We were crappie fishing in a lake by the Arkansas River. We were catching crappie in shallow water by the bank when we smelled a bad smell like body odor and saw him looking at us through the brush. He snort-grunted like a hog and took off. We found a few fish remains where he stood but the sand was not conducive to leaving a good print.

View the full article

There appears to be a forest area next to the lake, and this BF appears surrounded by forest.

Sounds "fishy"

wow very interesting report indeed. was there a police report filed about this sighting. keep me posted ok. thanks bill

I've never fished much for crappie, but I've never heard of them being in shallow water by the banks. I guess anything's possible though.

Teresa, up here at least in Michigan they do spawn in the shallows, so given that it's spring(at least down there...more snow here yesterday), that part is not to me at least out of the question.

Thanks for clearing that up for me NW. I can assume the colder water temps in the north would be the reason the crappie are in the shallows? I'm a bass fisher(wo)man so I don't target crappie, but know people who do and they always say to look for them in deeper holes that have brush in them. I've certainly caught some respectably sized crappie while bass fishing but it was in about 6-8 feet of water running a rattle trap by stumps not even close to the banks. Boy am I off topic here!

Sorry back to your regularly scheduled TBRC report.

I agree. We've all stood on the bank of a river or a lake, some of us many, many times. How often have you seen a fish swimming close enough to shore to see it? And, how often have you seen fish come close enough to shore and stay still enough for you to be able to grab it with your hands? Perhaps this is possible in the South but it doesn't happen up here. At least not often enough to be able to count on this type of fishing for the occaisional meal...spawning season or not.

t.

First of all, it's not clear that the thing they saw was eating the fish remains. Secondly, lots of animals eat fish, including coyotes, black bears, and raccoons. I've even heard of deer eating fish. To discredit the report because of some notion that a sasquatch couldn't catch a fish is absurd.

JMHO

I've seen lots of fish swimming close to shore, bream, perch and black bass to name a few.

Deer eat fish? Wow, ya learn something new every day!

Well you could be right Peregrine but I don't know... Those animals eat fish but they don't really "fish". some do during runs of certain fish species (salmon, suckers, etc.). I think coyotes, coons and your deer probably just happen along a dead one rather than fish. I guess I have a problem with a bf hunkered down on a lakeshore trying to fish and actually catching fish. You're right though, it's not enough to discredit the report.

t.

why wasnt there a police report written up about this sighting unless there was hint hint lol

It seems to me that folks are assuming what kind of behavior the animal was engaged in. The witnesses made no assertions.

While fish don't constitute a major part of the diet of the animals I listed, they (and other species) do pursue them, although some wouldn't hesitate to scavenge fish as well.

I don't fish much these days, but when I was a kid we fished a lot. We threw what we considered trash fish, such as carp, on the bank when we caught them. Some fishermen (err, fisherpeople?) still do, but I don't know how widespread the practice is. I know I've seen lots of gar on the ground, and I'm sure they didn't swim there.

If it helps any, here is a report of a bigfoot thought to be fishing that I investigated. This report has always been one of my favorites.

Woops, I was mistaken here. The report's follow-up comments section does say that the men had the impression that it had grabbed a fish. Sorry about that.

I don't know about everywhere Peregrine but at least around here people are encouraged to take the "junk fish" like carp and especially alligator gar out of the lake. Since they aren't deemed good to eat (I know some who do) people are even encouraged to just throw them up on the bank and leave them when they catch them. I've only caught one gar in all the years I've been fishing but they are way too plentiful.

I expect much more out of 3 LEO's

BTW to get this back on topic since I threw it off, I don't see why crude fishing techniques by a bigfoot species would be any harder to swallow than the other behaviors I've seen attributed to them like hunting for deer, wood knocking, rock stacking, or creating stick designs. We don't know that they do any of these things, if indeed they do even exist.



Bill, I really kinda doubt police officers would report something like that. That would be a tough pill to swallow for a superior officer and they'd probably be suspected of having been drinking or something possibly fired and at the very ridiculed and made sport of within their precinct when that got out. If it's hard for a non law enforcement person to report because of ridicule, imagine how hard it would be for an officer to report something like that. Not saying it wasn't reported but I'd bet money they didn't.

