as we know it today here in North America was conceived.

RS: I don’t have a problem with that. We have a lot of stories of so-called Bigfoot males around the world taking human females to breed with them, especially here in North America.

Possibly what happened is that the remaining archaic hominids bred in with some human females in the same fashion, and the resulting offspring had enough increased fitness (ie, survival of the fittest) to keep the species from going extinct. That is, the archaic hominids may have gone extinct, but the archaic hominid-human crosses had enough increased fitness that they were able to survive.

RL: Can you describe your relationship with the Erickson Project?

RS:: Yes. Initially, I was involved at the very start of the project, not with Adrian Erickson himself, but with Dr. Ketchum along with a few other folks.

RL: Is it possible that you refused to sign an NDA and this was the reason you were not allowed to continue?

RS: No! I signed an NDA way back in January of 2010, but Dr. Ketchum threw us out anyway. We all signed NDA’s, and we all obeyed them. Even before I was thrown out though, my NDA expired, so I am not on the hook for anything. I think she wants to make this a one-woman show.

RL: You said you think she will be the sole author of the piece and that such papers often have more than one author. How do you know this? Is it possible that you and others might still be listed as co-authors?

RS: No! There is no way we are going to be listed as co-authors. You see, there were several of us, and we were all supposed to be co-authors, but Dr. Ketchum threw either most or all of us all off, so I assume Dr. Ketchum will be the sole author.

RL: What do you think Ketchum’s motivation was? Glory? Money?

RS: I think she wants to get all the credit for this discovery, and maybe there is a financial motive as well. Maybe she wants be some kind of TV star. I really don’t know.

RL: We don’t know if your samples were used in her paper or not, correct? Is it possible that your samples were not useful for Ketchum? I mean, maybe they were useful and maybe they were not, right?

RS: Well, we don’t know if she is using the samples I worked with in the project. I think maybe she is not, as we were thrown off. She still has quite a few other samples. She has about 20 good samples in total. Of those, she may have used 10 or more for her paper. Were the first two samples useful? Of course they were! These were the initial samples that yielded what she called “very interesting results;” the ones that got her interested in doing the larger project project that followed.

RL: You are not leaking private information about this project, correct? And you only know about the initial phase of the project and nothing about what came afterwards, right?

RS: This is correct. I’m not leaking anything; that was a mischaracterization. My NDA expired, and I’m not violating anything. And yes, I know nothing at all about what happened with the project after I left.

RL: How do you feel Ketchum’s project will go?

RS: I am uncertain about it. For one thing, it’s apparently a one woman show, and these papers usually have more than one author. How will a woman show go over with peer reviewers? For another, I feel that she may overreach and make too many unwarranted generalizations or speculations in this piece. We may have another Lloyd Pye case on our hands, like with his so-called Starchild Skull.

RL: I have such a hard time thinking that Bigfoot is human. It really stretches the definition of what human means.

They have hair all over their bodies, they have a nuchal or occipital crest on their skull, they have very long arms, a somewhat nonhuman hand, a nonhuman way of walking, they are much taller and weigh more than any human race, they have a midtarsal break that went out with Homo Erectus 300,000 YBP, they have hair on their breasts, they have no tools or fire, they do not seem to have a normal human language – they are language poor and do not seem able to pick up human languages very easily as another human race would – and they sometimes give off a strong odor similar to what an ape does.

On and on. They’re simply not human. That’s all there is to it.

RS: I agree with you, and this is why I think they are a hybrid between humans and some other hominid.

RL: Are you aware of the feral human theory for Bigfoot?

RS: Yes I am, and it must be considered as one of the hypotheses, but there are many problems with this hypothesis, as you note above.

RL: Regarding the other Bigfoot types around the world, do you think we are dealing with something similar? To me, looking at the Almasty, the Yeren, the Mawas, the Yeti, the Nguoi Rung, the Yowie and others, it seems that we are dealing with the same beast, maybe in different forms.

RS: I agree with you. It does seem to be the same animal, with some differences, maybe similar to the differences between a Lowland Gorilla and a Mountain Gorilla.

RL: Although I think the little Orang Pendek of Sumatra may be something different.

RS: Yes, well there, we can can possibly connect this creature to some recent bones of the so-called “Hobbit” or Flores Man in Indonesia.

RL: Is there anything else you would like to add?

RS: Yes, there is one more thing! I looked at another MtDNA sample, and it came out completely different!

RL: How do you mean? How did the DNA come back? Was it Homo sapiens sapiens again?

RS: Yes, it was as a matter of fact, but it was nothing like the two samples that came back as from the ancient Franco-Cantabrian refuge. It was completely different.

RL: Now things are really not making any sense. Can you elaborate?

RS: Well, not really. I am going to write this up in my next addition to the website you mentioned to begin this interview, hopefully within the next month or so. But it goes along with a theory of mine, that maybe Bigfoot males were taking human females into their genetic line at various points in history. Now – this doesn’t mean that I know this to be a fact; I’m merely speculating…

*******

That’s it for the interview. We may be interviewing some other biggies in the Bigfoot World as things come to a head with the Erickson Project in the near future.

For the best in Bigfoot discussions, make sure to visit Bigfoot Forums.

