Hello everyone,

I have a quick thought for you. Many us are limited to conducting local expeditions and research missions. However, for those who don't mind extended travel, or for those who happen live near the following areas, I have a suggestion. Go looking in either Skamania or Pierce county, Washington State. There are more reported encounters from these two areas than anywhere else on Earth. While this certainly does not guarantee success, it scientifically must improve the odds (supposing sasquatch is real).

By the way, I'm not trying to be critical of those who stick to local investigations. Tcsjrbigfoot, for example, has done a great job in this regard. However, if you happen to have the ability and desire to do so, head to the places where you are statistically most likely to encounter the beast.

And, would anyone happen to have a bell curve plot of sightings in these two counties by month of the year?

Let's give somebody the exact info. they need to maximize. I would venture June, July, August as being the primetime but that is just
a guess.

Both those regions in Washington are nice places to go hiking, which is one reason so many people in Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia and all over the world, really, go there to hike on their excellent trails systems and to view the spectacular landscape with strato-volcanoes, glaciers, wild rivers, and the proximity of ocean life. The more hikers the more likely something will be seen, even without any intention, which seems to fit the description of most encounters everywhere and especially in the PNW. The problem with looking there for BF, at least at elevations below 9 thousand feet, which is were most of the hiking and stuff goes on, is that the forest undergrowth is dense and denser yet along water courses and hiking trails...oh, and the weather; it's not all that uncommon to take 2 weeks to hike and be grateful for a couple of 3 days when you could walk around without raingear.Bring a book on edible mushrooms if you want to stay active.
I supsect that if they're out there and you want to increase your odds try imagining that they can see and smell and hear much better than you do, and that the only devices we have that will overcome that disadvantage is through optical technology, and distance telephoto technology. The best place to use that is up above the heavy timber, looking down into a distant habitat, a mile or more dstant, which includes water sources, meadows for grazing by their prey, and perhaps some narrow bottlenecks through which animals and presumably BF must travel from time to time. Having periods of dry clear air, such as are common in the high pressure systems of the west, can result in clarity that is surprising, if a tad unpredictable. Of course, the PNW does have some higher and drier elevations to the east of the Cascades, but of course, there are not as many hikers and campers there, and consequently fewer encounters, but some of the encounters are particularly good, I think.
One other criteria to improve one's chances, prssumably, is to stay out for a long time. If the creature has a territory that is a large as has been suggested and is certainly possible in the mountainous west, the fact that you have hung some shiney objects near your bightly colored tents might not draw them in for some distant part of their range, though as always, good luck and have a blast.

As stated many times in other places, there are two things need to have a "sasquatch sighting"

1. A sasquatch
2. A human being to see the sasquatch

If you have one but not the other, you won't get your "encounter". As stated earlier, the two counties mentioned in opening post are heavily traveled by the large urban population centers near them. The number of sightings goes up, certainly. But one must ask if this is due to their being more sasquatches in the region or more people to see the sasquatches. My personal belief is that if they're out there, they're out there in a more or less equal distribution to the habitat's ability to support them. The areas of unusually high activity are often [not always] near urban population centers. One of the largest concentration of sightings here in Texas are the National Forests north and east of Houston. Especially Sam Houston National Forest. Are there more sasquatches there? Or just more people out in the woods to bump into them?

I am by no means discounting the theory that there are higher concentrations in the Pacific Northwest. That's certainly a possibility. But just because County X has a high number of sightings does not mean you, out in the woods looking for Sasquatch, are more likely to find him there. Also mentioned above is the Pacific Northwests extremely dense undergrowth. I've heard from several people that Sas could be within 100 feet of you and you'd never know.

My personal opinion is that you are likely to increase your odds by increasing your frequency of trips and their duration. More time in the woods = more opportunity for bumping into one or drawing one out. I think a sasquatch in a remote area is more likely to be curious about humans than one that can/does observe them on a regular basis.

All that being said, I've wanted to make a trip up to the PWN for a while now. I absolutely love the terrain up there and I think the woods are a little more spooky than down here.

If you are looking at BFRO reports for the areas, that might be a little tainted. Although you would never be able to tell it.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there as I've investigated plenty of "sasquatch sightings" where number one had likely been absent to the "sighting."

I've lived in the PNW for the past 19 years (Oregon and Washington) and I have to agree with this idea. While there is no argument that you need both a person and a Sasquatch to produce the ever elusive sighting, I think both of these areas as well as so many others up here, if enough serious and dedicated time was put in would have a good chance of producing something. But what? I don't mean to be a nay sayer but what exactly would be the goal of such an endeavor and exactly what odds would be scientifically improved? Credibility? Funding? Vindication for being laughed at for so long?

