tracking

[rijmrijm]

For all the people that say gifting works, and food left for bf gets eaten by bf, why not embed a tracking chip in apples, peanut butter, etc that is left? 

Why has this not been done before (or has it), that way with a receiver the chip, or whatever is used for tracking, can be followed once inside the bf?

Maybe there is nothing available that small to embed in fruit, etc.

This is presuming the bf eats the fruit in 1 go, rather the taking bites, but then an adult bf probably eats some fruit whole in 1 go..

 

Any ideas on this?

 

[BlackRockBigfoot]

1 hour ago, rijmrijm said:

For all the people that say gifting works, and food left for bf gets eaten by bf, why not embed a tracking chip in apples, peanut butter, etc that is left? 

Why has this not been done before (or has it), that way with a receiver the chip, or whatever is used for tracking, can be followed once inside the bf?

Maybe there is nothing available that small to embed in fruit, etc.

This is presuming the bf eats the fruit in 1 go, rather the taking bites, but then an adult bf probably eats some fruit whole in 1 go..

 

Any ideas on this?

 

NAWAC has used external tracking devices before.  

 

I don't know if an internal tracker would be viable, even if the signal could get through the body. What goes in must come out...

[Incorrigible1]

And not chewed upon, destroying it.

[hiflier]

RFID chips are placed in a lot of things. Tires even have them which aids in pro rated warranty information. Part of going "dark" or becoming a "digital ghost" is to take a microwave device and use it to "kill" the chip in the tire, rendering it impossible to collect data from it. I also think that that technology is pretty short range. Chips are in everything these days. Think credit cards, dogs, and children, and the ubiquitous plastic strips inside of goods purchased from stores. Those are used for anti-theft as well as inventory control after they are scanned and "killed" at the register so buyers can walk out through the detectors at the door. It's not a bad thought actually but I'm pretty sure that a passive chip wouldn't give one the distance for tracking a BF. In reality, the "chip" should be the transmitter, not the receiver.

Edited January 21, 2021 by hiflier

[hiflier]

A transmitter inside a toy like a small doll, or some other interesting item, would take advantage of the gifting concept. The Sasquatch has been reported to handle objects and not just something that is edible. I think tracking is a good idea, though not new, so it may come down to teasing out the curiosity factor somehow to be successful. It would probably be beneficial to not use a frequency within a certain range, such as what gets emitted by our usual go-to devices like cams, recorders, and thermals. Just because animals get collared doesn't mean they can't detect the transmission frequencies of those devices. Makes me wonder if collaring keeps certain animals "safe" from predation. Or even steers prey away from predator animals wearing collars.

 

One question along that line might be why didn't the BF, or whatever it was that NAWAC's transmitter stuck to, not avoid getting close enough for it to attach to it. That answer may be helpful for the rest of us to know. Like maybe what frequency NAWAC was using?

Edited January 21, 2021 by hiflier

[wiiawiwb]

On 1/21/2021 at 9:02 AM, BlackRockBigfoot said:

NAWAC has used external tracking devices before.  

 

I don't know if an internal tracker would be viable, even if the signal could get through the body. What goes in must come out...

 

The RFID is an interesting one and Expedition Bigfoot tried using some version of this in their first season.  I'm guessing the system best suited for sasquatching is an active RFID system, rather than passive one.

 

Are these devices use legal and do they need to be licensed or otherwise controlled by Federal or state  regulation?  I'm not interested in getting myself in trouble.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2021 by wiiawiwb

[norseman]

On 1/21/2021 at 4:51 AM, rijmrijm said:

For all the people that say gifting works, and food left for bf gets eaten by bf, why not embed a tracking chip in apples, peanut butter, etc that is left? 

Why has this not been done before (or has it), that way with a receiver the chip, or whatever is used for tracking, can be followed once inside the bf?

Maybe there is nothing available that small to embed in fruit, etc.

This is presuming the bf eats the fruit in 1 go, rather the taking bites, but then an adult bf probably eats some fruit whole in 1 go..

 

Any ideas on this?

 

This is the technology they use in dog chipping. It’s slightly bigger than a grain of rice. And is inserted under the skin. Not sure about using it in a digestive track. It would probably be a fairly short window. Assuming that it’s not damaged upon being consumed and would transmit inside a larger host than a dog.

