Photographers!! Help Keep Our Federal Lands Photography Opportunities Free

"the guidelines clearly target larger media organizations and groups who are more likely to A. impact the natural resources B. disrupt others enjoyment of the public lands and/or C. profit heavily off of the public lands."

Its not about individuals with cameras. Don't believe the hype.

Darleen,

I think this has been kicking around now for years and really just wants to stop "commercial photography", with crew and models/talent,etc. from just showing uo and shooting commercials and ads. As far as reporters, it's also about their "crew" coming in and shooting stuff,making a mess and then leaving,

Rich

What Rich said. This is another frenzy stirred up by the media to get people worked up over nothing. A Google search indicates that they are targeting commercial photography and filming, specifically the media (thought that's truly commercial). The National Park service has had rules like this in place for many years (the NPS and Forest service are different entities. Laws in a NP can be quite different from those in NFs). As an example, http://www.nps.gov/yell/parkmgmt/filmpermit.htm. Note that the permits apply to crews of 3 or more. So you can see that it's to control crews of people that may not otherwise respect the wilderness and in turn damage things. I personally don't have an issue with such rules.

That said, individuals are exempt from these rules.

I sure hope Edward and Rich and Chuck are right. But just let me mention ... when the bureaucracy gets the bit of an idea between its teeth, watch out. I live in Maryland ... and in 10 of our counties, we PAY A RAIN TAX. I swear it's true. Also, if we go to the store and don't bring in our own shopping bags, we have to pay .05 for each one. Now, let me tell you, our county is one of the highest taxed in the nation already, and I'd rather drag my groceries out to the car In My Teeth than pay these idiots another nickel.

So ... again ... I hope you're right about the Federal Government only going after television crews and what not. But ...

< : /

Like I said Lois these rules have been in place for many years for most national parks. I have shot in several NPs and have never been asked to get a permit. Go to Yosemite some time, it's like a photographer's convention, especially in the spring. Many cities have implemented similar laws (there was a big to-do some years back when NYC did this). I don't know of a single, individual photographer that has been fined anywhere for not having a permit in these places.

Interesting that Maryland has the plastic bag law. In my neck of the woods most people have opted to use the their own bags without any laws. We like them better simply because they hold so much more.

I agree with Lois! Before this week, I wouldn't have thought it could happen -- but now I do.

The reason why is this...we were going to go to a certain botanical garden. It's expensive to get in, and expensive to eat there. We had this day trip all planned out and the money saved to go...and then I read a page on their website which talked about photography. They said commercial photographers need to reserve a time and pay a fee to them. They said paid visitors to the garden can take photos for personal use ONLY. They clearly say if they see anyone photographing with what appears to be commercial equipment (i.e tripods, large lens, nice camera, etc) that they will be escorted off the property, unless they have made prior arrangements (plus all commercial use photos have to be APPROVED by them). Needless to say, we're not going there. I'm not going to drop the $100 plus time/travel for it. There's another botanical garden closer to us which appears to WELCOME photographers and even has areas set up designed for photographers to get a variety of beautiful photos. We're going there.

Until I saw that bit about the first garden, I would have agreed this wildlife business wouldn't apply to individuals with cameras...now I agree with Lois -- if the government gets their teeth in this, we could have problems. One of the places I go to photograph every month and weekly during eagle season is a government park. So far, they've been very accommodating to our group of photographers. We have a new ranger now though as our other one took a new job...and I'm not sure if he will be as accommodating as our other ranger. I hope so, but you never know.

Yes, Lois is right. Read that carefully - Maryland has a RAIN Tax. Unbelievable - but true. (look it up) Government entities can get greedy. Very greedy.

But often they shoot themselves in the foot, so to speak. Six years ago we had a house built in Delaware with NO Rain Tax (of course) and no sales. Oh, I also had a business (an LLC) in Maryland that is now a Delaware corporation. It wasn't just the Rain Tax, but there were two other tax issues that prompted the relocation. All three were money-grab taxes that did not exist ten years ago.

