Bipedal bear video is amazingly Bigfoot-ish (UPDATE: Still around, may be in trouble)

See the update to this story below – this neighborhood visitor is still walking around but maybe not for long…

Originally posted 5-Aug 2014

I found myself taking the name of god in vain as I watched this video of a bear walking bipedally through a neighborhood in New Jersey. Bigfoot, indeed.

This video was shot in northern New Jersey at 5:45am on 8/4/14. The bear is considered a ‘bipedal bear’ by the way it walks on its hind legs. It seems that one of its front paws are injured, and it has learned to walk, extremely well, on its back legs.

Amazing. You can see it struggle on all fours and then adopt a two-footed gait. Therefore, a vertical walking bear is more plausible explanation than an unknown human-like primate to explain possible sightings of “Bigfoot”.

Tip: Matt Crowley

Screen capture of bipedal bear walking

Screen capture of bipedal bear walking

UPDATE (9-Oct 2015) This bear, now given the name “Pedals” is still visiting a New Jersey suburban neighborhood looking for food. Locals say his injury is taking a toll on his health as he is looking less fit and may have a hard time making it through this winter. They have raised $15,000 to place him in a wildlife center. But the state wildlife officials are not too keen on giving permission for it:

The NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife is aware of the Orphaned Wildlife Center’s offer and is “reviewing the situation,” press officer Lawrence Hajna told ABC News today. He added that the division’s biologists have evaluated Pedals via photos and videos, and they believe “the bear is doing fine.”

“All injured bears compensate in their own way to find food and survive and this bear is no exception,” the NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife said in a statement. “Injured wild animals should be given every opportunity to survive on their own in the wild.”

They acknowledge that Pedals is obtaining food from humans and warn that people shouldn’t feed him. They would prefer he move back into the wooded area for natural food. But at this point, is that feasible? With an offer to care for him, it’s odd that this would be rejected. Not taking action may result in an unfortunate encounter if not death for the bear.

  21 comments for “Bipedal bear video is amazingly Bigfoot-ish (UPDATE: Still around, may be in trouble)

  1. Hal
    August 5, 2014 at 11:02 PM

    It’s yogi bear. Of course he walks on 2 legs. Haven’t you seen him on TV?

  2. August 5, 2014 at 11:18 PM

    There is another video that appeared a couple of weeks ago (albeit poor quality) from Oak Ridge, New Jersey, purportedly of an injured bear walking upright:

    Bear sightings are apparently not too unusual in this area. See for example:

    I haven’t found any information on where these videos were taken and by whom, but the subject (at least in the clearer video) certainly looks like a bear. Compare it to the bear in this video, for example:

  3. Distresing
    August 6, 2014 at 12:15 AM

    That is creepy as shit

  4. Perry Bulwer
    August 6, 2014 at 1:31 AM

    Yup, smarter than the average bear!

  5. Drew
    August 6, 2014 at 1:43 AM

    Kinda feel sorry for that young bear, and I am a Hunter. Hope somehow the NJ DNR trank it’s and see what is wrong with the front paws or legs…

    {Editor’s note: removed unnecessarily inflammatory comment}

  6. Sam
    August 6, 2014 at 8:05 AM

    I’ve seen this before- he has honey all over his front paws.

  7. busterggi
    August 6, 2014 at 9:20 AM

    Clearly bears have learned that people do not as readly shoot at hairy bipeds and are adjusting their behavior.

  8. Chris Howard
    August 6, 2014 at 3:52 PM

    I’m really impressed with the person who took the video.

    I would not be brave enough to be that close to a bear.

    That’s how people get mauled.

    Just sayin’.

  9. August 6, 2014 at 4:59 PM

    Well if it’s internet points he’s after I’ve taken 10,000 off him for writing gibberish. Why is his family important to his sympathies for the bear? What’s tranking? What attribute of the bear is the DNR (whatever that is) supposed to be tranking? What’s an anti? Where would one go to hunt one? What effect does hunting antis have on bear subdivision locomotion (whatever that is)?

