hiflier

What Would It Cost To Get A Voucher Specimen

185 posts in this topic

Hi, there are a few threads currently that discuss things like adaptability, surviving winter, and socio-economic-political backlashes for bring in a voucher specimen for study. Are these really the reasons one hasn't publicly become known? What about cost. Obviously that would depend on the location and type of terrain and conditions at minimum but there is more to this than just that. Research isn't free. Even for us there are costs accrued in time, equipment, electronics, and vehicular wear and tear and that's just us. We don't have a Diane Fossey but I would guess she wasn't free either.

 

Sasquatch in their environment are nearly invisible and know their surroundings as well as when most anything changes within it. They would notice animal movement and behavior, birds altering their locations and calls, and other minute changes around them. Being faster and stronger than Humans, and intelligent, then one could see a team going around in circles chasing them and may not even know if the creature has left the area. One could say well if I was on the team I already have all of my gear but purchasing that gear initially did cost money so again you or I aren't free either.

 

Now this isn't a short sighted question where once outfitted for embedding one's self into an environment the cost becomes a static issue. And this thought is way more of an issue than just getting a glimpse of Sasquatch and calling it good. This is about going out and bringing one in. That means transporting it to a facility for study. This is about methods of tracking and capture and how many people it would take all the way from gearing up for I=the first day of incursion into the habitat and have all of the support people and vehicles in the area for x amount of time. Feeding everyone, providing shelter, protection, and a security detail to keep the public out of everyone's hair so that they can do their jobs. This isn't Norseman, MIB, SWWASAS, me or anyone else. It is a professional team that includes medical personnel, scientists, Law Enforcement, maybe military, aerial support, management of the media, coordination with the Park service if needed, F&W both state and federal, Department of Interior, and who knows what other agencies and departments.

 

All to get one Sasquatch to science. Is it worth it? I say it is. And even though it would probably never happen in this manner, if it did I think the cost would be enormous. Time is money and just getting something like this organized, off the ground, and on location would ne exorbitant  Creating a net of personnel large enough to contain the creature in a given area to assure capture is something I can't even think about. You? Thought this might be fun and interesting to roll around your brains. For me the subject is a rather serious look at what it would take and how much it would cost.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^

I agree the cost of capture is far greater than the cost to kill. I would say even greater than suggested by FarArcher. I say 10 times that.

 

4 million to kill

 

9 million to capture.

 

If the animal exists...

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My number is much lower as I wouldn't have to waste time looking for one.  

 

If you're going on a general hunt, even in an area known for activity - yep - it's going to cost a fortune and take a whole lot more than one season.  The moment you enter the area, everything changes.  We see the results of previous approaches - sometimes tons of money and scores of personnel, and still don't have one.  Doing it this way may cost way more than $9M.  Maybe triple.

 

And yeah, they exist.

 

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest cost would be people's time IMO.

 

A three year project, four people fully committed with various beneficial attributes, I think it could absolutely be done personally.

 

I'm confident I could create a plan that gives the best chance possible too, based on initial analysis of thousands of reports.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a program was really serious then a team of thousand with vehicles on the North, East, And South of  a small mountain around Grays Harbor. It would extend all the way around from Rt. 101 to the south to Rt. 101 to the North. Then......set fire to the mountain and wait. for the creature to approach a vehicular lined column sitting on Rt. 101 closing the circle. A ridiculous scenario to be sure but it goes to show that a creature with a large range, knowledge of the terrain, fast, intelligent, and that is keenly sensitive to intrusions will NOT be easily found. And like any other creature will be tougher and meaner the closer it gets to being taken. AND it won't be working alone to stay free.

 

It would be like trying to find a mouse in a mansion. My guess? Thirty million. One to five unmanaged million in the past was fruitless. The thirty million just might ensure that no one gets dismembered. Of course for that money a wave of armed Humans going over that same mountain heading toward 101 in an all out assault with guns a-blazing might do it too but I think we all know how foolhardy that would be. Besides there still needs to be a full phalanx of vehicles ready 24/7 to intercept the creature or creatures somewhere along 101. So yeah, thirty million and counting. look at how much it costs to shoot a high level Hollywood movie on location. Mad Max Fury Road cost $20,000 a SECOND to make and that's only counting 150 million divided by th movie time that actually made it to the screen. So I think 30 million might be rather conservative.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The limits to finding Bigfoot.

 

Time,

Distance,

Cost,

Planning,

Logistics,

Luck,

Knowledge,

Wisdom,

Bigfoot...

 

 

Edited by Cryptic Megafauna
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about some of the solutions> That's what this thread is about. Your list is well known and costs nothing. Applying it is what takes money.

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two guys 24/7 @ $25 each/man hr. = $1,200 plus $50 for fuel. plus $100 for food= $1,300/day per truck just to have them parked as observers on Rt. 101. Multiply that by 1,000 observers and it puts the figure up to $1.3 million- just for one 24 hr. period and no one is getting rich: Not counting guns, ammo, radios, night vision/binoculars, cold weather accomodations, camping equipment or at least a mess tent and a way to get out of the rain. One can't expect everyone to just sit in their trucks. This doesn't even count at all who or what would be needed on the mountain who and which job it is is to drive Sasquatch to the main road.

