First of all, let me preface this post by saying that I discussed starting this thread beforehand with Chris to get his approval. Political discussions do nothing to inform or educate any of us about filmmaking which is what the purpose of this forum is all about. This thread exists ONLY because this bill deals with filmmakers and it is intended for information purposes. Any rants or discussions that stray too far over the line will get this thread shut down in a heartbeat. So please let's not make Chris regret that he allowed this thread to be posted.

This bill would effect all nature and wildlife filmmakers no matter what country you live in.

Anyway, currently small production companies are lumped into the same group as the major motion picture companies. Any filming in National Parks for commercial purposes requires a permit, location fees and other fees may be applicable. One or two filmmakers with minimal equipment such as just a camera and tripod are exempt from location fees but are still required to pay for a permit and additional fees may be applied as well. The current law was never intended to include the small indie film crew but language was never included to exempt the independent.

Still photographers are exempt from this law as they lobbied to have language included in the current law to exempt them from these requirements.

A bill is currently in committee that will allow the small film and video companies of five or less crew members to be exempt from any fees other than a single yearly permit which would cost $200. Currently you would need a permit for each park you wished to shoot on and would likely have to pay additional fees on top of that. Below is a summary of the bill that is currently in committee:

H. R. 5502
To amend Public Law 106-206 to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to require annual permits and assess annual fees for commercial filming activities on Federal land for film crews of 5 persons or fewer.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 27, 2008

Mr. BOREN (for himself and Mr. YOUNG of Alaska) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend Public Law 106-206 to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to require annual permits and assess annual fees for commercial filming activities on Federal land for film crews of 5 persons or fewer.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is to provide commercial film crews of 5 persons or fewer access to film in areas designated for public use during public hours on Federal lands.
SEC. 2. ANNUAL PERMIT AND FEE FOR FILM CREWS OF 5 PERSONS OR FEWER.

(a) In General- Section (1)(a) of Public Law 106-206 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6d) is amended by--
(1) redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively;
(2) striking `The Secretary of the Interior' and inserting `(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided by paragraph (3), the Secretary of the Interior';
(3) inserting `(2) OTHER CONSIDERATIONS- ' before `The Secretary may include other factors'; and
(4) adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(3) SPECIAL RULES FOR FILM CREWS OF 5 PERSONS OR FEWER-
`(A) For any film crew of 5 persons or fewer, the Secretary shall require a permit and assess an annual fee of $200 for commercial filming activities or similar projects on Federal lands administered by the Secretary. The permit shall be valid for commercial filming activities or similar projects that occur in areas designated for public use during public hours on all Federal lands administered by the Secretary for a 12-month period beginning on the date of issuance of the permit.
`(B) For persons holding a permit described in this paragraph, the Secretary shall not assess, during the effective period of the permit, any additional fee for commercial filming activities and similar projects that occur in areas designated for public use during public hours on Federal lands administered by the Secretary.
`(C) In this paragraph, the term `film crew' includes all persons present on Federal land under the Secretary's jurisdiction who are associated with the production of a certain film.'.
(b) Recovery of Costs- Section (1)(b) of Public Law 106-206 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6d) is amended by--
(1) striking `collect any costs' and inserting `recover any costs'; and
(2) striking `similar project' and inserting `similar projects'.

Kevin,

Thanks for the post.

Is there anything we can do to get this passed quickly, numbers to call or persons to write. I would think with the number of indi shooters we could send a powerful message and help the community as a whole.

I think getting the word out and talking to the people involved with this bill is a good start.
I've sent it to as many people as I could today.

Like I said, photographers have been exempt from even having to get a permit because they spoke up.

I'm afraid that the current law will keep me from shooting in Yellowstone again because I just can't afford thousands of dollars in fees to do the same thing that photographers can do for nothing.
And it was thousands of dollars.

Over four thousand dollars to have a ranger follow me around. No ranger escort needed for the still photographers I was going to travel with. A million dollar liability policy with the park named as an additional insured. No policy needed for the still photographers. Two hundred dollar permit fee that would just cover Yellowstone. No permit needed for the still photographers.
I'd have to get another permit etc to shoot next door in Grand Teton.

