I recently found out that the Department of Interior will start charging professional filmmakers at least $150 a day to shoot in National Parks. High fees will eventually spread to the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and their lands. Here are some links to news stories on the issue. http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2006/04/fees.html
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4660340,00.html

Since my dream is to become a wildlife videographer, who largely uses public lands, this has upset me tremendously. I recently e-mailed a letter of protest to: the Department of Interior, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, my congressman, and my senators. You can contact the DOI and find links to contacting their other agencies at http://www.doi.gov/contact.html You can also contact your congressional representative at www.house.gov and your senators at www.senate.gov

According to one website, the National Park Service fees will start being implemented on May 15 and "The final draft departmental regulations will be published in the Federal Register within two months and will be open to public comment for at least 30 days." I feel we should cooperate, organize, and encourage the federal government to modify the structure of fees to shoot on public lands so they are reasonable for the low-budget filmmaker. Below is a copy of the main version my letter, which I slightly customized for each agency.

I am bitterly in protest of the U.S. Department of Interior’s upcoming location fees of at least $150 a day to film on some federal lands. These new location fees will apply to the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This isn't fair to the public. Many filmmakers can't afford these fees and will be put out of business. You might was well say to hell with North American wildlife films made by people who aren’t rich. My dream for once I get out of college is to make American wildlife films, but federal lands like national parks and wildlife refuges are the few places where rare wildlife won't immediately run or fly away when it sees a photographer approaching.

My government is shattering my dream. BLM land surrounds where I grew up in northeastern California. If I ever become a professional and want to film in some of the favorite parts of my backyard, I'll be charged big-time by the federal government. This makes me sad beyond description. Where are people who aren't rich going to film wildlife documentaries? Just private lands and forest service lands can be limiting, especially when the wildlife in these areas is harassed or shot at.

Wildlife documentaries are films which project some of the better elements of our country. The most important thing in my life is to accomplish my dream and not be in perpetual debt. Looks like the elitist, rich loving, rich controlled federal government of mine is effectively crushing my dream and my optimism and confidence in my country. My soul is hurt and it will be reflected in how I vote.

Please understand that charging $150 a day for any professional photographer to film on Department of Interior lands is a mistake. If you want to raise revenues, you'd be better off if you could successfully encourage Congress to get rid of tax breaks for the wealthy and/or subsidies to big energy and oil companies, and have saved money channeled to the impoverished National Park Service and other agencies (okay, I know that’s nice but unrealistic).

Anyway, I think high fees are reasonable for multi-million dollar film studios but not for small-scale wildlife filmmakers. As one website stated: “A one-year project on animal behavior in a National Park could conceivably cost a dedicated videographer fees in excess of $45,000.” Putting free-lance filmmakers out of business isn’t the best way to make a profit. I’m starting to feel like government land isn’t public land but the land of whatever administration happens to be in office. I encourage you do what you can to help structure public land filming fees so ordinary non-rich people won’t be hurt.

Sincerely and sadly,
Tristan Howard

Tristan, very well put! We as independent wildlife filmmakers must adamantly protest this regulation change. We are cameramen with a tripod not a hollywood or advertising agency with production crew. We have no problem with the government charging the production crews for location fees. In fact the big companies endorse this new fee structure. But once again, congress "overlooked" the little guy. To be fair, they must set up their fee structure to distinguish between us. Here are a some important email addresses where you can voice your opinion before it becomes irreversable.

Director of the Nationl Parks: fran_mainella@nps.gov

Filming Permits Coordinator: lee_dickinson@nps.gov

Thanks for the post Tristan!

How can the federal government justify a fee like this?

If it's to cover impact, then I don't see how a few dozen independent filmmakers can possibly have more negative impact than millions of casual visitors.

Visitors can get a pass that's good for several days at a stretch, and filmmakers also be able do the same. The likelihood that enough good footage can be acquired in a single day is ridiculous. In reality, it'll add hundreds or thousands of dollars to a production budget. If a fee needs to be charged, it should be for a monthly or annual pass.

If nothing else, it's the independent wildlife filmmaker who helps support the protection of these national parks. Filmmakers bring the richness of the natural world to millions who might not have the opportunity to directly observe and appreciate wildlife at its best.

Tristan:
The hand writing has been on the wall for some time. Early this year I went to Puerto Rico and I was stop on a National operated Parks when they saw my GL1. They told me that if I was taping for professional purpose I had to pay a fee. Of course I told them that I was not and that was the end of it.

Carrying a tripod yells 'professional' to national park people. Not only here, but overseas as well. National and local governments see the fees as a revenue generating instrument and don't really care whether it is just or fair. I used a monopod with an FX1 in Mexico a couple of weeks ago and just paid the standard civilian video camera fee charged to all the tourists.

