New Forest Service Rules

[rickb]

Question:

For those with objections to the proposed new riles for Wilderness Areas, would you be OK if the laws that have been in place for many years (decades?) at the National Parks were extended to them?

Here is a link detailing who needs a permit at Yellowstone:

http://www.nps.gov/yell/parkmgmt/filmpermit.htm

And excerpted below:

Filming in Yellowstone

Who Needs a Permit?

Commercial/ student/ non-profit/ documentary/ promotional/ educational films or entertainment broadcasts
Any person filming stock footage or for the potential use of stock footage REGARDLESS OF EQUIPMENT
Still photography using models (anybody intentionally posing for the camera), sets or props
Time-lapse photography if outcome of photographs will be used in a motion picture format
Sound recording projects that require more than handheld equipment, more than one person or NPS oversight
Wedding/ portrait photography if final product will be used for advertisement of any kind



Permit Types and Fees


The application fee covers up to three hours of administrative time involved in such things as phone calls, correspondence, application review, project consultation, scheduling park staff, issuing a filming permit (when appropriate), and providing follow-up and billing. Administrative time over three hours will be billed at a rate of $65/hour.


Production FILM permit: $200
(valid for a single production/project)


Student FILM or PHOTOGRAPHY Permit*: $150
(valid for a single production OR annual stock permit only for students with proof of current enrollment of an accredited school)


Stock FILM footage (Annual Permit): $200
(valid for a crew of 2 with minimal equipment for 12 months. Note: this permit is subject to change as location fee schedule changes)


Sound Recording: $200


Still Photography Permits: $200


NPS Monitors


Yellowstone National Park staff will be required to monitor certain filming, photography and sound recording activities. Crews are responsible for paying daily location fees and for monitors as well as any staff costs associated with the project (at $65/hour). This fee will be paid before the permit is issued. Some of the activities that require a monitor include but are not limited to: filming or photography in thermal areas (filming in most backcountry thermal areas is prohibited) and when filming "talent" along the roadway or in developed areas. A monitor may not be required when filming talent out of the view of general public or >50yds away from groups of visitors. Monitors are generally required for large crews or projects with extensive equipment, or when there is potential for impacts to visitor use or resource damage


Current Location fees**


Motion Pictures/Videos
3-10 people $150/day
11 - 30 people $250/day
31 - 49 people $500/day
Over 50 people $750/day
Commercial Still Photography
3-10 people $50/day
11 - 30 people $150/day
Over 30 people $250/day
**2014 Location Fee schedule pending.

Additional Information
Yellowstone Filming Orientation (545 KB pdf)
Filming in the Greater Yellowstone Area
Filming maps
Parkwide (including drive times between locations)
Map to Filming Office (112 KB pdf)
Mammoth Hot Springs
Norris Geyser Basin
Upper Geyser Basin (Old Faithful Area)
Firehole Lake Drive
Fountain Paint Pots
West Thumb Geyser Basin
Mud Volcano
Permitted stock footage providers
Finding Wildlife
Current

[rickb]

Here is a NPS document detailing the permits required for commercial photography (still and video) in GSNP.

http://www.nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisi...filming-07.pdf

not sure how long these regulations have been in place, but I believe it has been quite some time. Here is an except from the linked document;

Still Photography
Still photography activities require a permit only when one or more of the following applies:
1. Use of model(s), set(s), or prop(s) that are not a part of the location’s natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities.
2. The activity takes place at location(s) where or when members of the public are generally not allowed.
3. The Park would incur additional administrative costs to monitor the activity.
4. The Park needs to provide management and oversight to:
a. avoid impairment or incompatible use of the resources and values of the park, b. limit resource damage
c. minimize health or safety risks to the visiting public.
Those who do not need a permit include visitors taking photos or filming for their personal use, as well as professional or amateur photographers who are shooting in areas open to the public and who require no special services from Park personnel. Coverage of breaking news by bona-fide news crews is exempt, but is subject to restrictions and conditions necessary to protect Park resources, public health and safety and to prevent impairment or derogation of Park resources, values, or purposes.
The policy of the National Park Service on commercial filming and photography is: “The making of still and motion pictures or television productions for public consumption is an acceptable park use provided these activities pose no threat to the park resources in the judgment of the park manager, and do not conflict unduly with the public’s normal use of the park.” The decision to issue or deny a permit for a special park use flows from the appropriate policy guidance written in several documents that include National Park Service Management Policies 2001, Director’s Order-53, Special Park Uses, and Guidance Memos Dated April 13, 2006 and May 8, 2006.

