As of this post there were 107 views of my question and 3 replys. What I was getting at is when we go out into the field looking for a Sasquatch what we are really doing is hunting for one. If there are any deer hunters here you know that in order to be successful you need to be stealthy. This includes odor control ( human scent ), noise, other than that which is natural, and minimal people. I think that in the case of Sasquatch research LESS is more and I truely believe that scent control is a must. I think these animals are far more intelligent than we give them credit for and in all the expeditions I've seen on T.V. I've never heard anyone discuss scent control, use rubber gloves or use tactics of stealth. These are just my opinions however and would like to hear yours. Thanks.

My opinion is that if you want to start a thread on a particular topic you should just be direct about what you want to discuss.

. . . and before you start a thread, learn how to search the Forums. You might be surprised by what's already been discussed here.

Hey Saskeptic, people and attitudes like yours are the reason I don't often participate in these forums. I wasn't rude to you or anyone else all I was trying to do is get people thinking. Rather than go off on you, I'll just go and I apologize to all for trying to do what I thought this board was about. In the real world if you talked to me like that you would have a problem.

Talked to you like what? You asked for opinions. I provided mine. I'm not sure why you apparently interpreted my response as rude to you. It was an informative reply and nothing more.

Could not agree more.

however about the searching part I never seem to have much luck with it.

Hi

Man i am confused here An apology before a threat ? What happen to being all stealthy and intelligent


Peace
Tim

I agree 100%,i think you have to use scent eliminator,cover scent,camouflage,etc.I hunt Deer and i am going to use the same tactics. If you can fool its sense of smell,sight,and hearing,you can be successful. Also,I will be using trail cams in the same areas i would for deer,along creeks and ponds,because even though we don't know alot about Bigfoot,we know it MUST drink water to survive,so I will be concentrating on areas near water. Also,like deer are most of the time,Bigfoot is probably nocturnal,so having cameras that work in total darkness,or Night vision capability is important.That's my plan in a nutshell,use good old fashioned hunting tactics,combined with new technology.

There are other possible tools that can be used as well,such as wounded animal calls.If Bigfoot turns out to be a meat eater,he may come running if he hears a wounded animal call,of course this is speculation

I agree with anttracker in that Saskeptic did go off on him. anttracker was direct and did say what he wanted to discuss in his first post. Why the need to follow his questions up with that? Saskeptic sounded dickish to me in his reply. It was he who shouldn't have posted since he had nothing to contribute to what anttracker asked he just ranted that he shouldn't have posted that question. If it is a topic that has already been discussed before you could have just stated that without the sarcastic and pushy sounding reply imo. Musta had a shitty day. Anyway as for the questions of stealth, i don't think it requires any since i don't believe Sasquatches exist at all, they are just a psychological phenomenon made up by and continued by people who want to believe.

Why start a whole new thread? Why not continue it where it was?

This whole "you attacked me" routine is so Jr. High.

May I ask you this ? bcsas
I know u don't believe in the big guy!
How can u explain all the sightings?
Many people draw or explain in exact detail of the bigfoots sightings

thank you
wendy

Something to take into consideration as far as the stealth and scent control goes, I'm sure you've read plenty of reports of sightings and jmho, the majority of reports that I have read and through my own experiences, using scent control and stealth is an option "but" these animals seem to be drawn to human activity, re: camping, fishing, hunting, farming crops, domestic farm animals, rural homesteads, etc. Nothing stealth about any of the above, normal human activity and normal scents.


Ditto!

Saskeptic was in no way rude. What he said could have been written by any of the mods or admins here. If that's too rude for you, then maybe you're better suited on another forum.

He explains it as, "they are just a psychological phenomenon made up by and continued by people who want to believe." That makes a lot of sense to me; however, it doesn't explain prints or "hard" evidence to me.

Edit: not that it makes much difference, but I thought Saskeptics response was rude and that he meant it that way, but I'm not him, so I don't know for sure. I do know though I was thinking exactly what Saskeptic wrote (I just didn't write it), and I was thinking it in a rude way. I thought Saskeptics response was spot on, if he was going to respond.

Something led you here though, am I wrong? Obviously you have some interest in the subject to have not only come here to a forum devoted soley to the topic but to have registered and join the discussion.

Did you believe at one time and then change your mind? Of what interest do you have in the subject?

Just asking out of curiousity. Welcome to the forum in any event!

