filming ?

[duckhunt]

Ive noticed bigfin has mentioned that he needs a filming permit in certain areas for his show. Is that only if it will be used for tv or are permits required for filming personal hunts also?

 

[devon deer]

That's a coincidence, i asked Big Fin the same question, he stated that if it is for a non commercial video then a permit is not required, i was asking in relation to Montana.
Cheers
Richard

 

[duckhunt]

Thanks devon deer. Thats what I thought but figured I better ask.

 

[Gerald Martin]

It's a rule on US Forest Service land and Bureau of Land Management lands that video for commercial usage needs a filming permit. No permit required for personal use or free sharing. Not necessarily state specific, I think it applies pretty much in all the states.

 

[Big Fin]

It's a rule on US Forest Service land and Bureau of Land Management lands that video for commercial usage needs a filming permit. No permit required for personal use or free sharing. Not necessarily state specific, I think it applies pretty much in all the states.

Correct. The distinction between personal (no permit required) and commercial (permit required) use is as follows:

Footage used for sale, generation of profit, use in marketing, advertising, promotion, or otherwise used in a trade of business activity, whether compensated by financial means or bartered product/services is considered commercial use.

When you think about that, it is a pretty wide net.

 

[ashersdad]

That is a pretty wide net. Thanks for the info Randy.

 

[Montanakid]

How much does a filming permit cost?

 

[Big Fin]

How much does a filming permit cost?

Depends on the agency.

There is an application fee of $100-$250 as a flat fee just to apply. The daily use rate is from $150-200 per day. If you do the math, I apply for 12 permits each year and I get permitted for 80 filming days per year, this costs me $15K-18K per year in these film permit fees.

 

[Gerald Martin]

How much does a filming permit cost?

Don't ask.... it's depressing. I think it varies, but when I checked into it it was @ $150 per day. Yes, I wrote that right. And, you had to pick your days before you could apply.

 

[Montanakid]

Jeez! That is a little depressing, thanks for the info though!

 

[mtmiller]

What are the opinions of whether there should be a charge for commercial filming on public lands? Impacts issue, commercial issue, other?????

 

[Gerald Martin]

What are the opinions of whether there should be a charge for commercial filming on public lands? Impacts issue, commercial issue, other?????

I think the charge for commercial filming is way out of hand. There is very little impact to be mitigated and the ratio of charge/potential rate of return is way out of whack. Because of high prices a VAST majority of small filmmakers are faced with the choice of not selling any video, filming illegally, or going bankrupt.


If the USFS would issue a yearlong, blanket permit for a reasonable price of say $250 as proposed in a recent bill, there would be much higher compliance and I think a bigger return to the Forest Service.

I'd be happy to pay a couple hundred dollars for permits to have the opportunity to sell and use my footage and make several dollars.

Commercial use is commercial use and needs to be permitted. But I don't pay an exorbitant fee for firewood permits, or berry picking permits.

 

[mtmiller]

How would you compare it to outfitted hunting, fishing or trail riding on public lands?

BTW, I don't disagree with you about the current fees. I don't know if "much higher compliance" would be true.

I don't know what you pay for firewood or berry permits, but correct me if I am wrong, those are for personal use and not commercial.

EDIT, it does look like there are opps for commercial permits for firewood, but at a different cost than personal use.

 

[Big Fin]

What are the opinions of whether there should be a charge for commercial filming on public lands? Impacts issue, commercial issue, other?????

Surely there should be a fee. We are using a public resource.

For those wonder about this, understand that the challenge isn't the fact that I have to pay a fee, rather the complexity and logistics of getting a permit. Here is my experience, going into year eight of this operation.

BLM is easiest to work with, as they are not being as starved by wildfire costs as is the Forest Service. And, most all of the BLM Districts use the same form and have very similar rules. Plus, the BLM folks do a ton of permitting experience with all they do for grazing leases, O&G, etc.

Sometimes we are asked to provide a bond for $3MM of liability, sometimes $1MM, sometimes no bond is required. Same bonding/insurance inconsistency with the USFS. BLM fee increases significantly as you increase the size of the area you want permitted in, the USFS does not, so long as you stay within the same Forest boundary.

The Forest Service is a bit hit or miss, depending upon a lot of factors. Each Forest uses a different application form and each has a different process. You have to fill out a different form, attach different items, and work through a much different process. The fee is very similar to the BLM. There are some great permit officers in the USFS and some who should probably find a job they like more. The Gallatin NF is an example of a superb permit group, as are the Coconino and Kaibiab NF in AZ and the Toiyabe-Humbolt Forest in NV.

The Forest Service has so much resource diverted to wildfire, it's crazy. Congress has this screwy way of appropriating a budget, but when we have a big wildlife year like this year, 40-50% of the appropriation gets moved over to wildfire with no replacement to the other parts of the USFS operations. Not sure why FEMA is allowed to fund costs for tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, etc., but when it comes to large wildlfires, Congress forces the USFS to take that out of their operating budget.

Here is an example. The fire season of 2015 got smoking hot in the NW states by early July. resulting in many spare bodies being sent to OR, ID, WA, and MT for fire detail. Makes sense.

