NatFoot Posted August 10, 2019 Posted August 10, 2019 7 minutes ago, gigantor said: Not necessarily. The technique can be tried repeatedly, it's not a single run trial. It is a great idea other teams.should try. Maybe we should try to design a similar unit. Test it and post the parts.list so anyone can build it. Like we did with the sound recorders. I agree the system may work, but they say there's no way a bear could get to their unit...his video proves that wrong. I guess the only other argument for them, is whatever they hung the bur on was not strong enough for a bear to climb onto.
norseman Posted August 10, 2019 Admin Posted August 10, 2019 30 minutes ago, gigantor said: Not necessarily. The technique can be tried repeatedly, it's not a single run trial. It is a great idea other teams.should try. Maybe we should try to design a similar unit. Test it and post the parts.list so anyone can build it. Like we did with the sound recorders. Without any way to verify what the cockleburr is clinging too? I’m not sure I see the value. Obviously they are using a Yagi antenna to track it. Like we did with hound dogs. But no one has ever hiked down a Bigfoot. Helicopters?
gigantor Posted August 10, 2019 Admin Posted August 10, 2019 4 minutes ago, norseman said: Helicopters? Or drones, like the one you have.
ShadowBorn Posted August 10, 2019 Moderator Posted August 10, 2019 10 minutes ago, norseman said: But no one has ever hiked down a Bigfoot There has been people who have hiked down a bigfoot for miles in snow but have never caught up to them or it. This is a great idea that has been being pushed way back then in 2000 but the tech was not there yet. technology has come around where we can do more to where we might even be able to shoot an RFID. Imagine an RFID the size of a grain of rice being shot under the skin of one of these creatures. It is already being used today on people and even on dogs. But yes this is all crazy talk so what the hel am I talking about, right >.
Catmandoo Posted August 10, 2019 Posted August 10, 2019 6 hours ago, WSA said: Not sure I follow you Catmandoo...presumably by “they” you mean apes? How does grooming score salt for them? Most ungulates seek out natural mineral deposits, or “licks” and I assume apes do the same. Of course, for a carnivore the primary source of sodium chloride would be the flesh of their prey. Allogrooming has several benefits. Apes sweat and the dried sweat crystalizes. The dried salty sweat is a way of getting a little source of electrolytes. The grooming routine also removes dead skin, dirt, vegetation and parasites in the way of ticks, fleas and lice. Grooming is important for social bonding. Young gorillas need to groom the silverbacks. Porcupines have a natural sodium-potassium imbalance. That is why they like to chew on objects that have been touched by sweaty humans ( not sure about sweaty yeti contact though ). Aren't there some posts in BFF v1 about minerals and clay eating that was apparent from hair analysis???? I read the paper on the cockleburr technique. Very novel. I have wondered if the cockleburr device was on the back and if so, why wasn't it detached if the animal slept on its back? Are they side sleepers?? I can't remember what type of string was used for suspension of the device above the ground. Common ordinary string and sewing thread have dyes that reflect ultraviolet light. They will light up like camo that was washed with a detergent containing 'brighteners'. A deer may be able to see the string. Look up deer vision at Atsko. 1
norseman Posted August 10, 2019 Admin Posted August 10, 2019 29 minutes ago, gigantor said: Or drones, like the one you have. 30 minute flight time. 15 min infil and 15 min exfil. You would need to get me within 1.5 miles of the target by my estimation. And if there is a heavy forest canopy? May not be able to ID the target or stay in communication with the drone. I will grant you this, it’s much more interesting than dental resin and camera traps. 16 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said: There has been people who have hiked down a bigfoot for miles in snow but have never caught up to them or it. This is a great idea that has been being pushed way back then in 2000 but the tech was not there yet. technology has come around where we can do more to where we might even be able to shoot an RFID. Imagine an RFID the size of a grain of rice being shot under the skin of one of these creatures. It is already being used today on people and even on dogs. But yes this is all crazy talk so what the hel am I talking about, right >. Hiked down = caught up..... in my vocabulary.
gigantor Posted August 10, 2019 Admin Posted August 10, 2019 28 minutes ago, norseman said: 30 minute flight time. 15 min infil and 15 min exfil. Multiple, distributed drones.
