Yowiehunters Forum

I'd just like to say hello first off, this is my first post on this forum
Anyway, I've been following and reading up as much as I can on this site for a little while now, and even just from the accounts featured on this website, I've begun to notice some interesting similarities between many of the encounters that people have.

The question I'd like to ask, basically, is have yowies begun to develop their own unique sort of 'culture'?

Now I use the term culture here loosely, more in the way of a set of distinct customs and behavioural traits that are not on par with humans, but still more advanced than that of any animals, a sort of intermediate or beginning phase.

I ask this because I have thought to myself numerous times, how is it even possible a creature such as the yowie even exists in today's world. If they are some sort of relict hominid that has managed to survive, at one point in history we humans would have resembled something not so different from a yowie perhaps? Look at humans now, we have managed to evolve from ape-like ancestors to what we are today. At some point, would not early humans have had to develop specific traits in behaviour displaying some primitive form of cultural development? What would stop a yowie doing the same? Especially if they have been around just as long as we have. Although one might then ask why yowies in this same time have not evolved to be on par with humans? Another question for another time perhaps.

But, are there any indicators to show that maybe some form of proto-culture has been developing amongst yowies? Are there any behavioural traits that yowies possess that support this? I believe to an extent yes (with the loose term of culture being applied).

I have noticed that throughout the many encounters listed on this site, there are a few behavioural indicators that may point to the beginnings of a yowie culture. I'll list a few here.

The use of arrangements of sticks/branches/trees/rock piles to indicate places of interest, mark boundaries of territories, use as a kind of calling card. The use of these types of arrangements are unique to yowies, as signals for other yowies, used much in the same way as signposts are used by us. stick arrangement include tripods or teepees, sticks that have been driven into the ground, and branches or trees that have been snapped, or sticks that have been placed longways or across fallen timber and branches or trees leaning on another.

Many yowies have been sighted in family groups, with a dominant male, his female, and their offspring, usually a young male and female. Interestingly, a few accounts of family groups I have read indicate that the mated pair are usually quite old looking, especially in comparison to the younger offspring. Does this perhaps suggest that a pair will mate for life? living with their offspring as a family unit until the young are old enough to find their own mates? Interestingly enough, yowie encounters where more than one individual, they will often work together from the cover of the bush to hunt/stalk/her/usher the intruder from the yowie's territory.

Another very interesting behaviour pertains to the burial of yowie dead. Do yowies bury their own dead? I have read accounts of very strange cairn-like piles of rocks in remote places not usually accessed by people. If it was proved that they in fact are yowie graves, it would indicate that they have intelligence and emotion enough to grieve and bury their dead. Quite incredible if it were the case.

The use of and construction of shelter, do yowies consistently build primitive structures to sleep and rest in, and to perhaps keep away from prying eyes? Do groups of yowies or a family unit all make shelter together, somewhat similar to a temporary home, as they roam throughout the wilderness? I have read an account whereby the witness claimed to have found a' village' of nests or structures deep in bush.

Yowies have often been sighted brandishing various forms of branches as club-like weapons, are these for hunting or defensive purposes? As far as I'm aware however, this is the only form of tool use seen to be used by yowies, except for maybe a deerskin supposedly being used as a form of clothing or protection from the elements.

There have also been reports of a primitive from of language used by yowies, with witnesses having heard repeated monosyllabic sounds, which could have been words. If indeed there was some sort of language used by yowies, this certainly says wonders for their intelligence. If so, would there be regional dialects? Even different yowie languages. Would the North American Bigfoot have the same language as an Australian yowie? It is already apparent that the yowie has a vast repetoire of calls/howls/roars/barks/thumping/beating as a form of non-lingual communication, as well as body language.

Another interesting notion I've come across is that in accounts pertaining to aboriginal lore and dreamtime, the yowies are said to have in tribes. Tribes of brownjacks, tribes of dooligah, and tribes of aboriginal people. I find it fascinating that the history of our native people tells us that yowies were plentiful enough and perhaps advanced enough to live in tribal societies, usually peacefully, alongside humans, even talking and trading, sharing in feasts, and in warfare.