Transcript of Reason Radio Interview with Me on October 13, 2010

Since the sound quality was so poor, I decided to make a transcript of this interview available for you all. Enjoy it. Robert Stark: We’re going to be discussing California issues, how the states have changed, and how it affects trends facing the rest of the nation, but first of all, I came across this article on Robert’s site called Some Sensible Positions for Liberal Race Realists and White Advocates. Your first point is to amend the Constitution to get rid of the anchor baby thing. Very sensible position that most Americans would support. Robert Lindsay: I don’t know if they could get it through Congress and pass it as a Constitutional amendment, but all White advocates should be supporting this move. It is a very reasonable position to take. My position is that White advocates should not be taking crazy positions – almost all of them are taking these crazy, loony positions like “freedom of association” that are simply never going to fly. This move to amend the Constitution to get rid of the anchor baby thing is a reasonable position. Your average reasonable person, especially White person, says, “Sure, why not? Good idea.” The Left is trying to portray this as racism, but hey, let them scream! Because your average normal American, at least White people, and even some Black people, looks at this and says, “What? They’re calling these people racists? Because they want to amend the Constitution to get rid of these stupid anchor babies? That’s not racist, that’s just rational.” Robert Stark: I think that even liberal European countries don’t give out citizenship to anchor babies. Robert Lindsay: Some countries may allow it, but I think most of Europe has gotten rid of it. Ireland recently had birthright citizenship, but they just got rid of it. We’re one of the last countries around to have this. Robert Stark: Ireland has only been getting a lot of immigration recently because of their economy. Robert Lindsay: There has been a recent trend for at least White countries to get rid of birthright citizenship. As far as the rest of the world goes, I don’t know, but I would be surprised if there is much birthright citizenship. Most countries don’t agree with the concept. Why should you get birthright citizenship? If you’re born in some foreign country, you get citizenship of whatever country your parents are citizens of. Robert Stark: Yes, it should be based on the parents. Robert Lindsay: You’re still a citizen of some country! You have a right to be a citizen of some country in the world. If a female American citizen and I go over to…Peru and have a child there, why is that kid a Peruvian citizen? That kid is an American citizen. It’s born of American citizens. Despite the fact that we are living in Peru now, we are still just American citizens living in a foreign country. Robert Stark: What are your thoughts on dual citizenship? Robert Lindsay: I understand that there is a lot more dual citizenship going around than people think. I mean, the anti-Semites go on and on about US Jews being “dual citizens” of the US and Israel. But my understanding is that there’s a lot of dual citizenship going on here in the US and in other countries as well. Immigrants from many different countries the world over who are here in the US actually have dual citizenship – US citizenship and citizenship in their home country. So apparently it’s not just a thing with Jewish Americans having Israeli citizenship – they are not the only ones. Robert Stark: I think the Israeli issue is not so much the dual citizenship – a lot of immigrants have that – the main thing is that many people in positions of power in the government and politics are more likely to have dual Israeli-US citizenship. Robert Lindsay: The real concern is that, say, your average person who has Irish and US dual citizenship is not some sort of virtual agent working for the Irish government. Your average person with Israeli and US dual citizenship is practically an Israeli agent! And that’s the whole problem right there. That’s the whole problem with dual loyalty and the Jews. Robert Stark: Yes, the dual loyalty is a problem. And due to multiculturalism, it’s tolerated, when we really should not be tolerating dual loyalties. Robert Lindsay: Dual loyalty is a problem with Jews due to the nature of Judaism and the Jews. Most other ethnic groups are not so ethnocentric as the Jews so we don’t worry about dual loyalty much with them. But due to the nature of Judaism, Jews are loyal to the Jews first and their native land second if at all. That’s why this dual loyalty thing keeps cropping up with the Jews – it’s inherent in the Jews themselves. It’s not an anti-Semitic canard. Robert Stark: Yes, it’s just how they are. Robert Lindsay: With the Jews, dual loyalty isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. Robert Stark: Your next recommendation is to avoid overthrowing civil rights laws. Can you go into detail about what some of these civil rights laws are? Robert Lindsay: The White advocates want to get rid of all civil rights laws! Every White advocate I have heard of wants to get rid of every single civil rights law that we have on the books in this country. They hate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They hate the Housing Rights Act, they hate the Voting Rights Act. They want to get rid of all of them and all anti-discrimination laws too. It’s true that Rand Paul is running for Senate now, and he agrees with that position, but nevertheless, that is a very fringe position to take. The day to get rid of civil rights laws has come and gone! The civil rights laws are here to stay! Robert Stark: So you think that would be a very difficult idea to sell to your average person. Robert Lindsay: Worse than that. It’s not going to happen! Those days are gone. That was maybe doable in say, 1980 or so… Robert Stark: I think the real big issue is immigration…You’re critical of people who want to get rid of non-White immigration. Instead, you are calling for IQ tests. Robert Lindsay: Yes, this would actually be a very interesting thing for White advocates to support. They were actually suggesting this in Germany. I don’t have any problem with that at all, but I don’t want it for spouses of citizens. If you marry someone from another country, they don’t need to take the test. But it’s a good idea, especially with these problematic immigrants. Some of these immigrants are a real problem. Robert Stark: What groups do you see as most problematic? Robert Lindsay: The Hispanic immigrants are a problem. Especially the ones from Mesoamerica. The ones from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras…And to some extent, those from the Dominican Republic. Robert Stark: Is it because they are coming here illegally? Or is it legal immigrants as well who are a problem? Robert Lindsay: I don’t think that all of the problem Hispanic immigrants are illegals. I would think that with Hispanics, the problem is IQ-related. If you said we are only taking Hispanics with an IQ of 98, which is the US average, therefore, all Hispanic immigrants, no matter how many you allow, are not going to cause an IQ decline in the country. I would imagine if you set it at 98 – your average Hispanic and their offspring who are causing problems – their IQ is below 98. The ones who are not causing problems, who are assimilating well, who act like you and me, their IQ’s are 98 and above. It’s a pretty good cutoff. It’s the dumber ones that are causing all the problems. Robert Stark: How would this plan deal with the numbers of immigrants coming into the US? Do you think there should be a cap per country? Because right now, we take in I think almost 2 million people a year legally. Robert Lindsay: Is it really 2 million? Robert Stark: I think it’s maybe 1.5 million, but anyway, it’s pretty high. Robert Lindsay: Sure, White advocates should advocate for a cap. 200,000, or 400,000…some kind of a reasonable cap. Robert Stark: Isn’t this what Pat Buchanan has been advocating? Robert Lindsay: I think that is a salable position. A lot of Americans might go along with that. And it really puts the pro-immigration, multicultural, PC crazies on the spot, because it forces them to say, “Terrible! They want to limit immigration to 400,000 a year! How awful! We need 2 million billion zillion a year instead!” Robert Stark: As opposed to advocating for zero immigration, they won’t be able to play the card saying you are racist. Robert Lindsay: Sure. You sound like some kind of a nativist nut if you say, “Yeah! We want zero immigration!” And it’s never going to happen anyway – zero immigration is not doable. Instead, you say, “Hey, we just want limits.” Then people have to stop and think, “Wow! 400,000? That’s a lot? How many do we actually let in every year, anyway? 2 million billion trillion zillion? Wow! Well, that’s way too many.” And it puts those idiots on the spot. They have to defend those insane high numbers as the only way to go, and they will have to say that those limiting immigration to say 400,000 a year are part of some evil racist plot, and that’s not going to work. Robert Stark: And focus on the overpopulation issue as well. That’s important to bring up. Robert Lindsay: Yes, I also wanted to say that in 1991, there was an amendment to the Civil Rights Act that dealt with something called “disparate impact.” And this, in contrast with the rest of the civil rights laws that need to stay, has got to go. Thing is, most people don’t even know what disparate impact is. No one’s heard of it, no one understands it. But for instance the Ricci case, the firefighters case in New Jersey, was a case of disparate impact. Disparate impact says that if you give tests to a bunch of applicants, and the Whites pass the test, but the Blacks flunk at a higher rate, then there must be something wrong with the test. And you have to go back and redo the test or dumb down the test. It says that every time you have a racially disparate impact in any outcome, it’s always due to racism or bias in the testing, and that’s not necessarily true. Maybe the Blacks just could not pass the test. Most people would be in favor of getting rid of disparate impact. And you would really put the PC idiots and the Black groups, etc. on the defensive because they would have to defend disparate impact and these crazy cases like the New Jersey firefighters, and most White people, and even a lot of Blacks, thought that case was an outrage. The goal is to push the PC-multicultural people into a corner and force them to defend things that sound really bad, and make us sound like the reasonable people. You see? Robert Stark: The next one is getting rid of US colonies. I don’t think we need to go into too much detail here. It’s pretty simple, but in a nutshell, the US colonies are places like Puerto Rico and American Samoa. And they are big sources of immigrants. And because they can’t really be screened like foreign immigrants, they can simply come in in large numbers. Robert Lindsay: Yes. They are unscreened immigrants, and they cause tons of problems. Our legal immigrants don’t really cause a lot of problems, to be honest, because we screen them really well. But the Puerto Ricans and the American Samoans can come here just like that. For them to come to the US is like you or me moving to Nevada. It’s like moving to another state. And it’s because they are unscreened that these groups cause so many problems. And there’s no reason to have colonies anyway! Robert Stark: It’s ridiculous. We should let them secede. It doesn’t make sense. Robert Lindsay: Why do we have colonies anyway? What are we, an imperialist country? Ok, we’re an imperialist country. Let’s have a conversation about this. Do Americans want to be an imperialist country? Let’s put these imperialists on the spot. Let’s force them to defend US colonialism! Robert Stark: I think that Puerto Rico is a product of the Spanish American War. And I think the same with Samoa. So in a sense it is imperialism. Robert Lindsay: I don’t know how we got Samoa. There’s also Micronesia, but Micronesia is not so much of a problem. But Micronesia is a colony too. We should not have any colonies. No country should have any colonies. And this is a Left position. Only the Left is totally principled on this position and says no nation should have any colonies. So by doing this, White advocates would be lining up with the hard Left, but that’s OK! Because the Hard Left takes a very principled anti-imperialist stand on this. Let’s force these