Parks Charging To Hunt Bigfoot. Nothings Free Anymore

[Guest]

Here's something that to me is pretty unbelievable. I'm dealing with the National Forrest service right now with my application, and trying hard to get a handle on just what exactly the law says. We are not even going into the park, we're just walking through the National Forest. I asked them a direct question yesterday. My question was, " If a group of people are walking through the National Forest looking at the habitat and looking to spot a Sasquatch, do they need a permit? " Their answer was yes. I asked, even if they are amateurs without a guide, simply doing personal research? Again, their answer was yes. So in other words, looking for something that is not proven to exist yet, still requires a permit? Yes. What this translates to is, even if a group of friends decide to go out into the woods and look for tracks with hopes of having a sighting does indeed require a permit. To me this is simply unbelievable. I am a licensed guide, and I do understand why I need a permit to host expeditions, but enthusiasts simply out looking for Bigfoot needing a permit is ridicules. The other thing is, they can choose to deny your permit. It has to be reviewed.

I know what we're doing requires a permit, but to enforce permits on people just out looking to spot a Bigfoot is criminal in my mind, and speaks to just how far government is up in our lives. It's scary. Where will it end? Soon you'll need a permit to use the restroom, and a usage fee for the toilet paper.

DR

[Guest]

Derekfoot it just may be the Park Service is looking to discourage people from looking for BF plain and simple. Since the official stance is they don't exist in their opinion that would make groups of people looking for them a nusiance, or a turn-off for other park visitors.

I don't see needing a permit as being overly restrictive for researchers but something long overdue. I also know that won't be a popular opinion. It's been long bandied about that the different Parks have been well aware of BF and their rough locations, so gosh forbid a group come in and actually document it then make it public on a blog or website. It has the potential to open up a can of worms no one wants to deal with.

Part of the mainstreaming of BF will be the need for permits and vetting of the different research groups. Since researchers have been pushing for recognition of the Hairy People it seems odd to me anyone would cry foul over this. After all it's part and parcel of ''proving them''.

Also, not trying to be a downer...just it's something I reckoned would be self-evident. The more the push is on for ''official recognition'' the faster the ''amatur's'' will get shut out from the research. I say that meaning researchers who are not Park Biologists or affiliated with a Anthropology Dept. somewheres. Like I said not a popular opinion, but the writing is already on the wall for this happening.

[Guest]

What if you are hiking through a national forest doing research on a new backpack that you just bought. Making sure that it fits right, it carries heavy loads good, etc. Do you need a permit for that since you are doing research ?

If I want to research the effects of monopoly strategies while playing in the forest do I need a permit for that ?

If I go hiking and I hope to see a deer do I need a permit ?

If I go hiking and I hope to see a Bigfoot do I need a permit ?

How far does it go ?

Edited April 3, 2012 by rockiessquatching

[Guest]

Well it's looking if you want to see a BF , maybe...

testing out camping gear if it's for like backpacking mag, maybe...

playing monopoly...prolly not, but a tournament maybe different....

Looking for deer, so far no, but don't give them any ideas!

also I'd keep mum on the pay toilet idea...that one looked like a sure bet to be instituted.

[Guest wudewasa]

Derekfoot,

Government agencies want to make money, and can enforce policies as they see fit, especially with gray area in the law. They have lawyers and funds, and defendants usually don't.

Whenever I have gone into the field and questioning from law enforcement turns into an interrogation, I simply tell the officer that I am enjoying nature. It's not a lie, and it's what public lands are set aside for. While some zealous authorities choose to attempt to intimidate, there's really nothing that they can do as long as you are obeying park rules. I respect law enforcement, but will never fear it.

If a bigfoot shows up, I will enjoy looking at it as well, no law against that.

[Guest]

I have a solution, If someone approaches you about hunting Bigfoot... Tell them your looking for Unicorns..... Either way you'll likely be extracted.

[Guest ajciani]

I'm dealing with the National Forrest service right now with my application, and trying hard to get a handle on just what exactly the law says. We are not even going into the park, we're just walking through the National Forest. ... "If a group of people are walking through the National Forest looking at the habitat and looking to spot a Sasquatch, do they need a permit? " Their answer was yes.

