Pinecone wrote:Like it or not, access by motorized means into these areas is on thin ice. I hate to say shrivel from the threat imposed by activists, but I would suggest winning by the easiest, least hostile means. That might require careful thought into editing videos like this one.

This isn't meant to derail the thread, but needs to be said.
You are probably right that this would be the best approach....but
There is a lesson to be learned in history with turning the other cheek......or standing your ground.

Terry wrote:

Pinecone wrote:Like it or not, access by motorized means into these areas is on thin ice. I hate to say shrivel from the threat imposed by activists, but I would suggest winning by the easiest, least hostile means. That might require careful thought into editing videos like this one.

This isn't meant to derail the thread, but needs to be said.
You are probably right that this would be the best approach....but
There is a lesson to be learned in history with turning the other cheek......or standing your ground.

How big is your war chest, and how many votes can you reliably produce to support a given candidate for office? That's why the soft hand is probably better in this situation than the iron fist.

Well, my 2 cents. This Pape guy has a rule to follow that says no public showing of wilderness areas. Im thinking, that hes thinking if one shows stuff, more will follow.Its a wilderness area and lets try to preserve that as much as possible. Lets keep this low keyed, and i agree with that. Show the video but take the names out is all it would take, just call it Idaho backcountry aviation, what would be wrong with that? We should all try to preserve things as much as we can, or at least until Big Oil Money shows up and puts the cats/dozers in there. Ive watched the North Dakota National Grasslands be destroyed you dont want that. Just a off the edge example. All it takes is a oil guy to say theres oil under that far tree in that picture, and you know what, shes all over. And i wanted to add, i enjoy watching Gregs videos hes put a smile on my face many times and im 110 percent sure he didnt mean any thing bad, i would have never thought it to be a problem. But low key is still the best route. Again my opinion.

Cary wrote:

Grassstrippilot wrote:Here is the letter. I was able to crop off the personal content.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Every time someone posts a picture using Tapatalk, I just get a box that says "image" on it. Any idea why, or how to change that?

Cary

I was able to convert it to a PDF using Adobe. Now I just need to figure out how to post a PDF on here from my phone or iPad.

PittsDriver wrote:

SixTwoLeemer wrote:

PittsDriver wrote:[
Check out the Idaho Aviation Associations April newsletter, Kerry Requa has quite a bit to say against Mr.
Pape. He lays out a pretty good reason not to trust Pape.

Can you post a copy of this letter?

I suspect they could have an issue with me posting the copy of their newsletter. Here is a link that will get you to their archive though.

https://idahoaviation.com/newsletters.php

It's April 2017, on page 4

Rich

Thanks for posting that Rich. It was a very informative read.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

My guess is they are concerned about the part where Greg is moving his plane at Mile High, I could see where they would be worried that it looks like he almost lost control. Probably best to have left that part out.

M6RV6: great article. Definitely two sides to this story. I hope Greg has a conversation with the author of the letter and can get some specific guidance on what he can do to remain in compliance.

I also hope that the opportunity for amateur film makers to share their work isn't lost. What happens when a talent is blocked from publicizing his work on free sites just as he is about to be noticed or catch his big break. Possibly any revenue that kicks back from their work could be donated to conservation efforts?

Cary wrote:

Grassstrippilot wrote:Here is the letter. I was able to crop off the personal content.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Every time someone posts a picture using Tapatalk, I just get a box that says "image" on it. Any idea why, or how to change that?

Cary

Hey Cary,

Does this work for you? I hope so as I'd like to hear your take on it.

Pretty sure Greg has a real job and made that for recreation. Plus, you won't find a more kind, decent, unassuming dude on the planet.

Last summer I was camped at Vines. I was fly fishing Big Creek when I had a young guy from the Forest Service approach me and ask if it was my airplane and camp site. I responded yes, he then told me that the airstrip was closed. I told him I would land there and camp as long as there was not an X on it and to F%^$ off that he was screwing with my good nature and he better take his stinking body away. When I say this guy stunk it is an understatement, his uniform was completely saturated with stains from body odor I could smell him before I saw him. These guys better be more careful who they try to sneak up on in the wilderness.

Thread drift: this applies to National Forest only not Wilderness or anything else. I have used it with success to fight National Forest when landing off airport. Use at your own risk and pay your own attorney fees if it does not work for you as it did for me.

