Jump to content


Photo

Sasquatch Trail Cam Avoidance Theories


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#1 jayjeti

jayjeti

    Researcher

  • Registered Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,245 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 29 July 2014 - 08:10 PM

About two weeks ago I installed a trail camera at the pond on our property.  So far, it's only provided pictures of black bear and mule deer, but I keep hoping to see something a bit larger and less commonplace.


I'm looking forward to comparing notes and learning about more effective research techniques from the other members here and anticipate the experience will be both fun and educational.

 

Hello again Tom,

 

Regarding the installation of a trail camera that you mentioned in your introduction, there is an ongoing mystery of how sasquatches recognize them, even when they are camouflaged, and thus avoid them or move or destroy them.  Perhaps some others here like Andy can give their theories or experiences with that.  

 

The link below discusses this phenomenon and suggests that sasquatches might be able to detect the electromagnetic waves that electrical devices emit.  Some humans are sensitive to it and can detect it.  It's just one of several theories on this subject.

 

http://tristatebigfo...ectiveness.html

 

At the above link the author of that article had put out food including whole fish, vegetables, and fruit, and had aimed a trail camera at it.  The trail camera was moved to where the lens was not pointing at this food and all the food was taken.  I believe sasquatches have an uncanny intelligence that most people underestimate.

 

But of course there have been some images captured on trail cams.  So, good luck.



#2 SRA Jim

SRA Jim

    Board Member

  • Administrators
  • 25 posts
  • LocationNorthern Minnesota

Posted 03 August 2014 - 12:14 PM

Tom

 

Hi, I am a believer of a much simpler explanation as to why and how they avoid trail cams. I have literally taken hundreds of thousands of photos with my trail cams. I can and have proven to skeptics that animals can and do hear them in the active and standby modes. To the point I had to be able to convince Rick N. to the point he would construct a sound proof box, to record various makes, and models of trail cams in their standby, and active modes. What Rick was able to prove is that all trail cams make a high frequency sound that most if not all humans can not hear.Some brands and models were much worst than others. Long story short is that all electronic devices give off a high frequency sound that many animals can hear. So if Squatch can hear them they will obviously avoid them unless the sounds are masked or tied into a surrounding where they would expect to hear such sounds IE.... Near vehicles, homes, etc... To me this is a much more acceptable explanation as to how they detect and avoid for the most part trail cams. May I also remind you some people think they can see the IR emiiters. Again I personally feel they can hear them (similiar to dog whistles) and therefore avoid them, as they have learned anything making noises like that are tied to humans.

 

Jim


  • SRA Andy and jayjeti like this

#3 jayjeti

jayjeti

    Researcher

  • Registered Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,245 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 03 August 2014 - 04:42 PM

Note: This is a continuation of a discussion that originally began in the "Introductions" thread about sasquatch's ability to recognize and avoid being captured on trail cameras.  



#4 jayjeti

jayjeti

    Researcher

  • Registered Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,245 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 03 August 2014 - 04:51 PM

Excellent response Jim.



#5 jayjeti

jayjeti

    Researcher

  • Registered Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,245 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 03 August 2014 - 05:31 PM

Sasquatches seem to avoid the lenses of trail cams like they understand not to get in front of them.  Trail cams that are torn down tend to not capture them or only capture a glimpse of one, like fingers, an eye, etc.  Question: how do they know to avoid the lens when they tamper with the cameras?  As mentioned in the first post a trail cam was turned sideways before whole fish, vegetables, and fruit were taken.  If that was done by a sasquatch, it wasn't perturbed by the camera, just the camera lens.  

 

I wonder if they have a higher intelligence that many underestimate.  They are believed to sometimes avoid leaving footprints which demonstrates a special awareness of themselves and their surroundings, not unlike us.
 
Here is a possible video of a sasquatch attacking a trail cam by throwing a branch from partial concealment.
 
 

  • SRA Andy likes this

#6 SRA Kris

SRA Kris

    Board Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,289 posts
  • LocationWisconsin

Posted 04 August 2014 - 12:54 PM

Regarding the installation of a trail camera that you mentioned in your introduction, there is an ongoing mystery of how sasquatches recognize them, even when they are camouflaged, and thus avoid them or move or destroy them.  Perhaps some others here like Andy can give their theories or experiences with that. 

 

In short...They make too much noise.

 

Read SRA-Jim's comments above.


