Editorial: Bushnell, Wake Up!
Posted by: Loren Coleman on June 3rd, 2008
Will anyone be killed in the woods? Someone has got to ask the hard question about the $1,000,000 Sasquatch challenge.
The Bushnell’s $1,000,000 Sasquatch Photo Challenge may be creative, a great piece of publicity for trail cameras, and gain some potentially intriguing photos. But at what cost?
Obviously, the company took the hoaxsters into consideration with this “Bonus Category” add-on in their contest:
For all you jokers out there – we’re giving away an additional Bushnell Trail Scout Pro camera for your best attempt to cheat Bushnell out of their $1,000,000 prize. So go grab your gorilla suit and head to the nearest woodlot. Just don’t get mistaken for a bear.
When I was consulting to the Wizards of the Coast about their “One Million Dollar Prize” for a Bigfoot or cryptid photograph, they ended up withdrawing their first draft of that contest because of the fear they would get sued if someone ended up getting killed in the woods, to “prove” the Bigfoot or Mothman or cryptid was real.
Bushnell has created a dual paradox in their challenge by encouraging hoaxes and also asking for million dollar winners of actual Bigfoot photos. Bushnell’s joking attitude to be careful because you might get mistaken for a bear is troubling, and doesn’t go very far to giving any hope that serious results will be forthcoming from this “challenge.”
The specifics of what a winner needs to produce is clear, as a
…participant can provide an unaltered photograph/video, verified and substantiated by a panel of scientific experts, the evidence required to prove a Sasquatch/Bigfoot/Yeti exists. Photo or video must be taken with a Trail/Deer Camera. A Trail/Deer Camera is defined, for this Sweepstakes, as any camera designed/sold for the purpose of being attached to a tree or other object to automatically capture images of passing wildlife. Either day or night, still or video, color, or black and white. Entries must be in jpeg format, un-retouched, unaltered and not changed in anyway, or it will be disqualified.
The parameters are clear also. Of course, most of us know that the evidence needed to proof a Bigfoot exists is usually held by zoologists to be a dead or captive Bigfoot. Who is going to fulfill that kind of proof?
Maybe this prize will go to ending the question, “once and for all.” Maybe.
Who will judge your photos or footage?
The photo/video will be reviewed by a panel of experts and a Bushnell Field Pro for authenticity. Panelists include a Bushnell-assigned zoologist, biologist and a Bushnell Field Pro. The winner must be a unanimous decision from all three expert judges. All entries are the possession of Bushnell, and will not be returned. Winner will be contacted via registered mail and announced on the website.
Okay, you’ve taken groundbreaking footage of a Bigfoot, and turned it over to Bushnell, with proof that this is a Bigfoot (what? a dead body?) and you immediately get a million dollars? Or, oops, you’re not picked, they keep your photos or footage and the Bigfoot proof? How confusing is that?
Oh well, if it is worth a million dollars, then you’ll get your money.
So what’s a Sasquatch, again?
Sasquatch, Bigfoot, Yeti or similar is defined as any bi-pedal, non-human/human that has not been classified as a bear (Black or Brown, Kodiak, Polar or Grizzly), lion (mountain, puma, cougar, panther, or others), jaguar, wild swine, wolf, coyote, wild dog, deer, elk, moose, buffalo, caribou, sheep, goat or any other indigenous or non-indigenous (Ape, monkey, lion, bear, jaguar, leopard or other) animal. Or any domesticated animal (swine, bovine, canine, feline, equine, sheep, goat, lama, birds, or other). All human, human costumed or statuary photos/video will be classified in the secondary sweepstakes.
Of course, one has to wonder about the M.K. Davis loophole, that being, what if “Bigfoot” is a form of human, does that mean you really should be submitting under the “secondary sweepstake” for “human photos/videos”? 🙂
This is getting very complex.
Ultimately, many of us feel, Bigfoot would have to be an “indigenous or non-indigenous ape,” so according to these rules, they would be excluded?
Send in the Bushnell rules editor, please. Wake up and take this loophole out.
Let’s just hope no one is shot in the woods.
About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. 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. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015.
Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.
And who’s to say that if there is a genuine photo of a Sasquatch they won’t throw it into the hoaxer category to avoid paying out the one million. It comes off as a loophole for them to avoid shelling out the big bucks. I also believe that someone in an earlier post pointed out that spending the money for a high quality costume in order to try and dupe them out of the million by trying to pass it as a genuine squatch photo rather than a hoax is something to consider. It’s an interesting contest but I do not think it was well thought out, there are many flaws as you have pointed out.
I’m not looking forward to the anticipated oncoming flood of youtube hoaxes
Just curious though. Once the photo is turned in, who owns the rights?
Is 1 million dollars the going rate for Bigfoot photos (also videos), when news organizations or whoever purchase them?
Settle down–let’s not be dramatic, guys.
