Impressive post DDG, but of course, I have to pick a nit or two.
It’s true that Hudson’s Bay Co. opened a competing office, but Fort Victoria wasn’t it. Their first Pacific Northwest trading post was Fort Vancouver which was founded in 1825. Oh, and Fort Astoria was taken over by the British in 1813 (the war, ya know).
Yes, it was an excellent post, and I better understand your position now that you’ve elaborated. I also appreciate the effort it obviously took to compose said post. Its level-headed manner and ridicule free style is above and beyond the norm. Thank you. I mean it.
I will say this, however: no investigation or investigator, from the obstensively sober-minded mainstream scientist to the crack-pot paranormal aficionado is without bias or a bedrock of preconceived notions upon which he or she constructs his or her thesis. When sasquatch hunters, for the lack of a better term, obey Science’s often condescending edict to perform fieldwork their damn selves, return in a relatively short time (because they have to get back to their real, paying jobs) with trace evidence that at least merits a modicum of time and consideration, but are preemptively lambasted with claims of tampering or outright hoaxing…I get upset. Maybe it’s a personal thing. Maybe I just loathe haughtiness. And maybe that’s my problem, since Science is, by nature and by a self-imposed, but clearly fallible, necessity, a haughty business.
Boy…the more things change, the more they stay the same, huh?
Dear Straight Dope:
On 22 Feb 2001, Straight Dope graces the cyperspace bandwidth with a dubious essay: “What’s up with cryptozoologists, the guys who investigate mythical beasts?”
First off, cryptozoological subjects under study may be part of native folklore or traditions, specifically “legends,” but “myths” are not part of the mix here. You may find it funny to ridicule the serious pursuit of a new species of tree kangaroo in Indonesia by talking about “unicorns” but this does not make your treatment factual.
SDSTAFF Doug’s reply falls down the embankment of journalistic sensationalism without any clear connections to the facts. He writes:
“You can get a glimpse into this if you visit the website of Dr. Loren Coleman, a self-proclaimed ‘cryptozoologist,’ giving advice on entering the field.”
As one colleague, a well-known folklorist, wrote when alerting me to your piece: “[Then there’s] the ‘self-proclaimed cryptozoologist’ crack. That’s like saying Cecil Adams is the ‘self-proclaimed writer’ of The Straight Dope.”
I was surprised to see I am a mini-focus here. The writer of the piece gets off to a bad start by calling me “Dr.” Loren Coleman, evidencing the slippery thinking that equates teaching in a university with being a “Ph. D.”. It’s not the first time that’s happen, just because I am a “professor,” in the European sense of the term. My apologies to all those people who have worked so hard to be a “Dr.” and thanks to all who continue to give me an “honorary” degree so quickly.
Especially hostile is your article’s remark: “…once someone starts calling themselves a cryptozoologist instead of an anthropologist, they can’t be taken seriously any more. At that point, they may con people out of money to fund their ‘research,’ but it loses any pretense of legitimacy.”
Your statements that cryptozoologists are not taken seriously and are conning people out of money flies in the face of established research occurring in Sumatra by the Flora and Fauna International (the world’s oldest conservation society) in search of the Orang Pendek, the World Wildlife Fund in Laos-Vietnam to find new species, and other organizations working in the Amazon, off of South Africa, and elsewhere. Your insulting comments about “conning people” are so over-the-top that they do not deserve a serious response. Some colleagues, instead, have suggested I consult an attorney!
Loren Coleman
http://www.lorencoleman.com
Cryptozoology A to Z: The Encyclopedia of Loch Monsters, Sasquatch, Chupacabras, and Other Authentic Mysteries of Nature (NY: Simon and Schuster/Fireside, 1999) by Loren Coleman and Jerome Clark
Mysterious America: The Revised Edition (NY: Paraview, 2001) by Loren Coleman
The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide (NY: Avon, 1999) by Loren Coleman and Patrick Huyghe
NOTE: I have edited out links to an online book-seller location where these books may be purchased, since we do not permit advertising here. – CKDH
[Edited by C K Dexter Haven on 02-27-2001 at 08:04 AM]
RD: Oh, yeah, without question, all scientists have some sort of bias when they go looking for answers. For every scientific answer that was stumbled upon while somebody was looking for something else, there are probably dozens, if not hundreds, of answers that were found when somebody postulated a theory and went out and tested it.
