Where Are The Pictures?

[Guest]

One of these days I'll ask how many are on the Tahoe National Forest. Of course they would only know about the ones that they have put up but at least that would be a start. The resident biologist is a bit stand-off-ish but I don't think she'd mind disclosing just a number.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

I've seen several game cams in the woods, and I avoid them, the only problem I see with those is their game cams are set up within a few hundred yards from the road on game paths. My research area and evidence collection doesn't begin until you get about 2 miles back in the bush. I think the lazy placement may have something to do with the lack of game cam pics as well. Guys are not going deep enough into the woods to set up those cams. I saw a deer hunting show recently where the guy drove his truck into the hunting area with trailer in tow, once he arrived in the field, he unloaded a 4x4 vehicle like a mule or something, and then drove that smaller vehicle to his stand. And he looked to be in his 30's. Chris B.

[Guest parnassus]

You say that, but believe it or not, there is only one, yes one, film of the giant panda in the wild (filmed in 2002 or 2003) - all other film and video has been taken in zoos and nature reserves.

well, of course the giant panda habitat is not at all like the US, in many ways, not the least of which is the number of cameras.

could you give a source for that and are you only referring to motion picture film, or video, or which? and not still photographs? This site describes photographs being taken long before 2002.

When you say nature reserves, what exactly is that? thats not captivity, right.

You bring up the idea of captivity; no bigfoots there to photograph.

thanks,

Edited September 18, 2010 by parnassus

[Guest parnassus]

That's a good post Dav but you compare the intellect of a deer to that of a sas, I think the higher primate would posess better problem solving skills than the deer. The creatures seem pretty smart, hence a deer may not plan ahead to avoid being sighted by you, but these creatures certainly do. Chris B.

But don't a lot of field researchers think that bigfoots come to "deserted" human camps? or even come into inhabited camps during the night? other primates don't seem to fear cameras.

[Guest]

As I said in my reply to TooRisky, nobody's denying that there isn't a vast area of unscrutinized wilderness, but that point would only be relevant if the only encounters that were taken seriously happened in the remote wilderness, but they aren't. People see them: on farms; in city limits; in the low lying forests; crossing roads; by rivers; in the easily-accessible areas; just as often (perhaps moreso) as they do deep in the deep backwoods. Can't you see that there's a circular logic to that?

Have you ever tried to get a picture of common wildlife? I spent an entire summer with a digital SLR next to me as I drove my Jeep through various National Forest roads and of all the deer I encountered, I have ONE out of focus picture of a deer's butt. It's hard to quickly get good picture, even with fast camera. Most encounters are very brief, a few seconds. That coupled with the fact that sightings are extremely rare explains a lot, for me.

The game camera question does trouble me. I honestly thought when theses game cameras came out that it would be a matter of months before a great picture was brought forth. So far...zilch.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

But don't a lot of field researchers think that bigfoots come to "deserted" human camps? or even come into inhabited camps during the night? other primates don't seem to fear cameras.

I think the creatures may indeed have a curious nature. Playing on that may reveal more pics. Personally, I don't care much for pics as evidence as no matter how good or bad they may be, they're always rejected as any sort of evidence when we are talking about proving the existence of an unknown creature. They are fun to look at though, and certainly a prize to the photographer or videographer that takes them. Chris B.

[Guest nycBig]

when did the first game camera make it to market?

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

...... nevermind

Edited September 18, 2010 by FuriousGeorge

[Guest RedRatSnake]

But don't a lot of field researchers think that bigfoots come to "deserted" human camps? or even come into inhabited camps during the night? other primates don't seem to fear cameras.

Most BF are highly intelligent and have most of the same capability's as we do, one of these is the ability to read and that helps them avoid humans as much as possible, campers and woods men sometimes not knowingly may leave some trash behind and the BF pick this up study it on there off time and teach it too there little ones and spread the word to other family's thus enhancing there chances of human contact,

i suggest a theory that somehow the BF population has gotten hold of a trail cam manual and learned of it's secrets thus spreading the information through out the community helping them to avoid being photographed.

