Sightings the talk of ’sasquatch-ewan’

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on December 19th, 2006

Sightings the talk of ‘sasquatch-ewan’

Last Updated: Thursday, December 14, 2006 | 10:03 AM CT
CBC News

Sightings of a large hairy creature walking upright in Saskatchewan and Manitoba have sparked renewed interest in the legendary sasquatch.

CBC Saskatchewan radio host Tom Roberts said he’s talked with people from the northern community of Deschambault Lake who say a resident saw a sasquatch-like creature on Saturday.

They say a woman from the village was driving to Prince Albert on Saturday afternoon when she saw a creature near the side of the highway at Torch River.

"She slowed down, thinking maybe a bear," Roberts said. "She stopped and watched … and saw it going alongside the hill and knew it was not a bear."

The woman continued driving until she was in cell phone range, then stopped to call home. She described seeing a large, "very hairy" creature that walked upright.

Later, several men from the village drove down to the area and found footprints, which they tracked through the snow. They found a tuft of brown hair and took photographs of the tracks, Roberts said.

Similar sighting

On Wednesday, following reports of the Saskatchewan incident, a man in Flin Flon, Man., reported that he had seen something similar in the summer.

Greg East said he was on a fishing trip with a friend, when they encountered a creature on the Manitoba side of the border.

"I looked over to the fellow driving the truck, a friend of mine, and said: ‘What did you just see?’ " East recalled. "His response, as he looked at me with a quizzical look on his face, was ‘sasquatch?’"

East said he was afraid his friend was going to say that.

"I was sort of hoping he was going to say bear because I knew it didn’t look like a bear, but I wanted some verification that I hadn’t actually seen what I thought I saw," he said.

East described the creature as dark in colour, with dirty yellow patches over its face, chest and abdomen. It loped out of sight as they got closer.

John Bindernagel, a B.C.-based wildlife biologist who believes the creatures exist and has written extensively on the subject, said the Torch River sighting is intriguing. He said he would like to have a look at photographs of the tracks.

"The trail [of a Sasquatch] is different from a human and very different from a bear," he said.

Skeptics say it’s preposterous that a large mammal could have evaded detection in North America throughout history, and note that despite all the alleged sightings, a sasquatch carcass has never been found.

About Craig Woolheater
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005. I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films: OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.

13 Responses to “Sightings the talk of ’sasquatch-ewan’”

  1. mystery_man responds:

    It’s interesting that in the sighting by Greg East, he seemed to be kind of trying to convince himself that he saw a bear and if his friend hadn’t been there, he might have written this sighting off as such. I think a lot of people who see something that is so against what they expect like this, try to mentally file it under something known so that they don’t have to deal with it. A lot of people try to explain away sasquatch sightings as a bear, but I sometimes wonder how many supposed bear sightings were actually sasquatch.

  2. Alaska-boy responds:

    What happened to the “hair” samples found? I always wonder why the hard evidence only rarely seems to get followed up on. So frustrating!

  3. sadisticgreen responds:

    I love it how the skeptics always want a carcass! Honestly, how many deer skeletons you stumbled upon on your forest walks? Not too many I’m thinking right?! The fact is none of these people are going to accept any evidence until a LIVE sasquatch is caught, caged and experimented on.

    “Skeptics say it’s preposterous that a large mammal could have evaded detection in North America throughout history” – Ask yourself this, If you were a Sasquatch, would you really want a human being to get his hands on you?
    I’m damn sure I wouldn’t!

  4. DWA responds:

    When one considers that they have no natural enemies; that they live a long time; and that there ain’t too damn many of them, a sasquatch carcass is the last thing a thinking person should expect to find.


    Now an IGNORANT person — one who doesn’t know, for example, that I have seen the makings, the makings, mind you, of like three whitetail carcasses in 26 years in the woods, and the land is CARPETED with whitetails — would expect such a thing.

    Never seen a bear carcass. Or bone. And there are more bears in Virginia than there are sasquatch in North America.

