Trail Camera Safety Net

[MIB]

I don't think it can be smell, or at least not smell alone.   I got in a big ole hairy argument with Henner Fahrenbach one time about that.   He was trying to convince me that some of the things we now attribute to infrasound HAD to be pheromones, infrasound was deep end woo, not scientific, couldn't be considered.   I had the audacity to ask him how come these "pheromones" can go upwind.   Man, he did NOT like that. 

 

It's the same thing with smell of plastic.   That's fine if the camera is upwind of the bigfoot, but half the time it shouldn't be.   What accounts for the lack of pictures from the cameras that are downwind?

 

I'm not offering answers, I threw out some thoughts earlier but that's all they are.   I'm as stuck as anyone else.

 

I'll share .. or remind, if you happen to have read it, too .. before he left Bipto and I were talking about trail cams.   Before going all-in on kill, his group tried cameras.   He said something interesting ... if he were going to go back to cameras, he'd skip digital and return to mechanical triggers, white flash, and film.   Something is wrong with the tech, it's got some sort of unidentified achilles' heel.   He might just be right.

 

MIB

[TritonTr196]

People still talking about infrared trail cams like they are current tech. We have been using the newer black led wireless trailcams for awhile now and after thousands of pictures we just got back few days ago after three months in the field in new spots, same area just new camera placements. I've not seen the first deer or bison even look or glance at the cameras. So far they haven't even noticed these new black led cams. The regular infrared cams we had been using there was always a deer that would try and get a selfie with the trail cam. I'm also very picky about camera placement. Ours is usually 10 or more feet up in a tree angled downwards a certain way.  We don't cover them up or camouflage them in anyway. There was a lot of pictures on the cameras that didn't get sent through the wireless for whatever reason. Maybe since they are so high up in the air it's harder for them to smell the electronic smell. But all the animals in the pictures not one has looked up at the cameras and just went about their business like nothing was any different.

 

Not sure if it's since there is no light that emits from the black leds or what, but we are glad to find this out. Still have couple thousand pictures to go through, but so far no Bigfoot. And I just assume as I always do in placing trail cams out in the woods, we just don't have enough trail cams to cover hundreds of thousands of acres in a very large national forest for so few Bigfoot. I Don't believe in the Bigfoot population numbers people assume so unless you have a trail cam every several yards, it's just wishful thinking for the most part, but besides Bigfoot I'm hoping we can get a nice bobcat or cougar on them. But we always put ours out in places we have had encounters .

 

 

 

[hiflier]

Yep, 7.62, Bugs me too, big time, and you and I aren't the only ones. And folks are certainly aware of scents when setting up cameras. They've tried urine on shoes and even treated the cameras themselves to help mask it's smell. Might be interesting to try your baggie idea actually. Even a black one- something like a corner from a contractor grade black bag.. Certainly can smell any worse than the camera's plastic enclosure.

 

One idea I've had is to cut off a large tree bole, hollow it out, put the cam inside and stick it back on the tree of a tree of one's choice. All in all though? I still think that placing them in an active BF area that also has a relatively slow to moderate Human activity might be the best way to hide a Human's scent as well as the path to the tree the cam is placed on. If one is going to visibly disappear then there's no better place than in a crowd so why not hide one's scent amongst other similar scents and activities. Sasquatch are shy yes, but they still get see where people are. Who knows but being very deliberate about ones actions creates a curiosity factor in and of itself. Sneaking in and trying to hide one's presence kind of smacks of the hunter on the hunt. One would think a BF would be more leery of that kind of methodology.

 

@Twist, yeah the baggie will smell too. And doing the crazy things Sasquatch does to get a rise out of Humans tells me that we really don't have to be as stealthy as some would lead us to believe. Our posture in their habitat will say it all IMHO. Like TritonTR196 said, just put the cams in active areas and IMO do it as blatantly obvious as possible. Let the creatures see you put the cams out and leave them. The natural Sasquatch curiosity factor may be what we are missing here when deploying these gadgets. IDK, make 'em climb up to see what we left in that tree.

[7.62]

An old joke we had at our club before was one of out most senior members use to  consistently shoot a big buck almost ever year .

He's 87 now and no longer hunts but still likes to come down and sit around swapping old hunting stories with us.

We use to laugh when we asked him what his secret was , he would say I use Aqua Velva .