Anttracker,

Welcome to the forum! You obviously have a great interest in the subject as you have been a member of the forum since 04. If anything good has come to this forum regarding the recent GA event that shall not be mentioned, it is that I have noticed a lot of new members have joined and a lot that didn't post much previously like you are starting to join in the discussion more. That's a good thing to me. Don't let one member's comment keep you from participating. I don't think he meant anything by it, just on these forums you know sometimes its quicker just to get to the point, don't think anything rude was meant by it. In any event welcome to the discussion on my part.

With all due respect (seems like I should head off an attack here, must be the summer heat), if bigfoots were "drawn to human activity", we'd be seeing 'em all the time and there wouldn't be a mystery. I submit the contrary, they shy away from human activity.

I am a bowhunter and you must work into the wind and conceal yourself, scent control alone isn't enough. How do you mask your breath? Camouflage won't help conceal your movement, either.

Personally, I think it's a joke the way bfro goes out whoopin' and hollering and banging pots and pans, etc. trying to lure a bigfoot in. Of course, you can tell by their lack of any published evidence that their techniques are not working. After all these expeditions, there is no new evidence collected.

This is probably true of most "bigfoot hunters" that are not also successful big game hunters, there is a skill set required to get into range of shy wildlife. It takes years of practice and learning. It ain't easy!

I agree

Let the Sasquatch come to you. From what I have heard they are more afraid of people than we are of them, and we are damn right horrified by them.

BF probably obtains much water from the plant material it eats, so I don't think it relies that heavily on ponds, streams, etc. for water.

Hi

I do think the bigguy has been sighted around water many many times, He has to be there for a reason, I don't think he is just there to take in the scenery and be surreal for a while,

Peace
Tim

There have been alot of reports of them bathing or washing in water,or bent over drinking.Anyone here that can back me up,that remembers hearing of such incidents? They can get water from other sources,but on a hot summer day,i am sure nothing will satisfy them like a cold drink of water. I have had alot of deer stands near water,and always see deer.The best part is,even if you cant see them,you will hear them splashing



I agree with most of this. When a hunter who doesnt know how to use game calls,or antlers to rattle,the sound always sounds unrealistic,or non-deer like. So if i can hear the difference,i am sure the deer can too,and it may alarm them.So i think the same is true with Bigfoot.

By the same token,Deer and other wildlife are very curious,and will often investigate sounds.You just have to be sure to not cross the line between getting getting them interested in a closer look,and spooking them away

I'm not disputing the fact that BF uses these locations for water, but I doubt that it uses them exclusively to satisfy its thirst. So I think a cam that faces a berry bush has nearly an equal chance to snap pics of BF as one that's facing a pond, stream, etc.

Just like hunting any other animal, you just can't walk through the woods and expect to stumble upon one. You hit the nail on the head. Tactics and planning are the keys to any successful hunt. First of all, you got to be in the right place. You need to research, study maps, and scout the area. Once you find a place where your 'prey' is likely to be, then you need the right tactics. Cammoflauge, noise and light discipline, odor control/masking; these are all hunting tactics for wary animals such as deer and turkey. This type of approach may provide better results. You can't just expect a BF to get close to you out of curiousity. Chances are he picked up your scent or heard your voices and has moved away. Just like a deer would. Remaining undetected may be the only way to get a close look.

Hi

My thought is BF is not a Tortoise, He is going to need to drink, At 500 plus pounds there is not much in the way of water coming from a plant, Ok if your the surviver guy and just need to make it out of the desert or anything like that, But to survive and thrive you would need more than sucking on a root to quench a thirst

Peace
Tim

As I already said earlier:

I'm not disputing the fact that BF uses these locations for water, but I doubt that it uses them exclusively to satisfy its thirst. So I think a cam that faces a berry bush has nearly an equal chance to snap pics of BF as one that's facing a pond, stream, etc.

--

I'm not saying that bodies of water shouldn't be monitored for BF activity, but I just don't think that we should concentrate on these areas alone.

Another good case for researching near water can be found here:

http://www.bigfootresearch.com/index.php?name...icle&sid=38

In a lot of places I go that's the only location you're going to have much of a chance of finding tracks (of anything).

Dammit, I really wanted to beat up, unmercifully, upon Saskeptic. Undeserving, logical, ever-gentlemanly Saskeptic.