Well, these are just the things I've been noticing and thinking about whilst reading up on the yowie and bigfoot phenomena, and I think if these things were verified (I am really no Professional) the implications would be astonishing. Could yowies develop over time, a unique yowie culture?

Anyway, I hope this provokes a little bit of thought haha

Hi there Pyotr

What you have brought up is all very feasable and at this point in time I dont have much to say or add other than I agree with a lot of what you have put forward.

Apart from the evolution side of things I dont really gel with that and never really have. I have always been a Creationist myself and things have then evolved from there.

Good post.

Hee hee! You are a creationist and then things evolved?

Gavin wrote:Hee hee! You are a creationist and then things evolved?

Yep, I think things were created then someone stepped in and started playing around with things, it has evolved from there, thats the best way to describe it.

Just my opinion.

Pyotr, all your points can be ascribed to any number of animals and birds.

I would definitely agree with you in that many animals share the same behavioural traits as I have mentioned, but so do we. I'll admit also that for there to be a true form of culture among yowies, many more much more advanced indicators of culture will need to be present. At the moment none of these have been observed (I doubt we'd see any sort of yowie religion if we found them for example), and is safe to say arent practiced amongst yowies.
However perhaps the two more prominent points that I find fascinating are whether yowies bury their dead, and make grave-like structures, and their capacity to use tools. To me these indicate higher levels of understanding, emotional depth and attachment to other individuals and the intelligence to use tools in various applications. This is something that as far as I'm aware, not many animals have the capabilty to do.
To me it would seem that if a species of animal were intelligent enough to achieve these things, that over time beginnings of cultural evolution could bud. But alas, we live in an ever shrinking world, and time is never with us.

I have read of a bigfoot burial being witnessed. Sorry I can't remember where.

I did a little bit of digging around ( no pun intended), and found an account of a park ranger in the US that observed a bigfoot that had been previously shot a couple hours earlier by a camper who's camp had torn to shreds, being buried. The park ranger describes at one end of a forest meadow, three bigfeet(?) were gathered, one digging a large hole at which he estimated to be about 4 feet deep. The bigfoot which had died lay beside the other. When the one digging had finished, the others helped him out. They all then supposedly joined hands, held their faces to the sky, rocking back and forth and began some sort of guttural grunting/chanting in unison. After this they began to bury the deceased. Once this was complete, each other bigfoot grabbing a handful of earth and and tossing it into the air. After this "burial ceremony" was complete, the bigfeet wandered off into the woods.

Also an account of another man in the US who claims that in an area that has been consistently habitated by a bigfoot or bigfeet, he has found a tombstone-like grave marker, with an impression in the dirt of the bigfeet being visible.

Interestingly these two accounts from the USA show examples of in ground burials, whereas here in Australia, in my reading, purported yowie burial sites are cairns or graves made out of rock piles. Perhaps there are different burial rites on different continents?

That's the one. Strange that the ranger didn't take the opportunity to exhume the body.

If they are not a figments of hundreds of people's imagination or mass mental illness as some suggest. Then In some respects their culture seems to be geared around their ability to remain unconfirmed to man but curious enough to be the reference of hundreds of anecdotal contacts. I'd surmise they would have a culture, I even believe they bury their dead but that's based on the thought of relict hominid man... Even homo erectus, who ran down prey & ate raw meat, buried their dead I learned. Not only that but from pollen tested from these ancient skeletal sites they have determined they layered cut flowers in the grave. That would indicate some level of culture defining them as not an animal. Is this Mysterious hairy man a relict hominid? Interestingly the denisovian genome deciphered from a bone found in a Siberian cave after obvious interbreeding in the past is nearly exclusively found today in the genes of Polynesians & the Australian Aboriginal. There are many possibilities. Distinct culture is one of them. Good post.