elites to defend US imperialism! I want to see these guys on TV defending our imperialism and colonialism. You see, the Puerto Ricans and the Samoans and the rest don’t want to go – they don’t want independence. Robert Stark: They want it both ways. They don’t really view themselves as Americans, but they still want the benefits of being American at the same time. That’s the problem. Robert Lindsay: They like it the way it is. And if they become states, it is not going to be so good of a deal economically for them. But the way it is now, as colonies, it’s basically just a total scam for the colonies. But if they go on their own and become independent, they will probably just become ordinary 3rd World countries, and they will have a lot of problems as far as that goes. Why are we coddling these people? Robert Stark: Another issue that is very important is schools. You are talking about these White advocates who are so fixated on Brown vs. the Board of Education, that it’s basically a done deal, and they are wasting their time. Robert Lindsay: Brown vs. BOE is a done deal, right? Are they going to get rid of it? Even this crazy rightwing Supreme Court, are they actually going to get rid of Brown? It ain’t going to happen! Robert Stark: So your main focus is on busing and that kids should just have to go to their local schools. Robert Lindsay: Well, we shouldn’t say it’s evil or anything like that. “Oh! They’re busing Blacks into White schools! That’s terrible!” The main thing is that busing is just stupid. I mean, why are they doing it? Robert Stark: And it ruins good schools. Like the schools I went to in LA public schools – they used to be decent schools, but they got completely ruined. And both the middle school and high school I went to were in fairly wealthy parts of LA. But they’ve both basically turned into ghetto schools through the use of busing. Robert Lindsay: Well, sure, but I don’t want to say that because that sounds racist. Instead, I would just say that it’s a complete waste of money. And I would say that there is nothing wrong with a White school. They act like a White school is some sort of pathological thing. “Oh! Look at that school! It’s too White! Oh, we can’t have that! We need to make it half Black!” There is nothing wrong with a White school. It’s perfectly acceptable for a White school to be a White school and a Black school to be a Black school. Robert Stark: The multicultural and diversity types, they use diversity as a code word for non-White. For instance, true diversity would be a school where each ethnic group would be say 2 Robert Lindsay: It’s ridiculous! The diversity thing has become like a fetish. I’m an integrationist, but we don’t need diversity everywhere. If some town is naturally a White town just because a bunch of White people went and moved there and few non-White people decided to move there, well, that’s OK! We don’t have to go fix it up by say, importing 20,000 Black people. If some town is naturally Black, well, that’s OK! Maybe a bunch of Blacks wanted to move there, and maybe non-Blacks did not want to move there. There is nothing wrong with naturally segregated places, as long as it’s voluntary and we still have laws in place to ensure that anyone can go live anywhere they want to. And when you say that Blacks can’t learn in a Black school, and the only way that Black people can learn is if they’re around a bunch of White people, that’s very insulting to Black people. It really insults them. It says they’re inferior, and it’s a real burn on Black people. And I don’t know why Black people want to believe this insult about them. What’s wrong with a Black school? Robert Stark: You’re right, that’s what busing implies – that Blacks are inferior, and they need to be around White people in order to learn. And affirmative action implies the same thing. Most of your proposals are pretty reasonable, but saying we support affirmative action? California, which is a liberal state, actually voted to end affirmative action. I don’t see how saying we support affirmative action would appeal to most of the public if the majority of people are opposed to it. Robert Lindsay: Well, you could always say you support affirmative action but only if the non-Whites are just as qualified as the Whites. But the point is that that pretty much rules out most affirmative action right there! This was how affirmative action was supposed to be, but it’s never been that way. Robert Stark: But that still is reverse discrimination against Whites – if they are equally qualified, choosing the non-White. I think the best strategy would be to have economics based on economics or geography. It would benefit a lot of middle class Whites in middle America. If you look at the Ivy League universities, they are really dominated by the ultra-wealthy and then a few slots left over for affirmative action. And this is your last point – say we have no problems with well-behaved Blacks who wish to fully integrate into White communities. Robert Lindsay: Right, that’s a good idea, because almost all of these White advocate types are segregationists, and they push things like freedom of association. That’s what this Rand Paul is pushing. It’s not going to happen. You’re not going to get freedom of association back in where White communities can have housing covenants that say we don’t want any Black people, or we only want White people. Ain’t gonna happen. Ain’t gonna happen! Instead, we should say that if there are Black people out there who wish to move to our communities and are willing to assimilate to the values of our White communities and White culture – welcome to our city! Robert Stark: Then you say that this will force the PC crowd into the dubious role of defending Black culture. Robert Lindsay: Yes, because then they will say, “Oh! They only like White culture! Racists!” To that, we should respond, “We like White culture. We’re White, we like our culture. There’s good and bad about it, but we prefer our culture. And personally, we feel that a lot of Black people would be better off adopting White culture or assimilating to White culture than in getting into their own Black culture.” And then the PC crowd will scream, “They’re saying White culture is better than Black culture!” But your average person, especially your average White person, hears that and thinks, “Hm. You know what? White culture is better than Black culture!” Robert Stark: The one point that we left out is to support the immigration of White Hispanics into the US. So, how is that really practical? You’re saying our immigration policy would have to explicitly address race, and do you think that would be practical? Robert Lindsay: Well, White advocates are already saying that they only want White immigration coming into this country. Robert Stark: What are the White advocates’ position on White Hispanics? Robert Lindsay: They never discuss it. The only thing they say is that we will only accept immigration from Europe. And that’s never going to happen. We may as well branch out and say, “Well, we’d like the White Hispanics to come here.” Because then it would be a lot harder for the PC Left to accuse the White advocates of racism. “They hate Hispanics! They hate Hispanics!” And people would look at that and say, “Are you sure they’re racists? They don’t seem to mind the White Hispanics.” And then the PC Left will retort, “Sure! They like the White Hispanics, but they don’t like the non-White Hispanics!” Robert Stark: They would still be able to play the race card, but it would cause division among Hispanics. It’s interesting, because on our last show, we were covering the Rick Sanchez incident. Rick Sanchez is basically White, but because his family is from Latin America, he takes this view that he’s somehow a minority, and it’s sort of our own fault, because in Latin America, the Whites down there in many cases are fairly racist against the non-Whites down there. But we classify everyone from the region as effectively non-White, i.e., Hispanic. It’s ridiculous. Robert Lindsay: The White advocates in the US are almost all Nordicists. They don’t like the White Hispanics very much. They tend to label them as non-Whites. And the only Whites who they think are really White are from Northern Europe. Robert Stark: Well, the first immigration act in the 1920’s was a Nordicist thing because it favored northwestern Europeans. Robert Lindsay: It was, true. White racism in the US has always been Nordicist, but your average White person in this country is no longer a Nordicist. Robert Stark: I think this Nordicism thing has pretty much died out… Robert Lindsay: No, no, no… Robert Stark: Because if you look at these pro-White forums, there are Italians, Greeks, or Eastern European descent, but you are personally into that Pan-Aryanism philosophy. Robert Lindsay: It’s a good thing, Pan-Aryanism, because once you get into Pan-Aryanism, it gets harder and harder to call White advocates racists. Because the PC Left says, “Oh! They’re racist!” Sneer sneer. Then people say, “Hey, wait a minute. They like Moroccans, right?” Then the Left says, “Well, yeah, but they’re still racists!” Then people say, “Wait a minute. They like Syrians. They like Iraqis and Lebanese…” The Left says, “Doesn’t matter! They’re racists!” Sneer. Then people say, “Hey wait. But they like Turks. They like Armenians, Chechens, Iranians…” Robert Stark: David Duke is into that Pan-Aryanism stuff, because he visited Syria and Iran, and he pointed out that he saw people who were so called Aryans when he was there. Robert Lindsay: Well, we shouldn’t be saying that. We should instead be saying something like, “All Iranians are White.” We shouldn’t say, “Well, there’s a few of them who are real Aryans, but most aren’t.” Grumble grumble. Robert Stark: All of them? Do you consider Ahmadinejad White? Robert Lindsay: Yes! Absolutely. If you look at Iranians on a gene map, they’re right next to Norwegians, Danes and English. They’re White people! And if you look at them, they look White. The people I talk to are California racial liberals, but they almost all say, “Iranians? They’re White! They look like White people.” And if you talk to Iranians, they all claim White too. So this whole idea that Iranians are non-Whites is just kind of a fringe concept. It ain’t gonna fly. Robert Stark: People assume that all Middle Easterners look alike, but there are some big distinctions. Someone from Saudi Arabia is completely distinct from someone from Lebanon. Robert Lindsay: Well, yes, but I think Saudis are mostly White. Yet some of them, like Prince Bandar, he’s a pretty Black looking guy. Some of those Gulf types, they have so much Black in them that you can’t really call them White anymore. One thing I wanted to go back and talk about on my list here. We need to get serious about throwing seriously disruptive students out of school. Everybody wants to know, “What do we do about the schools?” For the whole White advocate crowd, and many ordinary Whites, the overarching racial question often is, “What about the schools?” The White advocates look at the mess in mixed schools and scream, “Re-segregate the schools! Black schools for Blacks! White schools for Whites! Get rid of Brown versus BOE!” Well, you know what? That ain’t gonna fly. Robert Stark: I agree. The way you deal with these kinds of racial issues is you go around the race aspect by just dealing with people based on their behavior. And the anti-racist types, they’re still going to call you racist because they make excuses for bad behavior. But screw them. All we need to do is to say that students who are continuously disruptive should be send them to separate schools. And if they get their behavior under control, then they can go back to the regular schools. But it’s unfair for students who want to learn to have to put up with that crap. Robert Lindsay: They’re destroying the schools. I hate to say it, but it’s especially true with the Blacks. There seems to be a tipping point of around 1 But once again, the PC crowd will be backed into a corner, and they will be forced to defend these students who act absolutely horrible, and just flat out destroy schools. They destroy Black schools, they destroy mixed schools, they destroy all kinds of schools. And in response to their charges of racism, we will say, “Well, it’s not just for Blacks. We will throw the bad Whites out. We’ll throw anybody out.” Robert Stark: Yes, anyone. You can’t call it racist, because it’s a colorblind solution. Robert Lindsay: And once again, we will force these PC characters to