Parks Charging To Hunt Bigfoot. Nothings Free Anymore

[Guest]

Yeah, the Discover passes are required. So technically, each member of DR's expedition will need a Discover pass, permits to guide in the NF, and whatever added fees they can get. It's a little over-kill, IMO. Honestly, though...Why say what you are doing? It's pretty arbitrary whether you are looking for general wildlife, or looking for BF. It probably worries them that a group of people are going to be researching BF, and probably want to keep you chasing your tail as long as possible. Imagine being a ranger, and hearing a voicemail from a BF hunter. Tragically, it's probably comedy to them.

[Guest]

Yeah, the Discover passes are required. So technically, each member of DR's expedition will need a Discover pass ... .

A Discover Pass buys one access to WA state parks and wildlife areas. If Derek's parties will use National Forest campgrounds or traioheads, then I believe each vehicle in a party will need a NW Forest Pass (unless his guiding permit excludes need for such passes, which would make sense).

Edited April 6, 2012 by Pteronarcyd

[Guest Jodie]

Business Plan- Thats what you need.

Outline in your fee agreement with the client that you are charging for the classes/lectures but that hike/tour is free and optional, wouldn't that solve the problem?

[Guest wudewasa]

How about looking at things from the side of the park service deliverers?

Another interesting question is "Why are park officials concerned with people looking for bigfoot within the park's boundaries?"

For those who get most of their exposure to the bigfoot research community through TV shows like "Finding Bigfoot," the negative stereotypes are upheld.

Any law enforcement officer/park administrator gets enough unsafe human behavior in a park on a regular basis, so more people walking around in the woods at night, screaming, beating on trees, carrying torches, using caged rabbits, baboons and zagnut bars to attract wildlife, all the while yelling "IT'S A SQUATCH!" really makes the job more difficult.

Before I get blasted for hating on the cast of "Finding Bigfoot" or the BFRO, let me remind all of you that bigfoot related events in parks are controversial on other recent occasions: http://articles.bost...bigfoot-costume

Enter the red tape and bureaucracy to discourage such activities.

One more thing, in a backcountry emergency setting, emergency distress signals are sounded in repetitions of the number 3. http://www.camping-field-guide.com/distress-signals.html

Woodknocking techniques could interfere with such an event. Imagine how a search and rescue group would react if after responding to sounds perceived as an emergency, the "victims" say "Dude, I'm just out squatchin'."

The parks don't want to deal with this kind of stuff.

Edited April 6, 2012 by wudewasa

[bipedalist]

Here's an example for US Forest Service or National Forests in NC (US Forest Service/Dept. of Ag.): the S.O.'s office is actually in the far western end of the state in Asheville, NC. Look in the lower right-hand corner of the main page for example.

There are district offices and staff in outlying offices in different forests and in different districts as well.

There is also a visible section for special passes permits and fees and even a national page on a larger scale here.

[Guest]

Thank's Hairy Man, good info. I'm seriously not trying to get out of anything, I want to do this right. The last thing I need is a expedition shut down half way through after people have traveled and flown. I do however think each case should be looked at individuality and not in generalities. Us Olympic Project guys don't do things like other expeditions. We don't beat on trees in the middle of the night, or broadcast calls till 5 am. We look for and gather, and document evidence. That's what we do. Our impact on the land is almost non existent. I know this sounds really GREEN, but we are very environmentally conscious. We want to study the habitat, not hurt it. That's why I think in some way that makes us a little unique compared to some of the other activity's that fall under these permit conditions.

I do completely understand that a permit is needed when acting as a paid guide. I have absolutely no problem with that. I think waiting 120 days for a review is a stretch, but other than that I'm good with it. Waiting 120 days is a clear indication of how our government is broken. Our government is so inefficient it's staggering. Private industry would never survive moving this slow. It would be flat broke. Oh ya, I guess our country is!!! IMO, our taxes are through the roof because of things like this. How much time and money would it save if you could walk into the head rangers office, explain your case and needs, have him actually make a decision and issue a permit? Sorry, swerving off topic.. My frustration rose simply because I couldn't get a clear answer from anyone. And yes Ray, my questions were quite clear.

Jodie, another great idea with a business plan. Thank you.

[Guest slimwitless]

Business Plan- Thats what you need.

Outline in your fee agreement with the client that you are charging for the classes/lectures but that hike/tour is free and optional, wouldn't that solve the problem?

Hey, I was laughed at for making a similar suggestion here: LINKY

[Guest Hutch]

ajciani

Oh Mah

• 
  
• Members
  
• 
  
• 538 posts
  

Posted Yesterday, 09:26 PM

Quite an interesting set of phone conversations.

I know this might come as a surprise to some, but my experience with government bureaucrats is:

1) They are rarely the brightest bulbs in the box.

2) They frequently lack knowledge about their field.

3) They all have their own guesses about the rules and regs.

