Using Game Cams As An Excuse For No Existance

[Painthorse]

Over and over I've read if bigfoot exists there would be better pictures out there with all of the game cams out in the woods. BUT using just one forest as an example, the Ouachita's of Arkansas and Oklahoma, it covers over one million acres, how many cams would it take to cover this one forest?

Cams only cover a small piece of realestate, cams only "point in one direction" so it would take four cams to cover a small area for a 360 degree view.

You also have to take into consideration that different brands of cams trigger at different distances and different trigger speeds. Weather plays a big part also in the performance of the cam, they don't like cold weather, no trigger to extremely slow trigger speeds. Another issue is how fast the subject is moving.

Battery brands and battery life play a part also. The older the batteries the slower the cam triggers. Night shots are especially prone to low battery life with dim flash and IR covering less footage/distance once the cam is triggered. Another issue is the direction and speed of the subject entering into the cam trigger zone. IF the battery power is good and the animal is walking or even running towards the cam, you should get a pic. BUT, if the animal comes into the trigger zone from the side (horizontally) the speed and distance of the subject plays a big part on whether the cam #1 triggers and #2 triggers quick enough to capture the subject.

I'm including a pic I just posted in another thread.

An example of just a small area of the Ouachita's just to give a visual idea of what I'm trying to explain.

Another point is people with hand held camera's, how many people would it take to cover the realestate in the pic attached, not the entire Ouachita forest but only what's in the pic. Is it fair to say that "I doubt that there has never been that many people in that forest at one time to cover that expanse with camera's?". To be within a certain distance of each other to cover every nook and cranny? How many people would it take?

You also have to take into consideration the thickness of vegetation, obstructed views from trees and you can't forget about the deep ravines and the specific geology of the area.

Cams are only a tool, the usage of this tool trying to capture an image of one of these elusive animals is like trying to find a needle in the proverbial haystack.

To use the failure of the lack of pics from cams as an excuse that these animals do not exist is not valid, JMO and just my .02 cents worth.

[Bonehead74]

I guess the general argument is that, all your points not withstanding, if bigfoot are just big, North American wild primates ("wood apes", if you would), then we should be getting some pictures of them just as we get pictures of all the other indigenous wildlife of the area. If not, we are faced with the possibilities that either bigfoot do not exist, or that they are something more/different than simply another big ape running around.

Edited to add- All this assumes that no such legitimate and/or definitive images exist in the public domain. We can not be certain what photos (if any) are held by private parties or by the government.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Bonehead74

[Painthorse]

JMO, the lack of pics from cams should not be used as an excuse of no existence. I believe these are animals, smarter maybe than most critters but still animals. I do not believe that they know what camera's are but "do believe" that the flash, IR or trigger sound can be heard. The majority of my night pics, both still shots and video, have animals looking directly at the cam. One yotee hid behind a tree after the initial first pic. Animals have a sense that we don't, or at least that we no longer have. They know when something is different, either by scent or by visual.

 

But either way, cams are #1 not fool proof and #2 to think that cams can cover the expanse of forest needed is absurd.

[Bonehead74]

Yet we still get pictures of all those other animals.

It's one thing to say (and I mostly agree) it's absurd to go to a specific area for a defined length of time and expect a bigfoot pic. It's another thing altogether to argue that it's absurd to expect all of the game cams placed across all of North America, many for extended lengths of time, to produce at least one definitive bigfoot image. That I disagree with. We should have one good pic by now.

[Terry]

If bf exists there is really no logical reason why at least one wouldn't be caught on a game cam at some point in time.   The many reasons (from the looney to the not so looney) we hear of why bf aren't captured by game cams really don't hold any water with me and it's one of the reasons I am skeptical of its existence.  

 

t.

[Incorrigible1]

A creature of the reputed size of bigfoot would need an enormous range just to earn a living. A family group would require an consequently larger area. It is not unreasonable to wonder why there are no unmistakable gamecam images of the big guy.

[Cotter]

"A creature of the reputed size of bigfoot would need an enormous range just to earn a living."

