Mark,
I'm sure if this bill manages to pass,it'll be a constant vigil to keep on top of things wanting to creep in an get added.

But you know, the fact that I had to add the park service onto my liability policy even makes it more ludicrous.

I mean if you trip over Joe Public's tripod at Old Faithful don't you think the park would be named in a suit as well as the photographer for allowing a tripping hazard on the boardwalk?

They have less problems with me since they've got a million dollar policy that I'm paying for should something happen that I cause.

So, aren't they even more protected by me than the general public? Yet they want to require me to pay for a ranger to sit and watch to make sure no one trips over my tripod while right next to me is a photographer who has no insurance to protect the park setting up their tripod.

I think it's a good idea for everyone these days to have a liability policy.
Now that the park service is on my policy it doesn't cost anything additional to renew it.

I checked with my insurance agent and if you add the park service on as an additional insured at renewal time, it costs nothing. If you add them any time other than at renewal time it's $35.

Course that's the insurance company that underwrites my policy, others may differ.

I wish I could sit in a room with these people and tell them face to face about all this.

i think I'll call my local congressmen's offices and see when they will be back in town and schedule an appointment.

Meryem,

The current law is tiered to a certain extant. One to two filmmakers with minimal crew pay the $200, liability policy and ranger fees if needed.

Anything more than that and you start paying location fees for every location based on the size of your film crew and what you are needing to do.

This bill really doesn't change that other than saying if you're a crew of less than five and you're doing stuff that the public can do, we'll charge ya $200 for a permit but it will cover all the Federal lands and you're good to go for a year on all Federal lands.

By the way, the current costs mentioned above? That's just for Yellowstone.
Want to film next door in Grand Teton?

"Upon approval of the application, you must present certificate of insurance and a $100.00 permit fee. If it is deemed that a monitor (NPS employee) is to be assigned to your project, there will be a minimum fee of $154.00 per monitor for the first two hours and $50.00 per monitor per hour thereafter. A minimum of $154.00 per monitor will be charged for any assignment, including the cancellation of a given project, regardless of the reason."

I've got a call in to the Glacier National Park permit officer since they don't have permit information on their website. I imagine it's going to be pretty similar to the other two.

Want to go next door to film in Shoshone National Forest, which is beautiful by the way:

Motion Picture and Video Filming.

Daily Rate for....................Daily Rate for
Number of People____Location Each____Staging Area
1-10......................$150.....................$75
11-30.....................$250.....................$125
31-60......................$450.....................$225
61-100....................$600......................$300
over 100...................$600.....................$300

Use of Congressional or agency identified areas such as Wilderness, Research Natural Areas $150

As you can see, you can generate a pretty substantial bill in a short amount of time especially if they are a lot like Yellowstone and will stick you for every penny they can.

Do you want to film this beautiful scene at Effigy Mounds in my home state of Iowa?

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/9485/1206029927.jpg

Well, guess what? It's managed by the national park service and you're going to need a separate permit just to film there as well.

As always, if you're shooting still photographs to sell, it's completely free.

I have a call into the head ranger to find out all the fees I'll need to pay to shoot in my own backyard basically.

Kevin,

Thanks for the detailed info. on the insurance. Yes, I carry personal liability insurance but the NPS is not specifically named. My experience with permit issuance for big productions is $1million may be required for shooting on my agency's managed property (Dept. of Army) with the agency specifically named on the policy. That's probably about right for a big production. But for little old me, a one man operation, certainly overkill and not necessary. Being a long-term federal employee I have seen various policy decissions made over the years that take simple issues and make them very complex. The wording on H.R. 5502 is pretty straight forward. I hope it ends up staying that way.

You and I both Mark! :)

We're not even asking for what still photographers already have, just trying to not go bankrupt if we want to film on Federal lands.

Well, I talked with Chris Tesar, the film permit officer in Glacier to find out their requirements and fees.
They're pretty much the same as Yellowstone's.

$100 application fee
$50/hr monitoring fee $150 minimum per day.

Liability policy with the park service added as an additional insured.
PLUS, I have to add Glacier National Park as an additional insured as well so that's another $35 for that.

PLUS, the park may request that a credit line be added as well.

Looks like I'll need a second and maybe third job if I want to film on any national par, forest or BLM land. :)

Off to talk to the ranger at Effigy Mounds National Monument to see what the costs are for shooting there since it's only about an hours drive for me.

