On the dangers of paying for BF expeditions that have no legal permits

[MIB]

^^^^ Not a particularly relevant connection.   Think it through.  Once you take money from someone, there's liability.    Depending on their special use permit, it may be a requirement for the permit.  It may be a requirement of their insurance carrier.    Lots of reasons which apply to them, with paying participants, that you, on your own, don't have to worry about.

 

MIB

[SWWASAS]

Well some BFRO expeditions get around all of that by pretending an expedition is a family reunion.   For that to work,  expedition members have to claim that to law enforcement or forest rangers who ask what is going on.      Last I heard it was illegal and you are subject to arrest by lying to law enforcement.   I think according to US Code Forest Rangers are considered law enforcement officers.    They can give speeding tickets and arrest.     That is the kind of mess you might find yourself in paying for expeditions organized by a former lawyer.     If course if you are arrested,   MM probably could recommend a local lawyer buddy to help you in court.  

[Old Dog]

19 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

You're kidding me, right?  Have you ever gone out in the woods alone?  If yes, do you bring along a nurse?

 

 

 

You mentioned in your statement hiking with a "hang around".    " I'd have no interest being out on a serious investigation with a hang around. "  You didn't state that you were going solo.

 

This part of the topic came up with the inclusion of the requirement some government entities put on organised groups engaging in commercial ventures in the woods and forests, as mentioned by Catmandoo, Trogluddite and Bipedalist.

 

When going out to do research alone, no I don't take a nurse, I'm certified in levels A,C and HCP first aid, and Red Cross Emergency and Standard first aid.  When we go on a film shoot, it is required to have an additional first aid certified person, besides on camera personnel, present at all times by the underwriting company.

 

So no, I'm not kidding, they're only a hang around until you need them.

[Old Dog]

19 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

You're kidding me, right?  Have you ever gone out in the woods alone?  If yes, do you bring along a nurse?

 

 

 

You mentioned in your statement hiking with a "hang around".    " I'd have no interest being out on a serious investigation with a hang around. "  You didn't state that you were going solo.

 

This part of the topic came up with the inclusion of the requirement some government entities put on organised groups engaging in commercial ventures in the woods and forests, as mentioned by Catmandoo, Trogluddite and Bipedalist.

 

When going out to do research alone, no I don't take a nurse, I'm certified in levels A,C and HCP first aid, and Red Cross Emergency and Standard first aid.  When we go on a film shoot, it is required to have an additional first aid certified person, besides on camera personnel, present at all times by the underwriting company.

 

So no, I'm not kidding, they're only a hang around until you need them.

 

Wiiawiwb ~ apologies if I misread your intent.

[wiiawiwb]

Old Dog,

 

I suppose when a group of people, however small or large, go out, and are accompanied by film crew, it does makes sense to add one more the the group.  More opportunity for a problem to occur.

 

For me, the fewer people, the better. I've always subscribed to the one or two-person group being most likely to have success. A small footprint might result in less reluctance on the part of a sasquatch to come close. 

 

I do like the idea of camouflage and sitting still in a strategic location. Additional crew would put a damper on that.

 

[starchunk]

Couple of things: The fact that the BRO plays with the rules says a lot about the BFRO. In my opinion not a model to follow. Having someone with medical or first aid know how is not a bad thing. I also a agree a small group is the best approach also, BUT..

 

Sitting quietly in a "strategic location" is wishful thinking in my opinion. If these creatures are in the area they very likley are aware of what's around them so camoflague isn't a likley solution. A better approach, also in my opinon, is a modular approach. Cover ground by day looking for sign and not being afraid to bushwhack into water sources to do that, utilize camera and audio technology as much as you can while you're there, record the whole thing if you can. And use curiousity at night to try to draw their interest. Then document everything with an accurate timeline of events.

[wiiawiwb]

I think there are a fair number of reports by hunters in deer stands in trees. Usually they are in camo and, obviously, lying in wait.

