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...61_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.

Bob... was that for a day's shooting? or ?

Hi
Strange rules you have over-there. It's probably like that, some places in europe too. In Denmark we do not have that kind of practice. The nature belongs to all of us - or all of us belong to the nature. The more the nature comes on television - the better understanding there will be of wildlife. Last year we got our first nationalpark in Denmark and I do not see any movements for the board to wish payment for filming - they are more than happy to get the Nationalpark exposed. I cannot see why anybody should pay for filming in a park - Nature filming is not profitable although we try to make a living out of it.
Sorry for my english.

Bo

Chris, The fee would have been for a Travel DVD I'm working on which will take the rest of this year of intermitent filming. I live near the Park.

So, let me rephrase what i understand you to be saying....

1. You were charged a fee of $350 for an entire summer's worth of intermittent shooting... a two or less man crew.

and 2. They say that is now a standard fee in all the National Parks?

I ask because the website for Glacier National Park quotes still a $150 a day fee.

I was told by one ranger that the fees can vary. For instance, one national monument was willing to give me a permit valid for a year for $50.

Yellowstone on the other hand wanted $200 for the permit and $65 an hour for a ranger escort.

I guess I just need to present my lovely self and see what they say on the day I am there. It really ought to be standardized. (sigh). This sucks.

This document, found on the Glacier web site --
http://www.nps.gov/glac/planyourvisi...n%20092606.pdf

--says 1-2 people, camera and tripod only, there is no fee.


Duane

No, it says you don't have to pay LOCATION fees. Says you are still subject to cost recovery fees etc.

It was going to cost me thousands to film in Yellowstone with no LOCATION fees. They wanted to have a ranger follow me all over to make sure I was following the rules and because my tripod was a "trip hazard". Even though pro still photographers would have been right next to me with their cameras mounted on tripods.

This defines commercial filming as digital or film--so if you still shoot Beta SP, you should be fine.

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

You're screwed with Beta SP too.

Hey, I'm just reporting what I read.

This is not true. I was involved with filming 2 docs in Yosemite and on 2 separate occasions we had no problems whatsoever.
First of all- know your rights. Your problem was you talked to some idiot ranger. You are on a public property. That means you can film, unless the areas are closed to the public. If the ranger had a different opinion he should have quoted you an RCW governing this area of the park law. There are no such RCW, as they would be in violation with 1st amendment. Even ban on firearms in national park was overturned last year (not that i like it), but it shows the trend.
The worst come to worst they would have cited you. National parks have federal judges, who would gladly hear your case .
I think the whole issue is absurd- my approach- keep low profile and DON'T ASK RANGERS! (for a period of 10 years I spent numerous months in national parks, so i am talking from the first hand experience)
After more digging:
"Permits are generally are not required for:
Visitors using cameras and/or recording devices for their own personal use."
Unless you have contract in hand any work is considered "personal use" till actually sold.

The idiot ranger I talked to was Lee Dickinson in Washington.

There will be cost recovery charges to cover the cost of processing the application and if approved, issuing the permit. For crews of 1 - 2 people, camera and tripod only the location fee is zero. There may be places where you will wish to film that a monitor will be necessary. Please discuss this specifically with the park filming permit coordinator Stacy Vallie. You can find her contact information and other information about obtaining a permit at Yellowstone at Yellowstone National Park (U.S. National Park Service)
Lee Dickinson
Special Park Uses Program Manager
Visitor and Resource Protection
National Park Service
202/513-7092
202/371-1710 (fax)

The problem was Stacy wanted me to have a monitor the whole time I was there.


I guess I just need to be like everyone else and just ignore the rules and shoot anyway.

Excellent point.

Robert,
I guess I am one of those idiot park rangers. At my location staying under the radar (one or two persons) generally works. We require filming permits for events such as concerts, commerical advertisements, movies etc. Those that fit this catagory may require rangers to facilitate traffic control, safety, perimeter security and to prevent damage to public property. Permit fees are calculated by me based on a $50 initial fee then the time/equipment charges of the rangers. I recall a permit I issued to HBO to film a part of the movie "Warm Springs". They used a closed campground on the lake for about 5 days with a 30 person crew. We prepared the park for thier use (electricity and restrooms etc.) and had a ranger with them to facilitate any issues that came up during the shoot about use of the property. The total cost of thier permit was $800 which was reasonable to both parties. HBO was greatful for the ranger presence.