Personally I advocate research dollars for everybody, Sasquatch, yetis, skunk apes, the whole kit ‘n’ kaboodle. 
Who knows what cool stuff might be out there? Just look at all the “we used to think–but NOW we KNOW…” factoids that come down the mainstream science pipeline, the one that pops into my mind right at the moment being the one about hummingbirds being able to slow down their metabolism at night. They only found that out because somebody had a grant to go out there and birdwatch.
How do we know you’re the REAL Loren Coleman? 
Loren Coleman, perceiving an assault on his source of infamy and income (namely, the books he writes), wrote:
>First off, cryptozoological subjects under study may be part of native folklore or traditions, specifically “legends,” but “myths” are not part of the mix here.
Perhaps you could explain the practical difference between a “legend” and a “myth” for us? Manipulative semantics do not give you credibility.
>"[Then there’s] the ‘self-proclaimed cryptozoologist’ crack. That’s like saying Cecil Adams is the ‘self-proclaimed writer’ of The Straight Dope."
If you have a degree or are employed to practice X-ology, then you are an X-ologist. If you are not, but simply call yourself an X-ologist, then the adjective “self-proclaimed” is entirely appropriate. In your case doubly so, since there is no such thing as a degree in cryptozoology to begin with. If your point is that it’s obviously not a real field of science, so the “self-proclaimed” tag is redundant (like calling someone a “self-proclaimed Elvis-ologist”), then all you’re doing is shooting yourself in the proverbial foot. More to the point, I consider the tag necessary in case someone reads the posting who might actually believe there is a science called cryptozoology.
>established research occurring in Sumatra by the Flora and Fauna International (the world’s oldest conservation society) in search of the Orang Pendek, the World Wildlife Fund in Laos-Vietnam to find new species, and other organizations working in the Amazon, off of South Africa, and elsewhere.
Really? I’ve sent messages to contacts in both of these organizations in order to confirm or refute your claim that they employ cryptozoologists. I rather suspect they will both deny giving money to anyone who calls themself a cryptozoologist. Would you care to clarify your contention? As I’ve said before, I’ve discovered over 200 previously-unknown species of animals, even named new genera, and spend every field trip searching for animals that might be extinct. You CANNOT use what I do as a legitimate scientist to lend any credibility to the field of cryptozoology; you are again resorting to manipulative semantics, by crying “Ah, but look here! These are real scientists, and what they are doing is what I call cryptozoology! Therefore, by extension, what I am doing is real science!” - it doesn’t work that way. I’m sure you know what a “logical fallacy” is.
Besides which, by that definition, at over 200 species discovered, I’m one of the world’s most succesful cryptozoologists, so you should certainly respect my opinions and credentials in the field. After all, I’m accordingly more credible than you both as a scientist AND as a cryptozoologist - unless you retreat to a definition of cryptozoology that excludes genuine zoologists hunting for new or presumed extinct species such as myself, which leaves you hanging out to dry. My, such a dilemma…
>Some colleagues, instead, have suggested I consult an attorney!
Indeed? Do you care to guess how many crackpots have threatened me with lawsuits over the years that I’ve been fighting pseudo-science?
Let me ask you this, regarding any battle of credibility we may be having here: WHICH ONE OF US STANDS TO MAKE/LOSE MONEY OVER THIS ISSUE? You, having authored three books about cryptozoology (and the chutzpah to advertise them here), have a glaringly obvious and concrete monetary stake in the public’s continued attraction to pseudo-science. I, on the other hand, neither make nor lose a single dime no matter WHAT happens to you or the public who buys your books. I contend that there is only one of us for whom there is a strong motivation for bias and insincerity. I find it nearly inconceivable that you could be capable of objectivity about this matter. Again, the point is simple: if what you’re doing is a real science, then you have no need to call yourself a cryptozoologist - simply call yourself a cultural anthropologist, or a zoologist, or whichever is more appropriate. If you are none of these, then drop the pretense of it being a science.
