What Would It Cost To Get A Voucher Specimen

[hiflier]

I agree of course and it's good to know these methods that have been tried before. And too if there's no BF around then the research into the area was weak. BobbyO brought out the fact of doing research in depth before investing the time and expense involved is this sort of thing. The difficulty still remains of getting enough like minds on the bandwagon to even follow through with such a plan. And as is also mentioned in the book playing the plan close to one's chest would be wise to narrow the likelihood of being hoaxed. If taking down a Sasquatch is the intent however a hoax could end up badly.

 

I still say, and drive this point home in the text, that finding a dead one or a skeleton should be the primary focus of any endeavors aimed at securing a voucher specimen. ONE voucher specimen. It may be a book on hunting Sasquatch but it isn't a game book by any stretch. It's about the plan for getting one specimen to a facility and a scientist at that facility for proof of existence, study, and taxonomy. All of those things that have been discussed here time and time again. I've not seen a manual anywhere that specifically addresses such a hunt. I don't like marketing. But I think it is important for people to know that it is not an irresponsible book. If anything the undertone is a discouragement against pulling the trigger. If this creature exists there has to be a dead one out there and I strongly think it ever so much better and wiser to find it.

 

As a last thought: When one is found then the book is essentially and fully obsolete from that moment- which is absolutely fine with me. In fact I look forward to the seeing the book's obsolescence by July of this year. It would be a fitting end to the 50th year anniversary of the PGF  

[BobbyO]

21 hours ago, norseman said:

 

I think its a good plan, albeit i have been outdoors plenty and have never experienced anything i could definitely say was a squatch. Except the tracks in the snow.

 

But i also think packing heat while going about your outdoor recreational activity of choice increases our odds significantly if we can just convince enough people that being pro kill is not some evil endeavor.

 

Well first paragraph, that's why it should be a pre-determined area that has a history and trends of recent reports at specific times of year.

 

With regards to you not having any experiences when you've been outdoors, that's no biggie, it's just the same as 99.9% of people that camp and hike etc and is expected.

 

But it's down to us to bring that 99.9% number down considerably and I truly believe we can do that via what we are building with the SSR.

 

I need legitimate time on it, and I'm hopeful that 2017 will give me it.

 

Regarding the second paragraph, Im not so sure it would Norse and the reason I say that is I don't think, if we had the covert/counter surveillance in place, how a shoot out from different angles would be beneficial, I also think it'd be dangerous.

 

I just feel if the people involved stuck to and done their jobs/roles, that would be the best chance for the objective to be met.

 

The last thing I think we'd need would be to have a shoot out in the woods, in all directions, potentially in the dark, as I can't imagine that would end in the way that was wanted.

 

I may be wrong.

18 hours ago, Explorer said:

 

 

BobbyO,

 

I am intrigued by your post because I have read different opinions on whether you can fool a BF.

Some folks claim that you can't fool BF's at all in their territory no matter how creative we think we are.

 

On the Bart Cutino case, I think it was very creative on his part to move away from the group and see who was watching, but I wonder if that BF did not know that Bart was there (I don't recall seeing the BF walk full body in front of thermal and it seemed to still be hiding behind trees, but my memory could be wrong).

 

I also recall reading (maybe it was Ron Morehead's book or some other book) about the idea that BF are not very good at math (counting people) and get confused keeping track of everybody when there is a large group.

I think Morehead's group of 5-6 tried that idea up in the Sierra camp, whereas they were all huddled together and suddenly everybody left at once in different directions except one who stayed hidden in a hunting blind (or maybe it was inside a log).

That experiment did not work well because the guy who was hiding got too cold and had to exit the hiding place and take a leak.

But, I think they were trying to follow the idea that you mentioned above of distraction and diversion.

 

I still will like to hear more ideas on how to fake play or misdirect a BF (specially for small groups of people that are not interesting in shooting one but on capturing one on film).

 

These creatures are very smart and know the land better than any of us, so to trick or fool them you got to have something really creative and take advantage of their weaknesses (which are not fully known).

I thought that BFRO guys (not the TV show, but the guys on the field) have been trying all sort of ideas, but they don't seem to publish what seems to work.

 

I know that in one WA BFRO expedition, two guys got a BF to approach them when they were playing harmonica, but they had no thermal and camera with them. And, in that case, they did not fool or misdirect the BF, but simply got him to be curious about the music.

 

 

 

 

Well imo Explorer, it's an animal, an animal that lives and breathes just like all others and although I will be the first one to say that I don't think it gets the credit it deserves where smartness and woods nous is concerned, I've read enough reports to be under the impression that it isn't completely invincible.