~ Bill
~ US Pictures .com

I hope you're right, Chuck. I will say I don't see myself going down into the Grand Canyon all by myself. Well, in all honesty, I don't see myself going to the Grand Canyon at all, lol, but I don't go wandering around in the wilderness with my camera alone. I'd probably have a group of friends with me ... all with cameras. Do you honestly think the park rangers wouldn't consider a group of 3 or 4 friends out for a shoot a lovely opportunity to bring in a bit of money??

Maybe it's just an old beat-up Marylander's / Washington DCer's tax-'em-'till-they-die-n-then-tax-'em-again mentality. The speed cameras / red light cameras at every corner, the parking meters (when you can find a parking spot) that don't work and tickets you get from them, the above mentioned weird taxes on rain and shopping bags ... maybe that's where I'm coming from. They were even talking about charging for the amount of toilet flushes.

But ... wow.

I do hope you're right.

Jai, a lot of botanical gardens are privately owned. I'd be interested in knowing which one.

Lois, with your group of friends, are you just walking around shooting or does the group look like its making a production? That's the distinction.

Chuck, I realize it now, but I didn't before. I thought they were state type of things. I've never been to one before. The one I'm talking about is Cheekwood in Nashville. We have to take my mom to the airport over there this Saturday and I thought it would be a great photographic opportunity, especially since their fall show starts on Saturday. And they even have a show with raptors (flying!) there, so I was all excited to be able to bring my big lens and photograph the birds in flight (specifically an owl they mentioned). Once I saw the wording on their website, I decided not to go. If they see that lens, I'll be toast, it sounds like. So we are going to plan a trip to the Memphis Botanical Gardens which sounds much more friendly for photographers.

Wow Jai, that place looks really cool! Too bad about the photography aspect of it although found wording that says cameras are allowed everywhere except the art museum building.

Chuck, the language I found is under their photography policies on this page: http://www.cheekwood.org/Private_Events/Portraits__Photography.aspx

Look at the paragraph under the "sitting fees" pricing...that is what got my attention, even though their focus seems to be more wedding related type of photography. I just don't want to take any chances.

@ Bill ... yes, I have done a bit of model home photography in Delaware and they're getting loads of buyers there from Marylanders running for their lives and the lives of what's left of their pocketbooks. Yes, Maryland is shooting itself in the foot ... a lot of people are heading out fast. I heard a statistic recently (and yes, we all know statistics can be unreliable) that said half of the people in the state would get out if they could. My husband and I are looking at property in West Virginia and hope to be out of here in less than a year.

@ Chuck ... Speaking of distinctions, I think the distinction I'm trying to make is that governments tend to err / lean not toward the rational ... but toward the financial. Maybe it's different out west or in the mid west ... maybe people ... even government employees ... there are more lenient and more human and sensible. But here ... if it's written down in black and white and if the government can profit from it ... you can bet your Aunt Fanny's best thimble collection they're going to have their hand out.

Rain Tax!? That's the damnedest thing I've heard of in a long time. After seeing that I looked it up, and it makes me glad I live where I do.

Here's a link concerning the rain tax:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/15111-rain-tax-to-soak-maryland-taxpayers

That rain tax is NUTS!

This seems more about real "commercial" shooting and in 'wilderness' areas - not us run of the mill folks that seldom take a step off where we are told to walk (of course - those rules have never applied to me!!)

"They were even talking about charging for the amount of toilet flushes. " LOL - I have a friend that says it cost's here about $1 each flush. - city water, so you pay not only for the water - but double for flushing it. Let's say they charge you a dollar for a gallon of water that comes through the meter - this city then charges you $2 for wastewater - sewer - so that your gallon of water actually costs you $3. (no - it doesn't really cost that much.)

As was said earlier it's meant for people that go in with crews and destroy things.

I worked for the US Forest Service back in the 80's and have seen first hand what people can do to to the landscape and people need to be paid to clean up after the idiots so it makes perfect sense.

And it is not a new idea they were talking about doing something like that back then.

So it's Forest Service land in designated Wilderness?

Rain Tax good job you don't have the amount of rain we do in Scotland, but don't give our politicians any ideas.
As for the commercial photography licence I come over from the UK as we have relatives in the US and while there Im gradually visiting many parts of the US and photographing while there. Looking at this directive I think they are just updating what was already in place. If they did stop any type of photography being sold other than with a licence then it would be an administrative nightmare and would impact their visitor numbers as many visitors would feel unwelcome and that would make it untenable.

