Techniques used to attract BF to camp

[Explorer]

Over the years people have tried all sorts of techniques to attract BF to their campsite or camera trap.

 

However, I have never seen or heard evidence that any of these techniques work.

 

Most encounters are just random and not initiated by the witness (or researcher).

 

Some techniques that field researchers have used include:

1)      Playing recorded sounds:  animals in distress, baby crying, children playing, whale sounds, Sierra sounds recordings, Tibetan chants, native American music, new age music, etc.

2)      Making BF-like sounds: howling, hooting, wood-knocking

3)      Placing lights around camp:  glow sticks, strobe lights, flashing colored lights, laser lights, etc.

4)      Gifting: food, toys, crystals, natural oils/herbs, etc.

5)      Pursuing activities that might interest BF:  children playing, playing musical instruments, singing, cooking foods with strong smells, hiking at night, etc.

6)      Placing odorants: hunting scent attractants, used tampons, pigs blood, etc.

 

I don’t think any of these techniques work, but the mythology of some of them working continues.

 

If any of these techniques was effective and reproducible, we would be having more frequent reports from same researchers and camera traps providing photographing evidence. Nonetheless, the field researchers that I know that have more than one encounter do not have any BF attracting technique.  While their sighting occurred in a hot-spot, it was random and unexpected (not induced by any trick) and they were engaged in normal activities (hiking, camping, fishing, moving around camp).

 

Unfortunately, there is no formal database kept of research techniques tried and results.  Even BFRO does not keep statistics on what worked well in their expeditions and what was the key to success (in those where a sighting took place).

 

In addition, there are some protocols/rules that are recommended to increase likelihood of BF encounter in a hotspot:

1)      No usage of white lights (red lights only) at night

2)      No guns

3)      No dogs

4)      No night vision or IR emitting instruments

 

It is also not clear if any of these rules increase the likelihood of an encounter or a BF moving closer to camp.  

Most BFRO trips, follow these 4 rules. BFRO leaders probably developed these rules over time based on their experience.

 

The use of a campfire is not clear.  There are cases where a BF approached the campfire (hiding behind trees) to check on the campers. On the other hand, some researchers say that the fire light bothers them and that they will get closer to camp without a fire (similar logic as the red light vs. white light).

 

I was in a BFRO expedition in WA, where two guys used technique #5 above (playing harmonica and singing), and they got to see part of a BF (hand and glowing red eye) from a creature that approached them on the ground behind a log).  But the technique has been tried again by others and was not reproducible.  For an encounter, you certainly need BF presence but also the creature needs be curious and maybe inexperienced (testing their skills).  Otherwise, why approach humans in a campground? 

[hiflier]

Good opening post, Explorer.

 

1 hour ago, Explorer said:

but also the creature needs be curious and maybe inexperienced (testing their skills).

 

I think that sums it up nicely. I mean, how many harmonicas over the years does it take for a BF to know what's making that "odd" unnatural sound.

 

[wiiawiwb]

9 hours ago, Explorer said:

Over the years people have tried all sorts of techniques to attract BF to their campsite or camera trap.

 

However, I have never seen or heard evidence that any of these techniques work.

 

Most encounters are just random and not initiated by the witness (or researcher).

 

I don’t think any of these techniques work, but the mythology of some of them working continues.

 

If any of these techniques was effective and reproducible, we would be having more frequent reports from same researchers and camera traps providing photographing evidence. Nonetheless, the field researchers that I know that have more than one encounter do not have any BF attracting technique.  While their sighting occurred in a hot-spot, it was random and unexpected (not induced by any trick) and they were engaged in normal activities (hiking, camping, fishing, moving around camp).

 

 

What is your conclusion?  It sounds as though you are making the case that pure, unadulterated luck is the only contributing factor involved in a sasquatch sighting.

 

Let's say for discussion purposes that you enter the forest in one area while the sasquatch is in another area.  How is it going to know you are there?  If we subscribe to the notion there is nothing we can do to improve our success,  we have to hope that it wanders into the area we are in.  If, however, there is something we can do to announce our presence, at least it knows we are there. Perhaps it chooses not to approach but that is its choice. 

