The commercial video issue aside, I think we all agree with that article's approach, and I didn't see anything in the video contrary to what was asked in regards to the use of the strip.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What was asked for in the article is that we don't widely advertise our usage of the strip, and we don't "strip bag." Landing there purely for the selfie and the somersault and putting out a video of just those 4 sensitive strips is the part that is clearly antagonistic. It's not the same as landing at Vines and camping for a couple of days and fly fishing - and never telling anyone about it. The latter is an example of acceptable use according the verbal agreement with the FS whereas the former is asking for trouble - not just for Greg but for any of us that would like to be able to visit the Big Creek 4 in the future.

Do I think we have the right to go hammer these strips and fist bump all over the inner toobs? Hell yes - but that's not the reality right? The associations that have been fighting for our access are asking us to be sensitive to this - or we may lose access permanently. I'm on Greg's side - but we do need to police ourselves a little bit.

I get that. But his landings may very well have occurred over several days. Only he could answer that. Even if it was on one day, one landing at 4 strips...that see little traffic...sure doesn't seem excessive to me. I think their real issue is they think the video will bring hordes of new traffic, which, given their size and level of difficulty, is an unfounded concern.

I know it's a thin line with the environmentalist crowd between under use and overuse, but isn't there some value in documenting that the strips are being used? Used too little and they will use that as an argument to close it. Use it too much (in their minds) and they will say close it. Without a sign in box at the strips, how do you gain data to support keeping them open? I don't know the answer. I'm sure I'm not the first to wonder the same thing. (BTW I'm not eluding that videos are the answer).

Oops! I'm drifting my own thread. Back to the original subject...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

soyAnarchisto wrote: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.

He's in the process of moving everything from vimeo to youtube and reorganizing the whole catalog.

I was wondering if there is a difference between the two services. Does Vimeo operate the same way as YouTube?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It would seem that they are either open or closed!! How they are used is determined by each user, what is the reason for flying into any of them other than you want to!
There has been so much don't do it or you will piss off some government employee!!
These forest managers who are GOD are un-elected bureaucrats who think what ever they say is law!!
These are un-elected people who were looking for the job when they got it.
If more folks would raise a little hell with there BOSSES and push some, maybe they would pay a little more attention.
I had a bit of a run in with the Park Service when I had my Air Taxi Business, So I quit flying them around and where they wanted to go, Pissed the Park Ranger Off big time!! They threatened to pull my concession and permits, I told them go right ahead, this is my Attorneys # Contact him with all future correspondence! He had to fly there aircraft in 300 mile RT every time they needed to get airborne! After a bit of time we came to an understanding and got along and played together again.
I think Ryan Zinke will have more appetite to listen to the complaints than previous administrators!!

Maybe I am being too insensitive, but the forest service, BLM, rangers or whoever else does not own the land it is the American peoples land. Instead of playing nice we should demand out rights and sue at the least provocation. The rangers are there to clean up and maintain the premise. Our tax dollars pay them. The discussion should be what improvements are you going to make to our underserved minority. Observed the rangers attitude a Johnson Creek and it was horrific.

Grassstrippilot wrote:I was wondering if there is a difference between the two services. Does Vimeo operate the same way as YouTube?

Yeah, while they are both open to the public and anyone can post on either, there are both technological and cultural differences.

Technologically, vimeo encoding is higher quality than youtube. They also didn't used to scan videos for licensed content, but have recently started to do that. Meaning that it used to be that you could make a video with your favorite song and vimeo would probably allow it while youtube probably wouldn't.

Culturally the difference is much more pronounced. Vimeo has positioned itself as the quality content outlet. They specialize in movies, shorts and other filmmaker kinds of videos. Their website is cleaner and better designed for this kind of content. Youtube is the wild west, anything is welcome and the design is a bit more cluttered as their goal is to keep your attention as you view a bunch of short content instead of on or two longer ones.

This is not a fight that is ever going away. Some non-aviation wilderness lovers will always object to aircraft in the backcountry and try to limit their activities. It's no good ranting and raving at them, but the tendency to do so exists and I understand the temptation. The most important thing is to show that backcountry aviators are responsible, concerned and respectful stewards of the backcountry and not to antagonise for the sake of antagonising. Firstly, that's a good thing anyway and secondly it makes it much harder to object to reasonable propositions put forward by the aviation community.

