My badly stated point was supposed to emphasize that early man - Neanderthal weren't in Western Canada, the Rockies, Alaska, and the Kamchatka Peninsula and further West across present day Russia.
Or were they? Maybe their first cousins - but for certain - much, much larger?
Either way, animals seem to find areas mankind are reluctant to settle. The idea that FEW primitives would prefer larger, more dangerous animals over smaller, more plentiful animals - is to me ludicrous. I would suggest that scenario is because the "experts" don't have any other explanation for this major extinction event. Let's see - I'm hungry - and rather than take deer, pigs, elk, caribou, seals, fish, or even bears - I'm gonna take on a huge SOB that can squash me like a bug.
It's just that I've spent a bit of time on the tundra, in higher alpine altitudes, on the ice cap, in eastern swamps, savannah's, southern forests, deep southeastern asia jungles, and I just find it difficult to even contemplate wiping out a species across two continents. In some jungles even today - you can run across wild elephants by accident - and you're not even ON the African continent. It'll startle the **** out of you, and God help you if you're sleeping across the track of their trail.
Those they found and continue to find - were quick frozen. Some still had food in their mouths - didn't have time to even swallow before they were insta-covered and quick frozen. Bones, skin, and tissue debris many feet deep - like one can imagine a huge debris line after high tide.
I LOVE discussing this stuff! It's a royal ***** to try to find others who are interested in these topics!