Note that unlike the regulations I posted for Yellowstone, these explicitly state that

"Those who do not need a permit include visitors taking photos or filming for their personal use, as well as professional or amateur photographers who are shooting in areas open to the public and who require no special services from Park personnel"

So it appears that some parks are more closely aligned with the proposed new Wilderness regs than others-- not sure if by local policy or as part of the statute-- my guess is the former.

[Another Kevin]

post deleted by author

[Mags]

Looks like there is more activity on this issue. As AK said, when two politicians with both sides of the aisle are suggesting that a govt entity steps back, you know it is worth looking at a proposal a bit more closely.

http://www.oregonlive.com/environmen...ice_shoul.html

[Alligator]

Looks like there is more activity on this issue. As AK said, when two politicians with both sides of the aisle are suggesting that a govt entity steps back, you know it is worth looking at a proposal a bit more closely.

http://www.oregonlive.com/environmen...ice_shoul.html

Meh. I'll see your two Senators and raise you 71 more + 374 Representatives. That would be the total number of aye votes from both sides of the aisle when The Wilderness Act was passed. If there's a problem with it, where is their outrage for their predecessors? Lay the blame squarely where it belongs. Congress put the provision in the law. And Congress wrote PL106-206, which has the call for fees and the definitions for commercial filming and still photography.

[Another Kevin]

post deleted by author

[Mags]

I'm objecting to the granting or denial of permits based on the message of the film. Nowhere does the Wilderness Act require that regulators permit only media projects that support the purpose of the Act. It requires that the projects in their execution comply with the requirements of the Act. Can you see the difference?

This!

It has nothing to do with the Wilderness Act but rather a group's interpretation of the wilderness act and what is acceptable under the provisions. The fact that the USFS officials are holding press conferences and doing press releases, aka spin control, is saying something in itself.

[Alligator]

Alligator: For the third time, I'm not objecting to the fees. I'm not objecting to the Wilderness Act. I said up above that I considered the Yellowstone regulations a model case of how the regulators should comply with the Wilderness Act - and it has a regime of project reviews and a system of fees.

I'm objecting to the granting or denial of permits based on the message of the film. Nowhere does the Wilderness Act require that regulators permit only media projects that support the purpose of the Act. It requires that the projects in their execution comply with the requirements of the Act. Can you see the difference?

Congress drafts a lot of good laws imperfectly and eventually has to go about amending them, particularly when regulators interpret them in an unintended manner.

Two congresscritters is at least a start. It only takes one in each house to introduce a bill.

From The Wilderness Act, Sec. 2 [emphasis added]"...For this purpose there is hereby established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated by Congress as "wilderness areas", and these shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness; and no Federal lands shall be designated as "wilderness areas" except as provided for in this Act or by a subsequent Act."

Sec 4.c no commercial enterprise.

Special Provisions Sec. 4.d.(6) [emphasis added]"Commercial services may be performed within the wilderness areas designated by this Act to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas.

or
Commercial filming may be performed within the wilderness to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas.
or
Commercial filming may be performed within the wilderness to the extent necessary for making films which are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas.
or
Commercial filming may be performed within the wilderness to the extent necessary for making films which are proper for realizing the recreational purposes of the areas.
and
Commercial filming may be performed within the wilderness to the extent necessary for making films which are proper for realizing the wilderness purposes of the areas.
so
Commercial filming may be performed within the wilderness to the extent necessary for making films which are proper for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness.

That's how the argument works.

It does not mean
Commercial filming may be performed within the wilderness to the extent necessary for making films (aka commercials) which are about selling cars. For which a permit will be denied on FS Wilderness. It would be denied in the Wilderness areas of Arches National Park.

Wilderness
Potential permittees should be aware that over 95% of Arches National Park (Delicate Arch and Fiery Furnace included) and 86% of Canyonlands National Park are Recommended Wilderness and are managed as federally designated Wilderness. Only educational filming is permitted within Wilderness areas.

It would be denied in the 14000 recommended acres of the Colorado National Monument.

Wilderness

Potential permittees should be aware that about 14,000 acres within Colorado National Monument are Recommended Wilderness and are managed as federally designated Wilderness. Only educational filming is permitted within Wilderness areas.

and since you consider that the the Yellowstone regulations are a model, scroll down the page to Additional Information and follow the link provided as Yellowstone Filming Orientation.

Filming in Recommended Wilderness (RW) areas (most of Yellowstone backcountry) is restricted to productions that are promoting wilderness. No advertisement work will be
permitted in the RW.

Still going to give NPS a pass? Interior's Final Rule on Commercial Filming
Because like I said, they added a section to specifically include the Wilderness Act.