In that vein, I think we should be careful about what we do and prudence suggests it is wise to limit videos of the Big Creek Four if we can. In that vein, too, I think posting a video such as the recent one of the Smokey Carbon Cub taking off at Lower Loon belching smoke may be lawful, but is not strategic or wise and you don't need to be Einstein to see how much it is going to antagonise certain interest groups which hold a lot of power.

This is a long game which should be played with a sober head and cool strategy.

BritishCubBloke wrote:This is not a fight that is ever going away. Some non-aviation wilderness lovers will always object to aircraft in the backcountry and try to limit their activities. It's no good ranting and raving at them, but the tendency to do so exists and I understand the temptation. The most important thing is to show that backcountry aviators are responsible, concerned and respectful stewards of the backcountry and not to antagonise for the sake of antagonising. Firstly, that's a good thing anyway and secondly it makes it much harder to object to reasonable propositions put forward by the aviation community.

In that vein, I think we should be careful about what we do and prudence suggests it is wise to limit videos of the Big Creek Four if we can. In that vein, too, I think posting a video such as the recent one of the Smokey Carbon Cub taking off at Lower Loon belching smoke may be lawful, but is not strategic or wise and you don't need to be Einstein to see how much it is going to antagonise certain interest groups which hold a lot of power.

This is a long game which should be played with a sober head and cool strategy.

Well said.

rw2 wrote:

Grassstrippilot wrote:I was wondering if there is a difference between the two services. Does Vimeo operate the same way as YouTube?

Yeah, while they are both open to the public and anyone can post on either, there are both technological and cultural differences.

Technologically, vimeo encoding is higher quality than youtube. They also didn't used to scan videos for licensed content, but have recently started to do that. Meaning that it used to be that you could make a video with your favorite song and vimeo would probably allow it while youtube probably wouldn't.

Culturally the difference is much more pronounced. Vimeo has positioned itself as the quality content outlet. They specialize in movies, shorts and other filmmaker kinds of videos. Their website is cleaner and better designed for this kind of content. Youtube is the wild west, anything is welcome and the design is a bit more cluttered as their goal is to keep your attention as you view a bunch of short content instead of on or two longer ones.

Interesting. Thanks for the insight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BritishCubBloke wrote: I think posting a video such as the recent one of the Smokey Carbon Cub taking off at Lower Loon belching smoke may be lawful, but is not strategic or wise and you don't need to be Einstein to see how much it is going to antagonise certain interest groups which hold a lot of power.

This is a long game which should be played with a sober head and cool strategy.

X2. I've been trying to figure out how to bring that specific one up delicately. Thank you. We have to try and put ourselves in the shoes of the other (non-aviation) Idaho using public as well. To them, we are just a bunch of privileged over-paid yahoos with our expensive noise (and smoke) makers screwing up their rafting, fishing, hiking vacation. It's their Idaho as well.

BTW....I know most know this, but there is a very popular rafting staging site and campground not a stones throw from where the Lower Loon video was filmed. Assume everything you do in an airplane is getting cell phone video'd and is only a text/e-mail away from getting to the wrong people. Again, this does not help our case.

BritishCubBloke wrote:This is not a fight that is ever going away. Some non-aviation wilderness lovers will always object to aircraft in the backcountry and try to limit their activities. It's no good ranting and raving at them, but the tendency to do so exists and I understand the temptation. The most important thing is to show that backcountry aviators are responsible, concerned and respectful stewards of the backcountry and not to antagonise for the sake of antagonising. Firstly, that's a good thing anyway and secondly it makes it much harder to object to reasonable propositions put forward by the aviation community.

In that vein, I think we should be careful about what we do and prudence suggests it is wise to limit videos of the Big Creek Four if we can. In that vein, too, I think posting a video such as the recent one of the Smokey Carbon Cub taking off at Lower Loon belching smoke may be lawful, but is not strategic or wise and you don't need to be Einstein to see how much it is going to antagonise certain interest groups which hold a lot of power.

This is a long game which should be played with a sober head and cool strategy.

BritishCubBloke - you are right on point.

