Parks Charging To Hunt Bigfoot. Nothings Free Anymore

[Guest BFSleuth]

My take on the situation is that Matt made an honest error.

He tried to find out what permits he needed, but as he noted in his blog post there were permits for a number of other activities... just not anything that resembled BFRO expedition activities on the park web site. This story IMHO has more to do with a need for the park service to list permitting requirements for guided trips on their web site than anything else.

This story serves as a lesson for anyone that guides on public land, look for permit requirements specific to being a guide and that will get you everything you need.

[Guest Peter O.]

I work for a national forest. If you want to gather as a group to hunt bigfoot, free of charge, it's not a problem. When you start charging people to be there, then you need a permit.... The fee is minimal. Really, the permit is required to ensure sanitation and to reduce conflict with other users (one time we permitted a boy scout outting and a Wicca event at the same spot...the Wiccans were nekkid...I don't think there is a badge for that!).

Yes. I'm a private citizen who only hikes in the national forests and parks (and I'm grateful for both, btw., and think they are some of the last best things left in this country) and I've known that a special use permit is required for any commercial operation on the public lands. As well it should be. And I got that information from browsing around the nps.gov or fs.usda.gov websites for the places I was visiting. (I was looking for information about back-country camping, off-trail. I realized that those sections didn't apply to me.)

Frankly, I don't understand what beef these guys could possibly have. If Joe Citizen wants to go hike around looking for the "hairy linebacker", that's his business. Most people I've encountered out there are well-educated and respectful, and do their best to Leave No Trace or create hazards.

But when a group are paying money for things they can do alone, it's a different matter. And it's not too much to ask for the Park Service or Forest Service to get a cut as well. That money should go back into managing our beautiful public lands for us and future generations.

Groups are harder on the environment (and thus on the trail maintainers and other staff) and if they trudge heavily on these lands, as a look at "Finding Bigfoot" would have me believe, then they should pay for that extra burden. Also, "harassing wildlife" should apply to BF as well.

Leaving food out for sasquatches may be permissable in some areas, but in National Parks, it is illegal. Bears will learn that zagnuts will appear when people scream at night and beat pieces of wood together. So will alligators in the Everglades.

This has been one of my gripes with BF hunters from day one. Every responsible hiker knows that "A Fed Bear is a Dead Bear" and a bear is more likely to pick up that peanut butter than a sasquatch. It is completely irresponsible to habituate bears or other wildlife to human food and thus endanger other humans hiking or camping in the same area. It's absolutely INEXCUSABLE. By leaving food out, you are habituating bears and thus putting PEOPLE IN DANGER. Bears used to human food become a nuisance or a danger to hikers and campers.

Sorry for the all-caps, but this is a WELL-KNOWN piece of knowledge that almost anyone going into the wilderness knows. Almost everyone I've ever run across knows not to do this.

edit: for grammar, and to reiterate that: People can DIE because bears become habituated.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Peter O.

[bipedalist]

I really believe that the mental set of the investigating rangers was to "find" Finding Bigfoot filming away in their river.... according to the added information provided by the organizer.

When that scenario didn't present itself as expected.... they were thrown a curveball..... but they they were about to pull out and were just going to give a warning until the pay to play/money issue surfaced on second notice....

It is still a matter of management and use of resources by large groups though within certain jurisdictions. If this incident helps clarify what "uses" require what type of permitting fees that would be one positive coming out of it for Interior/Ag.

As to baiting with food items on BFRO outings I will have to say I don't think that is a constant component to the trips. If it is then I stand corrected. I do feel that baiting as part of BF habituation is a dangerous gamble and in many environments (esp. those depicted in this incident) could put the public at risk.... those engaged in it should be prepared to take full responsibility for potential negative outcomes. The further such efforts can be taken from human habitation the better (within the law--- would be operative words as well).

[Guest wudewasa]

PacNWSquatcher,

The best thing to come out of this fiasco is to learn that there are professional members in the BFRO. Granted, a number of us have a problem with MM, but while he controls this organization in administrative matters, many other people are essential to its success, regardless of their personal motivations.

[Guest ajciani]

Hmm... a tip that a TV show was in the park filming... I wonder who provided that bogus tip? Considering the animosity in the BF world, I wouldn't doubt such a thing. Of course, it could also be that some other park attendees or even one of the expedition members mentioned the BFRO to a ranger who was familiar with the show, and they were hoping to find someone filming without a permit.

