Now my big question, why is it that while in these vast, forested areas, they rarely report stumbling upon the recognized species? I think it'd be more fascinating if they did. I mean, surely they're running into the more populated, officially recognized, well documented species within these habitats. Bears, moose, mountain lions, arctic hares(based on today's weather). At least evidence of them. You get me?
I'd assume that any if those species along with many other would be easily accessible in some of these areas. More so than a large undiscovered primate. And I'm truly interested as some of these existing creatures are one the top reasons I keep my ass out of the woods. It seems pertinent that documentation be done to an extreme degree. Leaving out any other wildlife activity you may encounter seems hasty. It could be pertinent to your research. Unless you're only encountering bigfoot. Then it's fine to omit info on other various woodland creatures. At the same time it would appear odd that you only encounter activities that correlate with Bigfoot. It would seem you'd have a better chance of encountering the more populous species in average rather than the possibly diminishing, elusive, currently undiscovered species.
So, if you are having run ins with what you consider to be the lesser impressive predators and forest foragers, please start including them in your documentation. I'm sure some folks would be very interested in those aspects of research as well. And at some point it may be crucial to your efforts. It's nature and you're in it. Tell us what's going on.
No comments:
Post a Comment