SRA Kris
Don't Believe, Know.

#7 Tom47

Tom47

    Novice Squatcher

  • Registered Users
  • Pip
  • 33 posts
  • LocationWashington State

Posted 05 August 2014 - 12:39 AM

jayjeti and Jim -- Those are certainly some interesting possible explanations for the paucity of definitive sasquatch pictures acquired by trail cameras.  I suppose the real question is, "Do trail cameras emit acoustic or electromagnetic energies detectable by wildlife?"  Given the large number of different makes, it seems to me a distinct possibility that some might.

Having read a little on this question before, I sent the following query to Browning, the maker of my camera, to see what they would have to say:

I recently purchased a BTC-2 Trail Camera and have a somewhat technical question:

On some of the trail camera/hunting forums people have mentioned that the electronic circuits in these cameras (no specific brands named) emit sound waves of a higher frequency than humans can hear but which are audible to some animals and which cause game to avoid areas where trail cameras are located.

I would like to know if you have any information regarding the presence (or absence) of such high frequency acoustic emissions from Browning cameras.

Thanks in advance for your reply.


The next day, I received the response below:

Thomas,

Our cameras do not emit any frequencies that are noticeable by animals.  Thanks for your inquiry.

Michael
Browning Trail Cameras


Well, that's their story and I suppose they're sticking to it.  My own experience is that there is some support for their position.  For instance, I have pictures of deer standing mere inches in front of the camera looking this way and that with no apparent concern.  The one direction they are not looking is directly at the camera, as I suppose they might were they aware of some emission emanating from it.

On the other hand, I just returned from a week at our remote property and discovered the aspen sapling holding the camera bent about 15 degrees from the veritcal with the camera twisted another 30 degrees and aimed at the ground.  The culprits, as revealed by the images, were a couple of playful black bear cubs.  The aspen supporting the camera was one of about 200 similar saplings growing on that side of the pond.  So, was it a coincidence that the cubs chose the camera sapling to attack -- none of the others showed any signs of damage -- or was the presence of the camera somehow responsible for their choice?  I find myself unable to decide based on the evidence so far.

All of which makes me wonder, has anyone mounted a trail camera high enough above the ground to be out of reach and covering a baited area?  And, if so, does anyone know the results?

Some food for thought, anyway.



#8 hiflier

hiflier

    Novice Squatcher

  • Registered Users
  • Pip
  • 52 posts

Posted 05 August 2014 - 08:01 AM

Hello Thomas47,

"Our cameras do not emit any frequencies that are noticeable by animals". Browning didn't really addrss your question. In spite of your email asking specifically: "I would like to know if you have any information regarding the presence (or absence) of such high frequency acoustic emissions from Browning cameras" They did the deflection of limiting their asnwer to animals not hearing the camera. Not really whether or not there are emissions. Maybe you could rephrase to ask if there are any emissions and leave out the animal hearing part? Just perhaps ask about ANY emissions- period.

 

I'll look around to see if there's been any studies made on the subject. Welcome to the Forum.



#9 jayjeti

jayjeti

    Researcher

  • Registered Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,245 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 06 August 2014 - 12:08 AM

Many have reported that sasquatches will take food left for them at a feeding station but will discontinue taking the food if a trail cam is aimed at the same feeding station.  Coupled with the overall lack of success with trail cameras, evidently something is wrong with them.  I read one comment that trail cams actually create the opposite of the desired result in that they drive away sasquatches. One wonders, "what is causing this?" The explanation for this dilemma could be an inherent flaw in motion sensors.

 

Here are various methods used as motion triggers in sensor technology:

 

200px-Photospirp.jpg
magnify-clip.png

(pictured above) Infrared detector mounted on circuit board, along with photoresistive detector for visible light

 

There are several motion detection technologies in wide use:

 

1. Passive infrared (PIR)

 

Passive infrared sensors are sensitive to a person's skin temperature through emitted black body radiation at mid-infrared wavelengths, in contrast to background objects at room temperature. No energy is emitted from the sensor, thus the name "passive infrared" (PIR). This distinguishes it from the electric eye for instance (not usually considered a "motion detector"), in which the crossing of a person or vehicle interrupts a visible or infrared beam.  

 

2, Microwave

 

These detect motion through the principle of Doppler radar, and are similar to a radar speed gun. A continuous wave  of microwave radiation is emitted, and phase shifts in the reflected microwaves due to motion of an object toward (or away from) the receiver result in a heterodyne signal at low audio frequencies.  

