David Paulides not allowed to film in National Parks

In David Paulide´s Youtube posts, he frequently mentions not being allowed to film in National Parks in the USA, as well as facing various obstructionist officials in the parks and the police force.

I just googled the rules for filming as they appear on the web, and it seems this only applies to commercial ventures, which may obstruct or inconvenience others, as I understand it.

Quote

You only need a permit for photography in a National Park if: The activity takes place at location(s) where or when members of the public are generally not allowed. The activity uses model(s), sets(s), or prop(s) that are not a part of the location's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities.

I wonder why he is not being assisted in his attempt to find missing people and expose the situations under which they disappear. Is he deliberately misrepresenting his case on Youtube, or has he misunderstood the rules? What is your opinion on the matter, if you live in the USA ? I have followed him for some time and he seemed very genuine to me.

a reply to: kiro8lak

I remember actually learning this when I was in Yellowstone. You're not allowed to film in national parks for commercial purposes in America without a permit period.

www.nps.gov...

All commercial filming activities taking place within a unit of the National Park System require a permit. "Commercial filming" means the film, electronic, magnetic, digital, or other recording of a moving image by a person, business, or other entity for a market audience with the intent of generating income.

a reply to: kiro8lak

they don't want the truth to come out.....there are regular disappearances....and then there are the ODD ones....the parks don't want bad publicity that would keep park visitors away

here is an interesting tidbit....dennis martin disappeared on the smoky mountains national park 1969 never found,...but another family camping there said that day they heard a scream and saw a bear like man with something slung over it;s shoulder like a child.

there was another I don't remember the name a boy disappeared they brought in the dogs......later the father of the boy told paulides that they came in and took HIS shorts for the dogs to track the little boys scent.....he was incredulous that they could mistake adult shorts like that and immediately told them they were his they shut him down and used HIS adult shorts for the scent tracking.......


another child round 4 or 5 years old went missing and was found said a bear picked and fed them berries??? bears have very thick paws and cannot pick berries and helping a child is not wild animal like at all.

another missing child that was found....they were sitting on top of a huge boulder surrounded totally by water that was 3 to 4 feet deep...this child was totally clean and dry...meaning they did NOT go through the water and climnb up on the big rock...how did they get on the rock

originally posted by: research100
a reply to: kiro8lak

they don't want the truth to come out.....there are regular disappearances....and then there are the ODD ones....the parks don't want bad publicity that would keep park visitors away

I listen to him regularly on Coast to Coast, or at least I've been catching up on his sections on the podcasts, and while I find most of these cases fascinating, most of the things that he talks about probably have relatively prosaic explanations such as predators or scavengers dragging bodies away or search teams not being 100% efficient (though I will admit to being baffled by others), and the "resistance" that he seems to be meeting from national park staff is probably more due to them being critically underfunded and undermanned and simply not wanting to be seen to be dedicating precious resources (They are funded by your tax dollars) to accommodating somebody so "spooky".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that he's some kind of lunatic or idiot, but national park staff can't be publicly scene to be helping him because some bureaucrat with a clipboard in head office will be on their backs about it if they do.

I watch everything I can on youtube by D. Paulides. It looks like he's in national parks but perhaps it's private land.
Perhaps he could use BLM land for his locations, The restrictions aren't near as restrictive. Or state parks are where I usually film for my locations. There is a minimal fee. State film offices have a huge list of locations available for filmmakers and are usually very accommodating.

www.blm.gov...

parks.state.wa.us...

With today's technology you don't need a big crew or equipment. I advocate the guerrilla style with gopros and lavs. It just looks like you are a normal stupid tourist taking vacation photos. However if you plan to use firearms, or elaborate wardrobe or sets on your film, get the permit and alert the LEOs you are a film crew. Don't take chances...

I know Mr. Paulides is aware of all this info. I would love to work on any of his projects.

I watched David’s episode, it looks to me like the NPS has something to hide.

when Paul looks at a potential case he asks a series of questions .....he always asks the families permisssion..Here is what the STRANGE cases have in common

search dogs not finding a scent

bad weather

highly intellectual or people with bad health or disabilities going missing

missing clothing

boulder fields

not calling out for help, or screams, or blood or signs of a struggle found



to be fair I am posting THIS link www.reddit.com...



a reply to: AaarghZombies

Somethings not right, or is is missing here. A few weeks ago I was having dinner with a friend of mine, he live at the National Park since he's also a Park Ranger, and we were talking about a TV camera crew that was in the park filming a commercial. I was personally surprised that the NPS allowed anyone to do that during the 'covid" crap. He told me that if you can get the permit to film the "covid" only delayed things for a few weeks.