I had a Utah mule deer tag. I kept calling and calling and calling, but was told the permit officer was out on a fire. Finally, just before the trip, he had a day off the fire and called me to let me know he had my messages and apologized that he has been on fire duty for the last month. He further apologized that he would be on fire duty for another month and there was nobody on their forest who is able to cover for him when he is on fire duty. Not his fault. When he is told to head to Oregon for a fire, he can hardly tell his boss he isn't going because of the film permits he has to get done. Seems we could find a better way for permitting than to be dependent upon a guy who is working fires a thousand miles from his home base.

And Congress loves to starve the agency. Almost all Forests are now consolidated. In my back yard, what was the Gallatin NF is now the Custer-Gallatin NF. Where I am working on a permit in WY, what was the Medicine Bow NF is now the Medicine Bow-Routt NF and Thunder Basin Grasslands. Consolidation saves money, which is good, but Congress is intentionally forcing the USFS to spend their money on other aspects, mostly wildfire, then hammer the Chief when some of the other tasks are not getting done.

When all of this consolidation happens, the permit officer who at one time covered "X" million acres is now responsibility for permits on three or four times that amount of acres due to attrition within the agency that comes with budget cuts, retirements, transfers, etc. With all the Federal rules and regulations that Congress requires, even for me and a camera guy to get a film permit, it is not practical to expect one person to cover that large of an area when they have a lot higher priority permit issues than just film permits; grazing, burning, events, firewood, timber, etc.

In my business, this "starve the agency" idea shows up when I have seven film permits in process. The Utah hunt is down the tubes and since it was too late to return the tag and ask for my five points to be reinstated. I have two others that have called me and told me the permits will be ready before we start filming. I am getting a bit nervous about the four other permits I have out there. Will they show up in time? If not, I'm not sure what I will do.

This results in frustration, but I'm not going to take it out on the agencies. Congress could fix everyone of these issues. In fact, the last three Congresses had bills to do just that, but due to partisan bickering, the bills that had these changes attached to them got killed. A big part of that is Congress not wanting to fix the problems, rather wanting to continue the gridlock and frustration so to fulfill their prophecy of ineptitude on behalf of the agencies. Progress and change would take away one of their whipping boys, the USFS and the BLM.

So, in the public land permit process, what do we do if we cannot get permits?

Do we just go and film and say, "Screw it?" That is what most TV producers do.

Do I just send them the money and a fee and say, "I'll be at No Tell'em Range from xx/xx/2015 to xx/yy/2015 and here is your fee. Call me with questions."

Do I stop doing a show that promotes the values/opportunities that exists on public lands?

Do we find a simpler way for agencies to handle permits for low impact operations, as has been proposed in legislation, where a crew of less than five people can buy an annual license for all Federal lands, alleviating the headache for the agencies, increasing compliance, and probably resulting in more revenue for the agencies? So long as Congress is as inept as they are and wants to use every public issue as a game of political football, I hold out little hope for this common sense solution that has been unable to find a way through Congress.

Look at how many public land images, video, promo clips, TV shows, etc you see that are being used by businesses for their marketing and advertising. In reality, if you submit a video clip to a website/TV show and you get paid a backpack or something, technically, either the producer or the website is supposed to get a public land film permit in order to use that for commercial activities.

Last year, a guy who is trying to build web-based show came into my camp. I asked him how he got the permit to land/camp where he did, as I get a list of all other permitees that I might conflict with or who might conflict with me. I had been denied that location in the past when applying for my permit. He told me this was a personal hunt and he wasn't filming this one. I doubted what he said. Sure enough I see him promoting the hunt on his website, filmed, etc. He saved $2,000 over what I paid to get permitted. I agreed to follow a lot of restrictions he did not have to agree to.

I wish I could say that is an isolated exampled. How many TV shows do you see filmed in the Wilderness Areas of WY and CO? Lots. I drew a tag for the Maroon Bells Wilderness Area of Colorado. I was denied a permit to film, because it was a Wilderness Area. OK, stupid me for not checking in advance. The next two seasons I see archery mule deer hunts aired on TV for the same exact area. Hmmm.

One TV show has a ton of hunts in Wilderness Area hunts in NW Wyoming. When a friend drew a sheep tag and I called and asked about permits for the same unit where this other show has filmed many episode. I was denied, as it was Wilderness Area.

The NRA production team called me when they were denied a permit for the Thoroughfare area of NW WY, due to the Wilderness rules. I explained how it worked. They asked, "How do all these other shows get to film in the Thoroughfare, Region H, and other Wilderness Areas?"

My answer; "They operate that forgiveness is easier than permission." To their credit, the NRA group did cancel the hunt.

I've been permitted in every Rocky Mountain State, and many in Alaska. I've been permitted by the BLM, the USFS, and the USFWS. I have a damn good feel of where you can and where you cannot get a permit. When I see many other shows in areas where I have been denied, either after I had a tag or inquiring prior to applying for a tag, it gets rather frustrating. And it is not just TV show, but the increasing amount of web content is even worse when it comes to compliance.