One thing you can do is to get a letter of permission. It is a pain, but if this policy goes into effect, this might be a way around it.

dreadful. i got kicked out of a park in mexico for using a 1 lb. desktop tripod on my lap, to stabilize a GL2. tripods send bureaucrats into spins. mine was probably not even as good as a monopod. what is this? footage that looks like crap is fine, but don't try to shoot anything good? i hate to see the US going this way. it's beyond ignorant of the economic realities of wildlife video. thanks for the heads up.

I can't believe the US Gov is considering this. I can understand that their budgets could use the extra cash but $150 a day! That's ridiculous!

I agree with Dean's statement re: annual pass etc, if they insist on something.

I

oops, bumped the mouse and it clicked 'submit' before I was finished ranting.

As I was saying... I better start shooting like crazy in Canada's parks before they follow suit.

I know one of the beautiful things about living in near proximity to parks is just going to check them out for an afternoon and if lighting and nature co-operate to provide that great shot... it's worth hours of hiking and waiting. If lighting and nature don't cooperate, then at least you had an afternoon in the great outdoors. I can't imagine paying 150 and getting shut out.

If this does go through, you'd be better off paying a landowner adjacent to a Park $50 to shoot on his land and maybe accidentally wander across the park boundary.

Good Luck, I hope this gets defeated.

PS. I'm really p*ssed at politicians right now as our local gov is trying to turn a 52 acre park in our neighborhood into a subdivision

Check it out at www.echoheights.ca

Ken

Sadly, I suspect this trend will soon gravitate to Australia seeing as how our Fed Govt. is betrothed to the coat tails of your own. Parks here are a State responsibility.

However our Federal Govt., has ways and means of making our state governments lock step, usually by means of hanging on to the tax take.

In the final run-down, what this encourages is for unmoneyed people to construct in their own minds a justification based on the principle of being doubly taxed, take the game entirely off the table and then trespass, with some trepidation about being caught but no guilt whatsoever.

If the authorities want to monitor what is going on in public lands and preserve for themselves some degree of predictable management, then the "user pays" fees should be appropriately scaled.

Wildlife photographers have or at least should have, some sensitivity to the environment.

They likely cause a much smaller impact upon it than a full-on production, which would require a clean-up and environmental rehabilitation after the circus has swarmed in, shot, stamped all over the shrubs and shoved off again, hopefully all without capsizing the honeywagon on bad roads.

Unfortunately this is how our government is being run now. All they want is your money and yet they don't even know how to take care of it. Last I heard Medicare will exhaust its trust fund in 12 years and Social Security will exhaust its trust fund in 2040.

If you think about it, the government is engaged in all sorts of forms of double taxation (they already tax your income and yet they then make you pay sales tax and use tax or what about when you buy a used car and you pay tax on it, which was already taxed when it was new and paid by someone who's income is taxed). This is the same thing that pissed us off at the British back in Boston remember that?? These taxes on public land are nothing more than double taxation. It's like the "Adventure Pass" recreational fees that they make you pay just so that you can drive to the forest, park your car and take a walk in public land. Yes, they make you pay again just to recreate in your own country that you already pay taxes for. Also, did you know that with the Adventure Pass program, a General Accounting Office report showed that the government was spending $15M just to net $15M in fees? How's that for efficiency?

Read more about Fee Demo here:

http://www.vcnet.com/~freeourforests/whywrong.htm
http://www.wildwilderness.org/

I don't know about you but I'm tired of paying taxes again and again and seeing it get mis-managed and then they come back and ask for even more money. Heck, all I see are corrupt politicians being indicted for taking bribes and favors. What will it take for the people to say we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore?

After reading this thread, my wife e-mailed Lee Dickinson, Special Park Uses Program Manager at the National Parks Service. Here is his answer. I assume that this also applies to individual videographers.

"There has been a great deal of miss communication when it comes to the
National Park Service Policy on location fees for still photography, which
in fact has not changed. As a rule, if a photographer is not using models,
sets or props and remains in areas open to the general public there is no
permit requirement and no fees or charges. The need for a permit for still
photography is based on the planned activity, not the eventual use of the
image.

I hope this answers your concerns. If you have further questions let me
know."

Steve,

Thanks for the info. I hope the criteria Dickinson mentioned does apply to individual videographers. But, we should try to find out for sure what the situation is. I'm guessing we'll find out when the final regulations are published and open for comment in a few months. Not too suprisingly, I haven't got a response back yet for my exceedinlgy irate e-mail to him.