 

3. Ultrasonic

 

An ultrasonic wave (sound at a frequency higher than a human can hear) is emitted and reflections from nearby objects are received.  Exactly as in Doppler radar, heterodyne detection of the received field indicates motion. The detected doppler shift is also at low audio frequencies (for walking speeds) since the ultrasonic wavelength of around a centimeter is similar to the wavelengths used in microwave motion detectors. One potential drawback of ultrasonic sensors is that the sensor can be sensitive to motion in areas where coverage isn't desired, for instance, due to reflections of sound waves around corners. Such extended coverage may be desirable for lighting control, where the point is detection of any occupancy in an area. But for opening an automatic door, for example, one would prefer a sensor selective to traffic in the path toward the door.  

 

4. Tomographic motion detector

 

Tomographic motion detection systems sense disturbances to radio waves as they pass from node to node of a mesh network. They have the ability to detect over complete areas because they can sense through walls and obstructions.

 

http://en.wikipedia....Motion_detector

 

Of the four mentioned above, only the first one is passive.  # 1 (PIR) looks for body heat and does not emit anything.  All the others are actively emitting something.  The above description seems to say microwave sensors emit radiation which in turn creates a low audio sound and ultrasonic sensors emit a high frequency sound that likewise is received back as a low frequency sound.  In Browning's e-mail reply to Thomas they said,  

 

"Our cameras do not emit any frequencies that are noticeable by animals"

 


That implies the cameras do create audio frequencies, but Browning is saying it is not at a threshold that animals can hear.  Is the verdict still out on that?  Of course we can't here it. "Heterodyne" mentioned as a result of the microwave sensor is a frequency beyond human hearing.  I suppose one should specifically ask the manufacturer which motion sensor technology does Browning incorporate in its game cams.  

 

Of all the motion sensors, I wonder if trail cams with passive infrared is the way to go? And do makers of game cams even exclusively use that type of motion sensor technology?  Maybe none do since at the above link it says most motion sensors use dual modes of sensing.     It states,  

 

"Many modern motion detectors use combinations of different technologies. While combining multiple sensing technologies into one detector can help reduce false triggering, it does so at the expense of reduced detection probabilities and increased vulnerability. For example, many dual-tech sensors combine both a PIR sensor and a microwave sensor into one unit. In order for motion to be detected, both sensors must trip together. This lowers the probability of a false alarm since heat and light changes may trip the PIR but not the microwave, or trees may trigger the microwave but not the PIR. If an intruder is able to fool the PIR or microwave, however, the sensor will not detect. Dual-tech sensors are only as strong as their weakest link."  

 

Question: are microwave sensors creating infrasound?  The microwave motion sensor sends out alternating frequencies of radiation, but the receiver detects the changes in a low audio frequency.  Likewise, reading what it says about ultrasonic motion sensors, it says it sends out high frequency sounds, but it says just like microwave motion sensors it too is received back in low audio frequencies.

 

Infrasound is sound waves with frequencies below the lower limit of human audibility (low audio frequencies).   It's widely believed that sasquatches produce infrasound vocally, and many also speculate they might communicate with each other via infrasound.  If a lot of trail cams are using microwave or ultrasonic motion sensors then perhaps sasquatches are hearing low audio frequencies.  Ultrasonic sound waves are at a frequency above the upper limit of human hearing.  We can't hear infrasonic or ultrasonic audio frequencies but perhaps bigfoot can, at least infrasonic hearing is very likely.  It's a fact that there are animals that can hear beyond the range of human hearing.    

 

So, sasquatches might not simply be hearing the hum of an electrical device, as some speculate as the source of the problem, but it could be the motion sensor itself is creating the sound they are hearing, which if that is the case there would be no way to quiet a trail cam employing that mode of sensor to detect movement.  Therefore, we need to research the trail cameras we contemplate deploying in the field.  

 

Additionally, this opens up new strategies if the motion sensors on trail cams is the culprit behind not getting video at feeding stations, like figuring out how to employ camouflaged video cameras minus sensor technology aimed at an established feeding station or likely sasquatch crossing/habitat.  Any ideas on how to make that work?  That could be a means to test this theory. If successful it would lend credence to the noisy motion sensor theory.


