Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape Photography Locations => Topic started by: alan a on January 19, 2014, 03:08:01 pm
-
This posting concerns serious illegal activity by some photo workshops — activity that also undermines the maintenance of federal BLM and National Park lands. And you should be aware that if you participate in such a workshop, it can be shut down by the BLM or Park Service. So I apologize for the length, but the issues discussed below are of critical importance for anyone who pays for workshops in the western United States.
About one year ago, I participated in a photo workshop, in a western state, that was organized and guided by at least one nationally recognized photographer. At the time I was considering participating in a follow-up workshop, in the same state, run by the same individual and company. When I mentioned this photo workshop to a hiking guide service in that local area, the local hiking guide service looked up the name of the photo workshop on the BLM web site that lists permit holders, and said that the organizer did not have a permit and was operating illegally. The local guide service, without my permission, reported that photo workshop to the BLM for operating without a permit. I then informed the photo workshop organizer, fearing that I had caused him a problem. The photo workshop organizer told me that the BLM was fully aware of his workshop and its activities. I ultimately did not sign up for the particular workshop, and instead pursued my own photography in the same area and at the same time, and ran across the workshop several times on BLM lands.
Upon my return home, I decided to follow up, as the entire episode was quite troubling. I called the BLM office and spoke to the BLM official responsible for permits. He was aware of this photo workshop, because due to the call from the local hiking guide service, the organizer of the photo workshop had been forced to call the BLM. As a result, the photo workshop organizer -- who did not have a permit -- had been instructed by the BLM to stay off of gravel roads and BLM lands, and limit any activities to asphalt highways. The BLM asked me to document in an email that I had in fact seen the workshop in question on precisely such lands, in direct violation of BLM instructions, which I did. I was happy to do so, for the key part of this story, at least for me, was to learn from the BLM, after the fact, that the workshop did NOT have a permit, and the workshop organizer's emphatic assertion that the BLM was aware of the workshop, and approved of its activities, was simply not true. For the record, I heard anecdotally that the photo workshop and company in question does have a permit this year, at least for that specific part of that western state, but I haven’t checked, as I will not do business with that company in any event.
When I discussed this episode with other photo guide services, I learned that this is a serious problem with other photo workshops, and my experience was not an isolated case. BLM and National Park Service permits are not cheap, and some photo workshops evade the requirements of federal law and operate illegally. It should be noted that these are not small-time or unknown photo workshops. The other local photo guides cited other really big names who allegedly operate without permits. I can report that the local guide services, including photo guides, told me that it is a serious issue, and not just an isolated problem of only a few companies.
These illegal activities by some photo workshops are a serious problem because:
(1) The local BLM and National Park Service offices use permit fees to directly support their operations. In a period of severe federal budget cutbacks, these permit fees are a critical source of income to support the activities of the BLM and the National Park Service with regard to protecting the very federal lands that we, landscape photographers, all enjoy.
When photo workshops evade and violate the requirements of federal and state law, and do not obtain permits, they are not helping to support and maintain federal lands, but in fact are doing exactly the opposite.
(2) The photo workshop operators who failed to get permits are also working to the direct economic disadvantage and loss of the legitimate workshops and guide services that do obtain permits. A BLM permit for a professional guide service or workshop operator is not cheap, and is actually fairly expensive. It is an expensive permit for professional operators. That is why the rogue and illegal operators fail to obtain permits. When any of us, as landscape photographers, participate in workshops without permits, we are simply rewarding illegal activity, and failing to support legitimate guide services and photo workshops that have purchased all necessary BLM or Park service permits.
(3) The BLM and the National Park Service can shut down any photo workshop that they find on their lands, and which do not have the necessary and required permits. I heard anecdotally that one of the biggest names in the business is notorious for not having permits, and in one of our most prestigious national parks, the Park service is actively looking for him, or least was as of one year ago. So if you sign up for a workshop that does not have the necessary permits, you run the risk that your workshop could be shut down in the middle of your visit, due to the illegal behavior of the organizer.
(4) My understanding is that the BLM requires, as a condition for obtaining a permit, that organizers show proof of liability insurance. That strongly suggests that photo workshops that fail to have permits might also not have liability insurance. Since none of us, the customers of such workshops, can ever know if the workshop actually has liability insurance, at least determining that they have the necessary permits would be a good first step to document that the workshop or guide service is a professional operation.
(5) My experience demonstrated that it is not sufficient to ask a workshop or guide service if they have permits. I did ask, and I was deliberately misled by the organizer, as I described above.
(6) What that underscores, unfortunately, is that it is our responsibility – the customers who pay for the workshops – to verify that the workshop and guide service has all necessary permits. However, it is not that difficult to do so, since every local BLM area office lists permit holders on their website. If a photo operator says they have a permit, but they are not listed on the website, then call the local or Park service or BLM office and ask.
If such a phone call causes a problem for any illegal photo workshop operating without a permit, so be it. They deserve it. You will actually be doing a favor to the suckers who signed up for the workshop, as a call from the BLM to the photo workshop might result in its advance cancellation. Better to have that outcome, than for the photographers to fly to a western location, only to have their workshop shut down.
(7) I will forward the link of this posting to the BLM office that I discussed this matter with one year ago. I will encourage that office to zealously prosecute any photo workshop or guide service that fails to obtain permits and is operating illegally. I will also encourage that BLM office to share the link to this posting, and my message, with other BLM offices in the Western United States.
I believe that they will be simply delighted to do so.
8 -- When rogue photo workshops start getting shut down for illegal activities, the news will spread rapidly on websites such as this. That is ultimately what will force the illegal operators to fully obtain all necessary permits. Because the news will spread as to which photo workshops have permits, versus those that do not.
In closing, permit fees are now an essential part of the operations of the BLM and the National Park Service. They are an increasingly critical source of financial support to maintain federal lands due to federal budget cutbacks. We, the community of landscape photographers, who care about the preservation of these lands, should only do business with guide services and photo workshops that have all necessary permits and are in full compliance with federal and state law.
Unfortunately, it is up to us, based on my experience, to verify that workshops and guidance services have the necessary permits. But that is easy enough to verify – you need only look on the appropriate website, or simply call the local BLM or Park Service office.
I will have no sympathy if you are in middle of a workshop that is shut down by the BLM or Park Service because the company or organizer failed to obtain permits.
Particularly not if you read this posting.
So do the right thing — and support only legitimate workshops and operators who are in full compliance with state and federal law, including permit requirements. Check the BLM or Park Service web sites that list permit holders, and if the workshop is not listed, call the local BLM or Park Service office and ask.
P.S. On an entirely unrelated point, I have participated in workshops where the so-called experts disappear after 15 minutes and go off and do their own photography and ignore the workshop participants for hours at a time. If you want to sign up for a workshop, ask your fellow photographers how it is run. Paying a really big name to do his own photography at your expense is a waste of your money IMHO. This is another problem with many workshops. But maybe I am in a minority in my view that the instructors should actually INSTRUCT and not not just go off and do their own photography, leaving the participants to wander around aimlessly. That is another problem with some so-called workshops, but many photographers seem to be entirely OK with that practice, even though they paid thousands of dollars for the workshop. It only proves that PT Barnum was right. You have to be a sucker to pay a big name photographer to ignore you, during his own workshop, and to do his own photography at your expense.
-
Good for you.
-
I agree 100% but this would be MUCH more helpful with names.
-
Jesus, man, get off that high horse!
-
I agree 100% but this would be MUCH more helpful with names.