The guys and gals who want to say "F*** OFF!" to people who recreate near one of these (and other) back country airstrips do us no favors. Their 'in your face' behavior will turn public opinion against back country aviation. This video pretty much captures how I believe many hikers, horsemen, and other back country users view aircraft and back country airstrips.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8S5AMxDJCU

Case in point: Several years ago I met a member of the Sierra Club who boasted how he (and his other very well connected and politically powerful environmentalist friends) got several lakes in southern Oregon closed to float planes. His favorite story that I heard several times at various meetings always began with him making airplane noises and caricaturing a landing airplane. Then he would describe how "some rich doctor" landed on a previously peaceful (and QUIET) lake while he hid on the shore watching and fuming. He then smiled as he reminded me how HE and his friends took care of "that guy". My take? "That [rich doctor/developer/attorney/ordinary Joe/float plane pilotguy] really "screwed the pooch" for all other back country pilots by his thoughtless behavior.

But where does enjoying the great outdoors in our airplanes (believe me, I'm not rich. The mil doesn't pay that well) vs screwing the proverbial pooch meet in the middle?

From the part of the story you told, a guy landed on a lake and this guy flipped out. He raised his voice louder than others and someone decided his right to enjoy a thing outweighed other people's (maybe thinking that volume equals % population support? That's just a guess). Sounds pretty similar to another, parallel issue to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I copied this from another forum, might make a little sense if you follow the story, I have removed the names to protect the ??????

The point that seems to overlooked in this discussion is that the Idaho Division of Aeronautics, Idaho Transportation Board, the Governor's office, Attorney General's office, the Idaho Legislature and our Congressional Delegation, all picked a side in this dispute many years ago. They all consistently have argued to keep the Big Creek Four airstrips open for non-emergency use. They all have dismissed the designation "For Emergency Use Only" as a defacto closure, which is illegal under the Central Idaho Wilderness Act. I have the written record dating back to the early 80s. The last major event in the debate occurred in early 2005 when then-Regional Forester Jack Troyer agreed to keep the airstrips open for "sporadic use." Since then, the players have changed. We have a new Transportation Board, new deputy attorney general, new ITD director, and of course a new administrator of the Division of Aeronautics (Mike Pape). Unlike previous administrators, Pape has failed to recognize the state's long history of involvement in the issue, and instead has chosen what he calls a neutral position. You could argue he actually has chosen the Forest Service's position, at least when it comes to the charts. Those of us who have lived through the long "history" of all this see Pape's actions as a dangerous reversal of the state's efforts to keep the airstrips open for non-emergency use. If the charts he printed designating the BC4 as "emergency use only" are allowed to stand, those who advocate closing the airstrips will have a leg up in their argument that the state has agreed to closure. It is time for Pape, the Idaho Transportation Board and Department, Attorney General's office and Governor's office to review the history and once again refute the Forest Service's designation of "for emergency use only" as an illegal, defacto closure.

PapernScissors wrote:My take? "That [rich doctor/developer/attorney/ordinary Joe/float plane pilotguy] really "screwed the pooch" for all other back country pilots by his thoughtless behavior.

I don't think what the pilot did was a thoughtless behavior, at the time float planes were allowed to land on the lake (planes could land on the lake at the time, right?) that the Sierra Club guy was at and he didn't like it, so he used his influence to change it to what he wanted. Did he not know planes could land on the lake? thus getting mad when the plane landed on the lake, maybe...

In my opinion the Sierra Club guy is the one coming off as the ass not the float pilot.

Mauleguy wrote:
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!

Response from another:

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.

My Response back:

There is no doubt what the Sectional says. Here is where it gets interesting. I called the Hillsboro FSDO and talk to a person in the office and asked him if I was breaking any regulations landing on Forest Service land, He said "yes" right away and that I could not do that. I asked him for specific regulations that showed that in black and white. His answer was he would have to get back to me on that. About an hour later he called me back and said that as far as the FAA was concerned there was no law broken. That my fight was with the agency that oversaw the land and that if it was public land I would have to follow what was written. I asked if he would send me an email with what he just told me and he did. I then sent it to the Forest Service guy that was threatening me with a ticket and court date along with the full CFR's that applied to me. I never heard back from the Forest Service, maybe they are still building a case after 8 years I doubt it. I continue to land where I want on Forest Service lands and no one is going to take that from me without a fight as long as the wording in the CFR's is not changed. These are Public Lands for everyone. In most cases I never see another sole.

Mauleguy

This is how it is worded on the Alaskan sectionals: Before landing fixed-wing aircraft on the lands or waters within the boundaries of lands administered by etc. etc...

This makes more sense the way it is written here for Alaska. Except for the fact that if you called the agency down here they would just tell you it is closed to aircraft, here in the lower 48 because they don't want aircraft landing anywhere except an airport.