Howard and others,

I agree with the Forest Service wanting payment for the damage people can do. I saw it every day in retail, people taking product and not caring about putting it back often leaving it in another department and sometimes on the floor where it can be damaged, when they could simply give it to the cashiers at the front.

There has to be one person in a large store for every department paid to just put product back in order, sometimes it can't be avoided but too often it can. It's a matter of not caring about someone's investment and ownership (the company).

One customer said to me about product having to be put back by the employee, "Isn't that why you are here?!" This customer assumed there was no responsibility on her behalf and is used to having someone clean up after them.

Because of these habits I suspect many have disorder in their lives and homes even causing relationship problems, because of a lack of responsibility and slovenliness. I know I am going deep but I see this as just the tip of the ice burg in our society and the problems this kind of behavior can cause. As they say "nobody gets a free ride!"

I believe the Forest Service is feeling the economic pinch and has to do it, if it were not for the economics they would probably go on as they have been, now they probably can't deal with it any longer because of a shortage of staff and volunteers. I am glad they are doing something about it and the people who are responsible (although not all are this way) and not trying to overwork themselves, volunteers and save the land. Unfortunately this lack of respect for the land and others is prevalent in our culture if not I believe this would never have to be done.

It will never happen! I refuse to give my money to Islam and don't think anyone else is gung ho for it.

Rain tax = Stormwater Drainage Management fees... which actually we have here in some cities. Used for flood management and drainage projects. Except ours is usually a small flat fee per month. So now that I know what it is.... makes more sense.

I do hope the big forest photo fee is just for the big photo/movie type events. Not just a person with a camera....

Isn't there already a thread on conspiracy theories...this seems like a good fit. As a previous employee of the forest circus with a degree in Forestry, I understand the pressures that commercial enterprises place on public lands. The permitting thing on public lands is one (the only?) way to control such things.
On to fees in general: whether you are talking about the homeowner's association level or the federal gov't, it boils down to chipping in to buy and maintain nice stuff that we all use. I'm ok with that. User fees have been implemented and then raised as revenue became tight in my home state so I buy a season pass and gladly pay to support my parks.
The rain tax (Jeff beat me to it) makes perfect sense if you understand the impact that large impervious surfaces have on water management.

Edit to add: when i referred to conspiracy theories, I had not yet seen the previous post about "sending the money to Islam". I truly understand why we are not allowed to discuss politics and religion here. Time to grab the tin foil hats and head for the bunker folks.

From Snopes.com : http://www.snopes.com/info/news/forestfine.asp

Claim: The U.S. Forest Service is proposing new rules that would require permits for commercial filming and photography in federally designated wilderness areas.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/info/news/forestfine.asp#e7LrdwztaHB9tleK.99

TRUE

"According to circulating posts about the issue, the agency would like to charge fees of up to $1,500 before
allowing "commercial filming and photography in federally designated wilderness areas." When the proposal is finalized in November 2014, commercial photographers who do not obtain permits could face fines of up to $1,000. (Tourists and park visitors snapping photographs for personal, non-commercial use would not be affected by the proposed regulations.)
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/info/news/forestfine.asp#e7LrdwztaHB9tleK.99"

Commercial photography definition: is photography created with the intent of making the end user money; essentially, photography for commerce and business.

This policy as I understand it has been in effect in national parks already?? As I see it, most here would be considered "commercial photographers".

http://www.fs.fed.us/news/releases/us-forest-service-chief-i-will-ensure-first-amendment-upheld-under-agency-commercial

if this helps..

The proposal does not change the rules for visitors or recreational photographers. Generally, professional and amateur photographers will not need a permit unless they use models, actors or props; work in areas where the public is generally not allowed; or cause additional administrative costs.

i understand the basic idea is supposed to apply to film crews or wedding photo crews, but.....

The problem lies in the uninformed rangers and officers enforcing the law. Is a group of members of a local camera club out for a morning photo walk considered a photo crew? Its all up to the discression of the officer. And even if you are in the right, it may take alot of time and money to prove you are right. There are hundreds of stories of photographers in Federal lands getting questioned or harrased for looking "professional". It all boils down to the training or lack thereof of the person enforcing the laws.

