Colorado Ranch owner and big game outfitter claims to have BFs on his property

[SWWASAS]

I am wondering why no one actually weighed the rock.   You don't have to transport it because of the weight but bathroom scales do not weigh much to pack in.    This like a lot of the reports out of Colorado the BF seem to have a nasty temperament.    Wonder if that is shrinking habitat stress or what?  

[SwiftWater]

On 2/8/2020 at 4:48 PM, ShadowBorn said:

The client must have been glassing down at the dark timber down below when the rock landed next to him.  What maybe happen was that the client was scoping and this creature happen to see this. Now I am speculating on what might have occurred but it does seem feasible . After all this client has been hunting on this ranch for at least the past twelve years so is familiar with elk herds movements .  This client is a trophy hunter and understands what he is looking for . So scoping that hard timber might have not been a bad spot to scope for bedding. .. Again I am speculating since I am not a elk hunter . But if it was deer I guess I would be doing the same thing looking at those low places for movement. Again if this creature really wanted this hunter dead he would be dead and not be walking off that ridge.

 

So he must have got a good look at this creature that threw this rock.   A real close look and it really freaked him out that he just gave up hunting in that area or even just gave up hunting completely. There must have been a reaction that it wanted from that hunter and it got it. The same goes with the ranch.  

 

So, going along this line of thought and some of what @ShadowBorn has said, it is entirely possible that they were setting up to hunt that particular area. Even if the client wasn't bowhunting, knowing the distance is useful. Hunting out west, it's not unusual to sight in a rifle for 200 yards, so at 47 yards the bullet may be impacting a couple of inches high. May not seem like a huge difference to some, especially looking at the size of an elk, but it can matter and for a trophy hunter who might only get one shot at the elk of his dreams, it can certainly remove some guessing in the situation.

I would wonder if this was a situation where the creature felt hunted and decided to turn the tables on the hunters.

[7.62]

5 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

I am wondering why no one actually weighed the rock.   You don't have to transport it because of the weight but bathroom scales do not weigh much to pack in.    This like a lot of the reports out of Colorado the BF seem to have a nasty temperament.    Wonder if that is shrinking habitat stress or what?  

This is a 80 pound one so if it was close to this and it left a 4" or 5 inch  impression  in the ground when it hit  that's a big rock to throw 47 yards .

 

 

 

[ShadowBorn]

1 hour ago, SwiftWater said:

So, going along this line of thought and some of what @ShadowBorn has said, it is entirely possible that they were setting up to hunt that particular area. Even if the client wasn't bowhunting, knowing the distance is useful. Hunting out west, it's not unusual to sight in a rifle for 200 yards, so at 47 yards the bullet may be impacting a couple of inches high. May not seem like a huge difference to some, especially looking at the size of an elk, but it can matter and for a trophy hunter who might only get one shot at the elk of his dreams, it can certainly remove some guessing in the situation.

I would wonder if this was a situation where the creature felt hunted and decided to turn the tables on the hunters.

Thank you SwiftWater

Knowing your yardage is vary important and having some reference points set up is always good when going after trophies. Since he was so close to what ever this hunter was shooting his aim would of had to have been lower at 47 yards if he had seen a nice size bull elk. At least you got what I was trying to convey @SwiftWater.  Yes, you are right the impact of that bullet would have made a big difference if they did not know the yardage. Nor if they did not have these reference points in the first place.( Again I am assuming )  I do this every time I go hunting once I get settled in my spot . since you might not have the time when you see the animal at the time. 

 

Like you said we have no idea what that creature seen on it's side. It might have thought that it was being hunted and did not realize that the hunters were elk hunting.  As far as it was concern it was there for the same reason. Most of the time the guides knows where these elks will be moving through. This is their job to figure out where these herds are and where they will be passing through. This ranchers has to have known where these large rack bulls hang out and it is up to the client to place the shot and put the animal down. 

 

They should be happy that they were not hit with that large 70 - 90 pound rock and that this is all that happen to them . It could of have been worst. At least they were able to talk about it or at least one of them was able to.  It sure would have been nice to hear from the client. But I can understand why he might not want to come out with what he experience. I understand this fear that this client must have occurred. So for him not to be able to talk and wanting to be taken off that mountain is very understanding.

[OkieFoot]

12 hours ago, 7.62 said:

This is a 80 pound one so if it was close to this and it left a 4" or 5 inch  impression  in the ground when it hit  that's a big rock to throw 47 yards .

 

 

 

 

7.62,

Thanks for posting this. It really helps put the throwing of the rock into perspective. This is the way I see it; when you look at the dimensions of the rock, as well the 80lb. weight, even if it was 70lbs., a human would need two hands to toss, fling,  etc, the rock and I see no way a human throws a rock that size and weight almost half the length of a football field. 

 

 

[SWWASAS]

The energy required to throw a massive rock a given distance can be calculated.   Not sure what that would tell you other than a human could not do that without some sort of catapult.  Maybe Meldrum could derive some sort of information about the anatomy of the bipedal thrower?   