  • SRA Andy, SRA Kris and Cowboy like this

#10 hiflier

hiflier

    Novice Squatcher

  • Registered Users
  • Pip
  • 52 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 09:37 AM

Hello jayjeti,

That, my friend, was a great post. Let's face it, the whole idea of trail cams is to be eyes in the field when Humans aren't. The Human eye emits nothing so really is the best devicefor. the field. In lieu of that though your suggested research is on the money. It's difficult to understand ANY creature even being that aware of a trail cam when Humans by and large are not unless thay are specifically looking for them; or a device is blatantly undisguised. If Sasuatch does indeed exist, and for some there is no doubt, is it the only Creature that seems to actively avoid the cams? BF is a subject that has hundreds more questions than answers.

One would think a hunting tech Forum or blog would be a good source for finding more info in this apparent phenom.
  • SRA Andy likes this

#11 jayjeti

jayjeti

    Researcher

  • Registered Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,245 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 06 August 2014 - 01:27 PM

It's difficult to understand ANY creature even being that aware of a trail cam when Humans by and large are not unless thay are specifically looking for them; or a device is blatantly undisguised.

 

Hiflier,

 

Good point.  That is what is perplexing about the trail cam mystery.  How are they recognizing them, even well hidden trail cams that humans can miss are avoided, or go missing, or get destroyed?  You also make a good analogy when you comment, " Let's face it, the whole idea of trail cams is to be eyes in the field when Humans aren't."  

 

Indeed, our eyes left to survey the field in our absence seems to be defunct, and we need to figure out why that is and devise new strategies to compensate for that deficiency.  

 

There are a number of theories people advocate on how sasquatches detect and avoid trail cams:

 

1. They smell them.  Some theorize they can smell the metal and plastic used in the construction of trail cams which are foreign materials to their habitat, and also smell human scent.

 

2. They can sense the electromagnetic waves that electrical devises emit, as some humans are sensitive to that as well.  Since wooded areas are devoid of electrical devises these electromagnetic waves emitted by trail cams would stand out in the crowd.

 

3. They can hear the hum of electrical devices.  Similar to the electromagnetic wave theory, this theory postulates they can hear the hum that "any" electrical device creates which again stands out in the forest.

 

4. They can use infrasound as an active sonar that causes objects made of different materials to vibrate at different frequencies, and that might be how it finds hidden trail cams.  I mentioned that theory in the thread titled, "Theories on Invisibility by Sasquatches."  A researcher I linked to that studied sasquatch infrasound made that suggestion.

 

5. They are intelligent and teach one another about trail cams.  It is widely believed that sasquatches have language and thus might discuss these devices and secretly observe humans while they set up their camouflaged trail cams.

 

6. They can hear the audio frequencies created by motion sensors.  The noisy motion sensor theory rests on the assumption that sasquatches can hear audio frequencies beyond the ability of humans.  This theory might explain another phenomenon associated with trail cams -- why they avoid the lens.  They will sometimes tamper with trail cams while avoiding being seen on them.  Some theorize they might view the round lens like a gun and thus evade it.  However, perhaps they are hearing the motion sensor which is directional and thus approach the camera opposite the direction of the active emitter.

 

7, They can see infrared light used in night vision and avoid getting in front of it.

 

Perhaps a combination of the above theories are involved or there are things not yet understood that contributes to their behavior around trail cams. Both 5 and 6 could be at play along with 3 (sound frequencies emitted by any electrical device).  As far as smell, if the trail cam is down wind we should be getting more images.  Electrical devices creating electromagnetic waves or making an audible hum is interesting, and who knows to what extent those are possible factors.  But those theories don't explain why sasquatches will sometimes approach and tamper with trail cams out of view of the lens, unless the lens looking like a gun theory is the source of that behavior.  I find the most plausible explanation is they are hearing the directional active emitter of motion detectors and thus avoid the area those emitters sweep, not getting in front of the camera lens.  In the opening post of this thread I mention an incident where a man set out food and aimed a trail cam at it, but the trail cam was moved sideways pointing away from the food before the food was taken.  Perhaps sasquatches do not like to get in front of those active emitters.  So, those who believe sasquatches are hearing trail cams are likely right, but what they hear might not be an electrical hum.  Or do sasquatches feel infrasound produced by motion sensors?  As you said, "BF is a subject that has hundreds more questions than answers."   Isn't that a fact.