Kevin, I feel real sorry for the trouble you got over there regarding the high fees your have to pay!
If there are anything I/we (foreigners) could do to support you, I would gladly help you out!
What about put up a website where people could sign their names supporting your effort against those iniquitous rules!?

Per,

I think you could have a great impact. These permits and fees effect you as well.
If you wanted to come to the Jackson Hole Wildlife Film Festival next year and wanted to add some shooting trips to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park, you would be subjected to the same permit and fees as I would be.

If we're just shooting vacation video, you wouldn't have to pay a fee. But, isn't it the dream of most of us here to make a living doing this?

I've never started a grass roots movement before so I'm new at all of this.
I'd be happy to start a website, add a petition etc.

If anyone has experience in this kind of thing, shoot me an email and I'll do whatever I can to get this ball rolling to the next level.

Kevin,

Have sent out about 35 letters and e-mails and am working on a couple of ideas which if they pan out will message you later.


Mike Blumberg
http://www.arrowmakerproductions.com
Nature is the Contributor. I am an Observer of the Contributor.

Awesome Mike!

One of the things I was thinking about and don't remember if it was mentioned already is contacting the states tourism boards about this.

I mean if I can't afford to shoot in Yellowstone and Glacier, I'm certainly not going to be visiting Montana and Wyoming.

I spend money there on hotel rooms, gas, food, entertainment, gifts etc.

Kevin,

I will give this link again http://www.filmcommissionhq.com/search.jsp?dir=0&cy=US This is the site where you can find state and city film commissions. These groups are usually affiliated with the state tourism department so they want film makers to visit thier geographic area. In the drop down menu be sure to click "regional media support office" and then the state that you want.

Here is some interesting USFS film permit information which states:

Permits are not required for filming activities, such as:

· News, and gathering of news related stories.
· Other types of documentaries not requiring the use of actors, models, sets, or props.

It can be viewed at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mthood/Filming/when_do_I_need_a_Film3_Permit.htm

"Other type of documentaries" is what I and some others such as Kevin may fall under. Although I do not want to complicate things, it would be great if we could get this verbage included in HR 5502. Then, even the $200 would not be required in some instances. I plan to carry this policy with me if confronted on USFS lands.

Mark,

That's good to know.
Hopefully this bill will make it into law and we won't have to worry about if we can or can't.

Was talking to a Park Ranger just a bit ago and he said that the rules were still not finalized.

it was interesting because I told him about what went on in trying to get a permit in Yellowstone and he said that was the exact scenario he had warned his superiors would happen.

He was glad to have that information. So I told him to please talk to whomever he could and let them know what is really going on.

I will talk to him after the holiday and see if he has some contacts that I can talk to about this as well.

Always good to have a champion on the inside. :)

Kevin,
That's good to hear. As a federal employee with first hand knowledge you would be surprised how many proceedures/policies get pushed down from Washington into the field offices with little or no input from the folks that have to implement them. Its kind of scary.

So far it looks like our efforts from muti-fronts including federal park personnel, congressmen, governors, outdoor recreation groups, tourism groups and others is a good approach, but we need to keep the pressure on. Number of contacts unfortunately is what counts and not necessarily common sense.

I've been sitting at my computer whenever I have free time sending out emails.
My eyes are killing me but change doesn't come about without work and sacrifice.

Hi Mark, it looks like that Forest Service guidance is just for a specific region. When I looked for the guidance for the region I live in, it was pretty confusing with a mixture of very old guidance and links to ambiguous new guidance. Some of the districts do not have anything posted at all.

I had a very nice conversation with the film permit person for Arches and Canyonlands National Parks yesterday (in Utah). I have a business trip to the area later this year, and I will try to shoot some stock footage in the parks during my free time, if I get a chance. I told her what I was planning to do and the camera and tripod I would be using (Canon XH-A1 and smallish tripod). She said that I fall into a grey area, and I would simply look like most of the tourist photographers in the parks. Technically I should get a permit, but I would not have to apply for one. She asked me to stay off the fragile soils, avoid the crowded tourist spots where photographers cluster to capture sunset images of the most popular arches, and to keep to trails and rocks to avoid impacts to the environment.

She said I might get better service if I applied for the permit, which is only $100. Then the rangers would know where I am and what I am doing and might be able to help me with shooting if they pass me in the park. It sounds like they get a large number of two person crews during a typical month, and I don't think they require ranger escorts or anything like that for these small crews. I also got the impression that insurance isn't required for what I would be doing.