 

The only rock-throwing incident I've been involved with was when a friend brought along his backpacker's guitar (a small one) and was playing it. The rock was thrown while he played. Is that why it was thrown? Obviously, I have no way to confirm that although it was the only time he's brought it so my friend has a batting average of a thousand.

 

I'm not necessarily trying to trick a sasquatch but I want it to know I'm there and then use whatever technique I can to arouse its natural curiosity and elicit a response. Hopefully, that brings it closer so I can catch a glimpse or hear its approach, and record one or the other.

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by wiiawiwb

[BobbyO]

 

10 hours ago, Explorer said:

If any of these techniques was effective and reproducible, we would be having more frequent reports from same researchers and camera traps providing photographing evidence. Nonetheless, the field researchers that I know that have more than one encounter do not have any BF attracting technique. 

 

Good post Explorer, but i think you've left out the most important attractant, the researcher/human themselves. I think that's the key and that is the main attractant.

 

Road crossings aside though (and even then i don't necessarily think all road crossings are random because i believe they have the ability to just not cross at that certain time, but do for some reason), i'm not sure of encounters are random and unexpected like you say. I think camping, hiking, encounters at home, hunting, all of those witness activity's are very much not random, but very much orchestrated by the animal more often than not.

 

These things are the absolute boss in their own domain, make no mistake. I think they literally say when, who and how.

 

The 'key statistic' to all that you mention, is actually kept though Explorer, and it's in the mirror, it's you, i'm 100% convinced of that. All the rest is just noise.

 

What i'm more interested in now is what happens when there isn't a person present. We have a decent idea of what happens when a person is present now ( we know that they're highly likely not to show themselves in a camping situation for example), but when an area of known activity is abandoned by humans in the main, what happens then ? Long term recording techniques with today's and tomorrows technology applied within them over a 5 year (or more) length of time will hopefully give us an insight. And that's happening.

[BobbyO]

1 hour ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

What is your conclusion?  It sounds as though you are making the case that pure, unadulterated luck is the only contributing factor involved in a sasquatch sighting.

 

 

You make luck by being informed.

 

That doesn't mean 'you'll get lucky' each and every time, but it gives you a better chance, no doubt.

 

I'd bet my bottom dollar that researcher x has more chance of his/her 'luck' coming in if he positions himself in a certain place at a certain time of the year after talking to me about the numbers, than researcher y who does zero research and positions himself in a patch of Delaware forest for example.

[BobbyO]

1 hour ago, wiiawiwb said:

Let's say for discussion purposes that you enter the forest in one area while the sasquatch is in another area.  How is it going to know you are there?  If we subscribe to the notion there is nothing we can do to improve our success,  we have to hope that it wanders into the area we are in.  If, however, there is something we can do to announce our presence, at least it knows we are there. Perhaps it chooses not to approach but that is its choice. 

 

Surely their hearing and smell is far superior to what ours is ?

 

Also, and i doubt we will ever know this, but i highly doubt that there is 'the Sasquatch' that often, i think that it's plural more often than not. And i also think that humans are very predictable to observe and that entrance to a forest that you mention would be a general entrance used by the vast majority of humans that enter the forest.

[Explorer]

3 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

What is your conclusion?  It sounds as though you are making the case that pure, unadulterated luck is the only contributing factor involved in a sasquatch sighting.

 

My conclusion is similar to BobbyO's quote below, that the most important decision is selecting the hotspot and after that they control the when, who, and how.

 

Once you select a target area, then it is up to the law of large numbers, attending the area frequently enough to either be there when the BFs are passing through or making them familiar enough with your routine that they are willing to approach you.

 

 

3 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

Let's say for discussion purposes that you enter the forest in one area while the sasquatch is in another area.  How is it going to know you are there?  If we subscribe to the notion there is nothing we can do to improve our success,  we have to hope that it wanders into the area we are in.  If, however, there is something we can do to announce our presence, at least it knows we are there. Perhaps it chooses not to approach but that is its choice. 

 

The answer to the question of how do they know you are present in their area is not clear.

While many attribute all sorts of enhanced abilities to BF (ability to hear, smell, see, and even sense your presence from afar), I don't really know how far they can be before they detect me.

The technique that I use when I go to a hotspot is to spend my daytime hiking in several directions and exploring the area. 

The expectation (wishful thinking) is that if BFs are present, that they will detect your movements and maybe follow you to camp.

