Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Old Dog

Les Stroud Talks Bigfoot And Land Barons

57 posts in this topic

Go, Old Dog!

 

Go, Les Stroud!

 

Amazing that video is still there.... You both are in my thoughts.

Edited by chelefoot
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing . I have thought about that very scenario if  the creature did in fact exist. The protection aspect could harm  a very important industry.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But wait!  I hear constantly from BF skeptics that there is no plausible reason the timber industry (or mining or gas) would have any reason to hide the existence.........

 

hmmm.....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Cotter,

Saying BF Skeptics do you mean "opponents to existence". My apologies I'm just trying to clear up DWA's mess.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing . I have thought about that very scenario if  the creature did in fact exist. The protection aspect could harm  a very important industry.

 

 

IIRC , the spotted owl did put a few timber companies out of business.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Cotter,

Saying BF Skeptics do you mean "opponents to existence". My apologies I'm just trying to clear up DWA's mess.

 

LOL!

 

I just KNEW that would get your attention!  I attempted (probably in poor judgement) to employ the BF Skeptic terminology to set it apart from regular skeptics.

 

So, when I say BF skeptics, I really mean denialists and scoftics...

 

:-)

 

I'll stop doing it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It amazes me that anyone would fail to find a motivation for those to do exactly what Stroud describes. Well, maybe some who don't read history, don't follow current events, who have never worked in government or corporate America, who don't understand basic human nature and what motivates us...other than those people? Nope.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Cotter,
 

LOL! I just KNEW that would get your attention!  I attempted (probably in poor judgement) to employ the BF Skeptic terminology to set it apart from regular skeptics.
 
So, when I say BF skeptics, I really mean denialists and scoftics...
 
:-)
 
I'll stop doing it.


LOL, and the ploy worked well too 'cause here I am ;). You made me laugh too. In reality though you aren't the one I'm worried about when sussing out the difference. It's really the new folks to the subject. I think we all pretty much get that a skeptic is one who isn't convinced about something until more solid information comes to light. Since skepticism enters into many fields then some might wish to differentiate a specific field. Therefore for this Forum the term "bigfoot skeptic" succeeds quite well in describing someone waiting for solid evidence to make a decision on existence; with the two remaining categories being "for" (proponent), and "against" (opponent).

Hopefully the three separate distinctions will clear the air around here for years to come (snicker, snicker).

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But wait!  I hear constantly from BF skeptics that there is no plausible reason the timber industry (or mining or gas) would have any reason to hide the existence.........

 

hmmm.....

Well, I am not a  skeptic. I am told I am Just an educated dumb denialist/scofic. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the thread Old Dog!

 

Economics, Fear, Public Order

 

“Facta non verba,†actions speak louder than words, history records what happened rather than a testament to his failure, it is more a testimonial to what extremes they will go through to destroy you.   If there is no cover-up, answers wouldn’t be concealed, therefore information would be forth coming flowing freely unimpeded hence, no cover-up. You and I wouldn’t meet here because there would be no need for a Bigfoot Forum as people would quickly become tired or bored with the topic maybe.

 

Besides the obvious economic chaos it could cause interrupting economies, monetary commerce through massive job loss and displacement there is the predicate unforeseen havoc it would surely cause namely public trust and order. The potential for populations of people enmasse stepping off the emotional deep edge with such revelations could prove uncontrollable. There remains one more point worth discussing that is, disclosure. I think disclosure would undoubtedly leave the door ajar leading the way to the next â€œwhat else†question. Mr. Stroud mentions forestation, land barons but let’s not overlook big oil either! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Gumshoeye
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC , the spotted owl did put a few timber companies out of business.

 

More than a few.   I the valley where I live, 25 of the 26 mills in existence at the time closed due to lack of wood to process.    That accounted for the bulk of the blue collar, family wage jobs in the local economy.   The one remaining mill has one foot on a banana peel and one in the grave, it only runs part time since there is not enough timber supply to keep the production lines operating full time.   It's the largest single employer in its town. 

 

The spotted owl debacle was unmitigated economic disaster.

 

... but it's not quite that simple.   There's always politics involved.   The timber industry here operated on two scales: local / regional companies and the national / international companies.   Most of the outright failures were local companies.   The exit of the national / international companies seemed to be strategic.  Many of them had forest on private land in other areas that offer higher profit that were just coming ready to harvest.   It appears, at least to me, that those national / international companies briefly expanded production here to an unsustainable level then bailed leaving the local companies and the environmental interests at each others' throats ... basically played both sides for suckers.  

 

The economy has recovered somewhat, but it's a service economy, not a production economy.   There's no tangible product, no additional value, only value via efficiency, and it's a house of cards poised to fall. 

 

So, maybe off topic, maybe not ... point is it's not just private industry that has an interest in not noticing the 900 pound bigfoot in the room, gov't agencies responsible for services, etc that are funded by taxes on those industries' being productive budgets are also at risk if bigfoot goes from myth to accepted science.

 

MIB

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MIB, let me just posit a scenario where BF goes from the realm of crypto-tourism to an object of legitimate eco-tourism. Doubtful this would equate to a Serengeti-type outcome...if proven, they will continue to be as furtive... but it would open up a large opportunity for folks who guide, feed and house those who would then know this critter lives, and is not just a rumor or legend. The increase in visitors per year would go through the roof. Service industry still, yes, but on a whole 'nother level.  (Just don't forget Floyd Collins' example as we proceed, eh?)  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, somewhat agreed, but I think you overestimate the positive potentials and ignore the negative potentials.

 

The additional ecotourism demand is going to be somewhat offset by the number of people who decide to stay home because they are afraid of monsters in the woods.  How that will balance ... we can debate 'til the cows come home.   We're just going to have to wait and see.   I think it will be a net gain, but it won't be all gain.

 

Further, those tourism jobs are essentially entry-level / minimum-wage jobs.   I **know** 'cause the rest of my family is in the recreation industry.   The jobs that were lost to spotted owls were, even then, mostly upwards of $40K / year.   The numbers ... I don't think they'll balance out but even if they did, the loss of a family wage job which is replaced by a minimum wage job ripples through the economy.   Depending on which economic theorist you choose to listen to, it varies from 4-fold to 10-fold impact.

 

It may indeed expand some sectors.  Others will contract.   When this happens, the numbers may balance but the individuals who were displaced are seldom the ones who fill the new jobs.   It just doesn't work that way. 

 

MIB

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the more reason to shoot one and prove they exist. Les doesnt seem to be buying into the theory that they are fine without our help.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0