 

Then there's the real stuff like the aerial surveillance of either drones or live piloted light craft. Operators for the drones? How much for experienced operators? How many? And tack on at minimum everything the observers require plus a extra drone units to cover failures. And still nothing says the drones will chase a Sasquatch out of the woods for capture- or worse. It all looks like that measly 30 million will get eaten up in about three weeks. So figure 10 million a week to run the operation in such a way that there are no holes in the "net" in which a Sasquatch could slip through and retreat to the Olympics to the North or the wild country to the East, get past I-5 and high tail it to Gifford Pinchot and beyond.

 

And oh, yes the folks and equipment keeping the big loop closed on the mountain. Could be talking 3 million a day to run something like this complete. That translate into a ten day operation unless the project gets lucky earlier than that. AND there's a lot more to consider and have in place for when the Big Guy shows up.

 

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is actually a good exercise for the argument of getting science to go after this creature. There is no doubt the cost would be prohibitive- unless of course they already have one and so don't need to spend the money now ;) 

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading this I was thinking, take half of that and use it to hack/access the government's files/data, or pursue a legal assault for disclosure...or use it to bribe one official to leak the info.....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the way it should work in the real world. But since it isn't money I'm fronting for the effort it would be more like science/government bribing itself.

 

Hmmm. Oh, the irony.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2017 at 9:47 AM, BobbyO said:

The biggest cost would be people's time IMO.

 

A three year project, four people fully committed with various beneficial attributes, I think it could absolutely be done personally.

 

I'm confident I could create a plan that gives the best chance possible too, based on initial analysis of thousands of reports.

 

My belief is that these in general are shy, reclusive, yet inquisitive animals.

 

Taking away the approximate 40% of all actual visual reports by people that are driving, and a large % of the remaining numbers aren't of people sneaking up on Sasquatches and having sightings, they're sightings which see the Sasquatch showing itself when and where it chooses, not the human.

 

For example, camping.

 

One would think that people when camping would have a real good chance to see Sasquatch and would make up a large % of people that do ? Not the case.

 

In the State of WA which has just under 600 reports locked and loaded in the SSR, just under 12% of all camping reports are of actual visual sighting reports.

 

Just 11 reports since the dawn of time see people making reports in WA State, when camping, of actually seeing Sasquatches.

 

That's crazy low IMO and to me, shows a reluctance of this animal to show itself and be seen.

 

Yet these animals being reported by campers in the State ? That's a different story entirely.

 

There's 82 reports from the State of WA from people that never have an actual sighting of a Sasquatch when camping. Vocalizations, track finds, knocks etc etc, just under a quarter of all non visual reports, nearly 1 in 4.

 

What i'm getting at here H is that i believe there is a way to bait these animals, by using people, people doing real normal things, like camping.

 

Beyond that would be down to whatever your objective is be it Norseman or a film crew but to me there is absolutely no doubt that if you want interaction with these things, you need time, normality, location and the right time of the year in location x or y.

 

No GI Joe nonsense traipsing around the woods thinking you're gonna shoot one on camera or with a gun, they're far smarter than the average human and given the lack of progress that Sasquatch field research has seen over the last few decades, i don't see anyone out there actively researching (Les Stroud aside) who isn't the average human, so bait them and from there, it'd all down to your objective but i'd raise my hand each and every time for counter/covert surveillance which to me clearly happens by these things given these numbers.

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, they do seem attracted by normal actions like gardening even. In my book I stated that a team of six going in do not have to go in and set up a base camp in camo while being as stealthy as possible. I suggested going in in normal clothing, bright colors even while talking and laughing in normal tones. One is to discourage bears and two is to attract a curious individual or group of Bigfoots. Rattle pots and pans, cook noisy and forget about trying to be invisible- something that is impossible to do with such a creature.

 

The 30 million dollar operation is in lieu of that. Force Sasquatch into a net by brute force. That said I mentioned earlier that there were other things to consider that would jack up the cost considerably. One of those is where and how many traps should be set up? What about constructing those traps and deploying them? What would make anyone think the creature would even go in one LOL. The only option would be heavy tranquilization which would risk its death of course or shooting it out right which brings up another point: What about things like hairpin turns where trucks and people with guns are lining the road?

 

If Sasquatch is on the run and decides that the best way to stay under cover is to enter the leaf cover inside a hairpin turn then one now has guns not only pointing at the creature from both sides of the turn but the Humans are now caught pointing guns across the turn at each other! Who fires? And in what direction? The only answer is for some guys to go into the leaf cover and hunt it down. Good luck with that, my friends. Especially if there are more than one BF in there. But since science/government doesn't put forth the reality of the beast this scenario will probably never happen. But if it did the management of these issues and so much more needs to be address long before anyone shows up to initiate the actual program.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think traps personally, I think these things are extremely smart.

 

Better off with a sniper IMO, much better off.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites