New Wilderness Filming Restrictions

[RobG]

I wonder if anyone here has an opinion on this?

http://www.oregonlive.com/environme...est_service_says_media_need.html#incart_river

I suppose in some ways it might be a step forward if you can't film there now commercially.

 

[belly-deep]

I don't have a problem with a permit process. Some things you should have to get off your couch to see.

 

[Big Fin]

As a commercial film group, as small as we are, I've been subject to the rules since I started. Looks like they now want to go after the still photographers. And, they want to make the Wilderness Areas off limits to the photographers, and not just us in the TV gig.

The compliance level is almost zero. I'm the laughing stock of the outdoor TV business. So far in 2014, I've coughed up over $12,000 in film permits and monitoring fees. Ouch.

The Forest Service is going the wrong direction on this. They will get almost no compliance. They will raise hardly any money. They will lose the First Amendment cases if they really want to have a final say in the edited product. And, they would raise a lot more money if they lowered the fees and the barriers that are creating such high rates of non-compliance.

Hard for me to speak too loudly, as people will say my comments is biased/sour grapes/self-serving, or whatever. I will comment on the proposal and I hope some of you will, also.

Comment link here ------> https://www.federalregister.gov/art...m_medium=email&utm_source=federalregister.gov


The USFS has enough on their plate right now. Not sure why this is becoming a priority for them with all the pending issues and the tight budgets. Maybe I am missing something, but a guy walking around taking pics or shooting video seems to be pretty low on the list of management concerns the agency has in front of them at this time.

If approved, I guess I will apply for hunts all on BLM land. They are not proposing such changes.

 

[RobG]

I don't have a problem with a permit process. Some things you should have to get off your couch to see.

Randy and others know a ton more about this than me, but the spin of the story seems backwards. Right now, according to the law, you can't even get a permit for commercial filming. No hunting shows, etc. This seems to create a process where a permit can be obtained. I could be entirely wrong on this however.

 

[devon deer]

I thought we were bogged down with rules and regs in the UK, but i think you beat us.
As an outsider the whole thing seems crazy to me, filming and photography do no harm as far as i can see, in fact it's the complete opposite, it generates interest in a region, or in my case a different country.
Without Randy's filming, and this site, i might not have ever shown an interest in hunting in the US.
I will shortly be returning to Montana, (my 4th visit, 2nd visit hunting) whilst i am not a wealthy individual (i wish being a fishing guide!) when you tot up the money i have spent over the visits it amounts to several thousand dollars, which might have been spent in another country had i not watched 'A River Runs Through It' in the 90's!
Filming is the best marketing tool to promote what each state has on offer, whether it be bird watching, hiking, fishing,hunting etc
Perhaps they are you using it as a means to gain additional income and think of the filming industry as an untapped cash cow.
It would grind with me, don't the public own FS land anyway? Or have i got that wrong?
Cheers
Richard

 

[Cornell2012]

Permits cost up to $1,500, says Forest Service spokesman Larry Chambers, and reporters who don't get a permit could face fines up to $1,000.

Soo...It is better to ask forgiveness than permission?

 

[Ben Lamb]

As a commercial film group, as small as we are, I've been subject to the rules since I started. Looks like they now want to go after the still photographers. And, they want to make the Wilderness Areas off limits to the photographers, and not just us in the TV gig.

The compliance level is almost zero. I'm the laughing stock of the outdoor TV business. So far in 2014, I've coughed up over $12,000 in film permits and monitoring fees. Ouch.

The Forest Service is going the wrong direction on this. They will get almost no compliance. They will raise hardly any money. They will lose the First Amendment cases if they really want to have a final say in the edited product. And, they would raise a lot more money if they lowered the fees and the barriers that are creating such high rates of non-compliance.

Hard for me to speak too loudly, as people will say my comments is biased/sour grapes/self-serving, or whatever. I will comment on the proposal and I hope some of you will, also.

Comment link here ------> https://www.federalregister.gov/art...m_medium=email&utm_source=federalregister.gov


The USFS has enough on their plate right now. Not sure why this is becoming a priority for them with all the pending issues and the tight budgets. Maybe I am missing something, but a guy walking around taking pics or shooting video seems to be pretty low on the list of management concerns the agency has in front of them at this time.

If approved, I guess I will apply for hunts all on BLM land. They are not proposing such changes.

I'll say it. It's horsechit.

If we want future generations to understand and value wilderness, we have to show it to them in the places they live. The kid from brooklyn who owns the Bob deserves to see what he owns.