 

Here we would go to great extremes to cover our scent and he would splash on after shave .

 

So maybe as you guys said curiosity might not be a bad thing to use.

Edited July 29, 2017 by 7.62

[hiflier]

49 minutes ago, 7.62 said:

We use to laugh when we asked him what his secret was , he would say I use Aqua Velva .

 

 

Hey, try everything. Smear blueberry juice on a Plotwatcher. Whatever it takes. Just don't get any on yourself....bears ya know 

[wiiawiwb]

I agree with the initial premise. If trailcams are detectable, and thus not approachable, then you've created perfect security for your camp. If they are not detectable, them maybe you get the picture you've dreamed of getting.

 

You win in either case.

[NCBFr]

I read a story once of a guy watching a BF approach his position (I think house but am a little foggy on it) and then for no apparent reason veered off sharply away.  In looking closely at his path he saw the point of the change of direction was the beginning of the field of view of a trail camera.  The conclusion he drew was that the BF saw the IR light being used by the trail cam.  

 

Another theory is that they can sense electricity.  I know it sounds crazy and I dont buy it myself, but sharks use this sense to find prey out of visual range.  

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, NCBFr said:

Another theory is that they can sense electricity.  I know it sounds crazy and I dont buy it myself, but sharks use this sense to find prey out of visual range

 

Of course if there is an EM field that is detectable by an animal I haven't heard of one but it makes sense. Any electrical source generates EM fields including battery powered devices. One reasonably cheap way to know whether game cams do this is this. Think I'll get one.:

 

https://www.amazon.com/ElectroSensor-Electro-Magnetic-Field-Detector/dp/B000G82KLI

[hiflier]

OK, this is pretty much a boilerplate statement in the brochure for my trail camera but it does indicate a possible issue.

 

"This equipment generates, uses, and can radiate radio frequency energy...." etc. 

 

I also more enjoy working with someone when it comes to this kind of research as there is a lot to delve into such as VLF which is well a known frequency in the animal kingdom when it comes to a species communicating with one another. EM can be blocked with things like tin foil and other types of magnetic shielding both with foil-like and heavier plate gauges. I have a free sample box of various thickness that I ordered from a Chicago company about 20 years ago when I was dufus-ly working on perpetual motion with magnets (yep, always been a weirdo  ) So maybe after the EM sensor arrives I will experiment with shielding. OR, since my trail cam is older and out of warranty, open it up and just line the thing with tin foil. I could also cover it in tin foil and cut out for the sensor eye and black LED's  but then I would have to disguise the tin foil. All in all it might answer some unanswered questions unless more research can uncover something someone has experimented with and already found out. 

[SWWASAS]

 This is a good discussion and could lead to some productive ideas.      BigtreeWalker is placing camouflaged cameras high in trees out of the normal human line of sight.     I think that has merit.    I think the only thing that might not smell artificial to some creature with a good sense of smell is stuff made out of forest products or hollowed out rocks and other natural materials.       Rocks from where the cameras are to be placed.       I bought a fiberglass landscape rock with the intent to hide a camera in it but it is so different than natural rocks in my area that it would stand out like a sore thumb.    It looks like granite and there is no granite in the area.    In the Sierras, Rockies, or Southern Oregon it might blend in.  

 

I think the rule of thumb with animals is that the longer the nose the better their sense of smell.    It is that way with dogs.    The longer the snout the better trackers they are.    That would mean that while BF may have a better sense of smell than we do, just because of not destroying it with strong artificial scents,   it may not have much better one that we do.   

 

The other factor that has not been mentioned, is that if we go into an active area and start deploying cameras,   we are likely detected entering the area and under observation the entire time.    Human avoidance pretty much requires them to keep track of us most of the time.  I suspect that the majority of cameras deployed are done so with BF watching it.  Is that how they avoid them?     The process on our part is not exactly nonchalant.    Put in on the tree,  lock it,   check the field of view,  wrap it with camo,  make sure it is operational then leave.     If they keep humans in their areas under continuous observation, we need to use different methods.      Behavior Twist mentions is behavior when they know exactly where we are and what we are likely to do.      A human in a camp from 2 am to sunrise is likely to be asleep, affording able opportunity to explore the camp and not be seen.   

