The Sasquatch and Camera Traps

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on May 30th, 2008

In light of Loren’s announcement earlier today of Bushnell’s $1,000,000 Sasquatch trail cam photo contest, I wanted to post a piece authored by one of my colleagues at the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy, Daryl Colyer. Daryl authored the following article regarding the use of camera traps to obtain photographic evidence of the Sasquatch.

Bushnell Sasquatch Photo Contest

The Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy has been actively proceeding with plans to obtain compelling photographic and/or video evidence through a long-term remote camera trap project based on the premise that such evidence can suffice to secure recognition of the existence of bigfoot. From that point, more intense and properly funded research would enable the collection of further and additional forms of evidence, including, ultimately, sufficient physical evidence to permit either the formal designation of a previously uncatalogued species or the recognition of the sasquatch as the descendant of a previously described species.

Periodically questions arise regarding the use of motion-sensing game cameras in sasquatch research. Doubts are expressed concerning the idea that this technique, as applied by wildlife biologists in documenting other rare species, is appropriate for the sasquatch.

Actually, in all likelihood, sasquatches probably possess all the tools and intelligence necessary to detect (hear, smell and/or see) camera traps, just as many of the species photographed by the TBRC appear to be aware of the camera traps taking their pictures.

However, while accepting the probability that sasquatches can see, smell and/or hear the cameras, it remains highly illogical to think that they consciously avoid them.

Why would they steer clear of them? How would they know to avoid them?

This kind of reasoned avoidance behavior would indicate a learned response to something that may have caused harm in the past. How would sasquatches have learned this behavior? For example, are there known instances in the past of firearms being set up with cameras and automatically triggered to discharge, which would have resulted in pain or death to a sasquatch? Has a tradition has been passed down to avoid any and all cameras in the woods? In other words, what consequence as a result of not avoiding camera traps in the past would cause this species to consciously avoid camera traps in the future?

Is it afraid that its picture is going to be taken?

Is it afraid that its soul or inner being will be stolen?

Is it afraid of capture? (If so, why risk venturing close to residences and vehicles?)

These certainly may seem like silly questions, but they must be answered reasonably if a cogent argument is to be made that the species is cognizant of camera traps and their capabilities to the point of avoiding them; and there are indeed a number of people who actually do believe this.

If eyewitness accounts are accurate, sasquatches seem to show little or no fear of anything else that is mechanical or electronic. Some reports indicate that even firearms and gunfire do not intimidate or scare these creatures. Why would a small metallic or plastic object attached passively to a tree ward them off? They certainly do not seem to be leery of hunting stands; a number of reports have been generated by hunters who claimed that they were sitting in hunting stands while observing sasquatches.

Some sasquatches, according to reports, actually seem to be drawn to automobiles, even while the vehicles are running. They do not seem to be deterred by porch or security lights, electronic feeders, ATVs, freezers on porches, etc.

There is nothing mysterious about the failure, to this point in time, of game cameras to photograph sasquatches. No explanations involving super intelligence, super senses or paranormal capabilities need to be employed. The odds simply have not caught up with them yet. But they will. When they do, of course, this debate about whether or not sasquatches know to avoid camera traps will be done.

Game camera technology has been, until quite recently, horrible. It has only been in very recent years that camera capabilities have increased the odds of securing rare wildlife photos. The “thousands and thousands” of cameras commonly cited by cynics as existing across North America have been largely made up of inexpensive, slow-to-trigger, often malfunctioning, over-exposing cameras. Even the TBRC’s camera arsenal, made up of the very best technology commercially available, has demonstrated a significant number of malfunctions; however, with patience, perseverance, pluck and plenty of cameras properly positioned, confidence remains high that there is a reasonable chance of success.

About Craig Woolheater
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005. I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films: OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.

49 Responses to “The Sasquatch and Camera Traps”

  1. red_pill_junkie responds:

    Bigfoot vs Big Brother: Let the games begin 🙂

  2. wtb1 responds:

    “Actually, in all likelihood, sasquatches probably possess all the tools and intelligence necessary to detect (hear, smell and/or see) camera traps, just as many of the species photographed by the TBRC appear to be aware of the camera traps taking their pictures.”

    Are you kidding? In all of who’s likelyhood? I’ll bet 9 out of 10 HUMANS would walk right by such a trap and not notice it, let alone bigfoot. And as for the other animals who seem to notice it? Um….well, that’s AFTER they hear the first picture being taken, not before.

