Serious illegal activity by some photo workshops -- be aware, and forewarned

[Some Guy]

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

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

[telyt]

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.

[Alun]

Land of the "Free"? I think not!  

[Isaac]

Land of the "Free"? I think not!

A Nation of Laws.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

A Nation of Laws.

That's your contribution, Isaac!? "Go read this book"!?

[Isaac]

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".

[Colorado David]

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.

[Robert Roaldi]

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.

[RobertJ]

Photo workshops?  Ha!

[tim wolcott]

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

[David Cordner]

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!

[Some Guy]

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

[Vladimir Steblina]

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.

[PhotoEcosse]

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   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/

[Petrus]

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...

[PhotoEcosse]

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.

 

[NancyP]

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.

[PhotoEcosse]

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.

[Isaac]

... 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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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!