Names are not necessary, and would simply result in a debate between the workshop in question and me -- along with the local guide service and the BLM -- as explained in my original posting, and more than a year later. (I meant to post this long ago, but just never got around to it.) And if that photo tour operator now has a permit, as a result of being caught without a permit one year ago, then that issue has been resolved -- at least in the case of that one photo workshop organizer.
My purpose in starting my posting with my own story was to illustrate the point that just because a tour operator or photo workshop operator CLAIMS to have a permit does not mean that they actually have one. Photographers who are paying thousands of dollars for a tour, and flying half way across the country to attend, need to take enough personal initiative to check the BLM web site for that area, or call the BLM or Park Service and confirm that the operator does, in fact, have a permit.
My purpose in posting was not to cause a debate about those specific events one year ago. It was to use my own experience, and what I subsequently learned, to focus attention on any photo workshop or photo travel group that is operating on federal lands without a permit. I suspect that the practice of many workshops is to NOT get a permit due to the expense involved -- based on the reports I heard in one specific region that is popular with landscape photographers. Frankly, for anyone attending a workshop on federal land, you should assume the negative -- that the operator does NOT have a permit -- until you have verified that the operator does, in fact, have a permit.
BTW, this problem, of violating the law and not having permits, is most likely to happen with photo workshop and tour operators who fly into a region from some other part of the country, along with their paying clients. It is less likely to happen with a local photo tour operator in a given region, because the BLM and Park Service know what any local operator is doing. My observation was that the local guides were very careful to only operate in the BLM region where they had a permit, because this is their full time job, and if they lost their permits, they would be out of business. That is not to say that every photo tour operator who flies into an area, from another state, does not have a permit -- but it is to suggest that the likelihood of a problem is greater for workshops where the business address is out-of-state and not in that region, and less likely with local operators. However, this distinction is irrelevant to the BLM. The BLM is an equal opportunity enforcer. If you are a for-profit tour or workshop operator, and go on BLM lands, you need a BLM permit -- regardless of where you came from. The Park Service (and possibly Forest Service as well) would have the same perspective.
In the case of the BLM, at least for that region, you look at the list "approved" outfitters and guides -- they are the companies that have complied with all BLM requirements and have permits. But the list can always be out of date, so you may still need to call to verify whether the workshop you are planning on attending has a permit, or whether a permit is required. (My understanding, based on talking with the BLM, is that any for-profit workshop or guide that is operating on BLM lands is required to have a permit and to meet all other BLM requirements for such a permit. And for photographers from the east, if your workshop is outside of an urban area in the west, there is a good chance it is on BLM, Forest Service, or Park Service lands.)
As for the comment that I am on a "high horse" -- do you condone photo tours that violate federal law? Indeed, these so-called "nature" and "landscape" photo tours violate federal law and regulations on the very lands that we all claim to care about. There is a huge amount of hypocrisy involved here. The photo tour I was involved with has statements on their web site about protecting the environment and caring about the landscapes we all photograph -- even while they violated federal regulations and failed to obtain permits. And where do the revenues from those permits go -- to maintain those very lands. The hypocrisy was appalling.
And if you do think I am on a high horse, well, consider yourself warned. The BLM can -- and has -- shut down tours and operations without permits. Maybe Slobodan will be unlucky enough to be on such a photo tour, only to have it shut down half way through. My high horse will look far different from that rather low vantage point.
-
Skip the "photo tours" and go out on your own. Besides, who wants to have the same shot as the other 20 people on the tour. :)
-
I agree with that in the case of many so-called workshops. Read the P.S. on the bottom of original posting.
-
Dude, you really should be minding your own business. I am not involved in photo workshops in any way, but I find your actions very annoying.
-
This posting concerns serious illegal activity by some photo workshops...
Thanks for the warning.
-
Thanks for the warning.
You're welcome.
Dude, you really should be minding your own business. I am not involved in photo workshops in any way, but I find your actions very annoying.
I am merely describing the policies of the BLM and Park Service. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether I am "minding my own business." Photographers who consider spending thousands of dollars on a workshop should be aware of this issue. These policies -- and enforcement by the BLM and Park Service -- existed before I posted here, and it would exist regardless of whether I provided this information.
I do agree with those BLM and Park Service policies, however. The BLM and Park Service have seen their budgets slashed, and those of us who go on those lands should support those public lands through user fees -- including by paying those fees through tour operators who must obtain permits.
-
... As for the comment that I am on a "high horse" -- do you condone photo tours that violate federal law?...
Let me tell you what I do NOT condone:
- too much regulation, government or not
- excessive fees for basically a common good
- photo tours (photography is a solitary endeavor)
- photo-tour participants who expect the leader to hold their hand all the time, hoping some of the greatness will rub off on them
And what I particularly do not condone:
- snitching with a religious fervor
-
- too much regulation, government or not
- excessive fees for basically a common good
And what I particularly do not condone:
- snitching with a religious fervor
I guess we will have to disagree. User fees and permits on America's public lands do not constitute "excessive fees." What we all pay to enter the national parks is an absurdly low fee and hardly excessive. The same applies for permit fees, that a lawful and professional photo operator simply passes on to his clients in what would actually be a small per person charge. And it is hardly too much regulation for the BLM and Park Service to enforce those policies. Our disagreement is not about my posting. It is about the role of government, and the fact that all of us -- who visit these vast and wonderful western spaces -- can and should pay user and permit fees to do so. Fees that are absurdly low in any event.
As for snitching, the list of permit holders is on the BLM web sites. I explained that photographers can simply consult those lists. So I am not advocating being a "snitch." Merely warning my fellow photographers that if you pay for a workshop that does not have a permit, you do so at your own risk -- and you are financially supporting a tour operator who violates federal law, rather than one who follows federal law. And if a workshop is not on the list, the photographer can always make one phone call to determine if the workshop has a permit. That is hardly "snitching." It is to determine if an operator is a professional who meets BLM requirements, such as liability insurance, and has a permit.
Finally, in my own case (read my posting) I disagreed with the local hiking guide, when that guide emailed the BLM and turned in the photo workshop without my permission. I strongly defended the workshop, and believed their protestations of innocence and that they had all necessary permits. Only to find that I was misled by disingenuous statements from the workshop operator -- statements that were simply false. So when the BLM asked me to for an email documenting where I had seen the workshop, I supplied the requested information. If you call that snitching, well so be it. If the workshop operator had not misled me -- and directly violated the instructions of the BLM -- that would not have been the result.
From that experience, and conversations with guides and photo tour operators who follow the law -- I learned that this was not an isolated incident or just one rogue operator. The problem is more widespread than that. Thus my posting here.
-
Okay you are angry - we understood.
You have a reason for it - we understood.
Thanks for the warning.
Its good now.
Now you should let your post develop its impact on its own
step back a step and focus on taking images.
Cheers
~Chris
-
Agreed! ;D And speaking of images, yours (I spotted the link under your name) are very good -- I particular like the B&W shots.
-
... User fees and permits on America's public lands do not constitute "excessive fees." What we all pay to enter the national parks is an absurdly low fee and hardly excessive. The same applies for permit fees... a small per person charge....Fees that are absurdly low in any event...
Versus:
... BLM and National Park Service permits are not cheap... A BLM permit for a professional guide service or workshop operator is not cheap, and is actually fairly expensive. It is an expensive permit for professional operators...
Make up your (self-righteous) mind, man! Are they "absurdly cheap" or are they "fairly expensive"?
