film permits on public land

[VikingsGuy]

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?

Depends on whether either the initial court or the appealate court choose to grant a stay pending appeal.

 

[Oak]

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.

This, for 65 days, costs less....



...than this for 5 days.

 

[VikingsGuy]

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

So? How does something by others done in a manner that you never see effect you? If you did it non-commercially but posted it on your social media account and was then seen by thousands should you have to go back and retroactively pay a fee?

 

[VikingsGuy]

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

Why is their intent relavent for the use of their own land (as public land owners)?

 

[SixPoint]

This, for 65 days, costs less....

View attachment 171851

...than this for 5 days.

View attachment 171850

It would be an interesting exercise to calculate which one creates more gross revenue for the permit holder. Pounds of lamb in 65 days vs a YouTube video with 1/2 million views. I could take a guess at the lamb value but I have no clue what an episode of Fresh Tracks is worth.

 

[Irrelevant]

So? How does something by others done in a manner that you never see effect you? If you did it non-commercially but posted it on your social media account and was then seen by thousands should you have to go back and retroactively pay a fee?

It affects me because of portion of the viewers will be inclined to go there. The more people in that space clearly impacts me, both my physical ability to, say shoot a deer, or simply the inability or reduced ability to find remoteness, wildness, and solitude.

There has to be someplace where we can escape the all mighty dollar. Where promotion and sales # don't matter. I can find what I'm looking for far easier in a clearcut alone than I can in the wilderness surrounded by people who saw that place on TV or social media or whatever.

I believe we are going in a direction where we will limit or prevent photos and videos from being taken in certain places. Now we are simply asking people to stop geotagging locations, but it will continue as crowding gets worse.

 

[Gerald Martin]

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

I know a Hunttalker who posted up a clip from his moose hunt that went viral and had over 80 million views a couple months ago. Non commercial.

Randy’s moose hunt videos have less than 250,000 views combined yet he had to have permit for every day he filmed.

Quantifying impact based on number of views is so subjective that in my opinion it isn’t a reliable way to gauge impact.

 

[mdhunter]

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.

I don't know...want to film a movie with props, production crew, big explosions, habitat destruction, whatever...I agree with you. That is a major impact on public lands.

Filming someone legally fly fishing or elk hunting, why should compensation be necessary? What is that person doing extra to the environment that you are not when you are hunting or fishing? I am sure you don't expect to pay "extra" while on the public lands.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I don't know...want to film a movie with props, production crew, big explosions, habitat destruction, whatever...I agree with you. That is a major impact on public lands.

Filming someone legally fly fishing or elk hunting, why should compensation be necessary? What is that person doing extra to the environment that you are not when you are hunting or fishing? I am sure you don't expect to pay "extra" while on the public lands.

Also if I want to write a story about an experience on public lands and sell it for $1,000,000.00 there is no permit required. I can document my hunt in still pics and profit from them with no permit required. I can paint a picture for profit, no permit required. Yet, if I want to monetize a video on YouTube and make pennies per thousand of views, I would have to pay @$150 per day, have a couple million dollar liability insurance policy and schedule for permits several weeks if not months in advance.

 

[Irrelevant]

Also if I want to write a story about an experience on public lands and sell it for $1,000,000.00 there is no permit required. I can document my hunt in still pics and profit from them with no permit required. I can paint a picture for profit, no permit required. Yet, if I want to monetize a video on YouTube and make pennies per thousand of views, I would have to pay @$150 per day, have a couple million dollar liability insurance policy and schedule for permits several weeks if not months in advance.

I don't disagree with unfairness, but if everything had to be perfectly "fair" then we'd never have any rules about anything.

 

[SixPoint]

I don't know...want to film a movie with props, production crew, big explosions, habitat destruction, whatever...I agree with you. That is a major impact on public lands.

Filming someone legally fly fishing or elk hunting, why should compensation be necessary? What is that person doing extra to the environment that you are not when you are hunting or fishing? I am sure you don't expect to pay "extra" while on the public lands.

Please see my previous post. It is not the act of filming that specific event, rather it is the repercussion of showing that location and activity to the masses, and it is when the masses show up that the impacts start to occur.