[Twist]

In my line of work the warehouse workers regularly lift 85lb boxes up over their heads on a regular basis and even after months of doing that I doubt many of the men could throw one more than say 8 feet, not accounting for sliding or tumbling.    I’ll wager a bet less then half the people here in the BFF can throw a football the distance being given.    Ppl tend to misjudge heights, weights, distances often.   No offense but the suggestion earlier of a camera 300’ on a pole is a good example. 300’ is MUCH higher than I think the poster realizes.   

[bipedalist]

The tying on of an elk carcass and movements of 400 lb feed sacks is getting up there and is fairly incredible.  Reminds me of the Montana story of a bull elk being dragged across a highway in 20 below zero weather.  I would say if this thing is as destructive as labeled in events recounted that anything you deploy has the strong possibility of never working again or being picked up and hurled at you or used against you as a weapon.  Best advice mount a gopro or similar to all vehicles for as long as the vehicles last.  Try some faux camps with spy powders for finger and footprints.  Can't fake them out with bear boards, trail cams so these things figure out risk/hurt fairly well.  

[VAfooter]

Anchored helium balloons anyone?

 

 

https://www.scientificsales.com/8242-Weather-Balloon-800-Grams-Natural-p/8242.htm

[SWWASAS]

A better balloon are the ones that car dealers have.     Elongated and have fins for stabilization.    I looked into them at one point.   Tether them and you avoid issues with the FAA that drones have.    Some are large enough you could have a pretty big camera package.    Tethered and silent, you could move them around and possibly BF might not even notice them above and wander underneath  them.   

Edited February 10, 2020 by SWWASAS

[Explorer]

The key is to get a camera at a far enough distance that it cannot be destroyed by a rock throw.

 

So I guessed that a camera at 300 ft  elevation would make it very difficult (and near impossible) for a BF to throw a smaller rock that high up and hit it.

I asked before (and nobody answered), how high could a BF throw a rock to disable a camera?

 

The 300 ft distance was based on my hiking among the redwoods, which can be that high, and you can't see their tops and it would be very difficult for BF to throw a rock at a top that it can't see.

I think 100 ft would be a doable target  for a BF (with a baseball sized rock) if it can throw a 70 lb rock 47 yards.

Maybe all you need is 200 ft, but we don't know?

What we want is near certainty that it can't be knocked down.

Now if BF can topple the hopefully well anchored steel pole with their  massive force, then the whole idea is moot.

 

I did think that a drone or small blimp anchored over the property at 300 ft (or whatever the legal limit is, but the higher the better) would also accomplish the task but they will require more maintenance and supervision (and might be more expensive long term (we want 24/7 surveillance).

You would have to watch out for wind conditions all the time and keep lowering them for battery replacements and maintenance.

Some folks who posted above understood my point, which is to use the elevation and technology advantage to prevent the creature from getting to the camera.

 

The cameras that I provided a link to are not cheap either.  One camera and the software costs ~$14,000 each and you need 2 of them.

This guy could afford a $30-$50 K investment in 24/7 security if he wants to protect his family and livelihood.

Specially when he claims that these creatures have been visiting his ranch every year since 2014 and are getting more aggressive.

 

We got to think out of the box if we want to catch good video. 

Continuing to place $300-$500 game camera traps around the property and knowing that they are being detected and destroyed is fruitless.

 

Edited February 11, 2020 by Explorer

[Explorer]

On a different subject than camera traps, one item that many folks have commented on the interview (and that I agree with) is asking where are the photos supporting the incidents claimed.

Everybody has cell phone cameras nowadays and many of us carry them even when there is no cell phone reception  because the GPS /mapping works well.

 

He could have taken photographs of:

- the rock thrown and the depth of the imprint

- the cow elk wedged on the aspen tree

- all the bear boards hammered onto the sides of the cabins

- the footprints

- the destroyed cameras

 

Maybe he has photos and has not had the proper venue to share them yet. 

We don't really know and the interviewer did not ask.

But some of those incidents were weird enough that they deserved a photo.

Let's hope that he will share more of his stories, evidence, and photos in the upcoming interview.

[bipedalist]

Heck if those things picked up nail boards, and battered up they left hair and skin in those boards for sure.  Missed opportunity

[Explorer]

Another point that I wanted to share is the people this witness is reaching out to for advice (per his interview):

- Scott Carpenter

- David Paulides

- Steve Isdahl (the How to Hunt guy)

 

I recall that Scott Carpenter and David Paulides were both involved in the Ketchum DNA study (collecting and sending samples, and maybe more involvement, but I don't know the details).

These folks certainly have a POV on BF but we don't know what kind of guidance/advice they are giving him for collecting future evidence (whether photographic, tissue/hair samples, blood).

I doubt they are suggesting to him to attempt to collect a specimen.

I based that belief on what I have heard Steve say on his YouTube channel and on articles that I have read from Scott.

I don't know where Paulides stands on that topic.

 

[Will]

Anyone figure out which outfitter it is?