I understand, however. Angry people tend to spew out so many things that they can hardly remember at the end what they said in the beginning. Given the sheer verbosity of your diatribe (is this the right Latin word?... or is it, perhaps, diarrhea, the verbal kind?), it is easy to get lost in the maze of your postings. Perhaps hiring a guide to help you navigate your own posts? Just make sure that the guide is fully licensed, with all the necessary permits. Otherwise, some sanctimonious jerk might shut down his operation, and you will be left lost, in the wilderness of your own toxic posts, trying to remember what you initially said and avoid the inconsistency traps along the way.
-
I've always thought that the USA could save itself a whole bunch of money if they just put one big sign up in every airport arrivals area that simply says "DON'T". If you want to take hassle free landscape pictures, come to North Wales 8) and I'll show anyone round for free!
-
Make up your (self-righteous) mind, man! Are they "absurdly cheap" or are they "fairly expensive"?
You quoted my posts out of context, as you know. I should drop this, but allow me to clarify that my posts are, in fact, consistent. I also did not engage in name-calling or personal attacks against you.
You are the one who posted about limited government and excessive fees in the context of our national parks and public lands, not me. The fees that we pay on an individual basis to enter our national parks are absurdly low. The permit fee for a for-profit operation is, as I stated, more expensive. That is why the unprofessional rogue workshops do not obtain permits and operate illegally, as compared with a professional who applies for a permit, meets the BLM guidelines, and pays the higher fee for the permit.
The tour operators and guides pay a higher permit fee, simply because they are taking groups of people onto BLM lands or the national parks. The permit fee reflects that, and a professional operator passes that cost through to each client or customer, and that then results in a smaller per-person charge that each of us pays.
That is called basic math.
I won't be the one who will be snitching or turning anyone in, because I won't be utilizing a rogue company who operates illegally and does not have a permit.
The BLM made it very clear to me that they enforce their policies against illegal tour operators when they find them on BLM lands. (In the case of the workshop organizer that prompted my posting, after the workshop, the BLM subsequently found that operator hosting a large gathering on BLM lands, and told me that they brought in BLM law enforcement to question his activities. That occurred before I ever talked to the BLM the very first time. I had nothing to do with that -- it simply reflected that the BLM enforces their permit policies.)
If anyone chooses to utilize a workshop that operates without a permit, you run the risk of having your event shut down. For the simple reason that the BLM or Park Service may stop and question their activities; determine they do not have a permit; and then shuts them down.
Thus the title of my posting -- be forewarned.
-
Some years ago congress passed a law the intent of which was to recover the costs associated with big motion picture productions that were produced on public lands. Think of the westerns that were shot in Monument Valley, etc. It was meant to cover the film industry that might have a crew of sixty with catering trucks, grip trucks, trailers for actors, and possibly a cast of many people and animals. The law was passed and the execution of it was delegated to the Forest Service and the BLM. Agencies then forced the writing of regulations based on the law down as far as they could which is why it costs a $100 per day for a single still photographer to shoot images in an Alaskan National Forest and it will cost $100 per year to shoot in a National Wildlife Refuge Area in Oregon. And the rest of the country has similar disparity of regulations. That was never the intent of the law. Various professional associations have been trying for years now to get a set of regulations passed by law that would cover all public lands across the U.S. and avoid the checker board piecemeal alphabet soup of regulations. There is broad bipartisan support for this type of law and it has been introduced several times and has had many sponsors. It hasn't gone anywhere because of other issues unrelated to the validity of this proposed law. I agree that if a permit is required of you, you should buy one and remain within the law. Have you shot photographs on National Forest lands, National Wildlife Refuge lands, or BLM lands? If you have and have any intent to sell an image at some time in the future, you were required to have purchased a photography permit. This is not the case in National Parks, but that is the only exception. Our professional associations point in this debate is that if an amateur has access to an area and can shoot a picture without a fee, the professional who has the same footprint should be able to shoot without a fee. We already own the land. That's why they are called public lands. It cost no more in administrative costs for me to walk to an area, set up a tripod and shoot a photograph than it does for an amateur. I have no more impact, probably less, than the amateur. I pay my permit fees, but it was not the intent of the law. There are a lot of people with hard feelings about this deal.
-
... We already own the land. That's why they are called public lands... I pay my permit fees, but it was not the intent of the law. There are a lot of people with hard feelings about this deal.
Amen, brother!
-
And what I particularly do not condone:
- snitching with a religious fervor
Would you condone snitching without the "fervor"?
-
Some years ago congress passed a law the intent of which was to recover the costs associated with big motion picture productions that were produced on public lands. Think of the westerns that were shot in Monument Valley, etc. It was meant to cover the film industry that might have a crew of sixty. . .Agencies then forced the writing of regulations based on the law down as far as they could which is why it costs a $100 per day for a single still photographer to shoot images in an Alaskan National Forest and it will cost $100 per year to shoot in a National Wildlife Refuge Area in Oregon. And the rest of the country has similar disparity of regulations. That was never the intent of the law. . .I agree that if a permit is required of you, you should buy one and remain within the law. Have you shot photographs on National Forest lands, National Wildlife Refuge lands, or BLM lands? If you have and have any intent to sell an image at some time in the future, you were required to have purchased a photography permit. This is not the case in National Parks, but that is the only exception. Our professional associations point in this debate is that if an amateur has access to an area and can shoot a picture without a fee, the professional who has the same footprint should be able to shoot without a fee. . .I have no more impact, probably less, than the amateur. I pay my permit fees, but it was not the intent of the law.
David, many thanks for an excellent contribution to this discussion. One question -- you are describing permits to take photographs, and the disparity between how amateurs are treated versus professionals. While I greatly appreciate your insightful explanation, aren't you describing a different set of requirements than those that guides, outfitters, and workshops must meet? The permit system that my post is discussing are the permits required for professional for-profit guides, outfitters and workshops. They take groups of people on to the public lands, and they directly profit from doing so. My understanding from talking with hiking and photo guides is that they all must apply for and purchase the same type of permit. This permit is NOT for the purpose of taking photographs. I believe you are discussing a different permit that is required for professional photographers? (Which I was not aware of.)
Frankly, it strikes me as reasonable that the Park Service and BLM can charge professional guide services and workshops for permits, since those guide services, outfitters and workshops are directly profiting from taking groups on to public lands. The BLM then uses those fees to maintain and support those lands. It is either that -- or to expect that Congress will appropriate more funds for the BLM and National Parks. That will happen when pigs fly.
In any event, photographers have a choice. To use guide services and workshops that have permits and operate professionally, or to do business with those that don't, and run the risk that the BLM might shut down the workshop in question.
-
... they directly profit from doing so...
For which they will pay income tax.
The real question is if 5-10 people in a group cause more admin cost or any other kind of impact than if they walk around independently.
-
Would you condone snitching without the "fervor"?
The fervor makes me (more) suspicious of the motive ;)
-
What we clearly need is objective, non-religious, bipartisan snitching. ???
-
I clearly do not know of whom you are posting; either the permit-less workshop leader or the permitted guide service and I don't care who they are. Frankly some people or businesses use and support regulation to create a false competitive advantage. I am not very trusting about such things. It is best to stay out of the pissing match.
-
Just to be perfectly clear, I do not condone operating outside the law.
-
Why not put just put an annual $50 green sticker on cameras used outdoors and make them much like a hunting or fishing license for all outdoor use?
No green sticker for you either unless you can show some $1M insurance bond too. Then they can hire an entire camera warden ranger force on payroll to police for camera green stickers much like a fishing license by the game warden. "Can't shoot in this here workshop unless you have the green sticker." which means you paid your $50 annual license which also shows proof of your liability insurance to be on public land.