defend the worst acting, most horrible students in the whole country, total brats, that are destroying schools for everybody else. And that’s a terrible thing to defend. I want to see them defend that behavior. See, that’s a reasonable thing that’s actually doable. Getting rid of Brown versus BOE, getting rid of integration – those are not reasonable goals. Robert Stark: Yes, these people, they’re just living in a fantasy. Like on immigration, they want to shut it all down, but in reality, we will be very lucky if we can even stop amnesty. Robert Lindsay: Agreed. We probably can’t even stop amnesty. We can’t even throw these illegals out of here. Robert Stark: Yes, we can’t even throw out the illegals. Robert Lindsay: First things first. Robert Stark: Practical solutions that are doable… Robert Lindsay: I don’t think we can deal with legal immigration at all right now. First things first. First of all, we need to deal with illegal immigration, and we can’t even deal with that! These PC crazies want to legalize all the illegals, for Chrissake. Let’s deal with that first. Politics is the art of the possible. And these people, these White advocates, especially these White nationalists, they are advocating positions that are totally unreasonable. They are completely non-doable, fringe, ultra-radical positions. I doubt if these folks have the support of 5-1 Robert Stark: Well, if you look at the new A3P Party, most of their platform is pretty reasonable stuff that sounds similar to the stuff that you’re advocating here. Robert Lindsay: It’s a good idea! It’s a good idea to come across like a moderate. One of the goals of politics is to come across as reasonable and to force your opponent to take crazy positions and defend those crazy positions. Fine. Put crazy words in their mouth, and then make them defend them. Robert Stark: These issues all tie together, but originally I intended to discuss California, and we still have a decent amount of time. To start off, we are both from California, and we are both originally from the LA area, and both of us have moved up to Central California. And Robert, can you tell us, what are the changes that you have seen throughout your life and that have happened to our state and what are some of the biggest and most negative changes that you have seen? Robert Lindsay: Well, I’m not going to call for a return to White California. That’s an era that is done and gone. And I did not mind growing up in a multicultural California. When I was growing up in the 1970’s, California was about 70-8 I don’t have to live with all White people. We can have some non-Whites around. We grew up with the Mexicans. The Mexicans are a part of this state. They’ve been here from the very start. This state used to be a part of Mexico. The Mexicans – they’re part of the neighborhood! Robert Stark: But the problem is the sheer numbers. Because the PC, Open Borders types try to say, “Oh, you hate Mexicans. You’re scared of Mexicans.” But most White Californians are pretty used to being around Mexicans. They’re part of the landscape. It’s not really an issue that they are here. Instead, it’s an issue of numbers. Robert Lindsay: Yes, right. The Mexicans in this state assimilated really well back in the 1970’s. And now, there are a zillion of them, they’re not assimilating, and they’re causing tons of problems. And they were not causing tons of problems back in the 1970’s. Robert Stark: You wrote that Mexican-Americans are assimilating into low class White culture. Robert Lindsay: The assimilated Hispanics, the ones that are second and especially third generation, a lot of them are assimilating to a sort of a White trash culture. Like the lowest of the Whites, the worst of our people. Robert Stark: I saw that a lot at the Wallmarts in Fresno. Not so much in LA. Robert Lindsay: Yes, it’s not a good thing that a lot of them are assimilating to. One thing that I have noticed is that the Hispanics who have a deeper connection to Mexico – first generation immigrants and some of their children – now I don’t really like the illegals all that much, but we have a lot of them around here. But actually the ones that have a really deep and intense connection to Mexico, who are still into the Mexican culture, a lot of them tend to act pretty good. They have a tight-nit family structure. Robert Stark: Yes, I noticed that when I was in a public high school in LA, the recent immigrants minded their own business, but there were others who emulated the whole gangta rap culture. They wore baggy jeans and listened to rap. Robert Lindsay: Those are not the recent immigrants! Robert Stark: Yes, the gangbanger types are children of illegals or in some cases, even grandchildren of illegals. Robert Lindsay: Yes, they are the children of the illegals. And now we are getting into multigenerational gangbangers. But around here, the ones that are still deeply connected to Mexico, they generally act pretty good. They act like Mexicans, people from Mexico itself. They act like peasants. If you go down to Mexico – I used to go down there 25-40 years ago – your average Mexican generally acts pretty good. They are conservative, traditional people, they have a very tight-knit family structure, and they keep a close watch on the girls. And for instance, the traditional Mexican girls, they don’t try to sleep with every guy in town. It’s dishonorable to be a slut or to be a prostitute and sell your body. But I see these Mexican Americans who are assimilated, 3rd generation, and they start selling their bodies on the street and shooting heroin and just sleazing out to the max. And the ones around here that are deeply connected to Mexico, a good, proper Mexican girl, she won’t do that! To them, the worst thing on Earth is to be a whore. And, you know what? I’ve got to respect that. There is something valuable about that. The family is often very protective of the girls. They have good, strong role models. The male has a strong role model. The female has a strong role model. The Mexican women are very feminine, they’re very nice to men, they’re very friendly. I don’t really have anything against the peasant culture of Old Mexico. There’s a lot to be said for peasant cultures. In many ways, they are good, traditional. Robert Stark: You also said that you have seen the cultural decline of the White middle class. You wrote an article about that. Can you explain some of the things you have observed about the White middle class over time? They also seem to be assimilating into lower class culture and they seem to be getting less intellectual. Robert Lindsay: Part of what is going on is the wiggerization of White people. Things are just getting a lot trashier. Back in 1970’s, White culture, if you had tattoos, you were considered to be a sleaze. Especially a woman, if a woman had tattoos…we knew women who had tattoos, and people hated them and treated them like they were whores. The only people who had tattoos were people like bikers or maybe Marines. For a White middle class person, that would be considered a totally sleazy thing to do, to get a tattoo on your body. White people were supposed to be like these White bread, upper middle class, well-mannered types. Now, just about every White woman you see is decorated like a cannibal! They have all these piercings all over their bodies. I don’t want to put them down too much, but it seems sleazy to people from my generation. It seems as if there has been a trashification of our people. Robert Stark: That sort of thing used to be seen only in lower class Whites, but now it’s seen in middle class people too. It’s due to the TV. People don’t value intellect so much anymore. Robert Lindsay: Maybe, but White culture has always been anti-intellectual. You can go read Richard Hofstadter’s Anti-Intellectualism in American Life where all the way back in the 1950’s, he was talking about this sort of thing. I think that what’s going on is that White middle class people, especially young people, have decided it’s cool to look and act like a low class person. Robert Stark: We have been talking a lot about race and demographics, but I would like to talk about the issue of the environment in this state and the over development and urban sprawl that the state has been seeing, and how both liberals and conservatives deal with this issue. It’s fascinating because liberals are promoting all this immigration, and business interests go along with them, but the conservatives – they’re apologists for this urban sprawl and this horrible overdevelopment. Tom McClintock, who is this anti-immigration politician in the state…I knew this woman who was running for state assembly, and she was complaining about all of these tract homes going up in Ventura County, and his attitude was that they could do whatever they wanted to with their land. But I see that mentality as the same mentality as the people who are for Open Borders or defend job outsourcing. It’s really just as bad. Robert Lindsay: Well, you see, he’s just a typical Republican. I don’t get the Republicans or the capitalists’ point of view. For instance, on housing, their POV is that…we have to keep on building houses? What? Forever? How long are we going to be building these units called “housing starts?” That can’t go on forever. We have to keep building new houses, new houses. And in order to keep building new homes, you need an increasing population. This is the whole growth-based economic mentality. And I don’t think it’s sustainable – endless growth forever. You can’t. Robert Stark: So the immigration issue, it’s basically the same mentality. If you look at the places where the elites live like Marin Country or Malibu or Carmel, they’ve done a great job of conservation and low, sustainable growth with lots of open space there. They want to keep their own places beautiful. But if you look at the big money interests, they profit off an increasing population because that means more consumers. Some of these people are Democrats, some of them are Republicans, but it doesn’t matter. Instead, it’s just all about growth is good for making a profit. Robert Lindsay: Endless growth. But isn’t that kind of crazy? Isn’t there ever going to get to be a point where people have enough money, and we don’t need to keep on growing forever? Apparently, you can’t have this endless growth without having endlessly increasing population. And more and more houses. And more and more cities. And more and more roads. And more and more everything. Robert Stark: These neoliberal types, they say we need to keep bringing in more and more immigration as a way to grow our economy. It’s insane because it’s not sustainable, and you can’t have an economy that is based on that model. Robert Lindsay: What’s going to happen? At some point, the whole world is going to look like New York City. What are we going to do? Are we going to start building cities on top of cities? Are we going to start building cities underground, or on top of the ocean, or under the ocean, or up in the sky? And this endless growth thing, it can’t possibly be an environmental position. If you’re an environmentalist, you can’t take this endless growth position. Why do we always need new houses in the US? I don’t understand why. Obviously because our population is growing, right? Are we going to start building second homes? Why does everyone need a second home? Do people need third houses? Do they need fourth houses? Robert Stark: Or the size of the homes. They want these gigantic homes on one acre lots, and it’s wasteful of space. It’s not at all resourceful. And these same types – they claim to be fiscal conservatives and fiscally responsible. But this endless growth is not fiscally responsible because it’s very wasteful of natural resources. Robert Lindsay: Those huge lots are not so great. It would almost be better to pack people into cities and then have big open spaces. But people like those big lots. I was living on a one acre lot up in the Sierra foothills. It’s not bad, there are still a lot of wild animals out there with 1-5 acre lots in the country, with those rural ranchettes. Robert Stark: It’s fine if people have big lots up in rural areas or in nature, but the main problem is suburbia, which is a disaster. Robert Lindsay: There are no living things anymore in suburbia. The only animals are the humans and their pets. There are a few animals that are adapting to suburbia – the raccoons, the skunks and the opossums. In some of the suburbs now, you have some coyotes. Robert Stark: Thank you for being on, Robert. Robert Lindsay: Sure.

