The Fossey approach

[SWWASAS]

I watched a Nat Geo special on DIan Fossey last night.   I had not seen much about her for years since her death.    While the intent of the program was to discuss circumstances leading up to her death.     There was a lot of footage of her interaction with the mountain gorillas.    It occurred to me,  watching her go from barely being able to get close,  to sitting there playing with the young ones, that her approach has a lot of merit.   .   Fast forward to my own experiences and what little I have learned.    Some of what I have done is I have not reported.    Some of you may have guessed but I guess I will still hold back.    Still considering a book but I simply need more material.     What she learned is that she always had to be submissive.    She had to approach them literally crawling because if she stood up,  they perceived it as a challenge and got a bluff charge response.    If she was submissive,  tentative, and even clowned around as if she was the biggest klutz in the world, they would watch her out of interest and let her get closer and closer.   She acted her way into their midst.    I know BF is a different critter.     But experience after experience has shown me that they have similar behaviors.    Urinate in their presence and they will react.     Twice I have been bluff charged for doing just that.  I suspect they thought I was marking territory.    Dian became the world expert on the species.    Before her little was known about them.    She plunked herself right in the middle of there territory and stayed there for years in her camp in their territory.  .     Somehow I think we have to do something similar with BF.    The Tarzan springs incident points to that as a valid tactic.   It probably takes a female or a small group with a female included to pull it off.   She brought men in but she had paved the way.       I was surprised to see one of the scientists, who appears with Meldrum, on some of the BF documentaries,  was there for a time in her camp.      When we look at some of the more famous BF hunters, especially of the past,   they came dressed and equipped like they were on an elephant hunt.   Many armed appropriately.   Some of these have never had contact.      Dian had guns but it was to protect her from the poachers who ultimately killed her by hacking her to death with machetes.   .  Even that should be considered a warning for BF field researchers.      If you find a tribe of BF in private timber company forest,  you might be as unpopular as Dian was with the poachers.  With millions of dollars of timber at stake,   it could be very dangerous to expose BF to the world.   Just some thoughts I wanted to share before I forgot about it. 

[Old Dog]

I've often given this tactic a lot of thought.  I first started thinking in these terms after reading a section of Autumn William's book dedicated to how Fossey and Goodall interacted with primates.  I have a couple of concerns though.  If one were to find a social unit living in a certain area enough to use these tactics to familiarize them to the researcher, it would follow that those same creatures would be more than likely "found" by others also, and they would then decide to move on.  IF, and I stress the IF, Bigfoot is truly nomadic in nature, which is up for discussion, how would a person get them to abandon their nomadic nature and stay put long enough to form this sort of bond?

[SWWASAS]

I think they are semi nomadic and stay in one area for months at a time.   But we really do not know.      At least the foot print evidence I have found suggests the same group spends months in an area.     We have so many witness reports of BF being more inclined to show to women than men.    They will step out and show to a woman but not her husband.      Stuff like that.     Also children tend to see them, especially developmentally challenged children.    That is similar to the mountain gorilla responding to klutzy clowning around by Fossey.   . Curiosity on their part may be at play.      Fossey saw that curiousity a lot with the Mountain Gorilla.      So what I think going on is some sort of threat assessment on their part.    What they perceive to be benign and not a threat, then they may consider showing themselves.  If not showing then move closer to have a better look.    However, and this is directed at some individuals not on this forum,   if you are a big guy, with hairy legs,  move around with confidence and determination,   packing serious firepower with obvious weapons,   and introduce yourself in an area, I think they will relate you to like they would a strange male BF,  assume you are a threat,  and you are unlikely to see one.     A group of armed men,  is probably their worst threat situation.    I know it makes me nervous.     It could be coincidence or related to logging,  but when I had long hair in a pony tail,  I had most if not all of my encounters.    In all but one case,    they were not face to face, but things happened.   The way humans bundle up,  in cold weather,  BF may not even be sure if someone is male or female.   Long hair may be the only clue they have unless they get close enough to smell. 

 

But even if they are nomadic,   they likely are in certain areas at certain times of the year.    If you can figure out that time and place and establish camp, then I think the likelihood of sightings go up.  But figuring out where to look is the most difficult part of this.  

Edited December 9, 2017 by SWWASAS

[Old Dog]

20 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

It could be coincidence or related to logging,  but when I had long hair in a pony tail,  I had most if not all of my encounters.  

 

Well if that were the case, I'd be seeing them all the time.  LOL.  Perhaps it's the beard that throws them off.

[MIB]

I think you're both at least partially on track.   I'm not exactly sure what the track is though I have some ideas.   As long as there are more pieces missing than present, a little sense of uncertainty is appropriate.    Since Autumn's book has been mentioned, I would also suggest watching the "Women in Research" trailer segment at the end of the Oregon Bigfoot: Search for a Living Legend DVD.   It is on track as well though it may be offensive to the large hairy chested guy types who think they can force resolution.    It requires vulnerability, the one thing such types cannot allow.   There are a couple of other groups of people who might have a better than average chance: the elderly and the physically infirm. 

 

I suspect what you're looking for, so far as reliable repeatability, requires a habituation setting.   I don't know of anywhere a person can go at a time of their choosing and expect interaction.   That's a situation where the bigfoots have chosen interaction rather than having someone try to force it on them.  (See a recurring theme?)   The problem there for a researcher is that it will have been established with someone else who will have already set the tone for interaction.  So, first, that style of interaction may not be what the researcher hopes for, second, adding the researcher introduces change.

