Sasquatch Coffee

How Would You Hunt Bigfoot?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on February 22nd, 2007

Okay, I’ll take up the call for this one. People seem to wish to talk about how they would go about hunting for Bigfoot or Sasquatch. A free exchange of ideas and suggestions may assist people who want to pick up new approaches or enhance their own knowledge of searching for a real Bigfoot. I’ll undertake this exercise for the benefit of people who wish to find one place to revisit to watch an exchange grown, evolve, and take different tracks. So here goes…

Baby Bigfoot

Limiting this to real, biological examples of an unknown primate in North America, how would you go about the task to track, stalk, wait, capture, catch, kill, hold, study, release, or keep into captivity a real Bigfoot? (Yeah, against my better judgement, the kill vs no-kill camps can have at it.)

Roger Patterson

I once got a letter (remember those, the pieces of paper with markings on them that people use to send via the post office to each other) from Carlos Allende. Know him? He’s the guy who penned marginal notes to the US Navy about the Philadelphia Experiment.

Carlos wrote me years and years ago, detailing in jumbled text the best method to hunt for Bigfoot. I was suppose to go into a forest known to have Bigfoot sightings, sit on a tree trunk, entice the Bigfoot closer to me, and then let the Bigfoot sit on me so we could become friends and he’d want to come home with me.

FATE Magazine Bigfoot

Other than the feeling I was in the middle of a R. Crumb comic book scenario, I never considered trying Carlos’ methods, of course. I’ve done the sitting-on-a-tree-trunk part of it, as well as other things, as Louis Leakey suggested we all study modern great apes. In general, I’ve usually stuck to the usual wildlife and ecological techniques, but don’t let my bias (except for the flesh and blood ones) influence your comments too much. I’m interested in how you would hunt for Bigfoot.

Bob Gimlin

[However, I will delete, like a hot potato, any comments on supernatural, time-traveling, 4D, phantom Bigfoot. Not because it isn’t a possibility, but because it is not in my frame of reference of helpful suggestions for studying this subject zoologically and anthropologically here – and I am really bored with trying to explain one unknown with unknown.]

Loren Books

While you are thinking and commenting about this, please, if you want background general background on Bigfoot and support my time on this forum, pick up one of the following books on the topic. Thank you!

Cryptozoology A to Z (NY: Simon and Schuster, 1999)

Tom Slick: True Life Encounters in Cryptozoology (Fresno, CA: Craven Street-Linden Press, 2002)

Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in America (NY: Paraview Pocket – Simon and Schuster, 2003)

The Field Guide to Bigfoot and Other Mystery Primates (NY: Anomalist Books, 2006)

About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013.


72 Responses to “How Would You Hunt Bigfoot?”

  1. Fred Facker responds:

    I’d set up a line of motion-activated cameras on tripods in a line about a mile long wherein the edges of each field of view overlapped with the next camera in line. Then I’d take a crew of photographers with me about 5 miles away from the aforementioned line of cameras. We’d then spread out a few meters apart, as if we were searching for a lost hiker and start walking towards the line of motion activated cameras. I’m guessing we’d either see whatever wildlife is in that area or we’d flush it out through our line of stationary cameras as we hiked towards them.

    That’s my first plan this morning anyway. Maybe I’ll devise a new one after more coffee.

  2. The_Carrot responds:

    I’ve always been of the belief that IF Bigfoot exists then theh most effective way to hunt/observe would be the Jane Goodall/Diane Fossey approach: one observer to whom the Sasquatch would acclimate over time.

    I’m not sure this is practical. Given the reported aggression displays (rock throwing, screaming, etc) trying to tag along with a Sasquatch until it got used to having you around seems, well, dangerous. On the other hand, there are enough Jan Klement type stories (and yes, I buy into 90% of his story) to tell me that it’s not entirely impossible.

  3. Gihdora responds:

    I’d say search for them with night vision when they’d be sleeping – assuming they’re diurnal. I’m of the opinion that the skunk-ape at least is nocturnal…but who knows – they’re a big aniaml, and they’re gotta sleep sometime.

  4. things-in-the-woods responds:

    Okay, i just go and suggest on another posting (‘what-is-it solved’) that maybe loren should start a blog on how we should treat sasquatch if we find him, and then it turns out he pretty much has already (started a blog, not found sas..!). Now if that ain’t fortean i don’t know what is… ;)

    For my two pennies worth, i’d say we just have to study bigfoot the way any primatologist studies apes in the wild. I certainly am in the no-kill lobby (although, i am also in the no-kill lobby as far as all sentient animals are concerned), and would even be reluctant with regards to attempts to capture. Although i can see advantages of having a specimen in captivity (i.e., incontrovertible proof of its existence), from the perspectve of studying the animal, we would be much better observing it in the wild. We could still gain DNA samples and such like, but could see its naturalistic behaviours and social interaction, which would be a whole lot better than looking at some half-scared to death, depressed, and socially emasculated specimen in some cage somewhere being prodded by men in white coats.

    So, how should we go about finding sasquatch? Well, pretty much just as we are now- only a whole lot more of it. Follow up sightings, and footprints, and so on. Essentially, there is no substitute for getting people out in the field, preferably on long term projects, where they can get to know the environment, and, most crucially, where, if there are any bigfoot, they can become habituated to the researchers. We could do a lot worse than reading the accounts of Goodall, Galdikas, Fossey et al, and taking note of what they did.

    As such i don’t really think its useful talking about ‘hunting’ sasquatch. We’ve got to put ourselves in a situation where bigfoot is gonna come to us. Groups of probably inexperienced researchers blundering into an area for at best a couple of days (i’ll name no names BFRO) at a time is not going to yield much if we are talking about an intelligent and shy animal (which, by all accounts we are). Bigfoot wil give them a wide berth. (I note that elsewhere others have advocated the use of hunting dogs etc to track down sas- I personally can’t think of a worse idea. Not only would that inevitably scare off the animal, but it would also make it much more likely to avoid contact with humans in the future- we should also think about this in ecological terms. If, as is probable, bigfoot exists in rather small numbers, probably in increasingly fragmented and degraded habitats, then potentially pushing it out of its refuges by trying to trap it or hunt it could be disastrous. When a population is as precariously balanced as bigfoot probably is, it only takes minuscule impacts on environment or demography to tip them over the edge to extinction- indeed, this is pretty much the latest thinking with regards to the disappearance of the last surviving neanderthal populations on the iberian peninsula and elsewhere in europe).

    Of course, in advocating long-term field projects we run up against the problem of funding. In that light i can see the advantage of motion-capture cameras as fredfacker advocates. These could certainly be a useful first step in providing us with the knowledge that bigfoot probably is in the area, but the evidence they provide is not gonna be enough on its own.

    If bigfoot is a real animal, it seems to be we are best off, if we can’t involve the experts in studying animals, at least copying their way of doing things.

  5. things-in-the-woods responds:

    Of course that all assumes bigfoot is real. Otherwise i’ve just condemned some poor fool to sitting around in the forest for a year… (although, come to think of it, i can think of worse things to be doing).

  6. raisinsofwrath responds:

    Well, once I came to a relatively secure idea as to where BF would be at a certain time of year via allot of speculative theory I would then need to talk at least 2 others into hiking into the deep forest.

    Tree stands:

    Once we located BF sign from prior activity (broken treetops, heavy rocks flipped over, etc..) we would then set up 3 individual tree stands roughly 20-25 feet off the forest floor in a delta formation roughly 100 yds apart. It may take awhile but utilizing natural building materials mixed with what we carried in we would have to build these stands so that we could comfortably live in them for an extended period.

    Netting:

    We would have a net strung out at each location poised to drop via manual activation.

    Sedation:

    We would each be equipped with a tranquilizer gun. This would be the primary means to subdue the BF although I am concerned about using the right drug. That would also take some research.

    Misc:

    Obviously we would need misc equipment such as motion sensors, light sidearms, radios to communicate and assorted camping/ survival gear.

    IMO, the best way to go about it is to travel in and build the tree stands, set netting, drop gear and leave until just before the suspected migration period. We would then hike back in and fix anything that may have been damaged and take our respective places.