    If the sasquatch exists, of course.

    Although my mind isn’t made up (it gets closer every day), the things above are reasonable to assume, if the critter did exist.

    So. Summing up, we have two more sightings. And no more debunkings.

    Guess my mind got a little bit closer to made up today, eh?

    I’m holding off. But I’m wondering when I’m ever going to see what convinces me otherwise.

  5. bill green responds:

    hey craig, these new sasquatch encounters from canada are getting very interesting indeed. great article too.

  6. kittenz responds:

    I am very skeptical of any reports of Sasquatch sightings, and I too think it’s very odd that neither fossils nor carcasses have ever been found. I think that the vast majority of sightings are simply misidentifications of known animals or objects.

    Of course, there are several other possibilities to consider. Sasquatch might not exist at all. But if they don’t, what are people seeing? Some of the sightings are very credible, and I believe that people are seeing SOMETHING. I don’t think there are enough bears to account for ALL of these sightings.

    No fossils have been found. Sooner or later, some individuals are fossilized, no matter what the species. So if Bigfoot really exist, the fossils are there, we just haven’t found any yet. I find that plausible. Fossils are rare, and fossils of primates are rarest of all. The La Brea tar pit is one of the most efficient fossil traps in the world, but only one primate fossil has ever been found there (a human). There may be fossilized remains of whole families of Sasquatch, maybe in a flooded cave somewhwere, just waiting to be found.

    What is more problematic to me is the fact that no dead ones are found from time to time. No road-killed juveniles; no hunters stumbling across a carcass that a bear has scavenged; nobody whose dog has dragged the odd bone home. We see roadkilled animals of most types from time to time, even those animals that are rare or elusive. If Sasquatch exist, they are not supernatural beings, and so it would seem that the same kinds of accidents that befall other animals would occasionally happen to them. They may be so rare, and live and die in such remote inaccessible areas, that dead ones are not easily found. But then what about all the ones that people see in populated areas? Would not some of them, sometime, be injured or die in such a way that people find them? That’s one reason I’m more skeptical of reports from, say, Tennessee or Florida than I am of reports from the forests of Canada or the Pacific northwest.

  7. arbigfoothunter responds:

    Sometimes I don’t know what to think. I am a believer in Bigfoot’s existence, or maybe it’s a “wanna-be believer”! I have heard what I thought had to be a sasquatch on at least two different occasions. My daughter and I have smelled what we thought must have been a sasquatch in areas where sightings had recently occurred. I have been to the Sulphur River Bottoms (near Fouke, AR) and have heard unusual night time screams and have come across unbelievable stench(es) while in the area. But then I think: in all these years we have nothing to show for our research EXCEPT blurry photos, grainy video, a few hair samples (that tend to get misplaced) and little other evidence that is deemed “inconclusive”. However, we do get EYE WITNESS REPORTS. We know some of these are hoaxes; some are misidentifications (like kittenz agrees); I believe that there are some reports that are just “made up” or “never happened”. This to me are the most heartbreaking. These are the people who ‘have nothing to gain by making these reports’. But, for some reason they do. We had an incident in Arkansas this past year (I will not disclose location) where an older person (supposedly credible) had seen a Bigfoot cross the road in front of his house that morning and head to the woods behind his house. His wife and him checked out the apple orchard near the woods later that day and discovered numerous tracks in two different sizes indicating an adult and a juvenile creature. The apples from six feet and above were missing from the trees. A few months later, a friend of mine who is an officer of the law and a Bigfoot enthusiast/researcher went to talk to these people and came back completely disheartened. The two had made the whole thing up. Why? No reason given. So, if it happened in this case, it surely could happen in others. I don’t want to start a big deal, but man has been known to lie, just out right lie, and for no given reason. But I tend to want to believe that eyewitnesses are seeing something and telling the truth. I certainly did, and I cannot explain what other animal(s) could have made these unusual sounds. I guess I’ll let someone else talk now.