I hate to say it Dion but you make an extremely valid point I give you as exhibit A the Labradoodle !!!
Someone certainly fiddled with the original design in this case and so different cross breeding in many different species will eventually produce something quite removed from what the CREATOR initially intended .

I like your thinking Man !!!!!

Thanks Al

I just can’t see how we have evolved from a fish, crustacean or some kind of micro-organism.

If people wish to believe we have then so be it.

If evolution is operating on our planet and there is a creator force, then that creator force must have created evolution.

As for the Yowie, they appear devoid of their own population, let alone worrying about a culture!

Primatologists estimate Gorilla populations are about 800 on the lowland plains and 800 in the high land planes in Africa, with Gorillas squarely an endangered species. The smaller the number, the greater the chance of inbreeding abnormalities and birth defects, disease spreading through them, and a host of other influences that would quickly lead to their extinction.

I use gorilla here as an example as the adult male is comparable to the yowie in reports being they weigh in at around 200kg with broad shoulders, well built, and saggital crests. The Australian mountains, planes, forestries, bushland, and desserts, do not have the same vegetation found in the African jungles, to enable a population of gorillas to survive. Furthermore, gorillas are strong and powerful and not swift and agile as reports suggest, for creatures the size of gorillas.

Furthermore, sightings of bigfoot in America are on par with Australia, even though Australia is reported to have two types of yowie being the 7 foot tall, 200kg Dooligarl, and the little 4 foot tall 35kg Junjudee. With two types of Yowie, Australia should have double the minimum number of bigfoot of America, and double the chance of sightings. Yet, Australia is also a fraction the size of America. So, in Australia, we have double the minimum number required for a sustainable bigfoot population in America, on a fraction the size of land.

Furthermore, our country does not have the vegetation to sustain a primate community or any evidence of a meat eating primate community. So if yowies are not eating, drinking our water, breathing our air, urinating, defacating, reproducing, getting washed away by flood waters, burned by bush fires, and starved out by drought and forced into human communities in search of food, then they cannot be flesh and blood. Crunch the numbers and apply some logical thought processes.

If they are not flesh and blood, then what is it people are seeing?

Scarts wrote:If evolution is operating on our planet and there is a creator force, then that creator force must have created evolution.

As for the Yowie, they appear devoid of their own population, let alone worrying about a culture!

Primatologists estimate Gorilla populations are about 800 on the lowland plains and 800 in the high land planes in Africa, with Gorillas squarely an endangered species. The smaller the number, the greater the chance of inbreeding abnormalities and birth defects, disease spreading through them, and a host of other influences that would quickly lead to their extinction.

I use gorilla here as an example as the adult male is comparable to the yowie in reports being they weigh in at around 200kg with broad shoulders, well built, and saggital crests. The Australian mountains, planes, forestries, bushland, and desserts, do not have the same vegetation found in the African jungles, to enable a population of gorillas to survive. Furthermore, gorillas are strong and powerful and not swift and agile as reports suggest, for creatures the size of gorillas.

Furthermore, sightings of bigfoot in America are on par with Australia, even though Australia is reported to have two types of yowie being the 7 foot tall, 200kg Dooligarl, and the little 4 foot tall 35kg Junjudee. With two types of Yowie, Australia should have double the minimum number of bigfoot of America, and double the chance of sightings. Yet, Australia is also a fraction the size of America. So, in Australia, we have double the minimum number required for a sustainable bigfoot population in America, on a fraction the size of land.

Furthermore, our country does not have the vegetation to sustain a primate community or any evidence of a meat eating primate community. So if yowies are not eating, drinking our water, breathing our air, urinating, defacating, reproducing, getting washed away by flood waters, burned by bush fires, and starved out by drought and forced into human communities in search of food, then they cannot be flesh and blood. Crunch the numbers and apply some logical thought processes.

If they are not flesh and blood, then what is it people are seeing?