  3. Sergio responds:

    wtb1 wrote: responds:

    “Are you kidding? In all of who’s likelyhood? I’ll bet 9 out of 10 HUMANS would walk right by such a trap and not notice it, let alone bigfoot. And as for the other animals who seem to notice it? Um….well, that’s AFTER they hear the first picture being taken, not before.”

    Uh, actually, are YOU kidding?

    You must not know much about wildlife, dude.

    Bears, hogs, deer, raccoons, cats, coyotes, etc. OFTEN detect cameras LONG before the cameras are able to activate.

    In case you didn’t know it, the olfactory senses and hearing capabilities of most wildlife tend to be immeasurably superior to that of humans.

    If you go to the TBRC site, you’ll see that they apparently have numerous photos of bears attacking their cameras. The attacks actually trigger the cameras, which means that the bears knew they were there BEFORE they triggered.

    Now humans, of course, is a totally different story. Of course not many humans would detect a camouflaged camera trap out in the bush. Our sense of smell and hearing is just inferior.

    Different story with wildlife.

  4. DWA responds:

    There is nothing demonstrated about either the sasquatch or camera traps that would lead anyone, acquainted with either topic, to think that traps won’t work.

    It is probably much harder to get the discovery shot – for any animal – than most laymen think it is. (Just like it appears that more people are seeing these animals than most of us think.) This sort of thing seems to be what generates the “they’re avoiding them” arguments: the belief that we would CERTAINLY have gotten the shot (or brought in a body) by now.

    Proponents fall into this trap, unfortunately, with the same ease skeptics do. Hence all the silly stuff like: they cannot die; OK if they do they bury their dead; they are shape-shifters sent by the saucer people; they smell the camera; they see infrared; etc. They might indeed do both the latter things. (Hey, they might be saucer pilots too. Prove it to me and I’ll shake your hand.) But other animals, too, sense the camera; and the shots get gotten.

    And hey, um, WE GOT THE SHOT. A really noisy pair of guys on big smelly horses (actually, the guys had been out a bit, and were doubtless smelly too) came right up to one, in the open, and got a movie. With a standard issue home movie camera. As it was strolling away from them, thinking, don’t know about those guys, but I just don’t need the bother.

    We’re gonna get the shot if they’re out there. Then we have to do something with it this time.

    A freaking RHINO kept researchers going for years before the first photographic documentation in the wild. Bigger, probably dumber critter, in a much smaller area.

    If they’re there, we’re getting the shot. Only questions are: when, and what we will do with it THIS time.

  5. Mysteriousness responds:


    I think that is an astute observation regarding the futility of trail-cams. Of course, there is always a chance they will work, I think this argument hits home for something that has bothered me for a long time:

    So many researchers use great ape scent baits, Sasquatch “calls” and recordings, wood-knocking, etc. which are probably doing more harm than good. A creature that purportedly has intelligence close to that of man, but atuned to forest life, would probably EXTREMELY sensitive to changes in their environment. So, unless those calls were exactly right, the scents exactly right, etc., these methods probably have more of a chance of spooking a creature than attracting them.

    Let’s face it, the only way they can survive in the wild is to be smart, skittish, and skeptical of every little thing that comes their way.

  6. skyshark responds:

    To say that any animal has some international communications network that warns of camera traps is a bit of a stretch. Remember that these devices are used all over the world. I agree that animals certainly have much better senses than humans, but animals are aware (in general) that cars are a hazard, yet they still get hit. My point is that in spite of their keen senses and awareness of their surroundings they would not be able to avoid a camera trap 100% of the time. I sincerely hope that a camera trap catches something, but without physical evidence it is still only a photo. Kudos to Bushnell for generating interest in the subject though.

  7. Patrick Bede responds:

    Mysteriousness said – “I think that is an astute observation regarding the futility of trail-cams. Of course, there is always a chance they will work, I think this argument hits home for something that has bothered me for a long time.”

    Mysteriousness, you obviously didn’t even read the article! It’s not about the futility of trail-cams! It’s about how foolish it is to think that the use of trail cams if futile!

    And Craig didn’t write the article – Daryl Colyer of TBRC wrote it, but I am sure Craig agrees with it, since he published it here.

  8. Richard888 responds:

    Then again, there’s always the possibility that Bigfoot is a nocturnal creature. So unless Trail Cams have night detection capability there is no point in having a discussion that doesn’t take this into account.