Whoa whoa whoa.

Since when do you need a permit for anything on a National Forest, except for some entry fee areas (e.g. Red Rocks), overnight camping and wood harvesting? I'm pretty sure the national forests are there so that people can hike into them to look at nature. I have never, ever seen a requirement for a special permit, beyond normal entry and camping fees. BTW, collecting wood is a no-no without a permit on a national forest, which includes the stuff on the ground.

John Stossel had a show titled "Illegal Everything". In it there was a lawyer who estimated that the average person breaks three Federal laws every day. Anyone know Doc Hastings (WA) or Rob Bishop (UT)? Congressmen like hearing about this kind of lunacy. Especially the ones who want to shrink government.

Now... shall we report obvious hoaxers who may have filmed on Fed land?

[Guest]

Ajciani, I'm not making this up. My exact question was, if a group of people are out in the National forest here in Washington State, looking at possible Sasquatch habitat WITHOUT a guide, do they still need a permit to perform this activity? The answer was a quick yes. When I got back in my chair....I requested a meeting with the head ranger for this district. I was given his phone number. I tried to call several times today with no luck. I left my contact info but got no call back. I was told he'd be in his office all day. I'll try again tomorrow. I have a list of questions for him to try and clear up any GREY area. Soon as he actually talks to me I'll post all his answers here.

Here's another funny fact. The permit application that Pete Urban, the forest service guy in charge is having me work on is actually a road usage permit application. Seems this is the closest thing they have to an actual look for Bigfoot permit app.

If I'm going to guide people on National Forest land through my guide service and charge money, I understand needing a permit to perform this action, and I will get everything I need, but how in Gods name should a group of a un-guided people be required to have a permit? You don't need a permit to look for deer and elk. I'm really hoping for clear answers from the head ranger.

DR

[Guest RayG]

We used to live about a 20 minute drive from Sandbanks provincial park, near Picton, Ontario. Sandbanks offers the opportunity to go hiking, boating, fishing, swimming, canoeing, wildlife viewing, and biking. However, to do any of those things requires you actually pay a fee to receive a pass/permit before you can enter Sandbanks. Doesn't matter if you drive in or walk in, doesn't matter if you're going to engage in one of the mentioned activities or not, and it doesn't matter if you're going to look for bigfoot or just lie on a beach towel, if you want in, you pay a fee for your day pass/permit.

It's really not much different than going to the movies. If you want to see a movie, you pay your fee, get a ticket, and enter the specific theatre where they're showing the movie you want to watch.

I'm really not understanding why people are surprised they have to pay a fee to gain access to a state/provincial park.

The homepage for the US Forest Service has a link to a page describing passes and permits, and you can quickly and easily find out which state parks charge fees on this page.

Oh, and this page outlines the requirements for obtaining a Special-Use Authorization with the Forest Service.

Some snippets:

~~What are special-use authorizations?

A special-use authorization is a legal document such as a permit, term permit, lease, or easement, which allows occupancy, use, rights, or privileges of NFS land. The authorization is granted for a specific use of the land for a specific period of time.

When do I need an authorization?

• If you will need to occupy, use, or build on NFS land for personal or business purposes, whether the duration is temporary or long term.
  
• If there is a fee being charged or if income is derived from the use.
  
• If an activity on NFS land involves individuals or organization with 75 or more participants or spectators.~~
  

(my bolding)

Weren't there fees being charged for participating in the bigfoot expedition? Would it matter if you were searching for bigfoot or searching for chipmunks? If you charged group members a fee to attend, then apparently you need a special-use authorization. Unless I'm reading things completely wrong, which wouldn't be surprising.

RayG

Edited April 4, 2012 by RayG

[Guest parnassus]

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.

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.

