Yowiehunters Forum

DaveR wrote:At three AM the recorder picked up what I would describe as a vocalisation. It sounds like it could be produced by a person but there where no indications before or after of human involvement with the site. There is one nearby vehicle access of which vehicles can be detected several km's away in the dead of night.

I've sent this file off to a wildlife expert named Gary Opit asking for confirmation whether or not this is a known Australian animal's sound and several other researchers for their comment.

https://soundcloud.com/dave-reid-556563 ... whoops-3am (9 seconds)

The 'footsteps' sound exactly like a wallaby to me. And the owl call is just that... an owl, but thanks for posting as it could have been something.

Wolf wrote:

DaveR wrote:
The 'footsteps' sound exactly like a wallaby to me. And the owl call is just that... an owl, but thanks for posting as it could have been something.

Thanks for the reply Wolf but I disagree.

Just to clarify things , the facts in the charts I've been using a true .
The stride length and accompanying height estimation won't be accurate but will give an estimation at height .
Any suggestion I've made of the weight of a subject is now speculation .
The percentage differences are true but they are no true indication of exact weights .
A subject with a 10% difference in impact doesn't necessarily mean that this translates to 10% heavier or lighter .
I need to do more homework , sorry for any confusion .

Rusty2 wrote:Here's the results Dave but there are some IF's .

I've measured the last 5 footsteps in the recording which sound the most like normal walking .

The stride length is 24.3% longer than mine which should make him or her around 7.07 foot tall . That is IF he or she walking in a normal fashion .

He or she has a 65% heavier impact than myself BUT that's IF he or she is walking in a normal fashion . The type of audio recorder and quality settings may very well play a part in the impacts as well but I wouldn't know . He or she appears to be around 121 kilo's .

For the people who have their doubts about these calcualtions , don't worry , I have my doubts too and have contacted 5 other scientists about the theory but none have got back to me yet . So this is a theory at the moment and the calculations are an estimation .

He or she seems to be tall and skinny .

So whatever's making those specific sounds is approximately 7.07 feet tall? Is this still accurate?

Hey Simon , the calcualtions should be within 2 inches , IF it's walking in a normal fashion . https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ight-walk/

Rusty2 wrote:Hey Simon , the calcualtions should be within 2 inches , IF it's walking in a normal fashion . https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ight-walk/

And if it's hopping?
It would be impossible to count how many times I have heard that exact sound in the bush, day and night.

Rusty2 wrote:Hey Simon , the calcualtions should be within 2 inches , IF it's walking in a normal fashion . https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ight-walk/

Well based on the recordings it's impossible to say precisely what's making the sounds, and we don't know how fast the thing making the sounds is moving. It sounds large, but that could be due to its proximity to the device.

It sounds as if it's close to the recording device: again, that's subjective - but whatever it is, it seems to be interested in the area immediately surrounding where the recording device is. To me it sounds as if it's moving in a deliberate manner, not too quickly, almost like it's searching for something (food?).

But what do I know?

Wolf , if it's hopping then it's a wallaby or kangaroo but it isn't in range of the other wallabies or kangaroo's .
I can't prove it's a yowie or a wallby or kangaroo , but the numbers are saying that it's not a wallaby or kangaroo and the measurements are accurate . Our ears can't pick up the subtle differences between recordings but measurements can . Chart below .

Simon , as for distance , go back and have a look at the previous impact weight chart . You may notice wallaby 4 has the heaviest impact . This is because he is the closest to the recording device and you can't get any closer than that . Even though he is the closest and making the heaviest impact , he has no where near the impact of the unknown subject . Picture below .
What ever is in the recording sticks out like a sore thumb .

Thanks, Rusty! Your analysis has helped me 'get' what you mean in better detail.

I'm no expert (obviously) - but yeah, the really loud thing sounds big to me, and it seems to be moving on its own, and deliberately. It just sounds really huge, and the footfalls sound like someone walking (to me anyway).