 

If they feel observation is necessary to avoid contact that possibly could be used against them.    There are many reports of people hearing something following them, that stops when they do and continues to follow as they move.   Maybe discretely putting a small camera down and simply walking away might get results.     I think one of my encounters was because I was unpredictable.     I reversed directions three times in less than an hour.      I had no idea, still don't, that I was being watched but if they had seen me earlier, the last they knew was that I was heading away from them.    They came from the direction I had originally been traveling before I turned around and reversed direction the first time.    They expect us to be on human trails.    That is what we do,   so for the most part they avoid travel on human trails.   Several of my footprint finds are where a BF stepped across a human trail and left footprints on the trail margins.    They seem to go to great lengths to avoid leaving footprint evidence.    That awareness suggests to me that they are trackers themselves.        If so I doubt most game camera deployers make much effort not to leave footprint evidence leading to and away from their cameras.    The more you visit the camera the bigger the trail left showing you were there and where it is.    

 

 

 

[hiflier]

Good points SW. I found this though it is from this older article Hidden Cams.pdf. It has a lot about detecting electronic clock 'noise':

'If anyone is curious about 'Figure 9' then just read the article some dark and stormy night. The whole thing is rather educational.

 

 

 

Edited July 29, 2017 by hiflier

[SWWASAS]

 Interesting about the camera emissions.      Perhaps because we humans are bathed in home Wifi RF,   wire free phones,   bluetooth,  television sets,   and cell phone towers prettty much everywhere,   we have become desensitized to that stuff, and because BF has not been as exposed to it,   it is aware of it.     I know I cannot tolerate a magnet anywhere near my head.   It gives me a headache.

 

I have had some communication on this forum and another with habituators.    I think they if anyone have the best opportunity to get good video.   Their homes are a clutter of probably incomprehensible (for BF) human gadgets.   It should be relatively easy to hide a pinhole camera in something among the clutter and catch a BF lurking around.     But the very mention of that usually gets the humans very defensive of their uninvited guests.  

Quote

 

     

Edited July 29, 2017 by SWWASAS

[hiflier]

True. But maybe with a bit of time, a small expense, and some thoughtful retrofitting and EM testing we may not have to lean on habituators to get what a lot of us are after? IMHO testing for and amending anything that may put of a BF should be SOP and for the most part we do engage in trying to outsmart the apparent 'Un-outsmartable'  One'. Trail cams have always been controversial and there has been so much unknown that maybe it time to really get to the bottom of things. Ultra/infra sound emissions, EM frequencies, odors, placement and all of the other debated things regarding these devices have left a trail of avenues to test for.

 

Trail cams have gone to Black LED's, quieter image taking mechanisms, wider fields of view, and any number of perceived improvements but there still must be a problem(s) (outside of non-existence that is) that are not detected by us but are detected by creatures more sensitive to.....something. I am on the EM side of this and so will pursue that angle over the next couple of weeks.

 

For now though I still think burying a game camera in a very remote area will make it more obvious to our Hairy Friend. So the 'safety -in-numbers' approach of hiding one in plain EM view amongst other EM emitters like free WI-FI at campgrounds and places with a lot of smart phones being carried around just may be the best disguise that can be hoped technologically, at least until something can be figured out. Just my opinion. 

Edited July 29, 2017 by hiflier

[TritonTr196]

6 hours ago, NCBFr said:

Another theory is that they can sense electricity.  I know it sounds crazy and I dont buy it myself, but sharks use this sense to find prey out of visual range.

 

I'm thinking they can't detect electricity no more than any other animal or human. There are too many reports of them being seen walking down those huge power line cuts. A human can feel this and anyone that has walked around one knows that you can hear the electricity buzzing for a long ways. Not saying they can't detect it, just saying it doesn't bother them.

 

I don't camouflage trail cams anymore. Usually they are already camo'd out. I do however camouflage all my audio recorder box because I hang those on a limb no taller than I can reach. So those are in the open more. I'm very good at finishes and paint work, For my audio recorder boxes, I just take a picture of what's around in the area I'm putting it out, then I airbrush the boxes to look exactly like the surrounding flora.

 

Them watching us as soon as we get in the woods, I don't think is always the case. They aren't always watching everything. Unless they are just in that area to begin with. We check for this anytime we put a camera or audio recorder out.

[hiflier]

Might be a fun experiment to aim a cam at a plain, empty, un-camo'd recorder box hanging on a branch just to see what if anything messes with it- especially at the height you place it. My guess? You've already done that though.