film permits on public land

[VikingsGuy]

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.

In my definition of accessible, being given knowledge of the potential activities, techniques, gear, regulations, and seeing the passion and success of others that are “like me” all make the opportunity both more approachable and more accessible to many. Plus BigFin, and folks like Ben Lamb and BuzzH, have done a lot to make sure public lands (and public land hunting) are in fact accessible to the average Joe/Jill.

 

[Irrelevant]

In my definition of accessible, being given knowledge of the potential activities, techniques, gear, regulations, and seeing the passion and success of others that are “like me” all make the opportunity both more approachable and more accessible to many. Plus BigFin, and folks like Ben Lamb and BuzzH, have done a lot to make sure public lands (and public land hunting) are in fact accessible to the average Joe/Jill.

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't there a difference between the actual actions with regard to our public lands of those wonderful advocates including and especially big fin, and filming a for profit video on those same lands?

 

[VikingsGuy]

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't there a difference between the actual actions with regard to our public lands of those wonderful advocates including and especially big fin, and filming a for profit video on those same lands?

BigFin’s videos (mostly filmed on public land) are the foundation of this HT platform and I hope he is making a profit, so where is the difference?

If the difference is we like BF or we like his approach or we like his message, etc then you are making different rules based on content and this is exactly what the 1A prevents the government from doing.

 

[Irrelevant]

BigFin’s videos (mostly filmed on public land) are the foundation of this HT platform and I hope he is making a profit, so where is the difference?

Where is Buzz making money on public land videos? I was mostly alluding to things BF has done beyond HT, though I see I line between his operation of this forum from which large amount of public land advocacy emanates and is distributed and his hunting show. You clearly do not see that same line.

Trying to push my thinking harder, as you prod it, it's more fundamental than specific. If you are making money off of my federal land then I expect you to pay for that. I'll admit that not everyone who is turning a profit is paying, but that doesn't negate my position.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Where is Buzz making money on public land videos? I was mostly alluding to things BF has done beyond HT, though I see I line between his operation of this forum from which large amount of public land advocacy emanates and is distributed and his hunting show. You clearly do not see that same line.

Trying to push my thinking harder, as you prod it, it's more fundamental than specific. If you are making money off of my federal land then I expect you to pay for that. I'll admit that not everyone who is turning a profit is paying, but that doesn't negate my position.

My focus was on BF but wanted to call out others who do good work too, that muddle the point - my bad (but Buzz was in at least one of the videos).

As for paying for profit, that’s what taxes are for. If you profit by driving on public roads, by employing people educated in public schools, enjoy public fire dept coverage with public fire trucks, etc that gets taken care of in taxes

As for someone paying for “your federal
lands”, don’t forget they are using”their federal lands”. You don’t have some preeminent right over them - hence my original objection to your line of reasoning.

 

[Irrelevant]

My focus was on BF but wanted to call out others who do good work too, that muddle the point - my bad (but Buzz was in at least one of the videos).

As for paying for profit, that’s what taxes are for. If you profit by driving on public roads, by employing people educated in public schools, enjoy public fire dept coverage with public fire trucks, etc that gets taken care of in taxes

As for someone paying for “your federal
lands”, don’t forget they are using”their federal lands”. You don’t have some preeminent right over them - hence my original objection to your line of reasoning.

Then why should the logger pay anything to extract logs? They are merely profiting from their public lands? It can't simply be because in his case the taking is of something physical? Because we have plenty of products where fees are collected that are digital or intellectual. I mean, if Hollywood took over a valley in Yosemite for the latest greatest blockbuster would they not have to pay some fee? I recognize that photographers do not have to pay to take, then sell, photos from our public lands (at least that's my understanding). But I don't see that as reason why filming should not have to pay but instead that they too should have to pay.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Then why should the logger pay anything to extract logs? They are merely profiting from their public lands? It can't simply be because in his case the taking is of something physical? Because we have plenty of products where fees are collected that are digital or intellectual. I mean, if Hollywood took over a valley in Yosemite for the latest greatest blockbuster would they not have to pay some fee? I recognize that photographers do not have to pay to take, then sell, photos from our public lands (at least that's my understanding). But I don't see that as reason why filming should not have to pay but instead that they too should have to pay.