--Brad

Fran,

As I mentioned above, this ONLY applies to film crews shooting commercials and the media. Not us!

This came up many years ago and I was an ASMP President fro the Central Florida Chapter. The Forest Service only wants to stop or control all these commercials that you see, cars zooming along the coast or through the Redwoods. These commercials have crews of 6-8-12 people or more, if there is talent included. Here's one you see all the time, Mount Tam,

http://www.friendsofmttam.org/park/maps-and-directions.html

This does not apply to photographers, with friends,etc. This is only asking for commercial crews to pay a "fee" to use our land for their "commercials" which is fair,since some of these commercials can cost 5-6 figures. You can stop a crew of 8-14 people,with a few RV's and a trailer full of new cars, but trying to stop an individual photographer,is impossible and will never happen.

The Park Service wants people to use the parks and take photos,their jobs are connected to that,if no one showed up, they wouldn't be needed!

Bob, what size tinfoil hat do you wear, I've got lot's!

Rich

p.s. If you still don't believe me,call a Ranger station and ask if you can come and take pictures............

I think there should be a charge for shooting pictures of kids. I've been to some scenic and historic spots where it's just a big lineup of parents waiting to push their kids in front of the scene for a photo. If you get behind one of those Japanese tourist groups, forget it.

A fee for using an iPad to photograph anything outdoors would be great too. Every time I go to Watkins Glen State Park in Upstate NY (search it plenty of images) you'll see people trying to photograph a WATERFALL from behind with an iPad, which I suppose leads to a ~300 dollar fee eventually.

Rich, not arguing with you - I'm just not sure that we should sit idle and assume it's all good.

It's all about interpretation, and as I said you and I and anyone trying to sell a photo for profit are considered a "commercial photographer", therefore possibly subject to needing a permit.

In the most recent of these discussions the permitting was brought into question for media as pertaining to 'gathering news'. The Forest Service says the rule does not apply to them.
But, my own state senators are questioning the definition of the directive:

Montana Sens. Jon Tester and John Walsh interpreted it to apply to “filming and photography by media companies, commercial outfits, nonprofit organizations and even the public.” They co-wrote a letter to Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell on Thursday calling for a rewrite of the directive.

“We have grave concerns and are deeply skeptical of the government putting limits on activity protected under the First Amendment,” Tester and Walsh wrote.

Never heard of a rain tax.
Last year Baltimore County sent workers to inspect all county storm drains using remote cameras. I am glad- some of those in my neighborhood were clogged and needed to be cleared. This project was done to be in compliance with EPA standards. :-)

No... you are an artist. A Commercial painter is someone who paints buildings, houses, interiors, or perhaps cars. So, in that vein, a commercial photographer is someone who takes photos for others as part of their job, such as in advertising, etc.

We are artists. Can't imagine calling Ansel Adams a commercial photographer, or Picasso a commercial painter. Selling to make money is not the defining attribute, but the nature of the work performed.

But..that's just what I think ;)

A few websites put their own spin on this and make a big deal out of nothing. National Parks and state parks have commercial permits that must be obtained when they have to close down sections of the park when someone wants to film a commercial. Wilderness is a special designation where little to no development is allowed. In wilderness areas even trail markers or sign posts are not often present.

While they are "public lands" that does not mean that anyone is or should be able to do whatever they want because people will destroy them. Wilderness areas are supposed to remain pristine, undeveloped and undisturbed.

There needs to be a degree of regulation to ensure that wilderness areas stay wild. Chances are many of the politicians making a big stink about this would be the first ones to bring in the fracking operations to wilderness areas.

This is not going to have any effect on a photographers ability to go out and do landscape or wildlife photography on public lands unless of course the photographer is destroying or damaging the area or the wildlife.

You know on the surface a "rain tax" sounds absolutely silly...unless you spending a little time looking at why it exists. Some probably would have considered a fertilizer tax on farmers in Ohio a silly thing until this last summer. But now people who didn't cause the problem (the citizens of Cleveland) are being forced to treat their water, and from the sounds of it will have to keep doing it for the foreseeable future until agricultural practices upstream are corrected to eliminate the problem...which isn't going to be an easy fix no matter how badly its needed. But in the meantime someone has to pay to keep the water safe for people and the aquatic life in the Great Lakes.