C'mon, let's kick and throw mud in his face. The fact he speaks logically and eloquently matters little. He dared to speak his mind! Anyone and everyone feel free to throw stones.

OK, actually, the man has been a paragon of logic and calmly applied science. I truly appreciate and look forward to the man's postings. He didn't deserve to be railed upon the way he was, after making a calm, logical response.

To the fairly new posters who called out Saskeptic: You've a long ways to go to prove yourselves worthy of such criticism. Please get over yourselves.

True,because the soil usually tends to be softer,and tracks more easier seen

Yup, I'm sure bodies of water are good locations to set up cams, but I still think we could get some good pics if we place the cam facing loads of berry bushes.

I have wondered also if they prefer water or areas that are high in mineral count as I have noticed in some areas it seems that there are a lot of sightings where natural springs occur.

i guess id use my dads approach and see what happens.

he steps out of smokey, rings shot, oil burning 65 chevy truck, walks a hunnert yards, lights a cigarrette, belches and farts, ups with the old pump shotgun and knocks down two deer.

i was standing right beside him and we joked about that for years.

by the way, when i saw his eyes light up i whirled, kneeled and flat out missed with a 30-30.

this was almost a repeat of an event we had some years before that in which we both missed a very nice running buck that hit the road right behind us and headed out across the clearcut. to this moment i can still see that beautiful deer and sometimes i am kinda glad we missed that particular one.

more seriously.

im no kind of big time hunter anymore but i growed up hunting. the only concession we made was sometimes build a little fire and toss some green pine boughs on it and let the smoke get all over ya. that, coupled with always trying to hunt into the wind was about it for scent control. when hunting box stands no consideration was given to that kind of stuff. we kilt our share i reckon.

Am I the only one that finds these kinds of statements HI-larious!

For the kind words expressed on my behalf in this thread, I thank you. But it'd be silly to let a discussion of my manners overtake a perfectly good thread on research approaches in the field.

On "stealth": The quick answer on whether a stealthy hunter approach would be the best way to approach sasquatch research is "Go for it!" It's not like any other approach is really tearing it up in the results department. If you're someone skilled at concealment, then you've probably experienced firsthand how various species come out of the woodwork after a little while once you're in place. There's no reason to suspect sasquatches wouldn't as well.

But, biologically, I don't see much evidence for scent masking to really make a difference. While I'm sure a bigfoot's sense of smell is far more attuned than our own, we work from the assumption that these creatures are primates, and that keen vision and hearing are their primary senses. I don't believe scent masking or any such "stealth" approaches are widely used for field studies of gorillas, orangs, or chimps, yet researchers are successful in gaining close access in the field.

We absolutely have multiple examples of sasquatches acting indifferently or casually toward humans, and even approaching humans and human dwellings, cars, campsites, casinos, etc. Some folks think the best course of action for bigfooting in the field is to appear to be doing something else.

As for water dependence, I would consider a biological bigfoot to be fairly riparian dependent - meaning that they more often than not occur within, say, 200m of some kind of stream corridor. These tend to be the most ecologically productive areas in forests, with stream associated wetland complexes alternating with uplands. A first or second order stream in a forest provides consistent access to dense vegetation, fruiting plants, amphibians and their larvae, mussels, fish, etc.

First, as someone just reading a little BF stuff this fine morning, I never interpreted Saskeptic's entry as rude or an attack on you. I do see some anger and insecurity on your part however. Just because you start a thread, doesn't mean anyone is obligated to respond to it. Also, this board has been here for years. Damn near everything BF related under the sun has been discussed here. There is probably a thread on this topic somewhere here already. After you are here a while, and see someone new bust in with "hey what do you guys think of PGF?", as if the best piece of BF evidence has NEVER been discussed here, you'll understand. Lastly, accusing Saskeptic, one of the most even handed posters here (more so than me anyway), of a rude or attacking response, makes YOU look like an ass.

Now, as for your topic. I think it's quite valid. My dream "expedition" would involve a few former military SF types, an experienced hunting guide (for that area), hiking or horseback packing into an area for at least a month. Not many people can afford that type of trip, so it never seems to happen. If you are going to go for 2-5 days with a group, your best bet is to try to attract them to you. You'll never out-stealth a BF under those circumstances.

Do a search for SquatchCommando's sighting. He was a Recon Marine on maneuvers when he had his sighting. Quite illuminating.