Bushnell is having some fun with this, no harm done. They’ll probably sell some cameras because of this. Good for them.
They certainly have the legal backing to ensure that they aren’t liable for any accidents. I’m sure that they’ve already got that in the fine print.
But honestly, I’m not expecting any tragedies from this. Only parents who make their kids wear life-vests in the shower would tell their kids, “No, you can’t dress in that monkey-suit. It isn’t safe.”
“Why dad???”
“You might be mistaken for a bear, and shot.”
Personally, I think this is a good thing. A trail-cam has a higher chance of shooting a sasquatch than you and I do, tramping around with a camera.
If fact, I would go so far as to say that if we left 1,000 trail-cams in the 1,000 most strategic locations in the Pac. N.W., we could expect a snap-shot of a sasquatch within a few years.
Statistically, one of the animals is bound to pass by one of those locations (if well chosen) within that span of time. It’s just math.
In Arkansas, where a goodly number of folk carry firearms as part of their work or self protection, would gladly shoot sasquatch if they thought it was real and they could make even more than a million dollars on the carcass. Sooooo, wear a bear or gorilla suit while posing for a camera and some unknowing person may come along thinking they see the genuine article and, well stupid is as stupid does.
Please think about that before you do such a stunt any time soon.
I agree with you, Doug…
I agree that this irresponsible, to say the least.
But stuff could happen, Scott C.
I may be wrong here, but seems like Bushnell is really aiming for the goofy pics of guys with gorilla customes, rather than a bonafide Sasquatch pic. In fact, it’s almost like they’re NOT hoping to end up with a real Sasquatch pic, so they’re covering themselves by stating the prize will be given in the form of $25,000 checks for a period of 40 years. Now to me at 34 that’s a really attractive offer, but for a senior Bigfooter that might not sound so good.
I also think the names of the experts conforming the judging panel would have to be presented beforehand. What are their credentials? What’s their personal take on Bigfoot?
Nevertheless, it still sounds like an interesting idea, and this is after all a marketing scheme that could turn—if handled properly—into an “X Prize” for Cryptozoology of sorts—if by the end of the contest they don’t get the Bigfoot photo, they could reinvest the money and try again next year until someone wins—but any person seriously considering entering the contest should be cautious, and if they have a lawyer friend, maybe they should ask him to read all the legal disclaimers just to be on the safe side.
All in all, Bushnell doesn’t seem to be particularly serious about the overall program. Looking at the rules and their contest site, I’d say it’s a marketing program put together at pretty low cost by a small staff inside the publishing group that own the magazines/websites where these Bushnell ads are appearing.
These kind of programs are some of the things I do for a living, so I think I can answer a few questions (not definitively, but hopefully some decent guesses). And, no, I don’t have anything to do with this program; just a crypto-loving reader for the last 20 years.
1. The goal for programs like this would always be maximum participation, so they really want entries from as many people as possible. Hence the “non-deer” and “funny” photo categories – anyone can take one of those pictures to participate. In fact, the “real” part of this program are these picture submissions with three winners every month of a Bushnell product prize.
2. The $1,000,000 prize is really a bit of a ruse. Bushnell’s is not putting up a million bucks. Nor are the magazines. They will have bought an insurance policy from a company that sells exactly those kinds of things (same type companies that give hole-in-one insurance during golf tournaments). It’s a 40-year annuity because that makes the policy cost less than half what it would if they were offering a lump sum payout (notice how lottery winners win a lot less if they want all the cash immediately – same principle). And, you’d be surprised at how little it costs to get a million bucks in insurance for something as unlikely as someone getting a fully-verified Bigfoot picture within a limited timeframe. I’d guess Bushnell’s is paying high four figures (i.e. less than $10,000) for the million dollars in potential payout (which would be paid in full by the insurance company if a real photo pops up).
3. Because they’re covered if a real photo comes up, Bushnell would DEFINITELY want to give away the money. They’ll do everything they can to support possible photos. There’s no downside for them, so don’t worry about supressing from their end. Quite the opposite.
4. Someone asked a question about naminig the judges. Legally, in contests, you simply have to explain HOW a winner will be judged (so entrants know what critieria will matter). There’s no law about saying WHO will be involved (and they can change their minds on that up until the last second).
5. I would have definitely recommended against the whole “hoax bonus prize” as part of the official program. Yes, they do have legal copy that indemnifies them, but I’d wager if there’s an accident, that won’t be remotely strong enough to cover them completely. Not such a good idea, in my opinion.
But, hey, at least this whole program is a public mention that has one foot rested in reality (trail cams = maybe find a real Bigfoot). That’s not so bad for building awareness and interest in cryptozoology. Now, to Loren’s point, let’s keep our fingers crossed that deer season passes without a fatality of a poor dude in a gorilla suit.
