Trail Camera Concealment

[Guest]

I want to use a trail camera in my research area. A friend of mine has lent me a Reconyx HC600 trail camera to use whenever I want. The problem is, our hairy friends seem to be very aware of any abstract objects in their environment and avoid trail camera's VERY well. As you may already know, the NAWAC's 5 year long camera trap project was unsuccessful, with no photo-captures of an unidentified primate. However, the Jacobs trail cam photos prove it is possible to capture of a photo of a sasquatch, if you believe the photos are of a real sasquatch. My question is... what is the best way to conceal a trail camera so that it won't be detected by these creatures? I was thinking that I would purchase a fake rock and place the camera inside the rock with a cut-out hole for the lens. This would be appropriate for my research area as there is a dried up river bed that is filled with rocks of all shapes and sizes. What are my other options? What are your guys' experiences with trail cameras? 

 

Jacobs Photos:http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/jacobs_photos.asp

NAWAC Forest Vigil:http://woodape.org/index.php/our-research/projects/115-operation-forest-vigil

Fake Rocks:http://fakerock.com/fakerock.com/Polyurethane-Fake-Rocks-MADE-IN-USA/

 

[Guest Grifter9931]

 

Maybe you can try dipping the camera housing or at least rubbing it down with some Logwood crystals that have boiled for 30mins with a rag, while the logwood water is still warm. Also it couldn't hurt to "dress" the camera in some forest moss etc..

[NathanFooter]

Cliff did a very good bit on concealing your camera, it is on his site under his instructional videos.

[Drew]

Cliff did a very good bit on concealing your camera, it is on his site under his instructional videos.

How's that working out ? Lulz.

 

Seriously, you think Bigfoot can detect every trail cam in a network of parcels in semi-rural North America? Without ever failing and getting caught?

 

What about a Bigfoot chasing a deer?  You think he is alert for trail cams while doing that?

 

How about an Old Bigfoot, that can't worry about trailcams anymore, and just limps along in front of one?  Why doesn't that happen?

 

Or a Bigfoot baby born with defects?  Why don't they ever walk in front of a a Trail cam?

[Guest]

I wouldn't use anything fake. I always thought placing it *in* a tree would be a good idea, though difficult to do. You will still have the issue of the camera's optics and sensors being visible. 

 

 

In the NAWAC, we found the HC600 to be unreliable. Supposedly one of the best money can buy, but heat and foliage seem to fool it. You'll end up with hundreds or thousands of photos of leaves moving in the sun. 

In any event, try to camp it using natural objects. Wood, moss, foliage, etc. Make it look like a part of the environment. That's my advice. 

[Guest]

Ok, so why didn't his trail cam pics 'change the BF world?'- There are several trail cams out there that snapped a BF, (I thin this one is real, BUT it is a JUVI squatch, so it was not 'focused' like  a good squatch should be.)

 

This guy took this really good pic with a FILM camera I think. Not sure how it triggered though. It was specifically designed for squatch.

 

http://bigfootlives.blogspot.com/2012/02/trail-cam-photo.html

 

And yet again, I fail to see anyone suggest the 'mirror' technique. But you have to have them around to test it out I guess.

[NathanFooter]

Drew ,  I have a feeling trigger speed, creature speed, camera placement and smell and human activity are factors in there . 

 

I can't even capture myself on my trail cam when I walk by, and mine was 150 dollar model { ment to capture meandering deer and other wildlife }. Most the people I know won't spend more than 80 $ on one , then they where disappointed with it's operation.

 

Side Note -- After a few days in the woods I was able to smell things much better than normal and I walked along a powerline route when it was warm, I smelled  plastic and some type of chemical odor then I looked over and there was a trail camera about 40 yards away strapped to a oak sapling sticking out like a sore thumb, do I know it was from the camera ? No , but since I have gone into a store and looked at a few models on the table and I noticed they do have an odor very much like what I noticed in the field at the time. }

 

To add, I am sure there are people out there who have gotten pics but refuse to bring them forward for the already known reasons.

[Guest]

I think the reason trail cams fail to catch BF has more to do with lack of BF than BF having some trail cam sense. Wow! 