When it comes to mysteries within the National Parks, holy crap Park Rangers have stories to tell, but when it comes to policy there isn't really one other then the basic ones that exist for anyone else. I had asked my friends room mate what they thought about David Paulide's book, they thought it was pretty good and they showed me their copy. My friend told me that park visitors that come in because of the mysterious things connected to the parks are usually better visitors than the ones that come in trying to be hip to be outdoors. Most of the people that get themselves into trouble and need rescuing are people that are just trying to be hip. The ones that show up looking for park strangeness usually are also better equipped for being outdoors, and are also aware of their surroundings more.

So next time I'm visiting my friend, I'll ask him if he has any ideas as to why this could be. Seems weird to me, or like I said something is missing in this story.

a reply to: kiro8lak

Here he is discussing it.





And how National Parks don't keep lists of missing people

The National Park Service keeps stats on deaths, but as I have stated hundreds of times, they don’t keep lists of the people that are missing. They wanted to charge us $1.4 million for them to put a list together

link

Not connected to David but this series of 12 vids does look at some of the cases.

a reply to: karl 12

The real reason they don't have a complete list of people that go missing is due to most families report the disappearances to the local Sheriff Departments, and forget that Park Rangers are Law Enforcement too. My friend had a referred call from a family's home town about the disappearance of their kid. When my friend asked how long ago the kid went missing, the Police Officer told him weeks ago.

The kid was discovered to have gone off with some friends they knew, but still the family waited for several weeks before letting anyone know that the kid was last seen at the National Park. That's why it would take a lot of time to compile a list of missing persons that may or may not be in the National Park. Then you have the unfortunate situations where a person is abducted then disposed of in one of the National Parks. it's all a very complex issue.

So a list from the National parks that says which people are missing from that particular National Park is possible, but getting a single list that covers every park would also involve calling every National park and getting a list from every one. Even then you are only going to a get a list of people that were reported to the Park Rangers and not outside Law Enforcement.

What David Paulide should do is advocate for a National Parks data base to created that would allow Park Rangers to enter the missing data into it, and also allow outside agencies to also enter missing people into that data base if the report is involved at a National park. Then all he would have to do is ask for access tot he data base.

a reply to: kiro8lak

Too bad Leonard Nimoy is no longer with us. I could see him doing an " In Search Of" episode... missing people in National Parks. Something is going on, folks.

originally posted by: Dutchowl
a reply to: kiro8lak

Too bad Leonard Nimoy is no longer with us. I could see him doing an " In Search Of" episode... missing people in National Parks. Something is going on, folks.

Have you seen the new "In Search of" series hosted by Zachary Quinto? This is the kind of thing that would fit in perfectly with the new format.

The only thing David Paulides cares about is selling books. He ignores evidence that doesn't fit his agenda. Why doesn't Paulides ever explain why he really left the police force. His stories make for good entertainment at night but that's about it.

I was really big into the whole Missing 411 for a while, but the more I listened to David talk, the more skeptical I became. There ARE a few cases he's talked about that really creepy me out and (if he is presenting the facts accurately) they ARE very bizarre (Dennis Martin comes to mind as the one that haunts me). But I do think he's too quick to rule out any explainable causes and he tries too hard to shoehorn cases into his criteria. Like one case he always talks about involves a young college-age man who went missing from a party then some time later (I think it was two weeks?) he was found floating in a pond in the middle of a golf course that had (according to David) already been searched and he had no shoes and his socks were clean even though the field was muddy. To me, the logical explanation would be that the guy OD'd on something at the party (drugs or alcohol) and some person(s) at the party panicked and tried to cover it up. Maybe he didn't die right away but fell into a coma, so they kept him somewhere hoping he'd get better because they were too afraid to report what happened, but when he didn't and ultimately passed away some time later, they dumped him there (which would explain why his socks were clean, how he was found in an area already searched and why his body wasn't more decayed as if he'd been out in the elements for weeks).

Another thing that always gets me is David's criteria for cases includes people who are "elderly, injured or mentally ill". I mean..uh..yeah? Those sound exactly like the type of people who WOULD be prone to go missing in the woods? I don't understand why he makes that connection, unless he's trying to imply that there's some predator out there that intentionally preys on people who aren't in top shape. Which, to some degree, is probably true. I suspect mountain lions could be responsible for some of these cases, including the one which Mr. Paulides vehemently claims to have ruled out a mountain lion attack on (Jaryd Atadero, a very tragic case full of extremely frustrating circumstances that all culminated in the unfortunate death of that poor boy, probably by mountain lion and then possibly covered up for some reason by the local sheriff's department).

a reply to: kiro8lak

I just googled the rules for filming as they appear on the web, and it seems this only applies to commercial ventures, which may obstruct or inconvenience others, as I understand it.

David is an ex police officer San Jose detective I believe it is. So
I doubt he would be willing to disobey any law or even a rule for
that matter in any circumstance.

They certainly don't want camera crews constantly setting up in
National parks. Shooting porn in camp grounds you get the idea. lol