Crappies love structure. My best crappie fishing was in four and five feet of water at a marina right beside the anchored boats in the springtime in Old Hickory lake, Hendersonville, Tennessee.

And remember, these guys said they were about 60 yards from the shore (who knows how deep that was?). The animal they claimed to have seen was on the bank (about 60 yards away).

The observers in the report never specifically said the animal was fishing. They just said that they saw it bending over and one of them said he saw a fish in its mouth. When they went back to the area, they said there were fish remains all along the bank. My impression was that the animal bent over, picked up a dead fish that was already on the bank, got busted by the fishermen, and then stuffed the fish in its mouth, before turning to bug out. There's no mention of splashing or reaching into the water; just bending over, grabbing a fish, putting the fish in its mouth, and retreating. Quick, cheap meal.

But even if it was fishing, that wouldn't seem odd to me. Bears catch fish, and if this thing is as agile and quick as many say it is, it seems there should be no problem for it to catch a fish.

What do you mean by a comment like this? You think they are lying?

One would think one of them would have acted in a way that they were trained and with the professionalism required.

teresa interesting above reply regarding this sighting but still these officiers by law should filled a police report saying they saw unknown primate or strange animal of somesort maybe they dont have mention the word sasquatch bigfoot in their report. updates as they accure. thanks bill

This maybe material for a thread of its own (if I knew how), but I am curious about the number of incidents involving law enforcement personell and any reactions or repurcussions if they indeed acknowledged the encounter or filed a report. An incident involving a local sheriff's deputy a few years back has always compelled me to pay particular attention to reports of BF/LEOs crossing paths. This local sighting was not widely reported and pretty much buried after the deputy and the department itself was subjected to everything from good natured ribbing, to outright public ridicule. The fact that this was an election year for the sheriff helped to quickly sweep this under the rug as well, simply due to the nature of politics in our neck of the woods. (Most of our local politicians, historically were so crooked that when they died, you couldn't just up and bury them, they had to be screwed into the ground!) I actually knew the deputy and considered him straight up and for several years he pastored a church attended by several of my relatives across the mountain from us. I personally never asked him about his experience, and the few people who did often were either casually brushed off or as in one instance I know of, asked not to mention it anymore as it was something he did not and would not discuss further.

He ultimately ended up leaving the force a year or so later, (I think maybe he went to work for a short while in an adjacent county that pays alot more which is not uncommon around here) and soon thereafter we heard he had quit police work altogether, gave up preaching and was in the proccess of divorcing his wife of 20+ years and moving out of the area. And without looking up his family still in the area, that pretty much was the end of the story as I know it. I am not aware of nor am I trying to suggest that his encounter had anything to do with any of the subsequent turns his life has taken, but I do believe that most of the locals at the time attributed the BF story as being the catalyst in ending his law enforcement career. To what degree it may have further affected his life can only be answered by the man himself.

My question is "On a national level, just how many similiar accounts like this one are out there?" How many small town deputies, financially strapped municipalities, and politically motivated rural sheriff's departments are sitting on a story just like this one. Are there any unsubstationated accounts from your local law enforcement agencies, any whispered rumors of unfiled incident reports from patrol officers, or as noted in this thread, reports filed by officers wishing not to be identified? If you were a deputy, and one night while on patrol caught a glimpse of an 8FT+, 600lb. hairy bi-ped crossing the road in front of your vehicle, would you file a report stating exactly that? Would a senior officer(s) allow an incident report even remotely suggesting a BF was spotted by one of his patrolmen. What would be the reaction of your peers and the public in general when it is public knowledge that one the local LEO's is seeing BFs while out patrolling the county?

I am interested in hearing from posters to this forum of any further info available on BF/LEOs encounters whether publicly reported or just local lore. Would be great to hear from some police officers, game wardens, deputies, etc, concerning any personal experiences, unfiled/disregarded cases and also to tell us how they would react if faced with such a dilemma.

