Figure 1. Footprint measuring 14 inches long.
Courtesy Samuel Rich, Georgia Bigfoot.

Introduction

One of the most important pieces of sasquatch evidence—if not the most important—is the evidence left behind in the form of tracks, or footprints. Footprints are physical evidence, unlike other forms of purported sasquatch evidence. You can photograph, measure, cast and thoroughly examine footprints. In many cases, reports have been made of a sasquatch being seen making these footprints. This is more than can be said of other forms of what some consider evidence, like tree-breaks, limb-twists, rock throwing, vocalizations, hair samples, or scat. Sasquatch tracks also tend to be easily identifiable, as they are rather distinct in appearance compared to the track sign left by other North American wildlife. Occasionally, bear prints are distorted in such a way to resemble possible sasquatch tracks. The sasquatch track does however, resemble the human track and this is where identification gets tricky for some. There is also the possibility of hoaxing.

So what should one look for in determining whether or not they are looking at a human or sasquatch print? The following are some examples:

Figure 2.

1. Shape: The shape of the foot resembles a human’s, as there are usually visible toes and a pronounced heel. It is important to try to identify these crucial signs. If these are not visible, you can be looking at anything from human boot or shoe prints to indecipherable tracks of a known animal.
2. Size: Though not always the case, sasquatch footprints are generally longer than the typical human’s are. There is a notable difference in the width of a sasquatch track compared to that of a human. This is especially noticeable in the width of the heel.
3. Mid-tarsal break: In many purported sasquatch tracks, a pressure ridge is visible demonstrating the possible existence of a mid-tarsal break, a flex point in the foot that is not found in human feet.
4. Other Sign: Are there multiple prints in the area, either from a similar animal or from different animals? What about droppings or food sources?
5. Location: The area in which the track is found is also important. If extremely far away from obvious human-frequented areas, a barefoot track is an unusual find and you should probably take note. This also goes for the condition of the terrain, as it is not likely someone would be walking barefoot over rocky areas or in the snow.

Let’s look at possible and most likely misidentifications, and how they can be ruled out using the five factors listed above:

Figure 3. Black bear hind and fore paws.

The Bear Overstep

Let’s start by examining the size of bear tracks. The typical black bear hind foot is approximately 6 to 7 inches long, and 3 to 4 inches wide. The forepaw usually measures up to 4 inches long and as wide as 4 to 5 inches.

Compared to the average sasquatch track, the lack of size should be a dead giveaway. Still, there is always the possibility of a small or young sasquatch. Grizzly bear tracks are larger, and may not be ruled out by size alone. The average Grizzly hind foot measures somewhere around 10 to 12 inches long, and 7 to 8 inches wide, with the forepaw measuring anywhere between 5 to 6 inches long, with a width much the same as that of the hind foot.

Figure 4. Black bear, sasquatch and grizzly prints. Scale: one square = 1 in.

A bear overstep is when the hind foot track of a bear is combined with the forepaw print due to the bear stepping in it’s own track. Like a human or sasquatch foot, the bear hind foot contains five toes, but that is where the similarity stops. The bear print narrows toward the rear in a dramatic fashion, revealing what appears to be a very small heel. In addition, the largest on both forepaw and hind foot, the largest toe is on the outside of the foot, the opposite of a human foot. However, when overstep occurs, the combination of forepaw and hind footprints can make the heel seem larger, and even lengthen the print somewhat. The placement of the big toe may not be easily determined if you only find one track, since there is not another track to compare it to. You may be looking at a left foot bear overstep, but because the bear big toe is on the opposite side, it could be confused for a right footprint of a sasquatch. So how do you know if it is bear overstep or sasquatch?

Figure 5. Black bear overstep compared with sasquatch print.

The shape will be similar to what a sasquatch print should look like. It will most likely appear to contain five toes and a pronounced heel. Many times bear tracks show signs of claws, and this differs from sasquatch tracks. Sometimes close examination will reveal the fact that the pronounced heel visible is actually the bear forepaw. Look for claw marks and the forepaw outline. In addition, the black bear track way gives a “pigeon-toed” appearance, in that the inside toes tend to point inward in a bear track.

Figure 6. Established bear overstep.
Courtesy Paul W.

Check for pressure ridges and the mid-tarsal break. Though not always apparent in sasquatch tracks, this identifying mark can be the deciding factor as far as what made the track. It is entirely possible that the overstep process can create the appearance of a mid-tarsal break. The illusion of a mid-tarsal ridge due to the imprinting of the hind foot over the forepaw can lead to a hasty misidentification. That is why it is important to continue the investigation.

How many similar tracks are there in the area? Though bear overstep happens, it is unlikely to occur continuously in a track way. Look for nearby signs of droppings or other animal sign.

Figure 7. Black bear trackway demonstrating occasional overstep.

Make note of your surroundings. Are you in possible bear habitat? Is it possible that bear could be responsible for the tracks you have found? If a bear cannot be entirely ruled out, then document your find the best you can with photographs, measurements, and by casting, if possible. Submit your findings for further study and opinions. Sometimes others can see what you cannot.

Figure 8. Human foot vs. sasquatch foot size comparison.

The Human Footprint

Without a doubt, the similarities between the sasquatch footprint and the human are striking, but the differences are apparent if you know what to look for.

The overall shape of the human footprint is the same as those attributed to the sasquatch. You have the toes without claw marks, and wider heel than that of a bear track. The human foot comes in a variety of sizes, some being up in the sasquatch range as far as length is concerned, however this is far from common.