 

I'll contact the Bart Man over the weekend and ask him some questions regarding how he perceived that situation, questions relevant to what we are talking about here.

[norseman]

BobbyO wrote:

 

Well first paragraph, that's why it should be a pre-determined area that has a history and trends of recent reports at specific times of year.

 

With regards to you not having any experiences when you've been outdoors, that's no biggie, it's just the same as 99.9% of people that camp and hike etc and is expected.

 

But it's down to us to bring that 99.9% number down considerably and I truly believe we can do that via what we are building with the SSR.

 

I need legitimate time on it, and I'm hopeful that 2017 will give me it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I think that is right and it's why I hold out hope for your plan to work despite my own personal experiences. I know from hunting Elk that time and location mean everything......

 

 

Regarding the second paragraph, Im not so sure it would Norse and the reason I say that is I don't think, if we had the covert/counter surveillance in place, how a shoot out from different angles would be beneficial, I also think it'd be dangerous.

 

I just feel if the people involved stuck to and done their jobs/roles, that would be the best chance for the objective to be met.

 

The last thing I think we'd need would be to have a shoot out in the woods, in all directions, potentially in the dark, as I can't imagine that would end in the way that was wanted.

 

I may be wrong.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Well your camping "bait and switch" plan does involve a collection team I believe? But your plan is not what my second paragraph was referring to.

 

Im talking about an overall strategy to get as many pro kill minded people packing heat into the woods as possible. Our own reports bear this out. People encounter Sasquatch doing outdoor activities A-Z. From prospecting to forestry to hunting and fishing.

 

There is no cost involved. Just a shift in mindset. Many of those people are armed to begin with.

[FarArcher]

21 hours ago, Explorer said:

 

 

BobbyO,

 

I am intrigued by your post because I have read different opinions on whether you can fool a BF.

Some folks claim that you can't fool BF's at all in their territory no matter how creative we think we are.

 

On the Bart Cutino case, I think it was very creative on his part to move away from the group and see who was watching, but I wonder if that BF did not know that Bart was there (I don't recall seeing the BF walk full body in front of thermal and it seemed to still be hiding behind trees, but my memory could be wrong).

 

I also recall reading (maybe it was Ron Morehead's book or some other book) about the idea that BF are not very good at math (counting people) and get confused keeping track of everybody when there is a large group.

I think Morehead's group of 5-6 tried that idea up in the Sierra camp, whereas they were all huddled together and suddenly everybody left at once in different directions except one who stayed hidden in a hunting blind (or maybe it was inside a log).

That experiment did not work well because the guy who was hiding got too cold and had to exit the hiding place and take a leak.

But, I think they were trying to follow the idea that you mentioned above of distraction and diversion.

 

I still will like to hear more ideas on how to fake play or misdirect a BF (specially for small groups of people that are not interesting in shooting one but on capturing one on film).

 

These creatures are very smart and know the land better than any of us, so to trick or fool them you got to have something really creative and take advantage of their weaknesses (which are not fully known).

I thought that BFRO guys (not the TV show, but the guys on the field) have been trying all sort of ideas, but they don't seem to publish what seems to work.

 

I know that in one WA BFRO expedition, two guys got a BF to approach them when they were playing harmonica, but they had no thermal and camera with them. And, in that case, they did not fool or misdirect the BF, but simply got him to be curious about the music.

 

 

 

 

 

Explorer, if you can fool men, then you can fool these things.

 

But that has to be your mindset going in.  

[Rockape]

22 hours ago, Explorer said:

 

On the Bart Cutino case, I think it was very creative on his part to move away from the group and see who was watching, but I wonder if that BF did not know that Bart was there (I don't recall seeing the BF walk full body in front of thermal and it seemed to still be hiding behind trees, but my memory could be wrong).

 

 

Pretty sure Bart had a rock thrown in his direction. 

[ShadowBorn]

Explorer

simply get them to be curious. If they are approaching you then they are curious and this is a weakness.  There were three of us when we were camping up north in Mi and  two went to a creek and I stayed in the tent to sleep when one approached the camp. It did not know I was there but it did have a nice size rock with it that it left it behind. The more they see us out there looking at them through these devices the more they understand. Believe me if I ever owned a thermo I be the safest hunter out in the woods with these guys. I am pretty sure they even stay further distance from me. 

 

My idea in the woods is trying to clear my thoughts in my head. Not think about them and let it try to naturally happen. It seems to work and I seem to have success. We can post sounds ,pictures or what ever Bigfoot and not every one is going to agree. I am trying to figure out what it is that they attract to people. They study us on how we react to them.