And like Bob said above, big commercial filming operations, etc do have an impact on the public lands, and some how the public lands agencies need a way to directly fund cleaning up the messes they inevitably leave behind.

Thank you Adam for clearing the air on this subject.

Fran,

Have your senators and such, just contact the ASMP headquarters, in New York City and then you'll be directed to the Law dept. and if you're lucky, you'll get Victor Perlman,who is the go to guy for all things photographic!

Rich

ASMP. is the original group that eventually got ALL photographers the ability to hold their own "copyright", even if they worked for major magazines,Life,Time,etc. If you're working as a photographer, commercially, you should join ASMP.

Thanks Rich! I'll send that on to them =)

An update:

http://petapixel.com/2014/09/26/forest-service-delays-decision-controversial-permit-rules-amid-public-outcry/

I've had a conversation with a semi-retired pro who does a lot of hummingbird photography while camping in national forest campgrounds in Arizona. He told me in detail about his tribulations with one national forest bureaucrat who tried to force him to obtain such a license. So the rule has been around, and misunderstood for quite some time. Just because a photographer has an elaborate setup and multiple tripods and strobes does not make him a pro, and just because he's a pro does not make his work commercial. And even if his work is commercial, if it has no more impact in it's location that the "ordinary" park patron, doesn't mean he should need a license (In my opinion.)

The national parks have had such a regulation for a long time, so here are my more serious concerns:
1. "Generally", professional and amateur photographers will not need a permit unless they use models, actors or props; work in areas where the public is generally not allowed; or cause additional administrative costs. -- It's the first use of the word generally that bothers me. This should be clearly delineated.
2. Since there are already regulations to this effect, I would like to know exact what is CHANGED by the new law.
3. The "reassurance" in the quoted sentence in item one is NOT reassuring unless there is clear language in the regulation making this exact distinction.

We don't expect to see a movie crew to pull up to the Alamo with horses, cannon, and frontiersmen and the Mexican army to film without permission. We need to protect our public lands and heritage. But we need to protect if FOR the people. I really would like more detailed info on the exact changes involved in the new regulation. Finally, the new rule should be clear so that petty bureaucrats don't say NO just because that's the "safest", easiest for them to give, as happened to my wildlife photographer friend. He was pretty aggressive in his response to bureaucratic harassment, and won the day. I hope the new regulation don't change such lines.

The need for a license should be based on impact, and on exceptions to normal regulations (parking, restricted areas, and so on.)

That was nicely explained Adam!

As permits and licenses are developed, fees could get complicated over time. Most here, who are photographers, have given replies that reflect the current requirements.

A— I don't think the gov., is going to hire thousands of park troupers to follow every single person around while he or she takes photos with a camera or iPhone, and then fine that person.

B— Our parks will always need good protection, so this permit (which in some form already exists) is directed to the large/heavy equipment (or movie producer) photographers who will be there for commercial reasons, so whether professional or amateur, those photographers will need to be knowledgeable about fees or license permits.

C— Keep in mind, laws can change, so get your information straight about how you plan to use your photos, what amount of equipment and people you will take with you and where you ....stomp, when heading into our beautiful, wildlife parks.

Lois,

You've got it!

"Most importantly for photographers, however, is the fact that this press release specifies where the line between commercial and non-commercial photography stands:

Generally, professional and amateur photographers will not need a permit unless they use models, actors or props; work in areas where the public is generally not allowed; or cause additional administrative costs."

This "scare" first showed up in the late 90's,from what I remember and ASMP had them clarify it. Same as today, individual photographers are welcome to create images,for no additional fee,other than the entrance fee and not need any permits.

Gregory,good stuff! Where you been?

Mary, Yepper!

Rich

@Lois - The next time the store asks you if you want to purchase a bag for .05, tell them, "no thanks but I will need someone to help me carry my items to my car."

@ Stuart ... I like your idea!!! But ... remember, it's not the poor store clerks who are responsible for this nonsense. And as tempted as I am to take my frustration out on them, I do try ... I say TRY ... to hold my tongue. We're all in this ridiculous mess together.