 

I think that approach will catch a sasquatch that is en route between locations unless your odor or restlessness clues it to your presence.  Call me crazy but I've always believed that moving about will raise the flag and alert them. No doubt their senses are infinitely more attuned to the surroundings. it's a game we can't win. We can disappear into the landscape by means of camouflage and outsmart them...maybe.

[Old Dog]

17 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

Old Dog,

 

I suppose when a group of people, however small or large, go out, and are accompanied by film crew, it does makes sense to add one more the the group.  More opportunity for a problem to occur.

 

For me, the fewer people, the better. I've always subscribed to the one or two-person group being most likely to have success. A small footprint might result in less reluctance on the part of a sasquatch to come close. 

 

I do like the idea of camouflage and sitting still in a strategic location. Additional crew would put a damper on that.

 

 

I'm with you there.  Most of the time, it's just me or two or three people.  I fail to see how anything gets done with a gaggle of people tromping through the forest.  It is amazing how much you can see by just sitting still and watching for movement around you.  

[Old Dog]

15 hours ago, starchunk said:

Couple of things: The fact that the BRO plays with the rules says a lot about the BFRO. In my opinion not a model to follow. Having someone with medical or first aid know how is not a bad thing. I also a agree a small group is the best approach also, BUT..

 

Sitting quietly in a "strategic location" is wishful thinking in my opinion. If these creatures are in the area they very likley are aware of what's around them so camoflague isn't a likley solution. A better approach, also in my opinon, is a modular approach. Cover ground by day looking for sign and not being afraid to bushwhack into water sources to do that, utilize camera and audio technology as much as you can while you're there, record the whole thing if you can. And use curiousity at night to try to draw their interest. Then document everything with an accurate timeline of events.

 

This brought up something I found interesting while re-reading "In Search of Giants" by Thomas Steenburg.

 

In his reports he did an averaging of how many sightings were during the day vs. during the evening.  His findings were that 77% of the sightings occurred during the day before 6 pm. and 23% occurred at night.  I don't use camo while searching, but I don't wear hunter orange either.  I just wear basically neutral earth tone colors, and sitting still and glassing the distance will bring out a ton of movement if anything is in the area.  We have yet to get that undeniable sighting of BF, but with as much movement as is visible while employing this technique, we believe that if one is out there we will eventually find it.  I think sitting still and observing is a viable technique and can't imagine that a BF would be any more vigilant than say deer, sheep or bear, or for that matter humans.

[starchunk]

8 hours ago, Old Dog said:

 

This brought up something I found interesting while re-reading "In Search of Giants" by Thomas Steenburg.

 

In his reports he did an averaging of how many sightings were during the day vs. during the evening.  His findings were that 77% of the sightings occurred during the day before 6 pm. and 23% occurred at night.  I don't use camo while searching, but I don't wear hunter orange either.  I just wear basically neutral earth tone colors, and sitting still and glassing the distance will bring out a ton of movement if anything is in the area.  We have yet to get that undeniable sighting of BF, but with as much movement as is visible while employing this technique, we believe that if one is out there we will eventually find it.  I think sitting still and observing is a viable technique and can't imagine that a BF would be any more vigilant than say deer, sheep or bear, or for that matter humans.

Lately I like bushwhacking as long as you tick proof yourself. I have had three approaches by something in the underbrush in the last few weeks. These were in the daytime.

[bipedalist]

Old Dog, I disagree with your characterization that they are no more sensitive than sheep, goat, hogs, etc.   They have superior eidetic and echoic long-term memory for very brief presentations sometimes experienced only one time.  This puts them into a differing category of animal. 

 

They have an audiographic memory very much like the lyrebird and it persists over a long period of time.   Stan Courtney has even encountered them mimicking weedeaters for example.  Unlike the lyrebird they don't seem to have any limitations on the range and numbers of sounds they can recall.  They can easily fool the originator of the sound they are recalling/imitating. 

