Articles and Papers

To Be or Not to Be: Arguments For and Against the Sasquatch

The existence of the Sasquatch has been debated by scientists and Sasquatch watchers for several decades, with heated and occasionally quite personal accusations lodged by both sides. Most members of the scientific community remain unconvinced, citing the lack of evidence to substantiate that such a creature does — or ever did — exist in the Northwest.

The Sasquatch aficionados charge that the scientific community has been lax. They claim that no serious scientific investigations have ever been conducted to confirm or deny their claims; instead, most Sasquatch investigators have been ostracized, branded as kooks for attempting to examine a subject that is largely shunned by standard science.

The scientific establishment bases its case largely on the lack of any Sasquatch skeletons or other remains. The only remnants of the Sasquatch are its footprints, and a certain number of these can be discounted as definite fakes.

That no Sasquatch bones have been found is hardly grounds for dismissal: remains of any large mammal are seldom found in the wild. "Ask any game warden, real woodsman, or professional animal collector if he has ever found the dead body or even a bone of any wild animal — except along roads, of course, or if killed by man," wrote the late naturalist and cryptozoologist Ivan Sanderson in the February 1968 issue of Argosy magazine. "I never have, in 40 years on five continents! Nature takes care of its own, and damned fast, too.... " Sanderson and others have argued that the chances of finding the skeleton of a cave-dwelling animal or a creature that ritualistically buried or preserved its dead would be even more slim.

As for the footprints, Sasquatch supporters suggest that, while a number of footprint casts can be discounted as fakes, others have clearly withstood close scrutiny, even by forensics experts. Writing off all of the footprints is unthinkable, comparable to burning all of Rembrandt's paintings because a few forgeries have been uncovered.

Scientists also question the authenticity of eyewitness reports. In these stories, the Sasquatch's reported stature, hair color, means of locomotion, and many other important characteristics vary widely among tellers. Whom are we to believe? And why hasn't the number of Sasquatch sightings increased dramatically with the recreational use and settlement of previously unpopulated wilderness areas?

Again, the Sasquatch side readily concedes that many sightings are invalid, either misidentifications of bears and humans or outright fabrications. But other sightings are not so easily dismissed, having been reported by reputable and knowledgeable individuals. Moreover, the similarities among the reported physical characteristics far outweigh the differences.

Sorting out Sasquatch sightings statistically should be the work of an unbiased third party, but to date no such person or group has stepped forward to tackle this chore. Although public interest in outdoor recreation has boomed over the last 30 years, opportunities for Sasquatch sightings may have been greater in the late 19th century, when prospectors and homesteaders occupied isolated parts of the Northwest for extended periods. Today, the Sasquatch's highly reclusive nature and, possibly, its steadily dwindling population may account for its limited contact with humans in once-remote areas of the Northwest.

Another point of contention is the region's food resources. John Napier has argued that these are inadequate to support a creature the size of a Sasquatch. Despite the density of trees and foliage, writes Napier, the food supply from Northwest forests is generally regarded as meager. Fruits, nuts, and berries are seasonally abundant, but even with a strategy for storing these staples, a creature that depends on these foods is certain to experience some drastically lean seasons. Further south, in northern California, the forest understory is richer, but it still lacks year-round accessible food sources. If the lifestyle and energy needs of the Sasquatch are comparable to those of its presumed relatives, the orangutan and gorilla, then its range would be restricted to tropical climates, where edible plants are available all year long.

Sasquatch scholars are quick to brush this line of thinking aside. They maintain that many large mammals live quite comfortably in Northwest forests. The American elk, for example, survives in winter on a high-fiber diet of twigs, bark, and roots. With its gigantopithecine jawbone and large grinding teeth, the Sasquatch could easily adopt this same strategy during hard times, turning the understory into grist for its rugged dental mill. It has also been suggested that, unlike the tropical gorilla and orangutan (which are both vegetarians), the Sasquatch may be an omnivorous eater, "hulking up" on deer, salmon, rodents, and other high-energy fare. The possibility that the Sasquatch is able to gather and store seasonally abundant foods also should not be dismissed.

From: Field Guide to the Sasquatch by David George Gordon (1992. Seattle, Washington: Sasquatch Books)