Thinking Caps Please......

[hiflier]

Hello All,

 

The idea obviously is meant to put to rest all the excuses for why trail cams fail- barring a region empty of BF's that is. Pressure plates really narrow the chance of a capture to the exact point of the pressure plate. Cool idea but very limiting. Could be useful on a known trail as part of a larger system though.

 

I forget how many PlotWatchers NAWAC incorporated in the field but it was a LOT. They put them everywhere and in all kinds of positions to no avail. I'm going to stick with the sound-activated cabin slapping set up. An outfit like NAWAC has been in the field for ten years. The video was a four-year update. They're in it for the long haul just like WSA said. The sound activated approach would be something I've not heard them mention. Maybe it's not good? IMHO I think it's very good. If a loud slap happens only once or twice a season who cares? This type of set up has no time limit. It's passive and will wait for a good loud pounding for years if need be.

 

It could probably be tweaked to rule out the rock tossing as that is something that is done from beyond view. But if rocks landing on a roof are more frequent the image equipment could be set up further outside the perimeter. In my mind SOUND is the only thing that hasn't been tested as a trigger. In the wild, for any kind of game, a twig snap, sniffing the equipment, whatever could activate the gear even if the sound box was obvious and controlled an image gathering device or several looking at the box or just about anyother direction depending on the number of devices. Again, no IR, or at least none until the sound sensor tells the unit(s) to turn themselves on.

Edited August 24, 2015 by hiflier

[Guest Stan Norton]

"testes as a trigger". Hee hee! Can you explain?!!

[Old Dog]

Hey Hiflier,

 

     I knew it would be an interesting idea.  Only thing I can find that could throw a wrench in the works would be the camera being tripped after the fact.  If it doesn't trip until a sound triggers it, it could be just long enough to lose the shot.  The reason I find this interesting is the use of the cabin as bait.  I don't want this to be long winded, but here's why.  My first encounter with something that made me interested in Bigfoot came when I was a teen.   We would go camping in a rather remote area of the Sierra's at a place called Waterhouse Lake.  To get there you had to go about five miles down a logging road to an area that you could park, then hike another five miles to get to the lake.  When we camped there one year my uncle took us on an overnight hike to the next valley over.  In the valley was a large meadow with wild horses running and an old one room miners cabin that was abandoned.  That night, while everyone was sleeping, rocks came thumping on the roof of the cabin.  My uncle got up and told us to stay inside, so my cousin and I promptly went out side.  Hey we were kids, it happens.  About five or six softball sized rocks had been chucked to the roof of the cabin and we saw nothing in the woods.  This happened a couple more times, then it stopped.  Your idea brought up my thoughts of maybe a motion activated camera on all four sides of a cabin that is the target of rock throwing.  That way, all sides are covered.  If I ever get the opportunity to go back there, I will take some cameras with me and see if it works.  Admittedly, a Bigfoot would have to be there to toss the rocks though.

[Cotter]

Hmmm...

What about having a camera set up that covers the area thoroughly, but is 'off' completely until a button inside the cabin or remotely is pressed?  System goes live and snaps say 10 rapid fire pics, then shuts back down.

 

Then, be it a slap, rock toss, howl, growl, rustle, you just hit a button and have a few hundred pics.

[ohiobill]

I'm not sure that sound activation or any type of "instant" on would work with today's cameras due to auto focus and standby power requirements. It would definitely work with older film cameras utilizing a fixed focal point but not digital auto cameras.

[WSA]

Here's a crazy one: Find a deer carcass and stuff a camera inside it, looking out.

Edited August 24, 2015 by WSA

[ohiobill]

Bait seems to work for most animals including humans. Anybody ever see an episode of Bait Cars (or something similar)?

 

I'm wondering why so much emphasis is being placed on camera placement longevity? Are we discounting all the sighting reports by folks hiking, hunting, camping in areas new to them? Are we discounting the curious nature that reports detail when encounters include counting coup on cabins, tents and cars? 

[WSA]

Attach a camera to long established manmade feature...looking out of the window of an abandoned building, looking out of a junked car, strapped to a pump jack or a cattle guard.  Put it amongst some trash at the end of the road dumping spot, inside the old washing machine.  Old cemeteries have lots of places for creative placement. It isn't all "Life on Earth" out there, right?

[hiflier]

Hello Stan Norton,

 

"testes as a trigger". Hee hee! Can you explain?!!

 

Uh, not really LOL. I reread the post and did a quickie edit (see what I did there ) but you evidently are the speedy one. I knew that

[hiflier]

Hello Old Dog,

 

I've run across posts and threads that brought kid camping memories as well. Good times indeed as everything was new to us and the unknown was everywhere. Thinking about cameras at that age when you were at the cabin shows great foresight and I hope you get that opportunity even if it's just to see if the place is still there.