I say this all tongue in cheek of course. ;)
Entire permit thing on public tax paid and supported land has gotten out of hand for individuals. Some in our camera club have very expensive equipment which automatically makes them guilty in the ranger's eyes as being "commercial" or "Hollywoodish" and run off for not having filed their paperwork and paid all their fees ahead of time. Should they have to pay some $300 permit to photograph some lichen or rock as well as show some $1 million proof of liability paperwork too and sit and wait for approval too? A hobbyist, or family taking some self-portraits with a tripod shouldn't be required to pay one cent over what they paid to enter - but this permit stuff seems to be questionable by some rangers as a big cash cow for them. More citations means more money and the need for more ranger enforcement too.
Example: Look at some of the permit requirements for Joshua Tree N.P. in CA. http://www.nps.gov/jotr/planyourvisit/upload/filmshort2013.pdf (http://www.nps.gov/jotr/planyourvisit/upload/filmshort2013.pdf) It's costly and absurd. Very loosely defined enough that they can ask you to leave if they suspect commercial gain of any sort. So what if you sell one print for $50? They want far more than that for that one sell you 'might' make and if you can wade through all the application costs, processing costs that are separate from application costs, site monitor costs, deposits, number of people costs, etc.
Sadly, more permits will lead to more policing which will lead to more cost to hire even more rangers to extort even more out of the visitors. It's a big cash cow for them.
SG
-
I don't believe the permits mentioned as required apply to professional fine art photographers. The BLM documents very clearly state:
"Still photography conducted on lands managed by the Department of the Interior (DOI) or the Forest Service (USFS) requires a permit when it involves models or props that are not a part of the site's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities, or when it takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed, or where additional administrative costs are likely."
Hee's a link to the U.S. Dept. of the the Interior, BLM California: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/lands/filmpermits.print.html
As long as it's just you and your gear you should be fine. Or am I missing something?
-
Well, it was just me and my gear in Alaska and I paid $100 per day for the privilege of photographing our public lands. Now, what if you shoot video as well?
-
Well, it was just me and my gear in Alaska and I paid $100 per day for the privilege of photographing our public lands. Now, what if you shoot video as well?
Was that public lands in general in Alaska or just in Denali?
Later,
Johnny
-
I did not have to pay a permit fee in Denali. The fee was for shooting on National Forest lands in Southeast Alaska.
-
Thanks for the info David. I was under the mistaken impression that a permit was required for Denali.
-
Denali conducts a lottery for a permit to drive your own vehicle beyond the Savage River at the end of the regular park season (the end of August, beginning of September, basically the moose rut). At the time I was shooting in Denali there was no permit required for general shooting. You can drive your own vehicle form the park entrance to the Savage River all you want. There is an area that is typically closed to hiking during the moose rut, but there is still plenty of rut activity that takes place outside of the closures. You drive the main road back and forth from near the park entrance to the Savage River bridge and turn around. You do this over and over until you see or hear moose, then you pull over and park and begin to photograph on foot. There will be a bunch of other photographers doing the same thing. You can go beyond the bridge with a bus pass. Buy an unlimited bus pass, catch a bus going beyond the river and look for what you want to photograph. When you see something, stop the driver and they let you out. You work the location and catch another bus. Be sure you don't miss the last bus of the day heading towards your camp or it will be a very long walk. . . with grizzly bears. Another method is to get a camping permit for one of the camp ground on the other side of the river. You can drive your own vehicle to you campsite once and back to the bridge once. While you're driving to or from your campsite, you are allowed to drive as much as you want within reasonable limits, you just can't cross the bridge. So you can drive on the day you drive to your camp and on the day you leave your camp. Campsite are not always easy to get so plan ahead. I was fortunate. I also didn't have to rent a vehicle. I have a friend who lives in Wasilla who has a spare double cab pickup with a topper.
-
I was at the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington DC once, shooting some photos of veterans looking for the names of their lost comrades. A park ranger comes up and asks if I am a professional photographer (maybe the 350mm f/2.8 lens on a motor driven camera on a monopod gave me away…). I says yes, sir. "Do you have a permit?" he goes. I go "what? on a public place?". He goes on to explain this is under National Park jurisdiction and all professional photography, yes, even press photography, needs a license. I claim honest ignorance, being from Europe. Fortunately he was lenient and just asked me to stop and get the permit form a booth somewhere near Lincoln monument. Never went to get a permit, I already had the picture I needed.
So, be forewarned...
-
.... A park ranger comes up and asks if I am a professional photographer (maybe the 350mm f/2.8 lens on a motor driven camera on a monopod gave me away…). I says yes, sir. "Do you have a permit?" he goes. I go "what? on a public place?". He goes on to explain this is under National Park jurisdiction and all professional photography, yes, even press photography, needs a license....
That's the rub I have with the entire permit matter. If you say you are a professional, you can get fined without a permit, or asked to stop or leave. Some people have been asked to delete their photos in CA. If you look at some of the ridiculous fees involved in some permits, it is in the thousands of dollar for environmental deposits, plus the insurance matter. They can pick and chose on fees too. If I sell one print for $100, it costs much more than than with some parks and their interpretation of all the fees involved.
I've learned to never admit to being a pro if asked by a badger. I just tell them, "My doc said I need to take up a retirement hobby and to get out and move around more. So I bought this expensive thing which is more complicated than the sales guy said it would be."
I can see it if some huge Hollywood truck, generator trucks, star vans, RV's, and lighting trucks show up with a full crew, but a single pro, or even some club of old photographers, isn't a big resource drain or interference too others.
SG
-
One has to question whether the high cost of the permits drives some of the workshop leaders to risk getting caught and a lower permit expense would result in a higher rate of compliance.
-
I can see it if some huge Hollywood truck, generator trucks, star vans, RV's, and lighting trucks show up with a full crew, . . .
SG
That was the intent of the law. It has become burdensome. I was told by a Forest Service employee in Alaska that department employees spend their spare time reviewing magazines and television shows looking for violators so they can assess fees and fines.
-
This link should take you to the proposed bill amending the law;
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.2798:
Sorry. The link doesn't work right. Here's what it says.
H.R.2798 -- To amend Public Law 106-206 to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to require annual permits and assess annual fees for commercial filming activities... (Introduced in House - IH)
HR 2798 IH
113th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2798
To amend Public Law 106-206 to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to require annual permits and assess annual fees for commercial filming activities on Federal land for film crews of 5 persons or fewer.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 23, 2013
Mr. LATTA (for himself, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, and Mr. WITTMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To amend Public Law 106-206 to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to require annual permits and assess annual fees for commercial filming activities on Federal land for film crews of 5 persons or fewer.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this title is to provide commercial film crews of 5 persons or fewer access to film in areas designated for public use during public hours on Federal lands and waterways.
SEC. 2. ANNUAL PERMIT AND FEE FOR FILM CREWS OF 5 PERSONS OR FEWER.
(a) In General- Section (1)(a) of Public Law 106-206 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6d) is amended by--
(1) redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively;
(2) striking `The Secretary of the Interior' and inserting `(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided by paragraph (3), the Secretary of the Interior';
(3) inserting `(2) OTHER CONSIDERATIONS- ' before `The Secretary may include other factors'; and
(4) adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(3) SPECIAL RULES FOR FILM CREWS OF 5 PERSONS OR FEWER-
`(A) For any film crew of 5 persons or fewer, the Secretary shall require a permit and assess an annual fee of $200 for commercial filming activities or similar projects on Federal lands and waterways administered by the Secretary. The permit shall be valid for commercial filming activities or similar projects that occur in areas designated for public use during public hours on all Federal lands waterways administered by the Secretary for a 12-month period beginning on the date of issuance of the permit.