  9. Mysteriousness responds:


    I did not realize that the article wasn’t Craig’s – I thought that one of the links headed to the referenced article. My mistake; I glossed over the segue where Craig introduced the article as someone else’s.

    However, I DID read the article, and was only commenting on one particular passage. I understand that the author was not supporting my argument, but I wanted to call out that passage as, what I thought, was a smart observation. Just because that wasn’t the main impetus of the article does not mean I cannot cherrypick and discuss the portions I find interesting.

    Agreement or disagreement aside, I think the article does make a fair argument for the continued use of trail cameras, I just wanted to discuss another aspect. I only wanted my comments to start out positive.

  10. Questor responds:

    Richard888, all trail cameras take night time photos. Many of them do not use flashes, but use infrared.

  11. kittenz responds:

    Sasquatch avoid camera traps ??? Of course they don’t – the people at JackLinks catch them on camera all the time 😉 !

  12. chrisandclauida2 responds:

    I think long term modern camera traps in areas of both traditional/historical and on going activity is the way to go.

    i say modern camera traps and i may mean future camera traps. As Craig stated up till now camera traps have been so slow to take the picture after the beam trips that the animal is completely out of view. only animals that tend to constantly forage for food go slow enough to get caught. the only exception is animals walking to or from a camera appropriately set on a trail.

    i think that directors from various Bigfoot organizations would find a better return on their investment if they provided the most advanced camera traps, were talking milliseconds delay instead of a second or two, in numbers to fully saturate an area. numbers of 100 per square mile may be on the high side but all trails entrances exits water ways etc need coverage.

    these traps should have a delay of one or two months before they are activated so there are no sounds or electronic signals coming from them till the areas residents get used to them then they should be left till the extreme time of batteries then replaced with a completely new set and those left.

    I’m also mulling the idea i came up with of a bait tent. setting up a campground with the only cameras inside the tent point out. it seems we should use the creatures curiosity against them. since they like to approach tents after the camp has gone cold for the night this seems like an obvious avenue to try.

    there are a few other ideas such as a long term, 2 or 3 week, insertion of a small team of 2 or 3 folks or 2 small teams into areas that over look places of activity. these teams can monitor the areas using only cold camps and no movement beyond their op,s.

    i think we need to get away from the big expeditions or utilise these other techniques in addition to the big expeditions. while the claims of class b activity are sometimes impressive they have yet to produce the results were looking for.

    that is unless someone is sitting on something for some stupid reason.

  13. sschaper responds:

    We’ve talked often enough on this site about the best use of trail cams.

    There might be consensus that pairs should be planted to cover each other.

    I don’t know if it is consensus or not, but covering a large area fairly thoroughly makes more sense than just one spot, if we are trying to see an elusive critter.

    I presume that these critters would need salt like any other, so why not use salt blocks for bait?

    Put them up high enough looking down at an angle, and so forth.

    Have all of you seen the Sumatran rhino destroy the trail cam? That was in the news yesterday, I believe.

    They are useful, we just need to think more like a hunter, or like Jane Goodall, and less like Destination:Truth if we are going to have any luck.

  14. AlbertaSasquatch responds:

    What will it matter to the scientific community if by chance we get a clear picture of sasquatch? It won’t! We already have a great video of sasquatch yet the scientific community balks at it. One or two pictures will be tossed to the side like the rest of the evidence, hell we already have pics and nobody (scientific community) will look at them. We have videos and nobody will look at them. So why would we think that another picture or two will suffice. They won’t. I hate to say it but we NEED a body, that is the only way science will ever take the sasquatch question seriously. I don’t want to see one of the big guys or gals killed but that is the only way. Now we could say that is the only way they will be protected but as far as I’m concerned they don’t need protection from us, they’ve got by just fine without our so called protection, otherwise the sighting reports would start falling, which I don’t believe that they are. So the only reason we NEED a body is so that we can shove it into science’s face and say TOLD YA SO!

  15. Spinach Village responds:

    Mysteriousness has good point. Imagine how we would respond if we felt that we were being baited.

    I hate to sound incredulous (and I don’t want to judge them, but you guys and ladies are aware that this is a Bushnell marketing campaign, huh?) That million dollar reward has the potential to earn them a lot more with or with out a picture.

    I would rather that a Bigfoot is found dead than actually killed, and I’m not convinced that bodies haven’t been found before. I know, I know, this is a longstanding debate, but I’m just stating my opinion.