*A sighting? To easily overlooked by everyone save for the one having it as there are so many already. And what has this provided in the way of proof or substantiation thus far?

*Another new video? That everyone (including those involved in the search) would undoubtedly quickly scrutinize to the point of uselessness as far as proof goes?

*Up close encounters? Remember, there are already more than anywhere on Earth.

*Another audio recording? I've seen some of the "best" recordings go nowhere after they're released and when I say some of the best, pick one.

*Trying to kill one to produce a body? Unfortunately this would be the only irrefutable proof desired by every last scientist, state official, most researchers and even your average, ordinary uninterested person before anything would change.

If something like this would ever be undertaken by enough people to actually produce anything, I think a set of ground rules would have to be in place and everyone involved would have to be willing to remain rational and... dare I say, not greedy? $$$ is a great way to see a person's true colors unfortunately.

Please believe me, I would love to not only be involved but would help in anyway that I might if I knew there would be a result or consequence from the scientific community or state government should whatever evidence you're talking about be provided. I just don't see more of the same evidence providing that. Do you? Personally, I don't really care who believes what I know to be true but then again, I'm no one of any consequence in the Bigfoot community. I do what I do because I enjoy doing it.

As soon as I'm able to get a chunk of time though, I would head back up there in a second! Count me in, just give me a good reason first!!!

Much Cheers!

I take it back. You just need people. Sasquatch optional.

Personally I think one of the best ways to '' improve the odds '' is to go while it's raining and their senses are a little diminished. It would be harder to hear you because of all the ambient sound from the rain and your scent would be kept down a little bit also. I am also a firm believer that certain animals deer etc. are aware of certain human patterns ( like when hunting season starts ) if BF is as intelligent as I think he is why wouldn't model his movements around avoiding the peak times for human encounters ( daytime, good weather ) this could be why BF is seemingly nocturnal.

Just a thought

I'm working on it B, Skamania County is next up for me & my Sunday Research...

I believe that's what the " Expedition Planning " area is for. Not enough people say,,,I'm going to such and such camp ground to explore this and that on this date, and opening it up to others in that local area. Lots of people in Washington local, who go out on their own, and don't seem to want others with them. That's ok too.

Absolutely animals are aware of human patterns, and have become aware in order to avoid people. Despite the reduced visibility for us, your idea about searching in the rain is quite interesting. Are any of you game hunters using, or know someone who is using rain, sleet, ect. to enhance the element of surprise?

Well Ive noticed that on certain days when it was rather unfavorable to most people that deer and other game seem to be MORE active. Ive also so noticed that I have caught some of my best fish when it was raining and overcast, I have always thought that the rain masked the sounds of me in the canoe and my bait hitting the water and my profile was more broken up without the background of a bright sky.

There is reduced visability but I think it could better than searching in the pitch dark.

It's true, the best days to go to the zoo or wild animal park are rainy ones. The animals are very active not like summer days when they lay low in the shade, it would stand to reason that the same would apply to BF.

My thoughts are, if you want to see a reclusive animal such as sasquatch, then you are going to have to get off the beaten path. I think horseback is by far the best bet. You are not limited to functional, open roads, and you can go farther past washouts or off the beaten path than hikers can.

The same goes for hunting trophy deer, or probably any other animal. A trophy buck doesnt get old with a 1 in 10,000 rack by being stupid or accessible. You have to go father than the other hunters do, to places where other hunters don't go because it is inconvenient if you want better than a random chance of getting on one. Far off the roads that probably 90% of the hunters hunt within a mile or two of. It doesn't take a lot to do this. Two guys and 3 horses can penetrate far off the beaten path, to otherwise inaccessible places and back in a week, and carry enough gear and food to be comfortable albeit, roughing it.

Then there is the sound factor. I think it is no accident that the best footage we have of BF was due to being on horseback. I have always believed hunting on horseback is pure stealth mode compared to atv, dirt bikes or vehicles (forget that some of those are now banned in certain national forest areas.)

If you want to increase your odds of finding BF, go on horseback, off the beaten path, in the pacific northwest in an area likely to harbor BF, and and go farther than 90% of the people can or are willing to go on foot or in a vehicle. That's my opinion, for what it's worth (my opinion and a buck will get you a cup of coffee!)

As a hunter I always find the best results is to cover any human smell, find a good spot and sit still for however long it takes. Be absolutely quiet. Don't smoke, dip or fart if you can help it. These are the very simple methods I use in hopes of one day meeting sasquatch and then passing out.