A logger reduces the trees left for all other owners, so yes resource depletion is a distinction. And if a full on Hollywood set would take over a valley for a summer, then paying for that period of exclusive use should probably pay. But one guy doing a video of himself and a second guy doing a video to post on YouTube should be treated the same as they have the same consumption of resources and have the same impact on the use by other public owners.

 

[VikingsGuy]

As our 2 man back and forth is now longer than the famous Lincoln-Douglas presidential debates, I am tapping out. Our respective positions have been made clear and we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Gerald Martin]

There seems to be some misconceptions about the financial value of appearing as a guest hunter on Randy’s show.

Having been a guest hunter on multiple occasions and having filmed parts of those shows as a non-employee of his company, and guessing that my experience is the norm of his other friends and invitees, I can lay some of that speculation to rest.

If you take whatever dollar figures come to your mind and multiply it by zero you will have an accurate sum of what BuzzH or anyone else makes from appearing as a guest.

The reward is adventure and great fellowship with some really great people.

edit- Thinking this through, I misspoke. I was not the rifle trigger puller, but was running camera and supporting my kids, Cushman, and others. I don’t want to mislead anyone. I guess all that fame made me misremember specifics.

 

[SaskHunter]

There seems to be some misconceptions about the financial value of appearing as a guest hunter on Randy’s show.

I mean, I'd pay to be a guest on his show!

Edit: I'll even volunteer to hold the camera and produce shaky footage!!! Big Fin, I can also pay in Maple Syrup!!!

 

[BWALKER77]

But is it non-destructive/extractive?

Exactly.

 

[diyhunter2017]

Yup. When that came out on Friday, our entire white board got reshuffled this weekend. Opens up so many options that we did not have in the past. We will still operate in the same manner, try to promote responsible public land use, provide videos for the agencies when helpful, follow the No Trace principles, and the things we've always done.

It might be appealed and overturned, but I've shared it with some attorneys and they were surprised to learn how restrictive film permit rules were in light of "expressive content" being protected under 1A. Not sure if it will be appealed. I suspect what will happen is that regulations will be adopted to all users, commercial and otherwise, to protect the resource.

The question I've been asked is whether or not I intend to request a refund of my film permit fees that range from $15K-25K for each of the last 13 seasons.

For some, this is no big deal, as they did not follow film permit rules to start with. So, they continue to operate as they always have. For us, we now have a lot of areas that were previously off limits due to film permit restrictions and it provides a huge amount of flexibility for us to move around the landscape to wherever the animals area, rather than be limited to whatever areas we put on our film permit application four months prior.

Will this apply to wilderness areas as well? I can’t find where the exact difference is between a public unit let’s say like 36 in wyoming versus thorafor wilderness?

 

[geetar]

This is a positive in a world that seems to be growing in restrictions. I like it.

 

[blb078]

I think the ruling is good. Also think it's just a matter of time now before someone challenges the FAA ruling on using drones to film for commercial use because you can definitely draw some parallels between the two. The problem with this rule/regulation to begin with is that if I take a go pro slap it on my head and start filming, post the video up on youtube and have it monetized, then I need a permit. Do that same thing post it up on youtube and not have it monetized or don't even post it up at all and just show it off to family friends then I don't need a permit. I get needing a permit for big budget movies where they shut down sections of the park that people can use then yea they probably need to pay a fee for that.

It applies to a lot of areas too. National Park Service, BLM, US Fish & Wildlife Services, and probably a few others I'm leaving out. And it's not just parks like what we would think of for outdoor recreation. The National Mall is ran by the National Park Service.

 

[TheTone]

Randy,

I saw someone that you share a few sponsors with post about this today and how happy he is to see the permit requirements dropped. Basically admitted he hasn’t been getting them, but he has certainly been profiting off his hunting films for years. How does this stuff pass muster with sponsors? Do they just choose to look the other way?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Middle ground?

Film permits for 1-6 people for 7 days or less are shall grant, available via the USFS website, and have a fixed price, $20 a day?

Permits for more than 6 people or greater than 7 days are may grant and have a different price structure.