  16. Spinach Village responds:

    Can some animals smell intentions? They say fear has a smell. Well maybe there are a lot of indicators in our scents that we are completely oblivious too.

  17. red_pill_junkie responds:

    So the only reason we NEED a body is so that we can shove it into science’s face and say TOLD YA SO!

    If that’s the sole reason why we require the death of such a unique creature, so we can gloat and get our 15 minutes of fame, then I feel the price is too steep.

    I do believe more solid evidence is required to substantiate the existence of these creatures. Hopefully we could spare the killing.

    It’s interesting that in all the time I’ve been reading the posts and comments of this site, not once have I read the suggestion of capturing a Sasquatch alive.

    Why not? In all these decades, has it never been proposed?

  18. SOCALcryptid responds:

    red_pill_junkie and I think alike on this one. Good comment red_pill.
    Why kill any species that we know little about. How many are out there? what is the male to female ratio. These are questions I ask myself. This is why I believe in the catch and release method. I still think more field research is needed before the kill method is used on Sasquatch. Most who have put one in their sites do not pull the trigger anyway. Something to think about.

  19. Lyndon responds:

    AlbertaSasquatch is completely correct. I don’t see what a camera trap picture is going to prove and it’s certainly not going to count as better evidence than actual moving footage.

    A dead body unfortunately is the ONLY way to end this question once and for all. Even DNA won’t. A good camera trap picture would be nice and all, but it’s not going to actually prove anything.

  20. Ole Bub responds:

    Good morning Cryptos…

    My thanks to Craig and Daryl for sharing their thoughts.

    I’ve seen some remarkable game cam and security camera images and video, unfortunately the folks who have those images and videos are reticent to share them with sasquatchery. In some cases those images and videos have been submitted to recognized scientists and “experts” for evaluation, as part of a growing compendium of evidence for Sasquatch’s existence.

    Consider the consternation the latest P/G film controversy has caused. Damn few folks want the attention or aggravation from the release of images and videos to the public. Many images and videos are submitted to science on a “need to know” basis. Though we would like to know, we are not entitled to know.

    MK Davis, stated his concern that folk’s time and treasure is wasted pursuing hoaxes, and fraudulent claims, I agree. There is a wealth of information available, however winnowing the truth from the fiction is another matter.

    In my humble opinion, these are flesh and blood “ancient peoples” with a family/clan social structure and a culture that has been passed orally from generation to generation for thousands of years, worthy of our respect and legal recognition.

    They are adaptive and resilient to change. They are aware of our presence the moment we arrive in their area, they are observant, elusive and respectful of us within reason, despite our awkward and invasive efforts at “recreational research” in the field.

    I used to think they need our help and protection, however I’ve come to the conclusion they are much better off without our interference. Hunting or harassing them, is a moral outrage, and should be prohibited by federal law, as the original aboriginals of North America, they have every right to prosper…JMHO

    Dr. Ed Fusch, has written extensively about Sasquatch and Native America folklore…his doctoral dissertation can be found at Bobbie Short’s, Bigfoot Encounters site. Dr Fusch gave a very interesting interview on Bigfoot Central at a few weeks ago on May 6th. I’m looking forward to his latest book…”They Walk Among Us”…JMHO

    live and learn…

    live and let live…

    ole bub and the dawgs

  21. airforce47 responds:

    Very good comments on the questions raised by Daryl Colyer. However without more knowledge of the species his questions can’t be answered.

    MOHO is that the species is aware of cameras and people with guns. Their intelligence is high enough for them to decide a course of action at the time of the encounter which is why you get different reactions at different times.

    Eventually a game camera will capture an image of a Bigfoot. How good that image will be remains to be seen.

  22. Sergio responds:

    I think the questions raised are indeed silly ones, and can certainly be answered with emphatic NOs. I think Colyer asked the questions in a way that challenges the very goofy and looney notion that these things “know” what cameras are and what they are used for and therefore go all out to avoid them. I agree with what Colyer is saying although I am much less subtle; the whole idea is ludicrous!

    Of course they don’t know their freaking pictures are being taken! Of course they don’t “think” their souls will be stolen!

    Anyone who thinks so belongs in the nut house!

  23. cryptidsrus responds:

    I would hate to think the only possible way to “prove” these creatures exist would be to kill them. I would prefer not to, but it looks like this is the only way. I hope to God I’m wrong.

    Good thread, Craig.

    And good points from both sides.

