Bigfoot in Montana:

wilderness myth, modern sightings, and why the debate won’t die

Montana is a state that trades in big things — big skies, big mountains, and apparently, big feet. From Glacier’s shadowed timberline to the rangelands of the eastern plains, reports of an enormous, bipedal, hairy “Sasquatch” pepper local lore and appear regularly in investigator databases. For believers, Montana’s low population density and vast tracts of forest make it a plausible home for an undiscovered primate; for skeptics, the same factors encourage misidentification, hoaxing, and folklore that grows on itself. The result is a debate that mixes eyewitness testimony, forensic science, indigenous storytelling, internet era spectacle, and occasional official curiosity. 

The raw numbers tell part of the story. The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO), the largest volunteer-run archive of sightings, maintains scores of Montana entries spanning decades — reports that range from “Class A” daylight encounters to ambiguous nighttime whoops and footprint casts. BFRO’s county-by-county map shows clusters of activity in the forested west and around reservation lands, reflecting the geographic logic invoked by enthusiasts: remote habitat plus human observers equals a steady trickle of alleged encounters. Whether those reports describe a real biological population or a social phenomenon is precisely what makes Montana a useful case study in contemporary cryptozoology. 

Yet Montana’s Bigfoot story is not only online databases and late-night campfire yarns. Local news outlets and community projects document the cultural life of the phenomenon. NBC Montana ran features on the Montana Vortex’s Bigfoot lore, where proprietors and tourists point to footprint casts and odd electromagnetic anomalies as curious evidence; small-town stations occasionally surface viral clips, webcam stills, or local interviews that fuel renewed interest. These media moments both amplify reports and provide material that investigators — and debunkers — can analyze. 

There are also high-profile incidents that illustrate why the topic sometimes escapes the margins. In 2019 the FBI released archived documents — a 22-page file that included correspondence with a self-styled “monster hunter” and a lab report on hair samples — prompting a flurry of coverage in mainstream outlets. The Bureau’s Vault entry generated headlines because it underscored an important point: government curiosity (or at least record-keeping) does not equal confirmation of a new species. Reporting and later forensic follow-ups indicated the hair evidence was not convincing as proof of an unknown primate, and in many instances the samples matched known animals. The episode is a useful reminder that “official” files can fuel belief even while undercutting it. 

Science has weighed in more decisively on specific types of evidence. A prominent DNA study led by University of Oxford geneticist Bryan Sykes analyzed dozens of hair samples submitted as potential “anomalous primate” material; the vast majority proved to be from known species (bears, dogs, cattle, etc.), with only a few mysterious matches that turned out to suggest hybrid or poorly sampled bear lineages in the Himalayas — not a North American hominid. The methodological lesson is straightforward: modern molecular tools can resolve many claims that decades ago were merely ambiguous hairs and anecdotes. When those tests are applied, the Bigfoot hypothesis has yet to produce reproducible, verifiable DNA that points to an unknown, breeding population living in North America. 

That scientific verdict, however, has not ended the debate. Skeptical analyses emphasize population biology: for a large-bodied primate to sustain itself it would require a substantial, genetically viable population, repeated reliable observations, and ecological evidence such as carcasses or consistent trackways clearly differentiated from bears and humans. Authors in outlets like Skeptical Inquirer argue that many historic pieces of “evidence” (notably the 1950s Bluff Creek tracks and aspects of the famous Patterson–Gimlin film) have either been explained as hoaxes or remain ambiguous when measured against basic ecological and anatomical expectations. In short, the improbable biology of a hidden North American ape is often a stronger argument for skepticism than any single eyewitness account is for belief. 

But focusing strictly on “is it real?” misses much of the story’s human and cultural dimensions. Indigenous communities across the Pacific Northwest and northern plains have long-standing stories of large, humanlike beings — names, roles, and moral meanings vary by nation. In Blackfeet territory, for instance, the word Imoitapi (sometimes translated as “hairy man”) appears in oral histories and contemporary storytelling projects; Blackfeet creatives have reframed Sasquatch stories through the Pikuni Bigfoot Storytelling Project, offering Indigenous interpretations that locate these beings within spiritual frameworks or community memory rather than Western cryptozoological taxonomies. Recognizing these perspectives complicates the debate: what outsiders treat as an unresolved zoological question may be, for Indigenous people, a living strand of cultural meaning and cautionary tale. 