Section 5.5When will an agency deny a permit for commercial filming or still photography?
The section was renumbered from § 5.4 in the proposed regulation. In paragraph (d) the words “unacceptable impacts” were added to conform to current National Park Service policy. Paragraph (g) was amended to add a reference to the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136).

and this is the section referred to.

§ 5.5 When will an agency deny a permit for commercial filming or still photography?

We will deny a permit authorizing commercial filming or still photography if we determine that it is likely that the activity would:
(a) Cause resource damage;
(b) Unreasonably disrupt or conflict with the public's use and enjoyment of the site;
(c) Pose health or safety risks to the public;
(d) Result in unacceptable impacts or impairment to National Park Service resources or values;
(e) Be inappropriate or incompatible with the purpose of the Fish and Wildlife Service refuge;
(f) Cause unnecessary or undue degradation of Bureau of Land Management lands; or
(g) Violate the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136) or any other applicable Federal, State, or local law or regulation.

Both Departments have placed restrictions on commercial filming (a commercial service) in wilderness areas. This is due to The Wilderness Act passed by Congress in 1964. If you want that amended write your Congressional Reps. Be careful what you wish for though.

[Another Kevin]

post deleted by author

[Coffee]

Both Departments have placed restrictions on commercial filming (a commercial service) in wilderness areas. This is due to The Wilderness Act passed by Congress in 1964. If you want that amended write your Congressional Reps. Be careful what you wish for though.

Well, there are two possible resolutions to a first amendment issue: Congress passing a new law to correct a prior problem and judicial review of the constitutionality of the law (or part of the law).

With the current state of affairs in Congress, we indeed should be careful what we wish for and hesitant to open up the entire Wilderness Act for potential alterations. My preference would be for the offending language in the original law to be subject to judicial review to determine whether it is consistent with the first amendment. Courts can set aside portions of a law passed by Congress if such provisions violate the constitution without setting aside the entire law. A recent example I can think of is when the Supreme Court set aside the 2010 health care law's mandates related to forcing states to expand Medicaid or lose all funding for the existing program but left intact the individual mandate and the rest of the law. Something similar could be done to correct an offending aspect of the Wilderness Act with respect to the first amendment without risking fundamental revisions to the Act that Congress might seek to implement if the entire issue is reopened.

[rafe]

Here's a link to a post about this topic on the Lawyers Guns and Money blog:

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/...lderness-areas

The post also cites some congressional opposition to the USFS proposal.

[Tuckahoe]

AK I am sorry to see that you deleted your own posts as you are the one that has so skillfully stated what is so wrong here.

[Alligator]

Well, there are two possible resolutions to a first amendment issue: Congress passing a new law to correct a prior problem and judicial review of the constitutionality of the law (or part of the law).

With the current state of affairs in Congress, we indeed should be careful what we wish for and hesitant to open up the entire Wilderness Act for potential alterations. My preference would be for the offending language in the original law to be subject to judicial review to determine whether it is consistent with the first amendment. Courts can set aside portions of a law passed by Congress if such provisions violate the constitution without setting aside the entire law. A recent example I can think of is when the Supreme Court set aside the 2010 health care law's mandates related to forcing states to expand Medicaid or lose all funding for the existing program but left intact the individual mandate and the rest of the law. Something similar could be done to correct an offending aspect of the Wilderness Act with respect to the first amendment without risking fundamental revisions to the Act that Congress might seek to implement if the entire issue is reopened.

Yes that is a second possibility. I was looking a few days ago for any cases involving commercial filming and wilderness . I did not find any specific cases. I did read a lengthy article were the author examined cases brought to the courts involving the Wilderness Act were one of the conclusions from the author was that the court very often sided with restrictions. Again though, I didn't find a case in there that was specific to this discussion but I did not spend a whole lot of time on it.

[Traveler]

In context, wilderness areas are just that, wilderness... even trail crews are limited in the kind of equipment they can use in them (no chain saws in many instances, etc). Having whirligigs zipping around does raise eyebrows, never mind the scofflaws that are dropping them into pristine hot spring ponds in yellowstone for generations of visitors to see that level of stupid.

The direction of the argument that people should have freedom to do as they please in wilderness areas, has an eventual end when monster trucks are bouncing around in them. There are a lot of "slippery slope" issues in life, when it comes to these land areas, in my view we should be as conservative with them as possible and keep them as wild as we can.

[rocketsocks]

Every time I come to this thread I feel like I walked into AP English, and the teacher says remedial reading is one flight down. but seriously...great thread, learnin' lots here, yous guys are wicked smart