Township, Range, Section list of public lands an outfitter has use permits on?

[Bowmannate2000]

Every BLM and Forest Service office is way understaffed and everyone is doing the job of three or four people. The information you want, more than likely, has never been put on any kind of data base so who ever needs to get it for you will have to go through every single permit individually and tabulate it for you. Those permits may not even be digitized so that person will have to drag the paperwork out of some old file cabinet. All the time they are spending on that is taking away from the time they want to be spending on that other project that their supervisor has been giving them sh*t abut because it is three weeks overdue. If you want the information for more than one forest or BLM district you will have to piss someone off in each office because that kind of info is not shared between offices.

After that person gets all that info together and gives it to you It would be very easy to then give it to the GIS person in the office, to be put on a database, so that the next person who wants the info would have it with a mouse click. But he or she won't because they are so pissed off and hurried that it won't even cross their mind to do so.

That's kind of what I was getting at. Looking up this info keeps them from getting their regular work done. Also, it would be good for these departments to invest in technology that would make this kind of information available through an online portal going forward. I know that is not likely to happen anytime soon though.

 

[kwyeewyk]

I think typically the threshold for FOIA vs. handing info over is whether the information is published or otherwise readily available to the public. For BLM at least, outfitters operate under special recreation permits (SRP), administered by recreation specialists, not biologists who tend to be more tabular.

In a sense the info is publicly available in ePlanning but not in a simple tabular format but rather as NEPA for each SRP, so you could scour ePlanning and try to find it yourself, or request through FOIA.

 

[gouch]

That's kind of what I was getting at. Looking up this info keeps them from getting their regular work done. Also, it would be good for these departments to invest in technology that would make this kind of information available through an online portal going forward. I know that is not likely to happen anytime soon though.

The problem isn't the technology it is that there is no one to enter the data. When I was working for the Forest Service, for a while the guy manning the front desk took it upon himself to try and edit the website to give out all sorts of information like this. But when my supervisor saw how hard working and ambitious he was he snagged him up and put him on my crew. That ended all the web site entries. There has never been anybody specifically in charge of keeping the website updated.

It would be nice if they could just hire one person as a customer service person to handle requests from the public. But that aint gunna happen.

 

[MarvB]

Every BLM and Forest Service office is way understaffed and everyone is doing the job of three or four people. The information you want, more than likely, has never been put on any kind of data base so who ever needs to get it for you will have to go through every single permit individually and tabulate it for you. Those permits may not even be digitized so that person will have to drag the paperwork out of some old file cabinet. All the time they are spending on that is taking away from the time they want to be spending on that other project that their supervisor has been giving them sh*t abut because it is three weeks overdue. If you want the information for more than one forest or BLM district you will have to piss someone off in each office because that kind of info is not shared between offices.

After that person gets all that info together and gives it to you It would be very easy to then give it to the GIS person in the office, to be put on a database, so that the next person who wants the info would have it with a mouse click. But he or she won't because they are so pissed off and hurried that it won't even cross their mind to do so.

^^^this! Gouch for one has lived this world unfortunately.

 

[MarvB]

I’ve even suggested/requested that our local offices look to a retired dude we have on our SAR team that could do something like this in a few weeks in all likelihood as a volunteer. Their response? Not interested, “ no one has the time to either supervise or set up such a program, volunteers still require internal man hours…” oh well

 

[kwyeewyk]

It would be nice if they could just hire one person as a customer service person to handle requests from the public. But that aint gunna happen.

First need to hire weeds coordinators, range managers, real estate specialists, biologists, etc. Imagine if you walked in a busy mechanic shop with only two mechanics and asked for a list of every repair they've done in the last 5 years on a 2014 Ford F250. Why TF don't they just keep a spreadsheet for that?

 

[Nameless Range]

I have been a requestor playing the waiting game, the badgering public servants for data they are obligated to provide me game, etc. It is frustrating and I sympathize.

I have also been the public servant with a dozen public data requests on my plate, getting badgered by the guy who asked for the data a month ago.

I've written about it before, but public data requests are typically work above and beyond that of keeping the ship afloat - which is the primary role of most public servants and what takes up 90 -110% of the their time, though their individual ships may vary.

A consistent theme in my career has been "more with less." It is tough to design an organizational structure and staff it around the concept of public data requests - some of which take 5 minutes, others which could take days.

All that said, this seems like data that should be spatial, and readily available. A little investment upfront could save a lot of time down the road.