[Guest]

The back photo and the Jacob's bear point out the ultimate problem with using any kind of camera in an attempt to resolve the bigfoot question. No photo from a game cam, regardless of how good, will be accepted as proof. None. Period. No, really. Don't fool yourself. 

 

If you want to take pictures for your own edification or to share with the community for information purposes, fine, but even the PGF has been deemed inconclusive (at best) by the majority of people. No digital picture will do the trick here. It'll just make for more forum fodder (I say this as a major supplier of forum fodder). 

Maybe I'm too grizzled and jaded nowadays...

[WSA]

GTGG....what Bipto said. The idea that a photo, no matter how good, will have any probative weight with anyone inclined to be skeptical is a non-starter. I've said before, a poor photo is going to be labeled a blobsquatch, and a high-res one will be deemed a hoax. Consider the excellent photos recently taken of an obvious black panther in LA....HD camera, with telephoto lens. Remarkable shots, that tell you all you need to know about the likelihood of a melanistic cat in the lower 48. Does that keep the naysayers from doing what they do with EVERY piece of photographic evidence? Well, you know.

 

So, go for it, for sure, but I think your expectations should be set very low if your purpose is to convince anyone who might be skeptical. But, if you are only trying to please yourself, you have a high probability of doing that with even a poor photo. Good luck. 

[Guest]

Although I don't think photographic evidence will ever be sufficient for documenting the discovery of the species, I do think that it is a crucial element for determining that these creatures are in fact inhabiting any given research area and that all suspicious activity around that area can indeed be attributed to them. As for my motive, I simply just want to see what these darned things look like! LOL

[WSA]

And who can fault you for that?!!  Wish I had something substantive to contribute in the way of advice. WAIT! I do: What the NAWAC folks don't know about game cams and Wood Apes ain't useful to know. Listen hard to what they say is all.  Good hunting. 

[Guest Urkelbot]

The trail cams don't need to get one good picture to prove bigfoot exists but a large volume would add credibility to its existence.

 

Its troubling how few pictures have been attributed to bigfoot from game cams which adds support for bigfoot not existing.  

 

The NAWAC was using game cams for what 5 years but didn't get anything.  From their claims of several sightings and other evidence for multiple individuals you think they would have a few pictures.

 

Does anyone know the rate of game cams capturing pictures of bears against known bear population within a specefic area?

[Guest UPs]

I can tell you from my own experience with trail cams and knowledge of black bear in my area that I do get bear pics and video, but I get very few (maybe 2-3 per year), kind of similar to supposed bf pics in that they will be too close to the camera to get a nice shot. Maybe once a year I will get a good full picture and its always a small bear. Usually young males (guess) based on the size and behavior. There are a decent population of black bear in my area to the point that I would not consider it unusual to see a young male or momma with cubs. I have seen large bear but not very often and its usually just a glimpse of their rear end as they are running away. The forests are thick enough that when I do see one, it is less than 50 yards and more like 20-30 yards away unless they are in a clear cut. There are just not many areas with good visibility. As a rough guess, I would say one sighting for every 50-75 hours of active field observation. That may seem often, but it really isn't and these are just very rough estimates.

[Guest]

As for my motive, I simply just want to see what these darned things look like! LOL

 

That's the perfect motivation!

The NAWAC was using game cams for what 5 years but didn't get anything.

 

It was more like six.

 

From their claims of several sightings and other evidence for multiple individuals you think they would have a few pictures.

 

Cameras are not magical. If the animal doesn't step in a relatively small trigger area, they don't get their picture taken. If they don't give off enough heat to trigger the camera, they don't get their picture taken. If they're naturally suspicious and avoid cameras, they're less likely to get their picture taken. Plus, the commercial cameras just don't work all that well (at least in the conditions we need them to). Plus, see the coyotes who avoid cameras and the elephants to tear them down when they find them. These aren't excuses necessarily, just observations. I agree that is *seems* like we should have captured at least a suspicious photo after six years of trying. But we did not. 

 

Does anyone know the rate of game cams capturing pictures of bears against known bear population within a specefic area?

 

Good question. I can't answer it except to say we captured hundreds of bear photos (maybe thousands) in X over the years and the place is crawling with them. Bears are actually attracted to the cameras (we think they can smell the plastics in the cameras - they literally ate at least one in the early days as another camera watched). They aren't shy.