Nothing in that article suggests these men acted inappropriately or unprofessionally. Do you want to explain further what you are talking about or am I just to assume that like other posters in this forum it's just easier to make false pretenses about folk because you don't like what they might have saw.


FoxJr - you have some pretty good thought there, I really like how you think.

Not speaking for Rock but you addressed both of us- his answer and mine come from actually being in the system and knowing how it works.

First- the fact a person is LE doesnt give them some form of special "knowledge/expertise/special position" far above mortal man so if and when a LEO has a sighting, that doesnt give it any special status.

Second- if they in fact saw what they claim, theres no reason for them to NOT make a formal report ( altho said report would be with the states DNR because the sighting of an animal in the woods is hardly a law enforcement matter unless said animal could pose threat to life or property)

Heres how this works in the real world. This stuff about officers being "afraid of ridicule/response" for filing such a report is bogus on its face. I would like someone to show me one instance ( verified) where an officer making a LEGITIMATE report faced an official adverse action.

I have seen some officers make bogus reports to cover for "other" activities- thats when IA comes and pops them when exposed. Also with whatever LE organization ( union,brotherhood etc) would not stand for any reprisal of a LEGITIMATE report filed by an officer.

Officers/military/pilots/astronauts etc have reported everything from UFO's to whatever before- they didnt end their careers either ( for legit reports)

So, yes I call into question the professionalism of 3 LEO's who saw such a creature in the wild ( realizing it might have been a BF and knowing the implications to animal sciences) and not making said report to the DNR for legitimate follow up and study. ( investigating such a sighting would be a Game Wardens job)

Yet, they dont make an official report but allow their report to go to a BF organization?

hey fox jr wow awesome new above reply indeed regarding this sighting i totaly agree. thanks bill

There's not likely to be any way to determine the number of possible sasquatch encounters by law enforcement personnel that go unreported.

I have met with four such individuals in addition to a game official and a wildlife researcher. I am aware of other law enforcement officers who have been interviewed by bigfoot report investigators known to me, and I know of several other comparable sightings that have not been reported and/or publicly posted.

In one case the officer told others in this department and has suffered years of mockery. In another case perverse outsiders who did not personally know the officer notified his/her superiors with the intent of costing that individual his/her job. Fortunately, he/she has since received a promotion.

IMO, it's imprudent of anyone to presume to pass judgment on how others, including law enforcement officers, should behave in these kinds of circumstances. My family includes police officers, military police, and highway patrol officers; for the record, I DO place more credence in reports from such individuals than from others.

Thanks Mr. Green and Peregrine, I apreciate your posts in response to my questions. I agree, Peregrine, with your statement concerning the credence placed with those reports from individuals serving in the law enforcement/investigative field, I would go as far to suggest that they would rate second only to hands-on type scientists/field technicians with backgrounds related to this research, simply because the LEOs are trained and habituated to acutely observe, to mentally retain and more accurately report the details of an incident, and are expected to do so under varying degrees of pressure. Much more so than say the average housewife and her kids on a stroll through a state park, or the occasional camper/outdoorsman out on overnighter in a local woodland. Furthermore, I would consider Game Wardens/Rangers perhaps the most credible of all, as not only are they trained and experienced much the same as other LEO's, they also are much more familiar with the suspected BF environment and have intimate knowledge of local flore and fauna, and would probably be much more inclined to detect something odd or out of place within that domain.

Any members ( esp. those with alot more experience than myself ) have links or personal knowledge of BF encounters with game management or wildlife enforcement personell? I realize many folks are not fond of unverified or second hands accounts of BF sightings, which maybe the case of LEOs whom like mentioned earlier maybe jeopardizing their careers and reputations, but only thru this second hand reporting can some thread of truth somehow be found if further research and field work was conducted? Perhaps an aged incident would now be easier for an officer or LE agency to discuss now that the intital buzz has died down over time, even if it was discussed without revealing any specifc names or agencies?