I'm afraid you have been slighted by Dickenson (who is a "she" btw). Unless your letter was specifically regarding photography (which is not the issue), Dickenson answered your email to "calm your fears" knowing good and well the issue is about filming. In fact Dickenson is all for congress getting this regulation passed. Read this!

Google this LA Times Article: lee dickinson national parks
(2nd article down)

I hope there is enough public outcry for congress to re-evaluate their regulation to not included the single cameraman/filmmaker/videographer. This is not a still photographer concern... although they will be next !!!!

I'm afraid you have been slighted by Dickenson (who is a "she" btw). Unless your letter was specifically regarding photography (which is not the issue), Dickenson answered your email to "calm your fears" knowing good and well the issue is about filming. In fact Dickenson is all for congress getting this regulation passed. Read this!

Google this LA Times Article: Lee Dickinson National Parks
(2nd article down)

I hope there is enough public outcry for congress to re-evaluate their regulation to not include the single cameraman/filmmaker/videographer. This is not a still photographer concern... although they will be next !!!!

Am I reading this right, that Dickinson expects a "public outcry" to demand that videomakers ante-up to cover some imagined nuisance they cause the other park users? If this is what she needs to move Congress in that direction, we have nothing to worry about. I'm wondering, is there some active and effective national body that advocates for photographers in legal issues like this?

A "she." Well, I suppose I was a bit careless, arrogant, and over-presumptuous when I wrote "him." Anyway, it looks like we might not have too much to worry about, at least in the national parks. Check out this article: http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2006/05/04/breakingnews/30filming.txt
It looks like Montana Senator Baucus helped us out. We should just make sure we have small crews and don't get within goring range of the bison and elk.

Am I reading this right, that Dickinson expects a "public outcry" to demand that videomakers ante-up to cover some imagined nuisance they cause the other park users? If this is what she needs to move Congress in that direction, we have nothing to worry about. I'm wondering, is there some active and effective national body that advocates for photographers in legal issues like this?

After reading the referenced article, I can see what the fees are intended for. The legislation just needs to establish a sliding scale based on size of production and intended use. That way, the small individual shooting nature stuff doesn't get bagged with an enormouse fee such as might be imposed on a full film crew.

As a side note, this thread has been vicariously allowed to remain in place. Just remember that DVINFO does not allow political rants and discussions to take place because most people are polarized one way or the other and this leads to personal attacks and flaming in a lot of cases.

Tristan has brought the matter to eveyone's attention and you should all go read any referenced information and come to your own conclusion about how much or how little to react to this. Just keep your strong beliefs, viewpoints, and tirades to yourself.

regards,

-gb-

Am I reading this right, that Dickinson expects a "public outcry" to demand that videomakers ante-up to cover some imagined nuisance they cause the other park users?
And what about those pesky tourists? Anybody who has done a significant amount of video, will atest to the fact that idiots are everywhere. If you have a camera, they will be walking in front of you, and making those silly apollogetic faces into the lens. If videographers have to pay to shoot, will the park remove these pests for the day?

Greg, sorry about my tirade. I figured I was pushing it a bit since I somewhat panicked when I found out about the fees. I hope I was merely over-reacting and the threat isn't too serious.

Anway, to anybody who's interested, I got a reply from the NPS that seems to confirm that there is less to worry about, but I'm not sure what regulations will be put in place in 2007.

National Park Service
Office of Public Affairs
Washington, DC

For Immediate Release, May 4, 2006
Contact: David Barna, 202/208-6843

National Park Service Statement Regarding
New Provision for Policy on Location Fees for Filming and Photography

"The National Park Service (NPS) recently announced, at the direction of
Congress, implementation of a Public Law that will allow collection of
location fees for commercial filming and still photography beginning on May
15, 2006.

The following provision has been added to the NPS policy to address the
needs of videographers and cinematographers who produce nature films that
highlight the wonders of national parks.

Commercial videographers, cinematographers or sound recording crews
of up to two people with only minimal equipment (i.e. a camera and a
tripod) working in areas open to the public are required to obtain a
commercial filming permit and are subject to appropriate permit terms and
conditions and cost recovery charges but are not subject to location fees.

This policy applies to all parks in the National Park System and will
remain in effect until the Departmental regulation on Commercial Filming
and Still Photography is adopted late in 2007."

- NPS -

That's excellent news, Tristan. Perhaps there was enough public outcry for them to rethink their strategy after all. Now that the issue has been clarified, let's all get back to the creative side of life.