These are parks that experience a lot of filming, including Hollywood productions, and they are also favorite tourist destinations for visitors from other countries. The permit person said they used to have a waiver for small crews, but the new rules have changed this.

It's good to know some parks have a sensible approach to implementing the existing rules, but I don't think we can count on consistency without rule modifications or the passage of this new resolution.

Pat

Pat,

That's great about Arches!
I love going there and think the Moab area is my favorite second only to Yellowstone.

It's nice to see that there are some rangers who are willing to do all they can for us. The sad thing is they move around. So next year if I want to go, someone else may handle things and they may be an Yellowstone alumni and then we're screwed. :)

I think you'll really enjoy Arches. Also hit Dead Horse Point State Park if you have a chance. Great Canyonland vistas and hardly no one there. Well, I've always been in the off season so I don't know when you'll be there. :)

Let's hope the bill passes and then it'll be a non-issue if we fall into a grey area or not.

I will send emails to whoever if I can get a list of exactly who to send to and basically what to say. If I and others had a basic draft more emails would be sent out, it would save alot of time.

Hugh,

Here is a sample text you might want to use or modify. There are several links in this thread with e-mail contacts

I am encouraging you to support H.R. 5502: To amend Public Law 106-206 which provides for an annual permit fee of $200 annually for commercial filming activities on Federal land for film crews of 5 persons or fewer.

Permit fees to film on federal lands have increased significantly over the years to where it places an unreasonable financial burden on small film businesses. I film about 100 days a year and under current regulations I may have to pay thousands of dollars which is unreasonable. This concern is shared by many others who photograph and shoot video and film as both a hobby and for commercial projects on public lands. In my situation I have a small crew that attracts no more attention than other park visitors. Without adoption of reasonable fees small film businesses will not spend money for food, lodging and other associated expenditures in towns near federal parks.

I hope you will show support for H.R. 5502 which can be viewed at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-5502

Pat Reddy also posted a great sample letter as well.
I'll copy and paste it below.

It's important to contact your states congressmen as many will simply ignore out of state emails which as was previously mentioned is sad because they vote on laws that effect everyone. This bill effects all filmmakers not just the ones living in their states.

Anyone who this would effect, could make a difference or could pass this on are people you should contact.

Here's Pat's letter:

The Park Service is implementing inconsistently applied rules that could affect many of your nature stock footage providers. Here is the text of an e-mail I have sent to my state representatives and various professional photographers associations about a new bill that could correct this problem. I thought I would share this with you:

"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."

Regards,

Here's a link that will get you the email address of any member of Congress.
Just click on the image of the state you want,

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

Mark posted a link for city and state film commissions:
http://www.filmcommissionhq.com/search.jsp?dir=0&cy=US

The director of tourism in the Yellowstone region of Montana:

Robin Hoover
Executive Director
Yellowstone Country Regional Tourism Commission
1-406-556-8680
yellowstone@montana.net
1820 W Lincoln
Bozeman, MT 59715

Wyoming Travel and Tourism:
http://www.wyomingtourism.org/sitetools/contact_us.php

Idaho Division of Tourism Development:
http://www.visitidaho.org/contact/

Gateway Cities Chambers of Commerce:

Bozeman. Montana:
http://www.bozemanchamber.com/form/?fid=11

Livingston, Montana:
Visitor Information Center
303 E. Park St.,
Livingston, MT 59047
406-222-0850
info@livingston-chamber.com

Gardiner, Montana:
http://www.gardinerchamber.com/contact.asp

Cooke City, Montana:
P.O. Box 1071
Cooke City, Montana 59020
(406) 838-2495
info@cookecitychamber.org

West Yellowstone, Montana:
West Yellowstone Chamber of Commerce
30 Yellowstone Avenue
P.O. Box 458
West Yellowstone, Montana, 59758
Phone: (406) 646-7701
Fax: (406) 646-9691
Email: visitorservices@westyellowstonechamber.com

Jackson, Wyoming:
For questions about area activities, attractions, and services, contact:
info@jacksonholechamber.com or 307-733-3316 continue
Our address is:
Jackson Hole Chamber of Commerce
PO Box 550
990 W. Broadway
Jackson, WY 83001

Or, you may visit:
Jackson Hole and Greater Yellowstone Visitor Center
532 North Cache
Located just a half mile north of the Town Square. Open year-round to assist you during your vacation.