    We could probably take 8 hour shifts watching our triangulated area and obviously listen for vocalizations. Once heard we could try different baiting ideas to draw BF into a target area. It would definitely have to be a single BF, preferably male. I wouldn’t want to dart and net a subject only to have other pissed off BF’s around or a young one left without a mother.

    Should everything work (I wouldn’t hold my breath) and we actually got one netted and darted we could then call in a helicopter to transport it to a predetermined compound for study. The only issue I would have is keeping it too long. If it was part of a family group they most likely would continue on the migration and he would be left behind.

    Of course there is substantially more too it all then what I’ve described. It would take several months of planning and set up. Conditions would have to be right and allot of guesswork would have to come to fruition. Odds are the BF’s would figure out we were there and stay clear.

  7. sschaper responds:

    First we need to plot the legitimate-seeming sitings on a Google Earth layer with time of year, time of day, and microenvironment information. Try to look for clusters and behavior patterns, such as when they are on the move, migration patterns, and so on.

    Then I just had the notion that our motion-activated cameras could be looking along the lengths of the roads that they have been known to cross from time to time, or in the right areas. Here is a place where there have been many reports, you have a long field of view, and they are used to human scent. An entire area could be cordoned this way, if the money were available.

    I would also suggest the new video cameras that use memory cards to store, instead of tape, eliminating motor noise.

    IR would be good.

    Balloons might be good, if the IR would penetrate the canopy. However the dirigibles used by Autumn Williams in the TV show made a lot of noise which would spook most animals and make dogs bark. Not a good plan. In her defense, her sponsors probably required it.

    In addition to film, we need DNA. A dart with a small hollow tube and a tracking device for finding it once the quarry plucks it out could be a good way to get DNA. However, that will also affect the creature’s disposition towards humans, which might get in the way of a long term Jane Goodall approach which is what you’d want to do once they are confirmed, cataloged, and located.

    Perhaps something that they would brush against or step on that would pull hair or prick skin.

  8. Doug Higley responds:

    Bigfoot doesn’t know where I am…I should go looking for him?

    But there are many assumptions I would need to make IF I were to take it seriously.

    1st let’s assume he’s a non agressive species. I’ve been close up and personal with Tigers so there is no way I’ll go trudging off after an agressive creature with teeth AND Hands.

    Definately in the No Kill camp. Who the hell do we think we are? But then I don’t order a ‘hit’ on a Live Lobster either and that’s just a bug.

    I also assume he’s intelligent. At least to the point that he’s fooling us all these years.

    I’ll assume he is not a ‘lost’ critter waiting to be discovered. He is actively hiding from us, whom he discovered long ago.

    I must also assume that his tracks can be a ‘red herring’ either faked or left to mislead and not all that useful if more than an hour old.

    My goal would be to get a solid CLEAR and defining set of photographs and write a book (with Loren Coleman Introduction of course). So I’ll leave the video to others unless I have a 3 chip camera with me. (doubtful)

    I don’t think any sort of ‘Hunt’ would pay off and that it will be a passive encounter that will one day prove it’s existence. (We will never prove it doesn’t exist.)

    So the plan would be for oft taken trips to the forested areas he is known to frequent and just enjoy the day. Taking pictures of birds and waiting for the lottery to hit. Not a good chance for success but oh what glorius days in the Redwoods!.

  9. Scott C. responds:

    416 Howell loaded w/350 gr. TSX’s @ 2600 fps!

    Haha, no, actually I’m just kidding. I agree with things-in-the-woods’ basic philosophy concerning this (though I wouldn’t mind packing the Howell…just in case).

    I’d be ticked to know that someone killed an animal so rare and endangered. We certainly aren’t increasing our chances of observing them by killing them off!

    One thing I’ve wondered for a long time is if, when bigfooting (by whatever method), we should carry some kind of tracking device that can be shot somehow (maybe a cross-bow or something…I’m not sure how it’s done). Even if it’s only very temporary, it would allow researchers to find the animal again, tranq it, and put a more permanent tracking device on, which would ensure future observation opportunities.

    I guess it’d take balls to poke a bigfoot with something though…

  10. jdoughty responds:

    I seem to read a number of reports about BF taking advantage of unsupervised food stores (“We had a cooler at the edge of the woods where we kept game we’d shot…” etc.). So I’d try to create a situation like that. Does establishing a semi-permanent presence, i.e. buying a remote farmhouse, count as “hunting”?

    The right setup would be only half the game. The rest would be excruciating patience — such as not even setting foot in that part of your property for a while. And discretion — meaning no guests, no guns or cameras in sight, ever. Any observation and/or killing (depending upon your “school”) would have to be done at long distance, from the house.

    Ideally you’d have an attached garage (for getting your gear in and out unobserved) and a second story for emplacing cameras, etc. in dark rooms, well back from the window, where contrast — let’s go ahead and paint the house white — would obscure you no matter what EM range the BFs can see in.

    Let’s stipulate window bars and steel doors, too, in case you piss them off.

  11. enjoyment responds:

    I am surprised no one has yet to voice the opinion of the pro-kill camp so I guess i will try.

    To do a close, intimate, study of a sasquatch like Jane Goodall did is a pipe dream. Most encounters are unexpected, brief, and scary. In most cases with repeat sightings the suspected sasquatch seems to move out of the area. Even with repeat sightings we are left with frustrating evidence that should be homeruns (unless you consider knowing that Bigfoot’s dietary requirements involve pancakes important). To believe that you could become habituated with a sasquatch or with a troupe of sasquatch is pretentious. How could a sasquatch become accustomed to you without constant direct contact?

    To photograph a specimen will not advance the belief of a bipedal ape among most scientist. With encounters being brief and unexpected it would be difficult to take a non-blurry photograph, yet alone a good photograph.

    Film is the same way, espcially with a 3 chip design and HD. The difference in lights and shadows will throw off most autoexposure and autofocus cameras. And if you have them off by the time you have it adjusted right it would be too late.

    So then what do u get? A blurry 5-10 second piece of film of a shadow darting among the trees. How much better would it of been if the witness had a rifle. For which is better a 5-10 second piece of blurry footage (hell even a good peice of footage) or a dead specimen that all science can experience.

    As for people worrying about that one dead sasquatch which spells doom for the rest of the species. That would require that one sasquatch to have contact with the sasquatches in British Columbia, Florida, Oregon, Washington, Texas, California, Oklahoma, etc. One would not spell doom for the entire species. With that one specimen we could protect the entire species from the dangers of overforesting and the like.

    phew, what alot to write for my first really serious post.

  12. silvereagle responds:

    Since there are apparently no Rules of Engagement, that would mean that the Bigfoot would not have to leave the bodies of the pro-kill crowd, for authorities to discover. If Bigfoot could speak, he would likely say without hesitation, “Game On!”

  13. imofftoseethewizard responds:

    First off, in the summer of ’03 in the Bachelor Meadows area of the Cascade Mountains just NW of Glacier Peak, I found a set of 5 footprints in soft mud. Roughly 7″ by 4″ with a light heel, deeply impressed midsole, and four fleshy toes. They were neither canine nor feline nor ursine nor human. I’d been a confirmed skeptic until that point, but my inability to categorize the prints I had found as belonging to a known species, coupled with the unlikelihood of hoaxing small footprints on such a remote and ill-used trail, forced me to reconsider.

    Since then I’ve spent great deal of time and money working on the solution to this very question.

    The first thing to consider is where is one most likely to be found. This is not necessarily the same as where the most reported sightings are. We can assume that sasquatch’s habits are primarily determined by the need for food and shelter, as is the case with most animals.

    In our forests, the greatest amount of available food is not in the lush-seeming old-growth, but in clearcuts that are between two and five years old. The often adjacent thicker stands of 10-20 year old plantation trees make nearly impenetrable cover. The fact that a great deal of managed forest is privately owned where camping is prohibited and where recreationalists rarely go make it the ideal habitat. These areas are also typically lower-lying than the national forests and wilderness areas, providing a longer growing season and milder weather. That we do not see many reports from these areas could be due to the fact that at night they are almost always completely deserted.

