​

Origin of the Word “Sasquatch”

The term “Sasquatch” originates from the Salishan language family, specifically the Coast Salish dialect spoken by the Chehalis (Sts’ailes) and Katzie First Nations, who are part of the Sto:lo people of southwestern British Columbia.

The traditional Halkomelem name for the creature is “Sasq’ets”, which translates to “hairy man.” Within their oral traditions, Sasq’ets is regarded as a powerful being that exists between the physical and spiritual realms, closely connected to the natural world and forested mountains.

In the early 20th century, J.W. Burns, an Indian Agent assigned to the Chehalis Band (now known as the Sts’ailes First Nation), anglicized the Halkomelem term Sasq’ets into “Sasquatch” while collecting and publishing local accounts of sightings. His writings in the 1920s and 1930s introduced the term to a wider English-speaking audience, where it became synonymous with the large, humanlike forest creature often called “Bigfoot” in the United States.

Today, Sasquatch remains a word deeply rooted in Indigenous Coast Salish culture, representing both a legendary being and a spiritual connection to the wilderness of the Pacific Northwest.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Scientific Perspective on the Sasquatch Phenomenon

Evidence and historical documentation suggest that accounts of large, bipedal, humanlike creatures—commonly referred to as Sasquatch or Bigfoot—extend back well into the 19th century and possibly earlier. Indigenous oral traditions throughout North America also describe beings of this nature, indicating a long-standing awareness of their existence among the continent’s first peoples.

​

In recent decades, the accumulation of eyewitness reports across the United States, Canada, and other regions has increased public and scientific interest in this phenomenon. Some researchers propose that these reports may represent observations of an undiscovered primate species or a relict hominid population, while others consider cultural, psychological, or environmental explanations. Regardless of interpretation, the consistency in witness descriptions across geography and time suggests that this subject merits structured investigation.

​

It is essential that research into the Sasquatch phenomenon adhere to scientific methodology and ethical standards. Speculative theories, commercial exploitation, and unverified claims have historically undermined legitimate inquiry. The objective should not be personal gain or sensationalism but rather the collection, documentation, and critical analysis of credible evidence.

​

Eyewitnesses reporting encounters with these beings represent a diverse cross-section of society, including professionals, military personnel, and outdoor enthusiasts. Many accounts occur in remote or heavily forested regions during activities such as camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, or training exercises. The frequency and consistency of these reports underscore the importance of maintaining an open yet critical scientific approach to the study of this enduring mystery.​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

"What little we do know"

 

Taxonomy and DNA

Referring to these beings as “creatures” reflects the current uncertainty about their taxonomic classification. Available genetic data are limited and inconclusive; some DNA results have suggested affinities closer to humans than to typical non-human animals, while other interpretations remain ambiguous. Substantial, verifiable DNA sampling and rigorous genetic analyses are required before any definitive conclusions can be drawn. Eyewitness reports of adults accompanied by smaller individuals are consistent with the presence of a breeding population, but reproductive status must be confirmed by biological evidence.

​

Intelligence 

​

Field reports and traditional Indigenous knowledge indicate a high level of intelligence—arguably greater than that of nonhuman apes in certain behavioral domains. Observed behaviors include tool-using and sophisticated avoidance of humans. Multiple accounts describe species-specific audible signals (e.g., tree knocks, distinct calls, yells) that appear to function in intraspecific communication and spatial coordination. Indigenous oral traditions document similar sounds and techniques used by humans for hunting and locating one another; these accounts have informed contemporary hypotheses about the animals’ communicative repertoire. Their prolonged elusiveness may reflect adaptive avoidance of humans.

 

Food

​

Observational reports and site-evidence suggest an omnivorous diet comparable in breadth to that of bears and other opportunistic foragers. Diet likely includes plants, insects, fish, and terrestrial animals; scavenging behavior has also been reported. Some reports describe selective feeding—removal of nutrient-dense organs (for example, liver and heart) and partial consumption of prey—indicating targeted foraging strategies. Water sources appear to be typical natural bodies (streams, lakes, rivers, coastal areas). Seasonal or resource-driven movements are plausible and consistent with patterns seen in other large mammals.

 

Shelter 

​

These beings appear capable of constructing simple nests or bedding sites, though such features are rarely documented. They also utilize natural shelters—dense forest, caves, and heavy cover—and demonstrate effective camouflage and concealment behaviors that make direct detection difficult. Their use of surrounding vegetation as both cover and ambush advantage suggests an intimate familiarity with their habitat and effective predator/prey tactics.

​

Travel

​

Given their reported size and locomotor capabilities, these animals could traverse large distances more efficiently than an average human. Preliminary estimates—based on sighting patterns and reported movements—suggest potential activity radii on the order of tens of miles from core areas, with social groups (family units or pods) possibly defending or using overlapping ranges. Precise home-range sizes and movement ecology remain speculative without telemetry or confirmed tracking evidence.

​

Deliberately killing individuals to “prove” existence is unnecessary, ethically indefensible, and scientifically avoidable. Nonlethal approaches—systematic field observation, remote sensing, camera trapping, environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling, and collection of incidental biological material—offer pathways to rigorous evidence without harming animals. In the rare event of encountering a deceased specimen, standard forensic and chain-of-custody procedures should be followed to preserve scientific value. As always, researchers must prioritize safety and legal obligations if human life or property is at risk.