 

[BuglinDrew]

I have a commercial video production and photography business and have been fortunate to work primarily with outdoor-based brands, outfitters and lodges. I am not opposed to paying a fee when operating on public land, but I can say from experience that the system that was in place was absolutely cost-prohibitive.

I do most of my work on private land, but the few times I've commercially operated on USFS land, the permit costs made it to where it was almost not even worth taking on the project entirely. For example, I acquired a permit to film on USFS for two days with a fly fishing outfitter to the tune of $700, which ended up being nearly 50% of my gross revenue. $700 for me and two cameras that fit in a backpack to tag along on a float trip and film clients fly fishing. My feet hardly even touched the ground those two days.

Again, I am not at all opposed to paying some sort of fee for operating commercially on public lands. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, this permitting process was built with Hollywood-level productions in mind long before the camera technology that we have today ever existed. I've always thought it needed an overhaul, but I don't know how I feel about removing permitting processes entirely.

I think a reasonable annual fee from the USFS, BLM, NPS, etc. would be more than fair and much more tailored to low-impact independent operations. All that being said, I am having trouble finding more information on all of this (i.e. how will Hollywood-level productions be monitored?), so I will hold my other opinions until more information comes out.

 

[lastlight]

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.

When you use whataboutisms you have lost the argument. My enjoyment in the woods relies on a few simple things, legal activity, politeness from fellow hunters, and space. Film crews (can be just one dude with shoulder camera, or 5) impede on the reasons why I like to get away from the money driven society in the city. Hunting and the areas I hunt are sacred to me. Oh, I cannot help the fact that I’m a little hypocritical and watch nearly all the big name hunting shows. So I wouldn’t ban the activity if I was king, just require you pay more than just normal taxes to profit off of it. If I was getting free Nissan or Ford raptor trucks (and that’s only icing on the cake) like BigFin I wouldn’t have an issue with a permit fee. Feel free to correct that last statement if it’s not true.

 

[lastlight]

I have a commercial video production and photography business and have been fortunate to work primarily with outdoor-based brands, outfitters and lodges. I am not opposed to paying a fee when operating on public land, but I can say from experience that the system that was in place was absolutely cost-prohibitive.

I do most of my work on private land, but the few times I've commercially operated on USFS land, the permit costs made it to where it was almost not even worth taking on the project entirely. For example, I acquired a permit to film on USFS for two days with a fly fishing outfitter to the tune of $700, which ended up being nearly 50% of my gross revenue. $700 for me and two cameras that fit in a backpack to tag along on a float trip and film clients fly fishing. My feet hardly even touched the ground those two days.

Again, I am not at all opposed to paying some sort of fee for operating commercially on public lands. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, this permitting process was built with Hollywood-level productions in mind long before the camera technology that we have today ever existed. I've always thought it needed an overhaul, but I don't know how I feel about removing permitting processes entirely.

I think a reasonable annual fee from the USFS, BLM, NPS, etc. would be more than fair and much more tailored to low-impact independent operations. All that being said, I am having trouble finding more information on all of this (i.e. how will Hollywood-level productions be monitored?), so I will hold my other opinions until more information comes out.

That barrier to entry keeps the masses out of the already loving it to death resource, so I’m all for it.

 

[VikingsGuy]

It affects me because of portion of the viewers will be inclined to go there. The more people in that space clearly impacts me, both my physical ability to, say shoot a deer, or simply the inability or reduced ability to find remoteness, wildness, and solitude.

There has to be someplace where we can escape the all mighty dollar. Where promotion and sales # don't matter. I can find what I'm looking for far easier in a clearcut alone than I can in the wilderness surrounded by people who saw that place on TV or social media or whatever.

I believe we are going in a direction where we will limit or prevent photos and videos from being taken in certain places. Now we are simply asking people to stop geotagging locations, but it will continue as crowding gets worse.

Underlying this is not that there is someplace "we" can escape - but that you and a few special people in the know can escape. I find this (not you personally, but the concept) the single thing I hate most about a big part of the public lands crowd. This veiled (and sometime not) view that these lands are public, but shouldn't be too public. We are all owners, but only a few of us are worthy of deciding the rules of this ownership. That we need more people to support public land preservation and funding at the ballot box and with their wallets, but we don't actually want more people using the land.