    Another thing to consider is the vast area of dense forest which one sasquatch might use as a home range. Given that a grizzly bear has a home range size of 300-500 square miles, and that in terms of diet and body mass is the closest approximation we have, we could guess that a sasquatch home range might be on the same order of magnitude, say 100-1000 square miles, depending upon conditions. Here in the lush half of Washington, it’s probably on the low end, whereas in Montana, likely much higher. At best — for the hunter — that’s a square ten miles on a side. As one who has done a fair amount of off-trail travel, I can tell you that this is a daunting figure. In this area, the brush is so thick that I once almost took a leak on a bear lurking in the thimbleberry. (I had my fly down at the moment he flushed from his hiding place just four feet in front of me.) Something that doesn’t want to be found here, quite simply, won’t be.

    Depending upon accidentally surprising one unaware and in the few seconds that precede its departure, having the presence of mind to take a picture, shoot video, or level, aim and fire — that all seems to me about as likely as winning the lottery. To have a realistic hope of capturing some form of proof requires exploiting the innate curiosity of all primates. This behavior is supported by a significant fraction of the reports available online. ‘Call-blasting’, and vocal calling have been useful to some researchers (e.g, Sasquatch Research’s vocalizations page) The BFRO has attempted to use pheromone infused chips with some success. Although they have been known to steal hunter’s kills, raid caches, and even food stores in outbuildings, I haven’t seen anyone report success using food as bait. Perhaps this is too simple-minded. If someone offers you something for free, say a 54″ plasma TV, your first thought is likely to be, “What’s the catch?” We typically presume that animals are stupid; while often a convenient working hypothesis, it isn’t necessarily always true. Food, I think, could be used to reinforce a positive encounter, should that be somehow arranged, but I doubt that it will form the sole basis for one. Has anyone thought of putting an iPod and a PA powered by a car battery in a remote area? Your response would be “What the hell is that?” I submit that sasquatch would likely feel the same. I’m not saying that this has worked, only that this is the sort of thing that we should consider.

    I’ll leave the debates to others, and say only that my attempts are to take video (HDV) and record high-quality sound (two-channel 48KHz 24-bit).

    That sasquatch is shy of groups means that all of the equipment must be carried by a single person, or at most two. That sasquatch is very shy of lights means that all recording and navigation must be done in complete (visible) darkness. It takes only a few minutes to realize that running a camcorder while wearing night vision goggles is impossible. A camera with a night-vision unit mounted on the lens makes a very awkward navigation device. One is either left with using the camera essentially blind but being able to see, or using the camera effectively, but always having one arm in an awkward and very soon uncomfortable position. My system consists of a camcorder wired to a laptop running as a webcam. The laptop rides in my backpack, closed but active, with the display running to a wearable display. For illumination, I use an array of several hundred high-intensity IR LEDs powered by a 30ah 12V battery pack. I have two studio-quality microphones and a high-quality USB preamp connected to the laptop for sound. The camera, lights, and microphones are rigged to a home-cooked steady-cam approximation that is integrated with my backpack. It weighs just over 50lbs and has an always-on operational time of 6 hours. No luck yet, but I figure that given the range I can cover in a night and the likely size of a home range, I’ll need to spend a couple hundred nights in the woods to have an even chance of getting usable footage.

    That’s my $0.02.

  14. Leto responds:

    Here’s what I would do to find Bigfoot if it exists, and if I had the money:

    1. Hire expert mountainback gorilla trackers from Rwanda for $50,000 each with a $100,000 bonus each if a bigfoot, dead or alive, is found. Hire a scientist for $200,000 with a $250,000 bonus if a bigfoot is found, to go along with the trackers.

    2. Equip the trackers with state of the art equipment such as nightvision, hearing devices, gps.

    3. Give them two weeks to find bigfoot. I guarantee you that if there is a bigfoot, these trackers will find it, there are no better trackers in the world.

    4. If a bigfoot is found, the trackers are to sedate it and allow the scientist to collect dna samples, photos, etc. The creature must remain in its habitat and must be placed in the endangered list immediately.

  15. DWA responds:

    Wow. Thanks guys. I don’t need to say anything!

    Except: Loren. When you’re done, spool this thread and email it to folks who will actually need to read it. They’ll want advice.

    Ok, of course I have more.

    As much as I enjoy reading about the TBRC’s exploits, maybe the passive, game-camera/pherie trap approach is better (and the TBRC seems to be rethinking the pursuit scenario and going more for game cameras).

    One thing the TBRC can’t do, though, is a long-term stay. That is a sizable reason why they do it in pursuit mode; they have only three days to get evidence. A team staying long term can try a mix of techniques on different days in different areas with different conditions.

    I’m staunchly no-kill. I’m also no-tag, no-collar, no-harass-with-dogs, no nuthin’ but live and let live. This junk has not only been rendered obsolete by technology; it presumes our interests supersede those of the animal. They don’t. Our curiosity doesn’t supersede the right of other beings to live in freedom. That kind of arrogance has humanity in the mess it’s in; let’s see if we can stop perpetuating it, and here would be a good place to start. You don’t need to tag, collar and kill to “protect” the species. Just like you didn’t need to destroy that village to save it. JUST DON’T DESTROY HABITAT. ANY OF IT. THANK YOU. It makes less than no sense to harass a species and kill some of its members in order to determine how much of its habitat you can afford to destroy (which is what the “corridor” excuse is all about). With an animal as rare as current pop estimates for the sasquatch (which if you think about it are about as good as the estimates for the animals we do know about, if you use sighting reports and trackways as your basis), how the heck do you know the impact of killing even one? We know too much, sometimes, we do. Leave at least one species alone.

    As for “To photograph a specimen will not advance the belief of a bipedal ape among most scientists,” I’d disagree. It’s not just the evidence, it’s who brings it back. It goes without saying that long-term studies can only be done by people getting long-term grant money, for which substitute “professionals.” Let one of these folks, paid to find this animal, so much as catch a glimpse of one, and you’ll see more happen in days than the P/G film has gotten to happen in 40 years.

  16. swnoel responds:

    In my opinion, Big Foot to believers is equivalent to the excitement a child experiences Christmas day, the excitement is over once the presents are open.

    Most believers of BF don’t want to have it discovered and catalogued… once the truth is revealed the excitement will be over.

    If this animal does exist, only a specimen will prove it’s existence.

    There have been too many hoaxes and frauds perpetrated for anything less to be proof.

  17. ShefZ28 responds:

    First of all, if it exists you have to take its ability to stay hidden into consideration. This animal does not want to have anything to do with humans. In some reports it is possibly curious, but it would rather scare someone away then let them look at it. It seems to watch you until you see it, then it’s gone. To get it on film that means it cannot know it’s being watched.

    It has been known to steal food. So set up some bait, I’ve read that they like deer liver… there yo go, that should work better than pancakes. Put it high enough in a tree where it can be found only by something with a lot of height. Motion sensors are okay, but whatever you do, when it pulls that liver down bathe it in light. Portable flood lights can be bought at home depot for 10 bucks. I have a set of those ona stand in my garage, those suckers are bright. camoflage them, set them up in the trees, i dunno how you’re going to get power, but if you buy a house in the middle of nowhere like a previous person said, plug them into an outlet, bury the cords underground if you have to. It may run when the lights go on, but hopefully it’ll be stunned for a few seconds to get a few GOOD shots with more than one camera.

  18. crgintx responds:

    I think that attempting to capture a Bigfoot, Sasquatch would be extremely dangerous for a number of reasons. Numero Uno is that they seem to be like most primates and travel in social groups. You can’t simply attempt to capture one, which would probably be an immature male or the Creator forbid a female without the dominant male or female come charging in to rescue their troop mates from you. Since they are about the same body mass or larger than mountain gorillas, you’d probably be faced with a kill or be killed situation. Even if you have well armed companion, these creatures seem to be past masters of stealth and would probably kill at least one or more people before getting killed themselves assuming that anyone from your party survives the attack. Look what happen to the Grizzly Man and his girlfriend in Alaska. Even a smaller female could probably kill a human with a cuff or glancing blow. I think the best method would be to harvest DNA from hair and scat to establish them as an indigenous and separate species. If we can show enough genetic material to mainstream science, I think it will be enough to preserve their habitat. I believe what is most likely to happen is that eventually a NA Ape will be struck by a vehicle as humans encroach further into their domain. It nearly happened several years ago in N. California, if the reports are true.

