The New Crop of Bigfooters: What’s Up?
Posted by: Loren Coleman on January 17th, 2007
We all were young once.
What kind of member of the next generation of Bigfooters are you? What’s up with the present crop of Sasquatch seekers?
Let me shout out a challenge to the Bigfoot hunters and researchers here who are 40 years old and under. I usually don’t say things so strongly about this subject, but in this case, allow me to make some observations through the gray hairs flickering in front of my eyes on this windy and cold day. Is there a Bigfooters Age War developing?
As some of you know, I run a few group lists (although they appear to be dinosaurs, in many ways, on the internet). Today, a young man who is an artist and turned 40 last year, who recently started a local Bigfoot investigation club on the East Coast last year, got into a bit of a debate with some members of the list. He made a statement about there only being one species of a certain animal in a West Coast location, then some people corrected him, he got in a huff, and left the group.
I found it unfortunate that someone who is interested in the pursuit of the reality of Bigfoot, puts forth a thought, then is given some feedback on some incorrect zoological information, would so quickly retreat when challenged. It reminded me of some other recent incidents I’ve seen happening in the Bigfoot community.
Why is this the reaction? Are youthful researchers routinely displaying a thin skin or inflexibility? Please tell me there is hope out there. Please tell me I’m wrong.
We all come under scrutiny, we all get our facts wrong once in awhile, and we all should be able to defend our stances with complete information or accept reversals and move on. Am I seeing a trend developing on this front?
Is this really the sad state of affairs among some younger members of the growing Bigfoot community?
I found today’s developments disappointing, especially when I began to reflect on it more broadly.
The inflexibility of a whole new group of Bigfooters is further compounded by hearing some rising young stars and some really fringe people in the field complain in articles and on forums about people they feel aren’t doing fieldwork, when, indeed, some of the individuals were doing fieldwork when the comment makers and their peers weren’t even born or were in diapers. Frankly, making such statements to the media, dismissing the contributions of the diversity of those involved in Bigfoot research, reflects badly on the whole field.
People change. People fill different roles as they grow older. Many investigators back in the 1960s-1970s doing fieldwork weren’t going to the media, internet, and yahoo lists with every weekend field excursion they were taking, talking to the papers whenever they rollled into town to interview eyewitnesses, or appearing on radio shows about every planned trip to such and such state. There’s the misconception today that, besides a handful of prominent personalities, there was no fieldwork being done before the current generation was born.
My gosh, talk about trying to create a generation gap and not appreciating those who have come before. I’ve long ago laughed off all these attempts to demean the earlier Bigfoot searchers as being “less than” for “not” doing fieldwork when I know better. It is incredible to hear such criticisms from within, more and more.
The way I figure it, time will catch up to today’s crop of new seekers too. The next group of young Turks appearing in 2057 will be wondering why all the end of the 21st century’s old greazers (who were so significant in 2007) are merely doing whatever people in their 80s and 90s are doing then. And enjoying it!
About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct).
Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015.
Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.
Well if you were around when the Patterson film first came out, you feel a kind of ownership of Bigfoot and Bigfoot research.
All those lonely treks through the woods, no internet, a dog-eared Sanderson book to I.D. anything you saw, trekking in Pakistan, secreting seeking Almas, whispered conversations with your wildlife professors about wildmen and getting learned in some really hard fields of study, so you could understand field biology, botany and habitat, and now some kid can glean all of this stuff surfing the web in one week.
Oh well, we ain’t found ’em yet, so let’s let the kids have a go, good hunting. As for the young ‘uns being inflexible, well a few nights in a South Georgia swamp will cure that, particularly if the dang things scream at you all night.
As part of the well over 40 crowd, and one who has knowledge of what was common knowledge 40 years ago, the truth about the bigfoot species appears to have not been handed down to new generations. Furthermore, when the new generations are informed of those past and verifiable truths, they reject them with ferver. With the predictable elusiveness of the bigfoot species not providing the new generations with any realtime field observations, they fall back on their own false beliefs that are either extrapolated from known wild animals or memorized from message boards. Lacking any real way of defending there positions other than shouting louder, name calling or resorting to canned rebuttals, they often become even more closed minded to the truth that they have tarred and feathered and run out of town.
Right now im a college student, just 19 and have just started (last 6-8 months) to get into the whole cryptozoology thing. For a few years I have been watching the TV and the specials they show to educate myself, but as of late I’ve bought several books to further my education. I live in Connecticut, which isn’t prime squatch territory but I’m in my surrounding woods just looking, a lot. I feel that there hasn’t been anything as significant as the P/G film to really kickstart new researchers. This is my two cents and I hope there isn’t a real concern among “seasoned” sasquatch hunters that there isn’t a future because no matter how mad my girlfriend gets at me looking up new information, I’ll always be here looking for our furry friend.
In partial defense of these ‘youthful’ whippersnappers you refer to, Loren, let me remind you of a certain difference between their generation/s and yours: the massive increase at which the sheer speed of life now operates compared to when you first started out.