 

Hifler

To go after on of these would no take that much. Just the time to go after one. A good rifle with a thermal and a one chance shot and that's all it would take. The odds are very good for one to go down. People are getting a feel for these creatures and how they are so it could be soon when one is finally brought in. Who Knows ?

[hiflier]

8 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

To go after on of these would no take that much. Just the time to go after one. A good rifle with a thermal and a one chance shot and that's all it would take. The odds are very good for one to go down. People are getting a feel for these creatures and how they are so it could be soon when one is finally brought in. Who Knows ?

 

Yes time- and knowledge. But to shoot or not to shoot is a decision I am sure is not an easy one to make. The ones that balk because they look so Human is an indication that the issue is not an easy one to contend with. It would seem that for all one's intention going into the field the "moment of truth" won't be the same for everyone. I had written that for all that we learn about how these creatures operate it will take everything we have learned and mre to complete the task with the most important being what we learn about ourselves.

 

I also presented a crossroad. After bringing one down either nothing happens OR more show up. What I've never seen discussed is this: if more show up then what happens if the additional BF's simply walk over to the fallen one and lift it up to carry off- never once looking back at the one or ones that killed it? What happens then? Shoot all of them in the back just to bring in the one specimen? I think not. As important as it is to secure a body there simply HAS to be a point where it gets decided to let the matter rest. That point I think revolves around the taking of the lives of additional passive BF's who may show up but do nothing. Or as mentioned, quietly approach the one that was shot and carry it off without aggression or making eye contact. Probably would never go down like that but I had to bring it up.

[Trogluddite]

Unfortunately, I think it boils down to one of two mutually exclusive options, both of which are expensive (one in time, one in money)

 

A) A small, long-term insertion in an area that's believed to be in the current "home range" of a family group, or along a suspected bigfoot byway - in the northeast, one would be the Rutland-Castleton ridge - and then patience and luck.  You literally have to just hang in that area for them to encounter you.  That method will be expensive in time.

 

B) The other, which I described in detail in another similar thread, would have highly specialized quick-reaction teams on standby to be inserted on likely avenues of escape after a sighting.  That method would be very expensive in money, and may still be expensive in time.

 

When I win the NY Powerball, I'll hook everyone here up. 

[BobbyO]

9 hours ago, norseman said:

BobbyO wrote:

 

Well first paragraph, that's why it should be a pre-determined area that has a history and trends of recent reports at specific times of year.

 

With regards to you not having any experiences when you've been outdoors, that's no biggie, it's just the same as 99.9% of people that camp and hike etc and is expected.

 

But it's down to us to bring that 99.9% number down considerably and I truly believe we can do that via what we are building with the SSR.

 

I need legitimate time on it, and I'm hopeful that 2017 will give me it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I think that is right and it's why I hold out hope for your plan to work despite my own personal experiences. I know from hunting Elk that time and location mean everything......

 

 

Regarding the second paragraph, Im not so sure it would Norse and the reason I say that is I don't think, if we had the covert/counter surveillance in place, how a shoot out from different angles would be beneficial, I also think it'd be dangerous.

 

I just feel if the people involved stuck to and done their jobs/roles, that would be the best chance for the objective to be met.

 

The last thing I think we'd need would be to have a shoot out in the woods, in all directions, potentially in the dark, as I can't imagine that would end in the way that was wanted.

 

I may be wrong.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Well your camping "bait and switch" plan does involve a collection team I believe? But your plan is not what my second paragraph was referring to.

 

Im talking about an overall strategy to get as many pro kill minded people packing heat into the woods as possible. Our own reports bear this out. People encounter Sasquatch doing outdoor activities A-Z. From prospecting to forestry to hunting and fishing.

 

There is no cost involved. Just a shift in mindset. Many of those people are armed to begin with.

 

Comprende, I understand now although we see plenty of reports with people packing, even cameras, but the general shock/fear/awe overcomes any thoughts of "shooting" a lot of the time.

 

Regarding the plan, I'd always side with the surveillance guys who won't have those feelings and will be focussed on one objective and one objective only and that's why I think the plan, albeit with tweaking where necessary of course, is a genuine option.

9 hours ago, ShadowBorn said:

Explorer

simply get them to be curious. If they are approaching you then they are curious and this is a weakness.  

 

BINGO !!