It doesn't matter where you live, if you want to come to any national park and intend to make any money from the footage, this effects you.

I called one of the National Forest districts here yesterday to ask about filming in one of Colorado's wilderness areas. It took me 4 calls to reach the person who issues permits. I told him I was a semi-pro videographer and wanted to be able to film in a wilderness area whenever I hiked there this summer. I told him the footage may or not be used commercially or submitted as stock footage and that I had no specific contract or film project in mind.

It seems I was the first case like this he had dealt with. He struggled to find the appropriate agency guidance. At first he said I would need a permit. As we talked and he continued to look for the appropriate rule guidance, he finally got to the point where he said that I wouldn't need a permit, but there might be issues if I sold the footage down the road. Finally he said no permit would be required and there would be no need to check back if I ever did sell footage. Interestingly, he said commercial filming was not allowed in the wilderness areas of the National Forests unless it promoted the agency's wilderness preservation mission.

I asked him "don't you think that a nature documentary promotes wilderness values either directly or indirectly?" He couldn't answer that, at least not with an official position.

The Park Service, the BLM, and the Forest Service have all tried to develop rules in response to a law that went into effect in 2000 that authorized them to charge fees and issue permits. It seems that none of these agencies really understand the full nature of the film business, and specifically the differences between a small independent or freelance shop and a major production company. None of them have developed clear, consistent rules. Many of their staff do not understand the rules or the film industry. Some national forest districts have links to their own rules and some have no posted rules at all. I think the situation is a bit like the new TSA rules for batteries on planes. Different officers will interpret the rules differently.

It would be good if we could do everything we can to help them understand.

Pat

Colorado has always been very liberal about letting serious amateurs and pros (read: people with big cameras...) shoot in the mountains and open space--I'd be almost hesitant to make these sort of inquiries along the lines of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." My motto: Never put bright ideas in a government official's head!

Other places, I have found this not to be the case. And I think Kevin's experience with getting a Yellowstone permit is certainly illustrative.

We're taxpayers and these are federal lands, and, as long as we do no harm, we should be entitled to the same free and open use of these lands as the photographers.

I just think the governing bodies have not caught up to the DV revolution and the reality that there are a lot of serious hobbyists in the field, just as there are a lot of serious big lens photographers.

And also that big-bucks Hollywood productions are no longer the only ones knocking on the door--they need a tiered permitting structure that changes with the technology and lets the smaller outfits shoot responsibly without having to rob the bank to do it.

Something that really bugs me is the idea that a one or two-person crew has to be escorted around a park to make sure they don't interfere with other visitors, wildlife, etc. Hikers and backpackers, however, who are mandated to observe the same rules (e.g., don't mess up the environment or interfere with other visitors) are trusted to go where they wish, without an escort.

It would seem reasonable, fair and practical for the park staff to issue a permit, tell you the rules, and trust that you will follow them. I contribute money to wilderness preservation organizations, visit parks, and support their existence in part because of the wonderful work of nature videographers over the decades who have brought these places into my home. Often the best footage is that captured by the loan videographer who spends a great deal of time in the same park, knows the environment, and is able to capture footage that others simply can't. That seems to me to be a lifeline for the parks and something they should be promoting rather than discouraging.

Pat

A national forest starts literally right along my back yard. A lot of my filming is done there. Since I am just starting to try to make the transition from amateur to pro, I want to make sure that I don't end up getting a fine that sets me back one new camera cycle or find that I can't legally use the footage that I have captured for commercial purposes. My wife has been encouraging me to just not worry about it and shoot, and I can appreciate the "if it ain't broke don't fix it approach", but these rules are new and evolving and I don't want to get tripped up by them.

My day gig is as a scientist for a government regulatory agency, and we are constantly dealing with how to apply regulations appropriately. Our feedback up the organizational chain sometimes helps to get rules changed so that they are fair and they work as originally intended. So sometimes it makes sense to "shake the tree" and see what falls out. :)

Cheers,

Pat

The argument can't even be made that we're making money off the footage because the people I was going on the trip with make WAY more money selling their stock photography than I do selling my stock footage. Professional photographers are not even required to obtain a permit unless they are doing something that the general public isn't allowed to do.

