I would charter a helicopter (much like a police helicopter) that is outfitted with infrared heat detection (much like a police helicopter) and I would fly over expanses of land taking note of the wildlife encounterd. When I encounterd a ten foot tall ape… I would follow it, tranquilize and tag it with a GPS system using one dart. I would then organize a search using the GPS, capture the creature and consider it time for a beer. Enough said.

Unless some very wealthy individual steps forward to fund a long-term exploration (with no guarantee of success), the search for Bigfoot will probably be limited to the fragments of time that dedicated amateurs can glean from their schedules. So a more invasive method, such as the use of tracking dogs, may be a way to find the Bigfoot sooner.

If Bigfoot are found and their existence is proven, it would not be necessary to use invasive tactics to study them, because the funding for serious research would literally pour in. So, while such methods are invasive, and it’s distasteful to consider them, if they lead to the confirmation of Bigfoot’s existence they will have been worthwhile, provided that every effort is made to ensure that the Bigfoot comes to no harm.

BUT. Long-term field studies take MONEY, and the money for those studies will not be forthcoming until the animals’ existence is proven. It’s not like funding studies for a rare rhino, for instance, where the animal is known to exist, or at least to have existed. Obtaining funding for studying known animals is hard enough, but obtaining funding for the longterm field study of unknown animals is pretty much impossible. Finding the animals, and documenting their existence beyond doubt, is the crucial first step to obtaining the financial support necessary to fund field studies.

I’m not talking about trailing Bigfoot with hounds, or with any sort of attack dog. I’m proposing using trained search dogs, worked closely on leashes, to find the Bigfoot. I’ve worked with dogs all my life, and I am well aware of their capabilities and of their limitations. But the fact remains that dogs’ senses are many times better than our own. I’ve had wonderful German Shepherds all my life, and working with a UDT or a SCH III tracking dog is an awesome experience. They track silently, and they will track whatever you ask them to track. I’m not suggesting that the dogs be used like hounds, to actually close with the Bigfoot. But I believe that dogs could be used to find the Sas so that they can be proven to exist, once and for all, and hopefully get close enough to at least one of them to utilize some sort of capture technique.

As for the anesthetic, the safest anesthetics are inhalation anesthetics, closely monitored in a hospital setting. But those are not usable for field work. I would think that a xylazine/ketamine/atropine injection would be quite safe; it’s an older formula, but it is safe and effective for most animals (although there are some highly inbred dogs that are sensitive to the xylazine). It’s been used, and is still used, in a wide variety of animal species, usually with no ill effect. Of course a narcotics reverser such as Narcan should be on hand, as well as portable oxygen. There’s no way to ensure completely the safety or effectiveness of any anethesia, even under the best of circumstances. But if the anesthetic did not knock the animal down, it would at least make it groggy enough to allow capture with a net. Blood and tissue samples could then be obtained. It would not be necessary to actually “take the animal into custody” to document that it exists.

It’s true that animals occasionally die from anesthesia, even from anesthesia usually deemed safe. I would not want a Bigfoot killed, but if one was killed accidentally, it would still be documentation of their existence.

Once Bigfoot is proven to exist, I have no doubt that the funding for long-term field studies would follow.

“I think that no matter what, unless a person drags a BF kicking and screaming from the bush, or has a body of one, then none of mainstream media will be likely or inclined to listen.”

Actually, some of the mainstream media HAVE been listening. For a long time. My first exposure to the sas was a very balanced article in National Wildlife magazine, almost 40 years ago. Local newspapers follow up on sightings, and a surprising number of recent articles withhold judgment and avoid making a joke of it.

I think a major reason that scientific luminaries like Goodall and Schaller think this is worthy of study is the best of the treatment by the mass media. John Bindernagel, one of the most respected researchers, had about as serious an article on this as you could want published in “Beautiful British Columbia” magazine, which doesn’t exactly consider it in its best interest making sure folks label BC as a nut farm.

I wouldn’t justify any mistreatment of an animal by catering to mass media.

Kittenz: I guess I really think this thing can be confirmed without guns and dogs and tranqs, and I’m hoping those approaches are tried first. If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a hundred times: let a mainstream scientist doing a mainstream hunt for this animal have the kind of encounter experience many Americans have already had, and we’re pretty much there.

SAR dogs would be best IF you felt that dogtracking is the best route. Although canine/BF interaction normally involves a short munch by BF on the canine in question, that can be alleviated with a dog that was bred to handle that kind of attack. I would suggest a trainable gamedog, maybe a well-trained APBT with SAR training that can hold its own against a bigger creature.

I think that no matter what, unless a person drags a BF kicking and screaming from the bush, or has a body of one, then none of mainstream media will be likely or inclined to listen.

I agree wholeheartedly that harassing an animal in the name of science is to be avoided whenever possible. But I think that everyone here who is a realist knows that confirming an unknown animal’s existence requires that there be a body to study - whether that body is of a living creature or a dead one. I much prefer to think that someone will secure a living Bigfoot, but I don’t imagine that an awake, aware Bigfoot would be too keen on providing blood and tissue samples for testing :).

Remember, the question posed in this topic is “how would you find Bigfoot?”, not “how would you go about studying them?”. They are so very elusive that traditional non-invasive methods do not seem to be producing results. Tracking dogs have been used with great success in finding other elusive animals, including jaguars in Central America, pumas in North America, and bears around the world.

I agree that invasive techniques such as the use of tracking dogs and tranquilizers must be kept to a minimum. But proving that an animal exists is a first and necessary step in acquiring its protection. If invasive, but nonfatal, techniques are used simply to confirm an animal’s existence, then those techniques will have been worthwhile.

Once Bigfoot’s existence is confirmed beyond question, the researchers can begin to study them in less invasive ways. Let’s face it, any intrusion upon an animal, however minimal, is invasive to a degree. But sometimes it’s necessary in order to gain the support necessary to try to ensure their survival.

Assuming they exist, of course. But it’s redundant to qualify every post with that phrase.

And I guess mystery_man’s and my posts tell you how we feel about stuff like tranqs.

I guess that what’s harrassment is for the animal to judge, and if I were in its predicament I might be inclined to say anything is.

I’ve said before, though, that I hope - that’s not think, that’s hope - the discovery of the animal will yield more good, for it and by extension for us, than it will harm.

However it happens.