  24. wtb1 responds:

    Sergio, your post, like the arcticle, reeks of apologetics. If the reason no one has gotten a pic of a sasquatch is because of bad technology and the super duper noses of bears, racoons and bigfoot, the answer is really simple. Put the damn cameras out of reach and angled down.

    What the article, as biased as it is, doesn’t take into account: There may not be any pics of bigfoot because, there just might not really BE any.

  25. DWA responds:


    My. How cynical, biased, um, let’s see, smug, um, OK, bitter, and, well, naive. That your evil twin?

    That post sounds like somebody who found out there was no Santa Claus just as he took off for college and hasn’t gotten over it. It’s OK, man.

    What makes you so sure of…well, whatever it is you’re so sure of? If it’s not evidence, please, don’t advertise that here. I’m tired of naive “skeptics.”

  26. SOCALcryptid responds:

    DWA, I feel where you are coming from on your last comment. A five minute encounter in the High Sierras changed my life twenty years ago. When you know something is there and you can not prove it to the scientific community, it becomes pretty frustrating.

    wtb1, I have researched eye witnessed accounts of these creatures being able to climb trees. In fact the sas that I encountered was up in a huge pine tree. Black bears and raccoons also climb trees. It would be difficult to keep a camera away from any of these creatures in a tree. That said, I do not understand the point you are making. Also you mentioned “bad technology”. These new camera traps are able to take pics. 24 hours a day. The battery life now lasts for 30 days. The technology is here. Being able to see in total darkness is technical in my book. What kind of bad technology are you talking about? Let us know so we can better understand your comment.

  27. DWA responds:


    Well, not to frustrate you further, but here goes: you CAN’T prove it to the scientific community.

    For better or for worse – and with such as MK Davis around, believe me, it’s for the better – science appropriates for itself, and society assigns to science, the authority AND the responsibility for the proof. The only thing amateurs can do – and they’ve been doing it, as ably as could be expected – is compile evidence and submit it for review. THAT is what the camera traps are going to do, if these animals are out there: put more icing on the evidence cake, so that maybe, one day down the road, a proper search to garner the proof will be undertaken by those expected, and funded, to get it.

    The evidence that now exists would (again, if the animal exists) have amounted to proof, long ago, IF THE RIGHT PEOPLE HAD OBTAINED IT, that is, scientists, out there to get the proof. Sad, maybe, but there it is. Amateurs will only be able to collect anecdotal evidence. Which, for everyone out there who doesn’t get the distinction between evidence and proof, is always what precedes the proof.

    Actually, what REALLY frustrates you must be when skeptics like me keep saying “if.” Don’t know about the rest of them, but I’m not dissing you, or anyone else out there fighting the good fight. It’s just that, if the person I trusted most in the world gave me a compelling personal account of an encounter tomorrow, I could go no further than, wow. There must be something TO this. (Which I already am thinking. And don’t come anywhere near this on, with any other reputed cryptid. Nessie? Schools of trout, or conga-dancing otters, like as not. Mokele-mbembe? Palm wine and an elephant or two or six, or maybe natives looking for yuks at the expense of gullible cryptos. Yeti? Yowie? Well, haven’t seen the database yet on those.)

    Such [sigh] is the nature of proof. AS OPPOSED TO evidence. We’ve had total trust on matters of evidence cynicized out of us. Anecdotes are no more than that – until Yahoo!News says: SASQUATCH DOCUMENTED IN WASHINGTON STATE! We have to take even the most compelling encounter reports – of which I’ve read scores more than just about anyone else, I bet – with a teeny grain of salt, because, well, it COULD be all a false positive, it COULD be all a bunch of lies, it COULD be all hallucinations…it’s just been pounded into our heads, for so long. It’s one reason why sas encounters can psychologically scar people. They now KNOW something exists that they have been told, their whole lives, JUST DOESN’T.

    Actually, don’t you have the last laugh on everyone, including the scientists? You KNOW something that most of the rest of us don’t. There’s two kinds of proof, sez me; and personal proof is better, by leagues, than scientific proof. Heck, you don’t even know what I am, and you know the sasquatch exists.

    That would be enough, for me.

    But fortunately for you and me, SOCAL, doesn’t look like nuthin’s gonna faze Daryl, Craig and Co.

    Science needs the shot. Great. Let’s get the shot. That’s how they do it in Hollywood, right?