 

Another technique that I have used at night (specially when I am alone and the camp is quiet), is to hang a multi-color strobe light on a tree close to camp.

That just tells anybody where I am camping, but given BFs ability to see well at night they don't need that to find me. 

Just like the list above, one expectation from the strobe light is to create curiosity and maybe their approach to camp (but no success on that technique so far).

I had these creatures walk by my camp at least on 3 occasions (based on my audio recordings), and I had no lights (no moon, no strobe lights, no camp lights, no campfires, and totally dark).

It appears that they want total advantage of night vision.

 

Besides that multi color strobe light item, I don't use any of the 6 techniques listed above.

 

 

2 hours ago, BobbyO said:

Good post Explorer, but i think you've left out the most important attractant, the researcher/human themselves. I think that's the key and that is the main attractant.

 

Maybe they choose the target based on perceived intent.  You can do all the right things, but your heart and mind are in the wrong place and they can detect that.  Who knows?

 

2 hours ago, BobbyO said:

Road crossings aside though (and even then i don't necessarily think all road crossings are random because i believe they have the ability to just not cross at that certain time, but do for some reason), i'm not sure of encounters are random and unexpected like you say. I think camping, hiking, encounters at home, hunting, all of those witness activity's are very much not random, but very much orchestrated by the animal more often than not.

 

These sightings do seem random to me.  My own daylight sighting was totally unexpected and random.  I was not even looking for or interested in this phenomena.  Just backpacking in a wilderness area.

 

 

2 hours ago, BobbyO said:

 

These things are the absolute boss in their own domain, make no mistake. I think they literally say when, who and how.

 

100% Agree.

 

They decide if an encounter will occur and how much evidence they want to provide (how close they want to get to camp and how much noise to make).

 

 

2 hours ago, BobbyO said:

The 'key statistic' to all that you mention, is actually kept though Explorer, and it's in the mirror, it's you, i'm 100% convinced of that. All the rest is just noise.

 

What i'm more interested in now is what happens when there isn't a person present. We have a decent idea of what happens when a person is present now ( we know that they're highly likely not to show themselves in a camping situation for example), but when an area of known activity is abandoned by humans in the main, what happens then ? Long term recording techniques with today's and tomorrows technology applied within them over a 5 year (or more) length of time will hopefully give us an insight. And that's happening.

 

I am also interested where they go when humans are not present (specially winter). 

Even the hotspots that I visit do not show presence all the time.  It seems that they are passing by on the way to some other place and luck comes in picking the correct day/week/month of they year. 

Thus, the importance of the law of large numbers, you need to be in location for a long time to really understand their movements. Something that I can't really do because of work and time constraints.

 

[BobbyO]

5 minutes ago, Explorer said:

 

These sightings do seem random to me.  My own daylight sighting was totally unexpected and random.  I was not even looking for or interested in this phenomena.  Just backpacking in a wilderness area.

 

 

Apologies, i should have been clearer. I didn't mean from the witness perspective, i meant from the animals possible perspective.

[BobbyO]

7 minutes ago, Explorer said:

Maybe they choose the target based on perceived intent.  You can do all the right things, but your heart and mind are in the wrong place and they can detect that.  Who knows?

 

It's possible, i'm not one for overly going down those kind of roads mainly because i understand nothing about it, but i guess it's possible.

13 minutes ago, Explorer said:

 

I am also interested where they go when humans are not present (specially winter). 

Even the hotspots that I visit do not show presence all the time.  It seems that they are passing by on the way to some other place and luck comes in picking the correct day/week/month of they year. 

Thus, the importance of the law of large numbers, you need to be in location for a long time to really understand their movements. Something that I can't really do because of work and time constraints.

 

 

Exactly, and if you can't be in the location physically at least, the long term recording methods now kind of allow you to be.

[Wooly Booger]

The heart and mind and human intentions have nothing to do with Bigfoot encounters. It is all about being in the right place at the right time and having the necessary knowledge to increase the likelihood of a sighting. Or at least locating evidence. 