The key is getting the law changed. As long as the law allows parks to charge one man crews, they will.

It sounds like Yellowstone is the worst at discouraging filmmakers by charging as much as they can. I know we went all the way up the ladder to Washington and they will not budge.

This bill is the best thing out there right now to allow us to film in our federal lands with out undue financial burden.

On top of Roosevelt Arch at the North Entrance to Yellowstone it says something like "For the benefit and enjoyment of the people.

Last time I checked, I was a people. :)

"The Yellowstone Park is something absolutely unique in the world...This Park was created and is now administered for the benefit and enjoyment of the people...it is the property of Uncle Sam and therefore of us all."

President Theodore Roosevelt
April 24, 1903 at Gardiner, Montana
Speech dedicating the North Entrance Arch

Kevin,

I have studied this issue extensively and I can tell you that the federal land management agencies are all over the map on permit policy. About a month ago I spent about an hour discussing permits with the USFS for North Georgia on a project I was working on. The conversation went from "you need a permit" to finally what I perceived as "you shouldn't have even asked." There should be a common sense approach to this but each agency and even park can have its own policy which seem to be based on memory of the times that the "big" productions came to the park and had a significant impact on public use and park personnel. In other words "were a pain in the rear-end".

For my money paying job I work for a federal government land/water management agency fortunately with very liberal permit policies. I routinely give "permission" to videographers/photographers as well as issue permits. The break point between the two for me is the size of crew and intended use. I have never issued a permit to one person but film crews doing commericals have always need a permit.

I think if you stay low key and act like a tourist you are good to go. I would also never hand out a business card to a park official.

I think Yellowstone is trying to do whatever they can to discourage people from filming in the park.

i remember the last time I was filming in the park before I decided to get into stock footage sales, I was set up on the boardwalk at Grand Prismatic Spring.

I was the only one there as it was early in the morning.
I used to do still photography and I had on one of my old business shirts.

I was just hanging out sitting on the bench there at the boardwalk shooting some footage every now and then.

A woman walked past and checked out what I was doing. I'm use to tourists asking questions and what not and didn't think anything of it.

Not long after that a ranger came up and asked what I was doing and if I was a professional. By then the woman who had passed by earlier was back.

I said I was just shooting some stuff to show my friends and family back home.

Well, the woman piped up and asked about my shirt. Enquiring whose business that was etc.

I still to this day believe that that woman called in the ranger to try and bust me.

John Gerlach, a professional wildlife photographer, said it is routine for Yellowstone to go through photography magazines seeing when tours are supposed to be coming into the park.

So, while keeping a low profile may work in a lot of places, I don't think it will fly in Yellowstone.

Besides, if the law says I need a permit then I'll get a permit. But until the law is changed where they won't be charging me $4k+ to have a ranger babysit me, I won't be back.

So, I'm working to try and make that happen.

Kevin,

Just for comparison purposes, our permits start at $50. Anything higher is based upon hourly rate of the ranger, maintenance crew if needed and a bond in the case of HBO that used a park for 7 days with props for the movie "Warm Springs". Bond was refunded afterwards when all damage which was minor was repaired.

Kevin, Meryem, and Mark, nice web pages. There's a lot of talent and dedication that are evident in your presentations. Meryem, do you ever sleep?

Maybe we should film at Mark's lake. We'll know what to expect. :)

Pat

Mark, can you get a job at Yellowstone! :)

Do you guys usually require a ranger to tag along?

Ha..Ha... Only have 12 more months to go and I will have my 30 years in. Looking forward being out in the woods filming full-time.

Yet you know there are exceptions. Bob Landis films in Yellowstone over 300 days a year.
There's no way he could be paying to have a ranger follow him around.

I would gladly pay $200 a year to film on Dept. of Interior managed lands (NPS, BOR, BLM, F&W) if the permit applied to all lands and not just specific locations. Unfortunately for me the USFS is the big land manager here and is under the Dept. of Agriculture with a seperate and just as confusing permit program. Kevin, if you have a draft letter to your Congressman or Dept. of Interior please PM me a copy and I be glad to render my support.