Well spoken, Peter;

Park Rangers have an increasingly difficult job as law enforcement officers as well as managers, guides, teachers, and search and rescue. Every time the federal budget is cut, the protection of our national lands and their patrons becomes less; more camps are trashed, some by groups, some by vandals. And the fees then also have to go up, to make up for budget cuts, to provide even the feeble protection that now exists. When the roads in and out are so bad you get stranded somewhere and no one is around to come save your backside, remember how you wanted a smaller government.

Some BFRO expeditions may be good citizens, some may not. My understanding is that the customers are to provide their own transportation, food and shelter. I know that was the policy two years ago when I looked into it. Has that changed? These expeditions taking in all that money and not providing insurance is just irresponsible and greedy.

Does anyone really think that 2 am banging trees with baseball bats and call blasting across valleys is good either for animals or for other campers? not to mention the baiting. It's just pure selfishness and profiteering, imho. If I were camped there and it started up I'd assume it was a bunch of drunks.

Whenever you enter land that doesn't belong to you need be sure about permission. That is common sense, reasonable ethics, and required of a business even more so than an individual. Did someone not learn that from their dad, or in hunter safety classes, or from being a landowner themselves?

I'm sure the BFRO responded with respect. Anytime the bright light gets shined on a questionable enterprise, it behooves them to act like responsible citizens.

p.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Derekfoot, you may want to contact your congressman's office to see if their staff can help cut through the red tape in your situation, see what they might be able to add to the situation. It certainly seems unreasonable that they would require a permit for private parties going out in the wild. This may be an instance of a government official, when faced with a new circumstance, simply assumed there must be a permit and then went looking for the closest thing they have in their system to charge you... in this case a "road permit"? Wow....

[Guest RayG]

But wait, there's more... in addition to an access fee, you may be charged a 'special' fee to obtain a permit.

From this page:

What are recreation events and who needs a permit?

Recreation events are commercial activities requiring temporary, authorized use of NFS land. Examples of recreation events include, but are not limited to, animal, bicycle, motocross, or triathalon races; jeep rallies; dog trials; fishing contests; rendezvous; rodeos; adventure games; youth treks; wagon trains; concerts; and other similar events. A permit is required for these type of events, regardless of the number of people involved in the activity.

What is a commercial use or activity?

A commercial use or activity on NFS land occurs when

An applicant intends to charge an entry or participation fee, or

The primary purpose is the sale of a good or service, regardless of the intent to produce a profit.

Again, my bolding.

RayG

[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?

No. All photo/video evidence remains the property of the person who filmed it. The BFRO won't touch it without that person's permission. The same with physical evidence/casts. If you go on an expedition and cast a print, that cast is your property.

[bipedalist]

But wait, there's more... in addition to an access fee, you may be charged a 'special' fee to obtain a permit.

From this page:

What are recreation events and who needs a permit?

Recreation events are commercial activities requiring temporary, authorized use of NFS land. Examples ......youth treks; wagon trains; concerts; and other similar events. A permit is required for these type of events, regardless of the number of people involved in the activity.

What is a commercial use or activity?

A commercial use or activity on NFS land occurs when

An applicant intends to charge an entry or participation fee, or

The primary purpose is the sale of a good or service, regardless of the intent to produce a profit.

Again, my bolding.

RayG

Well it sort of bums me out knowing that youth treks get lumped into this kind of thing..... I guess there are plenty of summer camp type participants that pay to enjoy such places though.... still, why couldn't they come up with a cheap permit for youth groups like the Golden Age passport they offer to get into parks.

But the definition of commercial is pretty self-evident here. Whether there would be any precedent to retroactively go back and look at scheduled activity or planned excursions where permitting was not obtained is a good question..... I would think that few government entities have the time or leisure to conduct such activities with the possible exception of one or two.

It sounds like possibly advertisement of the event has some place in the definition somewhere too based on the diversity of examples....

[Guest]

Soon you'll need a permit to use the restroom, and a usage fee for the toilet paper.

Such a permit is needed now, Derek. Your Northwesr Forest Pass, which grants you acces to National Forest facilities in WA and OR, at a price of $30/yr, keeps the campground biffy supplied and (sometimes) cleaned. I assume you have one hanging from your rear-view mirror.