Photography on BLM. FWS, and NPS Lands

[Jeff Conrad]

The US Department of the Interior have issued a final rule implementing Public Law 106-206. The new rule was published in today’s Federal Register at 52087–97; it covers lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park service, and takes effect on 23 September 2013.

There is also a proposed fee schedule, published in today’s FR at 52209–11.

Both documents are available on the US Government Printing Site site at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/; search the Federal Register for “filming”. I’ll also have an updated summary in my article at http://www.largeformatphotography.info/photo-permits/ by the time the new rule takes effect.

[Kirk Gittings]

Thanks. It looks to me that the new interpretation of the regs clearly states that we do not need a permit except in three very specific situations. This is good and should stop the harassment of photographers at NPs by overzealous personnel. Just a couple of weeks ago at Pecos NM I was queried by a ranger about what my pictures were going to be used for (full frame DSLR) and told if they were for commercial use I would need a permit.......................which I knew was nonsense.

[Leigh]

Jeff,

Perhaps you should clarify your post in that the rules and fees govern commercial activities.

- Leigh

[Kirk Gittings]

Are you referring to me? I don't think so. It only requires a permit for even commercial still photography under the three circumstances, when using props models etc, when going into closed areas not generally accessible or when staff is required to protect or control visitors. For years off and on, primarily in AZ but recently NM too, I have been harassed when making images under none of those conditions for gallery shows as that was "commercial" and I needed a permit. Bullshit. I always carry a copy of the regs and ask them to show me. They never could cause they don't know their own regulations or how to interpret them. Maybe with this clarification they will get it.

[Leigh]

Are you referring to me? I don't think so.
Hi Kirk,

No. We doubled. My comment was directed at the OP.

I edited my previous post to add the OP's name. Sorry for the confusion.

- Leigh

[Jeff Conrad]

This is good and should stop the harassment of photographers at NPs by overzealous personnel.


Kirk, I certainly hope that’s the case. Unfortunately, I’m less optimistic that the new rule will work to that end. As I’ve indicated in several previous posts, Public Law 106-206—and now the new DOI rule— afford us less protection than we had in National Parks under the previous 36 CFR §5.5. Under that rule—which still controls until 23 September—a permit was required for still photography only when the photography


Used vehicles or other articles of commerce or models, and
Was for the purpose of commercial advertising.

With the new rule, only the latter criterion applies—and it raises the questions “Who is a model?” and “What is a prop?” Both terms are defined in 43 CFR 5.12. The definitions are decidedly unconventional; that for the former probably works to no harm, but the latter may pose a problem, because it includes the statement


The use of a camera on a tripod, without the use of any other equipment, is not considered a prop.

Grammar aside, does this mean that the use of any other equipment (e.g., external light meter, handheld flash, collapsible reflector or diffuser) does require a permit? The legal eagles here can better comment on how this would come under expressio unius, but honestly, I’m less concerned with a judge than I am with People with Guns.

Interestingly, no regulation covers noncommercial filming. I guess if you get hassled for using a current DSLR, you simply say that you’re shooting moving images for non-commercial purposes ...

But I suppose we shall see.

[Jeff Conrad]

Perhaps you should clarify your post in that the rules and fees govern commercial activities.


Except that this isn’t really the case. The rule covers commercial filming but applies to all still photography that meets certain criteria—see my reply to Kirk for more extensive comment.

[Drew Bedo]

Never had a problem myself, but then . . .I do not shoot in the field very often, and have only been in a few places.
However, a couple years ago I did manage to wangle a two week appointment as an Artist In Residence at a National Park. As such I was "on staff" (as a volunteer)—and the Rangers treated me like a VIP. They couldn't do enough to help me go where ever I wanted.



It worked for me.

[Jeff Conrad]

Though I’ve expressed concern here several times about regulations, I should make it clear that, for the most part, my experience with field personnel from the BLM, FS, NPS, and state and local parks in California has been nothing but positive—these folks are usually far more eager to help than to hassle. Yet I hear all too many stories like Kirk’s. I suspect such incidents represent a small fraction of photographer–ranger interaction, but if it happens to you, the frequency doesn’t really matter.

