Leaderboard

Correct me if I’m wrong? I thought that was the point of E-DNA? Taking pot shots in the dark? Sullivan lake has had numerous sightings reported over the years. That would be the draw. If they are frequenting the lake on a regular basis? Maybe? I would think we could use the SSR to get us into promising areas. Look. I will be your goat. But I’m not dealing with government bureaucrats and science labs. That would be your gig. But I am more than willing to help you get off the ground by taking water samples around the PacNW? I would donate my time and fuel. I would still pack a rifle. I could ship the samples to you with labels so that we know which sample came from where. After that? It’s up to you. You have been talking about this for quite sometime. So let’s make it happen.

I disagree that Mike Paterson's problem is he started out genuinely, but then when he didn't get more encounters made up stuff. That might be reading too much into him. Below is a screen capture of a video where Paterson said he left the camera outside and Nephatia took picture of his eye. Later, when Dwayne had a falling out with Mike, he posted this below under a pseudo name he used on facebook showing the eye was really from a fish on his cottage wall. Once Dwayne outed him he took the video down and claimed he had the camera in a table inside the cottage and Nephatia magically put that image of the fish eye on it. What is unbelievable to me is how anyone can believe this guy.

I agree with Norse and it would be great if information could be shared with others here about which labs will accept samples. I can ask around myself to see if anyone in a local university knows about e-DNA labs who would be open to doing eDNA analysis for individuals clients. For example, Washington State University has a list of validated assays of 28 species. Only one is a mammal-- a beaver. https://labs.wsu.edu/goldberglab/edna-assays-and-protocols/ I went to a half dozen websites and the "friendliest" one was Jonah Ventures. What do you think of the services they offer? They might be worth a phone call. https://jonahventures.com/

I would almost guarantee that the crick in question will hit public property further down the line. So it sounds like you still need to find a lab. I would not worry myself with Bigfoot related scientists. I would just find a E DNA lab that is onboard with the latest techniques that you describe and get their bottom dollar price and start firing off samples. We could simply start taking samples in areas that the SSR points to as good areas. Off the top of my head? Sullivan lake would be a good place to start.

Just some thoughts based on my Information Systems Development experience, which was not always successful. I hope it does not come across as overly preachy to any of you, who are a pretty canny bunch. My apologies if it does. On the specifics of e-DNA, I know squat. It sounds as if there is a lot of potential here. Maybe there is enough understanding of the issues now that an interested person could make a somewhat formal plan. I suspect that you have Hiflier, since you seem like a pretty methodical person. If not, here is my two-cents (although in Canada, we don't use pennies anymore). I sometimes managed small projects in a previous life. I was not all that good at it; too many balls to keep in the air at once, exceeding my limited skills. My biggest problem was always dealing with the politics, and trying to explain why deadlines were being missed. Usually it was because the problem exceeded the competence of the team, unrealistic time frames, and that we were set up to fail by managers who only wanted to sell services, capability to do the work be damned. Of course, that is the norm in information systems consulting. After my project management days, which I hated, I actually got some training in project management. I was trained to use a written plan to help bring me clarity around what I was trying to do, goals, objectives, metrics, what factors would be critical for success, who would be involved, how it would be financed, what the risks and opportunities were, how to mitigate risk and capitalize on opportunity, what resources were needed, activities, methods, what people would have to do, some idea of the sequence of activities, and milestones. I don't know if I personally got better, since I no longer lead development teams. However, the material made sense to me. This is otherwise known as getting your ducks in a row. Of course, plans usually break down at the first contact with the enemy. The real world is always more complex than any plan. However, with planning, it means you have thought about the issues, and that brings some clarity of purpose. Sometimes, it allows you adapt to the unexpected. Some folks step more nimbly through the minefield than others of course. Apologies if this comes across as patronizing; such is not my intent. Some thoughts about looking at multiple sources of information, as opposed to a premature rush to judgment. I have been thinking that it might be better to not know where the truth lies than to believe things that are mistaken. For this, you need a great ability to tolerate uncertainty. If we act on mistaken beliefs, we can end up with unfortunate results. If we keep our beliefs more fluid, investigate more, we may have better odds of discovering a correct basis for action. Maybe, maybe not. I can’t rigorously defend this at the moment. Better to be aware of multiple possibilities and not wrong, or certain, and wrong? I think we do benefit from examining events broadly, across any spectrum of opinion that you might care to name. Again, since there is going to be a great deal of contradiction across viewpoints, we must realize, if we think logically, that most assertions will be false, even if well-argued. This breadth of exploration may not help us knowing what is true, but we may be a little more cautious in forming our beliefs. In the end, we will probably anchor to certain assertions, deeming them more likely to be correct. Unfortunately, science itself is a lot more flawed than we previously thought, and needs to be interpreted with caution. The key question for me is: do we improve our chances of getting things right by looking for multiple viewpoints, or do we just get more confused? We can certainly find out that our current viewpoint is only one of many. That should be a good thing for the open-minded to know. It might just create emotional distress (cognitive dissonance) is others, and particularly the dogmatists. I have not found a good discussion of this issue. I suppose that most never even think of it, and some may believe that the answer is obvious. I am unsure of the best answer.

After looking at several comparison videos of the many brands of traction boards, I picked up a set of the ARB Tred Pros yesterday. A local 4x4 gear retailer had them on sale for $380 CDN, which is about half of what the MaxTrax cost here. That's still pricey, but they came out very high in the reviews, and they fit nicely behind the rear seat of my suv, taking up very little space. I also bought a cheap 2 ton come along, which will suffice as a puller until I can find the Maasdam rope puller. I still need to buy a tree strap and a length of rope to go with the unit. With this gear, and the recently purchased Inreach, I'm feeling much better about going out solo, which is often the way it is these days, as a time that suits the others that I research with is not always easy to arrange.

I think some start out with honest experiences and enjoy the attention they get. Problem being that BF encounters are so rare that they can be years apart or never reoccur. That does not lend itself to someone that thrives on publicity. So embellishment leads incrementally to down right fabrication and hoaxing. Once started down that path, truth and honesty would mean total loss of credibility. Sadly loss of credibility happens anyway at some point when friends tell or puppets get too obvious.

Yep, Sasquatch Ontario (Mike Paterson) is a hoaxer. At one time when him and the cottage owner Dwayne had a falling out, Dwayne admitted he was the voice of the alleged sasquatch Nephatia and made a recording to prove it, saying things like, "I am not real."

I have attempted to contact both. I've been trying to get scientists involved in order to acquire physical evidence (DNA). I have given a LOT of thought to detail. As far as scientists? Geneticists and primatologists. The relevant authorities won't get on board. Been trying for two years. In discussion with two PhD's currently, however. We don't have the real goods. But science can get the real goods. The trick is a Catch-22: Getting them on board to begin with. So far I have recently had a positive assessment on my conceptual DNA approach.....from a scientist. Waiting for a second opinion. Then it will be asking permission to use them as references in order to hopefully kick the concept further up the ladder.