Well I guess that does it for the indigenous primate peoples whose remains have not existed for 60,000 years, nor could they find any plants or animals to eat. Clearly they are a figment of our illogical imagination and I never realised it.

Hopefully you finally realise it, Andrew! Cheers , and celebrate that realisation with yet another pint of beer so perhaps you can see a yowie in your own backyard!

Dion wrote:Thanks Al

I just can’t see how we have evolved from a fish, crustacean or some kind of micro-organism.

If people wish to believe we have then so be it.

Argument from incredulity?

Doesn't matter if you 'just can't see it', unfortunately- whether you like it or not - that's the way things are.

There is no 'wish to believe' in evolution. It's a theory that has not been disproved in about 150 years because of it's robustness. People don't believe in evolution, they accept reality.

The bible is not an accurate account of the natural world and only those that are blinded by religious faith (like it's some kind of virtue) believe in this creationist guff. Funny how you accept evolution but you still think we were created. Talk about taking a little from column A and a little from column B to create your own reality.

FM80 wrote:Argument from incredulity?

Doesn't matter if you 'just can't see it', unfortunately- whether you like it or not - that's the way things are.

There is no 'wish to believe' in evolution. It's a theory that has not been disproved in about 150 years because of it's robustness. People don't believe in evolution, they accept reality.

The bible is not an accurate account of the natural world and only those that are blinded by religious faith (like it's some kind of virtue) believe in this creationist guff.

Its just an opinion FM80, Although I do believe everything was created, I also believe that things have evolved from that point, and I also believe that there was a world previously to the Bible but it was destroyed.

I believe in a lot of things, doesnt make me right or you for that matter, its just an opinion.

FM80 wrote:Funny how you accept evolution but you still think we were created.

Funny?, I think its a pretty simple concept really.

FM80 wrote:Talk about taking a little from column A and a little from column B to create your own reality.

Do you have a problem with that?

Just chill out for moment, take a long deep breath and relax a little.

Dion wrote:
Its just an opinion FM80, Although I do believe everything was created, I also believe that things have evolved from that point, and I also believe that there was a world previously to the Bible but it was destroyed.

I believe in a lot of things, doesnt make me right or you for that matter, its just an opinion.

I'm relaxed, all good.

It's completely wrong to think that we have two equally valid beliefs. There is reality and there is what people believe in because of their religion, period.

Surely we must make our beliefs to conform to reality rather than distort reality to fit our beliefs? Just for interests sake, what's this 'world that existed before the bible' thing you mentioned?

I wonder whether Dion is referring to the ancient Atlanteans or the giant ‘mound builders’ in the US who were mining copper thousands of years before the copper age, or the countless of other civilizations that existed before in the old world. IMO it is possible there was an old world, much more advanced than history knows, that was destroyed during the end of the last ice age some 12,000 years ago and the evidence of these cultures are yet to be found. When the ‘first’ civilizations (according to history) appeared in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, it was not the breaking of a new dawn of civilization, but merely humans recovering from a dark age; whence prior knowledge and development had been lost and forgotten. Ha. Sorry to jump in there but its something I believe but not for this forum. I'll address the original post:

Hi Pyotr,

Here’s my 2 cents:

Pyotr wrote:The question I'd like to ask, basically, is have yowies begun to develop their own unique sort of 'culture'?

Now I use the term culture here loosely, more in the way of a set of distinct customs and behavioural traits that are not on par with humans, but still more advanced than that of any animals, a sort of intermediate or beginning phase.

I personally don’t think Yowies have a culture per se, even if the word is used loosely. Even though they are intelligent as far as the animal world goes, they are too wild to have developed a ‘culture’ IMO.

Pyotr wrote:I ask this because I have thought to myself numerous times, how is it even possible a creature such as the yowie even exists in today's world. If they are some sort of relict hominid that has managed to survive, at one point in history we humans would have resembled something not so different from a yowie perhaps? Look at humans now, we have managed to evolve from ape-like ancestors to what we are today. At some point, would not early humans have had to develop specific traits in behaviour displaying some primitive form of cultural development? What would stop a yowie doing the same? Especially if they have been around just as long as we have. Although one might then ask why yowies in this same time have not evolved to be on par with humans? Another question for another time perhaps.