  28. Awesome220 responds:

    Bigfoot are too smart to be photographed by these devices.
    Bigfoot are too smart to be seen/photographed by hikers and people.
    Bigfoot are immune to bullets.
    Bigfoot are too smart to be caught in traps.

    Bigfoot are too good for science; they’ll never be ‘proved’ to exist by scientific standards.

  29. bigbobo responds:

    “I’m also mulling the idea i came up with of a bait tent. setting up a campground with the only cameras inside the tent point out. it seems we should use the creatures curiosity against them. since they like to approach tents after the camp has gone cold for the night this seems like an obvious avenue to try”

    I am also in the process of doing this in Ontario. I have always thought this would be a great idea. We shall see what happens.

  30. SOCALcryptid responds:

    DWA, I totally agree and understand where you are coming from. Regardless what I encountered 20 years back, I still need good scientific evidence to prove the existence of the sas. I do not talk about it much because it is here say. Frustrating to say the least. I also need the scientific community to have the evidence that proves these creatures exist. Then I will be able to file my experience as proof.

    I say the more camera traps, investigators, technology etc., out in the field can only help in our quest for the truth. Truth meaning do they exist or not.

  31. springheeledjack responds:

    First off, good zing on Destination Truth…Sschaper!!!

    Second, I’m with Kittenz–put the Jacklinks people on this and we will have our BF in hand before the end of the week:)

    Seriuosly, I’m with Ole Bub–BF knows his environment as anyone does their own (ask yourself, how quick do you notice something new in your house if say, your wife buys a new picture and hangs it…and yes, granted BF’s home is a little larger, but any critter in the wild pays a LOT closer attention to its surroundings than we do…just out of survival), and I have no doubt BF’s can spot a camera trap…whether its smell, observation, whatever, am guessing they can pick up on them…now on the other hand (she had warts), I would guess a BF might be curious enough to check one out and maybe we’d get a picture, but then again who knows…and maybe we will get one that way.

    HOWEVER (oh boy, here I go again), having cameras up does not guarantee things…one, the territory is large, two we do not know the thinking behind BF’s, three the cameras have their own list of ideosincricies…

    They camped out over Loch Ness with dozens of camera people watching the banks and shores (think it was the 70’s–I can check my references if anyone wants to get nitpicky) and they did not get a multitude of sightings or camera shots of the thing–oh and for the scoftics, they did NOT get boat loads of sightings and pictures of sticks, logs or otters either.

    The point being, everyone thinks if you have a camera set up, it’s a sure thing…and it’s not, BECA– USE what we are dealing with is not something that is completely predictable, and has a mind of its own. And because they are smarter than your average bear…

  32. DWA responds:

    To all who have said their piece about how smart the sas is:

    Remember how dumb that rhino was that took, how long, to get on video?

    Not having a catalog of habits for this critter makes setting traps problematical to say the least. Remember: to get your pic taken you have to POSE. For wildlife, that’s modified only a bit; you sure have to present yourself well (as a lot of blobpics taken with game cameras have proven).

    There is a big element of crap shoot in this game, which the best placement can mitigate, but only somewhat.

  33. wtb1 responds:

    DWA, please smarten up. There is no bitterness with me at all. Don’t project your own emotions on me. As I already stated the article reeks of apologetics – as if it were written as a preemptive strike designed to ward off questions of why a BF has not yet been photographed.

    If you have a problem with my opinion of the article, remember, this is a free society and a reasonable board where anyone can post.

    The bad technology I referred to was what was mentioned in the article…the older, less reliable cameras. And whomever it was who responded to my suggestion of putting the cameras higher, sure, maybe BF’s can climb trees. But they wouldn’t climb them all, they wouldn’t find them all. Just how many of these cameras have gone missing? If they’re not missing and just damaged, how many were damaged so badly that none of the pics were viewable? Four? Two? Twelve? None? How many cameras did a BF actually damage?

  34. DWA responds:


    “Smarten up?” Somebody is asking ME to get smarter? Oh, no bitterness there. No experience on this board, neither. 😉

    YOU smarten up, smarty. Read some reports, and come back here with your attitude when you know something worth posting. Which, if you did, would have made your initial post unnecessary, because you would have seen how wrong it was.

    Note I didn’t say “dumb.” I’m NICE.

    If it’s a reasonable board, don’t come on here polluting it. ACT reasonable.

    Says one SMART guy.

  35. DWA responds:

    In order to enlighten people who may have the unenlightened view of this blog that several have posted here, but aren’t so impolite as to broadcast their ignorance by being impolite:

    Read it again.

