If in 1940 “when the last animals were officially declared extinct” this obviously was not the case.

I either read or was told some time ago that the bison and the elk both had their home range on the Great Plains. As both were also hunted in great numbers the elk successfully transitioned to the mountains while the bison did not. Do we know this for certain?

However, even the elk were “officially” reduced to a total number of “approximately 12″ in 1922 – could this have even been possible? Apparently the “officials” have always thought that they know all there is to be known, but that is ok, it gives the cryptozoologists a job.

We now have, and have had for some time two distinct “types” of elk, the Olympic Elk (sometimes called Roosevelt Elk) and the Rockie Mountain Elk. I think it highly improbable if not genetically impossible for these two different strains to have developed in such a short span of time let alone from only approximately 12 animals.

How many of the Cervidae family interbreed even though they do share the same territories?

“Historically ranged throughout Alaska…”

I sure didn’t know that. (Arctic included?) I thought that prior bison introductions (like plains bison to Wrangell-St. Elias) were your typical exotic game intros, not an effort to reestablish something that had been there before.

Anyone know anything more about this?

(Thanks to aspenparkland for his informative link.)

The Wood Bison being reintroduced in Alaska come from the park.

In short, the definition of species as two animals that cannot interbreed is inaccurate and old fashioned. It’s much more malleable than that.

sschaper- The definition of “species” is complicated, debatable, and goes beyond just a species ability to interbreed with another. Taxonomy is a very complex thing.

Hybridization can happen across species just fine and it doesn’t mean they should be classified as “breeds” or subspecies. Some good examples of creatures that can interbreed, but which are quite obviously distinct species are the wolf and the domestic dog, in fact any species of Canidae (whose offspring are even fertile), and just about every species of Ursidae (bears) except a very few. Also, many big cat species can interbreed just fine, although they often produce infertile offspring. Would you say that any of these are not distinct species because they are able to interbreed? Taxonomy is based on more than a creature’s ability to hybridize with other species.

Apparently the last herd of wood bison were in an area remote enough that they simply weren’t seen.

Anecdotal reports make it pretty clear that – if they aren’t the result of an unprecedented web of lies or availability of great drugs – LOTS of people are seeing sasquatch, a lot of them right on their property, many looking into their windows.

The difference, sounds to me, shows how blind science can be to something if it wants to be.

Very large mammal roaming about in daylight not trying to hide or be stealthy and is not rediscovered for almost two decades.

It underscores the point if this can be overlooked then what else can be?

Didn’t even know there was a wood bison. Thanks for sharing.

I think it’s been historically presumed that separate species can’t interbreed. In fact, though, we’ve known they can for a long time (tigons and ligers; mules, from horses and donkeys; and, yes, beefalo). The red wolf nearly drove itself extinct breeding with coyotes. The eastern coyote is said to have an infusion of wolf genes.

I think that species that are closely related CAN interbreed; it’s just that in nature, they tend not to, either because of no range overlap or different social structures. But they can do it.

1. 1940 – 1957 is “undetected” for only 17 years, which is different than “unproven” for 200 years by a wide shot, I would say.

2. I am very skeptical of “undetected”. I would never have come accross these bison and said to my mate, “You know lovie, for a plains bison that beast really should have more chap hair on the front legs!” For this to be an analogous argument, there would have to be another 300lb ape in the Pacific Northwest for us to be assuming is NOT a bigfoot….only to find out later…that some of them are.

Now if this is a stronger arguement than I think it is, then at least there is some great news here. All we have to do is chart the places in the Pacific Northwest that are 100 miles from the nearest road, which would reduce the area we need to search, photo-trap and survey.