This set of documents from the National Park Service, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, presents an unusually limited and somewhat unsettling record tied to an incident at Dinosaur National Monument. The correspondence, dated November 3, 2023, is an official response to a FOIA request seeking the full investigative file for incident number NP20165493, originally recorded on December 3, 2020. What was ultimately released, however, is not a complete investigative record but only a brief, partial summary accompanied by an explanation that raises more questions than it answers.
The incident itself is categorized as a law enforcement matter and is marked as closed, yet the only substantive information provided is a short summary describing “suspicious circumstances” involving reports of Bigfoot sightings and the presence of so called “bone piles” near Yampa Bench Road in a remote backcountry area of the park. The summary references increased activity from individuals described as Bigfoot hunters converging on the area, along with concerns that the bone piles could be linked to poaching or other unauthorized activity. It also notes the possibility of unprepared visitors entering the area during winter conditions, which could elevate the risk of search and rescue operations. Specific locations mentioned include Yampa Bench Road, Echo Park, Cleopatra’s Couch, and Sage Creek Trail, all of which are known for their isolation and limited accessibility.
What stands out most about this report is not just the unusual nature of the claims, but the extreme lack of supporting detail. The official FOIA response explicitly states that the full report does not exist in any meaningful sense beyond this summary. According to the agency, the ranger responsible for documenting the incident was medically incapacitated at the time and was unable to complete a thorough report or conduct any follow up investigation. This detail is highly irregular in the context of federal incident reporting, where even preliminary or incomplete cases are typically supplemented later with additional documentation, witness statements, or supervisory review.
Further compounding the issue is the disclaimer printed directly on the incident record itself, which states that the information has not been approved by a supervisor. This suggests that the document was never finalized through standard internal review processes, leaving it effectively as an unverified, incomplete snapshot of an event that may have warranted deeper examination. The lack of supervisory approval, combined with the stated incapacitation of the reporting ranger, creates a scenario where the only official record is both unfinished and unsupported by any additional evidence.
The FOIA response also indicates that portions of the already minimal documentation were withheld under Exemption 6, which pertains to personal privacy. While this is a common exemption used to redact identifying information, the letter goes further by stating that approximately 33 pages of related material are being withheld in part. This is particularly striking given the earlier assertion that the report consists only of a brief summary. The implication is that additional records may exist in some form, yet they are either incomplete, sensitive, or deemed unsuitable for release. This contradiction between the claimed lack of a full report and the acknowledgment of withheld material adds another layer of ambiguity to the case.
Taken as a whole, this report is notable less for what it confirms and more for what it omits. It documents a convergence of unusual elements, including reports of a cryptid sighting, physical evidence described as bone piles, and increased human activity in a remote wilderness area. Yet it provides no investigative findings, no photographic evidence, no witness interviews, and no definitive conclusions. The explanation that the responsible ranger was medically incapacitated introduces an unusual and unresolved variable, effectively halting the documentation process at its earliest stage.
The result is an official record that feels suspended in incompletion. It acknowledges that something prompted concern and a law enforcement classification, but it offers no resolution, no verification, and no meaningful follow up. For researchers and observers, the strangeness lies not only in the subject matter of the report but in the breakdown of the reporting process itself, where an incident was logged, categorized, and closed without ever being fully documented or explained.