My! How this thread has grown!
Doug, I must point out that a degree (while it certainly adds legitimacy) is not the only means by which a science may be considered valid.
You can’t obtain a degree in nephology (the study of clouds) or apiology (the study of bees)- but I doubt that anyone would argue that these are legitimate sciences. They’re “under-the-umbrella” sciences. Apiology is an area of specialization that would probably fall under the umbrella of entymology. Nephology is a specialization that falls under the umbrella of climatology. (The great climatologist/geologist Alfred Wegener refers to nephology as one of his disciplines in Alfred Wegener, The Father of Continental Drift by Martin Schwarzbach.)
Also remember that the very first archaeologists, virulogists, and psychologists were themselves self-proclaimed archaeologists, virulogists, and psychologists. Titular sciences are not instanty refutable. New sciences are never well received initially.
A great accomplishment, a truly admirable and prolific achievement. But I personally think that cryptozoology is a perfectly fine name for what it is that you seem to do. (Especially if you are looking for thought-to-be-extinct creatures that may still exist somewhere in hiding and have been sighted by locals.) You may very well be one of…
I think perhaps you don’t like the idea of being lumped in with people that you feel are crackpots and opportunists. I don’t blame you. Early archaeologists had to deal with half-baked whackos that were calling unearthed pre-historic stone tools “elf-shot” (elves can’t touch iron don’t you know!) or “thunderbolts”. Who do you think sold more unearthed pre-historic stone tools or books about unearthed pre-historic stone tools? The guys calling them “unearthed prehistoric stone tools” or the guys calling them “elf-shot”? A pain in the behind to be certain (especially when the whackos are making more money than you!) yet archaeology persists and the occasional crackpot still surfaces now and then.
But as with most everything, this is not a black and white issue. I know of a few people (some semi-personally) who do consider themselves to be cryptozoologists and are true scientists. I admire and respect their work. Their research is good and their conclusions worthwhile. They are skeptics who are more excited by the fact that people are sighting creatures that are perhaps species thought to be extinct, or species living in an area that that species was previously thought not to occupy or even an entirely new species all together.
I’ve looked through Loren Coleman’s website before (never read any of his books) and he appears to be a reasonable man. He thinks Mokele Membe is some type of as yet undiscovered forest rhino. Is that so insane? Doug, wouldn’t you love to add a new species of rhino to your list of over 200 new species? I would imagine you and most other legitimate scientists aren’t investigating the sightings of Mokele Membe because it has the stigma of being a crackpot pursuit attached to it. Who knows? You may be missing out on quite a discovery. I’m just happy that anyone, regardless of what they call themselves, is looking into it.
I would love to hear the results of your inquiries to Flora and Fauna International and the World Wildlife Fund. Keep in mind though, that there are probably quite a few legitimate zoologists out there that (either as a hobby or quite seriously) also consider themselves to be legitimate crypozoologists. They just don’t advertise it…for reasons very clearly outlined in your post.
P.S.
For those wondering, there is a slight difference between myths and legends - I don’t know how practical a difference, but a slight difference all the same. 
A myth is a traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings and creatures. They are fictions that form some part of an ideology. Zeus, Odin, Pegasus and griffins.
A legend is an unverified story handed down from earlier times (often written down). These stories are commonly popularly believed to be historical or somehow based in fact. Stagger Lee, Pecos Bill, John Henry and the escaped killer with a hook for a hand.
Felix…I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Loren…is that really you?