  • SRA Andy and Cowboy like this

#12 hiflier

hiflier

    Novice Squatcher

  • Registered Users
  • Pip
  • 52 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 02:10 PM

Hello jayjeti,

 

It's amazing isn't it? I mean it would you have covered all the bases regarding the electronics and infra-visiblity. Let's try a different approach. How many folks who place cams use a UV inhibitor like UV-Killer followed by the wash sequence to set the product? There is UV at night of course and probably more so for a week either side of a Full Moon. That's two weeks worth of UV light bouncing around and reflecting off of objects. 

 

I know hunters treat their clothes to negate the bluing that many commercial laundry products contain and maybe some gear but the cams? Some do no doubt but I really doubt the BF researchers do, even the serious ones. So UV could be a factor especially in the daylight hours. I'll go with you on infrasound also being a factor.

 

Now let me see....we've gone from INFRA-light with ULTRAsound to ULTRA-light with INFRAsound. How we doin' LOL.


  • SRA Andy likes this

#13 Tom47

Tom47

    Novice Squatcher

  • Registered Users
  • Pip
  • 33 posts
  • LocationWashington State

Posted 07 August 2014 - 12:00 AM

Hello hiflier -- Thanks for the welcome.

 

Yesterday I wrote again to Browning as you suggested with this message:

I'm interested in a Browning trail camera and would like to know all the forms of energy they emit, apart from the infrared of the flash diodes.

Today I received the following reply:

I am not aware of any other energy emitted from our cameras.

Thanks!
Michael
Browning Trail Cameras


So, Michael is "not aware of any other energy emitted" by Browning cameras.  I'm thinking that further questioning of the manufacturer is unlikely to provide a straight answer to this question.  One possible answer appears in the "FCC Statement" in the camera manual:

This equipment generates, uses and can radiate radio frequency energy...

So, there may be, but not necessarily is, radiated energy after all.  Is that what's keeping the sasquatch away, or something else?

I've read some posts on hunting forums and the consensus regarding deer avoiding trail cams is that the person visiting the camera has left his scent in the area.   Could that be the factor with sasquatch as well?

A definitive answer to this issue seems to be just as elusive as the 'squatch itself.
 



#14 hiflier

hiflier

    Novice Squatcher

  • Registered Users
  • Pip
  • 52 posts

Posted 07 August 2014 - 01:13 AM

Hello Tom47,

I too have read the bit about leaving a scent behind and think there is some truth there. Deer in partucular have three things going for them: vision, smell, AND hearing. They will react when they get two out of three which may be a clue. If they see infrared AND hear radio emmissions they may steer clear. If they get an odd smell with any of the other two factors they may again stay away. If someone is careful with scent though I think that appears to be adequate as there are tons of examples of deer on cams. It also may depend on proximity to Human activities and how used to Human smells they have grown accostomed to.

One would think that would be the case for a Sasquatch as well so you, jayjeti, myself, and hundreds of others still wonder what's up with a Sasqutch. One has to wonder why they seem so sensitive to the cams to the point of nearly 100% avoidance. It's pretty confounding and we are all curious for the answer and therefore a solution- other than non-existence that is. By and large it is a solution one must find though as that would change the game immensely, eh?

#15 jayjeti

jayjeti

    Researcher

  • Registered Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,245 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 07 August 2014 - 08:53 PM

Not often, but on occasion people do report capturing an image on trail cams.  I believe the third one below is a fake.  I can see a division between the head piece and the body, and the shape just doesn't look right.  It's hard to make out much about the first one.  The only one that looks more real to me is the middle photo.  It has the forward lean and body shape that looks more real to me.

 

 

 

 

 

2010-008-300x225.jpg
 


#16 jayjeti

jayjeti

    Researcher

  • Registered Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,245 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 08 August 2014 - 03:58 AM

May I also remind you some people think they can see the IR emiiters. Again I personally feel they can hear them (similiar to dog whistles) and therefore avoid them, as they have learned anything making noises like that are tied to humans.

Jim



Hello Jim,

That is an interesting comment, that some people believe sasquatches can see the IR emitters put out by trail cams. It seems M.K. Davis may be one of those people who believes they can see infrared light. In studying a trail cam video which he believes shows a sasquatch peering directly, almost point blank, into the camera lens, he says the pupil in the eye constricts when it is hit with the infrared light, but he says human eyes do not react to IR light. He finds this interesting, that they might be able to see infrared light since their pupils react to it.