  19. Fred Facker responds:

    I’d just put out pancakes — but with sleeping powder in the syrup.

  20. DWA responds:

    OK, I gotta say I’m liking Fred Facker’s plan more and more. Although I’ll wait for more coffee to offer final judgment.

    (That’s Fred Facker’s FIRST plan. I’m no-drug, no-capture.)

    The_Carrot: what Goodall and Fossey did was probably more dangerous than a sas researcher doing it. These guys seem to go to pains to avoid physical – or even visual – contact with humans. Peaceful overtures could be peacefully returned (as did indeed happen in the cases above). Gorillas and chimps can kill you just as dead as the sas, though, and have.

    swnoel: the word “believe” is fingernails on a chalkboard in this conversation. We talk EVIDENCE.

    That being said: as I asserted above, evidence far short of a dead body could be seen as confirmation, provided it comes from the right source. The problem so far is that the evidence has been coming from amateurs – as even scientists are, when they’re working on this on their own dime. A scientist funded by a mainstream institution to confirm would have an automatic credibility factor that amateurs, no matter how dedicated, experienced, and scientific they are, lack with the public and the scientific community.

    But the big trick may not be getting the evidence. The big trick will be getting professionals and amateurs to work together, as they will have to, the amateurs having virtually all the experience and all the data.

  21. Cryptonut responds:

    Catch and release of course…..just like the baby Yarwen!

  22. stompy responds:

    You will need a stick, a piece of string, a safety pin and a hot dog. Bigfoots loves some hot dogs.

  23. joppa responds:

    I always wanted to see Mutual Of Omaha’s WILD KINGDOM go after Bigfoot. Of course it would have to be back in the good old days with Marlin Perkins and Jim.

    As Marlin sits in a hovering helicopter and narrates:

    “Here’s Jim approaching the tranquilized Bigfoot here on Mount Shasta…Oh my…there’s another creature coming out of the trees behind Jim…and now Jim is being pummeled by the large beast while the other trackers are hastily trying to get out of the way…

    …O.K. this is exciting… the tranquilized beast is coming to and has joined in beating Jim senseless. Yes these creatures are dangerous and we regret we didn’t get a capture today…we’ll fly back later and try to get Jim back…oh look at those lovely elk, well
    folks we will see you next week for another great adventure on Mutual of Omaha’s WILD KINGDOM.”

    I will not believe in Bigfoot’s capture until I see it on the WILD KINGDOM !!!

  24. ladd responds:

    Now compile all of this information into a book, “How To Capture A Bigfoot 101″.

  25. size 13 responds:

    Would use the deer liver and a can of patience. Make that 2 cans. Post the liver on a red and white pole (10 ft pole marked every other foot red alternating white).

    Sit and wait with the vid cam with spare batteries. Often it’s the scariest part of the woods. Having a bag of apples would be good too. Naive?

    Maybe, but several nights its gotta smell that liver. It’s candy to them. I’d have a few extra livers wrapped in plastic just in case of a hit or 2.

    I bet I could get some footage.

    Will go in a few months and will let ya know, if I survive.

  26. earthpet responds:

    I have thought about this.

    Before you waste energy dreaming up ways to kill or capture, you must first verify that Bigfoot exists. That should be the priority.

    To find a Bigfoot, everyone seems to be overlooking the most powerful weapon of all. That weapon would be “probabilities.”

    I would hire a statistician or at least a mathematician to design an experiment which could find a “moving object” which leaves clues in a giant shell game. I think this could be a fairly basic setup and could be implemented with minimal expense if one used volunteers to collect data at selected locations to which they are in close proximity.

    The data would produce a “warm/cold” metric which over time could focus in on the probable location(s) of our wandering friends. It also might be able to tell us if we are wasting our time hunting imaginary creatures. Either way it would be valuable.

    If you have ever been to the pacific northwest, you will understand the needle in a haystack feeling of that HUGE region. The trick is to get enough information to put you on the heels of one of these creatures and go from there.

    The Patterson film came out 40 years ago. Dumb luck has not worked since then. It would be nice to see a concerted effort to prove/disprove what could arguably be the most profound discovery of the last century.

  27. DWA responds:

    Recent posts make another good point:

    You want RECENT sighting reports.

    The reason I think that this effort requires professionals is that the public needs to be alerted beforehand – not to specifics, but that this is potentially not a legend or a hoax but an animal, and data is needed to set up long-term field studies. Existing Web databases can be used to gather the info – why reinvent the wheel or invite re-postings of old data – but people need to know that if you’ve seen one of these things, well, you may not be a nut.

    The only thing wrong with what the amateur Bigfoot orgs are doing has nothing to do with them, but with the public’s perception of this as a fringe topic. You need the instant credibility of mainstream science – colossal squid? Oh come ON! – to bring out of the woodwork the people who aren’t talking.

    Of course I’m rooting for amateurs to make the discovery first. But they’ll need to be very lucky, very good, and have saved up some money or some vacation time.

  28. Ole Bub responds:

    Good morning Cryptos….

    May I suggest if you are interested in current field research…join some of the BF forums and chat rooms dedicated to research and documentation…there are several…some more informative than others.

    Begin by not re-inventing the wheel, plan your project utilizing other researcher’s “published” online methods and techniques…try thinking outside the box…JMHO

    Live and let live….No bucks….No Bigfoot

    ole bub and the dawgs

  29. mystery_man responds:

    Some people have mentioned using tranquilizers but I don’t think a lot of people realize just how tricky tranquilizers can be. When tranquilizers are used on known animals, the dosage has to be very well adjusted to the animal you are trying to bag, and even then it can be dangerous. Too little of the drug and the animal could turn on you, too much and you kill it. Either way, not the result you were planning on. If you were No Kill and used tranqs, then you end up with a dead Bigfoot or dead hunters, or both. Without any real knowledge of Bigfoot’s physiology, without any sort of concrete holotype at all, I’d say going out with tranquilizers is a pretty foolish thing to do.

  30. ShefZ28 responds:

    If this was 3 years ago, I would have two words for you: Steve Irwin. That would be a show I would watch.

  31. bywbatonrougecrypto responds:

    I’d set up a couple deerstands around a certain spot completely covered with scent blocker. I’d get a bunch of stuff gorillas and orangutans are known to eat. I’d mix in bamboo and a bunch of other foods. I’d bring a bunch of those mini fan things like they have at zoos and other outdoor places and blow the scent different directions with it. I’d bring a lot of extra fish to put in another place in case bears come so they would eat the fish instead of the bigfoot bait. I’d have a bunch of cameras, lights, and some of those push lights so they turn on like a landmine would, and I could see where something is. I’d have a bunch or stuff on the ground all around that its tracks would get in and would stick on its feet and keep making tracks. I’d blow dart the bigfoot with a small glow in the dark dart and follow the tracks made from whatever I put down, and find where the dart fell and put it in a zip-lock bag. I’d bring it to an animal DNA place and have it looked at. And I’d get the footage and results to Cryptomundo first. I’m actually gonna try to do this when my friend who wants to go to the Texas/Lousiana border with me gets here from Deridder.

  32. DWA responds:

    bywbatonrougecrypto:

    Two things I like. (1) a man with a plan. (2) a man with a long name that’s still easy to remember and type.

    One thing to include in your plan: the sas might want the fish. There’s a lot of anecdotal evidence that they love ‘em.

    The dart DNA bit has promise, I think. Once again it’s about the evidence and about who brings it back. If you can recover the evidence – at minimal pain to the animal – a researcher who says “I saw this in conjunction with that” and who is connected with a mainstream scientific project has a leg up. Particularly if you can point at a photo when you say “I saw THIS.”

