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

[telyt]

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

[Isaac]

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.

[alan a]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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.

 

[alan a]

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.

[alan a]

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.

[luxborealis]

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!

[Petrus]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... 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?

[Isaac]

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 and applies to most mountain, moor, heath, down and common land in England and Wales."

[luxborealis]

fyi -- "The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 introduced a new right for walkers to enjoy the open countryside and applies to most mountain, moor, heath, down and common land in England and Wales."

Exactly my point. Thanks for reference, Isaac.

[Isaac]

"Public rights of way" are not new; "the right, or freedom, to roam" is new.

[Vladimir Steblina]

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.

[rytch]

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?

[alan a]

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.

[rytch]

Thanks for the info!  Much appreciated!

[Vladimir Steblina]

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.

[alan a]

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.

[markadams99]

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.

[luxborealis]

All this bureaucratic kerfuffle consumes a lot of mindspace that could be more usefully occupied by sleep and doughnuts.

...and photography!