The lack of a visible arch in sasquatch tracks differs from the more obvious presence of the human foot arch. That can be a telltale sign to look for, but not always reliable. In most cases, width is a huge determinate when identifying sasquatch tracks.

Figure 9. Human foot and sasquatch print showing differing widths and pressure points.

Examinations of purported sasquatch casts have shown that the width of the prints can be as much as one-third wider than the average human foot, and as much as two times as wide at the heel. This is a significant difference, and one that can rule out a human foot in the identification process.

When a human walks, the pressure is placed on the toes and ball of the foot in the push-off stage of a step. In a human footprint, this creates a pressure ridge in the soil behind the toes. In many reported sasquatch tracks, a pressure ridge is seen further back in the print, demonstrating the possibility of a mid-tarsal break.

Figure 10. Human foot and sasquatch foot showing human flex at ball of foot, and the mid-tarsal break in the sasquatch foot.

Figure 11. Demonstrating the pressure areas of a human foot vs. sasquatch in the push-off stage of a step.

The sasquatch foot can flex at a point behind the ball, therefore creating a pressure point in a position that cannot occur with a human foot. Witnessing this phenomenon in a track could be an important find and should be documented.

Figure 12. Photo showing possible mid-tarsal break.
Courtesy Lyle Laverty.

To further rule out human as a suspect, you have to examine the possibility of human activity in the area. This can be tricky, because though a location may seem remote, the fact that you are there means that humans in the area cannot be ruled out. This is when it is important to think about why a human would be barefoot in that area, or if the terrain is questionable, how likely is it that a human would be barefoot there. Then there is the other human possibility you have to consider, and a completely new approach is required for this one!

Hoaxing

After one has ruled out the possibility of bear and human tracks, it would seem sasquatch is the only answer left. It would seem that way, but it is not the only possible conclusion that can be drawn.

Figure 13. Dale Wallace holding one of Ray Wallace’s carved wooden feet.
Courtesy Dave Rubert Photography.

Enter the hoaxer. Hoaxers are people who purposely create false sasquatch tracks with the intention of fooling someone. There are a myriad of reasons for a person to do this, whether it be out of boredom, as a practical joke, or even for attention. What may seem like a harmless prank can actually cause serious problems in this field of study by tainting the existing evidence. An example of this comes from the late Ray Wallace, a practical joker who admitted to faking sasquatch tracks by using carved wooden feet strapped to his boots.

His admission cast doubt on all track evidence in both the public’s eye, and in the eyes of the scientific community. Never mind that track castings made at the time of his hoaxing do not resemble the fake feet he carved. Never mind the fact that footprints have been seen and documented years before his birth, as well as after his death. The readiness for the majority of the world to discredit the idea of sasquatch is stronger than the want for the truth, so Ray Wallace provided just enough doubt for all of sasquatch research to be discounted by many.

So how can you tell if a track is faked? There are things to look for, but as time goes on and more information on sasquatch is available, it is getting harder and harder to weed out the hoaxes. Here are the important things to consider:

1. Variation: If multiple prints are found, look for variations such as toe position, shape, partial or full prints, etc. A living foot will not make the same print twice. A footprint is not what the foot looks like, but what it did when it hit the ground. Artificial feet are likely to look relatively the same print-to-print.

Figure 14. Photos showing purported sasquatch tracks from the same track way.
Courtesy Dr. Jeff Meldrum.

2. Compression Lines: Tiny cracks in the inner top-most part of a track are called compression lines, and are an indicator that the track was made by a flexible foot.

Figure 15. Location of compression lines.

3. Impact Ridges: These are cracks that form on the outside of a track, and are caused when something hard and rigid, like wooden feet, are stamped into the ground.

Figure 16. Location of impact ridges.

4. Manipulation: Check to see if the print has possibly been tampered with. Has debris been removed to make the track clearer? Are there finger marks or obvious signs of shaping? Is the soil pushed and formed in ways that seem unnatural?
5. Human Activity: Are there signs of human presence in the area? Is the suspect print in a place where someone would think it would be noticed? In a picnic are, on a well-used trail, etc.? What is the likelihood that someone would choose this place of all places to perpetrate a hoax?
6. Habitat: Is the area involved likely sasquatch habitat? Is there a history of sightings or track finds in the area?
7. Who knows you are there? Who knows where you are going? Do any of your acquaintances or family members like to play jokes? Maybe you know someone who wants to trick you. Could they have known where you would be?

A hoaxed track may be extremely convincing, so your best option is to document it as thoroughly as possible. You may not be convinced it is a hoax at first, but proper documentation and peer review can help you make a more informed decision.

In Conclusion

Do not be so excited as to miss the little details. Regardless of what you think, if the evidence is enough to convince you that it deserves further investigation, then do your best to document it in as much detail as possible with multiple photographs, measurements, and field notes containing time of day, date, location, and anything else worth noting, as mentioned in this article. It is of the utmost importance that when presenting evidence for further review you are able to accurately portray the evidence in question. The fewer questions that need to be asked, the better results you are going to have.

Until we have a sasquatch to examine, we have to do our best with the information that has been collected so far. The truth of the matter is, what we consider an authentic sasquatch track may not be as accurate as we hope. In reality, unless one has seen a sasquatch make the track, one can never be 100% sure that it is an authentic sasquatch track. The best an investigator can do is examine and document to the best of their abilities, and hope for constructive feedback from peer review. Something is making these tracks. With properly documented evidence, we come closer to finding out what exactly that may be.

Correction: The photograph originally included as Figure 6 was incorrect. It has been replaced with the correct image. We apologize for the error.