It's either the people's land or it isn't. Of course the paradox of the commons must be managed, and rules and boundaries must be in place to preserve the lands for the whole, but they should not be designed to advantage a small group of incumbents. Frankly if a vblogger's 1 day use of a park generates interest, joy, relief (and builds support) for 100,000 viewers, that vblogger's use had much more social utility than one lone non-vlogging hiker.

Kudos to BigFin (and others like him and on this HT platform) for actually making OUR land more accessible to US.

 

[BuglinDrew]

That barrier to entry keeps the masses out of the already loving it to death resource, so I’m all for it.

No it doesn't. It just keeps people like me trying to do things by the books from making a living. It certainly doesn't prevent the outfitter I filmed for from operating daily float trips throughout the season, it just prevents me from being there with a camera.

I believe Randy has already mentioned in this thread that YouTubers, influencers, whatever term you want to use have been violating permit requirements for years, the only thing that's changed is now they don't have to worry about getting caught.

You may have noticed a lot of public lands have been being loved to death for years while the permit requirements were in place. In my opinion, that is not going to change much with or without permit requirements.

 

[VikingsGuy]

When you use whataboutisms you have lost the argument. My enjoyment in the woods relies on a few simple things, legal activity, politeness from fellow hunters, and space. Film crews (can be just one dude with shoulder camera, or 5) impede on the reasons why I like to get away from the money driven society in the city. Hunting and the areas I hunt are sacred to me. Oh, I cannot help the fact that I’m a little hypocritical and watch nearly all the big name hunting shows. So I wouldn’t ban the activity if I was king, just require you pay more than just normal taxes to profit off of it. If I was getting free Nissan or Ford raptor trucks (and that’s only icing on the cake) like BigFin I wouldn’t have an issue with a permit fee. Feel free to correct that last statement if it’s not true.

First of all, I was asking for the advocated logic to be applied to parellel situations, that is not "whataboutism".

As for the rest of this, it is the very "I," "me," "my," orientation that I disagree with. You have a personal preference and then expect all other 325 million "co-owners" to accomodate that. It shouldn't be semi-private land held by all for the benefit of a few in the know.

 

[Irrelevant]

Underlying this not that there is someplace "we" can escape - but that you and a few special people in the know can escape. I find this (not you personally, but the concept) the single thing I hate most about a big part of the public lands crowd. This veiled (and sometime not) view that these lands are public, but shouldn't be too public. We are all owners, but only a few of us are worth of deciding the rules of this ownership. That we need more people to support public land preservation and funding at the ballot box and with their wallets, but we don't actually want more people using the land.

It's either the people's land or it isn't. Of course the paradox of the commons must be managed, and rules and boundaries must be in place to preserve the lands for the whole, but they should not be designed to advantage a small group of incumbents. Frankly if a vblogger's 1 day use of a park generates interest, joy, relief (and builds support) for 100,000 viewers, that vblogger's use had much more social utility than one lone non-vlogging hiker.

Kudos to BigFin (and others like him and on this HT platform) for actually making OUR land more accessible to US.

Sure, I can see that, totally selfish and elitist even. But by the very definition of the topic the action in question is not for posterities sake but to turn a profit. Sure someone making money relatively unknowingly off YT because they're video went viral or bigfin because he personally doesn't make any money off his video certainly are in a greyer space. But I cannot support the idea of profit being made off my public lands for free.

BTW, I know you know this, but the tragedy of the commons is not metaphorical. It actually happens.

 

[mdhunter]

Please see my previous post. It is not the act of filming that specific event, rather it is the repercussion of showing that location and activity to the masses, and it is when the masses show up that the impacts start to occur.

Public means public to me. Just like the public beach I live near. Public for all (regardless of how you find it).

If the number of visitors needs to be controlled that's understandable...and a whole different argument imho.

 

[Irrelevant]

Kudos to BigFin (and others like him and on this HT platform) for actually making OUR land more accessible to US.

I don't think I agree with that wording. They are advertising activities on our public lands, similar to the chamber of commerce, but they're aren't actually making anything more accessible.