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

Ok, well I called the BLM office this morning. Spoke to a very nice lady there. She informed that if I want all the info such as exactly who the outfitters are and all the areas that have SRP's I would have to do the FOIA. She then went on to say if I emailed her a list of the TRS areas I was curious about she could just tell me if an outfitter has a the lease on them or not. Seemed like a good middle ground to me. From the sounds of it she had dealt with questions similar to this before.

The only slightly bizarre part was she seemed confused why I would want this information as the outfitter is just "one person" where as "any member of the public could walk in and hunt the BLM land I am asking about".

 

[FI460]

All that said, this seems like data that should be spatial, and readily available. A little investment upfront could save a lot of time down the road.

Wasn't this the intent of the MAPLAND act?

Anyone have an update on how that's progressing?

 

[gouch]

The mapland act just passed a few months ago so I doubt anything will be done before next fiscal year.

I imagine that someone would have to suggest this type of info to be included because some non-hunter in charge sure isn't going to think of it. Because after all an outfitter is just one person so why would it matter, right?

 

[Khunter]

As someone on the receiving end of similar requests, the information isn't likely readily available with the click of a button. Depending on the level of information requested, it could take time, resources and effort that would take away from other tasks that are, quite simply more important. As others have mentioned, call and talk to whomever is in charge of the license program and ask specific questions. Being courteous and polite helps a lot. They likely get hundreds of requests for information and don't have the time, nor resources to immediately jump to every request.

Bottom line, renting/leasing out a public resource IS pretty damn important thing to manage well and to be accountable for. And it is NOT managed well if they cannot, with minimal effort respond to the question 'show me where the outfitter boundaries are. Show me what permission do and do not come with the outfitter lease.

I guess when I retire I will make it a personal project to FOIA the F out of all the BLM/USFS offices in Colorado and help 'em modernize. Maybe, after their wounds, from all the paper cuts from yanking dusty files out, have healed, the feds will give me a medal.

 

[Khunter]

Ok, well I called the BLM office this morning. Spoke to a very nice lady there. She informed that if I want all the info such as exactly who the outfitters are and all the areas that have SRP's I would have to do the FOIA. She then went on to say if I emailed her a list of the TRS areas I was curious about she could just tell me if an outfitter has a the lease on them or not. Seemed like a good middle ground to me. From the sounds of it she had dealt with questions similar to this before.

The only slightly bizarre part was she seemed confused why I would want this information as the outfitter is just "one person" where as "any member of the public could walk in and hunt the BLM land I am asking about".

When I was sorting out outfitter lease locations for an elk hunt in 2021, and getting stiff armed by USFS on outfitter permit data, one thing I did was sort out where the fixed camp locations were. It made no difference an outfitter had access to the spot aI killed my bull...I was so far past where his deepest camp was that they were not even bringing people to my hunt spot so had zero interference from other hunters. None, in 8 days., yet an outfitter had the permit for it.

Anyway if you get the outfitters names and you tell them you are hunting but would endeavor to stay a few miles distant, they may share the camp locations. Actually finding previous hunters help flesh out my 'outfitter camp location; info as well. Consider that approach too. We walked our llamas right by a vacant outfitter camp and kept going another 3 miles and had it all to ourselves. YMMV

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

BLM lady called me back actually. She said she talked to her boss and apparently had already given me too much information and that she wont be able to give me a yes or no on the TRS's I had asked about.

She went on to say that I will have to make a FOIA request and that before it is approved they will have to check with the Outfitters in question to make sure giving such information away doesn't hurt in her words their "marketability". So the outfitter gets to decide if its ok? This whole thing is getting weirder by the phone call.

At first I was only kind of curious but now Im just baffled and determined to get the info just out of principle. This seems like it should be public knowledge? Why such secrecy? After all they are guiding on the public's land.

Anyhow.. FOIA request is in.

 

[Nameless Range]

BLM lady called me back actually. She said she talked to her boss and apparently had already given me too much information and that she wont be able to give me a yes or no on the TRS's I had asked about.

She went on to say that I will have to make a FOIA request and that before it is approved they will have to check with the Outfitters in question to make sure giving such information away doesn't hurt in her words their "marketability". So the outfitter gets to decide if its ok? This whole thing is getting weirder by the phone call.

At first I was only kind of curious but now Im just baffled and determined to get the info just out of principle. This seems like it should be public knowledge? Why such secrecy? After all they are guiding on the public's land.

Anyhow.. FOIA request is in.

That is ridiculous. Push the issue. Keep reminding them. That isn't right.