To show you how out of wack fees are, I just reviewed an NPS commerical one year permit for a river outfitter (canoe/kayak/tubing) rental business. Revenue is over 500k per year with a permit fee of only $750. That is less than one half of one percent for exclusive commercial use of federal property. On the other hand professional video/photogs can get charged proportionally much/much more.

$200 per year I think is reasonable.
When this "pay per day" issue first popped up over a year ago on this list, I wrote to the park service boss who was overseeing the implementation of this policy. I told him that I had very little money to produce the videos that were essentially an advertisement for the parks and that my goal was to present nature to an audience in a way to make them want to support conservation
(read: the parks' budget)

Believe it or not, "they" had not even considered the one man nature documentarian who might need to spend months gathering footage and
did not have any real budget other than their thin wallets to produce this kind of content.

The fact is that policies change and $200 per year is FAR less than what it was going to cost. The Parks' administration is incredibly responsive to public opinion, so it is up to everyone who cares to write them and let them know, in a helpful manner, your concerns and solutions.

Mark,

The letters I sent out were specific to my Yellowstone trip that was cancelled.

I wonder if there is anyone here that has good letter writing skills that can write something up that is more generic but gets the point across?

Anyone interested?

Even with the permit, we're still having to pay for what still photographers can do for free, but I'd settle for a $200 permit that covers all federal lands.

I was going to say that I don't mind giving back in order to film in the parks etc. Then I realized that my taxes pay for the park land so I guess I'm already giving back. :)

I really hope we can get this turned around!!

Kevin,

After researching the ammendment further it does include the Forest Service. It's progress can be tracked at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-5502 .

Chris, if I am overstepping here please delete this post. As a long time federal employee who has answered over 50 "congressional inquiries" (these are letters from people to thier congressmen which are then sent to agencies for response), I can tell you that they can have an impact on policy.

The ammendment has now been assigned to the House Natural Resources and Agriculture committees. There are links on the above site to those committee members which total 93. Each member has an e-mail address. A personal note to each would be an effective way to communicate your concerns.

Looks like I know what I'll be doing this week. :)

Do you think a physical letter is as important now day with email?
I always thought if I followed up with an actual letter it shows that it was important enough to me to warrant taking the time to actually write something and not just fire off an email.

Well it couldn't hurt. But from experience your representative rarely ever reads your letter. His/Her staff does. When they get numerous inquiries about the same topic then the "numbers" may be forwarded to the representative. Also note that many of the e-mail addresses for representatives will only accept e-mail from thier home state. It is kind of a filtering device which is a shame since they sit on committees which make national decissions without the benefit of national input.

The congressman from Alaska will only accept emails on his site from Alaskans. I checked I was from Alaska anyway.
I told him Denali is on my must do list and I plan on spending a lot of time there but if the current law stays in place that I simply wouldn't be able to afford the fees to shoot there.

I'm trying to spread this information as far and wide as I can. Hopefully people will take the time to write the congressman from their state as well as in other states to get this passed.

I see there are two Representatives from Iowa on the House Agriculture committee. I'll be emailing them first and following up with phone calls.

Kevin,

I have manage to email about a 1/3 of them so far. I will also contact some of my NPS counterparts next week to try to find out what the Dept. of Interior's position is on this. Also, I think the financial angle you took about not visiting the park is a good one. Elected officials want tourism $$$ for thier state. Maybe contacting the Chamber of Commerce in towns near large national parks and state tourism officials about the ammendment is a good idea. I will check this out further as these folks might have the most influence.

This fee has stopped me more than once trying to film. I was just planning a trip to Joshua Tree Park out near Palm Springs, read the guidelines, that stopped it, planning a trip out to Santa Cruz Island and I think I'm ok on part of the island, been planning to get some video from my boat around LA, thinking twice, I was just boarded in LA Harbor by combo Coast Guard and Long Beach Police, 6 of them, just checking safety stuff but if I had my camera stuff who knows what they would have done, we always go right through LA harbor and that is one of the busiest ports in the world, That day I say 4 other Coast Guard boats haulin somewhere, I believe a press pass will get you about anywhere with a cam

Hugh. let them know!