But the bigger implications:

1) The BFRO should probably stop charging for expeditions, or they will incur a significant overhead every time they want to step into a National or State park. Some expeditions go into both types. They may just want to collect a first year, second year and full member dues, and provide to the probationary members one guaranteed expedition per year, with any additional expeditions being space dependent. This way the BFRO is not "doing business" as a guide service, but is an organization holding a members and guests only event.

2) Could trail and hand held cameras be considered photography, for the purposes of licensing? This could become very difficult, because the moment you sell a photograph it becomes a for-profit action. Get a picture of the big guy, license it to news outlets, get a fine for engaging in nature photography without a permit. Could even just filming for your own expedition records require a permit?

And now you know why 75% of people think big government is the greatest crisis facing our country. Those bigfoots just don't know what they are missing... until some NPS ranger shows up to write them tickets for public indecency, poaching and trespassing on a national park.

[bipedalist]

Charging someone a fee to attend or buy something like a service in a national park or interior unit would be a concession. Everyone pays a concessionaire's fee if money changes hands. That part of this equation is immutable. Now if the park definition of concession/concessionaire is not readily available on their website then I guess things need to be upgraded with their website.

I'm not sure how a membership fee strategy would bypass the concession/concessionaire issues..... but sort of like that idea of organization.....

I guess a wilderness guide service would be a concession then for that matter.

The original article from the Interior Dept. stated that the investigation began on a concessionaire's tip.

Edited April 2, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest BFSleuth]

Large organized groups in parks do attract attention from rangers and concessionaires alike. It would make sense that if a concessionaire observed the group, and if they might happen to impinge upon the activities of the concessionaire (like if they were in the guide business) it may prompt them to contact the rangers to investigate. I know, because it happened to me once when I was leading a climb in a national park. The rangers came to give my group a grilling to find out if I was a paid guide (not in this case). The guide service had observed our group and somehow got the impression I was a paid guide. At the time the fine would have been about $500 and a lifetime ban from the park.

In order to handle this in the future the BFRO or similar groups should simply apply for concession permits, it isn't that expensive. The expensive part will be the liability insurance.

[Guest Hutch]

One other interesting aspect of utilizing NPS lands is that they also charge for commerical and still photography for profit. I get Special Event Permits issued out of the Lake Mead NRA and when I am trying to use film or photos for publication, I am required to get a film permit in addition to my special use permit. If the groups are intending to photograph and later use that photo for commerical purposes, ie: websites, etc, a permit is needed.

From the Lake Mead NRA site:

Film and Commercial Still Photography

• Film/Still Photo Permit Application
  

All film and still photography permits have location fee charges per 16 USC §3a and 16 USC § 460l-6d.

Commercial filming is defined as digital or film recording of a visual image or sound recording by a person, business, or other entity for a market audience, such as for a documentary, television or feature film, advertisement, or similar project. It does not include news coverage or visitor use.

Still photography activities require a permit only when:

• The activity takes place at location(s) where or when members of the public are generally not allowed;
  
• The activity uses model(s), sets(s), or prop(s) that are not a part of the location's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities; or
  
• The park would incur additional administrative costs to monitor the activity;
  
• The park needs to provide management and oversight to:
  
  • Avoid impairment or incompatible use of the resources and values of the park, or
    
  • Limit resource damage, or
    
  • Minimize health or safety risks to the visiting public.
    

All commercial filming permits and still photography permits are subject to cost recovery and a location fee. No waivers are allowed. The location fee is calculated per day and must be based on the following schedule and is determined by the type of activity (commercial filming versus still photography) and the number of people on park lands associated with the permitted activity. There is no deviation from the schedule.

Commercial Filming/Videos

Still Photography

1 - 2 people, camera & tripod only

$0/day

1 - 10 people

$150/day

1 - 10 people

$50/day

11 - 30 people

$250/day

11 - 30 people

$150/day

31 - 49 people

$500/day

Over 30 people

$250/day

Over 50 people

$750/day

Follow the directions found in the application form then mail the completed form to the park headquarters address. Forms will only be accepted via U.S. Mail. Forms that have been faxed or e-mailed will not be accepted for consideration.

10 business days notice is required.

A $100 non-refundable application fee is required. Please send a cashier's check or money order payable to National Park Service. We are not able to accept credit cards at this time. Additional administrative costs, cost recovery or facilities use cost may also be charged.

I am guessing that this expedition might also be in need of a film permit in addition to the special use permit. I wonder how recorded thermal imaging fits into this?

The whole liability insurance issue is another thing as I have a $1M policy for liability for the events I conduct on NPS lands. These guys should have these as a CYA regardless of where they are conducting thier group outings.