Interesting thoughts. Brings up the old creation vs evolution question. Because we don’t have a Yowie to study and find definitively what their ancestral origins are, we can’t be certain about its evolution. That said, is it not possible that today’s Yowie is an evolved form of a more ancient hominid? If you were able to travel back in time 200,000 years ago and spot a horse, I’d say it would look more or less the same as a horse today. My point being we can’t necessarily compare the ‘evolution’ of other species to we humans who are obviously unique in this vein.

Pyotr wrote:The use of arrangements of sticks/branches/trees/rock piles to indicate places of interest, mark boundaries of territories, use as a kind of calling card. The use of these types of arrangements are unique to yowies, as signals for other yowies, used much in the same way as signposts are used by us. stick arrangement include tripods or teepees, sticks that have been driven into the ground, and branches or trees that have been snapped, or sticks that have been placed longways or across fallen timber and branches or trees leaning on another.

I see what you’re saying here, but I still don’t think this qualifies as culture. Many animals urinate on trees to mark their territory though I admit piling rocks and branches is only something a primate could accomplish. Birds build intricate nests with twigs, chimps use twigs as a tool to fish out termites, some fish rearrange coral to their fancy but this doesn’t fall under the term culture.

Pyotr wrote:Many yowies have been sighted in family groups, with a dominant male, his female, and their offspring, usually a young male and female. Interestingly, a few accounts of family groups I have read indicate that the mated pair are usually quite old looking, especially in comparison to the younger offspring. Does this perhaps suggest that a pair will mate for life? living with their offspring as a family unit until the young are old enough to find their own mates? Interestingly enough, yowie encounters where more than one individual, they will often work together from the cover of the bush to hunt/stalk/her/usher the intruder from the yowie's territory.

Yep, definitely many accounts of older looking males with younger partners and juveniles. This is anyone’s guess, perhaps Yowies do mate for life, though this wouldn’t be good for their species (I dare say the human race didn’t craw out of the dark past through monogamy). Mating for life, raising young and working as a unit to take down prey is still not a definitive indication of culture IMO.

Pyotr wrote:Another very interesting behaviour pertains to the burial of yowie dead. Do yowies bury their own dead? I have read accounts of very strange cairn-like piles of rocks in remote places not usually accessed by people. If it was proved that they in fact are yowie graves, it would indicate that they have intelligence and emotion enough to grieve and bury their dead. Quite incredible if it were the case.

I personally don’t think this is the case. I believe Yowies take care of their dead (a reason why you don’t find dead ones on the road) but I doubt they go through the trouble of digging a hole in the ground and placing the body there in a ceremonial manner. They might carry the body back to a nest or protected area in a final effort to keep it safe, but I think that would be it IMO.

Pyotr wrote:The use of and construction of shelter, do yowies consistently build primitive structures to sleep and rest in, and to perhaps keep away from prying eyes? Do groups of yowies or a family unit all make shelter together, somewhat similar to a temporary home, as they roam throughout the wilderness? I have read an account whereby the witness claimed to have found a' village' of nests or structures deep in bush.

As far as I know Junjudees are said to live in caves or holes in the ground while Yowies make nests, as opposed to shelters per se. The nest might have the natural shelter of overhanging trees/bushes etc but I’m not too sure of them creating a type of ‘roof’ over an area where they sleep. Open to be proved wrong here.

Pyotr wrote:There have also been reports of a primitive from of language used by yowies, with witnesses having heard repeated monosyllabic sounds, which could have been words. If indeed there was some sort of language used by yowies, this certainly says wonders for their intelligence. If so, would there be regional dialects? Even different yowie languages. Would the North American Bigfoot have the same language as an Australian yowie? It is already apparent that the yowie has a vast repetoire of calls/howls/roars/barks/thumping/beating as a form of non-lingual communication, as well as body language.