    What is being said here is:

    1. No, we have no saspic on game cameras yet. (That anyone has shared, unless we count that Jacobs guy, which, well, we can’t. No: you do not know what that is.)

    2. We shouldn’t have expected any. This is a process that, as experience with a number of other species known to exist has shown, should be expected to take time.

    3. As the blog says – very clearly – there is no apparent reason at all that sasquatch would be inherently harder to photograph than anything else. Read that again: NO APPARENT REASON AT ALL THAT SASQUATCH SHOULD BE INHERENTLY HARDER TO PHOTOGRAPH THAN ANYTHING ELSE. If anything, their curiosity might lead to the discovery shot (as it did with the rhino that attacked the camera that took its picture).

    Now, there might be one or more reasons (note that I said “apparent” up there) that we haven’t gotten the shot(s) yet. Not knowing anything, really, about the sas yet other than what anecdotal and other evidence allows us to speculate, however, we wouldn’t know what those reasons are, would we?

    Got it?

    GET it.

    And as to wtb 1’s: “If they’re not missing and just damaged, how many were damaged so badly that none of the pics were viewable? Four? Two? Twelve? None? How many cameras did a BF actually damage?”

    The answers are:

    1. Three. (don’t know, just making up a number.)
    2. Not four.
    3. Not two.
    4. Not twelve.
    5. NOT IN THE ARTICLE, SILLY. Malfunctions do NOT have to include “damaged so extensively by known sasquatch that known sasquatch remains unknown.” It can be so simple as: sucker didn’t trigger. Hmmm, wonder what’s up here.
    6. And how does wtb1 propose answering THAT question?

    Have you ever noticed that some people have nothing but questions?

  36. thatericn responds:

    A large segment of documented Bigfoot/Sasquatch sightings take place on the fringes of human settlement. I recall there being cases of them going through garbage, looking through windows, crossing roads, etc.

    If they are out there, it’s hard to have it both ways. At least some of them are comfortable enough, or desperate or tempted enough to visit the edge of human habitation. So, I find it unlikely that at least some of the furry folks would not be terribly put off by the sight or smell of a plastic box stuck to a tree when no Homo Sapiens is around for miles, or has been around for days.

    Keep looking. I would just suggest longer surveillance schedules, etc. Keep at it.

  37. DWA responds:

    Mysteriousness says:

    “So many researchers use great ape scent baits, Sasquatch “calls” and recordings, wood-knocking, etc. which are probably doing more harm than good. A creature that purportedly has intelligence close to that of man, but atuned to forest life, would probably EXTREMELY sensitive to changes in their environment. So, unless those calls were exactly right, the scents exactly right, etc., these methods probably have more of a chance of spooking a creature than attracting them.”

    Good point. In fact, I can’t help but wonder – despite my suspicion that a recorded call would sound that way – whether some “Class B” encounters weren’t people hearing researchers doing call-blasting instead of a real animal (call-blasting is a thing researchers keep very hush-hush about doing for the precise reason that advance warning might attract hoaxing call-blasters). Now as for scents: those Class B’s I can’t speak for.

    But I would say that researchers need to try stuff, and see what works. I would be interested in knowing whether call-blasting, scents, etc. have been used in studies of known primates, and what the results were.

    And it may be that even if a sasquatch knows that the call or other attractant is artificial, it might respond for the same reasons coyotes sometimes respond to humans. Which might include just funnin’ with us.

  38. Alton Higgins responds:

    wtb1, the article was based on a message written to the TBRC internal discussion board in response to a comment or question from a member that came about as a result of the recent Java rhino images. It also contains some verbiage from the TBRC website. Craig thought it would make for an interesting Cryptomundo post; it was not written for the purposes you suggest. Also, for what it’s worth, I think your use of the term “apologetics” may be misplaced.

    Eric, you suggest “longer surveillance schedules” would be helpful, and that is certainly what the TBRC is undertaking. Operation Forest Vigil has been ongoing since April 2006. As stated in the article, lots more cameras are needed to go along with perseverance.

  39. wtb1 responds:

    What thatericn said.

  40. wtb1 responds:

    “Apologetcs; Offering or expressing an apology or excuse:”

    No Alton, I used it as I meant it – but thanks.

  41. DWA responds:

    I’m really finding myself wondering how many people are reading this blog before opining on it.