`(B) For persons holding a permit described in this paragraph, the Secretary shall not assess, during the effective period of the permit, any additional fee for commercial filming activities and similar projects that occur in areas designated for public use during public hours on Federal lands and waterways administered by the Secretary.
`(C) In this paragraph, the term `film crew' includes all persons present on Federal land under the Secretary's jurisdiction who are associated with the production of a certain film.
`(D) The Secretary shall not prohibit, as a motorized vehicle or under any other purposes, use of cameras or related equipment used for the purpose of commercial filming activities or similar projects in accordance with this paragraph on Federal lands and waterways administered by the Secretary.'.
(b) Recovery of Costs- Section (1)(b) of Public Law 106-206 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6d) is amended by--
(1) striking `collect any costs' and inserting `recover any costs'; and
(2) striking `similar project' and inserting `similar projects'.
And here's a link to the text of the law; http://www.fs.fed.us/specialuses/documents/pl-106-206.pdf Please note that while it appears that still photography is excluded, that has never been my experience.
-
Skip the "photo tours" and go out on your own. Besides, who wants to have the same shot as the other 20 people on the tour. :)
^^^ This.
-
Skip the "photo tours" and go out on your own. Besides, who wants to have the same shot as the other 20 people on the tour. :)
Absolutely agree... OTOH when someone begs to pay to learn from me in the field (this is not a hypothetical situation) do I turn him down because the permit cost is more than the one-time revenue?
My solution to this is to develop opportunities for these one-on-one workshops on my own property. Obviously not a solution for large-scale landscape photography.
-
This link should take you to the proposed bill amending the law;
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.2798:
Thanks for that info although I couldn't get much info off the site's link (I see you got text off the site now). I found a better link to it here: http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th/house-bill/2798 (http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th/house-bill/2798)
Guess I wasn't too far off on thinking (In jest too!) that maybe a "green sticker" for camera on federal land is needed. A $200 per year permit for those of 5 or less people in the bill. Still seems a bit high, but what isn't with the government? The $200 fee is also mentioned in two other bills: HR 3197 and HR3590. Title III in both.
I got the assignment once with the club to go to the Forest Service for a club event near some old log cabin on 'their' land. Maybe 30 people total on a weekend if everyone showed up. Aside from the liability insurance (Which alone killed the club event.), they also were going to lock their toilet facilities up and told us we would have to contact one of the portable toilet outfits to haul them in, and pay for the pumping out prior to moving them back off the site and onto the highway as well. They write the rules to suit their local Super, and they seem to make it as uneconomically feasible to do as well.
Odd part was once I left the building, one ranger that overheard the whole matter came outside and told me "To just have the event and keep quiet about it." Never did the event though. Whole process is a mess, and they have a unreal expectation on what it costs a small club too.
Some forest areas around LA are in have some silly daily or annual recreating pass where you cannot even stop along the road else "You are recreating" and need to pay the fee ahead of time, or fine when the ranger shows up. Your taxes don't pay enough evidently.
Also, admitting you are "Pro" can put in you commercial category in the eyes of some rangers. Heck, even a camera club of old fxxts is seen as pro at times.
Sometimes I think owning a DSLR camera is worse than having a gun permit. :(
SG
-
Some forest areas around LA are in have some silly daily or annual recreating pass where you cannot even stop along the road else "You are recreating" and need to pay the fee ahead of time, or fine when the ranger shows up. Your taxes don't pay enough evidently.
Tahoe area too. I go elsewhere.
-
Land of the "Free"? I think not! ;D
-
Land of the "Free"? I think not!
A Nation of Laws. (http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/hofnat.html)
-
A Nation of Laws. (http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/hofnat.html)
That's your contribution, Isaac!? "Go read this book"!?
-
I would have guessed that for you the phrase A Nation of Laws would convey enough information, but there may be others who don't understand the significance.
Similarly -- "Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer." -- so "land of the free" not "land of people who get stuff for free".
-
The word republic basically means a form of government where power is held by the people, executed through freely elected representatives under the rule of law. The problem is not a Nation of Laws nor the laws themselves, it is when the laws are distilled down to a set of regulations that are created by professional bureaucrats that lose the focus of the intent of the law. Some people view their power as somehow more equal than others. We've probably beat this dead horse pretty well by now. Write to your representatives and voice your views.
-
Isn't it an old problem, how to take care of the "public commons"? Everyone owns it, but nobody wants to pay for the upkeep. There may have been a time when there were enough funds in general revenues to take care of public lands, but hasn't there been a move away from that because no one wants to pay taxes anymore, because, you know, taxes are bad aren't they? So that leaves the "user pays" model and the bizarre state of affairs, to my eyes, in which public institutions are asked to behave in a more "bussinesslike" manner, pay for themselves, become profit centres, etc. I own a house but have to pay money all the time to maintain it; same with my car. It's not going to get cheaper, I don't think.
-
Photo workshops? Ha!
-
My biggest problem about this is many have said since you have a professional camera you need a permit. Over an above the admission fee. This I will not tolerate. If they want to tax us more than they need to tax Painter groups, painters, writers and other professions. Parks always are after the ones with camera's and leave the other arts alone. That is shear discrimination. I have had that fight at Waldon Pond. Never ever will I stand for that. That park ranger was very close to be being thrown in the pond.
All photographers need to stand up for OUR rights and not allow them to segregate us from the other arts. Tim
-
If these guys where out setting fires and trapping bears and shooting unarmed animals then I would be the first to round up the villagers with their flaming torched, pitch forks and forceable remove them from the lands!!! But this not forget these are people that share the same interests as us, why are you trying to criminalise them?
Me thinks you have little enough to worry about!
-
My biggest problem about this is many have said since you have a professional camera you need a permit. Over an above the admission fee. This I will not tolerate. If they want to tax us more than they need to tax Painter groups, painters, writers and other professions. Parks always are after the ones with camera's and leave the other arts alone. That is shear discrimination. I have had that fight at Waldon Pond. Never ever will I stand for that. That park ranger was very close to be being thrown in the pond.
All photographers need to stand up for OUR rights and not allow them to segregate us from the other arts. Tim
Never thought about painter's groups or workshops. I could see that being an issue much as photographer groups and workshops. Plus, many painter's probably sell their works for more money than a photo too! Seems the "commercial" part is where they want to justify part of your sales as it is. So maybe "commercial" painter's are next revenue source?
Could be funny if they judge a painter's expensive sable hair brush and easel as "looking too pro" and therefore "commercial fees need to be applied" like they do seeing someone with a large camera body and tripod - even though that person may not be a pro at all nor selling anything. Guilty by association? "We're gonna have to charge you to paint that rock image on your canvas!"
I don't know if that bill will pass as written. The last paragraph seems to point back to any other fees they currently have in place too. Plus, that part about allowing off road camera vehicles too as part of the $200 permit fee might get nixed by the tree huggers as they want all federal land off use as it is. Wildlife biologists might not like it at all, and most of them are federal employees so it to their advantage to keep more off the land to justify their salary.
imho, of course.
SG
-
First....thank you to Alan A for posting a excellent summary of the problem and issue.
The Forest Service retains 15% of the special use permit for permit administration. The money goes back into managing the special use program.
Federal permits ARE a pain in the butt due to NEPA and recently the Endangered Species Act. Congress passed the laws and the Federal Courts have interpreted stricter and stricter requirements upon the Federal agencies for managing activities on public land. Talk to Congress about making Federal land management a LESS difficult process for small permits.
