Possible Track located near Forlorn Lakes, WA - Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Track found, photo captured prior to casting.

On August 6, 2026, we returned to a research zone near Forlorn Lakes in Gifford Pinchot National Forest. We call this site "Hidden Lake". It is not a developed campground. There is one practical way in and one way out: a dead-end approach to a single dispersed campsite on one shore. The far shore is reached by crossing through camp and over a log spanning marsh, or by a long push through brush and timber from the access road. The surrounding ground is deadfall, snags, dense brush, and a needle-and-stick floor that most people do not choose for a barefoot stroll.

Camp was set that afternoon. One person was on site alone on the 6th and did not cross to the far shore. Three others arrived on the 7th. Nobody from the group used that far bench until the afternoon of the 8th. No strangers walked through camp. No one used the site as a shortcut to the lake.

That afternoon, around 5:00 p.m. on August 8, the group crossed and found a single barefoot-looking plant in lakeshore duff, directly across from camp.

Casted print brought home and cleaned up.

What was on the ground

The impression measured about 12 inches heel to toe and about 5 inches across the forefoot. It had pushed the soil more than an inch. Needles were pressed into the depression, not sitting loose on top like fresh litter after the fact.

A second mark — a slide or smear — sat about 3.5 feet ahead, measured toes of the first plant to the next heel. The line did not continue. There was no trackway down the bench.

We photographed the hole, measured it in the field (including Scaniverse overlays), and poured plaster. A known size-11½ step in the same duff, same afternoon, was shallower and the ground rebounded. The original plant held shape.

Age

There had been little to no rain in the area for days before the trip. The hole still had walls and mixed-in needles on the 8th. Combined with how that duff behaves when you step in it fresh, the print was not hours old when we found it. Best working window: about August 5 or the morning of the 6th — within roughly 72 hours of discovery, and before the group occupied the far shore.

Why we do not treat this as a walking black bear

A black bear was the first wildlife call, including from an experienced outside look at the photos. That is the correct first guess in this forest.

It does not fit a walking bear very well:

• A typical adult black bear hind print is shorter and wider through the pad, with a tight toe arc. Claws often show in decent substrate. This outline is longer, pinched through the midfoot, and the cast did not pick up a claw row or a classic bear pad.

• Walking bears take short, paired steps. Front and hind of the same side land close together. A 3.5-foot gap from toes to the next heel is a long interval for a walk. If the second mark is only a slide, then you still do not have two matching bear feet — you have one plant and a smear.

• The line stopped. That is not a bear walking the waterline.

We have documented clear black bear prints in this same forest. This hole does not look like those.

Why a human is still possible — and still awkward

A 12-inch plant is in the neighborhood of a U.S. men’s 13–14 bare foot. Soft lakeshore mud will take a deep print from a heavy plant, a slip, or a pause at the water. That part is ordinary.

What is not ordinary is the rest of the picture:

• Access. The bench is not on a trail. You cross camp and marsh, or you fight timber from the road. We did not see anyone do that.

• Timing. The print most likely predates our use of that shore.

• Floor. Behind the mud is snag, splintered limbs, and a needle blanket. People walk lakeshores in boots. A bare 12-inch foot through that slash is a painful crossing, not a casual one. The cast showed no shoe tread and no obvious double-register of a boot.

So: a person before August 6, at the water, for a short plant, is still on the list. A weekend hiker from our camp is a poor fit. We cannot inventory every approach after the fact. We also cannot turn one print into a named animal.

What the cast added

After cleanup, the cast still showed an elongated outline, a midfoot constriction, and toe mass at the front. It did not look like a double-stepped bear pad. It did not look like a minimalist sole. Debris from the duff is baked into the surface; that is the substrate, not a hidden trademark.

What we heard, and what we are not claiming

During the stay we heard a few wood knocks in the timber and coyotes after a kill. That is background, not evidence tied to this print. We are not attaching those sounds to the track.

This is one impression, one smear, no continuation. It is the wrong shape and spacing for a walking black bear. It is an inconvenient human story if the access account is complete. It is not proof of a sasquatch. The honest label is a large, barefoot-class plant in a place most people do not put a bare foot, left when we were not on that shore.

That is why we documented it.

Field notes Location class: Hidden Lake research zone, near Forlorn Lakes, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Exact coordinates withheld. Dates: on site August 6–9, 2026; track located ~5:00 p.m. August 8. Primary plant: ~12 in × ~5 in; depth more than 1 in in duff/mud. Next mark: ~3.5 ft (toes to next heel), smear/slide; no further trackway. Method: photos, field measurement, plaster cast, same-substrate control step.