Trail Camera Concealment

[hiflier]

Hello All,

I can build one of those too but on mine I'll add a coupla pine cones for ya- $250.00- USD only please

Edited July 11, 2013 by hiflier

[Guest Theskwerl]

If it was me I would descent it then using a tree stand take it pretty high aiming it downwards and see how that works. Out of sight out of mind type of thing.

[southernyahoo]

Or set it low, covered in mud and obscured in a bush. Anything but right smack at eye level out in the open.

[Guest Theskwerl]

I noticed for some reason many do put them eye level, are they hoping to catch a smile and a wave from the bf?

[bipedalist]

^ Nope, just a wink and a nod!  

[hiflier]

Hello bipedalist,

 

And in some cases, a wink is as good as a nod...............Jethro Tull I believe. One of the truly great bands of the past.........Ahhhh, those were the days.

Edited July 11, 2013 by hiflier

[southernyahoo]

For game animals it is a standard recommendation by the camera manufacturers because of how the trigger system works, and the other animals just don't care what it is. They might be curious and check them out, but rarely avoid them altogether. .

[Sunflower]

I believe that the majority of trail camera evidence available is hoaxed, or like the Jacob's photo, is something else entirely. When there is nothing but fur or hair in the picture, it is next to impossible to tell what we are looking at. And the picture that someone linked above, the behind shot of the upper torso, I believe to be a hoax. I actually just finished talking about why trail cameras don't capture bigfoot in the new Les Stroud thread, so I won't reiterate those arguments at this time.

 

I will say however that you are on the right track. Something I haven't mentioned in a while is the idea that one should not attach cameras, unnatural objects, to natural objects, as this will likely arouse suspicion from the potential subject. But, if there is something completely unnatural to begin with, will that honestly help in allaying the inhibitions of any sasquatch? So, I would have to agree with your idea that HIDING a camera, or rather disguising it, as a natural object, would be the best way to go. 

 

But, if I were you, I would completely de-scent everything that you are going to use. Whatever deer hunters use may work. It may not be as good to simply remove most of the scent of something, as it would be to make it smell more like whatever it is being masqueraded to be. I think sasquatch often first notice things because they smell unnatural. They probably have an acute sense of smell, and it is likely much better than ours. So that would cause it to wonder what is going on, and may alert its other senses to looking for something that is not supposed to be there, or cause it to simply vacate the area completely.

 

I would also de-scent yourself when placing the cameras as well. What you could do, if you have the stomach for it, is to find a dead animal and place it nearby. Of course you wouldn't want to do that if you are attempting to lure them in with some type of scent, which is imo one of the best methods to increase one's odds. I would prefer using the smell of meat cooking, as what better way to interest a sasquatch who is likely constantly looking for food? 

 

Having your camera go undetected is only half the battle though, considering that a sasquatch still needs to pass within the narrow window to allow a pic to be snapped. And another problem, which I think may have been raised by certain pieces of evidence, is the fact that sasquatch walk quite fast. IF they are simply strolling by, the picture might only show a blur of fur or hair, or simply a blur. 

 

There are two ways to remedy this imo...first, either the camera needs to have a much wider field of view, or we need to increase the chances that a sasquatch will stop within the viewfinder of the camera. So if anyone can show me how to control an 800 lb. sasquatch, I will show you how to get a picture of one. Seriously though, I still think food is the best bet. BUT, I am wondering whether or not a sasquatch would be suspicious if a freshly cut steak were laying out on the forest floor. IF another animal didn't ****** it up first. Therefore, a better method may be to just stake a live chicken in a certain area, using something like fishing string, which is clear, although it probably wouldn't matter. You may go through quite a few chickens before it is a sasquatch that comes to take it, but I think it may be a viable, and profitable, method. This is the kind of stuff that ordinary researchers are not doing.

 

I should say as well that most of what I present in these types of threads are basically brainstorming. If I knew someone were going to go out and utilize a certain method, and had a certain strategy, or if I was going to do so, I would completely trim down these types of ideas into something that is not so broad. But I firmly believe that one should not take any chances. This is why one should use scents, or cover scents, because even if sasquatch cannot smell worth a crap, it is better to have as many bases covered as possible. 

 

Yet here we are, how many decades after "mainstream" sasquatch research began, and the best method of capturing sasquatch evidence is STILL to get lucky. This is not acceptable in my opinion, and therefore I believe that serious field researchers should begin doing things that have not been done before, because they may just hit on something that actually works more often than chance. IF it takes a while, so what? Think of how long it will take to sit there and wait to get lucky. It could never occur. 

 

And this is partly why I am constantly speculating about sasquatch behavior, based on sighting reports and other evidence. Even if some of this evidence is not accurate or authentic, I feel that by hypothesizing within the limits of probability, I may just hit on something that will work. The ideas and methods can always be pulled or trimmed back, but before that occurs, think big, be innovative, and take calculated risks. I suppose it is up to each individual researcher to interpret what that means for them, but I can guarantee that this is a piece of the sasquatch formula that will ultimately bring success. If you, OP, or anyone else would ever like my opinion on any aspect of research, just message me, as I would be glad to give it. I cannot claim that I am correct in my views, and in fact the only aspect of sasquatch that I know to be fact is the fact that they exist. But I can definitely offer insight into novel methods, or can help expand on ideas that others develop. This should be a big part of what the community is about in my opinion.

 

So whatever you decide to do, I wish you the best of luck. You may just collect the most compelling sasquatch evidence to date. And like I always say...if you find a baby sasquatch, ****** that sucker up and run as fast as you can.

 

 

Jiggy,

 

You are suggesting to people that they steal a baby hairy kid and run?????  Only if that person had a death wish for said person will probably be one big greasy spot in the woods if he/she tried that stunt. 

 

Please tell me you're joking???

Edited July 15, 2013 by Sunflower