Title 36 › Chapter II › Part 212 › Subpart B › Section 212.51[b][/b]
36 CFR 212.51 - Designation of roads, trails, and areas.
eCFR
Authorities (U.S. Code)
What Cites Me
prev | next
§ 212.51 Designation of roads, trails, and areas.
(a)General. Motor vehicle use on National Forest System roads, on National Forest System trails, and in areas on National Forest System lands shall be designated by vehicle class and, if appropriate, by time of year by the responsible official on administrative units or Ranger Districts of the National Forest System, provided that the following vehicles and uses are exempted from these designations:

(1) Aircraft;

(2) Watercraft;

(3) Over-snow vehicles (see § 212.81);

(4) Limited administrative use by the Forest Service;

(5) Use of any fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency purposes;

(6) Authorized use of any combat or combat support vehicle for national defense purposes;

(7) Law enforcement response to violations of law, including pursuit; and

(8) Motor vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under Federal law or regulations.

(b)Motor vehicle use for dispersed camping or big game retrieval. In designating routes, the responsible official may include in the designation the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain forest roads or trails where motor vehicle use is allowed, and if appropriate within specified time periods, solely for the purposes of dispersed camping or retrieval of a downed big game animal by an individual who has legally taken that animal.

[ 70 FR 68288, Nov. 9, 2005, as amended at 73 FR 74613, Dec. 9, 2008]

Mauleguy wrote:Last summer I was camped at Vines. I was fly fishing Big Creek when I had a young guy from the Forest Service approach me and ask if it was my airplane and camp site. I responded yes, he then told me that the airstrip was closed. I told him I would land there and camp as long as there was not an X on it and to F%^$ off that he was screwing with my good nature and he better take his stinking body away. When I say this guy stunk it is an understatement, his uniform was completely saturated with stains from body odor I could smell him before I saw him. These guys better be more careful who they try to sneak up on in the wilderness.

HA! It's hard for me to read this thread and have a civil comment but that pretty much sums up how I no doubt would have handled that also! I have been a cruel rude ass to many government employees before and have no problem venting on them. And no, I don't think all government employees are bad, just the ones with zero commen sence.

[quote="Mauleguy"]Thread drift: this applies to National Forest not Wilderness but I have used it with success to fight National Forest when landing off airport.

Title 36 › Chapter II › Part 212 › Subpart B › Section 212.51[b][/b]
36 CFR 212.51 - Designation of roads, trails, and areas.
eCFR
Authorities (U.S. Code)
What Cites Me
prev | next
§ 212.51 Designation of roads, trails, and areas.
(a)General. Motor vehicle use on National Forest System roads, on National Forest System trails, and in areas on National Forest System lands shall be designated by vehicle class and, if appropriate, by time of year by the responsible official on administrative units or Ranger Districts of the National Forest System, provided that the following vehicles and uses are exempted from these designations:

(1) Aircraft;

(2) Watercraft;

(3) Over-snow vehicles (see § 212.81);

(4) Limited administrative use by the Forest Service;

(5) Use of any fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency purposes;

(6) Authorized use of any combat or combat support vehicle for national defense purposes;

(7) Law enforcement response to violations of law, including pursuit; and

(8) Motor vehicle use that is specifically authorized under a written authorization issued under Federal law or regulations.

(b)Motor vehicle use for dispersed camping or big game retrieval. In designating routes, the responsible official may include in the designation the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of certain forest roads or trails where motor vehicle use is allowed, and if appropriate within specified time periods, solely for the purposes of dispersed camping or retrieval of a downed big game animal by an individual who has legally taken that animal.

[ 70 FR 68288, Nov. 9, 2005, as amended at 73 FR 74613, Dec. 9, 2008][/quote

The problem with that is that each Forest also has its own, often more restrictive regulations. I talked to our local FS office about this, and they said "Yep, but read our Forest regs, which she then cited....and sure enough, the Forest prohibits aircraft landings on that Forest lands.

MTV

Maybe the guy I dealt with at the FS (____ _____) decided not to go down that rabbit hole because he had already lied and been caught in it by me.

He is the one that gave me the regulations but he cut out all the things that applied to me and my aircraft being exempt. So when I sent him a full copy and asked for my day in court he would not respond to either email or phone call.

End of story!

Mauleguy wrote:Maybe the guy I dealt with at the FS (Al Knore) decided not to go down that rabbit hole because he had already lied and been caught in it by me.

He is the one that gave me the regulations but he cut out all the things that applied to me and my aircraft being exempt. So when I sent him a full copy and asked for my day in court he would not respond to either email or phone call.