  8. DARHOP responds:

    Kitt…? Would you leave your road killed juvenile on the road. I’m sure you wouldn’t. I’m sure these animals take care of their dead. If they stink as bad as reported, I’m sure they can smell each other from a long distance. If one dies, I’m sure others will find it and do what ever it is they do with them. Especially if they don’t want to be found. Who knows, maybe they are cannibals. Maybe they eat their dead and bury the bones. I doubt it, but it’s possible. I believe they account for each other and deal with their dead.

  9. joppa responds:

    Fossil evidence for any creature is rare; I doubt that you will find fossils of half the large creatures that live today or within the last 50 thousand years.

    I agree with Kitt, Southeastern U.S. isn’t a known for a native population of Bigfoots. Can they migrate, coyotes sure have, so anything is possible.

    As for road kill, how many dead elk have you seen, there are now over 1000 living in Tennessee and Kentucky. Some critters have a knack for avoiding getting slammed by a truck.

    If there are Bigfoot, I doubt the population exceeds several dozens. Furthermore if an animal was ever at risk for extinction, ol’ Sasquatch is probably on its last legs.

    The more probable question is whether this species will survive to be discovered. I expect that wasting disease, avian flu or some other bug will kill off the beasties before some hunter does. My skepticism grows every winter as I wonder how such a large creature can survive without shelter and a consistent food source. How could a Bigfoot family survive the harsh conditions around Mt. Hood these past two weeks that apparently took the lives of three climbers?

    If Bigfoot exists and I hope she does, she is a very rare and nearly extinct relic that is probably barely existing in the remote western wildernesses, or wandering in small family groups around the continent one step ahead of discovery or extinction.

    I would not be surprised if in ten or so years we find a carcass or bleached bones of the last Sasquatch, and wonder “geez what the heck was that?”

  10. MBFH responds:

    I happy to be proved wrong as I’m no expert, but I think that just because a creature exists doesn’t mean it will be fossilized. Millions of species must have existed on this planet, we only know a fraction of them from the fossil record.

    How long does it take before bone decays in a temperate climate? I don’t know but I’m sure someone does.

    There are lots of reasons given above why there aren’t any corpses turning up, which I think are perfectly feasible. There are some species that are only known from a single specimen (Himalayan Blue Bear?) I’m sure, so if there’s one that lives in vast wilderness areas and generally tries to avoid humans it shouldn’t be any surprise there isn’t a physical specimen.

    Sightings and footprints are all that we have, until people learn how to focus a camera.

  11. DWA responds:

    As I’ve said above, I don’t think we should expect a carcass, given how many we see of far more numerous animals.

    (Deer along roads don’t count. I can tell you from my experience with deer along the sides of roads that they don’t have cars figured out. I think it’s logical that the sas would; its intelligence is off the charts of the North American faunal assemblage if it’s an ape. Deer in the woods? Bear? As I’ve said: almost no remains have I found in 26 years of walking, on and off trail, in habitat where they’re common.)

    Sooner or later one will get shot or hit by a car. It’s just that I don’t expect the long odds of meeting a willing shooter or a car to have caught up with one yet.

    If, of course, they exist. πŸ˜‰

  12. mystery_man responds:

    I do think it is curious that a dead body hasn’t been found, but it does not constitute strong, unassailable evidence that Bigfoot is not out there in my opinion. As has been already said, carcasses of large animals in the wild are a rare occurrence to happen across. It is also a possibility that they take care of their dead, or that they have just up until now always died in remote areas. The lack of a body has happened before. Gorillas went an awfully long time without a body being produced for science. Same for the Okapi. It is my understanding (hope my memory isn’t faulty on this one) that even when an Okapi skin was provided, even then skeptics attacked it. Fossils are also not always a 100% effective way of cataloging fauna of any particular area. Not only are fossils rare, but even now fossils of species never seen before are unearthed from time to time. If Bigfoot fossils are out there, then they could be in remote areas or we just have not stumbled across them yet, and yes a lot of new fossil discoveries are stumbled across. Sometimes new discoveries are made even from boxes of bones that have already been excavated. There are rational reasons why a body or fossil might not have been found yet although it is an odd, frustrating thing. I tend to think that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. I think that if Bigfoot is out there, sooner or later someone is going to be in the right place at the right time to come upon this kind of thing, especially with humans fast encroaching on potential Bigfoot habitat.