 

[Khunter]

She went on to say that I will have to make a FOIA request and that before it is approved they will have to check with the Outfitters in question to make sure giving such information away doesn't hurt in her words their "marketability". So the outfitter gets to decide if its ok? This whole thing is getting weirder by the phone call.

At first I was only kind of curious but now Im just baffled and determined to get the info just out of principle. This seems like it should be public knowledge? Why such secrecy? After all they are guiding on the public's land.

Anyhow.. FOIA request is in.

Do not be surprised if they tell you something is deficient in your FOIA request. Hope you stick with it!

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

That is ridiculous. Push the issue. Keep reminding them. That isn't right.

Sure doesn't seem ok. You'd think the public should have the right to at least know where outfitters are on operating on public lands. I'd also imagine if the outfitter can prevent the public from knowing this information by just say "yes" the public knowing where we are operating hurts our marketability they would 10 out of 10 times? This whole thing is bizarre.

 

[sapperJ24]

BLM lady called me back actually. She said she talked to her boss and apparently had already given me too much information and that she wont be able to give me a yes or no on the TRS's I had asked about.

She went on to say that I will have to make a FOIA request and that before it is approved they will have to check with the Outfitters in question to make sure giving such information away doesn't hurt in her words their "marketability". So the outfitter gets to decide if its ok? This whole thing is getting weirder by the phone call.

At first I was only kind of curious but now Im just baffled and determined to get the info just out of principle. This seems like it should be public knowledge? Why such secrecy? After all they are guiding on the public's land.

Anyhow.. FOIA request is in.

Ah man, and here I am working for a forest which allows outfitters to FOIA complaints and statements made by forest employees, which, surprise, resulted in harassment of said employees by said outfitter. For those wondering, no action was taken against the outfitter for that. Isolated instance and didn't happen on forest land, just gotta go on working in the backcountry with them.

 

[BoulderBulls]

Good luck, I'm rooting for you

 

[Deleted member 28227]

BLM lady called me back actually. She said she talked to her boss and apparently had already given me too much information and that she wont be able to give me a yes or no on the TRS's I had asked about.

She went on to say that I will have to make a FOIA request and that before it is approved they will have to check with the Outfitters in question to make sure giving such information away doesn't hurt in her words their "marketability". So the outfitter gets to decide if its ok? This whole thing is getting weirder by the phone call.

At first I was only kind of curious but now Im just baffled and determined to get the info just out of principle. This seems like it should be public knowledge? Why such secrecy? After all they are guiding on the public's land.

Anyhow.. FOIA request is in.

Give’m hell, Alaska wouldn’t give me the draw unit boundaries I raised a ruckus and eventually after a phone call with the deputy director got the files.

 

[GigiBobert]

You guys have no idea. Are you talking about base camp locations? Deer/elk/both? Priority use days with base camps? Spike camps associated with base camps? Those can vary year to year. Drop camps? Those can vary from week to week. Sheep? We would permit service days for the entire GMU, without camp locations (that being the nature of sheep hunting). Goat hunting the same. Camps might move in on you overnight. Day use only for those "outfitters" that kept their dudes in motels and were permitted district-wide, and could hunt anywhere? How about those outfitters who had their base camps on private inholdings or adjacent private lands and hunted on National Forest? Or had camps on adjacent BLM and hunted on NF? Or adjacent ranger districts and BLM. Then there's bow and muzzleloader seasons, and sometimes 4 deer and elk rifle seasons and late seasons, with critters moving constantly due to hunter pressure and weather. Get an early dump of snow and outfitters (and clients) are SOL when tied to high elevation basecamps so need to have some flexibility built in. Put them wherever you can. Outfitters who pay based on priority use service days sometimes aren't exactly honest with you about times and locations. And don't get me going on illegal outfitters who coach their dudes to tell anyone who asks that they're just out hunting with their "friend" 1 mile inside the wilderness area on 4-wheelers. Lots of illegal outfitters! Some trips to see the Federal Magistrate which is a whole 'nother ballgame. 700,000 acre ranger districts with a 4 month seasonal and 1 permanent employee with the O/G program being about 10 percent of their job funding. Lots of politics, discussions with Congressional aids and law enforcement, outfitters up on criminal charges, trying to keep the district ranger out of hot water, on the phone with out of state hunters for months in advance, pissed off hunters because your prescribed fire miles away smoked them in, pissed off hunters because they saw a couple of bovines where they were hunting, etc., etc. etc. Try and cut them some slack, there's lots of moving parts in resource management. Me and one other guy on the district would get all of the calls routed to us because we hunted and could walk the talk. Find that one contact and you'll save yourself a lot of work!