Back then, I’m sure you probably came up with a variety of ‘insights’ that initially seemed not only astounding but perfectly obvious to you but, due to the tardy rate at which it was possible for you to expound them to others, e.g. personally, by ‘phone or, if you sought wider publication, by mail, you were given plenty of time to mull them over and maybe come to other, possibly better conclusions.
In addition, you were able to adjust to the way the speed of life gradually accelerated hence, even though you look somewhat like Father Christmas on holiday in Miami, you’re more than perfectly au fait with the Internet scene.
Them thar young uns, though, not only get to put their ‘blinding insights’ in front of the whole world the moment they occur to them, but they get to experience the virtually instant response of potentially unlimited smacks in the chops to their egos; and given how the modern era is ever more obsessed with how one appears in the eyes of others, such assaults to one’s sense of self esteem are probably experienced as more brutal than at any other time.
p.s. is it still too early to send you my list of presents I want for this Christmas?
Don’t get dispirited Loren. It’s nothing new. With age comes wisdom…sometimes. Just look at the controversy that surrounds the date of the first humans arriving in America. 12,000 years ago used to be the accepted and anyone who challenged it was a heretic! Boundaries are changing now and becoming more accepted however.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that quite often it’s just human nature to get into your little silo and defend your own theory. In the crypto field I guess it can be more easily done as it’s harder to disprove?! I bet that for every narrow minded BF researcher out there, there’s 5 open minded ones. Just look at the people on this forum!
All fields need new blood.
Not sure whether science as a whole is advancing or not, because I’m not sure “progress” always is. (Dude! Where’s My Electric Car?) But it does appear that new generations of scientists are pushing the envelope of technology, putting more tools in the hands of everybody out there.
And I do think that the younger one is the more likely one is to use the tools. Old dogs, new tricks, that sort of thing.
But the Instant Arrogance and just as rapid feedback characteristic of the Internet age present pitfalls. Either make sure your presentations are well thought out or cultivate the ability to rapidly (and gracefully) change your mind.
Loren, as one who is mumblety-mumble years old myself, I can relate to your dismay with the current mindset of the rising generations.
I suppose it is largely a by-product of the instant gratification that everyone has come to expect in this Internet Era. A lot of people never had the opportunity to grow up as a normal kid playing outdoors and roaming the woods. They spent their formative years plopped in front of a TV (or nowadays a computer). People have come to expect instant results, something that usually does not happen in properly conducted field studies.
There also seems to be an expectation by the general public of a “play-by-play” account of every investigation from the beginning. Then when conflicting data are posted after more information has been gathered, the researchers are often raked over the coals and accused of incompetence. Or they are misquoted, or quoted out of context, and put on the defensive. Those of us who participated in, or at least remember, the “stand in the face of hostile authority” attitude of the mid-sixties to mid-seventies develped a thicker skin and a more prosaic attitude towards media vilification. It does seem that people today are quicker to just drop everything and quit when things do not go as they anticipated.
But what goes around comes around, and maybe the tide is turning again. There seem to be a lot more of the younger people around who are paying more than just lip service to the natural world today. Maybe they will come to realize that field research, or indeed any research, is not about instant gratification but instead is a life journey.
I was born the year of the PG film. I am 39 and feel that the younger crowd tends to be impatient and the older crowd set in their ways. I’m sure there is a middle road, and once unarguable proof is displayed, that middle ground will narrow quickly.
I am 33 myself, and I think a lot of the difference lies in the difference of technology and the effect that this might have on the way people approach things. The internet, blogs, and whatnot are increasing the speed by which all this information is transferred. It is also easier to do quick research by “googling” it, achieving in a few minutes what would have taken a day down at the library back in the old days. And since the younger generation have basically grown up with this kind of technology, I feel it makes them more impatient and eager for instant gratification. It is unfortunate that there are people out there behaving in this way, but overall I think some new ideas and fresh perspectives are ultimately good for the field.
This has got to do with personal traits and not a difference between generations. We all know there are some people who, without a little self-help, are unable to take criticism; viz. they take it personally.
But I think, in general, the attention span and level of patience has shrunk. That means that someone who is out looking for instant approval of his or her own views won’t try to debate, but simply change community, if faced with difficulties.
An interesting thought, though. The PG film has become a sort of media/evidence backbone of BF research and interest. Will we see a decline of interest/increase of ridicule if no “new PG film” can be provided?
The memory of the PG film and the importance of it, might not survive that long in a short attention-span media world.
Seems this has less to do with the guy’s age, and more to do with his being a jerk. I’m a young guy, and I love you old farts.
j/k (about the old farts, not about loving you)
Also, let me add the mentioned fellow apparently does not understand the scientific process.
In the scientific community dissenting theories are discussed and shot down in conference when all data is analyzed. That seems to be what happened here. He stated a dissenting hypothesis, and other researchers shot it down based on collected evidence. An understanding of the scientific is a must if cryptozoology is to ever come into the mainstream.
Loren, I think you said it first and best in your earlier essay. Anyone, regardless of age, that enters into the bigfoot research community had darn well better have a thick hide.