That said a business operating without a permit on Federal lands have a competitive advantage over those that follow the law. The basic principal is that if you PROFIT from operating on Federal lands you owe a percentage of the profit to the American taxpayer that owns the land. What is wrong with that principal??
Yes, Congress gives exemptions so that cell phone companies, cable companies and others only pay a portion of the fair market value for their permits....but that is an issue with Congress not the Federal agencies. They are just trying to follow the law as WRITTEN BY CONGRESS.
We are rapidly moving to a system of government where some get to ignore the law, others get special breaks, and ONLY those that play by the rules are penalized for doing so. That system cannot last for long.
Support those firms that play by the rules. Write Congress to get EVERYBODY to play by the same rules. Give a break to the Federal agencies that are trying to manage Federal lands under the laws passed by a dysfunctional Congress.
-
I've always thought that the USA could save itself a whole bunch of money if they just put one big sign up in every airport arrivals area that simply says "DON'T". If you want to take hassle free landscape pictures, come to North Wales 8) and I'll show anyone round for free!
and, of course, don't forget that the "right to roam" is even stronger in Scotland than in Wales or England.
See here: http://www.outdooraccess-scotland.com/ (http://www.outdooraccess-scotland.com/)
:)
-
and, of course, don't forget that the "right to roam" is even stronger in Scotland than in Wales or England.
The law is basically the same as in Scotland in the Nordic countries Finland, Sweden and Norway, free access everywhere (except fields with crops, private yards etc), BUT we also allow short term camping and berry/mushroom picking. Even if for sale. The owner or the forrest, in effect, does not own the berries & mushrooms, anybody can pick them. Also simple fishing with natural bait is free (no casting reel etc).
And take photographs...
-
The law is basically the same as in Scotland in the Nordic countries Finland, Sweden and Norway, free access everywhere (except fields with crops, private yards etc), BUT we also allow short term camping and berry/mushroom picking. Even if for sale. The owner or the forrest, in effect, does not own the berries & mushrooms, anybody can pick them. Also simple fishing with natural bait is free (no casting reel etc).
And take photographs...
Yep, Petrus. The Nordic and Celtic fringe of Europe probably offers the best interpretation of the word "civilised". The Anglo-Saxons, not so much.
;)
-
I understand about the National Parks, FWS, Forest Service, etc wanting to recover some money from group tours, over and above the standard individual annual Parks pass or daily admissions, if the group is getting access to a normally restricted-to-public area, or is soaking up all the available spots for limited access to a particular location, for instance, blinds. I would imagine that the average tour goer would be willing to pay the admission costs directly or passed through as part of the package. I may start buying duck stamps even though I don't hunt, the stamps are fundraisers for NFWS as well as licenses to hunt. Is the issue that it is time-consuming and difficult to get that license? It does boggle me that a pro would not buy the license and pass along the cost to tour attendees. I, an amateur, try to be as nice as I can to the local rangers, not only because I appreciate their work, but because they pass along interesting tidbits about status of and location of wildlife.
All that said, I would not want the kind of tour where everyone lines up and takes the same photo of a landscape. Why bother? Working from the same blind - fine.
-
As a "foreigner" I really shouldn't comment upon how other countries choose to run themselves but, as someone who as travelled very extensively in the USA, I do feel that many of the National Parks are grossly over-managed. Of course, it was a fellow Scot - John Muir - who played a significant part in starting the rot. So I suppose that I should apologise rather than criticise.
But for me, as a landscape and wildlife (amateur) photographer, I do prefer wild places to be left totally wild.
-
... I do feel that many of the National Parks are grossly over-managed. ... I do prefer wild places to be left totally wild.
Left to themselves, people seem to exploit wild places rather than leave them totally wild.
-
Left to themselves, people seem to exploit wild places rather than leave them totally wild.
Indeed... there is a tremendous damage inflicted on wild places by lifting a camera to one's eye!
-
This is a good summary of when & where permits are required:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/photo-permits/
Note that the use of props is one of the triggers for crossing the line to "permit required" and that a hand-held camera or a camera on a tripod, except where tripods are explicitly prohibited, do not constitute props.
Also a letter issued jointly by the BLM and Forest Service (rather dated but I believe it clarifies the intent of the regulations):
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/photo-permits/PermitRegulations.htm#BLM_FS_letter
-
Left to themselves, people seem to exploit wild places rather than leave them totally wild.
Indeed... there is a tremendous damage inflicted on wild places by lifting a camera to one's eye!
How wonderful that lifting a camera to one's eye promoted the conservation of some wild places rather than their exploitation.
-
Just to be perfectly clear, I do not condone operating outside the law.
First....thank you to Alan A for posting a excellent summary of the problem and issue.
The Forest Service retains 15% of the special use permit for permit administration. The money goes back into managing the special use program. . . .
That said a business operating without a permit on Federal lands have a competitive advantage over those that follow the law. The basic principal is that if you PROFIT from operating on Federal lands you owe a percentage of the profit to the American taxpayer that owns the land. What is wrong with that principal?? . . . .
We are rapidly moving to a system of government where some get to ignore the law, others get special breaks, and ONLY those that play by the rules are penalized for doing so. That system cannot last for long.
Support those firms that play by the rules. Write Congress to get EVERYBODY to play by the same rules. Give a break to the Federal agencies that are trying to manage Federal lands under the laws passed by a dysfunctional Congress.
This thread went way off course several pages ago, so I stopped commenting. The issue of photo permits is simply not the issue that I posed in my first posting. The issue are permits that guides and workshops must obtain because they are taking groups of people on to federal land, and they are profiting from doing so. Those permits are simply not the same as the photo permits that were discussed for the last several pages of this thread. The revenues from the permits for guides, tours and workshops help support our federal lands at a time when the agency budgets are being slashed due to the anti-tax and anti-government fervor illustrated by others who posted here.
Vladimir summarized the rationale for these permits: "The basic principal is that if you PROFIT from operating on Federal lands you owe a percentage of the profit to the American taxpayer that owns the land. What is wrong with that principal??"
Vladimir made the same point as I did in my first posting -- support legitimate guides who follow the law, and obtain all required permits. When I took the trip that I described, I utilized two guides who had permits, and a photo workshop that did not. As I described earlier, I was trying to decide whether to utilize the same workshop organizers for a second photo workshop in the same region the following week. The organizers lied to my face and told me that they had a permit for the workshop that occurred the following week, when they did not, and in fact, were fully intending to violate the law -- and they did violate the law the following week. (See my earlier summary, and follow up posts where I cover that.)
The guides who had permits were simply outstanding, and one of them was strictly a photo guide. I learned more from him in only two mornings than in four or five full days with the workshop.
In retrospect, it was hardly an accident that the workshop, run by operators who violated the law less than one week later, was lousy and a waste of money. What else can be expected from a workshop that violated the law; lied to me about it; and violated the instructions of the BLM when they were caught operating without a permit.
The guides who operated within the law provided first class service in all respects.
If you choose to join a workshop or hire a guide who fails to get permits, you are hiring an operator who is operating illegally. Don't be surprised if you also get lousy service and a bad experience. And that assumes that the workshop is not caught on federal land without a permit and shut down -- shut down in the middle of your photo vacation that you paid thousands of dollars for, in addition to air fare.
It is your responsibility to determine if the guide or workshop has a permit. Sadly, from my experience, you can't simply assume that a workshop has a permit, or even trust that they tell you the truth when you ask. An illegal operator will not be honest and truthful by definition. It is naive to assume that an illegal operator will admit that he is operating illegally simply because you asked him. Nor can you assume that a nationally recognized and published photographer is operating lawfully, with permits, as I sadly discovered. Plenty of nationally recognized and published experts violate the law in all fields, as is documented in the news almost every day. Some photo workshops, sadly, are no different.