I will add that when this tax was first imposed, I made some inquiries and got the names of the county council members who voted it in. My plan was .. passive-aggressive thing that I am .. to NOT vote for anyone who supported this bill. The laugh was on me. They ALL voted for it ... and coincidentally ... NONE of them were up for re-election.

But I have a looong, looong memory.

Check out the Reuters article. At the end it says: '
'... that professional and amateur photographers do not generally need a permit unless they use models, actors or props, work in areas that are normally off-limits to the public, or incur additional administrative costs. '

Full article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/26/us-usa-photography-permits-idUSKCN0HL2E520140926

You really have to watch out for vague wording.This was clarified for National Parks, Monuments, and BLM land a while back, but this recent rule is about wilderness areas (different). Keeping the rules consistent would be nice, and that sounds like the direction they are heading. I hope so. As far as policing and knowing how your images will be used go, well, if you shoot microstock landscapes, you don't know how they will be used, and if you sell pictures here, it is commercial because you may, at some point, earn money. What's to keep them from looking at your image and checking for a record of a permit? Computers would make that simple. It doesn't sound like it's going to happen, but we should not be too complacent.

Rich: I've been pretty depressed for the last year or two. Much of that is due to accepting the reality of my financial condition. I can no longer afford my extravigant photo trips out west. My custom high speed flash is broken and needs repair, and I'm waiting for the repair until my paypal account has enough money to cover the expense, approximately.
But being bipolar has it's occasional advantages. I'm going a little manic. Unfortunately, I'm obligated to expend my newfound motivation of finish the master bedroom's bath remodelling I started about 2 or 3 years ago. Hopefully, I'll get that done soon enought to do some bird photography, trail photography in North Georgia and greater Atlanta, and maybe some street and architectual photography in downtown Atlanta and the older satellite cities and neighborhoods in the area. I am getting the itch pretty strong, so that's a good motivation to finish the bathroom and get back to having fun.

I went to the Grand Canyon several years ago and happened to spot their rules on this, Gregory and Rich are right. Individuals and amateur or pro photographers are good to go, commercial photo crews need a permit. I don't remember the details exactly, but they have already explained it pretty well. If you're bringing a crew along or planning to use areas not normally accessible to the public, get a permit.

I'm sure you'll run across an overzealous park ranger here and there who thinks your 300mm lens and a tripod means you have to have a permit, but usually that shouldn't be too hard to deal with. They don't even take a second glance at someone with a DSLR and a 28mm lens...which is the way to go for Grand Canyon shots, 28mm or 50mm lens and you're set unless you want to grab a few shots of the dozens of Ravens flying around everywhere...then that 300mm might be handy. I only had a point and shoot at the time and no tripod, wouldn't take one if I brought my K30 and a 50mm anyway...When I went there were people everywhere with DSLR cameras, point and shoots, iphones, video cameras, nobody paid them any attention. I saw a couple of people with tripods too, as far as I know they were left alone.

My Canon 6D doesn't even have a flash built in, but got this dirty look from a museum greeter this weekend. "NO FLASH PHOTOGRAPHY OR VIDEO PLEASE", he spit out with a glare in my direction. LOL.

They probably should say no cell phones instead.

Gregory,

You're not alone! Our generation, the Baby Boomers are all in for a big shock soon. Those of us without pensions and living mostly on SS, will all see a bleak future,compared to peers with big pensions,or two, and living the life WE all thought was going to be there. I worked for Westinhouse for a total of 9.75 years and then the company was bought out by management(Westinghouse was going to close the facility in Orlando) and I was one of the empolyees asked to work for the new company. Part of the "package" was that my pension would be "vested" and upon reaching 62, could be begin to collect that pension.

Well of course,that never happened as I learned 3 years ago. There really isn't a Westinghouse anymore, the compnay I worked for is gone, the HR guy is dead,so "go fish"! What happens is that the friends you had,when you worked and had some money, you can't afford to pal around with anymore, trips,dinners,vacations,etc. and that of course,makes it worse.

I've worked for myself,since the 1984-85 period and like most business people,had highs and lows and any money saved went into the business or bills,so no pension there for me!

I made to 65 and Medicare,which is a godsend and am in good health,so that's not another issue to deal with,so far.