Of course what is really at issue here is every federal agency and even parks may have different rules and interpretations to follow. Some reasonable and some not. The proposed bill defines a small crew and IMO is fair. I don't have a problem (myself) paying $200 a year to film on all federal property if it alleviates possible arguement with the authorities. Also, it would be fine with me if H. R. 5502 was reauthored to define that the "small crew" does not require a permit.

As far as the outcome of filming w/o a permit, I have issued 4 citations in my career for filming w/o a permit. They were large operations (over 15 man crews) and were generally uncooperative. They were evicted from the property and all went before a federal magistrate. I won all 4 cases. Fines ranged from $125 to $500. In all but one instance the defendants came back several weeks later with a better attitude and got the proper permit.

Mark,

Can you get a job in Yellowstone! :)

I'd happily pay $200 for an annual permit, especially if the money stays in the park system.

I've seen the parks and its services deteriorate because their budgets are some of the first to be cut. So if I can film on Federal land for $200 a year and it all stays for Parks, BLM, Forests etc then I'm all for it.

I think it'll also help out with all the people who don't live in the US and pay taxes that maintain the parks etc from kicking in some too.

But don't ask me to pay $4k in fees to stand next to a still photographer who is shooting the same thing I'd be shooting and not even require a permit period.

Hi Kevin,

I keep tracking the progress of H. R. 5502 and it seems to be going no where. I think its time to rekindle the e-mail campaign to our legislators. I think this bill has a better chance of going forward under the "new" administration than the old. My experience is that funding for federal recreation agencies has generally faired better under the democrats. As far as the condition of the federal parks you might find this interesting. I spent the afternoon today responding to our agency participation in a stimulus spending package exercise. Look's like there is a 50/50 chance of addtional $$$ for facility maintenance, road paving, modernization and energy conservation. I think this may apply in some fashion to most federal agencies.

As far as working in Yellowstone...not my cup of tea. I have heard way to many horror stories about working there. Also, this will be my last year with the feds as I am retiring and plan to be shooting video full time.

Hey..... I just thought of a new angle.

It is based on Canon's new DSLR that cans also shoot some pretty awesome video.

I go into the park to shoot commercial stills. No permit. Just me, camera and tripod

At some point I change the camera to shoot some commercially intended video. Same camera, same tripod and still just me.

Did that trigger a need for a permit? Recovery fees?

WHY???????

Food for thought.

Chris

Mark, as far as you describe:
"As far as the outcome of filming w/o a permit, I have issued 4 citations in my career for filming w/o a permit. They were large operations (over 15 man crews) and were generally uncooperative. They were evicted from the property and all went before a federal magistrate. I won all 4 cases. Fines ranged from $125 to $500. In all but one instance the defendants came back several weeks later with a better attitude and got the proper permit."
There is a big, big difference between 1 or 2 person party filming something that might sell and 15-30 person crew working on a budgeted commercial project. I filmed a few climbing documentaries in Yosemite 2 times, and I filmed recently in Canadian Rockies (Banff and Jasper NP). In Yosemite we decided to "fly under radar" upon the advice of a friendly ranger; in Canada nobody cares at all. Anyway, from a legal stand point any work is considered a "private use", unless there is actual contract for sale in place. If a party wants me to do a commercial in Yosemite NP, they pay for the work it is a commercial filming venture. If I am filming a climbing party on El Capitan, hoping to sell it to Versus or ESPN later on it is a private use till the sale goes through. You'd have mighty hard time convincing any federal judge otherwise. (I checked with my DA friend on this one).
As you see I am against this stupid micro management on public lands. Reminds me situations, where land managers regulate anchor placements in rock climbing areas, next to highways and several power lines running through within few hundreds of feet. Simply doesn't make any sense.

Robert,

I agree with most of what you said. Its all in how the regulations are written. NPS and USFS have specific filming regulations. Mine (USACE) does not but includes it under special event permits and unauthorized commercial activity which covers basically anything you want it to. You are entitled to your intepretation of the regulations and feel free to test them. I am just stating my experiences as a private citizen videographer and regulatory enforcer. Actually it all comes down to how the US Magistrate interprets things. I have had two different Magistrates render different rullings on almost identical offenses. The key to resolving this whole situation IMO is to get legislation passed to exempt small crews from permits or have a yearly low cost permit that is good on all federal lands regardless of which agency manages it.