 

My favorite area has been devoid of activity the past 2 years.   I do not think there are any more or any fewer bigfoots.  I do not think their needs have changed.   What it suggests to me is the population is well below carrying capacity and they have choices about where to meet those needs.   It may be that nudges from forest fires, etc may cause them to move a few canyons one direction or another, still have the same resources, same time, just a different spot.   Knowing what resources they need in each season and what their preferences are so far as topography (cover and concealment) could help.   

 

I think the "Fossey approach" will work ... but not for me.    I've been returning to the same area for 6 seasons.   I've had vocalizations of some sort, found tracks, had a couple of camp visits at night, found suspicious turds.   I don't think I'm a random person there anymore.   If they are as sensitive to "out of place" as is sometimes suggested, I have to keep doing what I'm doing or it's an even bigger red flag than what I'm doing.    If I am to change, I have to do it somewhere else where I am starting from scratch.

 

MIB

[SWWASAS]

You could be right on the habituation setting.  The problem for most is they do not have the time with jobs and families to drop everything and spend a year or 5 in the woods.    While individuals may arouse the curiosity of local BF,  if BF only see them on weekends, they would look at you as just some tourist who now and then goes into the woods.  No different than any other hiker or hunter.    Fossey lived out there in a tent for a long time.   The building was done pretty late in her tenture there.   Like her or not at first,  they knew she intended to stay.  And their choices were to run her off or accept her on their terms.     Same sort of terms a BF is faced with if someone plunks there self in BF territory.    Fossey faced some bluff charges and that sort of thing as she figured out what they would tolerate and what not.  Even that is sort of communication on a primitive level.    If the intent is to chase you out of a sensitive area,  by leaving,   you allow them to win the encounter.   The question then should be is why is the area sensitive?   What did I do wrong?  What will they tolerate?  Then you try again.  

 

Part of my Christmas lighting this year is a laser light display that projects snowflakes,   Santa, and just dancing red and green lights on the garage door.   I would love to take that out and shine it on a white cliff face someplace and see it that provokes interest or draws in curious BF.  

 

 The story of the Crazy Woman of Montana comes to mind thinking about the tactics Fossey used.  .     The crazy woman was in a family who settled on a remote homestead in Montana and entire family except for her and a male child were killed by an Indian attack.   The experience is portrayed in the Robert Redford movie Jeremiah. Johnson.   The woman lost her sanity after burying most of her family but continued to live on the homestead.   She was obviously crazy, talking to herself and had odd behavior.    The Indians left her alone and she lived for many years right in the middle of them.   The story is very real and there is a navigation aid named for her in the area of the homestead.   Crazy Woman VOR.     Jeremiah Johnson was a real mountain man and one after another would be attacked by Indians trying to prove how fierce they were after he revenged the killing of his own family.  The movie did not portray the most gizzley part.    Each attacking Indian would not only be killed but his liver eaten.      Anyway bazaar behavior might just be interesting to BF.  Personally I  would pass on the liver eating behavior although BF has been rumored to do the same thing.     

[MIB]

Huh .. a laser is an interesting idea I had not considered.   Played against bluffs overlooking lakes, it could be pretty interesting.   Also in fog.    Even a pen-sized laser pointer will project a dot several hundred yards.

[gigantor]

SWWASAS, I think the fact that Fossey was a female helped her get accepted, a lot.

 

I doubt a BF is gonna trust a human male. Not happening.

 

[SWWASAS]

GIgantor:    A dedicated BF researcher should take your comment about female human acceptance very seriously.     I have it on good authority that you might be onto something.     However,  the Tarzan Springs prospector tale in Joe Beelarts "Oregon Bigfoot Highway"  book might suggest that male humans can develop trust with BF too.   . 

[MIB]

8 hours ago, gigantor said:

I doubt a BF is gonna trust a human male. Not happening.

 

I'll have to disagree with you on that.   The record suggests otherwise.    You can cherry pick to omit those accounts, but that is what is, cherry-picking.

 

MIB

[Incorrigible1]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

I'll have to disagree with you on that.   The record suggests otherwise.    You can cherry pick to omit those accounts, but that is what is, cherry-picking.

 

MIB

 

There are those instances of sex-toys, I guess. Ostman, et al.

[MIB]

That's certainly one "flavor" of instances, yep.  

 

I suspect that in most cases, where the human is male, the vetting process, whatever it is, is more extensive than for women and children, even if the human isn't aware of it happening.  That would seemingly be consistent with most of our other notions about bigfoot behavior.

 

MIB

[SWWASAS]

Once vetted they can change their mind.     At one point,    I seemed to have befriended the bunch in my research area,   but I started pressing them and doing things like trying to get them to break cover so I could get pictures.   They did not like that and things turned unfriendly.   I guess it could have been worse and I could have had my head ripped off.   In retrospect it was probably stupid of me to do that.   Thinking of it,   everything was always on their terms with no concern for my wants.   I always dragged out a camera to take pictures of interesting things or footprint finds most likely when they were watching.    So if they had any concept of what a camera is or that it was important to me, one would think they might have created a situation for me to use the camera.     That is a big stretch and perhaps an unwarranted assumption about their intelligence.     I did have one instance where rewarding me could have happened.     The day I was zapped and told them to stop it,  because it hurt,    when I went back on the trail to my truck I found a very obvious footprint.   It seemed strange that it was left because the trail could have been easily stepped completely over and no footprint left.  It was left quite prominently near the trail.       I wondered at the time if the one that zapped me was sorry,   and left it for me to find.  Perhaps they think we are easy to please just by leaving a footprint?