What a paradox - needing a Special Use and filming permit to go after something that you cant prove exists without pictures! I guess you could say that this is the governments tacit admission that these animals do exist if they require you to pay to view them???

[bipedalist]

Good information for sure..... just the application fee itself is a hundred bucks..... wow. Beyond that yes I can see how a liability policy would be good to have..... I'm sure a limited liability corporation such as Bigfoot Outdoor Services LLC could probably benefit from such coverage not to mention the individual organizers, severally.

Dang I see where the Lake Mead NRA photo permit application requires the liability insurance listing the USA as also insured. Technically, one wonders whether the whole idea of the definition of "employee" or "volunteer" fits into the whole gamut of confusion in such matters too. Sure seems like a "can of worms" to me.

Edited April 2, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest BFSleuth]

Note that the photography permit is required only when the park would need to provide management and oversight (like crowd control or monitoring for safety if you have a large crew) and if you bring models or non-park materials for the shoot.

If you are a private citizen park visitor and happen to film BF, then there is no permit required. This may turn into a murky area if you are doing video or still shots for your blog, but I'm not familiar with that. I believe that each park may have its own set of rules, so check with the park you will be visiting to be sure.

[Guest Hutch]

Folks,

What you see is just what they list on thier website. The regulations go much deeper than what you see above.

I get about a dozen SEP's per year from Mead and I can assure you that ANY photography headed for print, websites, film, etc - especially when it is tied in with an SEP is looked at very hard to make sure that you possess the film permit. When in doubt, the Gov't prefers to charge you - its all about the revenue baby! Additionally, You are not allowed to take photos of any NPS personnel or park signs. Also, I have been told that all photos that are going to appear on line or in print need to be reviewed by NPS personnel prior to permission being given. I have yet to have to do this though...

When you market you product ( race, tour, tournament, etc) you are also required to list the Lake Mead NRA in your brochures, fliers, and website. BFRO may want to look into this on all the future tours they have going on NPS property. I don't know if ther permits vary between National Parks as they all fall under the auspicies of the Federal Government, but it bears looking into.

FYI - you want to talk ludicris, my liability Certificate of Insurance actually has to list the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA as the insured to be valid with NPS. I'd scan a post a copy on the site if I knew how to. I kid you not - it is the craziest thing you have ever seen but then again, when has anything the govt done really made sense?

[Guest]

If I remember right, isn't there a waiver that is signed for these expeditions, where all photo/video evidence of BF will be property of the BFRO? So, although it is a slippery slope, would they technically going in there with the intent to take professional photos/videos inside the parks for profit?

[Guest]

The Buffalo River site doesn't mention anything about a permit for business operations ... .

A long standing principle of US law is that ignorance of the law is no excuse. However, we have so many laws and regulations that no law enforcement officer, no bureaucrat, no lawyer, and no judge knows them all, but we citizens are somehow supposed to know them all. We, as a society, may wish to amend this unrealistic principle. In this age of easy information access is it too much to ask of an agency to post all their rules and regulations on their website rather than just a select few? The BFRO handled the situation with a great deal of restraint and undeserved respect directed to the bureaucrats involved.

[Guest HarryLime]

I really believe that the mental set of the investigating rangers was to "find" Finding Bigfoot filming away in their river.... according to the added information provided by the organizer.

When that scenario didn't present itself as expected.... they were thrown a curveball..... but they they were about to pull out and were just going to give a warning until the pay to play/money issue surfaced on second notice....

This sums it up accurately. Despite the citation debacle, it sounds like Matt had some success with the expedition. The Ozark National Forest/Buffalo National River areas of Arkansas are ideal environments for the big men. Matt even mentioned Arkansas as one of the Top 3 States for Sasquatch activity out of the 18 states he has conducted expeditions in. This according to an article in the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexa...pedition/415376

"Other than the fine, Pruitt said things went well during the Arkansas expedition. Pruitt said he has conducted Bigfoot expeditions in 18 states, and he'd rank Arkansas in the top three for Sasquatch activity."

"There were certainly things that happened that convinced me that there are Sasquatches in the Buffalo River area," said Pruitt. "We definitely heard sounds that were indicative of Sasquatch. Characteristic vocalizations. Very compelling observations."

"Pruitt was using a thermal imaging device, which is used for night vision, and for the first time, he said, he saw what may have been a Sasquatch."

[Guest]

OMG Hutch.....I've taken pics of every park sign every place I've visited....I'm going to JAIL!