Mark,
The information I provided my Iowan congressmen was that In Iowa, the National Park Service cares for the Effigy Mounds National Monument, Herbert Hoover National Historic Site, Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail and the Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail.
Legally, I can't film at any of these in my own state without permits for each one, all of which could have additional fees tacked on as well.

The one thing that kind of bothers me is that one Representative emailed me back and had this to say:

The National Park Service Centennial Fund Act, H.R. 3094, would equip the National Park Service with the tools necessary to teach and lead conservation efforts. This new initiative would be paid for through fees on commercial activities conducted on federal land.

While I think it's a great idea, I worry about what these commercial activities are.

That was from Representative Dave Loebsack of Iowa.

I'm just telling them like it is. Denali will not be a cheap trip and if I have to pay a bunch of fees on top of that, well, the trip just isn't going to happen.

I need to find what the Park service administers in each of the committee members states if anything as well as what other Federal lands I may film there.

I think nothing hits home harder than saying I won;t be bringing in my out of state dollars to your state if I have to pay these fees to film there.

Hugh,

A press pass won't get you anything in Yellowstone:

"One freelance radio reporter was told by officials at Yellowstone National Park that she would need to secure a permit, pay a fee and have $1 million in liability insurance before she would be permitted into the park to interview an expert on wolves, said Timothy Wheeler, president of the Society of Environmental Journalists."

Breaking news is the ONLY exemption besides still photographers when it comes to anything commercial in Yellowstone.

Here is a site I found that lists film commissions and related groups by state. I have begun contacting them to support the bill.

http://www.filmcommissionhq.com/search.jsp?dir=0&st=GA

Mark, are you at the Atlanta Federal Center? Has anyone had a problem with State Parks? Bob

Bob,

I am at a field office at Lake Lanier. Couldn't pay me enough to make me drive thru Atlanta traffic each day to a Divison office. No problems so far with the state. Probably do not want to raise the issue until it becomes a problem. Sometimes ignorance is bliss.

Here is the text of a letter I will send to my conressional representatives, the sponsors of the bill, David Barna, director of communications and public affairs at the NPS’s Washington, DC headquarters, possibly the governors of Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana, and with copies sent to the legal affairs staff at the National Press Photographers Association, Timothy Wheeler, president of the Society of Environmental Journalists, the North American Nature Photography Association, the Radio-Television News Directors Association, and any other organizations that seem to make sense.

Feel free to use this yourselves, modify it, or use it as a starting point if you wish:

"In 2000 Congress passed legislation that directed federal land managers to issue permits and collect fees for commercial still photography and filming within national parks and on federal lands. In subsequent years, the affected agencies have developed regulations to implement the mandates of this new law. I would like to call your attention to a substantial inequity in these regulations, especially the regulations that have been implemented by the National Park Service, and to ask you to support H. R. 5502 (to amend Public Law 106-206) which aims to correct these inequities.

The rules as they exist today exempt professional solo still photographers, but require a lone videographer to apply for a permit. Permit application fees are on the order of $200 per visit, and the parks have the power to charge additional fees to escort a single videographer through the park while he or she is filming. Recently a single, freelance filmmaker was told that he would have to pay as much as $4500 for a week’s worth of filming in Yellowstone National Park. Commercial still photographers who may have more equipment than a videographer, hikers, backpackers and other visitors, however, are allowed normal access to the park and trusted to observe the rules of the park without an escort.

It would seem reasonable, fair and practical for the park staff to issue a permit and trust that the videographer would observe them. I contribute money to wilderness preservation organizations, visit parks, and support their existence in part because of the wonderful work of nature videographers over the decades who have brought these places into my home. Often the best footage is that captured by the solo videographer who spends a great deal of time in the same park, knows the environment, and is able to capture footage that others simply can't. That seems to me to be a lifeline for the parks and something they should be promoting rather than discouraging. The annual incomes of freelance wildlife and nature filmmakers who work alone or with very small crews are modest at best, and the prospect of thousands of dollars of annual park fees will make it impossible for many of them to continue this work.