The Sierra Nevada Red Fox

Repost from the old site.

The Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulves vulpes necator) has been rediscovered around Sonora Pass on August 11, 2010.

It was spotted by a camera that had been set up to monitor other wildlife in an area where Yosemite National Park, the Stanislaus National Forest and the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest all come together. The sighting was actually on the Humboldt-Toiyabe, not on the Stanislaus as many news reports had it.

Part of the confusion may have been that the sighting was near the border between the Humboldt-Toiyabe and Stanislaus Forests. I know that the fox was not seen right at Sonora Pass. Instead, I believe it was spotted in the area to the south of the pass. I am guessing that it was seen near the Leavitt Creek area.

Saliva analysis on a sock filled with chicken parts at the bait station confirmed that it was a Sierra Nevada red fox, and that it had a rare genetic signature previously only seen in museum specimens from the 1920’s.

This is the first proof of the Sierra Nevada red fox outside the Lassen area in a very long time. It’s great news!

The only confirmed population is a tiny population of only 20 foxes in and around Lassen National Park where the Northern Sierra meets the Southern Cascades.

This area has historically seen more sightings around Lassen than any other part of California (sighting map for Northern California). This concentration is focused in Lassen, Tehama and Shasta Counties in and around Lassen Park. There have also been a few sightings in Modoc, Siskiyou and Trinity Counties.

The existence of the Sierra Nevada red fox has recently been confirmed by a team led by John Perrine of UC Berkeley. The team has located a small population of 20 Sierra Nevada red foxes existing in and around Lassen National Park in the Cascades Range. A later study proved that these were Sierra Nevada red foxes and not Eastern Red Foxes, which are abundant at the lower elevations in California.

A good description of the Lassen study, along with several rare photos of the foxes, can be found here. In the Sierras, the Sierra Nevada red fox was typically found at about 9,000 feet, with one record at 4,000, another at 5,500 and another at 7,000 feet. In the Cascades, they are usually found at around 6,000 feet, dropping down to 4,000 feet in the winter and moving up to 8,000 feet in the summer.

A report by the DFG in 1987 said the Sierra Nevada red fox was endangered, but noted that sightings continue in the rest of the Sierra Nevada outside the Cascades within the traditional range of the species.

I am aware of some recent sightings on the East side near Mammoth Mountain at high elevations.

They reportedly still exist in Mineral King south of Sequoia National Park.

In the same region, there have been a number of sightings in the Sagehen Road area near Olancha on the Inyo National Forest in the past 12 years. The sightings were at the 4-6,000 foot elevation. This is near the South Sierra Wilderness Area. Map here.

There was a reliable sighting in 1993 at Sequoia National Park.

There have been sightings of the Sierra Nevada red fox in the past 30 years on the Sierra National Forest. In 1971, a Sierra Nevada red fox was sighted at Florence Lake at about 9,000 feet. In 1973, there was a sighting at Soda Springs near Mammoth Pool Reservoir at 4,500 feet. In 1987, there was a sighting along Highway 168 between Auberry and Shaver Lake at about 4,300 feet, a very low elevation. In 1991, there was a sighting at Papoose Lake north of Lake Edison at about 10,390 feet.

There have also been a few sightings in Yosemite Valley in the past decade or so.

The last documented sighting of a Sierra Nevada red fox as near Tioga Pass in Yosemite National Park in 1990. This sighting was verified via photograph. The fox was photographed in the middle of winter at about 9,000 feet.

On the Stanislaus, there have been a number of sightings around the Emigrant Wilderness, in particular something called the Waterhouse Wilderness Study Area on the northwest edge of the Emigrant Wilderness.

In Mono County, Sierra Nevada red foxes have been reported from Bridgeport Valley.

In Nevada County near Lake Tahoe, there is a sighting from 1994 along Highway 89 north of Truckee.

In addition to the Lassen area, there is also a recent sighting around Antelope Lake and around Lake Almanor and Jonesville on the Plumas National Forest.

There are recent sightings around Little Lake on the northern edge of the Lassen National Forest.

There are recent sightings around Mount Shasta and around Glass Mountain on the Klamath National Forest.

There are also recent sightings around the Trinity River near Mount Eddy on the northern edge of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest.

There is also a recent sighting near Canby on the Modoc National Forest.

Between 1940 and 1959, 135 Sierra Nevada red fox pelts were taken by trappers, an average of 7 per year. That number dropped to 2 per year from 1970-1974. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) banned all Sierra Nevada red fox trapping in 1974.

The Sierra Nevada red fox has declined drastically and desperately needs Endangered Species listing.

This cool paper by C. Hart Merriam shows that Sierra Nevada red foxes were formerly common at high elevations in the Mount Shasta area, that tracks were seen almost every day (!), but the foxes were very wary and never entered the traps the researchers had set. It is interesting that fishers were also present in this area at the time.

This report makes one wonder just what it is that has driven V. v. necator to near-extinction. I strongly suspect grazing.

One of the best historical sources on the Sierra Nevada red fox is this chapter from Joseph Grinnell’s hard-to-find Furbearers of California from 1937. One thing it makes clear is that the Sierra Nevada red fox was much more common in the first four decades of the century than it is now. You can view it here.

At the time of Grinnell’s writing, this fox was preying heavily on Sierra Nevada snowshoe hares and White-tailed hares, both of which are now pretty rare in the Sierras. I wonder if that is related to their decline? The decline of the White-tailed hare in the Sierra, formerly common on the East Side, is related exclusively to grazing.

All high-elevation grazing needs to be banned from the Sierra, as it is a catastrophe. Cows do not belong in high elevation meadows. We can start by getting rid of grazing in wilderness areas (Allowing grazing in wilderness areas was the only way that the Wilderness Act of 1964 could be passed).

I am not impressed with the ability of the US Forest Service to preserve wildlife in general, not to mention sensitive or endangered species. I spent years monitoring the Sierra National Forest, and the workers I met with were some of the most corrupt and dishonest people I have ever dealt with.

The mentality was devoted to resource extraction, and even wildlife biologists, botanists and fisheries specialists routinely issued “no significant harm” findings on virtually every single Environmental Assessment Report I saw.

Even less impressive is the CDFG, though at least their heads were in the right place. Individuals working with the DFG are good people, but the Commission is run by political clowns.

There are all sorts of species that need to be listed as threatened or endangered, but the DFG has hardly made even one such listing in the last decade. The DFG has been routinely denying petitions to list any species as threatened or endangered for a decade or so now.

Further, there are questions about how much a CA T& E designation even helps a species, as the DFG seldom intervenes to help even the species they have listed as T & E.

In the early 1990’s, the CA DFG produced some excellent volumes – Reptiles and Amphibians of Special Concern in California by Mark Jennings, Fish of Special Concern in California by Peter Moyne and Threatened and Endangered Species of California.

The reports by Jennings and Moyne listed numerous species that should be listed as species of special concern, threatened or endangered. To my knowledge, 15 years later, not a single one has been listed. A prime example is that the Sierra Nevada red fox, which the DFG even admitted in 2004 was critically endangered, is still listed as “threatened” instead of “endangered”.

Even a petition to uplist it will surely be denied. The game here has been to devastate the DFG with budget cuts, even during times when the state is flush with cash. Then the DFG gets to say that they don’t have any money to list any new species. Cool game, huh?

It seems every year, the DFG gets hammered with new budget cuts, and in lush years, the money never gets reinstated. Any environmentalist who is a fiscal conservative needs to have their head examined.

The FS complains of budget cuts too, but in contrast they are actively hostile to the environment. When I was monitoring them, their whole agenda was to let grazing and logging go on to the greatest extent possible and to deny all negative impacts on the environment of such.

Go into a local FS office and the whole place, even the wildlife biologists, is avidly listening to Rush Limbaugh! Most of them, including once again wildlife biologists who supposedly believe in evolution, are members of fundamentalist churches! Go figure.

Such is the state of things in the supposedly pro-environment US. Large majorities support the environmentalist agenda, but of course the Republicans and incredibly even the Clintonista triangulating Democrats are both very hostile to the environment. There is no logical reason for either party, especially the Democrats, to take this stance.