 

What makes you say this?
 

[Painthorse]

Just an example, I've been at this location for almost 9 years and the place is loaded with bear. It's just in the past 3 years that I've gotten them on the cams. The place is also loaded with bobcats and have as of yet, not gotten one pic of one. Larger cats are here also, heard them and found the tracks, yet no pics. I only have 4 cams to use on 26 acres that connect to the national forest.

 

Here's another example, how many cams would it take to cover just one acre? Using several trees with 4 cams per tree for a 360 degree view. Each cam will only trigger at a 40 foot distance. How many cams would it take. Then multiply that by one million acres.

[Terry]

^

You haven't got photos of bobcats, etc., but lots of other folks have.  

 

t.

[Guest Divergent1]

"A creature of the reputed size of bigfoot would need an enormous range just to earn a living."

 

What makes you say this?

 

Just look at the FDA nutrient requirements for beef cattle, that should give you some idea of what bigfoot would need based on the size descriptions. The only difference would be that a cow is a herbivore and bigfoot might be any of the three; herbivore, omnivore, or carnivore.

 

The basic nutrient requirements based on weight, weather, and reproduction wouldn't vary that much despite what type of feeder a mammal might be. To meet those needs, the range would need to be large and sparsely populated to decrease competition for resources if left to it's own devices to provide for itself.

 

Cattle herds have huge ranges if left free to roam. Remember the Range Wars in American History between the cattle barrons and the farmers?

[Cotter]

And we know that BF's behave like cattle and have similar nutrient requirements how?

 

I would proffer that, due to BF's intelligence and opposable thumb, their range would not need to be as large as described.

 

Let's take White tail deer for example.

A doe's seasonal home range can be as small as 40 acres.

A buck's is larger at about 1.5 square miles.

 

I think you would agree that a BF's diet would be more versatile than a deer's, no?

 

(BF have been seen catching fish, digging roots, chasing deer, eating leaves, just to name a few)

 

So why is it that BF need a larger range?

[Incorrigible1]

"A creature of the reputed size of bigfoot would need an enormous range just to earn a living."

 

What makes you say this?

 

Consider a creature of perhaps similar size and requirements, the black bear. They have ranges averaging five square miles to far larger territories, depending upon their location.

[Painthorse]

Until these critters are proven to exist and can be studied, there are no answers as to what they eat or the calories needed to sustain them.  

 

All we can do is guess, no one can truly "say" what they need or don't need or what range they have.

 

We can compare their needs to bear, cattle, humans but there is no way of knowing.

[Guest Crowlogic]

This is what has swayed me into the non existence camp.  Although my stand is that they went extinct in the 80's or thereabouts.  Nothing is 100% perfect in remaining unobserved.  Sooner or later one slips up, sooner or later one dies and it's comrades can't steal off the body and lumber crew finds it.  Are they so smart?  Well that didn't prevent Roger Patterson from filming one.  Consider the reports come from all the lower 48 states and Canada, Urban, forest, swamp, and seashore.  At what point does the advocate have to step back and weigh the odds?  Hey they are in Ohio, Ohio isn't the end of the world there's millions of folks living there.

 

 We humans are bristling with camera devices active and passive.  BF is all over and 100% eluding viable image capture.  When do the excuses for this not happening overwhelm the logic that there is nothing there to capture?  It's a great mythology, it's a great pastime but at a time when the deal should have been sealed already it delivers nothing.  All manner of animal wanders into game cam range except BF,  BF has had a good run but technology has IMO more than faked him out so to speak.  Hang a game cam at Bluff Creek and it'll produce everything but.  

 

The mythology has all but run it's course.  We even have a new mythology to replace BF with in the form of Dogmen.  Mythology is a necessary part of human thought process so myths aren't going anywhere soon but BF isn't coming to town.

[Painthorse]

Curious Crow about your above post about believing they went extinct in the 80's or thereabouts, care to elaborate? Based on what "viable" information being that we actually know squat about these creatures.