I would also like to call your attention to the possibility that these rules are unconstitutional, since they are arbitrary, unequally applied, and represent a possible obstruction of the constitutional protections afforded the media. It is reasonable to issue permits and charge fees when the scale of media presence in a park requires it. H. R. 5502 would correct the inequity that has been discussed by requiring that film crews of one to five in number pay for a single annual permit that would be valid on all federal lands at a cost of $200.

I urge you to support the passage of this bill and to do whatever you can to ensure that the rules for filming on national lands are fair and allow for the continued vitality of the small-scale filmmakers who provide all of us with an experience of wilderness and wilderness values that we might not otherwise have."

Hey Pat,

Great work. I am more than willing to sign on, but could you provide email
address(s) for us too? I think it is probably better for us all to swamp as many
inboxes as possible with lots of emails as opposed to a single email with many names attached.
That way administration can tell higher ups that received
X-amount of emails which makes it easier to join our cause.

Pat, exellent letter. Seems to capture everything. Here is a link to email addresses for federal U.S. representatives and governors.

http://www.conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm

Thanks, guys. So far I have sent this to the two Colorado Senators and the following list of professional media organization contacts:

TBWheeler@aol.com, lawyer@nppa.org, advocacy@nppa.org, dgroves@ppa.com, mschleifstein@timespicayune.com, dhopey@sej.org, jburnside@sej.org, jdetjen@sej.org, contact@nanpa.org, fbutler@nanpa.org, info@nanpa.org, jdavis@sej.org

This includes a semi-random assortment of presidents, attorneys, and key board members for the Society of Environmental Journalists, North American Nature Photography Association, the National Press Photographers Association, and the Professional Photographers of America (they have a video section). TBWheeler is Timothy Wheeler, president of the Society of Environmental Journalists. I copied David Barna, director of communications and public affairs at the NPS’s Washington office who seems sympathetic to the issue for small-scale filmmakers:

david_barna@nps.gov

Not surprisingly, it's difficult or impossible to e-mail senators or representatives unless you are in their districts, so letters may be the only way to go if you want to reach these folks outside your area.

Pat

Thanks Pat, I will also write the ones on your list.

Awesome letter Pat!

Since I'm the Yellowstone guy I'll make sure I elaborate a bit more on that.

Also, if you're writing to your own state's congressmen and you have Federal lands in your state, make sure to mention that people won't be coming to film there if they have to pay these fees.

I think I'll also contact the Jackson Hole Wildlife Film Festival as well.

I was planning on attending next year but if I can't get into the Teton's and Yellowstone to shoot I'll probably pass.

It's going to be a busy week for me getting all these people contacted etc. It's a small price to pay to be able to film.

Also, congress will be breaking for Easter I believe so if you don't get a response back right away that could be why.

Also, even if you don't live in the US, it's a good thing to spread this around to organizations wherever you are. Anyone that comes to visit is subject to the same fees as well.
This effects filmmakers around the world, not just those here in the States.

Thanks for the text, I see NJ has two Reps on the Natural Resources Committee so I will be sending them email. I actually ran into one recently, too bad the timing was off. ;-)

POMA has also thrown their support in for this bill.

http://www.professionaloutdoormedia.org/

That's awesome Jesse!
Numbers speak volumes. The more people that get behind this the more apt they are to listen.

Got out 45 e-mails over the weekend to governors, chamber of commerce near large parks and to congressmen. Will do more tonite.

Thanks for this thread. Most of my docs are in national parks and forests, for weeks at a time, and I could never even begin to pay these fees. I don't mind paying a reasonable fee but this is outrageous.

Hey Mat,

Yes, the current law could be quite expensive for you or anyone else that wants to shoot on Federal lands.

I'm starting another big email push tomorrow and emailing as many people as I can.
The more that speak up the better chances are that someone who can make this happen will hear.

Kevin,

Please PM me or post here if you have a more selective list of persons to contact other than those already listed. Thanks for the good work.

