Losing The Faith....

[Huntster]

So all in all, i guess that looks to be a VERY well funded Project, unlike anything ever obtained for a Project regarding our Subject, sadly.

All the organizations mentioned is common of cooperative studies. It is usually because the studies cross jurisdictions. In other words, the study took place on lands managed by all the various organizations listed, and all of them had personnel involved in the study, each perhaps devoting anywhere from 40 to a few hundred hours of time. Some more, some less. Organizations contributed pickup trucks, traps, camera equipment, etc that they already had.

The organization I worked for was involved in a wildlife study like that involving brown bears. I've frequently posted links from the Anchorage Daily News referring to it. Much of the land involved was Air Force and Army lands surrounding the city of Anchorage, and the military contributed helicopters, personnel, fuel, equipment, etc, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game contributed their specialized equipment (dart guns, trained biologists, scales, satellite transmitters, satellite receivers, etc). It wasn't so much the agencies writing checks as it was utilizing existing assets toward a common goal.

[BobbyO]

It wasn't so much the agencies writing checks as it was utilizing existing assets toward a common goal.

That's cool & understandable H, although someone has to write checks for the hours put in by those Personnel, who ultimately need to be paid & do get paid, for all those hours of research, for example..

That's just one thing..

Here's soem more info on actual Funding of the Project..

My point being here obviously is that time & time again, this Subject & it's lack of evidence, is being paralelled with other Research Programmes which quite simply receive MUCH greater funding than this..

& much greater funding opens up incredibly new & improved options & opportunities, of course..

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the Lolo Pass Redevelopment Project, the Federal

Highway Administration, and the Idaho Transportation

Department for supporting field efforts on wolverines in the

Bitterroot Mountains, especially D. Davis and W. Melquist. We

thank C. Engkjer for laboratory assistance, as well as the many

field assistants who collected samples, including R. Yates, J.

Wilmot, T. McCue, M. Packila, T. Ulizio, and B. Jimenez. We

also thank J. Tucker and P. Beier for comments on an earlier

version of this manuscript. M. K. Schwartz was supported

during parts of this work by a PECASE award. We thank the

following groups for providing funding: Bridger-Teton National

Forest Challenge Cost Share Program, Bullitt Foundation,

Canyon Creek Foundation, Caribou-Targhee National Forest

Challenge Cost Share Program, Disney Wildlife Conservation

Fund, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Greater Yellowstone

Coordinating Committee, IDF and G Wildlife Grants

Program, Laura Moore-Cunningham Foundation, Montana

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, National Fish and

Wildlife Foundation, New York Community Trust, Richard

King Mellon Foundation, Tapeats Fund, Wilburforce Foundation,

Wyoming Game and Fish State Wildlife Grants

Program, and private individuals.

[BobbyO]

Hang on a minute, wasn't Doris Duke ( one of the Funders for the above ) the Lady who bought the Sasquatch in the Crate all those Years ago ??

Nice that her Foundation is still interested in the Subject & donating to " Wolverine Research " in the Bitteroot Mountains huh ??

& they are there, just ask Teddy Roosevelt..

Somerset County, New Jersey if my memory doesn't fail me for the Duke Foundation..

[Guest shelley7950]

Don't forget this is a series filmed for PBS...I may be way off the mark here, but my impression was that most of that funding was for filming NOVA, through PBS, and not funding for this particular wolverine project...

[Guest]

I don't think "make a ton of money" would be an accurate statement. "Gain a ton of grant money"? Yeah, they probably would.

Well those are sort of interchangeable. My university skims ~50% off the top of Federal grants as "indirect costs". In other words, if I cost out a project at $100,000, I really need a $150,000 grant to get the work done. The $50,000 goes to Central Administration where it is divided into several pots, ostensibly used to fund staff salaries, etc. (One of those pots would be my college within the university, then my department within the college, and then I might personally end up with something like $1500 of it to go into a general fund through which I can do things like purchase some new equipment or hire a student to do some part-time work in my lab.) So if we faculty are really bringing in the grant money - and from Federal, competitive sources to which we can charge that full indirect cost amount - then the university really can gain materially. We can use a larger proportion of the annual state appropriation to invest in capital improvements, for example, rather than use every penny of it just to avoid lay-offs. Or, wonder of wonders, we might be able to actually afford a salary increase (something we haven't seen in 2-3 years now) or avoid further increases in tuition.

So research universities want money. Whether it comes from research on particle physics, biofuels, or mouth lining color in Yellow-bellied Sapsuckers, they don't care. If there was money in bigfoot, they'd be all over it. But the reason there is no real money in bigfoot is because there is no confidence in the probability of success, and little demonstration that incremental work could actually build toward anything.