A grey area. Yes there is evidence of mono syllables uttered between Yowies but whether they pertain to a language is debatable. IMO, they don’t. Dogs can whine, yap, coo, growl or bark to convey whether they are submissive, angry or playful yet it’s certainly no ‘dog language’. I believe Yowies have personalities and can create sounds and inflections that mirror their moods, but I doubt there is an understanding of a particular word that is known, repeated and understood by other Yowies, in different occasions by different individuals, in the way ‘language’ is defined.

Pyotr wrote:Another interesting notion I've come across is that in accounts pertaining to aboriginal lore and dreamtime, the yowies are said to have in tribes. Tribes of brownjacks, tribes of dooligah, and tribes of aboriginal people. I find it fascinating that the history of our native people tells us that yowies were plentiful enough and perhaps advanced enough to live in tribal societies, usually peacefully, alongside humans, even talking and trading, sharing in feasts, and in warfare.

Yep there are plenty of aboriginal accounts that tell of a time when there was interaction with Yowies in the ways you’ve described. Fascinating thought I agree. Perhaps there was a time when Yowies lived in a more ‘tribal’ or ‘clan’ type existence, though over time, whether it had to do with human warfare or other factors, they diminished in numbers and became segregated, solitary and lost what they might have achieved ‘culturally’ before. An example of loss of knowledge in a similar vein; according to early European settlers, Tasmanian aboriginals had no knowledge of how to create fire (unlike the mainland aboriginals) they simply managed fire so it never extinguished. Perhaps we’ll never know.

Though I don’t agree they have a loosely defined culture, it is not a reflection of my impression of their intelligence. Yowies are cunning, clever, extremely adaptable and vastly more intelligent than any other wild animal out there. I just don’t think intelligence and culture can be paired in nature so far as we would presume to identify it.

Great post Pyotr. A lot of good points raised.

I suppose upon reflecting, The base needed for any sort of culture to form, no matter how primitive, is a defined population that is intelligent enough and that live in large enough community groups for trends in behaviour, communication, lifestyle etc to develop.

On the points that everyone has raised, and further reflection it seems to me that unfortunately, these things aren't really present with regards to the yowie. Yes there must be a somewhat considerable population of yowies continent wide, but even still, in the grand scheme of things they are still scarce in numbers compared to say kangaroos. While they may also form small family units, or mated pairs, this is hardly a yowie community living together. There simply isn't the sustained contact between yowies in large enough numbers for these trends to form.

While they are very intelligent creatures, perhaps just simply not enough to have developed such a complex concept as culture. In my opinion they seem to possess an intelligence much greater than most other animals.

The theory that they may be a contemporary evolutionary form of an earlier hominid is an interesting one as well!

Hello Pytor , I've been meaning to mention this .
A friend from central nsw was having a bb at a property with new friends . He dropped the " Y " word and they mentioned multiple encounters on their farm .
The interesting part was , the creature involved was stealing their sheep . He/it once left a bunch of wild figs/grapes or whatever in return for the missing sheep .
A member on here suggested that this was culture .
An understanding from the creature that the farmer had lost something of worth and replaced it with compensation ....to me is fascinating .
Cheers !

That definitely is really interesting Rusty2!
To me it really shows that they have some sort of depth of understanding and a considerable intelligence.
Could this be kind of similar to aboriginal legends of trade between clans of humans and dooligarl?

Obviously this particular creature understood the basic meaning of a trade , and trading has been a part of different cultures for thousands of years .

Their so much more than a monkey ........

As for aboriginal legends , they all come from somewhere and also must have started with an incident of sorts . I suppose from that point that things start getting exaggerated but they weren't wrong about the creatures themselves .

Perhaps indirectly commenting on the subject line, generally based on my experience, I believe they have a culture.

Why wouldn't they.

Every Genus/Species/Race/Religion does.

