Thanks for the explanation. So many people are confused by the difference between the various land management agencies, most often confusing the U.S. Forest Service with the National Park Service. I've encountered this so many times in my life that sometimes I assume people are confused. When it comes to unit names in the southern Sierra the confusion abounds. Try explaining that there is a Sequoia National Park, Sequoia National Forest, and a Sequoia National Monument that is a part of the Sequoia National Forest since the bulk of National Monuments are administered by the National Park Service. There is confusion between a National Monument and a National Park even when both are administered National Park Service.
Now mix in CDF and California State Parks and additional confusion occurs. I can't tell you how many times people would walk up to me and ask me if things were tough while the California legislature could not pass a budget. Now mix in the California Department of Fish and Game with their role on National Forest lands as opposed to their lack of jurisdiction on lands administered by the National Park Service. The confusion is understandable as none of us can keep track of everything and we aren't interested in every topic.
Early in my career while working on the Kaibab NF in Arizona I was cornered by an irate woman who was complaining about the campground she had stayed in a couple of days prior. Her limited knowledge of geography didn't help in this case. When I asked whose campground it was, referring to the agency involved, she kept telling me "it was rangers," and further berated me for not knowing what I was talking about. After using a great deal of patience and my knowledge of geography I determined a Mohave County regional park campground was involved.
In another case on the Toiyabe National Forest near Bridgeport, California I had engine crews periodically wash out restrooms with their high pressure hoses. Rather than travel a couple of miles to the nearest hydrant, they drafted out of the creek next to the campground. When they placed the four inch black high pressure hose with the large galvanized screen attached to the end to begin pumping out of the creek people would run from all around to put their fish hooks as close to the end of the hose as possible. Seems they were confusing our engine with a DFG fish planting truck. This didn't happen just once, but over a period of months, year after year.
More confusion comes into the picture when mutual aid agreements and other arrangements come into play. Forest Service LEO's and Forest Protection Officers can and do enforce most of the Fish and Game code as well as the CA Vehicle Code (CVC) dealing with Off Highway Vehicles. LEO's are state peace officers and can and do enforce penal code and the rest of the CVC under certain circumstances. Forest Service Fire Protection Technicians (drive patrol engines) when trained and designated to enforce California Public Resource Code sections relating to fire and fire prevention. For example, they make inspections and take enforcement actions on private lands within the boundaries of National Forest to enforce defensible property requirements. All of this state jurisdiction enforcement depends of local situations such as land ownership mix, workloads, distances from fire stations and other agency offices, and existence of local fire districts.
I don't believe I've ever mentioned any relationship between KNP and the ANF, nor any shared frequency assignments between the NPS and USFS. I even had to scan my older posts to make sure. However, the SQF radio programming does in fact have KNP frequencies in it.
All natural resource agencies have frequencies of other like agencies in their radios. When I worked for the Forest Service on the Inyo NF's Mammoth Ranger District I had every National Forest and National Park unit in California in my truck radio. I had all the BLM Districts in California and frequencies for many CDF Units, as well as their command and some of their tactical frequencies. The only thing I didn't have as far as natural resource agencies was the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California State Parks, with the latter not being possible due to their use of 800 MHz.
I had a couple situations where I would have liked to have Caltrans direct communication capability when we were doing burnouts along state highways, in particular when doing a burnout along I-5 on the ANF. Thank goodness L.A. County Fire is equipped with VHF handhelds
I don't understand what you mean by the relationship between KNP and the ANF.
I should also clarify that federal agencies do not share frequency assignments other than those assignments made by the IRAC (Interagency Radio Advisory Committee or Commission) for government wide use such as the so called "NIFC frequencies" and the V and U Calls/Tacs. All other arrangements where an agency in one department uses the frequencies of another agency, for example, LEO's on the Cleveland National Forest (Dept of Agriculture) using Border Patrol (Dept. of Homeland Security) frequencies, are authorized by memorandums of agreements (i.e. mutual aid agreements) between agencies of different departments. Intradepartmental use does not require such agreements as IRAC assignments are made at the department level. Some of these agreements can be local (such as the one between the Inyo NF and KNP) or more often at the department level such as the Interior/Agriculture/Defense fire agreement.
The differences in land management between the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service can, at times, be philosophical, but more importantly are dictated by laws passed by the U.S. Congress. The differences can also be the result of budget authorizations, House and Senate committee direction, regulations signed by department secretaries, and presidential executive orders. Agencies are not able to exercise much discretion using philosophy. For example, the Forest Service, as a result of Reagan administration direction, began cutting about twice timber as they knew the data and good planning indicated the forests could sustain. This was a violation of several laws including the Multiple Use - Sustained Yield Act of 1964 and the overwhelming input made during the creation of National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans in the early 1980's. The result was the spotted owl crisis, which the Forest Service, when left to their own expertise in accordance to several other laws the administration chose to violate, could have avoided.
The above is my understanding of the situation after more than two decades of working for the Forest Service in four states.