IMO only, it seems as if BF research is stuck in sort of a rut, and I just don't know how much more we can analyze the PGF or discuss the mind set of Ray Wallace. Lately, it appears that individuals like Carter Coy and Biscardi, (I am only suggesting that some of their reports, methods and ambitions are highly suspect by other BF folks and the public in general) these kind of characters end up getting more press than someone with some real credentials and legitimate commitment to find factual data, like Meldrom for instance. Maybe it's time to go back and look at some of the more obscure and/or unsubstationated data and see if we missed something. It is something even the most unenthusiastic researcher or physically unable poster could participate in, to discreetly probe around their local area, or research over the web or even go to the library and check thru dated newsprint or historical records?

I've seen big fish in shallow water plenty of times. I vividly remember seeing dozens of big, spawning largemouths swiming around tree trunks in just 8" of water at the edge of Kentucky Lake one May day.

The biggest crappie I ever caught (these were the size of serving platters---really huge crappie) were in just 2 1/2 feet of water.

hey fox your very welcome for your great above reply to me regarding this situation. pergine wow thats is a very interesting reply indeed. thanks bill

I am suspect when three individuals have a sighting and want total anonymity. When three police officers see something and come forward, I do not think anyone would question whether or not they saw something. They might question what they actually saw. I doubt they would conclude that they were unbalanced or were seeing things not there. Now with one witness, people might jump to those conclusions and anonymity would make more sense. Just my take. Thanks.

It seems hard to believe a BF could catch a small fish like crapie. In a lake there is no where to trap them, and BF can't be that fast in the water. Can BF fish with bait and somehow grab a fish when they come up or scoup them out of the water?

hmmmm..............

seems perfectly reasonable to me, bears catch fish all the time (so to speak), shoot I have even
grabbed bluegills with my hands. Why not a sasquatch? If they use a stick to wood knock, why not use a
stick to stun a fish or two. of course thats pure speculation on my part. But again I dont see any oddity
with them catching fish.


dav

Fishing by hand has a long tradition in the south. It's called noodling.

I have to agree with you and Rock on this. I'm suspect of this report and here's why.

Why didn't they investigate further besides sitting in the boat looking at the shore? My god, there's three of them are they all that scared. Where did they get their training from a mail order catalog?! I don't know how many times I reacted first to an incident then later thought that was really dangerous when I had time to look back at it. Again, it comes down to training and reacting.

Why wasn't there more background on the officers? I don't really care what department they work for but I would like to know how long they've been on the job and are they specialist in a field, ie. investigation, undercover, ect. Wouldn't this play an important role? Unless they have less than credible backgrounds with their department a report should have been filled out with whomever had jurisdiction. I would tend to give credibility to three fellow LEO's coming forward in an official report and take it seriously.

Then again, I've gotten out of my patrol car to go investigate wood knocking and strange smells while on third shift so I guess it's all in the way you're trained and if you have courage or not. It takes a special person to do the job. You know LEO's and firefighters are nuts because we run towards trouble and danger when the average person runs away.

JMO.

I agree Sergeant and if you will, I would like to expound a bit more based on some comments upthread because civilians dont always know the inner workings of a department.

In my posts upthread, I emphasized a LEGITIMATE report.

For those outside- every officer has a set of "war stories" ( some real, some embellished, some exaggerated etc) and those can often come back and "bite" an LEO but they are basically "squad talk" and nothing more.

However, when an officer files a documented incident report ( presumably they also conducted some kind of "look see" if not investigation) then they are now "officially" making a statement and would normally have appropriate follow up. That officer has said in effect that this is "real" and here is my official report.

I have never seen or heard of anyone ridiculed for such an act. ( now if they just told stories- thats a different story)

That "report" is where "war stories" stop and official duty starts.

The problem here is that for whatever reason- they didnt feel their account warranted an official incident report ( which they are basically attesting to under oath) but they felt comfortable enough to file one elsewhere.

Thats a little out of the line of professional standards of conduct.

Longtabber very well said. I agree that I've never heard of anyone getting flack from other officers once they sign their name to an official report but as for the war stories that's another thing. The practical jokes start flowing with those and yes I've given and received them.

With both SgtWarren and Longtabber.
Never ruin a good war story with the facts - but a signed report is your reputation and your career and nobody better disrespect that.