bipedalist Posted August 10, 2019 BFF Patron Posted August 10, 2019 (edited) 12 hours ago, norseman said: Animals are industrious. Technique employed by Walnut Bottoms Great Smoky's bears. Campsite had to be closed often due to their proficiency and aggression toward campers. One dude pulled out of his tent by his boot. Don't ask me what he was doing in his tent with his boots on, lol. Edited August 10, 2019 by bipedalist
WSA Posted August 10, 2019 Author Posted August 10, 2019 Catmandoo... thanks for that. I didn’t know that was a thing with apes. I would just say to those who hypothesize how this could have been a tag on some other animal.....take the time to read this, in full. Many of the alternative explanations are discussed, in detail. No matter what your pet theory is about what the nature of BF might be, or how it will ultimately be confirmed or refuted, science needs to lead. This is field research in the best tradition...bold, clever, well documented and freely shared, and with a potential to move the needle just a little, or even a lot. If it can be done once, it is plausible it can be done again. Each time it is, if it is, it puts the confirmation bias explanation further off the table. We shall see, I guess. I for one give these folks huge props for dreaming this technique up, seeing it through and (especially) publishing it with this degree of thoroughness.. 2
ShadowBorn Posted August 10, 2019 Moderator Posted August 10, 2019 I really enjoyed reading their NAWAC PDF on the tagging of radio 7. It was very interesting to read on the techniques they used to accomplish what they did. Triangulation could have been used to pinpoint an exact position of the transmitter if it was possible. Marking the locations with gps and going back to those area or even getting back to it's last transmission could have given a wealth of information of what species was encountered. It would have been nice if they would have reported more on their report on what else they had found. I notice that they threw the word anthropoid out a lot instead of wood ape. That is a good thing since I am not convinced that they are wood apes but Anthropoid does describe them to a tee. The range of that transmitter 7 seems to be on point . The idea of using the long sewing string tied to the transmitter to give a directional determination was great. But to have it tied between trees in the open I am not sure about. I might have made it as natural or as much as part of the forest as possible . The one thing that we all did learn is if this was a creature they do not groom each other. Nor do they bathe which explains the stinky smell they have. That transmitter stayed on it for ten months which is almost a year until the battery was finished. That is amazing. This whole equipment must be expensive to own I bet. The web site ask you for a quote so that must mean lots of money. Well anyhow really enjoyed the read.
Arvedis Posted August 12, 2019 Posted August 12, 2019 (edited) Just read the report once a few weeks ago but weren't they able to track the speed of the creature over the terrain? According to topo maps, it was pretty rough terrain, not impossible for an animal. But for a bear or smaller animal to acquire the tracker it would have had to walk upright at least 5 or 6 feet to walk into the leaf holding the device to begin with. It's not foolproof but it is good field research and something to build off. Edited August 12, 2019 by Arvedis
Celtic Raider Posted August 22, 2019 Posted August 22, 2019 One way to maybe determine what animal the tracker was on could be to follow the locations the tracker pings back, whilst you may be a ways behind the creature sooner or later it is going to leave tracks, scat or hair. If you can track it near a lake or water source then wouldn't we be able to determine it's footprints if it leaves them in the mud or wetter ground? I'm thinking even if you weren't able to immediately follow up if you know it was at point x at a given time then it would be relatively easy to comb a smaller area for tracks, if you found only deer and bear tracks then you have your answer. Norseman hit the nail on the head, the data is really only of use if you know what you are tracking. But it could be a good way of locating evidence of the animal - whatever that is.
WSA Posted August 23, 2019 Author Posted August 23, 2019 I could be wrong, but my impression of the NAWAC's mindset at this point is they have moved past documentation of existence, unless it is by way of a collected, dead, specimen. As they stated in the monograph, the ability to put a radio tag on something they concluded was a BF is not anything that is likely to change anyone's mind , and it is unlikely they would put the hours into documenting sign of a creature they know already exists, to collect evidence that is routinely dismissed by others who won't be persuaded by more of the same. What is unstated in the paper is where they want this radio tracking ability to go from here. Me, I think the unstated hope is: "Into the cross-hairs of a high-powered rifle". This experiment does beg for duplication, and they've probably already doubled-down on the technique. It might be interesting to see what the radio track looks like when the animal comes into the vicinity of game cameras or other surveillance technology. If they do have a standard avoidance/deviation behavior that can be predicted with some accuracy? BAM!
NCBFr Posted August 24, 2019 Posted August 24, 2019 On 8/9/2019 at 7:26 PM, NatFoot said: That blows up their essay. Not at all. It has been a while since I read the doc but I do not recall the use of food to lure the BF to the trap. Show me a video of a bear climbing a rope for no good reason and then you may be on to something.. 1
Huntster Posted August 24, 2019 Posted August 24, 2019 On 8/23/2019 at 6:02 AM, WSA said: ......... Me, I think the unstated hope is: "Into the cross-hairs of a high-powered rifle"......... Maybe. But as time progresses, and as I think about it more and more, I'm thinking that biological data (range, density, movements, etc) acquired without killing them is much safer legally. If conducted under commonly accepted biological standards and recorded likewise, and especially if conducted in areas outside of the PNW, government might like it very much (free data.............thank you).
Recommended Posts