    It’s very clear. The blog


    except for the ones that a mainstream wildlife biologist would accept as reasonable based on experience with known species.

    Go back and read it again if you didn’t get that.

  42. Patrick Bede responds:

    Offering a reason or reasons for something occurring or not occurring does not fall under the definition of apologetics.

    There were no apologies or excuses in the article, nor was the tone apologetic; the author simply offered his take on why, to date, no convincing images have been captured.

    Apologetics clearly doesn’t apply.

  43. Sergio responds:


    wtb1, dude, what planet did you learn to read on? The article addresses the ridiculous claim given by some that Bigfoot knows what a camera is, knows what a picture is and therefore goes all out to avoid the cameras. I agree with the author that such thinking is crazy.

    Also, how you could assert that there are excuses or apologies in the article boggles the mind.

    It sounds like you’re the one who needs to “smarten up.”

  44. Questor responds:

    The blog doesn’t say that pictures of a bigfoot haven’t been gotten because of bigfoot’s sense of smell – it says its because the technology is just now catching up. It’s pretty clear. No apologies or excuses.

  45. DWA responds:

    This just in, as we review News of the Smarten Up:

    “If they’re not missing and just damaged, how many were damaged so badly that none of the pics were viewable? Four? Two? Twelve? None? How many cameras did a BF actually damage?”


    Nothing is said about damaged cameras, just about malfunctioning ones. As in: hmmmm, didn’t trigger. Wonder what’s up with that. Could be bad electronics. Could be tossed around (by a SASQUATCH STEVEDORE!!!!!!!!) in transit.

    Dude. Maybe YOU could answer the question about how many cameras got damaged by an animal not acknowledged to exist yet. Hey. Are YOU MK Davis…?

  46. DWA responds:

    thatericn says:

    “So, I find it unlikely that at least some of the furry folks would not be terribly put off by the sight or smell of a plastic box stuck to a tree when no Homo Sapiens is around for miles, or has been around for days.”

    Hmmmm. Dueling negatives in there obscure the meaning a bit. But your overall post seems to be making the point that numerous encounters show that sas do not exactly Shun The Man Things. (There are many, many, MANY “cases of them going through garbage, looking through windows, crossing roads, etc.” in the encounter literature.)

    Which is precisely the point made in the blog. It can’t be used as an excuse that they shun us; the encounter literature says so. They’re just as likely to inspect cameras (or destroy them) as shun them. If not more so.

  47. Ole Bub responds:

    Excellent points Mysteriousness…

    Imagine inviting some wannabe “weekend warrior researchers” onto your property. They set out pheromone chips and call blasting possible mating calls in to the wee hours, building camp fires, nervously carrying firearms, apprehensive with every snap of a twig. Finally they leave Sunday night. You get to cope with the randy rogue males, “party animals”. And folks wonder why habituators with activity don’t broadcast it?

    Is that call blast a territorial challenge, a mating call, or a warning to stay clear? Do you really want sexually aroused giant screaming monkey men and women visiting your camp or home? Food for thought.

    live and learn…live and let live…JMHO

    ole bub and the dawgs

  48. Finding-bigfoot responds:

    Just because bigfoot may be capable of detecting the remote camera doesn’t mean it can comprehend what it is. Does anyone seriously believe that bigfoot knows what a camera is?

  49. driftinmark responds:

    old bub, I like the way you write, and I believe you are correct in saying that they are an “old tribe” and better left alone to figure out how they want to live in this age. I am sure they have been caught on camera many times, just think how many security cameras are posted on the grounds of many companies these days, many are near forests and on the fringes of forests in the great suburbia. Seeing first hand how good these systems operate in low light, it would be of no surprise to me that some really clear pictures have been taken, but not released. Not a lot of people or companies want the media attention or the attention of a multitude of bigfoot “researchers” to invade their areas.

    As far as their senses, I am quite sure, that some of the people setting up these cameras do not mask or even attempt to mask their smells, rhinos can detect a campfire from over a mile away, so it can’t smell a camera? And you guys wonder why it took so long to get a shot?

    I’m left wondering if the cameras themselves have been de-scented, things we might not be able to smell, but others might, electronics, mold release agents, even the smell of the petroleum used to make the plastic. All could be considered problematic, in other words, I’im sure they know what is in their environment.

    After all is said and done, I know they are real, but the next big question is, who are they? Most native americans just know them as a brother of the forest, as we probably should, and just to be left alone unless we are visiting like good neighbors.

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|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.