To determine if a workshop has a permit, you need only check the BLM web site for the region in question. If the workshop is not listed, then you have three choices. (1) Don't pay for it and don't join it. (2) Or call the BLM local office and ask if the workshop has a permit. Personally, I have no problem in doing that. Legal operators would fully support that action on your part, and illegal operators would be treated appropriately. (3) Or, if you don't want to be accused of being a snitch, call the workshop operator, explain that he is not listed on the BLM web site, and ask him to email or fax you a copy of his permit. Alternatively, the operator can ask the BLM to revise the web site so that his status as a lawful operator is correctly reported.
You can put the onus on the operator to demonstrate that he is a legal and responsible operator without ever calling a federal agency. Any legitimate guide would be grateful that you asked, and would gladly supply with a copy of his permit.
There are plenty of ways to verify whether a guide or workshop is legitimate and operating legally, and being a snitch is certainly not required.
In any case, it is your choice. You can support lawful operators, who, by obtaining permits, are helping to support the luminous landscapes that their clients enjoy, and that the operator profits from through his business. Or hire illegal operators, who charge the same amount, but pocket the difference to the detriment of those who follow the law.
Illegal and rogue workshops and guides profit at the direct economic disadvantage of the legitimate operators who follow the law.
When all is said and done, that is what this boils down to. If you want to hire illegal workshops and guides, don't be surprised if they provide lousy service or rip you off. Or that the workshop is caught by law enforcement and shut down.
-
Alan,
Most of us got your points loud and clear from your very first post. You might continue to write lengthy justifications till cows come home, nothing is going to change. Repeating your views over and over and over again is not going to add an iota of credibility to them. Most of us (well, I certainly do) disagree with your crusade and with your very premises, your views on laws, legality, rights and wrongs.
As for me being a Tea-Party and anti-governemnt activists (the part you quickly edited out after posting), you got that wrong too. I actually think that governments and budgets should be properly funded so that we, photographers, do not have to replenish what Republicons stole. That is exactly my beef with your views: you actually want to enable Republicons and Tea Party shenanigans by putting the pressure on us, instead of them.
As others pointed out, the initial intention of the law has severely been twisted and deformed by lower agencies, to to the point that it has become ridiculously cumbersome, expensive, lengthy, and impossible to follow without months of advanced planning. So, instead of raising our voices against such insanity, we are supposed, according to you, to support it?
Our friends from across the ocean have "the right to roam" laws. Man!!! I have not heard of a more beautiful name for a law in a long while. Pure poetry! No, seriously. THE RIGHT TO ROAM should be protected by the United Nations as one of the basic human rights, not curtailed every step of the way by low-level bureaucrats. To get up and go, on a whim, get a camera, buy a ticket, rent a car, and go... and ROAM.
I am not against paying a reasonable fees to enter certain protected areas, like national parks. But other public lands, not so much. They are public after all and should be funded through taxes. I would not mind paying an extra fee for possible professional use of my photos in the future, even if I find such an idea preposterous as a matter of principle. But that should be done in a simple exchange of money between me and the ranger. If a regular visitor pays, say, $50 to enter, I would not mind paying another $50 for the possibility that one of my photographs, years down the road, might be used professionally. Hence the idea of stickers others wrote about. But planning that months ahead, filling in forms, mailing this and that, waiting for replies... what!? And paying outrageous amounts (the likes of $100 per day), as others documented!? No professional photograph, an amateur even less, can possibly guarantee that pictures he takes are going to earn him anything in the future. If it does, and there is a profit, that is what income taxes are for.
-
As for me being a Tea-Party and anti-governemnt activists (the part you quickly edited out after posting)
You are correct. I did include that comment, and posted it. I then, within three minutes, thought better of it and removed that comment.
I did not want to follow the example you earlier set (in your posts on the first and second page of this thread) of name calling and personal attacks. I did remove it, but since you chose to point out that I did so, I will gladly confirm that I did the right thing by editing my own post within 180 seconds. My intent was to not descend into name calling and personal attacks. You should follow the example.
-
I am not against paying a reasonable fees to enter certain protected areas, like national parks. But other public lands, not so much. They are public after all and should be funded through taxes. . . If a regular visitor pays, say, $50 to enter, I would not mind paying another $50 for the possibility that one of my photographs, years down the road, might be used professionally. . . No professional photograph, an amateur even less, can possibly guarantee that pictures he takes are going to earn him anything in the future. If it does, and there is a profit, that is what income taxes are for.
In thinking about this issue, it occurred to me that I had not explicitly made one simple point: that illegal behavior and lousy service go hand-in-hand. So for all of those who object to supporting operators who follow the law, I wanted to conclude my contribution to this thread with that point -- you get what you pay for.
Slobodan, you are again confusing two very different permit systems. I did not post or ever comment on the whole issue of permits to take photographs. You keep referencing permits for photography, even though that was not the point of my first posting, nor is it now. You accuse me of laboring over the same points, yet you appear to deliberately raise erroneous issues time after time. The issue is permits required for tour operators, workshops and guides. These permits have no relationship to photography. It is fine that the photography permits were also discussed in this thread, but it was not my point, when I started this thread. You surely know that by now.
With regards to your comments about how cumbersome or long the permit system is, any professional operator can apply for a permit and obtain one with a little advance planning. Thousands of operators who follow the law do so across the western United States every year. An operator who wishes to follow the law can easily do so with a little advance planning -- assuming that the operator has liability insurance, and some rogue and illegal operators probably do not.
You say that you will pay fees to enter National Parks, but not for other public lands. This is an entirely empty distinction, and one that is false. Some of the most spectacular lands in the west are on BLM or other public federal lands. For the record, there has been a long effort by many landscape photographers to greatly expand National Parks in some areas of the west, without success. Those photographers and naturalists recognize that some of nation's greatest landscape treasures are outside of the national parks. Yet protecting those areas is increasingly difficult, because the budgets for those agencies, such as the BLM, have been steadily reduced in recent years. (By the way, one famous site that is on BLM lands, and not in the national parks, is the Wave. Franklin Roosevelt's Secretary of Interior wanted to name most of southern Utah to be one national park. That didn't happen, so many of the most spectacular sites are on BLM lands.)
To say that the maintenance of BLM and other lands should be funded only through taxes is simply disingenuous, and an entirely fallacious argument, because that is precisely what is not happening. If your approach was followed, the fees from permits would be eliminated, yet you know full well that you would not pay higher taxes to make up the difference, and the agencies would not receive higher appropriations as a result.
The agencies that struggle to protect these lands concluded that workshop operators and guides who directly profit from those lands, by taking paying clients on to those lands, should, through a permit system, help to pay for and maintain those lands.
So you oppose permits; appear to support illegal operators who fail to get the permits that you object to; and instead make the fallacious argument that non-existent tax increases should cover the difference when permits are eliminated.
Am I missing anything in your circular logic?
Anyway, I have nothing more to add, so I turn this thread back to those who want to discuss permits for photography, which was never my point in my first posting. I am not suggesting that the issue of permits for photography is not an entirely valid issue to discuss, or that the permit system leaves something to be desired. It was just not my point with regards to workshops that full to get an entirely different kind of permit.
This is my final post in this thread, so I leave it to the rest of you to debate the fictional scenario that permits can be eliminated; taxes increased; and more appropriations provided to the federal agencies who protect the very lands that landscape photographers claim to care about.