The only explanation is that both parties are dedicated to the corporate and pro-business agenda, and the entire rest of the population, even if that means 55-9

References

CDFG. 1987. Sierra Nevada Red Fox: Five-year Status Report. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, USA.

Grinnell, Joseph. 1924. Animal Life in the Yosemite. Berkeley: University of California Press, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology.

Kucera, T. E. 1995. Recent Photograph of a Sierra Nevada Red Fox. California Fish and Game 81:43-44.

Merriam, Clinton Hart. 1899. Results of a Biological Survey of Mount Shasta, California. Washington D.C.: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Division of Biological Survey.

Perrine, J. D., J. P. Pollinger, B. N. Sacks, R. H. Barrett, and R. K. Wayne. 2007. Genetic Evidence for the Persistence of the Critically Endangered Sierra Nevada Red Fox in Northern California. Conservation Genetics 8:1083-1095.

Southern California Edison Company. 2001. Final Technical Study Plan Package (FTSPP) for the Big Creek Hydroelectric Projects (FERC Project Nos. 67, 120, 2085, and 2175). Terrestrial Resources – Chapter 13 – Mesocarnivores. Rosemead, CA.

Wildlife Conservation Board. 2002. Robert LindsayPosted on Categories Americas, Animals, California, Canids, Carnivores, Corruption, Cows, Democrats, Domestic, Endangered Species, Environmentalism, Fish, Foxes, Government, Law, Local, Mammals, North America, Politics, Regional, Reposts From The Old Site, Reptiles, Republicans, Sierra Nevada Red Fox, US Politics, USA, West, Wild3 Comments on The Sierra Nevada Red Fox

Mountain Lion Killed at Gourmet Ghetto

An eccentric hippie mountain lion descended from the Oakland Hills to the Gourmet Ghetto District of Berkeley, California, looking for some bong hits, tie dye lion shits and mostly a bite to eat. Human killjoys saw her in the human populated area, tracked her to a yard, and shot the bitch dead.

Unfortunately, these lions need to be killed, but, honestly, they really are no danger. A cornered lion like that won’t attack a human unless you charge at it when it’s cornered. All it will do is run away. There could have been 500 humans roaming around watching the lion, cheering for it or cheering the humans (May the best team win!), and no humans one would have been hurt by the lion.

I know a lot about mountain lions, but I’ve never seen one. My friends and relatives have. In the Sierra foothills, they live around you all the time, yet you never see one. It’s amazing since it’s such a huge animal. A mountain lion is not a natural man-killer, and it’s not all that smart. It’s a creature of instinct. It attacks:

  1. Little kids, like toddlers, in wild areas.
  2. Adults who are running or jogging in wild areas.
  3. Adults who are riding mountain bikes in wild areas.

Lions are not that smart. It’s not a whole lot smarter than your housecat, and housecats are pretty stupid. Mostly, they are creatures of instinct like Kitty. In general, a lion will not attack you because it is not programmed to.

Toddlers are attacked because they are the size of much of its small prey.

Adult humans running or riding bikes in the wild are attacked, because when you run or ride in the wilderness, you look like a deer! A deer running away, to be specific. It sees you running or riding, thinks, “Running deer!” and attacks.

Lions are not deep thinkers. Look, see, act. As long as you are not a kid or running or riding in the woods, you’re ok.

Just to be safe, I used to carry a huge stick with me when hiking. If you get charged by a lion, just attack the fucker with the stick. If it holds its ground, scream at it and charge it, waving your arms and yelling. If you have the stick, swing at it with a stick. Super Pussy is still a pussy at heart. When attacked by humans, it runs away, like all pussies do when attacked by badass humans.

Some Observations on Felines and Canids

Repost from the old site.

I’ve been having some conversations lately with some of my smart friends about felines and canids, and here is some what we think we have worked out.

First of all, a cat is supposedly as smart as a 1½ year old human. As a human, albeit a human who is also a cat-lover, I find such a comparison insulting. I just spent some time with my 1½ year old niece. No way on Earth is my cat as stupid as that kid was.

I’m spending some time as a caretaker for my 86 year old father who lives 33 miles away. My folks have two cats and recently acquired another one. This one is a Siamese named Cleo. When I met this cat, very quickly, I thought it was one of the smartest cats I have ever known. I don’t know why, but someone said that Siamese are an intelligent breed.

The other night, one of other cats, Callie, got the night-crazies and took off running across the house for no reason. Cleo saw this and immediately chased her for equally no good reason. I immediately began to reassess my opinion of her as the smartest cat I’ve ever known. I asked around about this.

Turns out that in general, if a cat sees another cat take off running for any reason, the observer cat will often give chase. Why? Possibly instinct. They seem to be programmed to chase after any non-predatory moving object.

Many prey animals, like the rabbits who live around here, practice freezing as a form of predator avoidance. On the principle that predators generally hunt by following rapid movement rather than attacking stationary objects. The rabbits around here will freeze and let you walk right up next to them before they take off running.

There have been some mountain lion attacks here in the West recently. Attacks have, in general, been on little kids or on adults either jogging or riding bicycles.

Reason? A little kid is about the size of many of the mountain lions more slow-moving prey objects. An adult human really is not, except if it is running or riding a bicycle fast, in which case apparently it is about the size and speed of a deer, one of the lion’s favorite prey animals.

As long as you are strolling along in the woods, the cougar usually won’t bother you. But start jogging, and you turn into a human deer and you might just get nailed.

Observations of wild cats have shown that wild domestic cats make few sounds except when fighting or mating. Why do cats meow? Probably because we make sounds, and their meows are their way of trying to speak human language back at us.

Cats are generally solitary, and the cat adaptive style is to hide. If you notice, your cat at home likes to hide in really weird and hard to find places. Often a place where it can see out but you can’t see in. They will do this whether they are threatened by other cats or by dogs or not.

The reason cats hide? Probably instinct. The cat style is to hide and only come out at night. Wild felines such as bobcats and mountain lions hide much of the time and are mostly nocturnal.

This is also why cats bury their shit. They are probably not naturally fastidious, but instead, I suspect that they do this to cover up their trails from predators. This is also why they roll around in the dirt. They are covering themselves with dirt to hide their scent from predators.

On the other hand, the dog has a different adaptive style. Does a dog ever hide? What for? A dog is always walking around, right out in the open, afraid of nothing. With wild dogs it’s pretty similar. Coyotes and wolves are active all hours of the day and tend to roam around in plain sight. Foxes do hide, but they are pretty small, and they also spend time hunting in broad daylight (I’ve watched them).

Cats are generally solitary (although lions are an exception), and dogs are pack animals. Cats hide because they are solitary, and dogs walk around in plain sight because they are instinctively pack animals with little to hide. Wolves, jackals and hyenas travel in packs. If something wants to kill a hyena (and a lion might), it would have to deal with a whole pack of howling hyenas that would come to the defense of the hunted one.

Hunting in packs is also a strength. A pack of hyenas could possibly even kill a lion, and I suspect that they do sometimes.

Since dogs are pack animals and find strength in numbers, they don’t give a damn about burying their shit or rolling around in the dirt. There is no need to cover one’s tracks when one has strength in numbers.

One of my friends insisted that canids and felines are closely related, and that both go back to some ancestral canid-feline duoform. Raccoons and bears are related to dogs, but they supposedly split off from proto-dog after the split from proto-dogcat. I don’t know enough to comment on this, as I’ve never heard of dogs and cats going back to a feline-canid ancestor.

아프리카에서 사자에게 잡아먹힌 남자

[wpvideo eVYcHmc7]

I am looking for translators to translate this post into Spanish and German. Email me if you are interested.

This is a Korean translation of the Man Gets Eaten By Lion in Africa post. The translator is 넝근넝근. He does fantastic work.

대부분의 사람들은 이 비디오가 가짜라고 주장한다, 사실 그 주장은 사실이다.

이 비디오가 1970년대 중반 아프리카 사파리에서 촬영된 유명한 비디오이며 저 관광객은 런던에서 온것 처럼 보인다. 또 이 비디오가 법정의 증거로서 보험회사가 저 남자의 생명보험을 거부할 증거로 이 비디오자료를 사용하곤 했으며 보험회사는 저 남자가 “자기 무덤 판 꼴” 이라며 보험료 지불을 거부하겠다라고 주장한 증거자료가 바로 이 비디오라는 이야기이다.

사실, 이 비디오와 저 이야기는 사실이 아니다. 저 사고가 70년대 후반 앙골라의 Wallasee National Park에서 일어났다고 한다. 저런 장소는 앙골라다 아프리카 어디에도 없다.