Well, you have to evaluate this contest as it exists. It is a double edged sword. And there are two points of view. One view is from Bushnell’s perspective and the other point of view is from the public which includes participants, camera enthusiasts, hunters, and wildlife officionados, BF and the animals as well since they are living beings. Let’s look at the pros and cons of the contest from each side.
Interpret it from the frame of reference of Bushnell and the pros would be that the contest is actually a very good marketing ploy to sell trail cams. Not bad. More cams sold and profitability increases. This is good for employees of Bushnell and stock holders if Bushnell is publicly owned. More disposable income being spent is good for the economy. And whatever parallel market such as guns sales or tree stand manufacturers, etc, has increased sales as well. Brand name recognition increases as well which directly effects competition in the market. And they are spreading some goodwill in the BF community. When I say goodwill, I mean goodwill in the business sense of the word. The value associated with their name increases, at least for most BF enthusiasts.
The cons are there too. From Bushnell’s perspective, it looks like a lot of advertising is going into this campaign. So if the payoff is not as great as expected, they will take a hit. They probably have some kind of insurance waiver in the event that someone gets killed in the process by a hunter. I am sure that there is some kind of liability waiver or liability insurance associated with this campain which is probably a small percent of the overall payoff if the marketing goes off as planned. If someone does get hurt or killed, then there will be negative publicity from the media. And negatives will be associated with the Bushnell name. Also, the contest could run into trouble because of some ambiguity in the rules which might get some people upset with Bushnell. You always want a win/win in marketing. The real win would be if a BF is captured on video from one of their cameras. They would get at least partial credit for hosting the contest and spreading the enthusiasm in the search of BF.
So although the risks are low, it is still a double edged sword for Bushnell. Apparently, the contest will bring in enough revenue and subsequent profit that giving away so many great prizes is not considered a problem.
What are the pros and cons from the perspective of the public?
Well, the pros for the contest participants, they have a chance at winning some money or some great prizes. They have a chance at getting their name out there and recognized. Even if they do not win anything, the contest still holds intrinsic value for them as it does for everyone else who participates and that is the thrill of just participating in a contest. The pros for hunters is being able to justify their new trailcam purchase to their wives, considering they were going to buy it anyway. But now they have the convenience of saying they are doing it to enter a contest and maybe give their wife something in return. This would be the first time that happened on a hunt supply purchase. LOL Also, hunters would be able to see the variety of game in the areas they hunt and maybe that trophy buck. Wildlife officionados will be able to track the geographic location of target animals. They might even find that some species have increased their range or capture on film a new species of animal or a species once thought to no longer live in that area such as cougars or wolves. So they will gain some valuable information and it may be collected from someone other than themselves. They might get some video of a BF which equals or exceeds the PG footage. In the very least, there may be some new interesting footage that is not a blobsquatch. If there is any pros for the animals, it may be that some may finally gain protection if they are found to exist in a specific geographic location. If a new species is found, then of course biologists and zoologists will make a study on it and hopefully that includes protection of the species while studies are being conducted. If a BF is finally captured with enough conclusive footage to prove that they really do exist, then hopefully, the end result would benefit BF and protections could be set in place and sanctuaries set up. Generally speaking, there are enough pros to make this a very feasible concept in going through with the contest. There are probably many more pros than I listed here but we get the idea.
The cons for the public and others are pretty self evident. There will be some of those who entered and did not win who will complain that the contest was unfair and that their footage or photo was better than those who actually won. But this would only be a small percent and almost negligible. Contest participants and camera or video enthusiasts might be disappointed when they get no footage or shot of anything. Their perception would be that they have wasted their money or that it could have been better spent. But this would only be buyer’s remorse on their part. Afterall, they made the decision in the first place. The cons for hunters might be less than any other group. I can only think of a few and one of them is disappointment if they do not see the game they are looking for or if their trailcam get damaged or stolen. Wildlife officionados and zoologists have very little to lose so the cons for them might be no payoff or a small payoff in data versus the expenditure in obtaining that data. Sure they might find low populations of some animals but the trailcam contest is not responsible for that condition. However, human activity in remote areas might pressure some types of wildlife and cause the wildlife stress and other cons associated with human activity where none or little had been before. The cons for animals would be temporary human encroachment and of course maybe some increased hunting which could be perceived as a positive or negative, depending in which camp you reside. I mean the antihunting camp versus the prohunting camp. Either way, if you are the animal that is shot, stressed or who’s habitat is encroached upon, you would consider this a con to the contest. BF probably has the most to gain or lose if it is found to exist. Lord only knows that the next step is for someone to hunt one down in the area it was captured by the trailcam and hunt it for monetary gain or prosperity. A BF or numerous BFs could lose their life in the process. I already went over the pros but the cons seem rather harsh in comparison. As for the general public, well, if one is not knowledgeable about hunting, and one decides to dress up as some BF looking creature, one takes the chance of losing their life. This could be intentional or unintentional on the part of the shooter, but I see more harm or cons coming out of this than good. Not to mention, that for our readers here at Cryptomundo, we are going to have to sift through hours and hours of junk and fake video in hopes of finding a gem. Seriously, how many of these will end up on YouTube? Ahhh, I have a headache already just thinking about it.
