Sampling methods that are both scientifically rigorous and ethical are cornerstones of any experimental biological research. Since its introduction 30 years ago, the method of using plasticine prey to quantify predation risk has become increasingly popular in the field of biology. However, recent studies have questioned the accuracy of the method, arguing that inaccuracy in inferring evidence of predator bite marks and the artificiality of models may bias the results. Yet, bias per se might not be a methodological issue as soon as its statistical distribution in the samples is even, quantifiable, and thus correctable in quantitative analyses. In this study, we focus on avian predation of lepidopteran larvae models, which represent one of the most widespread predator-prey interactions in various ecosystems worldwide. We compared bird predation on plasticine caterpillar models to that on dead caterpillars of similar size and color, using camera traps and observer posterior assessment to identify biases and quantify actual predation events. Although camera trap analyses revealed that birds respond similarly to plasticine models and dead caterpillars, suggesting no advantage in using dead prey for assessing avian predation, the results of posterior identification of predation marks showed contradictory results, making the interpretation of the results ambiguous. Observer inconsistencies in detecting predation clues on models highlight potential biases, with camera trap data showing these clues do not reliably indicate actual bird predation. Given the uncertainties and shortcomings of technological character revealed, the development of adequate monitoring methods and further research is essential to refine the assessment approach and better understand the biases in using plasticine models.