Before the inevitable occurs and this thread runs out of inertia, I wanted to make a few observations/comments:
1.) To DDG: Since you were considerate enough to do the same, let me refine a point I hastily constructed a few days ago (I’ll keep it short, though) - If we are to grant some validity to the body of anecdotal / trace physical evidence concerning the hypothetical behavior / identity of the equally hypothetical sasquatch, the creature is (as postulated by the subject’s most sober-minded researchers) nocturnal, relatively intelligent, and cautious of homo sapiens (especially if the remnant Gigantopithicus theory is to be entertained)…the essentially pristine condition of the nation’s wilderness during those “thousands of years” in which people had been living in the supposed beings’ habitats would have made their discovery all the more unlikely (like I said before, it took until 1901 to confirm the existence of Africa’s lowland gorilla.) This is what I meant by the people’s lack of “mobility and scientific knowledge.” It would also make sense that, starting in the mid to late 1800s, on the cusp of the industrialized tainting and penetration of this pristine condition, the sightings would begin. Conversely, of course, industry breeds improved communication (or vice versa, I suppose)…improved communication breeds rumors/hysteria/etc. …and those sorts of spurious exchanges breed modern day legends (just as efficiently as the ignorance that preceded it.) Does that make more sense than my wayward sentence?
2.) Doug: You said: “As I’ve said before, I’ve discovered over 200 previously-unknown species of animals, even named new genera, and spend every field trip searching for animals that might be extinct.” Okay. Here’s the deal (and I think you’ve touched on this): You are a certifiable zoologist? Specifics notwithstanding, you are a member of a scientifically accepted field. For better or for worse, there is, at the present, no way to obtain a degree in cryptozoology…YET…when you…certified you…actively search for extinct animals, you are PRACTICING cryptozoology, as cryptozoology is, by definition, the application of “scientific methods” in the search for a.)Unknown animals for which, as of now, only strong anecdotal evidence exists, b.)Out of place animals for which, as of now, only strong anecdotal evidence exists, or c.)Supposedly extinct animals. In its intended form, it is not pseudo-science. You have admittedly proven this yourself. However, you are not labeled, nor do you label yourself, a cryptozoologist, because the term carries in the field of science the same heft the label “Ripperologist” carries in the field of criminal studies. A criminologist may also be a “Ripperologist,” but a “Ripperologist” need not be a criminologist, and a criminologist doesn’t have to add that moniker to his repertoire, if only because, to his colleagues, the term is superfluous. Okay. I’m essentially rehashing what you’ve already stated, aren’t I? From his writings, Mr. Coleman seems not a crank, or a pseudo-scientist, and what few pronouncements his makes are based on evidence. Are you there, Mr… Coleman? Am I not correct?
Also, I believe everyone has something to lose (and gain) if the corpse of a sasquatch / remnant dinosaur, etc. were discovered. This includes you, despite your claims of value-free neutrality. You are not objective. A primatologist/paleontologist/evolutionary scientist would shit his or her pants if he or she checked the front page of the Times tomorrow and saw a confirmed bigfoot kill as the lead story. Whoops. Back to the drawing board. Perhaps our current paradigm of humanity…of reality…wasn’t as stable as we so confidently made it out to be. Steve Gould would probably implode…just vanish…the same way die-hard fundamentalists recoil when presented with the inaccuracies of The Bible. Of course, some of the fecal matter excitedly excreted across the country would be the product of delight and wonderment. Most of it, I propose, would be “uh-oh” shit, though. You DO have money at stake, as well as pride. Correct me if I’m wrong, as I am a non-accredited layman, but haven’t the paradigm shifts of science past hurt as many scientists as helped?
Wiley Ley & B. Huevelmans (sp?) were also considered “crypto-zoolologists”, in fact Huevelmans is the “father” of the science with his “On the Track of Unknown Animals”.
Doug- if you go out into the rainforest, and start shaking trees for new species of beetles, when just about every “beetle-ologist” KNOWS you will LIKELY find a “new species” of beetle- then you are NOT a “crypto-zoolologist”.
However, the next new one you find- why not name it after “Cecil”?
My degree was in “Evironmental science”- but my mentor & i called it “Littoral ecology”- does that make me a crack-pot?
Your arguement seems to be: If I am a “zoolologist” and seach for the “tasmanian tiger”- I am a respected scientist. BUT, if, with the same degree, & methodology, I call myself a “crypto-zoolologist”, and look for that same missing marsupial- I am a crack-pot. WTF? The Giant Squid was once thought to be as imaginary as the “sea-serpent”- does that make Richard Ellis a “crack-pot”?
This Staff report has raised skepticism to a new… low. It is the “operation Market-garden” in the war against ignorance.
