Leaderboard

We have the same statistical data for elk hunting season and hunter success rate per game management unit. Total Population, density, tags sold and hunter success rate. Typically it's 10-20 % , which means statistically every 5-10 years of hunting the same area a hunter should logically expect to harvest an elk right? Wrong. Generally speaking it's always the same small percentage of hunters that kill elk annually. If your doing it wrong? Your doing it wrong......and playing the odds doesn't mean squat. If you stink, are noisy, cannot track and cannot identify prime habitat, then your going home empty handed. And this is species specific, you may be a great prairie dog hunter but know nothing about elk or cougar. Each species has its own challenges.....

That Patterson claimed to only be at Bluff Creek one week with one camera is not wrong. That the Slick expedition spent far longer with a far more experienced tracker at Bluff Creek is not wrong. That Robert Morgan spent far longer at Mt. St. Helens is not wrong. That you cite 16 cameras capturing three clear images after only three months of an animal that wasn't being looked for and not thought to be there as a meaningful comparison to forty cameras and five years in a place where the animal is not only thought to be but regularly reported to be seen and encountered but offer only posturing as to the meaningfulness of that comparison is not wrong. You regularly are caught dropping complete nonsense and when you get called on it you go into this groan-inducing posturing about how you're right and don't need to really explain why. The networks of wildlife monitoring cameras out there in the heart Bigfoot country is far more vast than the average enthusiast has had any idea of. Why Bigfoots are not showing up is as relative a question as how can everyone be wrong about Bigfoot who thinks they've seen it. Social constructs exist. No, really...

The accurate data is from known mammals. The reasonable data is assuming Bigfoot to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of either 540, 660, or 800 pounds... Bigfoot doesn't need to be real to test the premise of it being real and a part of our natural world that behaves according to the same rules that apply to every other species. The simple stuff, that would be.

Like this is going to wig out Bigfoot... But this on the other hand is quite attractive... http://bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=28743

LOL, pretending you actually read and comprehended that. What particularly do you find to be wrong? What specifically do you think were wild guesses? What control factors were errantly applied? From the turn of the century until now there have been countless thousands of hours of motion triggered cameras running all over the PNW which have documented every extant large mammal living there down to single individuals documented over vast distances. And Bigfootery gives us this... Ah, it's a perfect pride-worthy comparison, it's just it's too difficult to explain to a skeptic. Close your eyes, pretend I believe, and try actually explaining why comparing 16 cameras in place for three months capturing three images of a large animal believed to be extinct in that area is a meaningful comparison to 40 cameras in place five years strategically located based on alleged sightings and encounters failing even once to record an image of creatures that by their accounts had been there all along. I get the feeling that explanation does not reside within you and bizarre posturing will be forthcoming instead.

I've learned a few lessons in the past ten years. Don't shine a maglight into their faces, that got me and my niece growled at from less than 3 feet away. We were on a second story deck of a log cabin in Tennessee and she nearly fainted. Don't whoop and holler, you really don't know what that means.........duh. Same with woodknocking, they will know and you might make someone angry that you tricked them or you have disturbed them in a hunt. Sit in the middle of a clearing in the woods and wait. No guarantees but did that in Mississippi and got woofed at from a few feet away. We think it was behind me over my left shoulder and it was definitely not a deer. Walk, take pictures of the grass, flowers, berries, whatever but not directly at them if you suspect they are near. Whistle softly and speak very quietly as they might have little kids with them who could be frightened by strangers. Give them the opportunity to approach you first. And last but not least. Don't think that they can't tell your intentions because they can and if you've come to trap them or hurt them, most times it will be totally silent and they will go on their way. If I think of more, I'll post. Just be respectful and try to empathize what you might be doing if you were in their situation.

Indeed. I'm not sure which way you mean it, but either way, you're right. MIB

Youse guys over there, say: "Bigfoot avoided the cameras or the photos got supressed." Youse guys over here, say: "There were no Bigfoots." We'll all then go get a drink and get down to the REAL issue here. Which is: "Who has the strength to endure much more of this?" See you at the bar.

LOL, Operation Forest Vigil had 5 years and 40 cameras in their Bigfoot hotzone and bupkis. The first wolverines to return to Oregon were found after deploying 34 cameras. They found three in the first season. Both non-government private efforts, no Man to come shut you down when you find Bigfoots. http://www.opb.org/television/programs/ofg/segment/wolverines-found-in-oregon/

^^ LOLWUT? I love when your comments get all kerfluffled when you don't have a decent response.

Here is part of it: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/39851-n-a-w-a-c-field-study-discussion/ Bipto's response: "With regard to the long-term continuous operations, yes, it's those three so far. But we've had multiple other operations over the years including Operation Forest Vigil which was the five year camera trap study that took place in X among other locations. " Their entire efforts in that area are much longer than the 2.5 years you would have us believe here. It helps to be informed

Far fewer bigfoot than other large animals, thus reducing the likelihood of them showing up on trailcams. I'm appreciating more and more the sheer numbers problem. For example (and this all of the top of my head w/o pulling up my spreadsheets), 14 encounters in 6 New York counties totaling 3,500 square miles between 1970 and 2013 (43 years). Of those 14, maybe only 10 were visual encounters. So I'm not a big math person, but take a very large square mile/year area, divide it by a very small number of animals and the absence of photographs becomes rationally explainable. Could also be that, do to a lack of serious research (not serious science, but serious research as discussed above), we don't know (or don't admit) that we don't really know a lot about when/where bigfoot is likely to be, daily/yearly movement patterns, etc. So the cams might be in the wrong places. You can put a lot of traffic cams up in Canada and you're never going to get a picture of a jingle truck because jingle trucks aren't native to Canada.

In one area in the river bottoms I can usually get a response - sometimes a PO'ed one - by playing back a recorded call of one of the three males that prowl around at night down there. Have never seen any one of the three in the daytime, just eye shine. A female walked out in the open late one afternoon in the mountains to watch me while I was playing the entire Sierra Sounds CD while I was sitting and eating on the tailgate of my truck. Called the young male in in the afternoon by short whoops, then some "rock cracking". He met me on the trail as I was leaving the hollow. Just consistently camping at the same spot in a group's area (alone), acting naturally, and leaving a bit of food worked for me. If you do it routinely, they will recognize your vehicle a mile away and be waiting if they are not foraging out of hearing. They'll catch up when they complete their rounds. They get real nosy when it's after midnight and they think you are asleep.