If it is true that they can see IR light, it has a lot of implications beyond trail cams. It would mean people who are using night vision that actively illuminates the night with IR light would be in effect lighting up the woods in the eyes of a sasquatch. In another video M.K. Davis comments that sasquatches tend to turn their backs to all light sources, including IR light. I assume he's referencing observed behavior.

In another thread on this forum I discussed the possibility of sasquatches being able to see IR light. I linked to an article that said no animals today that have night vision see in trichromatic color. That is they cannot see toward the red end of the light spectrum. but they can only see the green and blue part of the color spectrum. Here's one quote from an article on this subject:

“Today there is no mammal we know of that has trichromatic vision that lives during night,” said an author of the study, Nathaniel J. Dominy, associate professor of anthropology at Dartmouth."

http://www.nytimes.c...ight.html?_r=1

Could sasquatches be the exception? Primates are unique among most mammals in that they can see the full spectrum of color. Wearing bright orange will look like green to a deer. That is because unlike primates that have three sets of cones, most all other mammals only have two sets of cones, lacking cones to see the red end of the color spectrum. Here is a statement from an article:

". . . Mammals are generally dichromatic (having only two cone types in the eye). A popular notion is that this reflects a transition to a nocturnal way of life. In the primates, however, trichromatic vision has re-evolved - there are three types of cone cell, differentiating colour in the red, green and blue regions of the spectrum."

http://www.mapoflife...ion-in-mammals/

So, I wonder if sasquatches could be unique, having the best of both worlds, being a primate would enable them with trichromatic color vision, but unlike fellow primates they could possess night vision as well. In other words, unlike any known mammal with night vision that lives nocturnally they might have three sets of cone types enabling them to see both UV and IR light.

I don't know if this is the case, and I have not settled in my mind that sasquatches can see IR light. I'm just speculating on what might be possible.  Moreover, the issue of IR light doesn't explain the avoidance of trail cams during daylight hours, I suppose.



#17 SRA Andy

SRA Andy

    Board Member

  • Administrators
  • 724 posts
  • LocationMpls Metro, MN, USA

Posted 08 August 2014 - 06:09 AM

Sometimes I think we over think it.  It could be as simple as the following:

 

1. They are acutely aware of anything going on in their environment and likely either just notice the trail cams, or watched them being placed in the first place.

 

2. The "eye" of the cam is visible and something they would avoid.  They also avoid other lens like things and likely know that we  blast light from such openings.  They are not stupid an likely understand that these are traps.

 

 

We have always had better luck when the cameras are near a camp (see Curious George and MN Twins as examples), preferably near or on a vehicle or as a group of other obviously human gear.


Don't Believe, Know.


#18 jayjeti

jayjeti

    Researcher

  • Registered Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,245 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 08 August 2014 - 01:04 PM

The other extreme is people don't think about it enough.  I just wanted to give a thorough treatment of the thread I started, giving treatment to all the various approaches people have to this unsolved mystery.  I have no more thoughts -- done thinking about it.  You could be right.  Your view follows # 5 in the approaches I listed, that they are intelligent, communicate with one another, and secretly observe installations of trail cams. 


  • SRA Andy likes this

#19 hiflier

hiflier

    Novice Squatcher

  • Registered Users
  • Pip
  • 52 posts

Posted 10 August 2014 - 07:44 PM

Hello All,

 

Some game animals can see in the UV spectrum. So hunters treat clothing and gear with a product that kills UV reflected radiation by absorbing it. Could the same be said for trail cams reflecting UV light? Daytime and full moonlight would be the riskier times I think. I mean for animals that can see more in the blue end as opposed to the red end, like dogs for instance, it may make a difference.


  • SRA Andy likes this

#20 jayjeti

jayjeti

    Researcher

  • Registered Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,245 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 10 August 2014 - 10:13 PM

Hello All,

 

Some game animals can see in the UV spectrum. So hunters treat clothing and gear with a product that kills UV reflected radiation by absorbing it. Could the same be said for trail cams reflecting UV light? Daytime and full moonlight would be the riskier times I think. I mean for animals that can see more in the blue end as opposed to the red end, like dogs for instance, it may make a difference.

 

 

That's an interesting concept.  There are probably multiple things at play, not just one single thing tipping them off, of which this could be one factor.


  • SRA Andy likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users