[ Moderator Hat On ]
NOTE: As Doug has noted, we do not permit advertising at this site. In this case, the Staff Report cited an individual, and that individual’s response is (partly) to direct attention to his books. Such a response is acceptable, as would links to a review or summary of the content of the books. However, links to an online bookstore for purchasing seems to me to be on the other side of a possibly fuzzy line. As Moderator, therefore, I have deleted the links to amazon.com but have left the book titles and related information. I also want to remind everyone that advertising is prohibited in these forums.
A REMINDER: We also do not permit ad hominem arguments in this forum. I believe that, so far, the combat – er, sorry, the discussion – has remained within the realm of polite, intellectual engagement, although there are some comments that come close to skirting the edge. I strongly encourage it to remain so, since I will either edit or delete any posts that (IMHO) cross that line, no matter who makes them.
FOOTNOTE: I always thought Crypto-zoologists studied the amazing powers of Superboy’s dog. (OK, sorry.)
[/ Moderator Hat Off ]
[Edited by C K Dexter Haven on 02-27-2001 at 08:10 AM]
Well, hey, Dex, if you’re waggin’ your finger at ME, I was just pointing out that anybody can register at the SDMB under the name “Loren Coleman” and include the real Loren Coleman’s website in his Profile, and we’d never know it was just a Loren Coleman fan we were talking to, and not The Man himself.
So?
So, Mr. Moderator, Sir, although I applaud your efforts to keep this forum from degenerating into a spam-fest, if we lowly forum-ites wish to look for more info about Loren Coleman’s books like reviews or prices, we can still find it on Amazon, but not as easily as before, since you removed the hyperlinks? In what way is this benefiting us?
I noticed you didn’t remove any links to Amazon books from other posts. Would you have kept links to Loren Coleman’s books if the author was not the source of the post?
Nitpick: That would be a Krypto-zoologist, Dex.
RD:
Which leads me to point #2.
However, as I said before, the Indians had extensive trade networks, and they lived everywhere. There was hardly an ecological niche all across North (and South) America that didn’t have humans living in it. Even places that we’re accustomed to think of today as “big empty wilderness”, like the Nevada deserts, and the vast reaches of the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountain forests, had human tribes that lived there and staked a claim to them.
And like people today, they lived in “neighborhoods”. Each tribe would have its hunting and agricultural territory, and they would be perfectly familiar with the plants and animals that lived there.
Each tribe managed its own land, the same way white men over in Europe were managing their lands. That’s a human characteristic, to stake a claim to a certain territory, and to be very possessive about it. (For me, it’s a 50 foot by 100 foot city lot. ) Even nomadic tribesmen, like in Mongolia, have a certain territory that’s “theirs”, and other folks had better not trespass.
When the Pilgrims got to Massachusetts, they thought they were in the middle of a howling wilderness, but actually, they were in the middle of the Northeastern Woodland Indians’ settled agricultural zone, sort of the equivalent of Iowa. They just didn’t know what to look for.
http://www.nativetech.org/cornhusk/cornhusk.html
Now. I live in Downstate Illinois. When I go out in the woods, I know what kind of animals to expect. Deer, raccoons, rabbits, etc. Bears are not very likely, but if I saw one, I wouldn’t drop dead with shock. Now, a moose, that would be different. If I was hiking in the conservation district woodlot and saw what was definitely a moose, or an emu, :eek: I’d rush right home and call somebody and spread the word.
The Indians would have been the same. If somebody had spotted an enormous hominid prowling around “his” woodlot, he surely would have said something, gone home and gotten all his friends. And human nature being what it is, they almost certainly would have killed it, 
and then had a skull to show to other people, and to talk about around the campfire when traders came to visit.
So, the perception of North America as a vast, empty, untouched wilderness, with all kinds of places where you could hide a Sasquatch or a skunk ape, is actually not correct. North America, before the white man got here, was a busy place, with intelligent, reasoning homo sapiens doing the same things that intelligent, reasoning homo sapiens were doing across the Atlantic Ocean, namely, observing the natural world and coming to conclusions about it.