I consider myself a person of at least average intelligence, and one who is well informed on this topic. When I need to guess at what conduct may be required of me, I tend to wonder what might happen with someone who is bent on misinterpretation. The current regulation for photography in national parks—36 CFR 5.5(b)—is nearly impossible to misinterpret in the manner the ranger who hassled Kirk apparently did—yet it happened. And the language of the new regulation is in some areas less clear, so the potential for misinterpretation seems greater.

For years, the people at the BLM and NPS who handle filming have assured me that the new rule will bring little change—and I’ve asked them once again for clarification on a couple of items. So perhaps my concerns will prove unfounded, and things will be fine—and I certainly hope that’s the case. But just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean the NSA aren’t reading this post ...

As I said, we should find out soon enough.

[Kirk Gittings]

I truly have no idea why I have so much trouble. The times I have been hassled I have been doing absolutely nothing but carrying a camera around. The last tie at Pecos I simply walked into the visitor center with my Canon and an 80-200 lens on it and set it on the counter while I payed my entry fee.

[Vaughn]

I just tell them I am making art -- it confused the hell out of them! :cool:

[Racer X 69]

Thanks Jeff for this post and for the informative and helpful article. (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/photo-permits/)

I went to the Guv'mint Web Place and waded through endless pages of bureaucratic nonsense (I think they make it difficult to read and understand on purpose) and found the excerpt you mentioned in your first post here.

From the "new" rule:


We will require a permit for still photography when the activity uses models, . . . . .

So what I get from this is if I am at Yellowstone and want to take a shot of Mrs. Racer and myself standing in front of Old Faithful, or in Yosemite going for a photo of her and myself with the Half Dome in the background, or up in Glacier NP getting a picture of us with the beautiful vistas, or up on Lemhi Pass on the Idaho/Montana border with the Salmon National Forest to the West and the Beaverhead National Forest to the East, shooting us with the headwaters of the Missouri river to the East and the Snake river to the West, using a tripod and a remote, and the overzealous Ranger Danger happens along, and we don't have a permit then he may wave his pistol about, jump up and down and yell at us if we don't have a permit.

But wait, there is Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983:


Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity.

And Title 18, United States Code, Section 242:


Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

So they really have no grounds to require a permit of any kind if, as citizens of the United States, we are attempting to exercise our rights to move freely about this Great Land and enjoy it, and "make art" while doing so.

And under the Title 18 code the Ranger Danger guy has no right to menace us (and Kirk, poor guy, I know how he feels, I seem to have the same bad luck) with his pistol, and in doing so risks prosecution, fines and imprisonment.

[Vaughn]

Lol!

[Jeff Conrad]

I doubt the NPS would cite for taking a picture of Mrs. Racer ...

It’s actually worth the trouble to read the introductory material, because in addition to the riveting narrative, there’s an occasional factoid. In this case, under the response to Comment 7:


for the purpose of this regulation, family members or friends not being filmed to promote the sale or use of a product or service are not considered models.

The actual wording in the definition of model in 43 CFR 5.12 is slightly different:


portrait subjects such as wedding parties and high school graduates are not considered models, if the image will not be used to promote or sell a product or service.


I see two possible problems.


When the new rule is added to the Code of Federal Regulations, the introduction won’t be included, leaving the text of the regulation to speak for itself. The same would be true of any clarification I might get from the NPS or the BLM.
The example in the definition is a restrictive clause, possibly suggesting that some types of portrait subjects would require a permit. It’s only a comma, you say? Courts generally make a very big deal of such things. In this case, I think a court would have sense enough to know that if a permit isn’t required for a high school group, it isn’t required for family members, either. Of course, appearing for a citation in Yellowstone could be a problem if you lived in Florida ...

I can’t see someone getting too excited over a remote, either (though I concede this came to mind). The greater concern is that just how far beyond a remote can someone go? I often carry 4–5 collapsible reflectors and diffusers, and probably have used as many as 3 at any given time. Would this now result in a citation (or a tasering if I did this in the GGNRA ...)?

Full disclosure here: I was at least one of the people responsible for comments 7 and 8, so perhaps it’s all my fault :) In my defense, however, I offered far more sensible definitions of model and prop.

Anyone who’s followed §1983 actions knows that such a thing is a tough row to hoe. For an action to even get to trial, a court must find that


There was a deprivation of a Constitutional right, and
The law was clearly established at the time.

Absent both, the defendant is invariably granted qualified immunity and the action dismissed.

