Ku-ring-gai Yowie prints?

[Pertys80]

G'day everyone, I thought I might share an interesting find I made a few weeks ago while on a houseboat with friends for my bucks party.
On the second night we moored in a secluded bay in the Cowan creek area of the Ku-ring-gai NP.

Screenshot_20180923-064717_Maps.jpg

Curiosity got the better of me so I decided to row ashore for a quick look before dark..

20180923_203136.jpg

20180922_170735.jpg

To my surprise there was plenty of sign well above the high tide mark, Im guessing wild dogs as the prints show signs of long untrimmed nails,

20180922_165939.jpg

bedding down areas,

20181012_074838.jpg

, and different sizes suggesting there was more than one dog in the area..

20181012_065305.jpg

Now this is where it gets weird, a little more searching and I find a cluster of bare foot prints all in one small area..

20180924_070438.jpg

Right at the entrance to a dried up creek bed..

20181012_082254.jpg

20181012_075609.jpg

20180924_070536.jpg

Now the thing that strikes me as odd about these prints is not so much the size, but the shape and proportions.

[Pertys80]

Sorry, I couldn't post more pics for some reason, so goes the rest..

20180922_170014.jpg

20180922_170021.jpg

20180922_170138.jpg

I didnt have anything to measure with but I used my shoe as a comparison, Im a size 10 UK..

20180923_075804.jpg

20180924_074517.jpg

Check out the length as opposed to the width, perhaps a size 7 or 8 but wider then my foot.. Can you think of any footwear that could fit these feet?

20180923_075725.jpg

I'm trying to stay rational here, but something tells me these aren't your typical human foot prints..
What do you think?

[Dion]

Hey Pertys80

Nice find, awesome prints, would not surprise me that the general area would be home to the hairy's.

Thanks for posting.

[TheBlackStump]

Hi Pertys80

Interesting , thanks for posting. I am familiar with Cowan Creek.

Dion over time there have been a number previous hairy sightings , reports in that immediate area.

[TheBlackStump]

Below are the reports I mentioned in my previous post.
I had an experience myself in the same area , at Brooklyn back in 1996 approx. I did not see anything but if you read the 1995 report below what I heard is indentical to this report.

https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/Co ... 51.2102549

http://www.yowiehunters.com.au/index.ph ... wales-1995

http://www.yowiehunters.com.au/index.ph ... wales-1997

http://www.yowiehunters.com.au/index.ph ... wales-1984

http://www.yowiehunters.com.au/index.ph ... wales-2013

http://www.yowiehunters.com.au/index.ph ... wales-2013

[TheBlackStump]

Correction to above post.
My experience was identical to 1997 report not 1995 report.

[Bluedog]

Great find!, those prints look fresh, it makes you wonder who or what left them there. It seems unlikely that a person would be walking around there in bare feet.

[Pertys80]

Yeah, definitely not the kind of place I'd wear bare feet, not even ideal for swimming or bathing..
I believe the 2013 report was just south of here in Yeomans bay..

20180924_080330.jpg

I outlined the cluster of prints to try get an idea of what was going on.

20180925_063022.jpg

Maybe it was a young one attracted to the waters edge to get a better look at a noisy houseboat perhaps..
This is a shot taken squatting over the tracks..

20180923_080550.jpg

[inthedark]

I hate to be a party pooper (pun intended), but having grown up around boats, and some of which was in this very area, I would have to say that the most likely explanation is a boaty coming ashore (just as you did) to 'squat'. Just because you didn't see the ... ahem ... result, doesn't mean they didn't do what people do when they squat. Know what I mean?

Of course, it could also have been a Y, boat watching

[inthedark]

Or even more likely, a boaty with a dog, bringing the dog ashore to do what dogs can't do on boats, and who came ashore bare footed (as happens more often than you'd think), and was therefore restricted to waiting on the sandy bit.

[Pertys80]

That's a fair call and a possibility I've thought about many times over, here's why I think that theory doesn't add up...
I think the dog sign was much fresher the barefoot prints, the foot prints covered in debris.. Most of the pics I shared, were from the morning after I found and cleared them and a nice dew gave them a fresher look..
The Dogs (different sized prints with untrimmed nails) had been bedded down on the sand for what looks like hours at the bare minimum, Pet owners would let them do their business and then GO! (No dogs allowed in National Parks)
Because of this, I think the 2 lots of sign are unrelated.
Now looking at where the barefoot prints were located, suggest they haven't come from the waters edge, but rather the bush or along the rocky shoreline.. They're well above the high tide mark with no other prints located on any other part of the beach/sand.
Now last but not least, the shape and proportion of the barefoot prints don't look right.. Im guessing a size 8 which is wider then my size 10 foot, it just doesn't add up bro...

[David]

Interesting find Pertsy80. I agree it's not quite adding up and those prints don't look quite right.

[Hominidhunter]

If I see a foot print anywhere that I would think is strange, the first thing I do is look at the big toe, if it’s bent in towards the rest of the small toes, human, this is a trait associated with wearing shoes, if it’s splayed outwards, a second look