  10. Paul de Boer
    August 6, 2014 at 5:59 PM

    Looks like he thinks his disguise is working. “Hello fellow human, might I have a peak in your food barrel?”

  11. Indrid Cole
    August 6, 2014 at 6:03 PM

    After carefull examination of the video the only logical explanation for the bear walking on two legs while staggering across the field is that he was texting. He occasionally fell down on all fours when he walked into a tree or something. I see that type of behavior all the time at the mall.

  12. Lagaya1
    August 6, 2014 at 7:03 PM

    Perfect explanation! Love it!

  13. Fitz
    August 6, 2014 at 8:55 PM

    Sure, but I’d have been even more impressed if they’d held their phone sideways.

    August 6, 2014 at 11:33 PM

    If you bump up the quality and look really closely Drew he is completely missing his right paw there is just a forearm stump and the left paw just seems to be flopping uselessly.

    I really hope Wild Life services are looking into his injuries and making sure he can compensate.

  15. Barb
    August 8, 2014 at 3:11 PM

    The New Jersey Devil mystery solved. And the Yeti is now suspected to be a type of polar bear. What other mysteries are left?

  16. idoubtit
    August 8, 2014 at 5:44 PM

    If there were no more mysteries, there would be no science. We obviously aren’t close to knowing anything. But I believe you’ll find these “so called mysteries” are a bit more complicated thank that.

  17. busterggi
    August 9, 2014 at 8:58 AM

    The Loch Ness Grizzy?

  18. ChariD
    August 19, 2014 at 9:50 AM

    I believe the proper term is “squatchy”, not bigfoot-ish. 🙂 Seeing a bear with a deformed or injured front paw resort to walking upright doesn’t seem miraculous; it seems practical.

  19. CC
    August 21, 2014 at 1:54 PM

    >Therefore, a vertical walking bear is more plausible explanation than an unknown human-like primate to explain possible sightings of “Bigfoot”.

    A vertical walking bear is a more plausible explanation only if it accounts for all the data reported in alleged Bigfoot sightings.

    Does the bear have broad shoulders? No.

    Does the bear have a flat, ape-like face with no snout? No.

    Does the bear leave tracks with a length longer than the width, with heel and toe impressions, and with soil disturbances indicative of a mid-tarsal break? No.

    Is there evidence that vertical walking bears are commonplace in areas where alleged Bigfoot sightings occur? No.

    Is there evidence that vertical walking bears can easily move uphill and downhill? No.

    Is there evidence that vertical walking bears leave extensive tracks in very isolated wilderness areas, and that analysis of those tracks indicates a small but viable population whose footprints are consistent with a species exhibiting sexual dimorphism? No.

    Is there evidence that a vertical walking bear

    If a skeptic expects to be taken seriously, he or she needs to (a) know exactly which data he and she are analyzing and (b) apply the same standards of proof to their own thinking as they apply to the claims of others.

  20. idoubtit
    August 21, 2014 at 3:29 PM

    CC: You are assuming a lot in such sighting reports, most of which take place under less than ideal observation conditions. People making a mistake is FAR FAR more likely than a new manlike-ape species.

    I did not say that upright walking bears are the answer for ALL Bigfoot reports. I would instead conclude there there are a myriad of possible explanations for what people will call Bigfoot sightings. Having an actual GENUINE bigfoot is low on the list of probabilities. It’s far more complicated than “I saw a Bigfoot”.

    If a Bigfoot advocate expects to be taken seriously, the question about these reports should be “What, IF ANYTHING, happened to the witness?” You can not conclude “Bigfoot” for any sighting because there is no standard to show it even exists. It’s a hypothesis with very poor supporting evidence.

    Also, I get irritated when people with poorly supported arguments lecture me on standards of proof.

  21. M
    December 15, 2015 at 10:51 AM

    Trank = tranqualize

Comments are closed.