Incidentally, §1983 doesn’t apply to employees of the federal government. But a similar action could be filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 USC §1346(b))—with similar obstacles.

For various reasons, I think if someone with the time and money were to push the issue (don’t all volunteer at once, now ...), a court would find that the intent of Public Law 106-206 with regard to still photography could not have been other than to impose the conditions of 36 CFR 5.5(b) that I mentioned in my first response to Kirk. But even were that to happen, some of the wording in the new rule—especially in the definition of prop—is so vague as to probably doom an FTCA action from the onset. It would not surprise me if a court were to find that a reasonable ranger could reasonably have believed that she had reasonable cause to believe that use of a handheld light meter was a violation of 43 CFR 5.2(b)(1). For those who care, I had this wording verified by an intern to Sgt. Rehnquist of the Department of Redundancy Department ...

The example of a light meter may be a bit extreme, but it’s not completely crazy. I once spoke with a California BLM ranger who was convinced that a handheld meter was a sure sign of a “professional” photographer, and thus a basis for citation for not having a permit—despite the fact that the BLM required a permit only for conditions similar to those of 36 CFR 5.5(b).

What has blown my mind about the process (which was started by Rep. Joel Hefely of Colorado—in 1997 ...) that led to the new rule is that the original intent was simply to provide additional revenue to national parks by eliminating a prohibition from charging location fees for commercial filming. This could easily have been accomplished by changing a few words in 43 CFR 5.1(b)—but for some reason the process snowballed, taking two sessions of Congress, six bills, and over 13 years to get all of the implementing rules issued. Suffice it to say that, had I been given this assignment, I’d have approached it quite differently. But then I’d never get elected to Congress ...

And ’tis as ’tis ... and we’ll just need to see how it works in practice. The NPS have essentially been applying the new rule for years, and though I’ve heard of a few strange interpretations, it’s hardly been a catastrophe. So perhaps things will continue in the same way. The only thing in the final rule that surprised me was the statement about what is not a prop; it may well prove inconsequential, but it nonetheless gives me pause.

[Jeff Conrad]

I truly have no idea why I have so much trouble.

Just out of curiosity—how do you respond to this sort of nonsense?

[Nathan Potter]

Interesting comment about the Pecos Nat. Monument Kirk. I had a similar squabble about my commercial intent using my TK45 on a tripod with a light meter for fine art work about four years ago. The ranger was pretty abrupt and wanted to see my permit. I would have thought that LF use was fairly frequent there and there would be some familiarity with the process. Others around with digi P&S seemed to not arouse any suspicion.

Per Jeffs comment on response; I explained I was a fine art amateur photographer with no commercial intent; although he was polite and just said he'd prefer that I leave. So I packed it up since I had bigger fish to fry.

But this experience is unusual for me. I've spent thousands of hours on BLM and Nat Park and Monument lands with almost never any interference from an official.

I'm guessing that negative interactions occur as a function of "Time spent in the Field" so the actual frequency of objectionable interaction is very low to non existent.

I have vastly more frequent problems with local police and private entities.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Racer X 69]

I doubt the NPS would cite for taking a picture of Mrs. Racer ...

I know, but I was in a crazy mood at the moment and wanted to add some levity to the discussion. But she is pretty enough that an overzealous Ranger Danger may assume her to be a "professional model".


It’s actually worth the trouble to read the introductory material, because in addition to the riveting narrative, there’s an occasional factoid.

I did read the whole thing, but fell asleep several times. That sort of thing can be mind numbing. Again, I think they write that stuff that way on purpose.

And there is always that Ranger who thinks he knows it all and wants to puff out his chest. You know, give a person a badge and a gun, and a modest amount of authority . . . .


I can’t see someone getting too excited over a remote, either (though I concede this came to mind). The greater concern is that just how far beyond a remote can someone go? I often carry 4–5 collapsible reflectors and diffusers, and probably have used as many as 3 at any given time. Would this now result in a citation (or a tasering if I did this in the GGNRA ...)?

And that really is where the problem lies. Amateurs who are serious about their hobby will be knowledgeable about it, and make the best use of whatever equipment and techniques are reasonably available and affordable to obtain the best results that they can, right?

How is it a Ranger who's sum total experience in photography may have been nothing more than a one use point and shoot film camera that was purchased at a grocery store makes him or her an expert at determining what separates a pro from an amateur?