Part of ensuring a strong advocacy for public lands is making sure people know about them, can see them and understand why they are important. This rule makes that much more difficult.

Luckily, Congress killed the public lands filming act that was embedded in the Bipartisan Sportsman's Act earlier this year which would have helped this situation.

 

[RobG]

Part of ensuring a strong advocacy for public lands is making sure people know about them, can see them and understand why they are important. This rule makes that much more difficult.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not making an argument against commercial filming, but I'm banging my head against the wall here or living in an alternate universe or something. Isn't commercial filming already illegal? I don't understand the arguments acting like it's a new thing and the 1st amendment one is ridiculous since you can cover breaking news.

Luckily, Congress killed the public lands filming act that was embedded in the Bipartisan Sportsman's Act earlier this year which would have helped this situation.

I assume you are being sarcastic. I'd like to know more about this. I'd also like to see Randy's comments when he submits them and I would probably submit something similar.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Don't get me wrong - I'm not making an argument against commercial filming, but I'm banging my head against the wall here or living in an alternate universe or something. Isn't commercial filming already illegal? I don't understand the arguments acting like it's a new thing and the 1st amendment one is ridiculous since you can cover breaking news.


I assume you are being sarcastic. I'd like to know more about this. I'd also like to see Randy's comments when he submits them and I would probably submit something similar.

Yes & no. The prohibition on commercial filming in wilderness was to protect it from large productions that require dozens of people, craft services, etc.

The Wilderness Act itself is vague on this,IIRC, so it becomes more or less up to the discretion of the FS to decide either at the local level, regional level or with the Secretary of Ag if it would be allowed. Randy knows much more about this than I do.

& Yes, I was being facetious: http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/op...-died-and-why-hunters-and-anglers-share-blame

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/open-country/2014/06/call-action-help-bring-sportsmens-act-vote

 

[Oak]

Soo...It is better to ask forgiveness than permission?

I'm guessing you would have to pay for the permit plus the fine?

 

[RobG]

By the way, I came across this when a friend commented on the Montana Wilderness Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/wildmontana). This was one of the comments I found useful (emphasis mine):

Quoted from wilderness.net, the wilderness act states:

For this purpose there is hereby established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated by Congress as "wilderness areas", and these shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness;

there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area. Commercial services may be performed within the wilderness areas designated by this Act to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas.

The author also added:

There are other special provisions that are not pertinent to this article. It clearly states no commercial enterprise, however television crews shooting students working on a project doesn't fall into that category. Now if you were say shooting a sports video that you were planning to profit from or shooting photos your planning to sell that's a different story. But shooting for the enjoyment of yourself should not be a problem.

This is a tough one... the intent was to prohibit commercial use (with apparently some exceptions for existing use like outfitting), but filming seems pretty harmless.

[ps - I was typing when been and Oak posted]

 

[RobG]

Yes & no. The prohibition on commercial filming in wilderness was to protect it from large productions that require dozens of people, craft services, etc.

lol, I am reminded of the old days packing with dad and seeing huge mule trains bringing ice cream into their glamping clients .

 

[Big Fin]

I call BS on this quote by the USFS Wilderness Director.

Liz Close, the Forest Service's acting wilderness director, says the restrictions have been in place on a temporary basis for four years and are meant to preserve the untamed character of the country's wilderness.

Close didn't cite any real-life examples of why the policy is needed or what problems it's addressing. She didn't know whether any media outlets had applied for permits in the last four years.

She said the agency was implementing the Wilderness Act of 1964, which aims to protect wilderness areas from being exploited for commercial gain.

"It's not a problem, it's a responsibility," she said. "We have to follow the statutory requirements."

Evidently she doesn't know what other commercial activities are allowed there. Look at all the outfitting they allow in wilderness areas. Look at the tour guides, backpack outfitters. Some of the Wilderness areas even grandfathered grazing activities.

Ben has a point; a good point. I'll try to expand.

In a time when the public lands and their agencies need advocacy to help them with some serious looming political battles, this is not a good tact to take. This does nothing but make Wilderness Areas some intangible notion in the minds of many Americans. Photograpers, videographers, and others who write about the wonders of Wilderness Areas are the best ally these agencies have in showing the value of these areas; they help make these wild place more tangible in the minds of many voters.

Kick those folks to the curb and who is going to advocate for wild places? Not sure. Wilderness Areas will lose some of their biggest advocates. I don't see that as a positive. I see it as all negative.