[BobbyO]

Very interesting to see that only 2/39 reports (5%) from Campers in the South Cascades Geographical Zone in WA State have been Actual Visual Sighting Reports, with both of those reports coming just days apart in the same general area in 1995.

This trend continues in the North Cascades Geographical Zone with 3/33 reports (9%) being Actual Visual Sighting Reports.

 

What does that indicate to you ?

 

For me it indicates their shy yet inquisitive side.

 

Across the North American Continent this number sits at 139/564 (24.6%).

 

That number drops to 68/392 (16%) from reports from the last 25 years however.

[hiflier]

IMO That's still a lot of visual sightings. Certainly not like road stuff but it not exactly 1% either. Toss in the Class b reports which I would think includes everything from sounds of footfalls to howls to eye shine to odors and it may show a more robust figure. Still I all Class A sightings from campers does indicate what you say, shy but curious. It maintains the characteristic as the weakness we.ve been discussing here. That may show the only avenue to pursue to get one close enough to have a chance at a voucher. But there is so, so much to coordinate for success.

 

As an example, I had a dream the other night that one came into my camp with me, my spouse, and dog present. I don't own a gun but in my dream I had one and it was the RIGHT one. The creature in my dream took the position of getting on all fours and then it charged us. I took it down in two shots; the first one slowed it and the second took it down. The rest of the dream was dealing with many conundrums: a pick up truck with a cap on the back and a camp full of supplies and gear. But that was the tip of the iceberg.

 

I had to choose to leave everything, try to get a 700 lb. carcass into the back of the truck, think up how to explain the gun going off in a state park, hide blood, line the truck with plastic, find a place to get a truck-full of block and bag ice without raising suspicion, and THEN, find a place to take the body for safe keeping until I could find and convince a facility to take it without alerting any authorities. The dream wasn't a nightmare until AFTER the shooting. It just goes to show what has to be in place when actually planning something like this.....oh, and then in who knows how many hours or days, go back to the camp and gather up the gear we left.

 

I can almost see the look on my spouse's face at every stage- especially if I was to say that we are leaving everything at camp and going immediately to Idaho- from Maine! Yeah, some things just need to be worked out before embarking on such a plan because a chance encounter that ends up with a body could be a real hardship- and that's if one doesn't lose the body in the process to some agency or end up in jail or an interrogation situation.

[norseman]

What are the other 95% of reports? Audio? Tracks? Activity associated with them like rock throwing?

[hiflier]

Hey Norseman, great minds think alike  

[BobbyO]

4 minutes ago, norseman said:

What are the other 95% of reports? Audio? Tracks? Activity associated with them like rock throwing?

 

Yeah, vocalizations, tracks, knocks, everything that would constitute an encounter without having the visual.

7 minutes ago, hiflier said:

IMO That's still a lot of visual sightings. Certainly not like road stuff but it not exactly 1% either. Toss in the Class b reports which I would think includes everything from sounds of footfalls to howls to eye shine to odors and it may show a more robust figure.

 

I don't know H, 5/72 for the North and South Cascades in WA doesn't suggest a lot of visual sightings to me personally.

 

Campers, people that plonk themselves slap bang in the middle of Sasquatch environment, very rarely see them.

[bipedalist]

1 hour ago, BobbyO said:

Very interesting to see that only 2/39 reports (5%) from Campers in the South Cascades Geographical Zone in WA State have been Actual Visual Sighting Reports, with both of those reports coming just days apart in the same general area in 1995.

This trend continues in the North Cascades Geographical Zone with 3/33 reports (9%) being Actual Visual Sighting Reports.

 

What does that indicate to you ?

 

For me it indicates their shy yet inquisitive side.

 

Across the North American Continent this number sits at 139/564 (24.6%).

 

That number drops to 68/392 (16%) from reports from the last 25 years however.

 

I think the observation feeds into why more paved road sightings of major highways are not reported in Western Washington and south Cascades like they are in other parts of the intermountain West and even the East.  They are more warry for some reason and only more likely to get caught passing across logging roads (at night), clearcuts, etc.   Why I can't tell you.   I just know they go where they want to go when they want to go and can plow through brush routinely without anything even resembling a game trail.  A worthy adversary for anyone hunting them for sure.   More likely they will be stalking you long before you know they are there, thus the Class B reports in the south Cascades for those sensitive to the clues/cues.  Perhaps Sasquatch like humans (in general) are becoming smarter over time.    Look at the old reports even from the east, not as many hard road crossings as there were in the 60's through 90's really in my mind.  Also, not as many people tripping over sleeping Sasquatch like in the past record, ; > }

Edited January 21, 2017 by bipedalist