I do know they work as a group at Kilkivan. Whether that be as family or not, I can't say. Where there is one, not far away was normally another.

They also have inherent traits that I believe are taught to them from a young age. One of the most important is not to leave prints. Walk on rocks when you can. Walk on hard ground when you can. Don't be seen. Humans are mostly diurnal. They have poor night time eye sight. Stand still and be a tree. Don't simply step over Uncle Henry who died of a heart attack, remove his body before it's found, etc etc

Many obvious aspects they would be taught. They are masters of their own habitat, as we all know.

This all points to culture and understanding.


DMH

Dean Harrison wrote:Perhaps indirectly commenting on the subject line, generally based on my experience, I believe they have a culture.

Why wouldn't they.

Every Genus/Species/Race/Religion does.

I do know they work as a group at Kilkivan. Whether that be as family or not, I can't say. Where there is one, not far away was normally another.

They also have inherent traits that I believe are taught to them from a young age. One of the most important is not to leave prints. Walk on rocks when you can. Walk on hard ground when you can. Don't be seen. Humans are mostly diurnal. They have poor night time eye sight. Stand still and be a tree. Don't simply step over Uncle Henry who died of a heart attack, remove his body before it's found, etc etc

Many obvious aspects they would be taught. They are masters of their own habitat, as we all know.

DMH

Ummmm they have poor night time eye sight....?
Not to leave prints....?

We honestly have to talk to each other Dean. !

I need your assistance on this please will PM you cheers

Welly

Dean

If not a culture than definitely a communicable type of symbolism eg: stick structures , wood knocks ( audible ) , foot stomps , grunts and even as per some reports whistles and words unknown to us as yet .
Trees snapped off in an obvious display of aggression not unlike a contributor writing something harsh utilising CAPITOL letters .

I think that even a chixwowa dog can exhibit a territorial display that's enough to deter most contenders . It's up to us to try and unravel all this , diarise and see the patterns perhaps we can communicate with them in some way on their terms .

As for creationists verses science just replace those two words with chicken and egg , which came first ????

wellymon wrote:Ummmm they have poor night time eye sight....?
Not to leave prints....?

We honestly have to talk to each other Dean. !

I need your assistance on this please will PM you cheers

Welly

Hey Welly, I think Dean means Humans have poor night time vision,

In regards to your PM you sent him I doubt he will get it as he rarely visits the Forums and checks his PM's.

Try emailing him.

Pyotr wrote:
Many yowies have been sighted in family groups, with a dominant male, his female, and their offspring, usually a young male and female. Interestingly, a few accounts of family groups I have read indicate that the mated pair are usually quite old looking, especially in comparison to the younger offspring. Does this perhaps suggest that a pair will mate for life? living with their offspring as a family unit until the young are old enough to find their own mates? Interestingly enough, yowie encounters where more than one individual, they will often work together from the cover of the bush to hunt/stalk/her/usher the intruder from the yowie's territory.


Another interesting notion I've come across is that in accounts pertaining to aboriginal lore and dreamtime, the yowies are said to have in tribes. Tribes of brownjacks, tribes of dooligah, and tribes of aboriginal people. I find it fascinating that the history of our native people tells us that yowies were plentiful enough and perhaps advanced enough to live in tribal societies, usually peacefully, alongside humans, even talking and trading, sharing in feasts, and in warfare.

This sounds backwards to me, where in the case of them being seen in larger groups indicated a more advanced
society. The Aborigines would have referred to them as being a tribe when seen in large groups, although numbers is where the similarities end. The great apes are seen in large groups and after studying them for a short time, one would see just how primitive they behave in this social order. Like early man evolved from large groups to smaller family units, the Yowie may be doing the same, although they still behave like an animal in a much larger group ( Despotic Dominance Hierarchy) which indicates this is a very recent adaptation and they are still evolving this transition.

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-an ... ors-chimps

Just an interesting little article I stumbled upon in my internet travels, and thought it might be interesting to share, especially with regards to this thread,

cheers