  13. Randyman responds:

    I think science already has Sasquatch fossils in those of the well-known hominid Paranthropus boisei, discovered in Tanzania by Mary Leakey in 1959. See Loren’s 5/3/2011 post for details. This specimen matches recorded Sasquatch images (including the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film) very well, and may be the closest thing to a Sasquatch fossil we have today.

    Paleontology records show that we humans co-existed with up to 5 other bipedal hominid species throughout much of our 2 million year history, and even Neanderthals may have survived until 10,000 years ago, so the prospect of relict groups surviving today is not unreasonable. There exists plenty of evidence for Sasquatch and other living hominids to date: eyewitnesses, films, videos, photos, footprints, handprints, hair samples, even blood and tissue samples. The problem is that most of these are not identifiable with a known species, so they’re dismissed by experts. This is disingenuous, un-scientific, and the opposite response from what’s needed.

    If a DNA or hair sample is intact yet cannot be identified in repeated cases, then scientists must make a NEW classification based on the evidence at hand. If DNA scanning shows it to be an unknown primate, then science must classify it then and there as a new primate discovery. This way, future samples and evidence will provide cryptozoology with a solid benchmark reference regarding Sasquatch and others. It floors me that Monster Quest (et al) will consult DNA experts, for instance, then when their tests are inconclusive they just shrug and roll credits. This doesn’t help build cryptozoology’s integrity or legitimacy. It’s just a cop-out, and one reason why cryptozoology is still not taken seriously by mainstream science or the media.

    Cryptozoologists need to jettison all the hucksters, inter-dimensional wackos and UFO nuts, move out of the fringe-science ghetto, and join mainstream science in its pursuit of unknown animals. We need to work more with established primatologists and biologists in conducting hard research into unknown animals. We need to do solid field work lasting weeks or months in remote areas. Sending a noisy TV crew into a not-so-wilderness with bright spotlights, ATVs, loud helicopters, generators and a 5-day filming deadline is not scientific and will not get results, as any creature with half a brain will have fled miles away from the commotion.

    At the top of most wild animals’ survival instincts is avoiding humans at all costs. We need to hire skilled native trackers and professionals who can hunt without driving away the targets. The strategies of Dian Fossey and Jane Goodall (et al) worked well: become immersed, try to live and socialize with the creatures being studied. Many legitimate BF encounters have come from rural folks who lived with these creatures for years and had numerous contacts. Get ’em some cameras, for chrissakes.

    We need to take to heart (and repeat often) Jane Goodall’s stated opinion that she thinks Sasquatch are real, based not so much on the evidence but on the consistent cultural and tribal anecdotes in many cultures; she mentioned this is what led explorers in Africa to discover the great lowland gorillas a century ago, and even the bonobo apes in the 1920s. Before the 20th century these great apes were dismissed as mere local legends – sound familiar? Now anyone can see them in the zoo. Not that Sasquatch belongs in a zoo…

    Science is about provable and duplicated results. To see what an eyewitness saw far off in the wilderness requires repeating similar simple actions, not sending in the bloody Marines. I think Sasquatch are intelligent, social and highly curious. If not threatened by human noise and technology, they may just come to camp and visit us. As far as getting bones, skulls or corpses, I think Sasquatch are ritually burying their dead and have a social culture with nesting habitat far removed from where we might search. I have yet to hear of any archaeological digs in the PNW rain forests; perhaps local caves or shelters will reveal evidence in time.

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|Top | FarBar|

Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.