Half of me sees a similarity to Loch Ness and the resulting tourist infrastructure that has sprung-up around Nessie and I want to say, “It’s worked for them; go ahead and try to make a buck off of the alleged Yeti(s) in Siberia.” At the very least it will generate some extra rubles for the locals, raise awareness of the creature outside of the area and may even result in securing additional evidence for the Yeti’s existence.

However, the other half questions how a “SEE THE YETI” attraction can possibly exist without a documented yeti population? (Think of the Tyrannosaur paddock in Jurassic Park – before all hell breaks loose – The SUV rolls-up and there’s nothing to be seen. BIG DISAPPOINTMENT!) Consider also how long the African safari business would survive if there were little-to-no chance of spotting elephants, giraffes, lions, etc. on a regular basis. However, those animals are known to exist and can regularly be located by the guides, assuring tourists receive some “bang” for their buck and creating a draw for future visitors.

I fear, as mandors suggests above, that the only way to guaranty a better-than-(almost)zero chance of seeing a Yeti, or evidence thereof, will necessitate some type of chicanery on the locals’ part leading inevitably to charges of fraud; providing ammunition to skeptics eager to dismiss the Yeti, Almas, Bigfoot, etc. as myths/hoaxes; and tainting any actual evidence that might come to light.

Still, I’m interested to see just how this pans-out.