Lone Bugle's Link
"The Forest Service has proposed a permanent directive that would strictly limit filming video or taking photos in federal wilderness areas by media companies, commercial outfitters, non-profit groups and even hobbyists.
The proposed rules would require newspaper reporters, television producers or filmmakers to obtain a special use permit to enter anywhere within the 36 million acres of wilderness maintained by the Forest Service. The Forest Service would issue a permit to journalists only if it deemed that the story had merit.
Is this proposed rule government overreach or a sensible idea to protect wilderness from commercial entities and non-profits looking to raise funds from images captured in the wilderness?"
My concern is specifically hobbyists... arguably we as hunters could be classified as hobbyists. How about a $1,500 fine for take a picture of an elk, or grouse, that you killed in a wilderness area?
Please consider voicing your concern to the guy in charge:
Thomas Tidwell - Chief of the US Forest Service [email protected] (202) 205-8439
Funny thing is, it doesn't matter. This should EASILY fall under freedom of press and really shouldn't last the first round of litigation unless the FS can make an argument for a camera being a motorized vehicle.
Currently each USFS Region makes their own decisions about whether or not filming should be allowed in a designated Wilderness Areas. Only one Region I know of will allow filming in a Wilderness Area, and that is at the discretion of the Chief Forester within whose Forest boundaries the Wilderness Area lies.
Under current rules, film crews such as ours are required to get a filming permit for any USFS or BLM land, whether it is/isn't a designated Wilderness Area. That is how it should be. We are using a public resource and should pay.
Still photographers are exempt from those rules. If I increase the shutter speed on my DSLR from taking a burst of photos, to say 30fps, I go from photography to videography. One requires a permit and a fee, the other does not.
The compliance in this permit area is somewhere close to zero. Since my show is all public land hunting, I feel I should pay a fee. I go through the process, pay the fee, and subject myself to the restrictions they tell me I must adhere to.
But, I am the exception in the TV world. Most producers laugh at me. I understand their frustrations. Here is an example of what my film permit process has been this year.
BLM Example - I had an archery deer hunt in NV. Five days of filming. Application fee was $100. Filming price was $150 per day. No monitoring fee. I was able to sign an indemnity form that released the BLM of any liability and accepted any liability for damage our crew of me and one camera guy might cause. Total cost for five days - $850. Pretty reasonable.
Three weeks later I had a pronghorn hunt on BLM land in Wyoming. Due to schedules, it was only a two day hunt. The processing fee was $416. The daily rate was $250 per day. The monitoring fee was $416. I need to provide a $3 millions dollar insurance/bond to cover the possible damage me and this camera guy might cause in our two days there. The cost of that insurance was $1,500. I was not able to sign a waiver of liability as was allowed in NV, as the Regional BLM office has a policy that they do not accept such. Total cost for those two days - $416 + 416 + 500 = $1,332, plus a $1,500 insurance bond.
Point is, there is no consistency in pricing, in restrictions, in bonding, in anything.
For our ten public land hunts this year, the film permit fees for me and a camera guy to run around and film for 2 to 5 days, comes to just under $13,000. That seems a little out of hand, when a rancher could graze 1,000 cow-calf pairs for nine months, non-stop, for the same price. Do me and a camera guy cause as much impact for ten hunts as 1,000 cows cause for nine months?
In addition to no consistency in cost, there is no consistency in the rules and restrictions. It is not only different between the BLM and the USFS, but different between each Forest within the USFS and each office within the BLM. If there was some consistency, the compliance might be higher.
I know many of you reading are thinking, "Wait a second, I've seen a lot of shows in the Wilderness Areas of Wyoming, or Colorado, or Montana." Thus my point about almost zero compliance with the existing rules.
I've turned down three mountain goat hunts and a bighorn sheep hunt that we could have filmed of friends who drew tag, but we were denied a filming permit. So, it is rather frustrating for me to watch other shows ignore the rules and film these hunts. Just look at the backcounty Wilderness Areas of Wyoming. There is probably an episode per week that is televised of a hunt from there. Unless they have better connections at the USFS than I do, they are not complying with the laws.
In the last two Congressional sessions, bills were passed from the Senate to the House that would have made the rules much more simple. It said if you are a crew of less than five (talent and crew), you would pay an annual fee of $500 and with that, you could film any Federal lands. Too bad party politics killed it both times. Compliance would sky rocket, the rules would be easy and consistent, and total revenue would increase.
What the USFS is proposing, to tighten it even more in Wilderness Areas, and to include still photography, seems the wrong path. More restrictive and more complicated will be harder to enforce, result in less compliance (if that's possible), and less revenue. Seems with all they have on their plate, with limited budgets, they would want less complication, higher compliance, and more revenue.
And they want to focus on video and photography as commercial uses against the spirit of the Wilderness Act. Currently, they allow hunting and fishing outfitters to operate in Wilderness Areas. They allow cattle grazing in many Wilderness Areas. They allow eco-tours in Wilderness Areas. Seems we have a lot of other commercial activities, with higher impacts, occurring that are not in the spirit of the Wilderness Act. But, consistency is not the strong point of some agencies.
Suppose they do pass this and it does include photography. Where will they draw the line? What about the writer who takes an outfitted trip into the Wilderness Area, then writes a column with a few photos, and sells his story. What about the company who takes some images and loads them on their website to promote their backcountry hikes, their hunting trips, etc.
Assume Pat does another really cool live hunt elk thread from Colorado and this time it is all, or part, on public land. Will that be included in the expanded rules? When Pat allows live hunt threads of other hunters who hunt public lands to be posted here and generate traffic; will that be included under expanded rules because Pat is operating a commercial activity, even though the guy posting the live hunt thread is not?
As you can see, one does not need to think very long until realizing the absurdity of what is being proposed. Keep it as it is, or even better, simplify it and make it more consistent and less cumbersome.
Sorry for the long post.
I don't see the problem
Bake
What would you recommend hunters/filmers like yourself do to make our voice heard? Can we do anything to help?
Bake
What harm is done by filming on public land? I see it as an opportunity for them to make money with little risk and impact. Liability waivers are a good idea along with a universal permitting.
Another reason your show is a step above the rest.
I see no reason there can't be a uniform policy. I would think some universal permit or license, just applying for and paying your permit fees, proof of liability insurance, etc. should be enough. Then you just give the office your permit number and all, including the government employees, can literally go on about their business.
Seems a no brainer to me. But maybe that's the whole problem.... more complication means more staffing WRT government orifices....
Thanks for the explanation, Randy.
What about State and National Parks?
It is a shame when it is so difficult to do the right thing.
Where would we be today if Ansel Adams where trying to bring the wilderness and backcountry views under the current hodge podge of regulations? I have my doubts we would ever see the pics.
The current system is a huge hurdle for those making the effort be on the straight and narrow. And a joke for those willing to skirt the rules, knowing the ability and manpower to enforce the rules is almost non-existent.
Additional and tighter rules will only burden those trying to do the right thing. Rule breakers will have no problem ignore tighter restrictions.
This is what he said for reasoning and I think it is their reasoning for the filming groups too.
"The items in the NFS lands belong to everybody and if you are going to take something out of it, you have to pay to make it "FAIR" for the others who don't get to have it."
I can see where he is comming from, but come on, we are paying to have the wood removed by contractors and charging for private individuals to cut their own wood? And what exactly is a camera taking out of the woods? Are we charging to remove images from the forest?
It can be fair for the others too, just get up off the sofa and get out there and participate in the adventure.
elkmtngear's Link
Randy, your insight is much appreciated. So much to this that the layperson does not see/understand. Good to have a Professional observation.
Best of Luck, Jeff