    If you’re an amateur though you’re back at square one; you have to get someone to test and you have to get someone to go with what the test says. You’ll almost undoubtedly need multiple tests – and I hearsay that’s expensive.

    And you’ll have to get someone to vouch for your photo not being a man in an ape suit.

  33. dogu4 responds:

    Google up Keith Foster and read his observations on the subject. I think you’ll find it very interesting.

  34. stompy responds:

    Actually, we should take a cue from law enforcement. Send Biggie a letter saying “you have won a speedboat” or something. When he comes to collect his prize- we nab ‘em.

  35. MBFH responds:

    bywbatonrougecrypto / DWA: nice plan, as are most of the above. The only question I have regarding yours byw. is, why the gorilla food? The probability is BF would have a markedly different diet to a gorilla. A BF may sniff it out and think “Urgh, what’s this rubbish someone’s dumped in my territory. Pesky humans.” !

    Wouldn’t a good stash of likely BF food be more use? To get over the bear issue, set up a couple of stations. Given the territory sizes of bears and guesstimates of BF ones, you’d be more likely to get a bear at one and BF at the other.

    The only issue would be that you and your mate would be separated, by miles, all alone, with bears and BF!

    I admire your spirit my friend, all the best to you and I hope it works.

  36. MBFH responds:

    One more thing, how would this be funded? I realise a lot of you guys do this in your own time and with your own money and for that you deserve much credit.

    Some of the ideas posted will require big money however. I’m sure that in a country with such wealth as the US has, that there must be some wealthy business person, celebrity etc., with an interest in BF who’d be willing to help out. If there is I think they should contact Loren. They can pay him to co-ordinate the project and whoever has the best plan, as judged by a panel of experts, gets to go out in the woods and get the evidence.

  37. mystery_man responds:

    These are all very good ideas, but I think one important element that has to be given consideration is WHERE to set up the bait, etc. It’s all about location, location, location. You are not going to lure in any Bigfoot if they are nowhere around your stand. Even with known animals this is an important point to consider. So not knowing a whole lot of concrete facts about Bigfoot behavior, I ask, where is the best place to set up any of these things people have mentioned? Curious to know what people think.

  38. mystery_man responds:

    I mean of course, besides places where they happen to have been sighted. I am interested to know people’s ideas of the areas where Bigfoot would routinely be expected to pass through. I know it is the million dollar question, but it is interesting for me to speculate about.

  39. DWA responds:

    Places I’d search first (and of course this is way broad. You got to get your bait in the right places in the right places, if you know what I mean:

    1. The Big Thicket of east Texas, in particular the drainages of the Sabine, Neches and Trinity Rivers.

    2. The High Siskiyou Wilderness of northern CA.

    3. The North Cascades of Washington.

    4. Wayne NF, Ohio.

    Good start.

  40. sasquatch responds:

    Patterson and Gimlin were on horseback. The horses smell probably masked the smell of the men and the sound of the hoofbeats might have made the female sasquatch think some elk were approaching…It could have actually been waiting to ambush the “elk”. and when it saw the men on horsback retreated and looked back with that now famous “what the ….?”…Look. Any aftershave or cologne or deodorant soap had also probably disipated on these two as they had been out there for two weeks as I understand. Take some horseback riding lessons, work on your camera skills, have a buddy backing you up with a Winchester.
    Get very lucky…Roll Film! BTW, These guys already proved bigfoots existence. Some folks are just unwilling to admit it.

  41. duskshade responds:

    There are a few ways I have thought of to catch videoimagery or an actual BF. In theory, I would love to be able to shoot video of a BF and consider it real proof. I also realize that the best proof is an actual specimen. I don’t agree that killing a BF is right, but it would go a long way toward enacting protective legislation and ending a lot of snide questioning from the skeptics.

    My ways would be:

    1. Commit a long-term team (minimum of three, max of six) to a long-term search with zero-impact to environment. Weekly drops of food and supplies at predetermined areas in a way to stagger their movement to cover known and probably BF areas during spring or autumn, when movement and migration would likely be taking place. The team should be prepared to be in the field for at least a month. Multiple teams can be used if desired, staggered to sweep adjoining areas and overlap coverage.

    2. Seed a BF-suspected environment with goodies, but not too many at one time, over a space of about six months. Once probable contact (evidence of BF-consumed material recovered) has been established, set up a small high-hide nearby and station a small team with auto-surveillance and scentkiller to watch the goodie pile. Point and click.

    3. Seed a possible-BF environment with primate pheromone during known rut seasons. No information is at present if BF has a rut, or is perpetually fertile. THis approach is the weakest of the three.

  42. mystery_man responds:

    Using some kind of primate pheremone is a novel idea, but there is no way of knowing at all if that would work. I don’t see why a pheremone from another primate would necessarily work on Bigfoot and there is the chance it may even spook them somehow. I feel the same way about using the howls or calls from other primate species. I don’t see how this can be of use since Bigfoot might hear excactly what we hear, the call of some sort of primate which would be perhaps even startling and strange to them. If it is a call from,say, a gibbon, which is a totally unrelated primate from a different habitat, how can we expect that is going to mean anything to a Bigfoot? I feel the same goes with unrelated primate pheremones. Would that work on a human being? Since we know very little about their behavior or exactly what sort of primate we are dealing with here, I think the risk of actually spooking them should be considered before trying these particular techniques.

  43. DWA responds:

    Well, mystery_man, I give TBRC and BFRO (two groups using pheromones and primate sounds) credit for trying to figure out what WILL mean anything to a bigfoot.

    There are a number of loud vocalizations among monkeys and apes that seem to be uttered in similar circumstances to those that appear to be observed in conjunction with alleged sas vocals. (How’s that for stuffing a sentence with qualifiers?) Presuming these cirtters are curious – primates tend to be – one might wonder whether this would work. At least one monkey – the black howler – has a call similar to what some sas researchers have apparently been hearing.

    And they get lots of responses, given the (alleged) rarity of the (alleged) animal. I think it’s the reason they keep trying it – it seems to make things happen. This does seem to occur most frequently when they’re using recordings of actual (alleged) sas vocalizations.

    But going without, I would agree, is an alternative that might show the call-blasting alternative to be scaring them off by comparison. This is what investigation is all about.

  44. mystery_man responds:

    Well, if they have gotten results using the calls, then I guess that would indeed point to it as being a promising technique. I feel though, that the responses in return could perhaps be warnings? Maybe they sense it is some sort of primate and are warning it to stay away? I can’t imagine a Bigfoot could mistake a black howler for one of their own no matter how superficially similar it may sound to us. I wouldn’t go out looking for, say, tigers using a lion’s roar. But maybe it is making them curious as to what kind of animal has shown up in their territory I suppose and if that brings them closer in, then it acheives its purpose. I’ve always wondered whether even recordings of another Bigfoot might be strange to them since it is only a recording and since we do not know exactly what the call means, it may be blared over the speakers in a situation that would be totally innapppropriate for that type of call. And if a Bigffot made a call back and the same recording was played again, it may make no sense as far as their communication goes. This is all speculation of course, but I do wonder. I absolutely give the TBRC credit for coming up with some novel ideas to try to lure in the alleged animals.

  45. DWA responds:

    mystery_man: no arguments with anything you’ve said.

    In fact, the TBRC has discussed these possibilities. The long howls that have been recorded a number of times could be animals seeking mates…or they could be animals announcing their territories.

    Of course no one knows. (The speculation is that for an animal that’s thin on the ground, the former makes better sense from a sustain-the-race point of view.)

    And curiosity could bring them in if they heard a primate of a different species. They seem curious enough about us, for something that tries to avoid us.

  46. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- right. I suppose they would have thought these things out fairly thoroughly. When dealing with such an unknown, it is hard to know exactly what to do since there is no real precedence for it. I salute the TBRC for actually going out and putting their ideas into action. Now that they seem to be setting up shop for longer and longer periods of time, I hope they have more time and resources to tinker with different ideas and methods because I feel this field is still having its growing pains in many ways despite half a century of investigations. We just don’t know what we have to do to successfully document this creature and we could be going about it all wrong for all we know. You are right about “This is what investigation is all about.” I always think that if they have the time to actually put their theories into proper motion, we might see some amazing things or at least get closer to the bottom of what is going on out there.