End of story!

Take a close look at the chart legend on all of the sectionals for the lower 48. I just checked the current Seattle Sectional and the language is clear and specific. Toward the bottom of the legend is a block of text that says basically off airport landings on all lands with national forests, national parks, and national wildlife refuges are prohibited without prior permission, some limited exceptions apply. I don't know about Alaska since I've not looked at any of the relevant sectionals. Every now and again I run across a story about some pilot who plead ignorance of the prohibition before a Federal Magistrate... unsuccessfully.

The text in the legend reads:

REGULATIONS REGARDING FLIGHTS OVER CHARTED NATIOINAL PARK SERVCE AREAS, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AREAS, AND U.S. FOREST SERVICE AREAS.

The landing of aircraft is prohibited on lands or waters administered by the National park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or U.S. Forest Service without authorization from the respective agency. Exceptions include: 1) when forced to land due to an emergency beyond the control of the operator, 2) at officially designated landing sites, or 3) on approved official business of the Federal Government....
Federal regulations also prohibit airdrops by parachute or other means of persons, cargo, or objecs from aircraft on lands administered by these three agencies without authorization from the respective agency. Exceptions include...


Good luck if you feel pushed to test the waters.

It looks like Greg took down his entire web site. I think the issue with the Big Creek 4 have been pretty well talked about by the RAF and the IAA - and the request was to keep our access low key as far as I recall. The issues are all around those 4, exact specific strips - and no others. That video is very hold (8-9 years if I recall correctly) - I'm not sure why he decided to publish it again a few months ago. I love his videos and the OBP - they are awesome - but to put out a specific video on just these 4 most sensitive sites - which all of the flying political orgs have asked us to refrain from doing seems to be a bit confrontational.

The thing about commercial filming though - I'm starting to see a point there. He didn't post it on youtube or vimeo as his own personal vacation video. He posted it under his company, Ohio bush Planes - and it's pretty clear from his web site that he's "holding out" for commercial videography, marketing and advertising work. Pimping - in his own words. Now I hope he gets work and I love the videos - but he has to navigate the legal waters correctly - this is not some guy recording his vacation. Youtube pays for viral videos (he'll make tens of cents for his 1700 views).

http://ohiobushplanes.com/

"MULTIMEDIA. We love multimedia! Greg has been slinging video clips since the mid 90s. Marketing and Advertising is what gets done around here. If you've got a product that needs pimped or a story to tell, hire this pilot for the job."

You can't hide on the internet - Cached copy of his site here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ftgfGgxojn0J:ohiobushplanes.com/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Still, that video doesn't get enough traffic to warrant a cease and desist letter. The status quo seems to be tenuous at best. We'd all enjoy a visit to these spots every now and again, I think we should take the advice of those close to the situation and keep our footprints on the down low.

Here's an older thread on this subject:
https://backcountrypilot.org/forum/big-creek-4-10105

And this on AOPA:
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2012/may/07/idaho-backcountry-access-in-spotlight

And how long was it before you were released

with reference to Mauleguy's post

Back to Pape's involvement, Doug Kandle posted this on the Idaho Backcountry Pilot FB page today:

"I spoke with Mike Pape this morning. His position is that he is not an advocate for pilots or airports. Mike said that US Forrest Service is the controlling agency and he has no role in this fight. My view is that printing a map which presents the desired resolution of one side of the issue is passively being an advocate, or at least helping, the USFS position. It appears that if we want Idaho Aeronautics to be an advocate for Idaho pilots and airports in the state, then we need to get that put in their mission statement. Currently they are responsible only for aviation safety."

It seems if Pape considers himself a neutral party, he shouldn't be sending out letters at the behest of the USFS. The other issue being referred to is the classification of the 4 strips contrary to the agreement that the IAA had established with him. You can read about that in the link provided in an earlier post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From the AOPA article,

The Idaho Aviation Association has no interest in policing the backcountry, wrote Davies—but the organization supports what he called safe and ethical flying under existing restrictions.

“We are asking visitors and locals to be sensitive to the limitations placed on the Big Creek 4 by limiting operations at those strips to occasional and necessary use,” he wrote. “In particular, please avoid the urge to have multi-airplane rendezvous at these strips or to have round robin or multiple landing group activities there. The allure of challenging our equipment and ourselves is evident but, as in so many things, moderation is the key.”

I think this is a key point. Push to keep these spots open and accessible by aircraft but with an appreciation of the impact you have on the place you're visiting.