Just because the Indians may have had a lack of Western-style scientific knowledge, just because they thought sickness was caused by evil spirits instead of by germs, or because they thought thunder and lightning was caused by the gods being angry instead of by the clash of continent-wide air masses, doesn’t mean they were stupid, or naive, or unquestioning. They did question things, constantly. That’s human nature. It’s just that the answers they came up with were different from the white man’s, and to him they sounded foolish and childlike, not to say superstitious. But when it came to knowing their own neighborhood, to being familiar with what else lived there, they were always 100% on target. They had to be–the tribe’s survival hinged on it. They needed to know where the game was, where the edible and medicinal plants were. I can’t recall any instances where a white man pointed out a plant or animal to an Indian whose neighborhood it was in and asked him, “There–what’s that?” and the Indian had no clue.
To say that they could have overlooked something like a Sasquatch or a skunk ape is to refuse to give them credit for being fully rational adults with all of homo sapiens’ lively, and trademark, curiousity. And if there was a shy and nocturnal, human-avoiding Sasquatch or skunk ape out there in the woods, sooner or later, somebody, somewhere, would have been out in the woods at the same time and would have added it to the Indian natural history. That’s my point–they didn’t. Whether it’s Pacific Northwest tribes or Southeastern tribes, nobody has a reliably collected folklore account of a big hominid that lives in the woods.
Opossums are about as shy and nocturnal as you can get. Plus, they’re very small and they live up in the trees, not down on the ground where you might stumble over them. But all the Indian tribes were perfectly familiar with possums, and in the year 1500, when the possum was “discovered”, and the white man asked, “There–what’s that?” the Indians had a name for it. “Oh, yeah, those.” Unfortunately Sr. Pinzon didn’t bother to write down what the local name for this critter was.
http://www.gwf.org/library/wildlife/ani_opossum.htm
http://granicus.if.org/~firmiss/m-d/op-history.html
However, John Smith to the rescue! (Yes, the same John Smith as the Pocahontas John Smith…)
So, if they knew all about possums, which aren’t easy to spot even when you know they’re out there in the woodlot, it simply beggars belief to think that the Indians wouldn’t have known there was a 6 foot tall hominid out there in the woods.
**
Eh, on Dex’s behalf, since he probably won’t be back until tomorrow, I hereby challenge you to post a link to a thread where an amazon.com link was NOT removed.
Betcha can’t.
Oh, and by the way.
So, we have “myth–a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events” and “legend–a story coming down from the past; especially : one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable”.
Sheesh. Get a life, you guys.
DDG – put your paranoia on leash. No, I was not specifically “wagging my fingers” at you, nor at anyone. I was noticing the general tone of the protagonists in this debate.
Musicat – I confess, I have not been thoroughly diligent in checking out every link. Normally, the players in this forum pretty much know not to post links to sites whose primary function is advertising or selling. Moderators would normally eliminate links to such sites. I only wanted to point out that this was a slightly exceptional case; if the link had been to a site that included a review or summary of the book, I would have probably left it alone as an appropriate response, even if that link included an order form. It’s the link to a site that is primarily (hell, solely) aimed at selling (rather than reviewing or summarizing) that crosses the line into advertising.
I am not trying to prevent you from learning about the book, nor from purchasing the book, heaven knows. I am trying to keep this Message Board free from advertising, following the rules of the Board that were agreed to when y’all registered.
If you have examples of other links to selling or advertising that I have missed, please let me know, and I will be glad to remedy. I can’t watch 24/7 and I don’t necessarily check out every link. I rely on, and thank, the regular posters for their help with monitoring.
P.S. - The primary difference between a myth and a legend is that a myth is longer, since a myth is as good as a mile.
So is it your Admin policy to refuse links to a “commercial” book-selling site such as Amazon, but not to seemingly “non-commercial” sites?
A short while ago I made a reference to a topical book, “A Natural History of the Unnatural World,” and kicked myself later for not including the exact link to Amazon to make it easier for those interested in buying it or looking at a review. Now I wonder if you would have removed the link anyway.
And BTW, I receive no remuneration from Amazon or the author in any way; my contribution was intended to be informative only.