[Doc Holliday]

RRS,that could explain it. if that theory holds true, i wonder what kind of trail cam pics we'd get if squatch found an old playboy mag left behind at a campsite?

[Guest]

Allowing for the ability to know it's there, why would a bigfoot avoid it?

If these creatures evolved and survived through tens of thousands of years solely by 1) avoiding tool makers/pack hunters and their tools/weapons, 2) developing stealth skills, and 3) habituating in manners and locations that avoid humans (and our ancestors), then one could suppose they would avoid cameras by instinct. They learned to avoid snares and traps and other mechanical devices used through the centuries.

Historically, most game cameras are noisy and flash either with a literal flash or use 850nm IR, which is clearly visible even to humans as a red glow. Recent cameras, particularly the Reconyx units have 950nm “invisible†IR and are silent, at least to my ears. They are also expensive and thus there are probably few of them out in the field.

I believe it was Reconyx units that the TBRC used in their research and suffered a number of camera losses due to bear damage, likely because of the scent of the plastic. So these cameras are not as stealthy to wild animals as we think they are.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

i wonder what kind of trail cam pics we'd get if squatch found an old playboy mag left behind at a campsite?

lmao ~

[indiefoot]

I'm going to send this to someone who has a "remote" study area and see if I can get a shot of a group of Squatchs dancing. I rigged an alarm clock with a musical card and came up with a tune played every 12 hours. A Bushnell Trophycam is inside. I want to see how curious they are.

http://www.youtube.com/user/indiefoot#p/a/u/0/c7kKl6UGGyg

[Guest]

well, of course the giant panda habitat is not at all like the US, in many ways, not the least of which is the number of cameras.

The principle is the same: that fully wild animals, as opposed to those on preserves and private "parks" are free to roam a MUCH wider area and are therefore harder to find to photograph. There are also more cameras in general, or the easy ability to facilitate cameras in private parks and preserves. More ability to photograph a creature that has fewer places to hide means more photographs.

The upshot of it all is that the public has a VASTLY distorted view of how easy it is to photograph wildlife in general, and out in the open wilderness in particular.

Marty Stauffer specials and National Geographic make it look easy (in Stauffer's case, faking his encounters made it even easier).

When you say nature reserves, what exactly is that? thats not captivity, right.

There is no effective difference between a zoo and a nature reserve, save scale of the animal enclosures, so yes, reserves are a form of "captivity" and a much easier time for a would-be wildlife photographer.

[Guest parnassus]

The principle is the same: that fully wild animals, as opposed to those on preserves and private "parks" are free to roam a MUCH wider area and are therefore harder to find to photograph. There are also more cameras in general, or the easy ability to facilitate cameras in private parks and preserves. More ability to photograph a creature that has fewer places to hide means more photographs.

The upshot of it all is that the public has a VASTLY distorted view of how easy it is to photograph wildlife in general, and out in the open wilderness in particular.

Marty Stauffer specials and National Geographic make it look easy (in Stauffer's case, faking his encounters made it even easier).

There is no effective difference between a zoo and a nature reserve, save scale of the animal enclosures, so yes, reserves are a form of "captivity" and a much easier time for a would-be wildlife photographer.

Marty Stouffer is really a "strawman" here, I think. Whether or not the public has a vastly distorted idea of how easy something is, doesn't really affect whether or not it has been done. Do you have any evidence that Marty Stouffer faked a photograph of a rare animal that hadn't been photographed before and since?

Could you provide some support for your latter assertion, as far as the Giant Panda is concerned? and why would you say they are not wild? the Southern Ocean is a whale sanctuary...would you not consider all the creatures living there to not be wild? can you provide some definition that excludes animals living in preserves the size of the Chinese preserves? my idea of a zoo is a series of fenced or walled enclosures, ranging from a few square feet to perhaps an acre at best. What is the actual size of the Chinese preserves compared to a zoo? are they fenced?

Lastly, why do you suppose the Chinese Preserve was established?

Edited September 19, 2010 by parnassus