There is nothing like talking with competent bureaucrats to find out how incompetent the other ones are. The government is extremely charitable about who it hires, especially in the lower ranks.

^_BINGO!!!!!

[Hairy Man]

The US Forest Service is set up like this:

National Headquarters (or WO) - Washington D.C. - this is ran by the Chief of the Forest Service.

The US is then broken down into 10 Regions - each region has a Regional Office (called the RO). This is run by the Regional Forester.

Each Region is then broken down into Forests. Each Forest is run by the Forest Supervisor out of the Supervisor's Office (SO). Each SO contains the subject matter expert for each area.

Each Forest is then broken down into Districts and is run by a District Ranger (called the RD). There are no subject matter experts on a district. They are the doers - the ground pounders as we like to call it. RDs are rarely well staffed and generally one person is doing tons of stuff outside their job description.

The Forest Service mission is to serve the land and the people. We preserve while also providing resources (timber, range, hunting, mining, etc.).

The BLM is organized the same as the Forest Service but their "forests" are much larger chucks of land. Their mission is mainly to provide resources to the public (recreation, range, mining, etc.). Their rules are much looser than most government entities.

The Park Service is organized similar to the Forest Service except their parks are not broken down into smaller units like a district. Their mission is to preserve - outside of recreation, they do no cut timber, having grazing, etc. Their rules are much stricter than any other government entity.

[Guest RayG]

ajciani

Oh Mah

• 
  
• Members
  
• 
  
• 538 posts
  

Posted Yesterday, 09:26 PM

Quite an interesting set of phone conversations.

I know this might come as a surprise to some, but my experience with government bureaucrats is:

1) They are rarely the brightest bulbs in the box.

2) They frequently lack knowledge about their field.

3) They all have their own guesses about the rules and regs.

There is nothing like talking with competent bureaucrats to find out how incompetent the other ones are. The government is extremely charitable about who it hires, especially in the lower ranks.

^_BINGO!!!!!

Nice of you to paint all of us government workers with the same wide brush.

RayG

Edited April 6, 2012 by RayG

[Guest]

Ray G, this is not a personal attack. I've been a business owner most of my adult life, and am quite used to jumping through fiery hoops when it comes to government departments and agencies. Our government is broken, and broke! I don't think many would argue with that. IMHO, I think the United States is similar to a giant business. It needs to be run more like a business and take way more financial responsibility. I love being an American, don't get me wrong, and I would stand up today and fight for this country if called upon, but our economy sucks! Big government and mishandling of funds is one of the major reasons. I live in military driven area, and some of my best friends are government employees and they are good people. I think most of the problems that need to be fixed start at the top. As it is it's not sustainable for a whole lot longer. Sad but true.

DR

[Guest wudewasa]

Derek,

I'm not insinuating that your outfit will adopt the same techniques of the folks in Finding Bigfoot. Rather, the sheninigans of that show are what the park service perceives when "bigfoot research" is mentioned. MM and posse have laughed to the bank, but the public thinks that their hijinks are the gold standard of squatchery- PROVE THEM WRONG!!!!!

[Guest]

Nice of you to paint all of us government workers with the same wide brush.

RayG

He did not paint all goverment workers with a broad brush. ajciani specially characterized his experiences with government bureaucrats. Do you have any evidence that he has mischaracterized his experiences? By the way, he admits to an occasional encounter with a competent bureaucrat, so his brush isn't as broad as you seem to be implying.

Derek,

the sheninigans of that show are what the park service perceives when "bigfoot research" is mentioned.

Of what shenanigans do you refer? At Buffalo Nation River the Park Service was concerned about a commercial operation occurring within their jurisdiction without an applicable permit. Do you have evidence that "Finding Bigfoot" has ever failed to procure necessary permits?

[Guest slimwitless]

He did not paint all goverment workers with a broad brush. ajciani specially characterized his experiences with government bureaucrats. Do you have any evidence that he has mischaracterized his experiences? By the way, he admits to an occasional encounter with a competent bureaucrat, so his brush isn't as broad as you seem to be implying.

Incompetence and mini-bureaucracies are everywhere. Doesn't anyone read Dilbert? I work in that world and it's spot on. At lunch today my neighborhood fast food joint couldn't figure out the difference between a caesar salad and a baked potato. This stuff isn't exclusive to the government...not by a long shot.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Pter, I think RayG was responding to Hutch, not ajciani. I agree that Hutch's post is a fairly broad "brush stroke" categorizing all public employees as incompetent, and RayG's reply (as a stated government employee) is reasonable.

Regarding Derekfoot's statement about "shenanigans" I think he wasn't referring to BFRO trying to duck out of paying permits, etc.... he was referring to the park employee's perception of BF research as that which we see on Animal Planet. Describing this as "shenanigans" is probably appropriate, looking from a ranger's point of view. It then takes time to try and explain how the Olympic Project conducts its field research differently.