The other thing Simon is that I've heard it before on at least two occassions . This is another reason why I reckon Dave is on the right track .

In my video no. 26 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67_0-qmSADI @ 12:19 seconds is the same thing , back and forth , back and forth .

In my video no. 35 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VPfvulGcjo @ 2:05 seconds , the same thing . Back and forth , it almost sounds worried or frustrated just like Daves recording .

If it is frustrated then it's probably walking quicker than it normally would , that would make it's stride length shorter than it actually is , making it taller .

That's intriguing stuff, Rusty. I reckon Dave's on the right track as well!

Simon M wrote:That's intriguing stuff, Rusty. I reckon Dave's on the right track as well!

Thanks Simon.. but all I am really doing is using Rusty's method. I had followed his research since 2010 and simply duplicated his method and as it appears his results. As far as the scientific value of that.. scientists love repeatable results. Different location 100's of kilometers apart, different climate and elevation.. similarities.. true untouched wilderness.

Its still early days with this project. I'm also using the method of weekly persistence. I cant expect interesting results every time and I expect to make mistakes along the way.

Anyway.. if you never go you never know

Sage words of wisdom from the noted Philosopher, Daryl Somers (and his friends at the NT tourism commission).

Last Saturday I left a recorder out in an area near the Australian Alps Walking Track.The recorder ran for six days on highest quality and collected 16 x 6 hour files. Three days were lost from rain and wind and the first night was still with no obvious signs of activity. On the second night there were two approaches to the recorder, one at around midnight and another 3 hours later at 3 am. Both these approaches are also associated with tree/branch 'snapping'. I think it is them..

headphones recommended

https://soundcloud.com/dave-reid-556563 ... t-12am-amp

https://soundcloud.com/dave-reid-556563 ... ht-3am-amp

Hey Dave. I watched it last night . The tree snap is audible without the headphones and very clear. Certainly something sounds to be creeping around your gear.

Thanks Yowie Bait.. Not earth shattering evidence but we know they are there.

Its a good tree snap. They must know which branches make the best noise. No thump afterwards either so i guess its still hanging there?

Do you ever go and look for the snapped branches? Probably impossible to tell i suppose.

Yowie bait wrote:
Do you ever go and look for the snapped branches? Probably impossible to tell i suppose.

Yes I'm always checking for something obvious but like you say its difficult to tell. The bush around my neck of the woods is a messy place.

Dave i know this sounds silly but do you think they move stuff around when they know your onto them? Just change the scenery a bit to make it harder to find.

I am aware the bush is constantly changing due to weather, new growth etc

Yowie bait wrote:Dave i know this sounds silly but do you think they move stuff around when they know your onto them? Just change the scenery a bit to make it harder to find.

I am aware the bush is constantly changing due to weather, new growth etc

Not silly at all. I see it this way. The ir light camera is nothing but bait. I think, for whatever reason they can identify a passive ir light camera. Perhaps they can see in that spectrum and a camera stands out like a bright beacon.. I dont know. I just seem to get more audio results when a camera is nearby.

. Its as if they protest the cameras presence. Unfortunately they never enter the cameras angle of view and thats after 6 years of trying. I am confident they don't see the same threat from an audio recorder though I have recorded them testing or challenging the recorder with branch breaking tampering and general storming around.

I dont see any point in trying to conceal the equipment because I don't think I can do it well enough to fool them. I try for a different area each time I put the gear out hoping for some sort of element of surprise as they seem to lose interest in several days if they are active at the time.

Also I now think they are transitory, moving around covering a large territory. The hope for us is that at sometime during a 5 night window that they are in the area and hopefully aware and curious.

Thats about it Yowie Bait. Anyone can record them if they are there. They are quite noisy in thick bush and a $100 sony notetaker with lithium batteries on highest quality will run for 5 days and captures everything.

Cheers Dave

Thanks for the tips Dave. That makes a lot of sense. I will give it a go then.

