film permits on public land

[Oak]

In the spirit of not being afraid to look dumb, I realize now that BOR and USFWS are also under the DOI, so my question is only relevant to the USFS. I need more sleep....

 

[TOGIE]

In the spirit of not being afraid to look dumb, I realize now that BOR and USFWS are also under the DOI, so my question is only relevant to the USFS. I need more sleep....

ah see that would've slipped right past me if you never said anything

 

[antlerradar]

I can see how this will be beneficial to many who have followed the along with the rules before but I really don't think this is a 1st amendment issue. It's not like the government was suppressing their freedom of speech, they were charging people who profit from use of public lands...it's a stretch (a very huge stretch) but who's going to stop empathizers of Bundy and Co from saying their cattle are a form of 1st amendment expression and thus don't have to pay their permit fees.

I get that the permits were unnecessarily restrictive and that needs to change but blanket removal isn't the answer.

I am thinking more about the owner of a different hunting site that in the summer months is locating big deer on public land and selling the info to the highest bidder. He is also arguing that the permit requirements are and infringement on his free speech.
I am not on board with this yet.

 

[Big Fin]

Odds are this will apply to the USFS, also, given both Ag and Interior were given the film permit directive in the same piece of Federal Law and both went down very similar paths.

 

[SixPoint]

To say that filming commercially and being charged is an infringement on freedom of speech... boy, that is really a stretch and I don't think I can agree on this. Admittedly I know very little on this topic but at face value I don't see how this is any different than any other commercial use whether consumptive or non-consumptive. From a business perspective why wouldn't we want to charge for a commercial filming permit? I can certainly see how producing a hunting tv show would have it's difficulties based on the current structure and geographic limitations but I don't think having an open door and a free pass is the answer. Producing television on public lands absolutely has an impact and I believe to off set those impacts the "landowner" needs to be compensated.

 

[1_pointer]

It'll be interesting to see how this is carried out for places that get lots of attention for larger budget/scale filming like the Bonneville Salt Flats.

 

[lastlight]

To say that filming commercially and being charged is an infringement on freedom of speech... boy, that is really a stretch and I don't think I can agree on this. Admittedly I know very little on this topic but at face value I don't see how this is any different than any other commercial use whether consumptive or non-consumptive. From a business perspective why wouldn't we want to charge for a commercial filming permit? I can certainly see how producing a hunting tv show would have it's difficulties based on the current structure and geographic limitations but I don't think having an open door and a free pass is the answer. Producing television on public lands absolutely has an impact and I believe to off set those impacts the "landowner" needs to be compensated.

Agreed 100%. If someone is using public lands in any way to profit then they should pay up, very simple.

 

[brushcreek]

Agreed 100%. If someone is using public lands in any way to profit then they should pay up, very simple.

they do it's called taxes. as long as there is no abuse / consumption I say no extra charges

 

[Gerald Martin]

Agreed 100%. If someone is using public lands in any way to profit then they should pay up, very simple.

I agree. There have been multiple attempts to introduce amendments to the fee structures of film permits to reflect the economic realities of cost/benefits.
Because the cost was prohibitive, many people who were doing everything else legally, chose to disregard the law, knowing that the financial costs of fines and penalties were less than the cost of compliance.

I would gladly pay a reasonable yearly fee. But, because the current permitting process is so burdensome and expensive and not commiserate with the impact to resources, I am happy to see this ruling.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Agreed 100%. If someone is using public lands in any way to profit then they should pay up, very simple.

I disagree that non-distructive/extractive use of a public resourse should always require a fee. Public should mean public - and the public carries out both for profit and non-profit activities. Taxes are how we address the profit issue.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I disagree that non-distructive/extractive use of a public resourse should always require a fee.

But is it non-destructive/extractive?

 

[1_pointer]

they do it's called taxes. as long as there is no abuse / consumption I say no extra charges

The definition of "no abuse/consumption" would a hard thing to put into a rule as the definitions vary. Heck, even among the like-minded folks here on HT I doubt you could get a consensus.

 

[VikingsGuy]

But is it non-destructive/extractive?

If a week later I didn't know you are there. A walk on a trail is "non-destructive/extractive". Cutting down an acre of trees is both destructive and extractive. Or put another way. If person A's use does not dimish, reduce or hinder the subsequent enjoyment of the resource by B.

 

[VikingsGuy]

The definition of "no abuse/consumption" would a hard thing to put into a rule as the definitions vary. Heck, even among the like-minded folks here on HT I doubt you could get a consensus.

No different than arguing commercial vs non-commercial. What about a non-profit that then sells the result and uses the proceeds for its non-profit purposes? Lots of scenarios will challenge any definition, yet we still need rules and regulations.

 

[SixPoint]

I would say the physical act of filming a hunting show is relatively small in regards to impacting/ disturbing the landscape. Yes there is "consumption" of an animal or two, their presence on the landscape has local impacts to the site but they are probably not too significant if they are decent human beings. That being said, I would argue that broadcasting a video that is viewed by hundreds of thousands of people, resulting in hundreds of people trying to duplicate that hunt in the same location can have substantial impacts on the resources.

 

[lastlight]

they do it's called taxes. as long as there is no abuse / consumption I say no extra charges

So you support the Bundy family paying taxes and not grazing permits then? Your first statement is the same premise....

 

[lastlight]

If a week later I didn't know you are there. A walk on a trail is "non-destructive/extractive". Cutting down an acre of trees is both destructive and extractive. Or put another way. If person A's use does not dimish, reduce or hinder the subsequent enjoyment of the resource by B.

Filming for profit on public lands is an extractive activity, your using a resource to your financial benefit that belongs to all of us. And I will argue till I die that if/when I see a camera crew walking around in the wilderness it absolutely diminishes my enjoyment.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Filming for profit on public lands is an extractive activity, your using a resource to your financial benefit that belongs to all of us. And I will argue till I die that if/when I see a camera crew walking around in the wilderness it absolutely diminishes my enjoyment.

Extractive typically refers to physical material - and that is how I am using it. As for your enjoyment, I specifically made reference non-overlapping uses. But to your point are three guys filming a "for profit" video more distracting while you are there than a 10 man hunting camp during cocktail hour? Or are 3 guys fimling a non-commercial video somehow less disruptive to your enjoyment? And how would you even know if they are seeking commercial gain later? Of course person A's use could be diminishing to person B's use of the same location at the same time, but commercial vs non-commercial has nothing to do with your enjoyment. I really wish our society hadn't taken this odd turn to "commercial" or "profit" are somehow evils by default.

 

[Jc2020]

If this ruling is appealed will it revert back to permits being required while the appeals process is worked out or will they not be required going forward pending the outcome of the appeal?

 

[Irrelevant]

Extractive typically refers to physical material - and that is how I am using it. As for your enjoyment, I specifically made reference non-overlapping uses. But to your point are three guys filming a "for profit" video more distracting while you are there than a 10 man hunting camp during cocktail hour? Or are 3 guys fimling a non-commercial video somehow less disruptive to your enjoyment? And how would you even know if they are seeking commercial gain later? Of course person A's use could be diminishing to person B's use of the same location at the same time, but commercial vs non-commercial has nothing to do with your enjoyment.

The former has the explicit intent to be viewed by the most people possible.