  47. Notsobigfoot responds:

    One thing that i think is worth pointing out. While i do not consider myself either in the kill or no kill camp, no kill advocates should understand that if BF were to be recognized worldwide as a real and very in the flesh animal many would die. I want these creatures to be recognized and protected as much as anyone but even if the US were to put them on a no kill list, it is no secret that these creatures exist all over the world and there are many countries with no regard for what is endangered and what is not. For example, even the japanese, as progressive and enlightend as they are, love the taste of whale meat. Its just a fact of the world that people cant seem to exist without killing things. The arguement that BF arent animals, and are indeed very close relatives to homo sapien would hold no sway, as the world is full of people who will kill other humans without a second thought. sorry to be bleak, just my two cents.

  48. DWA responds:

    mystery_man (really, everybody, but he and I have been discussing this): here’s one possible source of the mix of primate calls used by TBRC and BFRO, from a North Carolina report on the BFRO database.

    —————————————

    “We were walking back to the camp when out of the dark (in the direction the deer were looking) came a long call. It echoed through the woods. We thought it sounded like a primate – some kind of monkey or ape.

    Eventually I stumbled on your website and read how you use gibbon calls to attract sasquatches. I then got curious and started checking out different animal calls. The call of a gibbon is exactly the sound we heard that night.

    I wish at the time we had thought it could be Bigfoot, but we didn’t, so we never took off into the night to look or it or look for prints.

    The noise wasn’t a recording. It wasn’t any animal I have ever heard before and it sounded exactly like a gibbon.”
    ————————————-

    Whatever works. These guys could have a wide range of vocals, and given that they’re primates, we could have some overlap.

  49. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- Could be some overlap but it looks to me that the main reason it would work is by prompting the Bigfoots curiosity. Again, I think the superficial resemblance to a gibbon’s call would be mostly just that, superficial. Even then, in the passege you posted, I find it a little contradictotry. It says “It wasn’t like any animal I ever heard before” but then says “It sounded just like a gibbon.” Say what? No matter how much it sounds the same, the fact remains that Bigfoot is not a gibbon and its call is most likely not the same. There may even be subaudible frequencies involved that only they can hear. But, as you said before, primates are curious and I think there is a very good chance that a Bigfoot could recognize it as some sort of similar creature in its territory regardless of whether they mistake it for another Bigfoot or not.

  50. DWA responds:

    mystery_man: note that he said it wasn’t like any animal he had ever heard – but that he had gone web-shopping after reading that the BFRO used gibbon calls as lures.

    THAT’S when he heard the gibbon call (recorded) and made the link.

  51. things-in-the-woods responds:

    Hey DWA and Mystery_man- just caught the end of this discussion here.

    The first thing that occurred to me- has anyone checked there weren’t any BFRO researchers with a sound system wandering around the woods when this guy heard a ‘gibbon call’?

    I wonder how many bf sightings are sightings of bf researchers- big hairy men running around the woods at night, a pungent odour…

  52. mystery_man responds:

    Ah right, DWA! You’re right, I suppose I should have read it more carefully. My mistake. I noticed it after I made my post, so I feel a bit foolish now. Anyway, I do find it very interesting that agibbon call of all things would produce results. I guess it has worked for them to some degree but I wonder why it is, especially when we are dealing with a large, hairy biped which is quite a differen creature from the gibbon. I’ve given some of my opinions, but it really is curious. I suppose whatever works works, but I guess we will only know if it really and truly works when it leads to them finding clearer evudence. And things-in-the-woods, I wondered that same thing myself.

  53. DWA responds:

    Legitimate point. This is one of the potential problems with call-blasting.

    The BFRO schedules its trips far in advance; I suppose a search of their site could provide some interesting info. Now that you mention it I might do that. Generally they try to penetrate remote areas, not blasting near campgrounds. I know TBRC always at least considers the possibility that other blasters were in the area, something that the relative difficulty of the task I would think makes unlikely, but certainly not impossible.

    From the report, especially from the reaction of the deer (especially considering their relative indifference to the two witnesses much closer to them, which isn’t in the part I excerpted), I would tend to think that what was causing the commotion wasn’t a person. But there’s no way to be sure. And maybe commotion from an unexpected quarter was what had the deer’s attention. You have to take all possibilities into account.

    I’m also pretty sure that recorded sounds have a wholly different timbre from live animal calls. And yes, I’m pretty sure animals can detect that difference too. Which raises the question of why call-blasting gets excited reactions from a range of animals (coyotes and owls, among others, as well as whatever-it-is).

    Maybe they just like to party. I mean, I have had ravens respond to my raven imitations.

    Sometimes.

  54. mystery_man responds:

    There are certainly a lot of possibilities as far as the gibbon calls go. It could be seen as another primate that is infriging into the Bigfoot’s territory, but we really don’t know how territorial bigfoot is likely to be. They could just be curious, but then it was not curious enough for any good footage or hard evidence to be gleaned, at least not at present and not to my knowledge. Bigfoot’s curiosity I think could explain why they are seen far more often than you would think an undiscovered large primate would be. Maybe they just like to party, which I thought was pretty funny by the way! :) Perhaps it is similar to their call, but somehow “off” which gets them to thinking what the heck is going on. Maybe it just peeves them off. I highly doubt it is because they are mistaking the gibbon call for one of their own. The timbre would most likely be different due to different masses, lung capacities, ect. Then there is the possibility of subaudital frequencies that I mentioned before. And you have to consider that even calls between two similar primate species may not be compatible, so add to that the fact that this is probably quite an intelligent creature and I get the impression that a Bigfoot just wouldn’t fall for it. It apparently hasn’t so far, at least not to the degree that has been hoped. Bigfoot, if it exists, is an intelligent, bipedal creature that has evaded detection for quite awhile and falling for a relatively alien call of a gibbon just might not be keeping with its sensibilities, I feel. I just can’t get over the feeling that the calls may be instilling curiosity but in the end actually perhaps keeping them at bay or spooking them. I know the TBRC has thought this through, but that is my two cents. Animal call with any animal can be tricky, let alone a total unknown like this. It is not a technique that should be relied on too often until it proves to be more conclusive. I’m not saying they should stop as it is obvious it has gotten some results. I’m just saying that it should not be used too much for now and when it is, should maybe be used in combination with other things.

  55. DWA responds:

    Right, mystery_man. Science is the problem. :-D

    I know you didn’t say that.

    But with pretty much everything else in the North American bestiary, People Living Their Lives “made the discovery,” in most cases before science even got involved in documentation. What helped in these cases was public credulity: the people at large, acquainted with similar animals in their countries of origin, “bought” the idea that bears leave bear tracks and deer deer tracks, and that Josiah saw a wolf and a panther yesterday. There’s no frame of reference for the sas, the only animal we have that the public didn’t “buy” before photographic and video documentation became available.

    So people trying to get evidence (and understandably frustrated at the public handling of this topic) have gotten aggressive, because people “just seeing” the animal or its sign aren’t being taken seriously. This leads to intensive speculation on What Does A Bigfoot Want?, speculation largely informed by presumptions of considerable brainpower on the part of the target species. We don’t have documented sas calls, the reasoning goes, but given the smarts and curiosity that one can draw from sighting reports, and the presumption that they’re primates, maybe this will spark their interest. And since this sounds like it might actually have been a sas, the presumption is that other sas respond to it (hopefully not by separating the call-blaster’s body into its constituent components).

    I think it’s a reasonable assumption, given the volume of reports alone, that more people see these guys than see wild otters, grizzlies, cougars or wolverines. But those animals – all with European analogues – get the benefit of the public doubt. (Or really maybe I should say “the scientific doubt,” which with animals often amounts to the same thing.) The sasquatch doesn’t, meaning we have to draw him within scientific range, because no one is content with – and scarcely anyone even knows about – the surprising consistency among many eyewitness reports and track finds, all over the continent by all kinds of people, almost without exception corresponding to excellent habitat, something that generally automatically suggests to the public – and to scientists – a real animal.

