Tuesday, April 21, 2015   |   5,497 users online
Contact us    |    Advertise    |   Help   RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon
    Home  ·  News  ·  Forum  ·  Stories  ·  Image Gallery  ·  Columns  ·  Encyclopedia  ·  Videos  ·  Chat
Find: in

Bigfoot tracks found on Vancouver Island

Posted on Thursday, 6 March, 2014 | Comment icon 122 comments

The Bigfoot legend is very alive in the Pacific Northwest. Image Credit: CC BY-SA 3.0 Donar Reiskoffer

A fisheries officer claims to have witnessed a large bipedal creature on the Canadian shoreline.

Luke Swan Jr. had been out on patrol in his boat near Tofino last Wednesday when he caught sight of a strange animal crouched down at the side of the water. He maintains that the creature was not a bear but was otherwise unable to identify it.

"Something really big stood up, probably between eight or nine feet," he said. "The first thing I had in my mind was to get off the beach. I pushed off as fast as I could and got to deep water."

Swan later told his father about what he had seen and the two men returned to the same location to look for clues. What they found was a series of large tracks measuring 16 inches long and up to 9 inches across. They also came across a number of cedar trees that appeared to have been stripped of their bark.

"When I saw it, it scared me," said Swan when asked about his encounter. "A lot of people probably want to see it, but in the end it might scare them too."

Source: CTV News | Comments (122)

Tags: Bigfoot, Vancouver

Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #113 Posted by supervike on 21 March, 2014, 20:04
I think Best Buy is having a sale....
Comment icon #114 Posted by Myles on 21 March, 2014, 20:16
But then other factors would be: Different paths they take Different days Population numbers That could take us down to 50,000 cameras which would go down each day.
Comment icon #115 Posted by Sakari on 21 March, 2014, 21:20
Take in this one factor : Knowledge of game and trail cams..... .Then reality sets in, and people without this common sense, ( who seem to think one is needed on every tree ) can maybe see the point being made.
Comment icon #116 Posted by Calibeliever on 21 March, 2014, 21:55
I think your post got snipped, it seems to be missing a piece. But all joking aside for a minute about 5m cameras. I have very limited (lay) knowledge of trap cams. I assume by your drift that if you have knowledge of the area and what you are stalking that camera placement can be fined tuned through "common sense". Fair enough and valid. What I do have first hand knowledge of is what those woods are like. I've spent many many years walking countless miles through them in days gone by (and never encountered a BF BTW). I even fought forest fires as a volunteer for the State of... [More]
Comment icon #117 Posted by Sakari on 21 March, 2014, 22:39
Would need to see the terrain, and see what the best areas to put them are. More traffic, places avoided by animals, etc..As I said, you would not need to cover the entire place, inch by inch. I also pointed out, the cost would be less then the cost of one episode of not finding bigfoot going in.... I lived on 38 acres in Langlois, parents in Port Orford last 38 years......Moved to Arizona 6 months ago.... Miss the Elk, and really miss the Salmon / steel head fishing.......And the rain, and the green, and the being out in no where land...
Comment icon #118 Posted by Earl.Of.Trumps on 21 March, 2014, 23:37
well, in reality, you have no idea if someone *did* see a BF and just kept their mouth shut. but if someone ever said they saw a BF - as was said in this OP, then ppl say he's lying or it's mistaken identity. IoW, what's the diff??
Comment icon #119 Posted by DieChecker on 23 March, 2014, 3:39
Or... they could throw rocks or sticks.... BUT.... a true bigfoot beleiver would claim that the cameras being knocked out is Proof of the bigfoots being there.
Comment icon #120 Posted by Sakari on 23 March, 2014, 3:59
The cameras being there is proof of the bigfeet being there....
Comment icon #121 Posted by Earl.Of.Trumps on 23 March, 2014, 5:50
LOL! And you're from Oregon? OMG!!
Comment icon #122 Posted by Myles on 24 March, 2014, 11:38
I think it depends on the time allotted to capture a pic of one. Just a couple would be fine if you had a full year. A higher number of camera's would be needed for less time.

Please Login or Register to post a comment.

Stories & Experiences
Four in one strange goings-on
3-30-2015 | South Sweden
A light shining in the night
3-30-2015 | Sawtry, Cambridgeshire, UK
Strange lights in October
3-30-2015 | Canada
Whispers in my ear
3-30-2015 | Corydon, Indiana.
Watery face in clear blue sky
3-30-2015 | Flint, Michigan
A stranger in the night
2-11-2015 | United states
A Connecticut haunting
12-15-2014 | New Milford, Connecticut

         More stories | Send us your story
Top   |  Home   |   Forum   |   News   |   Image Gallery   |  Columns   |   Encyclopedia   |   Videos   |   Polls
UM-X 10.6 Unexplained-Mysteries.com 2001-2015
Privacy Policy and Disclaimer   |   Cookies   |   Advertise   |   Contact   |   Help/FAQ