Cody, Wyoming:
Cody Country Chamber of Commerce
836 Sheridan Ave.
Cody, WY 82414
(307) 587-2777
info@codychamber.org

Kimberly Jones
Executive Director
(307) 587-2777 ext. 201
exec@codychamber.org

Kathy Thompson
Event Coordinator, Buffalo Bill Art Show & Sale
(307) 587-2777 ext. 207
Direct Line (307) 587-5029
info@buffalobillartshow.com

Carri Dobbins
Event Coordinator, Buffalo Bill Art Show & Sale
(307) 587-2777 ext. 202
Direct Line (307) 587-5002
art@buffalobillartshow.com

Cathy Luthy
Business Manager
(307) 587-2777 ext. 206
business@codychamber.org

Woody Searles
Administrative Assistant
(307) 587-2777 ext. 212
admin@codychamber.org

Karen Miller
Visitor Center Coordinator
(307) 587-2777 ext. 210
cody@codychamber.org

Here is the email I sent that was mostly based around Pat's letter and response from National Park Service. The Parks response is first.
I have emailed Lee Dickinson before (I thought she was a he on a previous post here ;-)
++++++++++++++++++


Thank you for your thoughtful comments about fees for filming in National
Parks. I have forwarded your comments to Lee Dickinson, the Special Use
Permits Coordinator for the NPS in Washington. She has been hard at work on
this issue.

Thank you for your interest in the National Park Service and for taking the
time to comment on filming fees.

Joanne Blacoe
Acting Assistant Regional Director for Communications
NPS Northeast Region
200 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
215.597.0136


----- Original Message -----
From: Jacques Mersereau [jacmer@umich.edu]
Sent: 03/16/2008 04:02 PM AST
To: <TBWheeler@aol.com>; <lawyer@nppa.org>; <advocacy@nppa.org>;
<dgroves@ppa.com>; <contact@nanpa.org>;
<fbutler@nanpa.org>; <info@nanpa.org>;
Subject: Independent Wildlife Videography Fee for taping in National
Parks



Hello to you all,

My name is Jacques Mersereau and I am an independent filmmaker who
specializes in producing nature documentaries.
I write you today to ask you to consider my viewpoint regarding upcoming
changes in National Park
policies concerning videotaping on National Park lands and to urge you to
support H.R. 5502 which will amend
Public Law 106-206.

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.

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. This is because of the wonderful nature documentaries produced
over the years.
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.
Although the film my wife and I produced, “AN OSPREY HOMECOMING’ won an
Emmy Award, we have yet to see a
profit, and in fact, it is highly unlikely we will ever recoup our out of
pocket costs. http://www.anopsreyhomecoming.com/

Therefore, it is reasonable to issue permits and charge fees that take a
single independent and unfunded videographer’s situation
into consideration. H. R. 5502 would correct this gross inequity 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 bring wilderness and wildlife into America’s
Living rooms and who help educate the public as they help to promote our
great National Park system.

Sincerely,

Jacques Mersereau

Jacques,

Thanks for sending the letter!

I've tried to talk with Lee many times and she's never responded to any of my emails.

Maybe if they get enough people complaining about the fee structure, they'll revisit it.
Course, if the bill passes that exempts us from everything but a yearly permit that covers all Federal lands then that's even better. :)

I agree that all those who want to film in the National Parks should
send emails to Lee. Considerate emails with constructive ideas have
a chance of getting through. I would rather not have to pay to
videotape as we taxpayers are supposed to be owners of the Parks, but
I also know they are under attack by those who would love to exploit
the natural resources, pay only a token amount and try to paint themselves
as the Park's saviors.
Part of that argument is the genuine need the Parks have for additional
revenue during "these times". Maybe working together we can achieve
a win win solution for us and the Park system.

Talked to my NPS counter-part for the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area. He agree that there was a real inequity here. Appearantly there was some kind of internal audit a couple of years ago where Dept. of Interior got hit hard on not charging appropriate fees for filming on public lands. He would not elaborate further but did state that what we were asking for sounded reasonable. Anyway he confirmed that Lee Dickinson was the person to contact with NPS at lee_dickinson@nps.gov

I will work on an e-mail tonite.

A recent request at Yellowstone National Park for a permit to shoot video using a single camera was responded to by rangers with confusing answers including permit fees and insurance fees along with having to have a ranger present. When ask about still photography no permit was required.

