Inquiry Into A Nw Oregon Field Plan

[SWWASAS]

Ridge lines are for the most part hard for humans and we avoid them because of the climb.    Perhaps BF, interested in avoiding humans, has tended to use terrain we don't normally use?     I know I look around at the mountain tops and their interesting rock features and would like to explore them but the thought of climbing up there is less appealing than my interest in what is up there.    As I mentioned in another thread I see trails along ridge lines when I fly that do not seem to be present on the USGS charts.   Not saying much because they are hardly up to date but perhaps like Joe's book features,  maybe BF actually have trail systems they use to move around where humans normally do not go.     I have seen that at lower elevations where a perfectly good human trail will have a well used "game" trail paralleling it.  

[joebeelart]

Hi Sesqac:  Just back up from south of Roseburg.  Beautiful country this time of year, but it dries out later. 

       

Have been thinking about your post.  Obviously if there are over 3,000 reported sightings and no evidence to fit into current mainstream science perimeters, we are probably not dealing with something typical to Earth life.  So, in a measure, that is part of the excitement.  What are we looking at / for? 

       

The second measure is tied to the Hewkin - Sullivan Guideline: 200 hours afoot and see one thing maybe related to Sasquatch.  Jim Hewkin was a State of Oregon biologist and Jack Sullivan was a science teacher.  They were active in the 60s thru the 90s.  Jim said they had about a dozen glimpses, but could not get a good photograph.  And, that was after many thousands of hours in the field.  Anyway, we are looking for something out of the normal, and it takes thousands of hours to develop a series of "encounters." 

      

The third measure is money.  I've tried camera traps, sound recordings, night vision, and have been along with three or four people with thermal imagers, and once with a Flir.  They are all good and I see no problems using technology.  But I've decided to use my $ to camp and to use the basics.  While it's no big thing, I just bought a new pair of German binoculars for this season. 

       

Anyway, that's my POV, and to some extent, the POV of most of my colleagues, I think.  Enjoy the outdoors, hope for an encounter, and use technology that you can comfortably afford.  Finally, from a practical POV, the search is futile.  I work on hope and luck.  Sasquatch are rare beings.

 

{ Wish I knew how to attach images. Mine don't have URLs.}

 

Ps:  One of my closest associates, a 62 year old with decades of outdoor experience recently told me I used to emphasize ridgelines and points in my talks.  He was wondering why I had dropped those subjects.  Anyway, I knew they were important hunting deer when I was young, was taught in the USMC they were important, and they are when judging terrain and scouting, but I must have just gotten tired of talking about them and changed to other subjects.  It's good the subjects were brought up again.  Sorry for being so long winded.  Just like to "hear" myself talk I guess.

Edited May 23, 2016 by joebeelart

[SWWASAS]

One event in 200 hours probably means they were in a very active area.    I do not think many get even that level of contact.      I agree that hunting them is pretty futile with a camera.    They are far better avoiding us than we are finding them.    A big part of that is that they probably walk at least twice as fast as we do.   Pretty hard to track something down when it has the speed advantage.      But that said I have had success inserting myself into their environment where they have blundered into me because they did not know exactly where I was.      In a way camping is that on a more passive level.    Most people get their glimpses in the middle of the night when they get up to take care of bathroom business.    BF are snooping around and assume the human campers are asleep.    I think most sightings are as big a surprise for the BF as they are the human.      The BF was not aware the human was there or it made a mistake about what the human was going to do.  

 

I have been dealing with a really sore foot and thinking of looking into distant photography again because I cannot do the hiking I once did.    I have taken a spotting scope on ridges or other high ground and just sat and watched for movement below in the trees.  Get far enough away from an active BF area and they likely are not aware you are there.    It is very boring and tedious to spend hours looking through a telescope and I have not had any success to date with that.         I am thinking of setting up a more powerful telescope and feeding the image into an electronic camera tied to a computer monitor.    Reduce the tedium of looking through the scope and at the same time collect images of anything moving about onto the computer.    Astronomy telescope cameras often are capable of imaging in very low light levels.       Unfortunately that gear requires a road to be fairly close to transport it to the location. 

[BigTreeWalker]

Joe, I like your POV about technology and camping. Get what you can afford or use what you already have and enjoy yourself while doing it. Walked many a ridge when I was younger and still do at times. But lately setting up camp in a wild area and enjoying the immediate surroundings is becoming more the desirous as I get older.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

One event in 200 hours probably means they were in a very active area.    I do not think many get even that level of contact.      I agree that hunting them is pretty futile with a camera.    They are far better avoiding us than we are finding them.    A big part of that is that they probably walk at least twice as fast as we do.   Pretty hard to track something down when it has the speed advantage.      But that said I have had success inserting myself into their environment where they have blundered into me because they did not know exactly where I was.      In a way camping is that on a more passive level.    Most people get their glimpses in the middle of the night when they get up to take care of bathroom business.    BF are snooping around and assume the human campers are asleep.    I think most sightings are as big a surprise for the BF as they are the human.      The BF was not aware the human was there or it made a mistake about what the human was going to do.  

 

I have been dealing with a really sore foot and thinking of looking into distant photography again because I cannot do the hiking I once did.    I have taken a spotting scope on ridges or other high ground and just sat and watched for movement below in the trees.  Get far enough away from an active BF area and they likely are not aware you are there.    It is very boring and tedious to spend hours looking through a telescope and I have not had any success to date with that.         I am thinking of setting up a more powerful telescope and feeding the image into an electronic camera tied to a computer monitor.    Reduce the tedium of looking through the scope and at the same time collect images of anything moving about onto the computer.    Astronomy telescope cameras often are capable of imaging in very low light levels.       Unfortunately that gear requires a road to be fairly close to transport it to the location. 

[SWWASAS]

Yes that would be good.   Wonder how heavy it is?    Looks like it is sitting on some train tracks.