Pennsylvania ranks as 3rd best state to spot Bigfoot |

Pennsylvania ranks as 3rd best state to spot Bigfoot

Chris Pastrick

Don’t we all have that one odd relative that insists on having spotted Bigfoot while camping one time?

No? Just me?

Turns out, for those living in Pennsylvania it’s not such a far-fetched situation. In fact, Pennsylvania seems to be among the best states to see the big, hairy creature — the third best.

In doing research for a new series, the Travel Channel took a look at sighting stats collected from the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO). According to the BFRO’s website, they have “the only collection of bigfoot reports from across North America that have actually been investigated by researchers to determine credibility.”

The channel poured over 23,000 sightings in the country, and came up with a list of the eight states with the best chance to spotting Sasquatch.

With 1,340 sightings, Pennsylvania ranked as the third-best state to see Bigfoot. The best? Washington, with 2,032. California came in second with 1,697.

Of Pennsylvania, Travel Channel says, “With hundreds of miles of connected forestlands, it’s a prime space for a large animal to go undetected.”

Where’s the best place to see the creature?

  1. Washington: 2,032
  2. California: 1,697
  3. Pennsylvania: 1,340
  4. Michigan: 1,131
  5. New York: 1,068
  6. Ohio: 1,042
  7. Oregon: 1,009
  8. Texas: 806

Much of the data taken from the BFRO is not available on the organization’s website. Instead, the numbers come from its Follow-up Log and Tracking System, which compiles and tracks sightings and testimonies.

The Travel Channel’s new series, “In Search of Monsters” premiered April 3. New episodes air at 9 p.m. Wednesdays.

Chris Pastrick is a Tribune-Review digital producer. You can contact Chris at 412-320-7898, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: News | Pennsylvania | Top Stories
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.