The group of 4, 20% to 70% disabled veterans who shoot nature video for stock and DVD release ask why and was given confusing answers. Such as you might get in trouble out there, these veterans are all Special Forces Trained with combat experience from Viet Nam and probably know more then the rangers about survival.

The question now being ask by Veterans Groups is if the veterans which were rejected and not allowed to shoot because of permit costs and ranger requirements and have paid the price to have parks in this country, who want to make a living shooting video are rejected by the Park Service who thinks of them as a major productions companies instead of individual, making it impossible for them to earn a living, then the stories of how the Park Service treat individual producers are true.

Or is this a case of discrimination toward disabled veterans?

Letters from Veterans groups to congress are now asking that questions, as the group was allowed to shoot in several National Parks on the East Cost and in Utah, but not Yellowstone proving there is no consistent policy or procedure and discrimination is a strong possibility.

A proposed change in the existing law could change that if it passes allowing a yearly charge for single team camera crew to shoot on all Federal Controlled land including National Parks, for a fee of $200.00.

Veterans groups are asking for the immediate passage of the proposed changes to the law, and warning Congress and Park Service of the backlash that could occur from veterans in support of disabled veterans just trying to make a living if the law is not changed.


Mike Blumberg
Arrow Maker Productions
http://www.arrowmakerproductions.com

Nature is the Contributor. I am an Observer of the Contributor.

Seems like Yellowstone is the big problem so far.

I know it was like going into a brick wall at 90mph. :)

I'll have to talk to my dad as he's heavily involved in Veteran affairs.

Nice to have the Vets on our side on this.

I'll keep on plugging away on my end.

From the following site http://www.yellowstone.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18605

"I spoke with a gentlemen from CNN that has a crew here shooting footage for a special airing on Friday night. It's going to be on the delisting, which occurs officially on Friday. ......"

Kevin, it would be interesting to find out from this person if CNN actually had "paid" ranger observers , for this shoot.

By the way the video is on the CNN site and also Friday night at 10 also in reference to the wolves delisting.

Tom,

I sent Kevin ( the guy in the post ) a message about it. I'll let you know if I hear from him.

Thanks for the post!

I did not read all six pages of posts, but the truth of the matter is that we have been conditioned to be willing to pay taxes just because we're told it's necessary and acceptable to do so. Taxes, such as these "fees" for shooting in a National Park, should be fought by the people at every turn.

We need to remember who the "government" really is. The people--you and me--are the government. They are our parks, not the government's! The people, individually, should be able to enjoy the parks in any way they see fit as long as their "enjoyment" is not causing any damage or threat to any thing or anyone in any way. A lone videographer with a tripod and camera has neither direct nor indirect impact on the environment. So why the fee (tax)?

By all means, fight this legislation and get it overturned!

Got a reponse from Kevin:

I will say emphatically, No, there was no Ranger with them when I met them. But they didn't shoot as I was speaking to them. But I did tell them where the Druids were and a half hour later I saw them in that area, videotaping and still at that time there was no Ranger in the area. I did not stop, mostly because they had their camera gear set up in what was left of the available pull out.

There is one crew here now that has been here for quite a while videotaping that doesn't have a Ranger with them.

Also, there are a couple of other cinematographers that spend most of the year in the park that do not have Rangers with them, anytime. I won't mention them by name, but............

The reason I won't or wouldn't talk about any one of the three individuals or groups that are videotaping within the park is that I have made friends with all of them. I'm not saying it is right if it is the rule, but it's obvious that it may not be enforced all the time.

I know I have heard of the same thing you are talking about, a Ranger having to be with the crew. But in my month here I've only seen one crew videotaping in the Gardiner River Canyon that had a Ranger with them at the time they were videotaping.

Hope this helps. Even though I didn't give you anything that people that spend an extended amount of time here don't already know.

Kevin

I have just ran into this wall shooting in The eastern sierra in California. I am a backcountry snowboarder and I want to make a commercial dvd of my adventures in several national forests and have started investigating what it will take. As all of you have stated I cant really afford the 2400 dollar a year insurance policy I was quoted nor can I afford the 150 dollars a day permit fees.
This was the actual reason I have poured a year of learning and 15 grand into my little production company. I can shoot weddings and special events at home bu so far no luck in getting legal in the forest.

I have talked to a friend who has a "partnership" with a certain NF and I am trying this route but I hope this bill passes.
I cant Imagine a summer rnger following me around where I go . although I have ran into a couple of winter backcountry rangers checking permits ( they were on skis)

I just stumbled on to this today and when I get home I plan to read every post.