Yowie bait wrote:Thanks for the tips Dave. That makes a lot of sense. I will give it a go then.

Your welcome mate.. Been a lot of ups and downs to get those thoughts

Yes i inderstand that researchers put in a lot of leg work to get the results they get as well as the obvious dangers involved.

Im looking for answers and a few things id like to find out. I do know a good place and a mate who is keen to go for a trek so may as well have a go.

I suppose a stand alone battery operated i.r light would suffice for bait ( if there is such a thing) instead of a trail cam if theres not much chance to catch them on a trail cam anyway?

Just my experience with the ir cameras Yowie Bait. But I don't know of anyone getting a decent camera trap picture. I don't want to discourage anyone from using them. I don't care who gets 'the picture'.. I'd love to see it

Yeah Dave theyre a bit camera shy from the sounds of it. I too would love to see a clear image to have a reaĺly good look, as do we all of course!

Based on everything I've read it seems possible that these creatures are able to see in the infra-red spectrum. They avoid infra-red light as if it were obvious to them, and this avoidance is well documented, so it seems like a reasonable assumption.

There's also the issue of their sense of smell - we'd have to assume theirs is much more sensitive than our own, and that most of the things humans smell of would be a dead giveaway to them. At the very least they'd know when we'd been in a particular location recently, and any object that didn't smell like it belonged would be extremely obvious to them. So Dave's right, I believe, in assuming that hiding things is pointless.

I have zero field experience, so I'm probably talking absolute rubbish here, but the only thing I can imagine that might work is to disguise the scent of any type of recording device that's left out in the bush. Exactly how this would be achieved is another question entirely (and one I don't have the answer to). There's probably no practical way of masking a scent from them.

Would it be possible to leave another device near the recording device and speak through it remotely as a way of attracting their attention? If you had a device via which you could speak, and they heard it and came to investigate in the wee hours of the morning, and you recorded their response to that...I dunno. It sounds mad, really, now I type it. The 'speaker' device would have to super cheap because it would likely be destroyed by the Yowie(s) that found it. You'd have a recording of a human voice, and them coming to investigate it...it might prompt them to vocalise themselves, or at least to exhibit behaviour they might not ordinarily engage in. It could even be a device set to go off at a certain time when you expect them to be active with a human voice speaking (random stuff from a newspaper...literally anything) so that they'll come and check it out. It could be synchronised with the recording device to go off when that was activated (maybe?). They certainly wouldn't expect to hear a human voice, even if their noses told them a human had been present recently. It might grab their attention, or it might enrage them, and it might be a silly idea. But it could provoke a response of some kind that might be instructive.

Just something that occurred to me.

Dave , I noticed your only getting 100 hours off your audio recorder , is this the exact charger you bought ? https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/241702

5VDC 1.0A 3500mAh ?

I turn on my recorder , set it up , press record then plug in the charger and I'm getting 144 hours .

Other Verbatim chargers do not work .

Rusty2 wrote:Dave , I noticed your only getting 100 hours off your audio recorder , is this the exact charger you bought ? https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/241702

5VDC 1.0A 3500mAh ?

I turn on my recorder , set it up , press record then plug in the charger and I'm getting 144 hours .

Other Verbatim chargers do not work .

Thanks Rusty.. Yes.. After you recommmended it I have it. Kid borrowed it and it didn't return to me till a few days ago. . I will deploy it next setting.. an extra 44 hours will be good.

Oh thank god , I thought I gave you a bum steer .
Yep , 144 hours at least . 90% of the time it's still running when I pick it up .
Sometimes it doesn't last all week and I'm not sure why , maybe outdated lithium ion batteries .

Rusty2 wrote:Oh thank god , I thought I gave you a bum steer .
Yep , 144 hours at least . 90% of the time it's still running when I pick it up .
Sometimes it doesn't last all week and I'm not sure why , maybe outdated lithium ion batteries .

Thanks mate. As for lithiums. I moved to this brand from woolies. Amazing endurance.