As to Rob's question of the legality of filming in wilderness areas under present law, that is up to each Forest. In USFS Region One, based in Missoula, their current policy is that they will not allow it. Yet, I've been permitted for Wilderness Areas in NV and AZ.

Currently, there is no consistency with in the agencies. A BLM example of inconsistency. The pronghorn hunt in WY last week, I paid $416 for an application fee, $416 for a monitoring fee, and $500 ($250 per day) for two days of use. Total cost to film for two days is $1,332.

Yet, when I was in NV the prior month, the application and monitoring fee was $100. The five day permit fee was $750 ($150 per day). Total cost for five days was $850.

One of the BLM offices required a $3 million dollar insurance policy, which costs $1,500 per year. The other office allowed me to sign a waiver exempting the BLM from any liabilities and accepting liability for any costs our activities created. Go figure.

Maybe the USFS doesn't want people using Wilderness Areas. If so, just come out and say it. I don't think that is the case, but these kind of proposals make it possible to draw those conclusions. And these comments are from someone who has always been a big advocate of the value wild lands have for hunters.

 

[have gun will travel]

Why does everything have to be so complicated.

 

[DRAFTSTUD]

I don't want to see folks Glamping in the Wilderness, but I do think the Idea of someone shuting you down at their wim is where it gets iffy. John

 

[Ben Lamb]

Why does everything have to be so complicated.

Think of it as job security for bureaucrats.

 

[windymtnman]

Filming/Photography permits in Wilderness Areas

I think this is one of those mysterious things sent down from the know it all's in Washington. Once it is sent out to the USFS District Offices, what can they do but follow policy?
In my familiarity with most wilderness rules in place, they already limit environmental impacts on wilderness areas by banning motorized and even wheeled contraptions of any kind. How much damage is a film crew going to do, packing in their equipment via horses,mules or on foot? Certainly no more than the Outfittters. Heck, around here, the Outfitters don't do a very good job cleaning up their camps. Many stash their stoves, and misc. equipment they don't want to pack back out. So, they hide stuff. I find stoves, stovepipes, pick axes, toilet seats, fire grates, electric fence wire and general litter left behind.
A major concern I have, is that this is just another overreach by the Feds to control, control, control. If the "nature" of your filming doesn't sit right with someone in the USFS office, permit denied. What recourse do you have then? These folks often forget who works for who? Public servants? Really?
If a film or photography crew was known to be in a wilderness area, and did violate or harm the environment, the USFS still has the ability to follow up with them with enforcement action. A little publicity about levying a fine might be a deterrent for others to police themselves.

 

[RobG]

Evidently she doesn't know what other commercial activities are allowed there. Look at all the outfitting they allow in wilderness areas. Look at the tour guides, backpack outfitters. Some of the Wilderness areas even grandfathered grazing activities.

Not to mention some airstrips! (But many were closed down.) But these were existing uses and I assume necessary concessions to get the act passed. Nothing like crossing the wilderness line up West Boulder and entering cow-pie heaven.

I didn't know about the regional inconsistency.

 

[6speed]

"Your comment was submitted successfully"

Done

 

[JoseCuervo]

There are a couple of other ways to worry about this. One is from the air. Backcountry airstrips are kind of an obvious exception to the Wilderness Act. They are still allowed, but under pressure to be closed. But, photgraphy and video of the strips, the approaches, the runways is valuable and if for commercial gain, likely should be a permit to perform. And, you could fly a big crew in, if needed to "film".

Whitewater rafting (Middle Fork, Selway, Main Salmon, etc) also comes up in the discussion often. People like guide books, new rapids happen each year, information needs to be sent out. But, a guy stopping at every camp site on the Middle Fork to document, film, etc is going to cause an issue. It needs to be controlled, other users have a permit to be using the same resource, and the resource use needs to be regulated.

I think, a few years back, there was a Playboy shoot where they brought a bunch of hookers, errr..... models down the Middle Fork to shoot them frolicking in the hot springs...

Certainly no more than the Outfittters. Heck, around here, the Outfitters don't do a very good job cleaning up their camps. Many stash their stoves, and misc. equipment they don't want to pack back out. So, they hide stuff. I find stoves, stovepipes, pick axes, toilet seats, fire grates, electric fence wire and general litter left behind.
.

When you find outfitters leaving equipment behind, the best course of action is to make it unusable in future years. You can either pack it with you and add it to your camp supplies or just burn/ax/shoot so that they will get the message.

They generally don't leave it in following years.