I think it may be time to organize and fight this tax.

Its funny. When I asked about a permit the permit ranger went down the same checklist as the film insurance person

Any pyrotechincs involed? Helecopters? boats? What about toilets, crowd and traffic control? ect

They just didnt get the fact it was me, a couple of non pro atheletes and a tripod

I wrote every congressman I could find in Arizona, and I've heard back from two. Senator Kyle's office actually called me to talk more about this issue, and from the sound of our conversation I'm fairly sure he'll vote for the legislation if it can get to the senate. I also received an email response from Congressman Trent Franks who will vote for the bill if it reaches the House Floor. Hopefully this will happen soon, as an entire season of my new show is now on hold due to this issue. The worst part of it all, is my show was intending to provide resources to the public about topics such as Leave No Trace Hiking, and how to use the woods in an unobtrusive manner. Now, because of this hassle, who knows if it'll even get off the ground.

I didn't know these permits carried over to the national forests also, are you sure? I filmed all over the place in the White River in Colorado last year and never ran into an issue, I even filmed two forest rangers, with their permission, as they left after giving me a ticket for speeding on a dirt road at 8500 feet where very few people go, just because there was a posted limit and they had radar. These guys were completely outfitted, guns an everything, forest rangers, I have been going to the same area since the early 70's and this caught me by surprise, but not a word about the camera gear, go figure

This is just some info from the National Forests in the SW Region. But look up any National Forest, BLM land, National Park, National Monument, you need a filming permit unless your just taking vacation video that yo're not going to do anything with.

But they all require fees. Some Rangers might not be aware of the requirement. If you want to interview a Ranger they'd really want you to have a permit for sure because they won't grant you one of your interview isn't something that follows park policy lines.


Film Permits

National forests are a popular location for the commercial filming and still photography industries. Many motion pictures, television series and commercials have been filmed on the national forests of Arizona and New Mexico.

Anyone wishing to film on National Forest System lands must obtain a special use permit from the Forest Service. The following information addresses many common questions concerning the permitting process.

Commercial Filming

A special use permit is required for all commercial filming activities on National Forest System lands. A special use permit is not required for broadcasting breaking news.

Commercial filming is defined as the use of motion picture, videotaping, sound recording, other moving image or audio recording equipment on National Forest System lands that involves the advertisement of a product or service, the creation of a product for sale, or the use of actors, models, sets or props, but not activities associated with broadcasts for news programs. For purposes of this definition, creation of a product for sale includes but is not limited to a film, videotape, television broadcast or documentary of historic events, wildlife, natural events, features, subjects or participants in a sporting or recreation event and so forth, when created for the purpose of generating income.

Commercial or still photography will NOT be permitted if the Forest Service determines that any of the following criteria apply:

There is a likelihood of resource damage that cannot be mitigated.
There would be an unreasonable disruption of the public’s use and enjoyment of the site (beyond short term interruption)
The activity poses health or safety risks to the public that cannot be mitigated.

Fees

Cost recovery fees (permit processing and monitoring) and land use fees must be paid before filming can start.

Processing and monitoring fees vary depending on the estimated hours of Forest Service time needed to process the application to monitor filming and for any reclamation required. The fees are based on the following schedule:

Film Permits Fee Schedule
Category Forest Service
Work Hours Processing/Monitoring Fees*
1 1 to 8 $100
2 8 to 24 $354
3 24 to 36 $665
4 36 to 50 $953
5 N/A to Film Permits
6 50+ Full reimbursement for actual costs.
*Processing/monitoring fees will be accessed using separate categories.

Southwestern Region Land Use Fees for Commercial Filming

Land Use Fees Per Day for Still Photography:

1-10 persons/$50
11-30 persons/$150
over 30 persons/$250

Land Use Fees Per Day for Movie/TV Locations

1-10 persons/$150
11-30 persons/$200
31-60 persons/$500
over 60 persons/$600

The authorizing officer may adjust fees as necessary.

Contact the forest office that is responsible for the area where you are interested in filming. You will be referred to the ranger district office where the decision will be made to issue a permit to film on National Forest System lands.

You will need to have a detailed description of your planned filming activity. You can use the Photography and Filming Request to describe your proposed use of National Forest System lands.

You will need to provide a map showing specific filming locations.