 

Don't ask me how I know, because it has been a long haul to get there. 

 

 

Edited May 21, 2017 by bipedalist

[Old Dog]

20 hours ago, bipedalist said:

 

 

Don't ask me how I know,...

 

 

 

OK.

21 hours ago, bipedalist said:

Old Dog, I disagree with your characterization that they are no more sensitive than sheep, goat, hogs, etc.   They have superior eidetic and echoic long-term memory for very brief presentations sometimes experienced only one time.  This puts them into a differing category of animal. 

 

They have an audiographic memory very much like the lyrebird and it persists over a long period of time.   Stan Courtney has even encountered them mimicking weedeaters for example.  Unlike the lyrebird they don't seem to have any limitations on the range and numbers of sounds they can recall.  They can easily fool the originator of the sound they are recalling/imitating. 

 

Don't ask me how I know, because it has been a long haul to get there. 

 

 

 

 

Just to ad, because I missed the edit timer.  LOL.

 

Not sure how photographic memory or short term memory that retains auditory info is relevant to being vigilant.  It may help if the creature encountered a human to remember what they were encountering, but fail to see the relevance in this case.  If a human were static on a hillside and looking, say over a valley, how will eidetic or echoic memory help them notice something that don't see or notice is there?  Sure, it would help if they noticed and actually saw you, but then if they had this ability, we would never run across them in the first place as they would be forewarned of our presence and avoid detection.  That is if I'm correctly understanding your stance.

[bipedalist]

Key to understanding my post is sound interaction leading to communication.   Not like they are doing quantum physics or anything but assuming you believe you have a captive audience it is one way of establishing contact without beating baseball bats on trees in the middle of the night.   A lot of this work was done in daylight.  I used various techniques including mixed up bird medleys, mockingbird on lsd varieties.  I also used asymmetric hollow sounding percussive tones (some played one time).  These tended to be remembered and improv'd upon and repeated back near me at 3 am some months later.  It is what they call an aha experience.

 

My premise is challenge them to some mental gymnastics and leave the mini-bats for T-ball teams. 

[Old Dog]

11 hours ago, bipedalist said:

Key to understanding my post is sound interaction leading to communication.   Not like they are doing quantum physics or anything but assuming you believe you have a captive audience it is one way of establishing contact without beating baseball bats on trees in the middle of the night.   A lot of this work was done in daylight.  I used various techniques including mixed up bird medleys, mockingbird on lsd varieties.  I also used asymmetric hollow sounding percussive tones (some played one time).  These tended to be remembered and improv'd upon and repeated back near me at 3 am some months later.  It is what they call an aha experience.

 

My premise is challenge them to some mental gymnastics and leave the mini-bats for T-ball teams. 

 

Gotcha.  I'm always a fan of didactic posts such as yours. My point was not about interaction or their differing modes of recollection over time.  My point was all about keeping your arse in one spot, not drawing attention to yourself, and looking for movement to detect the presence of other beings in the woods around you.  If one is so busy tromping around the forest as to not have the time to detect and see what is around them, they miss a lot of information.  For all I know, and I'm surely no expert, this may be one of the methods Sasquatch may employ themselves.  Not having the honor of sitting down next to one to shoot the breeze about it, I think it may be a viable hypothesis.  At any rate, sitting still and being observant has had good results for me.

[BobbyO]

On 19 May 2017 at 3:30 AM, wiiawiwb said:

I think there are a fair number of reports by hunters in deer stands in trees. Usually they are in camo and, obviously, lying in wait.

 

I think that approach will catch a sasquatch that is en route between locations unless your odor or restlessness clues it to your presence.  Call me crazy but I've always believed that moving about will raise the flag and alert them. No doubt their senses are infinitely more attuned to the surroundings. it's a game we can't win. We can disappear into the landscape by means of camouflage and outsmart them...maybe.

 

With you all the way, on everything bar the last sentence...;)