$1500 fee for “commercial” use in USFS wilderness lands

Paul, i'm simply just trying to understand why you are criticizing and labeling chaff, and certain chaff posts as b.s. and making fun of them, while at the same time saying that some of the subjects are laudable, while around the same time saying that no one should question or care about anyone elses opinions after….

Seems there's some contradictions found in that combo. Some of those subjects you poo pooed on, i happen to feel are important, very important–a lot more than any gear post.

It's fine if you don't think so or only so if the people with the right opinions/perceptions are there, but i don't understand the putting down part and when someone addresses those less than constructive comments, you get more than a little defensive about it.

That's all, btw, this "argument" reminds me of a lot of ones with my wife. She will make an inflammatory remark, or do something that bothers me, and when i state my issue with it, it's "why are you trying to cause problems or start an argument."

Justin, please feel free to PM me as this discussion is not really constructive for a public discourse. :)

Here's the original document

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/09/04/2014-21093/proposed-directive-for-commercial-filming-in-wilderness-special-uses-administration

Looks like they are trying to clarify commercial photography and still photography.

At section 45.1c first para, USFS exempts "non-commercial" photography … but I can see why the newspapers jumped on this. What stories would trigger the need for a special permit? Reading further into it, can this apply to websites and bloggers? (If the answer is obvious, my mobile screen may be too small ). At best lacking details considering blogs and websites that did not exist decades ago.

I can see restricting the whole light rig operation needed for a commercial shoot but many want to preserve and even share the experience. Could be worded better.

@ Rodger: the USFS excepted journalists on "breaking news" according to news sources but what is breaking news? Most places do require permits to film, though some places like New Mexico give tax breaks, etc … with major films. Thought I'd put a plug in while I still can.

" the USFS excepted journalists on "breaking news" according to news sources but what is breaking news?"

It sounds like they really don't have their ducks in a row with this proposal and probably should have sat on it and spent more time refining it before letting the cat out of the bag. The tidbits I'm reading here and there sounds like a recipe for future adverse case law for the USFS.

As others have mentioned this is close to unenforceable but that isn't the point. The point is many law abiding citizens who don't have time to wade through the legalize will simply decide to play it safe and not do anything even remotely "commercial" with their photos.

The other concern is we'll have a law that is rarely enforced but CAN be. For example what if some local FS employee had it in for Ryan Jordan or Andrew Skurka? Could they us such a law to fine them or at least haul them into court and make their lives miserable for a couple months? What if a small advocacy group gets some footage together and publishes a documentary critical of the way the Forest Service manages them? Could the Forest Service fine them or harass them with "investigations?" Or what if a group actually tried to get a permit, would the FS deny it because it didn't like the message?

I may sound paranoid but check out a few legal blogs (or the news) for examples of laws being applied in silly ways. If it can be abused it probably will be at some point.

…

Seems like there's some misunderstandings…

From USFS statement:
"The proposal does not apply to news coverage, gathering information for a news program or documentary. However, if a project falls outside of that scope and the filming is intended to be on wilderness land, additional criteria are applied to protect wilderness values…The proposal does not change the rules for visitors or recreational photographers. Generally, professional and amateur photographers will not need a permit unless they use models, actors or props; work in areas where the public is generally not allowed; or cause additional administrative costs…Currently, commercial filming permit fees range around $30 per day for a group up to three people. A large Hollywood production with 70 or more people might be as much as $800. The $1,500 commercial permit fee cited in many publications is erroneous, and refers to a different proposed directive"

Not sure what the "different proposed directive" is but the one in question makes no mention of fee amounts and isn't really different than current BLM and USFS rules that already exist.

If it's spent on enforcing that film crews do things right and maintaining wilderness qualities, I'm in favor. In fact aside from fees I'd be in favor of even stricter filming regs for large productions in Wilderness. Aside from ruining your trip if you happen upon something like this, there's pretty serious potential impacts on fragile places when you get this number of people and a bunch of equipment and vehicles…

Colter, a poster here, has a story than he can share in detail.

But essentially a friend of his was fined $$$$.

Colter himself had to get a permit for his one-man, one-camera odyssey.

Still think there is misunderstanding? :)

Sounds more like the USFS is backpedaling in face of popular opposition and (who woulda thunk it???) congress critter opposition from both sides of the aisle.

Don't forget, press-releases is a nice way of saying "spin control".

I don't think it is any great conspiracy, but I think, as Ian said, the Feds did not get organized and stumbled quite a bit.

BTW, the USFS said THIS statement TODAY!

"The proposal does not apply to news coverage, gathering information for a news program or documentary. However, if a project falls outside of that scope and the filming is intended to be on wilderness land, additional criteria are applied to protect wilderness values. In that case, a permit must be applied for and granted before any photography is permitted”

What is "news gathering"? Slippery definitions allow too much wiggle room.

Those people in Brendan's photo are simply having a true wilderness experience.

–B.G.–

I linked to the Chaff thread as it is tradition to link to another thread that is discussing the same topic at the same time.

It was not an invitation to the dark side.

Though this resembles many a Chaff thread.

Haha, you do have a rather droll sense of humor at times Ken. Thank you for the laugh.

Paul, it's all good. Btw, you're one of the posters here who i enjoy reading when it comes to gear or hiking stuff. I appreciated you answering some of my questions awhile back about those Alpacore based socks you did a review on also.

I did a search and it looks like Outsideonline.com and Foxnews.com have picked up on this story along with more local news outlets.

A spokesperson for the FS says not to worry, well I'll stop worrying when I see the actual law.
Its one thing to say "Don't worry" its another to actually put those promises into the law.

Glacier National Park's Facebook page responded to someone linking an Esquire article on this issue. Everything below is theirs:

No, the article is bogus. The USFS is proposing to make official guidelines similar to what NPS has used for years. See Glacier's policy at this link. Commercial filming is for profit, models are paid (not your hiking partners), and sets and props refer to gear that the average visitor would not be allowed to haul in. http://www.nps.gov/glac/planyourvisit/upload/Commercial-Filming-and-Photography-Permit-Information-082012.pdf

The FS Chief clarified his position that it applied to hiring models and/or bringing a camera crew, and amateurs need not worry..

http://www.adventure-journal.com/2014/09/forest-service-clarifies-photo-permit-policy-says-media-and-amateurs-should-fear-not/

Still if it needs clarification ….

…

ongoing coverage…

http://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/?id=74538550-B944-4EB8-AD82-4C4ED6903ACF&download=1

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/09/ron_wyden_forest_service_shoul.html#incart_river

Wyden and Barrosso say: assurances don't count. change the wording in the proposed directive or withdraw it.