 

Of course there is no fool proof method of encountering a Bigfoot, just as there is ultimately no fool proof method of encountering any animal in the wild. No matter how skillful of a hunter and tracker one is. 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Wooly Booger

[Wooly Booger]

The best method, IMO, for attracting a Bigfoot to camp is to play an audio record of a deer in distress. Reports suggest that deer are Bigfoot's primary prey source, and any predator would eagerly help itself to an easy meal. It would also help to spray deer scent around the camp and perhaps make use of a deer decoy (a method commonly used in deer hunting). Setting up camp in an area with reported Bigfoot activity while using these methods will likely increase the chances of an encounter exponentially. 

 

This is a method I personally intend to deploy in the field. 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Wooly Booger

[hiflier]

Wooly Booger, that may attract bears as well? I also think time of year is a factor. And even though mating/birthing cycles may be assumption there is reason to consider them. In the Fall months between August and November- primarily September and October- when mating season is suggested, a more aggressive approach might be shaking a small tree or simulating some chest pounding? Personally I think such practices COULD attract a more than usual aggressive male which may not turn out well. But if well armed and prepared for such an outcome, then a "desperate" researcher might increase chances for an encounter. IMHO opinion, though, it could create a very dangerous situation with grave personal risk. A Human deploying dominate behavior in an active area sets the stage for being ambushed, maybe by more than one creature which has dealt for centuries with that sort of thing. 

Edited June 8, 2021 by hiflier

[ShadowBorn]

Explorer a very good post. 

Now this my opinion but it has happen to me over and over  with results. It seems like these creature do not move on people until they have watched them over time. Just like some of these hikers and hunters that have had their encounters. I truly believe that their encounters did not happen over night but over time. These same people may have been hiking these same trails over time. The same goes with hunters who have hunted the same woods over time. They all have been watched over time before these creatures decided to make them selves known.

 

My first encounter encounter happen by me going into a hot zone. But by also camping in this zone over time. But that was not the key to my first encounter. The key was by enticing them with salmon that was recommended by anther researcher. The only thing that I did was add a glow stick to the salmon. As we all sat around a camp fire. Dogs ,guns and all those other rules had nothing to do with stopping these creatures from visiting our camp site. It was time since this camp site was also being used by hunters during deer season. 

 

These hunters would say that they would have their apples taken. That they would find their coffee filters defecated on through out the camp site. That they also would have beer missing from their coolers. They would also find their large prints through out the camp site. But that they never felt threaten at all. Oh, by the way they were State police that would camp in this area. But that this would happen over time.

 

So time is a factor in having a encounter with these creatures. It is them getting a chance to understand you. They are the lookers who over see when they will meet. All we can do is sit back in a hot spot and wait. Keep going back and doing things over and over until they are ready. They control the situation not us.

[Wooly Booger]

28 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Wooly Booger, that may attract bears as well? I also think time of year is a factor. And even though mating/birthing cycles may be assumption there is reason to consider them. In the Fall months between August and November- primarily September and October- when mating season is suggested, a more aggressive approach might be shaking a small tree or simulating some chest pounding? Personally I think such practices COULD attract a more than usual aggressive male which may not turn out well. But if well armed and prepared for such an outcome, then a "desperate" researcher might increase chances for an encounter. IMHO opinion, though, it could create a very dangerous situation with grave personal risk. A Human deploying dominate behavior in an active area sets the stage for being ambushed, maybe by more than one creature which has dealt for centuries with that sort of thing. 

Excellent points you bring up. Such aggressive methods might prove useful, and I fully intend to enter the woods appropriately armed. However, my intention is not to take a type specimen and my firearms are strictly for defensive purposes. I will not open fire on a Bigfoot, even if I have a clear opportunity to do so, unless I feel that I am in danger. My goal is to collect either bones or a DNA sample. Taking a type specimen is an option on the table, but it is an absolute last resort after all non-lethal methods have been thoroughly exhausted. 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Wooly Booger

[hiflier]

Completely agree on all points WB, especially your defense/last resort statement. And I think most will agree with that posture. Plussed on looking for bones, too. And a soil sampling DNA kit is a small, light set of items that is easy to carry, deploy and store. Water samples are more expensive as they need materials that cost more and are more cumbersome which is why professional outfits from academia should handle that process. Of course, only delicate correspondences would ever have a chance of getting academia on board. So, cost-wise anyway, snow or soil sampling is a BF researcher's best method.

Edited June 8, 2021 by hiflier