Typically the Forest Service is not able to respond quickly to filming proposals. At a minimum you should plan to submit your proposal at least 30 days before you want to start filming. Complex filming proposals could require even more time depending on the level of analysis the Forest Service determines is necessary to complete before a permit can be issued.

Liability insurance will be required naming the US Government as “additional insured.” The Forest Service will determine the appropriate amount of coverage.

Depending on the location and type of production, the Forest Service may impose additional requirements such as bonding.

My read is that like most huge organizations, not every park or forest is as worried about this as the 'trend setters' like Yellowstone. However,
(and thanks for your EXCELLENT WORK Evan!) we have a chance of making this a national issue. Even with as many problems as the USA now faces, this is a debate that should take place in public. I have no problem with the Park's need to gather revenue. I know they have been hit with cuts. Our goal should be to make the policy fair and reasonable. Again, $200 is a lot of money for us 'out of our own pockets' filmmakers, but I think that is reasonable for a yearly "national permit fee".

We should all write to our congress people and use Evan case as a prime example of 'unintended consequences' that are causing harm.

I am going to do so now. Remember the $200 house bill is H. R. 5502.

I think most people have no problem with having to get a permit to film. A one time fee yearly permit would be fine with me as well. That's giving something back to the national lands.
Maybe they can argue that we make a lot more money off the parks than $200 but they also have to realize that professional still photographers pay ZERO, NADA, NOTHING to photograph on our national lands.

How man long lens camera do you see to a video camera with a mattebox? Granted a lot of non-pros use big glass but there were so many professional photographers crammed on the side of the road shooting a coyote den that they had to have a ranger present to direct traffic etc.
I would have been the only one required to pay for a ranger escort as well to make sure my tripod wasn't a tripping hazard and that I was following all the rules.

So, I really don;t want to hear any argument from them until they decide to start charging professional photographers too.

Course, the law says that they can't which is what we're trying tog et changed here.
I think this bill is a fair compromise. The federal lands get some fees back in return, even though I already paid for the park with my taxes. And I can shoot on lands that I paid for without undue financial burden placed on me.

Kevin,

Do you have any knowledge of how this bill is doing? This link
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-5502 seems to imply that it is dead--no action since February. It does state that it may have been folded into another bill.

Andy,
Haven't heard a peep.
I'll see if I can call the two representatives from Iowa that are on the House Agriculture Committee on Monday and see if I can't get them to give it a push.

Thanks for the kind words Jacques. I've left numerous voice mails with the national forest offices out here, and have only gotten one return phone call. There is a chance I might be able to get some leeway because I work for a University (Northern Arizona), and we aren't necessarily using the video for commercial purposes, but I'm not holding my breath.

When I spoke with the Senator's office I made the point that I (and most I've heard from) don't have a problem with the fees, but the issue is that this seems to be such an arbitrary process with no set rules and regs. Something needs to be done to at least sort this mess out so we know for sure who we need to talk to etc.

I'm not sure about other National Forests, but here (Coconino National Forest) I'm going to have to get a permit from EACH ranger district I might shoot in! This means I could theoretically have to deal with up to 5 separate individuals to shoot in locations less than an hour from each other. Even though its one forest, they've given their ranger districts autonomy to make their own decisions. Talk about a HUGE pain! I'll keep you guys updated about any developments I come across.

Good Luck!

Evan

Just got back from filming for a week in the Gulf Islands National Seashore which is NPS operated. Met no oposition on my one man operation and I did not inquire about permits. I did talk to several other videographers and photographers I met there and discussed HR 5502. The group was pretty evenly split between "This is our public lands and I don't support any type of permit system" and "$200 a year sounds reasonable. " I have recieved no responses to my email inquires from NPS personnel in DC.

I think you'll find a wide range as far as how park, forest, BLM staff treat permits.

At Effigy Mounds National Monument I can get a two year film permit for $50. I can go anywhere the public can go and shoot to my hearts content.
Yellowstone on other hand will do whatever they can to discourage you from shooting by throwing huge fees in your face.

I talk to a head ranger about the situation and had some great insight into all of this but I think it would take this thread to far into politics which is something I don't want to do and get this thread shut down.

I think we should be treated just like professional photographers. If we're a small film company and we're doing what the public can do then we shouldn't have to pay a cent.
But, I'm willing to compromise and pay $200 for a yearly fee that will allow me to film on Federal lands.

When you start asking me to pay thousands of dollars and my friend shoots stills for free and sells the image to a magazine for a $1500 cover, then yeah, I get torqued about it.