So this whole thing is a double edged sword. It could be a great contest with some great outcomes. Or it could be a good intentioned contest with some very negative outcomes depending on your frame of reference. One thing is sure, good intentions do not always yield good results.
I for one will fold my hands together and pray for the best, while I cross my fingers and hope that worst does not occur in the process.
Experience tells me that this is probably going to muddy the waters more for proving the existence of BF than it will in proving that they do exist. Life experience has been a good teacher for many if we as students are willing to learn from what it has taught us and also, what we have learned from our mistakes.
Have a great week everybody!
Well, definitely something to talk about anyway.
PhotoExpert probably has this right, on further reflection; it’s a double-edged sword.
1. It makes a joke of the sasquatch.
a. But it’s getting cameras out there, probably a lot more than might get out there otherwise.
2. Somebody might get shot.
a. But there’ll be lots of fun stuff to watch! (You won’t even have to dust your skepticals off for this one. Sheesh.)
b. And admit it, you might feel a tiny secret satisfaction, right? (I’m hoping right in the butt.)
c. And you’ll see the shot! However you choose to interpret that sentence!
3. WE HAVE A FILM that science doesn’t buy. What makes anyone think a trailcam photo will pull down that million? (Pretty obvious Bushnell doesn’t take Patty seriously. Think about it. What will their panel of experts think of Patty? Trust me; that will determine whether that prize gets handed out or not, so keep tabs on it – or go for one of the OTHER categories.)
a. It’ll make for mucho blog mileage on Cryptomundo. Loren’s server may crash! (Double-edged sword.)
4. It’s all just another corporate game.
a. Let the games begin!
Good morning Cryptos….
The Bushnell/Field and Stream campaign is a novel inexpensive promotional strategy…poorly designed…similar to their optics, which are entry level at best…I expected better from Field and stream…JMHO
Derby is correct…the annuity is inexpensive and unlikely to be claimed. Encouraging hazardous hoaxing…reprehensible and unforgivable.
The Bushnell/Field and Stream campaign’s impact on legitimate research credibility…is damning and dangerous. Their legal liability is enormous despite the legalese boilerplate…JMHO
live and learn…live and let live…
ole bub and the dawgs
DWA: “But it’s getting cameras out there, probably a lot more than might get out there otherwise.”
EXACTLY – no “probably” about it!!
Many discussions here bemoaning the logistical, financial and other difficulties in getting more properly equipped enthusiasts out into Squatch habitat, and, regardless of the various risks mentioned, this IS one way for science (?) to cover more territory, expecially over the long term, rather than on noisy, disjointed weekend forays.
Who cares about the legal, financial and litigation possibilities? This gives anybody with a couple hundred bucks the chance to participate in a potentially successful “virtual” expedition, even if it’s only a Sunday afternoon trek into that local BLM area where Uncle Fred swears he saw a giant ape in the shrubbery, to hang his/her only TrailCam for a week or two.
Any one of those “saved my lunch-money to buy this thing” – “never went into the woods before” – “I don’t really expect to get anything” – escapades could be the one to make somebody RICH!!
Could it be YOU???
To me, that the company promotes putting on costumes to try faking them out is a big problem. It has been fairly easy for us to determine fakes on Youtube, and this will give us just more experience with that, to be able to differentiate false from something that could be or is undoubtedly, real.
The real problem is the safety of those in costumes. This is not an insignificant idea. I had a friend who in his younger years dressed up in a gorilla outfit and wandered around in the woods near his house in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He was intending to give some people a thrill. Instead, he almost got shot. He was walking over a ridge and through a short flat area on his way home and suddenly lights from a truck were turned on, and he heard someone yell “There it is, get it!” and the truck started driving toward him. He ran quickly to the other side of the clearing and into the woods again and up another ridge, and ran straight home from there. He heard a few shots behind him as he as leaving the field. That could have been a disaster – and his outfit didn’t even look convincing as a bigfoot. Many hunters would be able to immediately discern that something is either not an animal or is a person in a costume. But oftentimes the problem comes from people in the suburbs or on the outskirts of towns who own firearms but rarely use them.
I’m sure their feeling is that “Bigfoot” doesn’t exist and so they’ll never have to pay the reward. In the meantime they sell thousands of trail cameras because of this stunt (I don’t actually know how many cameras this will potentially sell, but I’m sure that’s what they think).
I’m kind of on the Darwinian side of the fence we’re I just don’t have strong feelings either way about some idiot in an ape costume getting shot.