Point of all that is to show how low compliance is. When compliance is low, the frustration by those who do comply is even higher. If I was the BLM or the USFS, I would go to the TV network and I would tell them that every episode that is on public land must be submitted with proof of a film permit from the agency. It is the network who is using this footage in the final commercial application, so it is not out of line to hold them accountable for proper permits by the folks producing content for them. Then, you would see much higher compliance.

Sorry for the long answer, but thought I would try to provide a lot of info in one post.

 

[sneakypete]

Great info you put out there Randy, it shows us the back stage if you will of what you have to go thru to put on your show. It's not as easy as having a 5 day plan where you're going to start your hunt! Again thanks Randy!

 

[Gerald Martin]

Point of all that is to show how low compliance is. When compliance is low, the frustration by those who do comply is even higher.

^^^^^^^ This. You comply by jumping through their hoops and staying legal, at great cost and frustration. My "business" model can't sustain that financial burden nor level of frustration. I keep my videos for personal use or free sharing.

Both of us and lots of other videographers would be much better served by a streamlined permitting process that keeps costs reasonable.

 

[Gerald Martin]

How would you compare it to outfitted hunting, fishing or trail riding on public lands?

BTW, I don't disagree with you about the current fees. I don't know if "much higher compliance" would be true.

I don't know what you pay for firewood or berry permits, but correct me if I am wrong, those are for personal use and not commercial.

EDIT, it does look like there are opps for commercial permits for firewood, but at a different cost than personal use.

Craig, the comparison to outfitted hunting etc. is an apples/orange comparison to me. The impact on resources of filming is small in comparison to the consumptive impact of the other activities.

I already have the permits and licenses to partake in a consumptive activity (hunting license, taxes, vehicle fees, etc.) It's only the unreasonable cost of filming permits that galls me.

I don't know about the cost of commercial firewood permits, but commercial berry picking and mushroom picking permits were in the range of $75 per year when I last checked. That seems to be more balanced to the ratio of cost/return than filming permits.

 

[mtmiller]

Craig, the comparison to outfitted hunting etc. is an apples/orange comparison to me.

I already have the permits and licenses to partake in a consumptive activity (hunting license, taxes, vehicle fees, etc.) It's only the unreasonable cost of filming permits that galls me.

Vehicle fees, taxes and hunting licenses compared to commercial filming on public lands. This will be my apples and oranges.

I do agree with your wish for a more streamline permit process. Never been much of an issue in my office other than an occasional request, let's say from an individual working with a gov sheep tag holder a week in advance.

I also hear Randy loud and clear on resource specialists spending much of their time as overhead for fire assignments. Stressful internally as well as externally.

In closing, sounds like we are pretty much all on the same page. Resolve inefficiencies in the processing and strive for consistency between agencies, offices and commercial use rates based on impacts of time involved.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Vehicle fees, taxes and hunting licenses compared to commercial filming on public lands. This will be my apples and oranges.

My point in using that for my example might not have come through. I was meaning that the aspects of my time in the field that are most consumptive and leave the biggest footprint are already covered by my hunting license and other fees. I'm permitted for the deer I kill with my license. The impacts of vehicular travel is mitigated by user fees, taxes, etc. I'm already in the field, making the impact and it is legal to do so. Documenting that activity adds very little impact to the environment. Yet,the moment I seek to profit from video documentation of my time afield, I operate outside of the law unless I have a permit.

It is only commercial video documentation that is regulated. I can take the same camera that I shoot 24 or 30 frames per second with in video mode and shoot still photos at 16 frames per second in burst mode. I can sell anyone of those images taken in burst mode for any amount of money without a permit and be legal. If I flip the switch to video and sell any of that footage without permits for any amount of money, I am subject to fines and penalties.

Commercial filming laws seem arbitrary and outdated to me. I have NO PROBLEM paying a fee for commercial permits. It's just that the cost of those permits and the current permitting process is restrictive to the point that for most people, the cost of being legal is beyond their reach. The end result is many choose to take the path of "paying the fine is cheaper than being legal"

It doesn't have to be that way. I don't know whether this can be handled internally within the government agencies that make the rules, or whether it has to be legislated through Congressional action but I do know that anyone with some common sense can see there need to be adjustments made.

 

[devon deer]

As an 'outsider' this has never made sense to me, charging filmmakers to promote a State.
Without the filming that is currently carried out, would i have visited America? Possibly not, or at least not favored Montana over any other state, initially A river runs through it' latterly Randys filming.
I can understand making a profit out of a public asset does upset some.
However, this is ass about face to me, the public bodies should be employing a select few (by license) to film their activities (not just hunting and fishing) to promote the State, whilst the company could still promote their sponsors.
Then any film that pops up on Youtube etc without a license as an approved filmmaker for that state could be prosecuted, i doubt any large company would sponsor an unlicensed filmmaker would they?
Filmmakers are an undervalued asset in promoting the great outdoors in my opinion, if you don't think i should poke my nose in you are welcome to tell me to bugger off!
Cheers
Richard