Regardless of the instant notoriety and equally instant criticisms to be found on the Internet, eventually if they go out into the field they’ll run into someone who will simply laugh in their face. It will not come as a “frowny emoticon” or even a thoughtfully written criticism.
Some folks are simply going to laugh at you. At you, personally. And laugh loudly.
How many of us have had this experience and still pursued our research? I would imagine almost all of us over-40 types have been greeted in this manner more than once.
This goes a long way in winnowing the wheat from the chaff. The tougher ones will learn when and where they can and carry on. Ego-trippers expecting their names in headlines by next week will find some other pursuit. (Well, the majority of them will.)
Any first year student in geology, chemistry, physics, or zoology who goes in and starts correcting his or her professors will quickly have a house dropped on them. While questions and new theories are readily welcomed both here and in the classroom, it’s not a wise idea to march in twirling your guns and telling everyone you’re the fastest gun in the West. There are always a few who are faster. Always.
During the years I have been actively involved with research, nothing has changed more often than my opinions of bigfoot. Not my taste in food, vehicles, women, movies, friends, music, or any other field. I can’t count the times that I have been called on the carpet by folks more wise and experienced. Whether their criticisms were harsh or mild, I came away smarter, looking at the problem from a different angle, and often armed with knowledge I did not have before.
Anyone who lets a series of phosphorescent letters on a computer screen get under their hides will have REAL difficulty when four or five folks are standing around laughing openly at them. Nowadays, I laugh with them and admit that it IS a pretty strange hobby, and no, I don’t have all the answers. More often that not the laughing slowly stops–and someone will begin to ask me serious questions.
The younger folks have many tremendous advantages that we did not in our earlier years; 4×4’s that will take them quickly into the wilderness while carrying heavy loads, Google, Wikipedia, a host of bigfoot conferences where they can communicate with experienced researchers, cell phones, improved radio communications, wireless laptops, GPS systems, night vision, and a galaxy of highly improved camping gear. There is NO REASON they cannot match and surpass the efforts of the generation before them, and even before that. There are still more questions than answers. None of us know all there is to know about these creatures, in fact many of the most important issues are still a total mystery.
They have much at their command that we did not. But they’re going to need what comes from within themselves to make it of any use to them. Courage, die-hard determination, the ability to withstand setback after setback, and the inner strength to take a hit now and then, deserved or not.
This is no job for whiners.
Kent
What it comes down to is whether you’re a “baby boomer” or “generation xer” is that we all have the insatiable desire, drive, determination and hunger for the quest of the unknown.
Back in the “good old days”, which I fondly cherish, the groundwork for this particular field of work was pioneered by such icons as Heuvelmans, Krantz, Green and Coleman (with apologies to those whom I neglected to mention). They received their large share of ridicule and criticism but that came with the job. They “weathered” that storm particularly well but not entirely unscathed. The ridicule and criticism will always be there for the hardy veterans and the young guns of today.
Though modern technology does make it easier to do the necessary research, I don’t think it diminishes the desire for any particular person if they’re willing to stay the course. The ability to take that criticism no matter how harsh it may seem only makes the desire to succeed that much greater. I’ve seen and heard it all throughout my life and it’s never any easier but it’s important and necessary to keep your feelings, beliefs and objectives in perspective.
I think the problem with today’s younger crowd is the society in which we find ourselves. Everyone wants instant gratification, instant fame and nobody wants to put the effort/time/money into searching for something that may take years. Patience is not a redeeming quality by many these days. I would say life is short, enjoy the search and savor all the moments along the way and never give up on the goal.
Hey Loren, not really trying to defend my age bracket here, as whatever age I’ve been I’ve usually found my peers to be mostly a bunch of incompetant dolts that reveled in their ignorance, but thin-skinned egomaniacs can be found of all ages…just think of the recent stink with M. K. Davis and other rows of their kind.
I suppose I should also add that, in my observation, you are one of the calmest and patient people in the field of CZ, particularly when some crazy is yelling at you.
Well, I don’t know what you’d consider me.. Not even quite sure what I consider myself.. I’d like to think I’m pretty versed on the matter of Sasquatch in particular.. I’m in my mid-thirties.. I would like to think the approach I take on CZ in general is open minded and open to possibilities.. But this isn’t about how I believe or what I believe or my opinion on things. I’m sort of a loner when it comes to this and I don’t really have any friends or acquaintances how are interested in this subject like I am.. Of course they are absolutely fascinated when I give them a “lecture” CZ and BigFoot in particular.. I guess it could be said that there are a number of pompous assed individuals out there who for some reason think that only their research and theories are valid and anyone else’s leaves room for debate.. And as I start to get more and more involved in researching information online, it seems like there’s politics involved in so many different aspects of this research.. I’d rather stay out of the politics and concentrate on the facts.. My corner stone of knowledge is based in the people who pioneered the research: Grover Krantz, Loren Coleman, etc… And some newcomers like Jeff Meldrum.. I truly admire this man for is mild-mannered approach.. I’m sure that he is ridiculed from time to time.. But he is one of the main supporters of the fact that there IS scientific evidence that NEEDS to be investigated and taken seriously by science!