“공격의 희생자”는 Pit Dernitz로 이 비디오에 관한 IMDB에 이름이 나와있다. 그는 유명한 사자 조련사이다.

이 영상은 Ultime Grida Dalla Savana라는 이런 비슷한 종류의 영상물이 포함된 이탈리아 몬도 영화의 한장면이다.

결국 이 영상은 어떤 법정 어디에도 등장하지 않았다.

God I Love Pedobear

Pedobear is an Internet meme of a pedophile bear that stalks young kids. It started on the Chans and has since spread all over the Internet. Recently, Pedobear has been stalking children again, but police have not been able to catch him yet. Nevertheless, he has been photographed many times* recently grooming, annoying and spying on minors, from young children to teenage girls. He definitely prefers girls, but he will go for a boy in a pinch. Hey kids! Beware the bear! Beware the Pedobear! *A bunch of lame cunts and moralfags are complaining in the comments at the end that this series is “child porn.” I don’t think it is, but the law is getting pretty crazy nowadays. Some other wankers and silly twats are saying that you shouldn’t make jokes about CP and pedophiles. I disagree. I think CP and pedos are funnier than a pay toilet in the Diarrhea Ward of the hospital, a fart in a spacesuit, a retard on fire and a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest combined. I had ten LOLgasms while I was reading that post and if I don’t stop laughing soon, I’m going to have to call 9-11 with a collapsed lung.

Tahoe Wolverine is Not From California

Repost from the old site.

The first wolverine detected in California in 86 years, photographed at a camera station at Sagehen Creek near Lake Tahoe on February 28, 2008, has now been shown to be not from either California or Washington.

Scientists located wolverine scat near where the photo was shot and analyzed it for genes. A single gene was sequenced, the wolverine was shown to be a male, and the gene has been reported only from wolverines in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. It is also found in southern Canada.

The only conclusion possible is that the wolverine is from the Rocky Mountains and is not a native California wolverine. No one has any idea how it got to California. It’s pretty hard to live-trap these things and transport them unless you are a wildlife biologist.

It doesn’t make much sense that this wolverine cruised down from the Snake River region in Western Idaho along eastern Oregon to the Cascades, then down the Sierras to Tahoe, but according to a recent study, that is exactly what it seems to have done. It seems to have some from the Sawtooth Mountains of Idaho.

At least they are back in California, but I never thought they left anyway. The Sierra Nevada is their natural home, and I don’t think it matters where this animal came from. They are back, they exist, and we need to keep them around.

As far as how this animal showed up north of Tahoe, that will just have to fall into the category of one of life’s strange mysteries. Captive wolverines have been dumped before – one was plunked down in Iowa in 1960, where a farmer later shot it in a cornfield.

Click the wolverines label at the end of the post to see other posts on wolverines in the US, including many sighting reports and photos.

Man Gets Eaten By Lion in Africa

I am looking for translators to translate this post into Spanish and German. Email me if you are interested.

Many, many people insist that this video must be fake, and actually, it is.

The story is that this is a very famous video that was taken in the mid-1970’s in Africa on a safari. The tourist was apparently from London.

It was entered as evidence in a court case. The insurance company used this tape evidence in court to deny the life insurance claim for the guy. They argued that the man engaged in “gross stupidity” and therefore they were not on the line for payout.

In truth, this video is fake. It is said to have occurred in Wallasee National Park in Angola in the mid-70’s. There is no such place in Angola or anywhere in Africa.

The “attack victim” is named Pit Dernitz, and he has his own IMDB entry for this video. He is a very famous lion trainer.

This clip was taken from an Italian Mondo film called Ultime Grida Dalla Savana, which contains many similar clips.

This film was never entered into any court case.

Libertarianism – The Enemy of all Non-Human Life on Earth

As several posts on Occidental Dissent make clear, libertarianism (and its mainstream congener, neoliberalism) is utterly incompatible with the preservation of any non-human and non-domesticated or non-utilitarian life forms. Libertarians like to throw up weird scenarios whereby preserving wildlife, wild spaces and wild places would somehow be more economically viable than exterminating them, exploiting them, and devastating them. The problem is that this never works out in praxis. Even when we environmentalists produce reports showing that preserving forests and meadows is worth way more than chopping them down or ruining them with cattle, 10 Since neoliberalism is just libertarianism, neoliberalism also can never support environmentalism. Market-driven environmental policies must be some kind of a cruel joke. They can never work. In strict economically rational terms, it is either never or almost never economically rational to save species, habitats or places. Destruction and extermination is where the money is, and in neoliberal theory, maximum return is the only variable we are allowed to consider. Libertardarians now argue that humans (I guess maybe those of White European stock) now care enough about environmentalism that we can zero out government, privatize everything, and everything will still be hunky dory for the bighorns, the spotted owls and timber wolves. Yeah right. In the first place, this would only work with White people, because only Whites can be environmentalists at the moment, and only more advanced Whites in North America and Europe need apply even here. That’s because Whites in Latin America and Russia have proven to be utterly capable of taking care of the environment. Native Americans and Siberians can probably preserve things too, but they don’t run any states. Let’s test out the libertarian theory on most liberal-minded of the more progressive Whites on Earth, the ultra-liberals in California (though not a White state anymore, nevertheless, California is one of the most pro-environmental states in the nation). The argument that humans now care enough about species to preserve them is proven wrong here in the West. Even here in ultra-liberal California, the glorious salmon are nearly extinct. The striped bass fishery in the Delta and Bay has also been ruined. The vast herds of Tule Elk that roamed all over the valleys and coastal areas of our state have been decimated and only exist on miniscule preserves that look like petting zoos. Fishers and spotted owls are being driven extinct by the timber industry as we speak. A lot of CA endangered species are not real celebrities, but salmon would seem to have quite a bit of worth. Yet the salmon fishery in CA and up and down the West has been decimated. And even the ultra-liberal CA senators like Dianne Feinstein insist that we have not creamed the salmon enough, and need to take them out once and for all now. Feinstein’s mostly doing this for one of her rich Jewish buddies, Stewart Resnick of Beverly Hills. So much for liberal US Jews! The notion that humans (Anywhere!) now value wildlife enough to be trusted with preserving them in a libertarian society is seriously wrong, and we can prove it right here in California. In the 3rd World, humans are so bestial, venal, animalistic and backwards that they indeed are well on the way to extrerminating everything non-human, non-domesticated and non-utilitarian in sight. An excellent argument in favor of White superiority (which I agree with) is, as I noted above, that Whites are really the only humans on Earth (who run states) that care about non-human life enough to preserve it.* Virtually every other race and ethnic group of man will gladly exterminate every single non-domesticated species and non-utilitarian species in its land at the drop of a hat. Preserving species is something only Whites can do. And it’s something that only White governments can do, the White private sector haven proven endlessly to have failed at this endeavor. *I honestly wish that non-European states were capable of not exterminating everything in sight, but I doubt it. The Middle East is an environmental catastrophe. The only environmentally decent place is Israel, but that’s populated by White people. The only environmentally progressive place in Latin America is Costa Rica, but once again, that’s a White country. It seems that all Arabs and mestizos can do is destroy. Asians seem like a nightmare in environmental terms. They aren’t even capable of tender feelings towards cats and dogs, which they massacre for sport and food, so how can they possibly be trusted with non-domesticated things. The Japanese have been some of the worst scofflaws in international fishing and their bestial exploits in whaling have earned them the scorn of the planet. True, in some ways, Koreans and Japanese seem to want to preserve what’s left on their lands, but environmentally, those places are pretty much human-nuked anyway, mostly by overpopulation. A preservationist impulse isn’t worth much if there is nothing left to preserve. The hunter-gatherers of Southeast Asia never had the caretaker mindset of American Indians, instead opting for the more primitive mindset of “kill everything that moves.” The extinction process in SE Asia is very advanced and the state does very little to stop it. Environmental consciousness is extremely low. Probably Vietnam is one of the more standout states. China is just now starting to develop an environmental ethic, but it doesn’t seem to be very advanced, and in a lot of ways, environmentally, China looks like America 1890. I’m amazed that anything non-human and non-bovine is still walking around in India, where the extinction process is quite advanced, the state is extremely weak, and poachers are everywhere. Russians have always been some of the most backwards and barbaric of the Whites, and environmentally, that’s still the case. Since the collapse of the USSR things have really fallen badly apart. Market hunters and poachers stalk the land. In Siberia, the poacher harvest of salmon is the same size as the legal harvest. The Amur Leopard and the Siberian Tiger are hanging on by their bare claws, and I expect them to go extinct soon. Africa has to be one of the worst places on Earth to be a species of wildlife. Africans are primitive people, and primitives tend to kill anything that moves, usually for food. The only reason that there were still huge wildlife populations 50 years ago is due to White colonists, who forbade the Africans from wiping out the animals. With decolonization, Africans quickly set work slaughtering anything that moved. That they had not done so in centuries past was due only to the crudity of their weapons. You can’t kill many animals with a spear. In 1965, Africans with firearms were a threat the animal population of the continent. The large megafauna were only saved when the former White colonists were called back in by concerned Africans to save the animals. Many of the large animal populations still exist, but poachers and bush meat hunters take a devastating toll. I don’t see anything positive in the future. Africans don’t seem to be capable of not exterminating animals. One argument is that non-Whites do these things because they are poor. Equatorial Guinea now has a PCI of $21,000/year. Anyone seen any nice environmental initiatives coming out of there? Has the wealth of the Japanese prevented them from killing whales? Has Korean wealth prevented them from waging mass pogroms against dogs and cats? Has the relative wealth of Brazil and Argentina prevented environmental devastation in these places? The Gulf Arab countries are extremely wealthy, but my understanding is that they are environmental wrecks. So much for the “they do it because they are poor” line.