Mauleguy

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

Bingo!

The issue is The Big Creek Four and the specific rule pertaining to them.

Jim

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/s ... 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 ... -spotlight

Well aren't we the pot calling the kettle black? Let’s keep everything low key yet you and a dozen other Chatty Cathies have bumped up an otherwise dormant video's popularity quite a bit.  

And you didn’t post just once about it. You and the brain-trust are figuring it out one post at a time. Have you all gone from student pilot to expert status so quickly that you can’t realize you are referencing AOPA articles that were written 3 years AFTER I made the video that has ruined your lives?

And why the heck are you keeping tabs on me and my actions and my web history?  It's a little disturbing, and part of the reason I didn't want that letter getting posted on the web... 

Do you know I’m currently the only person not buying selling and printing OBP logos and “company” hats and mugs despite creating that silly logo and slapping it on a video for shits and giggles 9 years ago? PS Would you like me to send you a PDF so you can put it on your TrapperKeeper®, or for our team jersey, since we are on the same side. Are you quarterback, or coach? Or maybe you’re on the sideline with a microphone?

I asked a former USFS local Idaho fellow for advice and or help. I go to bed. My letter is posted and although that was not my intent, a resurgence of the Big Creek video gets overnight hate/love. I wake up to some pilot calling one of my best friends a camel-jockey or a Muslim-queer or something and biblical quotes are countered and ACLU links are slung, constitutional rights demanded, and rules and regs from Smokey the Bear ultimately laying down the law.

So, knowing a thousand Facebook cowboys, web monkeys and government workers were headed to ohiobushplanes.com next, I threw up literally the first image that caught my eye.  A subdued American flag at the OBP corn-crib HQ.  Patriotism under duress. I scaled that baby down to 980 pixels, googled some HTML and uploaded those suckers. Does that make me a dark, scandalous twat trying to hide from the all-knowing SoyAnarchisto?

We don't need a waybackmachine historian here at OBP, but since you're such a smart tech guy maybe you'd notice that most of the links you dug up didn't go anywhere.  They were anchor tags.  Why? Because I never finished the site.  Because I don't care.  Because the previous "company" web site got hacked last summer and I wiped it out completely without even backing it up.  I didn't even bother hooking the email up for six months.  Why?  Because Ohio Bush Planes, this triumphant, lucrative, commercial enterprise is a pain in my ass.

When I was actively churning out videos (and I made over 300) the art project slowly but surely became un-fun, I don’t even want to pimp anyone’s story anymore…People be judging what's cool or not cool or what's disrespectful.  --So-n-so wants my source files so he can make a channel on YouTube for his illiterate friends, or BillyBob thinks he looks narcissistic so take that video down, or Polly is on disability and can't be seen juggling chainsaws, or some pipeline company is gonna sue because the manager is smoking on the job, or that plane's wingtip was too close to that mountain, or HEY, some privileged white boys will not get to fly into the back country because I did a summersault in a meadow eight years ago back when summersaults were still legal and even encouraged throughout the republic...Backcountry fisting bumps must be your thing bro, so leave me out of that at least. When I party in the backcountry, I party alone.

I could take the easy way out and just take down this video. I have done that countless other times. I honestly don't give a squirt of piss about the video. I can barely even sit through one of my own videos without cringing, let alone yours. I probably will take it down.

BUT

There is much more to this particular story than you realize, and I'd tell you, but apparently although you are on my side, and you enjoy watching my videos, you can't be trusted with information. You might try to analyze it out loud and throw me under the bus in the process.  Or maybe you'll start guessing?  "Uh, he moved his plane by hand on Mile Hi, and I think that was the illegal part and possibly dangerous and could have distressed a mountain goat owned by a drunken aboriginal tribesman.”

Great, now PETA is involved. And NATO. And Al-Anon.


There is a video of a pilot flying through and arch.  Are you pissed at him because that's now illegal?  Have you blogged about him lately?

SoyWhat?

You are an anarchist.  But I am to be Soycautiouslycompliant?


--And then I'll take down my videos and some wise-ass will say "He took his toys and ran home.  He should of stood his ground. Swingle-your a pussy".

Watch and see smarty pants. 

Or better yet, turn off the computer. Tell your family how much they mean to you.  Take a walk.  Plant a house.  Build a tree.

We could do all three. She said.