As we enter our "Golden Years", I'm seeing that, at best,they are the "Tinfoil Years" and unless I can augment our SS checks, we won't be using tinfoil soon!!!

So whatever you can do and I did my own bathroom a few years ago,kept the toilet and tub and everything else was replaced, do it and keep busy. For me, the sitting around and feeeling sorry for myself is the worst part and of course money,limits what you can do too.

Get you camera gear fixed and ready and then go after it,it's more theraputic than just pure photogrpahy and also a lot of fun too! And CHEAP!

Good Luck and we can always gab, if you want to,

Rich

Billy,

You're right!

I've never been stopped by a Ranger,ever! And I look like the poster boy for B&H Camera when I'm out there! If cool weather, vest,backpack,tripod,etc.! Just drive through Yellowstone when there's a bear on the side of the road! Hundreds of cameras,cell phone cams'etc. NO WAY to control that.

This has been blown out of proportion and like other things on the Internet, not fully looked into or understood.

Edward,

Nothing says "welcome" like that type of greeting!

Rich

Rich, you're lucky. I have been stopped on BLM land. That was before the last round of clarification. Many nature and landscape photographers carry a copy of the rules.

Linda,

Yes, BLM land is different that National Park lands and is sometimes considered "private" by the ranchers that lease it for cattle,etc. The Wild Mustangs I have here were all on BLM land,outside of Cody and the locals that lease some of it consider it their land, like that nut in Nevada, Cliven Bundy. I'm much more careful on BLM property and will ask around before I get on it,

Rich

It wasn't just BLM (this was not a ranch or even close to private property). Rangers were stopping people I knew on National Park/Monument property at that time, but the Landscape photographers group made a stink and it was cleared up. It doesn't hurt to make a stink. I hope they use clearer language in the regulations.

This says it all; “The fact is, the directive pertains to commercial photography and filming only – if you’re there to gather news or take recreational photographs, no permit would be required. We take your First Amendment rights very seriously,” said Tidwell. “We’re looking forward to talking with journalists and concerned citizens to help allay some of the concerns we’ve been hearing and clarify what’s covered by this proposed directive.” "The proposal does not change the rules for visitors or recreational photographers. Generally, professional and amateur photographers will not need a permit unless they use models, actors or props; work in areas where the public is generally not allowed; or cause additional administrative costs. Currently, commercial filming permit fees range around $30 per day for a group up to three people. A large Hollywood production with 70 or more people might be as much as $800. The $1,500 commercial permit fee cited in many publications is erroneous, and refers to a different proposed directive."

http://www.turnto23.com/news/national/national-forest-service-may-start-fining-photographers-for-taking-pictures


Very few of us, even the more adventurous, go into place where the public is 'generally not allowed' because that usually requires someone in the NFS to open a gate. This is NOT a rule for National Parks or general areas of National Forest or even ALL the Wilderness areas. The rule for National Parks and forests and BLM lands in general are NOT changing and the old rules, some dating back to 1964, some to 2000 and others to 2010, will still apply.

I agree that this has been blown way out of proportion and distorted by "chicken little" panic.

This guy did a great dissection of the actual proposal and even an easy to read graphic. http://www.modernhiker.com/2014/09/25/the-forest-service-wont-charge-you-1500-for-photos/

From Moose Peterson, Nikon Ambassador and KelbyOne Instructor: http://www.moosepeterson.com/blog/2014/09/25/wilderness-film-permits-the-fine-print/

Won't hurt to print out and carry official regulations in your camera bag.

Linda,

When this popped up in the late 90's that's what ASMP recommended all photographers do. Of course then, if they don't WANT to believe it, they won't.

RIch

@Linda - they won't be keeping the rules consistent for wilderness areas, blm, park service and forest service because they all have different missions. The Wilderness areas severely restrict access to allow these areas to be as natural as possible. The rules don't just apply to the general public but even to fire fighters. Fire crews that travel by ground leave their motorcycles and atv's at the border and go in on foot carrying their gear. Smoke jumpers carry out all of their gear rather than allow a helicopter to land or hover to pick up the load. Film crews who are told to do their helicopter or drone filming on land adjacent to the wilderness areas rather than directly over them should probably just deal with it and quit whining.