I sent the letter to every Georgia member of congress except David Scott. He is harder to email than any one of them. I also copied the US Speaker of the House. Bob

I have been following this thread for awhile and have no new opinion but when Bob Landis came up I thought I would put my two cents in. According to an interview he has almost all of his footage on wolves is from the road. It seems like he is unobtrusive to both the park and wolves. Maybe the key to good access and footage is a low profile.

Dale,

The problem is that if you don't have a permit and don't pay the fees then you are breaking the law.
Can't you be charged with a felony for breaking a law on Federal land?

I've only filmed on the road, on the trails or on the boardwalks. I don't go anywhere where the public can't go and I don't do anything that professional photographers can't do.

If I was a still photographer I could take photographs anywhere where the public is allowed, sell them to any magazine, calendar company whatever and I don;t have to pay the park a dime. As long as I'm doing what the public is allowed to do, the park service can't do anything.

But, if I pick up a video camera, suddenly I have to pay $200, I have to have a $1,000,000 liability policy with the park service named as an additional insured, PLUS, I was required to pay $65 an hour to have a ranger follow me on a photo tour that was full of still photographers DOING THE SAME THING!
If I had left my video camera at home and brought my still camera I could have taken photographs to my hearts content and not have a worry in the world.

I know I can go into the park and shoot illegally by keeping a low profile and most likely never get caught but why should I have to break the law?

Why is it that when you have a video camera, you have to prove yourself to the park service that you can follow laws etc when still photographers do not.
I've personally seen still photographers do things that were blatantly against the rules.

I don't have a problem paying a fee for a permit that covers all federal land. I think photographers should have to pay it as well. It gives something back to the park.
You could make the argument that the park is there because we've paid for it and continue to pay for it so why should we have to pay for something that we've already paid for again? But if the money stays with the parks and national forests etc for improvements or whatever then fine.

Bob Landis is the unofficial official filmmaker for Yellowstone. I'd bet money he pays a single $200 fee for the year and that's it.

I emailed him asking about it and he did say that you can get a permit that covers the whole year. Well, maybe he can because Stacy Vallie, the film permit officer in Yellowstone, basically indicated to me in an email that these fees she was imposing on me were for my first trip in February even though I had asked if I could get the permit to cover the year as I planned on filming there several times over the course of the year.

So, why can Bob shoot for a year for $200 and no one else can?

I'm almost half temped to go for an extended trip in Yellowstone shoot as much as I can then put the footage all in the public domain.

Since I'm not making money off the footage, there's no permit required nothing. Maybe if this bill fails that's what I will do.

Someone needs footage of something in Yellowstone, I'll shoot it for free and put the footage into the public domain.

Can you tell I'm irritated by this? :)

BTW, here's an interview of Bob talking about his film In the Valley of the Wolves where he says he spent 1200 days in the park filming.

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?i=20191383&id=203180821

Kevin, we have got to work hard to see that this bill goes through. I don't want to slink around in the parks either violating the regulations. I will add that even though we are in agreement on the $200 yearly fee and say it gets passed, that is not the end of it. Federal agencies are notorious for adding extras such as seperate commercial iability insurance in the ridiculous amount of 1 million as well as additional processing fees. I just hope the permit process is kept simple.

wow, this thread is humming along! i haven't had a chance to check in, in a few days. glad to see some mo-mo building.

one suggestion that i would make for any letter writing campaign would be to say something about how changes in digital video technology has created a new class of serious amateur video hobbyist, just as still camera technology has widened the field of long lens users who can be mistaken for professionals.

something about a tiered structure for fees, so that the serious video hobbyists is assessed the same as the serious amateur photographer (e.g. nothing!)

and the single commercial operator is not assessed the same as a crew--certainly they are quite different in terms of their impact...

maybe we should make a video and link it to the congressperson's letter--a picture worth a thousand words!

anyway, just a few suggestions on the fly....rules should keep up with the changes in the marketplace which are created by changes in technology.

maybe we need to make a video to link to add to the congressperson's letter --- picture worth a thousand words and all that! we are image people after all...