That is pure fiction, and we all know it. It will happen when pigs fly, or when the Congress is properly managed, which ever happens first.
I live in the real world of sharply declining public budgets -- and agencies that are squeezed on all fronts. The officials of the BLM on the regional and local level are underpaid and work long hours to try to protect our public lands, yet you'd never know that based on some of the comments in this thread. I strongly support those staff, who chose to take lower salaries than the private sector, and devote their careers to protecting these lands.
And I strongly support the policy of those same staff, and their agencies, that tour and workshop operators who profit by taking customers on to public lands, should pay for permits to maintain those very same lands.
In closing, as my final comment and post in this thread, I simply repeat -- do the right thing and support operators who have permits and follow the law. They will probably run far better workshops than the rogue operators who fail to get permits and violate the law.
So do the right thing for your own self-interest, if for no other reason.
-
Our friends from across the ocean have "the right to roam" laws. Man!!! I have not heard of a more beautiful name for a law in a long while. Pure poetry!
Couldn't agree more!! We here in Canada have similar restrictions as in the US - all from the Europeans who first settled North America and simply wanted the land for themselves to the point of almost eliminating the original occupies - the First Nations peoples.
I loved the fact that in the UK, the public footpaths are protected in that anyone can roam them anytime - the same paths that have been roamed for centuries. The only time I had to pay extra to photograph was a £2 or 3 charge in a cathedral for which I received a sticker or card. No problem! These beautiful edifices need the extra cash to help keep them.
BTW... The national parks in Tanzania charge between $35 to $100 per person per day (for non-Tanzanians), something most safari-goers may not be aware of and would probably support given the uniqueness of the experience. It's a shame, though, that the money earned there goes more into padding the backsides of high-ranking park officials and providing them with new Land Cruisers with very little left over for conservation and the on-the-ground rangers who earn less than $5 a day! Tanzanians only pay the equivalent of a few dollars per day, which is still more than a day's wage for the average Tanzanian.
Perhaps the US should adopt the same policy... For US citizens, charge an average day's wage for entry; for we foreigners, charge even more! That will keep the parks natural!
-
I loved the fact that in the UK, the public footpaths are protected in that anyone can roam them anytime - the same paths that have been roamed for centuries.
For us Scandinavians this is very limiting, as there really are only certain public footpaths which people can use in England. Everything else is off limits. Around here we have "free roaming" (+ berry/mushroom picking) everywhere, path or not. I think this stems from the fact that we were never feudal societies, where king and the nobility owned everything, but practically all forests and uncultivated lands were either managed by the villages or divided equally to the farmers in the eighteenth century. As there was more than enough space for everybody, there was no need to place any restrictions on movement or even the use of land.
-
... The issue is permits required for tour operators, workshops and guides. These permits have no relationship to photography....[/b]
Just curious, what is the legal basis for that type of permit? Which Congress decision?
-
I loved the fact that in the UK, the public footpaths are protected in that anyone can roam them anytime - the same paths that have been roamed for centuries.
fyi -- "The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 introduced a new right for walkers to enjoy the open countryside (https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/open-access-land) and applies to most mountain, moor, heath, down and common land in England and Wales."
-
fyi -- "The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 introduced a new right for walkers to enjoy the open countryside (https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/open-access-land) and applies to most mountain, moor, heath, down and common land in England and Wales."
Exactly my point. Thanks for reference, Isaac.
-
"Public rights of way" are not new; "the right, or freedom, to roam" is new.
-
Just curious, what is the legal basis for that type of permit? Which Congress decision?
Here is an overview of special use permit program on National Forest lands. This is from the National Forest website. The special use authorization come from the National Forest Management Act of 1976 and the implementing regulations.
Here is the Forest Service website for special uses. http://www.fs.fed.us/specialuses/special_com_uses.shtml
Click on the sub-headings on the left to give you an indication of what the Federal agencies have to oversee on public lands.
From the Forest Service website. Hope this helps.
Oh, the Shawnee National Forest is south of Chicago. You might want to go down for a look and talk to the Forest Service.
Overview
The Forest Service manages over 192 million acres of national forests and grasslands that comprise the National Forest System (NFS). Today, our growing population and mobile society have created a demand for a variety of uses of these federal lands. Often these diverse needs require specific approval. The Forest Service provides services that support our national policy and federal land laws. The Agency's special-uses program authorizes uses on NFS land that provide a benefit to the general public and protect public and natural resources values. Currently there are over 74,000 authorizations on the NFS lands for over 180 types of uses.
Each year, the Forest Service receives thousands of individual and business applications for authorization for use of NFS land for such activities as water transmission, agriculture, outfitting and guiding, recreation, telecommunication, research, photography and video productions, and granting road and utility rights-of-ways. The Forest Service carefully reviews each application to determine how the request affects the public's use of NFS land. Normally, NFS land is not made available if the overall needs of the individual or business can be met on nonfederal lands.
-
Just a procedural question -- where on the BLM website can you find listings for permits issued? I have been on several BLM websites (most recently Death Valley) and have been unable to find this information. The websites all seem homogeneous so where should I look?
-
Just a procedural question -- where on the BLM website can you find listings for permits issued? I have been on several BLM websites (most recently Death Valley) and have been unable to find this information. The websites all seem homogeneous so where should I look?
I don't wish to prolong this debate, but am happy to respond to your factual question. I don't know if all BLM sites follow the same format or not. In the case of one BLM site, you click on "outfitters and guides." They then have a link to "list of approved outfiitter/guides." The list includes photo workshops. It is that list that has complied with BLM requirements, such as having liability insurance, and has been granted permits.
That list, on one BLM site, does not appear to be updated that often. So you may have to call the local office and ask for the latest up-to-date list to be emailed to you. (Then you need not ask about a specific tour organizer if you don't want to.) Or just ask if an organizer has a permit. Or ask the organizer to fax or email you a copy of his permit. If he objects and sounds indignant, you have your answer. He or she does not have a permit. Bottom line -- there are plenty of ways to confirm. Personally, I'd just call and ask about a specific organizer, but that is up to you.
-
Thanks for the info! Much appreciated!
-
rytch,
Is there a Death Valley on BLM managed lands??
Death Valley National Park is managed by the National Park Service.
Calling the office that manages the public lands you will visit will get you lots of information. Ask for the special use coordinator on BLM and FS. I believe on NPS lands that the Concessionaire Manager usually has responsibility for special uses.
You need to get past the front desk. Special Uses in the Federal land management agencies are fairly isolated from the rest of the agency. So ask for someone with expertise in the issue.
-
Thanks for the info! Much appreciated!
You're welcome. If you call a local BLM office, either to obtain the most recent list, or to ask about a specific guide or workshop, be sure to ask for the staff member who handles permits. The front desk will just read off a list which may or may not be up to date. An additional reason to ask about a specific organizer is to determine if that organizer's specific activities require a permit. It is always possible that a permit may not be required for a specific set of circumstances.
-
If you call a local BLM office, either to obtain the most recent list, or to ask about a specific guide or workshop, be sure to ask for the staff member who handles permits. The front desk will just read off a list which may or may not be up to date. An additional reason to ask about a specific organizer is to determine if that organizer's specific activities require a permit. It is always possible that a permit may not be required for a specific set of circumstances.
All this bureaucratic kerfuffle consumes a lot of mindspace that could be more usefully occupied by sleep and doughnuts.
-
All this bureaucratic kerfuffle consumes a lot of mindspace that could be more usefully occupied by sleep and doughnuts.
...and photography!