More California Wolverine Photos in the Sierra

Note: Repost from the old blog.

Following up on our earlier post on the first positive detection of a California wolverine since 1922, that sighting led an interagency group of researchers on an intensive hunt for wolverines in the area, and that hunt has now revealed an incredible two new photos of wolverines in the area north of Tahoe.

A side view of a wolverine in a photo from 10 days ago probably taken within 15-20 miles of the original photo location at Sagehen Creek in the Tahoe National Forest. That is a hair trap that used to have some bait on it, but the bait was eaten by some other animal. The photo indicates that this is a wolverine all right. It can’t be anything else.

It is not known if the three photos depict one, two or three separate wolverines, but this is great news.

The interagency team consisted of researchers from the Forest Service, California Department of Fish and Game

and Katie Moriarty, the Oregon State University grad student who took the original shot. A 150 square mile around the original was identified, and the search was concentrated in that grid. Hair snares with remote cameras were set up.

Dogs specially trained to identify wolverine scat were loosed on the area. Ground searches looked for wolverine tracks. Planes flew overhead looking for radio telemetry signals from wolverines that had been fitted with radio collars in Montana, but no Montana animals were found. Consultations were also made with wolverine experts in Montana, Idaho and Washington.

About 50 hair and scat samples were found and sent to a special Forest Service lab to determine if they were from a wolverine, and if so, if it was a California wolverine, the specific subspecies that inhabits the area. The tests will also try to determine the animal’s sex. I am almost certain that there is a breeding population of California wolverines in this area.

Long term, the DFG plans more studies of wolverines in the Sierras, and hopes to combine them with studies of the extremely rare Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator).

“The Alpha Male Bites the Dust," by Alpha Unit

The latest by Alpha Unit, our guest poster, on Alpha Males. As an Alpha herself, she is a bit of an expert on this subject. Are you an Alpha Male? There are people who will teach you how to be, if you aren’t – for a price. A lot of them couch this instruction in talk about how to seduce women. Which brings me to Al Gore. The concept of the Alpha Male made a splash among media types during the 2000 Presidential campaign, when it was reported that candidate Gore had hired the feminist Naomi Wolf as a “style consultant.” Ms. Wolf had worked previously for the Clinton campaign, as an adviser on outreach to women voters. Well, she was supposed to be acting in a similar capacity for Gore, but what got translated to the media was that she was coaching him in the ways of the Alpha Male, an allegation Ms. Wolf denies (She says she only used the term once, as a passing reference.). Yes, the Alpha Male was subjected to a bit of ridicule as a result of all this, but he hasn’t gone anywhere. Go online, and you will see people cashing in, or trying to, with promises of transforming the feckless into alpha males, those dominant guys who get what they want from others – primarily women. A lot of this thinking about dominance and submission is based on what occurs in the wild, especially in wolf packs, each of which is headed by a dominant, or alpha, male. This is known to be true, right? Wrong. So explains Dr. L. David Mech of the University of Minnesota, an expert who has been studying wolves for about forty years. A wolf pack does not consist of a group of wolves that are subservient to a pack leader assuming the role of an alpha male. At least a natural wolf pack out in the wild does not. Among his many publications is a paper released in 2000, in which Dr. Mech sets out to explain social dynamics among wolves in the wild. In so doing, he says that most research done on wolves has been done by observing wolves in captivity. And this research has led to some erroneous conclusions about wolf behavior. “These captive packs,” Dr. Mech states, “were usually composed of an assortment of wolves from various sources placed together and allowed to breed at will.” He goes on to say, “In captive packs, the unacquainted wolves formed dominance hierarchies featuring alpha, beta, omega animals. etc. With such assemblages, these dominance labels were probably appropriate, for most species thrown together in captivity would usually so arrange themselves.” Dr. Mech’s research for his paper was conducted during the summers of 1986 through 1998 on Ellesmere Island, Northwest Territories, Canada. He states that in the wild, a wolf pack is nothing but a family, consisting of a breeding pair and their young. He cites earlier research in which it is hypothesized that one could tell by observing wolf pups which of them had potential as future alpha, or top-ranking, wolves. But he takes issue with this, saying that all young wolves automatically become alphas once they breed. Dominance contests with other wolves are rare, he says, if they exist at all. “During my 13 summers observing the Ellesmere Island pack,” he says, “I saw none.” And his assessment of all the talk about alpha wolves?

Thus calling a wolf an alpha is usually no more appropriate than referring to a human parent or doe deer as an alpha. Any parent is dominant to its young offspring, so “alpha” adds no information. Why not refer to an alpha female as the female parent, the breeding female, the matriarch, or simply the mother? Such a designation emphasizes not the animal’s dominant status, which is trivial information, but its role as pack progenitor, which is critical information.

He reports that even though male wolves exhibit dominant posturing toward other pack members, a breeding male will defer to the breeding female, exhibiting submissive behavior in his approaches toward her, including giving up food to her. If there is some type of dominance contest, he says, it is usually concerned with who will allocate food to the pups! So what of “alpha males” among Homo sapiens sapiens? If a guy is an alpha male, does it mean he naturally resonates an authority that causes others (especially women) to do his bidding, willingly? Perhaps. But the Alpha Male may find that he is doing the bidding of those he dominates. Just ask any parent.

References

References Mech, L. David. May 2000. Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs. Minnesotans for Sustainability.

Humanzees

Repost from the old site. This article is 4 years old, but humanzees are back in the news these days, so I figured it’s time for a reprint. Medical ethicist Jeremy Rifkin notes that scientists are pushing ethical frontiers again, in shades of the cloning debate. In this case, some crazy scientist injected human brain cells into mice fetuses. When the mice were born, the Supermice had a certain percentage of human brain cells. Weird, huh? In the next phase of the mad scientist experiment, this same scientific k00k is going to try to create a mouse with 10 The mad scientist, a guy named Irving Eichmann, I mean Irving Weissman, works at Stanford University, the top-notch US private school south of San Francisco in California. Disturbing questions arise. What if some of these Mousepeople take a clue from science fiction movies and escape the lab? No worries, says mad scientist Weissman, if the Mousepeople show any signs of “humanness”, whatever that means, he will just kill them! Well, hey, that’s comforting! Not. Weissman and other mad scientists involved in this sci-fi nonsense call their “field” Chimeric Experimentation (CE), after the part lion, part goat and part snake critter from Greek mythology. The CE folks are looking to combine all sorts of creatures in the lab for God knows what nutso reasons. “Futurist” Pollyanna idiots are arguing that these freaks of nature will usher in a new “Golden Age of Medicine”. That’s because Mad Science wants to use these freaks in lab experiments, instead of the usual, normal-type animals. Since these really wild humanimals will actually be part human, the results will be invaluable for us superior human critters. Hmm, wasn’t a fellow named Mengele working towards this same “noble” proposition? The latest craze from the wild-eyed lab coat loonies in CE is called a “humanzee“. Yes, I am serious, you can stop laughing now. And no, there have not been any humanzees created yet, since George Bush does not count. Bush just looks and acts like a chimp, he isn’t actually part-chimpanzee. Supposedly. Apparently. So they say. So they claim. Well, actually, it’s controversial. This humanzee thingie would be so human that it would throw our whole conception of our species into disarray. Kinda like Lancelot Link, Secret Chimp, but way worse. Why do they want to make Chimpman? To play checkers, wear tophats, wear wire-rims, wear pince-nez, hold court, join Al Qaeda, walk a beat, wear fancy earrings, make bombs, or invent stuff? Nope! So the mad scientists can experiment on them! You bastards! Shades of Mengele. Shiver. These SuperFreak Apemen would be so close to humans that any experimentation on them would involve serious ethical issues. Enough already!

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)