-gb-

It's a sad state of affairs as I have filmed wildlife for many years and have had to gravitate to private lands, if possible, to accomplish projects. We all talk among ourselves about this new fee but we really need to bombard our elected officials and the news media on all levels with these thoughts, and do it over and over again. This issue will be covered in detail at the Wildlife Film Festival this month by a panel of our peers and news media. If you can attend, it will strengthen our voice.
As it stands right now, if you get permitted before May 15th, you 'only' pay a permit fee to film which is $200.00 and most parks are going to let the $150.00 daily location fee slide until May 15th, 2007 while they try and figure out an equitable daily location fee structure or even an annual location fee. This is what Yellowstone is doing and I would think most will do the same. Of course, even the permit fee must be paid for each park you want to film in. A national permit would be better, just like our parks pass.

Here is a response just in:

Mr. Mersereau:

When we developed the policy on location fees the nature videographer who
films 100s of days a year was a category which we neglected to consider.
After having that brought to our attention, we amended out policy to
exclude from location fees crews of 1 - 2 people using only a camera and a
tripod in areas normally open to the general public.

This policy will stay in place until the Department of the Interior
finalizes a regulation that will apply to all DOI agencies. That proposed
regulation as well as a fee schedule will be published in the Federal
Register for public comment within the next few months. Once those comments
have been addressed the regulation will be finalizes, probably late in
2007.

I hope this answers your questions and concerns. If you have further
questions please let me know.


Lee Dickinson
Special Park Uses Program Manager
Visitor and Resource Protection
National Park Service
202/513-7092
202/371-1710 (fax)

Wow, thanks very much for sharing this with us Jacques. Great to see you at NAB,

Here is a response just in:
we amended out policy to
exclude from location fees crews of 1 - 2 people using only a camera and a
tripod in areas normally open to the general public.


This probably helps to answer the question regarding tripods in national parks, too.

This probably helps to answer the question regarding tripods in national parks, too.

Yes, thank you all!

According to the last letter that was posted, from the Dept. of the Interior, there would still be a permit fee and "cost recovery charges" assessed, even for those who made videos with only two people and basic equipment. These fees would be separate from the location fees for larger commercial productions. It also was stated that this would be extended to include all areas under their administration. National wildlife refuges would be part of this, if it is put into effect. It still isn't clear from what has been said, how non-commercial videomakers would be affected by this.

There are many branches of government around the country that charge fees for video or film-making in public places.
In my own city a daily shooting fee of $150. was instituted a dozen or so years ago. The wording of the ordnance authorizing this is very vague and doesn't spell out a definition of what constitutes a professional or commercial production, as distinguished from amateur use. This seems to give the city the option of enforcing payment of the fee on an arbitrary and irregular basis. I wonder how many other cities have such policies and what experiences some of our members have had with them. I've never been told by anyone from the city that I needed a permit for using my video equipment in public places here. But, since some of gear is large and professional, I'm concerned that someday they might think I could be charged, although I do no shooting for profit.

I have mixed feelings on this topic.

1) For those shooting Toyota, GM or other HUGE client
commercials/movies with the accompanying HUGE budgets,
YES, a fee should be charged and collected from those making
the big bucks. $150 per day is peanuts to this user base because
they are using the scenery and not waiting for animals to appear
in the viewfinder.

2) Personally, I cannot afford to pay out $150 per day on the off chance
I might bring home some great footage, and THEN actually use
that footage in the final cut. "An Opsrey Homecoming" cost us a bundle
and we have not, and most likely will not, make any profit even
though it has been broadcast on PBS. We spent MONTHS and MONTHS
collecting the footage (180 hours) for AOHC. Had we had to pay a $150
per day . . . ?
NO WAY the movie would have been made.

I think we need to start a campaign to educate those who are actively
looking at implementing this new policy. As the letter states, there will
be a time period when 'public comment' will be taken and considered.
When that time comes, I would highly suggest this community make its
opinion known to our public officials. We should also alert other nature
film makers to this issue as there is strength in numbers.

Pretty soon the only ones that will be able to afford to do anything in a National Park or reserve will be oil companies.

From today's issue of USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060512/1a_bottomstrip12.art.htm

Fees at 22 parks are going up this year. At Death Valley National Park in California, entrance fees per auto are doubling to $20. At Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in Arizona, annual park passes will cost $30, up from $20.

“National parks are the soul of America, and we are neither taking care of them nor enabling the Park Service to fully inspire and teach visitors,” says Tom Kiernan, president of the National Parks and Conservation Association, which lobbies for the parks.

I believe the current federal policy is to pay oil companies to drill.

Speaking of not being able to see the forest for the fees........Here is a spoof I whipped together last year, after getting railroaded and double charged for everything in a national forest I was visiting.
http://fritzrips.com/fees.wmv