  56. kittenz responds:

    I think it’s possible, even likely, that Bigfoot would come to investigate unusual noises out of pure curiosity.

  57. kittenz responds:

    The fact remains that Bigfoot will have to be found before they can be studied. I think that dogs (SAR dogs, schutzhund- or UDT-trained tracking dogs, securely leashed, of course) could be taken to areas where a recent sighting has occurred and used to track the Bigfoot. Hounds could be used, but in my opinion they would be less suitable. Hounds are hunting dogs; they are usually trained to trail specific species, and they are focused on hunting animals as prey, whereas tracking dogs are focused on the reward that they are given when they find something. The risk to the dogs and the Bigfoot would be minimal if the dogs were worked on leashes.

    Once bigfoot are found and their existence is documented, it would no longer be necessary to track them with dogs. Primatologists could then begin to study them the same way that other great apes are studied.

  58. things-in-the-woods responds:

    Kittenz-
    as i said at the very begining of this bolg, i can’t think of anything more likely to scare off a bf than tracking it with dogs.

    You suggest that we should study bf in the way primatologists do- well, you will never find a primatologist tracking their subjects with dogs- and there is a reason for that…

  59. mystery_man responds:

    Right, things-in-the-woods, that’s a good point. I don’t think Jane Goodall would ever use hounds to track chimps and it probably is not in the repertoire of gorilla researchers either. I see Kittenz’ point, but I think it would definitely spook them and drive them away. then you have the fact that Bigfoot may very well scare the bejeezus out of the dogs as well. Isn’t it well documented that dogs go crazy when they are around? And on top of that, who knows what a Bigfoot is liable to do when it is cornered? Is that a risk you would be willing to take without finding out more about your quarry? I think dogs should probably be used sparingly.

  60. DWA responds:

    Kittenz,

    I’d have to agree with others on the subject of dogs. (Yet another place where reading too many sighting reports can come in REALLY useful. :-D)

    Dogs and Bigfoot generally don’t mix. One of the most consistent facets of encounter reports between the two (other than dogs getting dismembered) is fearless, veteran dogs behaving – for the first time in the witness’s experience – like utterly craven cowards who have suddenly forgotten their masters exist. The animal – and I mean in a number of cases, I’ve read more reports of this kind than most people have read reports, total – runs ALL THE WAY HOME, and is found later under a car in the garage, under the house, UNDER something. Quivering with fear.

    And sometimes, but it’s rare, this doesn’t happen. (That’s usually when the dog gets dismembered.)

    But you want a better batting average than the apparent experience in this area shows me. Dogs’ performance in this role is, to put the best face on it, unreliable and erratic in the extreme.

    Besides which, the reasons for the dismemberment in the first place. The sasquatch considers dogs enemies, definitely not tokens of trust.

    I’d leave them out of this totally. For both species’ sake. (And dog lovers’ as well.)

    I think the sas offers us an opportunity to Start Over in zoology – an opportunity Jane Goodall actually demonstrated almost a half-century ago – and Do This The Right Way. Stop treating them like specimens to be chased, immobilized and labeled, and start treating them like fellow crew on Spaceship Earth. It would be a breath of fresh air, for sure.

    (I once saw a white wolf in Denali National Park, no more than 40 yards away, sitting so still it looked like a quartz outcrop at first. Then it moved and I saw the radio collar. Still trying to get the nasty taste out of my mouth. ‘nuf sed.)

  61. kittenz responds:

    I’m not suggesting that people continually harass and trail Bigfoot with dogs in order to find and study them. That is, indeed, not a valid way to study primates or any other animal.

    But the animals must be found and proven to exist before any researchers, anywhere, can secure the grant monies required for long-term study. And I don’t buy it that all dogs have an inherent overwhelming fear of Bigfoot. Most dogs are afraid of things they don’t know. But trained tracking dogs will track anything, just for the apparent joy they take in pleasing their handlers and the reward of a game with their special toy.

    I believe that dogs could be used, judiciously and conscientiously, to track and find Bigfoot, so that the animals’ existence is proven. The animal could be knocked down with a tranq; there are none specifically formulated for Bigfoot, of course, but veterinary technology and drugs have come a long way since the old Wild Kingdom days. Once the animals are located and their existence is beyond question, universities and governments will fight over who gets to fund research.

  62. DWA responds:

    I don’t know, kittenz.

    And I guess mystery_man’s and my posts tell you how we feel about stuff like tranqs.

    I guess that what’s harrassment is for the animal to judge, and if I were in its predicament I might be inclined to say anything is.

    I’ve said before, though, that I hope – that’s not think, that’s hope – the discovery of the animal will yield more good, for it and by extension for us, than it will harm.

    However it happens.

  63. kittenz responds:

    DWA,

    I agree wholeheartedly that harassing an animal in the name of science is to be avoided whenever possible. But I think that everyone here who is a realist knows that confirming an unknown animal’s existence requires that there be a body to study – whether that body is of a living creature or a dead one. I much prefer to think that someone will secure a living Bigfoot, but I don’t imagine that an awake, aware Bigfoot would be too keen on providing blood and tissue samples for testing :).

    Remember, the question posed in this topic is “how would you find Bigfoot?”, not “how would you go about studying them?”. They are so very elusive that traditional non-invasive methods do not seem to be producing results. Tracking dogs have been used with great success in finding other elusive animals, including jaguars in Central America, pumas in North America, and bears around the world.

    I agree that invasive techniques such as the use of tracking dogs and tranquilizers must be kept to a minimum. But proving that an animal exists is a first and necessary step in acquiring its protection. If invasive, but nonfatal, techniques are used simply to confirm an animal’s existence, then those techniques will have been worthwhile.

    Once Bigfoot’s existence is confirmed beyond question, the researchers can begin to study them in less invasive ways. Let’s face it, any intrusion upon an animal, however minimal, is invasive to a degree. But sometimes it’s necessary in order to gain the support necessary to try to ensure their survival.

    Assuming they exist, of course. But it’s redundant to qualify every post with that phrase.

  64. duskshade responds:

    I still think if you took a team and made it a point of having them in the field for a long period of time, that likely they will have better success than a short incursion or even a high-hide full of cameras.

    SAR dogs would be best IF you felt that dogtracking is the best route. Although canine/BF interaction normally involves a short munch by BF on the canine in question, that can be alleviated with a dog that was bred to handle that kind of attack. I would suggest a trainable gamedog, maybe a well-trained APBT with SAR training that can hold its own against a bigger creature.

    I think that no matter what, unless a person drags a BF kicking and screaming from the bush, or has a body of one, then none of mainstream media will be likely or inclined to listen.

  65. mystery_man responds:

    Kittenz- Again, tranqs have been brought up, but remember that tranquilizers are a tricky thing. As I have said before, even with known animals, the dosage has to be pretty well calculated. Too much and you could kill it, not enough and you have a whole new set of problems. Also, I think the other posters were taking your post on studying them like other primates to heart. You say “this isn’t a post on how to study Bigfoot” but you said it yourself that we should study them like we would other primates and the others are trying to say that using dogs is not fitting in with this. As for them fearing Bigfoot, there is a lot of eyewitness testimony to this effect and we still don’t know what will happen when a Bigfoot is cornered and it is hit with a badly dosed tranquilizer. I personally agree that getting a living confirmation is important but we know so little about them, that perhaps holding back on overly invasive techniques would be prudent for now. They are so elusive that even if they were found with dogs, how would we find them again? There’s no guarantee we would be able to routinely find such a shy and elusive creature. So do we use dogs again? I just think there has to be a better way, although I honestly don’t know what that way is yet. :)

  66. DWA responds:

    duskshade, you say:

    “I think that no matter what, unless a person drags a BF kicking and screaming from the bush, or has a body of one, then none of mainstream media will be likely or inclined to listen.”

    Actually, some of the mainstream media HAVE been listening. For a long time. My first exposure to the sas was a very balanced article in National Wildlife magazine, almost 40 years ago. Local newspapers follow up on sightings, and a surprising number of recent articles withhold judgment and avoid making a joke of it.