But enough of the derail, back to the OP. Why is losing "faith" when it comes to a subject like bigfoot a bad thing? Bigfoot either is or isn't. If it is, that's really cool. If it isn't, it's still pretty cool, because it means a lot of interesting stuff has happened to convince so many people that it is. So the bigfoot phenomenon is still fascinating if you approach it empirically, rather than faithfully.

[Guest]

Off subject, but Prag brought up Elk and Cougars...

This came across my e-mail the other day. The guy never knew until he saw the picture...

[Huntster]

Off subject, but Prag brought up Elk and Cougars...

This came across my e-mail the other day. The guy never knew until he saw the picture...

I got that one, too.

Call me a skeptic, but I think it's a hoax. I tend not to believe much of the current stuff emailed about any more.

[Guest]

Ain't buying it either.

[Huntster]

My university skims ~50% off the top of Federal grants as "indirect costs". In other words, if I cost out a project at $100,000, I really need a $150,000 grant to get the work done. The $50,000 goes to Central Administration where it is divided into several pots, ostensibly used to fund staff salaries, etc. (One of those pots would be my college within the university, then my department within the college, and then I might personally end up with something like $1500 of it to go into a general fund through which I can do things like purchase some new equipment or hire a student to do some part-time work in my lab.) So if we faculty are really bringing in the grant money - and from Federal, competitive sources to which we can charge that full indirect cost amount - then the university really can gain materially. We can use a larger proportion of the annual state appropriation to invest in capital improvements, for example, rather than use every penny of it just to avoid lay-offs. Or, wonder of wonders, we might be able to actually afford a salary increase (something we haven't seen in 2-3 years now) or avoid further increases in tuition.

That's an interesting insight into an example of university money flow. Thirty percent (your $100K/$150K example) is close to what we allow in DoD contracting for "G&A" (general and allowable) "overhead", and that is a very standard overhead allowance (although we also allow labor burden {consisting of things like unemployment taxes, disability taxes, etc; about 25% in Alaska}, subcontracting fees {usually another 6%}, and, of course, profit {usually 6%{, which adds up to a whole bunch of bucks).

And I find no problem with how your example utilizes that allowance; administration, capital improvements, supplies & equipment, etc.

So research universities want money. Whether it comes from research on particle physics, biofuels, or mouth lining color in Yellow-bellied Sapsuckers, they don't care. If there was money in bigfoot, they'd be all over it. But the reason there is no real money in bigfoot is because there is no confidence in the probability of success, and little demonstration that incremental work could actually build toward anything.

Because there's little expectation that the Deep Grant Pockets and appropriate wildlife managers (government) are interested in funding the "incremental work" necessary to actually come to a resolution to the phenomenon?

But enough of the derail, back to the OP. Why is losing "faith" when it comes to a subject like bigfoot a bad thing? Bigfoot either is or isn't.

1) Because faith or doubt is all we have at this point

2) Doubt leads nowhere with regard to an unknown, whether it's sasquatchery, extraterrestrial intelligence, religion, or any other subject out there

If it is, that's really cool. If it isn't, it's still pretty cool, because it means a lot of interesting stuff has happened to convince so many people that it is.

The problem is that the "interesting stuff" happening is now conducted (and controlled) by an unorganized gaggle of amateurs, similar to the P.T. Barnums of the late 19th Century, and this during a time of modern wildlife management by the ultimate Earthly authority; government (who is completely absent with regard to the issue).

So the bigfoot phenomenon is still fascinating if you approach it empirically, rather than faithfully.

So let's approach it empirically by the empirical instead of haphazardly by the haphazard.

[Guest shelley7950]

1) Doubt leads nowhere with regard to the unknown...

Doubt leads to thinking, questioning, and testing---all of which may move us forward in our attempts to pin down the unknown.

Faith leaves us stuck exactly where we are (I believe this to be true, and that's all I need to know)...

[Guest]

Picture the cougar was lifted from.

[Huntster]

1) Doubt leads nowhere with regard to the unknown...

Doubt leads to thinking, questioning, and testing---all of which may move us forward in our attempts to pin down the unknown.

Or doubt is the result of thinking, questioning, and testing; all of which helps prevent us from accepting falsehoods, but which actually leads us nowhere if the doubt results in a lack of thinking, questioning, testing, and (most importantly) investigating.

Faith leaves us stuck exactly where we are (I believe this to be true, and that's all I need to know)...

1) Faith or doubt is all one has if the truth is not known

2) Faith can leave us stuck exactly where we are if the faith results in a lack of thinking, questioning, testing, and (most importantly) investigating (just like doubt)

3) You "believe that to be true", and if that's all you need to know, you'll never know the truth, which only comes with more and more investigation

[Guest]

Picture the cougar was lifted from.

Funny thing. I've become skeptical about everything BF, but I didn't think twice about the cougar.

[Guest River]

Picture the cougar was lifted from.

Nice find.

[Guest]

If you get a chance, watch the wolverine show. It's really good.