 

@WSA,

 

In a carcass would be good for producing carrion eaters like vultures and bears and other things both large and small. I'm not sure if BF eats dead things but it would seem not to be the case.

 

@ ohiobill,

 

Yes, I agree the technology for digital media is a bit slow on the uptake but doing a manual over ride of auto features might be possible. One would think that in order to catch things like lightning bolts via a strobe setting and placing the camera on a manually adjusted focus could be tried. A thin trip string 7-8 ft. from the building about 2-3 ft. off the ground might be an avenue to check out also. It's why the thread is titled the way it is. It's to brainstorm how to get a system like this to work as an alternative to IR since NAWAC does definitely think that it's the IR that causes the failure of cameras to get anything. Motion sensors too then are an obvious bust   

[BobbyO]

Bait seems to work for most animals including humans. Anybody ever see an episode of Bait Cars (or something similar)?

 

I'm wondering why so much emphasis is being placed on camera placement longevity? Are we discounting all the sighting reports by folks hiking, hunting, camping in areas new to them? Are we discounting the curious nature that reports detail when encounters include counting coup on cabins, tents and cars?

It's all about bait.

To get a picture I wouldn't do anything different to what I always say in the pro kill threads, except use different equipment to "shoot".

Safe distance, up in a tree stand using camp, use a human camping as bait, chose a predetermined pre-selected area based on extensive analysis, utilise hunters who are prepared and experienced to sit for long periods of time in tree stands and you'll probably give yourself the best chance to shoot with whatever you like.

Not saying it would be guaranteed, but I do most certainly believe you stand a far better chance doing that, than anything else I've read on this subject ever.

[ohiobill]

BobbyO - Agreed. Utilize what we learn from sighting reports and capitalize on it. I'm willing to go with guns, cameras or even cricket bats - whatever works.

 

Hiflier - Sorry, I thought I was brainstorming an alternative to modern day cameras reliant on IR since NAWAC does definitely think that it's the IR that causes the failure of cameras to get anything. 

 

Use old cameras with film. There's a ton to be had dirt cheap and trip wires or remote triggers that can be used in conjunction with flashbulbs or low light film and a campfire rather than relying on IR. You get rid of any IR concerns and you don't have any possibility of electronic noises coming from a unit in standby mode.  Obviously the possibility of plastic odors is still there but used close to the cabin and near the camper's vehicles it seems unlikely to be a factor if bf are willing to visit otherwise with so many other plastics already in the area. Minimizing two out of three possible concerns ain't bad. 

[hiflier]

Hello ohiobill,

 

....I thought I was brainstorming an alternative to modern day cameras reliant on IR since NAWAC does definitely think that it's the IR that causes the failure of cameras to get anything. 

 

Use old cameras with film. There's a ton to be had dirt cheap and trip wires or remote triggers that can be used in conjunction with flashbulbs or low light film and a campfire rather than relying on IR. You get rid of any IR concerns and you don't have any possibility of electronic noises coming from a unit in standby mode....Minimizing two out of three possible concerns ain't bad.

Oh no my friend, you were absolutely brainstorming! I own and use three 1970's Pentax thumb-wind K1000's. Great photos that make me look like a great photographer (which I AM NOT!). They have cable releases and everything, all manual. But I don't think that a 35mm SLR digital camera set up in manual mode would be all that bad if done properly- in manual mode with autofocus off. It should keep the camera quiet and dark until the sound activation triggers the shutter The shutter setting can be set to fire off many frames per second.

I have an early "newer" Pentax MXZ filmer that is almost all plastic, not like the other metal two pounder K1000's that I use. It has some cool features and I use it for color (the K1000's are for B&W). The only reason I bring up the MXZ is because it has a multiframe setting in which I can fire off a 36 frame role in a bout 10 seconds ($$$$$)!!

Edited August 24, 2015 by hiflier

[gigantor]

I just want to clarify how these cameras work because it seems there is a misunderstanding.

 

The cameras have a Passive Infrared TRIGGERING sensor, which detects heat. There are ZERO emissions from the sensor. It does not illuminate or transmit a beam, it just "sees" heat.

 

Once the sensor triggers the camera, two things happen:

 

1) If it's daytime and there is enough light, it just takes a pic or video.

 

2) If it's night time, it turns on Infrared Illuminators, which are separate from the passive triggering sensor. These do emit IR radiation, you want to "light 'em up". There are three kinds of illuminators:

 

 2.1) Glow IR. These can be seen even by humans.

 

 2.2) Low Glow IR. These can be seen by some animals

 

 2.3) Black LED IR. These cannot be seen at all by any animal. Period.

 

 

Below is a video from a trail camera with Black LEDs. Notice the deer cannot see the camera or the IR illuminators at all. This was captured hours after we installed the camera, so it can smell the mixture of deet and sweat that dripped on the camera when I installed it.

 

 

click to animate

Edited August 25, 2015 by gigantor

[norseman]

Good stuff Gig.