    I think a major reason that scientific luminaries like Goodall and Schaller think this is worthy of study is the best of the treatment by the mass media. John Bindernagel, one of the most respected researchers, had about as serious an article on this as you could want published in “Beautiful British Columbia” magazine, which doesn’t exactly consider it in its best interest making sure folks label BC as a nut farm.

    I wouldn’t justify any mistreatment of an animal by catering to mass media.

    Kittenz: I guess I really think this thing can be confirmed without guns and dogs and tranqs, and I’m hoping those approaches are tried first. If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a hundred times: let a mainstream scientist doing a mainstream hunt for this animal have the kind of encounter experience many Americans have already had, and we’re pretty much there.

  67. kittenz responds:

    I know about animals and anesthesia :). I agree, there is risk, and of course there is no universally accepted idea of what dose would be effective for a Bigfoot. And you’re right that finding Sas with dogs is no guarantee that they would be found again. I also agree that long-term field study is the best option for studying these animals.

    BUT. Long-term field studies take MONEY, and the money for those studies will not be forthcoming until the animals’ existence is proven. It’s not like funding studies for a rare rhino, for instance, where the animal is known to exist, or at least to have existed. Obtaining funding for studying known animals is hard enough, but obtaining funding for the longterm field study of unknown animals is pretty much impossible. Finding the animals, and documenting their existence beyond doubt, is the crucial first step to obtaining the financial support necessary to fund field studies.

    I’m not talking about trailing Bigfoot with hounds, or with any sort of attack dog. I’m proposing using trained search dogs, worked closely on leashes, to find the Bigfoot. I’ve worked with dogs all my life, and I am well aware of their capabilities and of their limitations. But the fact remains that dogs’ senses are many times better than our own. I’ve had wonderful German Shepherds all my life, and working with a UDT or a SCH III tracking dog is an awesome experience. They track silently, and they will track whatever you ask them to track. I’m not suggesting that the dogs be used like hounds, to actually close with the Bigfoot. But I believe that dogs could be used to find the Sas so that they can be proven to exist, once and for all, and hopefully get close enough to at least one of them to utilize some sort of capture technique.

    As for the anesthetic, the safest anesthetics are inhalation anesthetics, closely monitored in a hospital setting. But those are not usable for field work. I would think that a xylazine/ketamine/atropine injection would be quite safe; it’s an older formula, but it is safe and effective for most animals (although there are some highly inbred dogs that are sensitive to the xylazine). It’s been used, and is still used, in a wide variety of animal species, usually with no ill effect. Of course a narcotics reverser such as Narcan should be on hand, as well as portable oxygen. There’s no way to ensure completely the safety or effectiveness of any anethesia, even under the best of circumstances. But if the anesthetic did not knock the animal down, it would at least make it groggy enough to allow capture with a net. Blood and tissue samples could then be obtained. It would not be necessary to actually “take the animal into custody” to document that it exists.

    It’s true that animals occasionally die from anesthesia, even from anesthesia usually deemed safe. I would not want a Bigfoot killed, but if one was killed accidentally, it would still be documentation of their existence.

    Once Bigfoot is proven to exist, I have no doubt that the funding for long-term field studies would follow.

  68. kittenz responds:

    I’m just trying to be realistic here. Even the apes studied in longterm field studies do not willingly provide blood samples. I just do not see any other way, realistically, to get blood and other tissue samples from a Bigfoot, and to prove that they are from a Bigfoot, than to obtain the initial samples from an anesthetized living animal, or from a dead one. I can’t believe that a Bigfoot would of its own volition thrust its arm out for a tourniquet and a needle stick. And all of that is moot, anyway, until the animals are actually located.

  69. mystery_man responds:

    Well, the use of dogs is a realistic approach, Kittenz. And I think it may have to come down to that at some point. It is true that in order for anyone to want to mount a costly field research operation, one is going to have to have confirmation that it is out there to be studied. I appreciate your realistic approach to this and I suppose I am a bit unrealistic in my desire to do so in a noninvasive way. That way hasn’t worked so far, so maybe it is time to try something a little more direct such as using dogs. I can see the points you are making and in many ways I agree. We need that documentation of its existence if we expect it to be studied in a thorough way. I just would like to see it done without resorting to dogs and guns. Sigh.

  70. kittenz responds:

    I would much rather see a non-invasive approach used to find Bigfoot. Having a team of researchers live in a forest where Bigfoot are thought to be, for long enough to actually find the creatures and get good, conclusive evidence to prove to the rest of the world that they exist, would be the best approach by far – in a perfect world. But that kind of exploration research costs many thousands of dollars. Most organizations have to compete for the research dollars they get, and the sad fact is that the money is just not there to fund a long-term search for a storied, but unknown, animal. In fact, as we all know, that’s why the dedicated people who do Bigfoot research on their own time can’t just stay in the woods until they find the Bigfoot: someone has to pay their bills and feed their kids, and so they have to keep day jobs, and limit their searches for Bigfoot to their spare time.

    Unless some very wealthy individual steps forward to fund a long-term exploration (with no guarantee of success), the search for Bigfoot will probably be limited to the fragments of time that dedicated amateurs can glean from their schedules. So a more invasive method, such as the use of tracking dogs, may be a way to find the Bigfoot sooner.

    If Bigfoot are found and their existence is proven, it would not be necessary to use invasive tactics to study them, because the funding for serious research would literally pour in. So, while such methods are invasive, and it’s distasteful to consider them, if they lead to the confirmation of Bigfoot’s existence they will have been worthwhile, provided that every effort is made to ensure that the Bigfoot comes to no harm.

  71. fnesh responds:

    Personally,

    I would charter a helicopter (much like a police helicopter) that is outfitted with infrared heat detection (much like a police helicopter) and I would fly over expanses of land taking note of the wildlife encounterd. When I encounterd a ten foot tall ape… I would follow it, tranquilize and tag it with a GPS system using one dart. I would then organize a search using the GPS, capture the creature and consider it time for a beer. Enough said.

  72. 1Greensix responds:

    If Bigfoot exists the one thing we should all agree on is that it is an animal. It is NOT a human. It has animal instincts, animal hearing, seeing, sense of smell, sense of direction, ability to see well at night, wariness beyond human understanding, and probably almost as intelligent as human. That means it can hear you, see you, smell you, and sense your presence long before you are capable of doing the same to it. If you are going to successfully HUNT it you will need to diminish your noise, smell, and movement. Wear a cath so your pee won’t leave a lasting scent trail. Blend into the background. Wear black more than camo. If Bigfoot is black there is a reason for it. Don’t talk louder than a six inch voice (ask you second grader what that means). Don’t knock tree limbs together or hit rocks together. Bigfoots are shy animals. The sounds of rocks hitting together or limbs hitting trees, or loud yells at night are caused by other HUMANS goffing around, and not Bigfoot. They don’t make noises for no reason. Humans do those things, animals don’t. Don’t carry a gun if it has ANY gun oil on it, or any other scent, such as polish or wax on the wood. Poop into a bag, seal it and bury it. Do not leave a scent trail. Take foods that have very little scent, and eat very little of it so you won’t have to poop much. Drink water not coffee, lemonade or tea. Drink plenty of lemon water for weeks before your hunt to reduce your body odor. Walk slowly, s l o w l y. Think about how slow animal move in the woods when they are foraging. You go that slow or slower. Look continually, not just when you stop walking. Sit concealed for long periods without making noise, movement, or scent once you have what you think is a likely spot. Get real lucky and you might see something. It might not be a Bigfoot, but you should be able to see some nature you haven’t seen before.
    Think about the Patterson video. Notice the size of that creatures arms. Longer than a humans and MUCH more powerful. Why? Is it because they use their arms so much, or are their long, strong arms just a fluke of nature? I’m betting it’s because they use them so much. Therefore I would begin my hunt some place where long strong arms are needed. Higher elevations, or very rough terrain, with lots of trees would be a likely starting point.



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

CryptoMerch

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Creatureplica Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.