Social dynamics and incentives also matter. The 21st-century media ecosystem rewards sensational footage and clicks; hoaxes and misinterpretations spread rapidly on social platforms and can be difficult to retract. There have been notorious hoaxes — full-scale fabrications involving costumes or staged “bodies” — that tarnish genuine investigation and create a presumption of fraud. Conversely, the lack of consequences for false reports (beyond reputational damage) and the social rewards of being “first” to a story encourage a continual stream of ambiguous material that keeps interest high despite weak evidence. 

What would constitute definitive evidence? Most scientists say it would require physical remains that survive independent verification — material that could be sequenced and placed in a phylogenetic context, or at minimum a preserved specimen examined by qualified zoologists. Robust, multiple-sensor recordings (high-resolution video from calibrated cameras, combined with corroborating footprints and environmental DNA samples from the same place and time) would also move the needle. Until then, the balance of evidence — DNA studies, ecological reasoning, and the pattern of hoaxes and misidentifications — favors skepticism. That’s not the same as proving nonexistence, but it sets a high bar for claims. 

Still, Montana’s Bigfoot debate does yield tangible outcomes that are neither strictly true nor false. The creature is a tourism draw: towns with Bigfoot lore market themed signs, stickers, and events; storytelling projects provide cultural work and visibility for Indigenous voices; local mysteries drive podcasts and expeditions that funnel dollars into rural economies. The Bigfoot conversation reveals something broader about how humans inhabit wild places — we project fears, hopes, and stories into the landscape, then gather to trade those narratives. For many Montanans, that trade is as real as any zoological claim. 

So where does that leave us? If your epistemic standard is the scientific one — reproducible data, peer-reviewed analysis, and biological plausibility — the case for an undiscovered North American great ape remains, at best, unproven. If your interest is cultural, ethnographic, or personal, Montana offers a lively, layered field of encounters and stories that illuminate how communities relate to wilderness and to each other. Either way, the Bigfoot debate in Montana is less a closed question than a window onto questions about evidence, storytelling, and the kinds of mysteries we choose to believe in. 

Selected sources

Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization. BFRO Geographical Database of Bigfoot Sightings & Reports. BFRO. Accessed September 6, 2025. https://www.bfro.net/gdb/

Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Bigfoot Part 01 (Final).” FBI — The Vault. Accessed September 6, 2025. https://vault.fbi.gov/bigfoot/Bigfoot%20Part%2001%20%28Final%29/view

Radford, Benjamin. “Is Bigfoot Dead?” Skeptical Inquirer, January/February 2024. https://skepticalinquirer.org/2023/12/is-bigfoot-dead/

Little, Becky. “Bigfoot Was Investigated by the FBI. Here’s What They Found.” History, June 6, 2019. https://www.history.com/articles/bigfoot-fbi-file-investigation-discovery

Hellmann, Melissa. “DNA Analysis Debunks Bigfoot Myth, Points to Unknown Bear Species.” Time, July 2, 2014. https://time.com/2948745/dna-analysis-debunks-bigfoot-myth-points-to-unknown-bear-species/

Letzter, Rafi. “Bigfoot’s FBI File Reveals Strange Story of a Monster Hunter and 15 Mysterious Hairs.” LiveScience, June 6, 2019. https://www.livescience.com/65647-bigfoot-fbi-file.html

Georgiou, Maritsa. “Mythical or mysterious — search for Bigfoot alive among Montana believers.” NBC Montana, November 1, 2019. https://nbcmontana.com/news/local/mythical-or-mysterious-search-for-bigfoot-alive-among-montana-believers

Humanities Montana. “Documenting Sasquatch: An Indigenous Storytelling Journey.” Humanities Montana program page. Accessed September 6, 2025. https://www.humanitiesmontana.org/programs/documenting-sasquatch-an-indigenous-storytelling-journey-sis/