New Wilderness Filming Restrictions

[Oak]

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/09/forest_service_delaying_media.html

 

[1_pointer]

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



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.

Thanks for making folks aware of the differences between agencies and regions/localities within an agency. The USFS and BLM manage a whole lot of land in a whole lot of places. Often times on this very board, folks complain about blanket policy that doesn't apply in their situation/locale. The differences you raised show the result of that. The policy for filming is being handled on a USFS Forest Region or BLM district office level. While I do not agree with all of the rules/regs, I do think this is the better option than nationwide blanket policies. As this example shows, the laws such as the Wilderness Act sets the sideboards, it's the office/region level land use plans that set the details.

That said, I hope it brings further awareness to those on this board to read, review, and comment on land use plans as that is where the ability to do these types of activities is allowed and the regulations regarding them is set. I think your show and this site have done a great job of increasing the awareness of folks to public lands issues. I'm almost positive many have become more involved in the decision making process due to that. Kudos.

 

[Eric Albus]

Ben, finally something we can agree upon, with no concession from either side! Take away outdoor t.v. or wilderness documentaries and many people would never know what is out there to be seen, explored, and enjoyed. It is not like either one of the mentioned entities are making millions....now commercial use for a huge budget movie, that is a different thing.

...but alas, common sense in these United States is dead....were it not, nobody would have sanctioned Timber Wolf introduction, or be thinking of re-introduction of buffalo.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thanks for making folks aware of the differences between agencies and regions/localities within an agency. The USFS and BLM manage a whole lot of land in a whole lot of places. Often times on this very board, folks complain about blanket policy that doesn't apply in their situation/locale. The differences you raised show the result of that. The policy for filming is being handled on a USFS Forest Region or BLM district office level. While I do not agree with all of the rules/regs, I do think this is the better option than nationwide blanket policies. As this example shows, the laws such as the Wilderness Act sets the sideboards, it's the office/region level land use plans that set the details.

Having worked on a lot of public land legislation, I agree with a lot of this. However, a blanket prohibition for something as innocuous as filming is strange, considering the variety of activities allowed in Wilderness (Helo stocking of fish, etc). I get the case-by-case scenario, and appreciate that each landscape has unique needs, but this is an activity that has less impact than boating or motorized use, etc.

Seems like SNAFU and an overzealous regulator.

Eric - next time you're in Helena, let me know. Dinner's on me. We can talk about bison and wolves. We need to broaden your horizons.

 

[starvingoutdoorsman]

I talked with Randy and Tony Bynum on Facebook a while ago when I was caught up in this. I run a blog as a hobby. Not for commercial gain or anything. Small things have come up from it but overall I do it for fun and have never sought to gain from it. I invested a few grand into camera equipment just so I could create better content. All I have done for the most part are still photography. I have never made a dime off any photos ( I would like to, but I just have not pursued it). I agree with Randy. I feel they are going the wrong direction. I would gladly pay the $200 a year to film and photograph for crews under 5 that I think I originally read on POMA. I can not remember. Either way, sounds like someone is trying to overregulate to me. I think that something like this should be regulated, but what they are asking to me is ridiculous when I am one person taking photos of my own hunts and adventures and not a Hollywood production filming an action scene.

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.

 

[1_pointer]

Having worked on a lot of public land legislation, I agree with a lot of this. However, a blanket prohibition for something as innocuous as filming is strange, considering the variety of activities allowed in Wilderness (Helo stocking of fish, etc). I get the case-by-case scenario, and appreciate that each landscape has unique needs, but this is an activity that has less impact than boating or motorized use, etc.

Seems like SNAFU and an overzealous regulator.

Eric - next time you're in Helena, let me know. Dinner's on me. We can talk about bison and wolves. We need to broaden your horizons.

We are close to being on the same page. Remember how old some of these land use plans are. Many were written before too many folks were packing cameras into the backcountry. IMO, the bans were put in place to prevent large scale, Hollywood type productions. Times of changed and plans need to change.

I agree, blanket rules for the most part are a bad idea.