Any new developments. I see the bill is still in committee. As a side note I have been reading TITLE 36--Parks, Forests, and Public Property CHAPTER II--US FOREST SERVICE and can't seen to find anything that mentions a filming permit requirement. Just a prohibition on commercial activity but the definition is very vague and seems to address selling items or services on thier property.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title36/36cfr261_main_02.tpl

I am very interested to know any outcome of all this. I understand politics and realize it may never see the light of day out of committee..... but none the less any info is appreciated.

I find is exquisitely painful that the members of a committee to whom a bill is committed - a bill of national importance - will ONLY communicate with their own constituents. MEANING, that if YOUR congressman is not on that comittee, you have zero opportunity to interact on the treatment of that legislation at that phase - regardless of whether the legislative proposal has an impact beyond the geographical boundaries of the members who are on that committee... Incredible.

Two things one should never watch in the process of making. Sausage. And Law.

I got this in my email this morning...

Dear Mr. Railsback,


Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 5502. I appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns with me.


H.R. 5502 amends PL.. 106-206 by allowing commercial film crews that consist of five or less people to film in public areas on federally owned lands with less restriction and for a cheaper fee. P.L. 106-206 created regulations concerning commercial film crews who film on federally owned lands. H.R. 5502 creates a permit system that would allow commercial film crews with five or fewer individuals to receive a one-year permit at a cost of $200. This legislation has been referred to the House Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry.


Unfortunately, I am not a Member of this Subcommittee, but I am proud to be the lead Republican cosponsor of this legislation. This legislation will allow a greater number of commercial film crews to document the pristine beauty and unique features in many of America's National Parks and Reserves and will give others, who may not be able to visit, the ability to see these remarkable sights. I look forward to this legislation coming to the House floor for a vote.


Sincerely,

DON YOUNG

Congressman for All Alaska

The members of the House Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry are:

* Joe Baca, CA, Chairman
* Earl Pomeroy, ND
* Nick Lampson, TX
* Steve Kagen, WI
* Nancy E. Boyda, KS
* Travis W. Childers, MS

* Charles W. Boustany, Jr., LA, Ranking Minority Member
* Jerry Moran, KS
* Steve King, IA
* Randy Neugebauer, TX

If you live in their state or district — or even if you don't — you may want to express your sentiments to them on this bill. The Subcommittee's email address is:

agriculture@mail.house.gov

Their postal address is:
House Committee on Agriculture
1301 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Best wishes,
Peter
______________________
http://www.parkfilms.com

I just found this thread... fascinating. I'm a still photographer and now I'm going into wilderness adventure high-def videography. I did not know that I can't shoot video the same as I do photography. I don't see the difference? I have a tripod with a Sony EX1 on it instead of my Canon 5D, and that makes a difference? Odd. I hope this legislation passes. I wouldn't mind paying an annual permit fee for a couple hunnerd bucks that covers all my filming on federal/state public lands, but not a permit fee for each time I backpacking with my video camera. My gosh, that could be every single weekend. And if I take a week vacation with my EX1 in the backcountry? Whoa. As it stands now, it's absurd for a small indie guy to pay such fees when he's just hiking with a video camera.

Well, to resurrect a dead thread, I wonder if this is not the time for videograpghers to make another stab at this issue. As I understand it the old legislation died.

Anyone have an update on efforts to have another go or what is "cooking" so to speak on this issue?

I have approached two national parks recently about one-person shooting for stock wildlife/bird and landscape footage. In both cases, I was told I didn't need a permit, didn't need an escort, didn't need to file any paper work. I know it varies from park to park. In each of my recent cases their policies allowed them to require any one of these if they decided it was appropriate. In the last instance (Hawaii Volcanoes) I was told they wouldn't want to put a burden on me, and the film permit contact was extremely helpful. I was only asked to avoid certain areas and certain subjects. I am sure the requirements they choose to apply can vary for different projects (in some cases even a one-person project might require fees, permits, and escorts), but the point is not all park employees are mindless bureaucrats. I think most of them are sensible and dedicated to serving the public and the conservation goals of their parks.

I would still like to see the rules changed, so that they are uniformly applied and never put unreasonable burdens on one or two-person projects. In the meantime, you might be treated quite well at some of the parks. I think asking ahead of time is still the best approach to take.

Pat

I just recently inquired about a video permit in Everglades and Dry Tortugas National Parks and the reply was $350 for each park.

I was told that all the National Parks are charging the same fees now.