 

Nawac used a tracking chip that was designed to be rubbed against by a hairy target. The chip would entangle with the targets hair and hitch a ride. 

 

https://www.woodape.org/index.php/tag7/

 

 

 

 

[norseman]

Upon further reading I’m wrong about the dog implant. The picture I provided only provides owner information from a hand held scanner held close to the dog. Sorry guys.

 

I used yagi radio telemetry collars for my hound dogs. They now have gps tracking devices that go on collars about the same size designed to go on a collar. It seems that’s all the smaller the technology is right now.

[rijmrijm]

ive also read juvenile, and maybe adult, bf take interesting colorful toys, rubber balls, etc when gifted, it would be easier to embed these tracking chips, sim cards or similar into these items, and when carried away can be tracked. but only if tracking from a distance is possible, my knowledge is not so good on the ranges of tracking such a signal.

 

but i think that is the way forward, indeed a selection of toys, etc can be left as control items, if those without the tracking device (that doesnt give out the signal) is taken and not the embedded item, then we can be sure they can sense the signal emitted..

 

maybe the tech is out there, but not tried yet? or not discrete enough to be used in this way?

 

or maybe it has been tried and it works and the govt got to know and shut it all down, the perpetrator silenced ?

 

 

 

 

[MIB]

4 hours ago, rijmrijm said:

maybe the tech is out there, but not tried yet? or not discrete enough to be used in this way?

 

No, the tech simply isn't there now and may not be possible ever.    The problem (I'm a programmer, computer science grad, IT guy ... so this stuff is in my area of expertise) is that a chip is not enough.   A chip is a processor.  To DO anything you have to also have a power supply and I/O devices for the processor.   We don't have the capability to build power supplies of sufficient strength, sufficient life, that is small enough.  Moreover, the smaller the I/O device is, the more power it takes to send the same signal over distance.    In other words, we have conflicting limitations.     The RFIDs we are most familiar with are passive, they can only be used at short range in the immediate presence of a scanner.     A scanner capable of "reaching" a small device at great distance has to use a great deal of power ... cells / DNA subjected to that level of power break down (aka "cancer" ... same root mechanism as skin cancer from excessive UV radiation).     We're not merely not there, but we can't get there, not with mere improvements in the current technology, it would require something entirely new, something that lies well into the realm of science fiction today.  

 

MIB

[Patterson-Gimlin]

That was an outstanding explanation. Even more amazingly I understood it.

Thank you very much.

[BlackRockBigfoot]

3 hours ago, MIB said:

 

No, the tech simply isn't there now and may not be possible ever.    The problem (I'm a programmer, computer science grad, IT guy ... so this stuff is in my area of expertise) is that a chip is not enough.   A chip is a processor.  To DO anything you have to also have a power supply and I/O devices for the processor.   We don't have the capability to build power supplies of sufficient strength, sufficient life, that is small enough.  Moreover, the smaller the I/O device is, the more power it takes to send the same signal over distance.    In other words, we have conflicting limitations.     The RFIDs we are most familiar with are passive, they can only be used at short range in the immediate presence of a scanner.     A scanner capable of "reaching" a small device at great distance has to use a great deal of power ... cells / DNA subjected to that level of power break down (aka "cancer" ... same root mechanism as skin cancer from excessive UV radiation).     We're not merely not there, but we can't get there, not with mere improvements in the current technology, it would require something entirely new, something that lies well into the realm of science fiction today.  

 

MIB

Thanks for taking the time to type out that great explanation.

[wiiawiwb]

Thanks MIB.  It's time to ditch the RFID idea and try another approach. Sometimes, the most clever are also a spin on the  most basic. Hmmm...

[rijmrijm]

excellent answer, thanks...

[Believer57]

Perhaps a "scientific research" version of a Personal Locator Beacon could be used inside a gift. You know the kind that Dave Paulides touts. These normally work for about 24hrs continuous but could be modified for a lower duty cycle to extend the operational life. Something like this we have today and it would fit inside a bigger baby doll like my granddaughters have. The current ones work with GPS positioning and a powerful 406MHz. signal that goes to NOAA, which then gets forwarded to a local S&R team. Maybe some research organization has an idea for a variant of this product. There are three types of NOAA Emergency Beacons. Food for thought...