Also I wonder if I’m the last 70 years if Warren Miller or any ski/snowboard/bike etc company has ever paid for a permit. It’s pretty crazy that I’ve watched probably over a hundred of these films, have had maybe a dozen or so friends involved in the industry... and yet the first time I heard about a permit for filming on public lands was when a CPA started talking about self filming his hunts.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Like NBC is definitely paying for a film permit for this right?

 

[Big Fin]

Randy,

I saw someone that you share a few sponsors with post about this today and how happy he is to see the permit requirements dropped. Basically admitted he hasn’t been getting them, but he has certainly been profiting off his hunting films for years. How does this stuff pass muster with sponsors? Do they just choose to look the other way?

I don't know how sponsors handle that. I suspect it is pretty low down the list of concerns, based on the fact that I have never had one of them ask me about it.

How about networks? They are the final monetization and they have no interest in worrying about film permits. I have often told agencies that if they want to raise the compliance rate on public land film permits they should watch outdoor TV and know that the majority of content filmed on public land would be a likely be a non-compliant. If the agencies put the pressure on the networks to have evidence of film permits on any content they air that comes from public lands, you would see a huge increase in compliance.

For me, it's been a costs (and headache) of doing business since the beginning. I am happy to pay a fee for the use of the land. I do wish it was more reflective of the impact we impose compared to the impacts other public land operations impose; grazing, timber, mining, oil & gas, etc.

And I wish the regulations were consistent and enforced across all. The number of YouTube channels that do off-road content, adventure content, backcountry content, etc. is way higher than hunting content. We get served hunting content on YouTube due to the algorithm. If you did not have that being served to you and you did the search yourself, you would be blown away by the other filmed activities, almost none of which are getting film permits.

As an example, The Hunt Public crew called me on Saturday about film permits. They have a film permit officer who is not going to give them a film permit for what are obviously arbitrary reasons. It will be one hunter and one camera, turkey hunting. Yet, they are as aware as I am how few others in our industry comply. Laws or regulations not enforced, or enforced with arbitrary randomness, are almost worse than no law/regulation at all.

Me and my attorneys are figuring out how we are going to handle film permits with these changes. I want to continue paying a fee, though the case says that is not allowed. No matter what we decide, I will continue to operate with respect for the land, respect for other public land users, and promoting No Trace principles.

I sent that case to all the agencies I work with, the day the decision was issued. Most have told me they don't think it applies to them, only to the NPS, and they intend to continue as they have. I suspect that is going to result in more cases, which should result in more clarification. And hopefully more consistency in application.

 

[TheTone]

Are you okay sharing sponsors with people that admittedly haven’t bought film permits for years and are raking in a bunch of money from sponsors from there content? Why not bring that up to them? I get that the permit system wasn’t great or perfect but people just openly disobeying it because they don’t like or believe in it is a crummy way to do business.

 

[Big Fin]

Also I wonder if I’m the last 70 years if Warren Miller or any ski/snowboard/bike etc company has ever paid for a permit. It’s pretty crazy that I’ve watched probably over a hundred of these films, have had maybe a dozen or so friends involved in the industry... and yet the first time I heard about a permit for filming on public lands was when a CPA started talking about self filming his hunts.

I don't know about Warren Miller, but the skiing industry is huge and compliance from those I have talked to about film permits is close to zero. The same for the off-road people, adventure activities, mountain biking, etc. I've inquired to some of the larger producers when I encountered a few complications of film permits. Maybe my inquiries are not reflective of compliance among those groups and it is possible that compliance is high.

Yet, seeing where they are filming, the impacts they are creating on land, the size of their operations, I know I would never get permitted for such. So, I suspect they follow the "forgiveness is easier than permission" principle.

I watch some mountain bike content on public lands (sorry to pick on them) where they are having some big impacts on trails and other users. And I get a warning from an agency that went and inspected my camp site (we have to give maps of camp sites) and they found that we cut three limbs (all less than half-inch caliper) off a green alder tree to make room for a tent. Such randomness and inconsistency across those getting permits and those ignoring the rules is hardly beneficial to the entire idea of film permitting.