People ask me all the time if I am a professional photographer when I am walking around taking pictures. I usually smile and say, "No. Notice that I don't have a vest on, and 2 or 3 other cameras hanging around my neck. Oh, and of course it says 'Pentax' on my DSLR too, not Canikon!"

;)


Anyone who’s followed §1983 actions knows that such a thing is a tough row to hoe.

Indeed. I've been there, done that, and got a shirt to show for my troubles. :cool:


Incidentally, §1983 doesn’t apply to employees of the federal government.

You are correct. I overlooked that minor detail. :rolleyes:


It would not surprise me if a court were to find that a reasonable ranger could reasonably have believed that she had reasonable cause to believe that use of a handheld light meter was a violation of 43 CFR 5.2(b)(1). For those who care, I had this wording verified by an intern to Sgt. Rehnquist of the Department of Redundancy Department ...

That reminds me of the changes in workplace sexual harrassment rules. It all comes down to what "A reasonable woman" would find offensive, and is entirely subjective.


The example of a light meter may be a bit extreme, but it’s not completely crazy. I once spoke with a California BLM ranger who was convinced that a handheld meter was a sure sign of a “professional” photographer, and thus a basis for citation for not having a permit—despite the fact that the BLM required a permit only for conditions similar to those of 36 CFR 5.5(b).

Again, I go back to my comment about what qualifies a Ranger as an expert in photographic processes.


What has blown my mind about the process (which was started by Rep. Joel Hefely of Colorado—in 1997 ...) that led to the new rule is that the original intent was simply to provide additional revenue to national parks by eliminating a prohibition from charging location fees for commercial filming. This could easily have been accomplished by changing a few words in 43 CFR 5.1(b)—but for some reason the process snowballed, taking two sessions of Congress, six bills, and over 13 years to get all of the implementing rules issued. Suffice it to say that, had I been given this assignment, I’d have approached it quite differently. But then I’d never get elected to Congress ...

Your tax dollars at work . . . . . .


So perhaps things will continue in the same way.

One can only hope!

[Jeff Conrad]

Nate’s experience harks back to a Galen Rowell column in Outdoor Photographer in the late 1980s about a photographer using a 4x5 in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area who was threatened with arrest if he did not leave immediately (the photographer complied). That column spooked a lot of people for many years, and often got embellished to include arrest and sometimes even conviction. I even encountered a couple of people who were convinced that this meant it was illegal to photograph the Golden Gate Bridge from the GGNRA ...

Then, as now, the ranger’s claim was utter nonsense—the photographer wasn’t photographing automobiles or models for the purpose of commercial advertising, and didn’t need a permit under 36 CFR 5.5(b). At the time (and actually until 23 September of this year), the only NPS definition of prop—in Resource Manual 53, Appendix 13, Exhibit 8—was the same as the common meaning: a small movable object on a set. But the photographer probably wasn’t familiar enough with the law to cite it in his defense, and decided that he couldn’t take the chance that a permit was required.

Whether Nate’s photography was for fine art was irrelevant, and any ranger should have known this. It would seem simple enough to ask a ranger to look at the regulation, which would make clear that a permit wasn’t required. Of course, there’s always a time to hold ’em and a time to fold ’em, and as Nate mentioned, it sometimes just isn’t worth the grief to butt heads with a ranger who’s out to make trouble.

The problem I see with the new rule is that, in a situation like Nate’s, it might not be obvious that a permit isn’t required—the ranger conceivably could say, “You’re using a light meter, which clearly is more than a camera and tripod, so you need a permit.” I doubt most rangers would be such jerks, but one who issued a citation could reasonably argue doing so was proper under the law. I doubt a judge would uphold the citation, but unless the photographer mounted a formal challenge to the regulation, I also doubt that much would happen to prevent the ranger (or other rangers) from issuing similar citations in the future.

I’m honestly not sure what the intent of the new rule is—and I’ve closely followed this process since 1997 and have read and re-read the new rule and the supplementary information several times. But the initial impression isn’t encouraging. A similar definition of prop was given by the Forest Service in 2003; that definition included the statement


nor does a prop include a hand-held camera or a camera mounted on a tripod.

In 2004, the BLM issued an Instruction Memorandum with essentially the same definition. At my request, they further qualified the exemption to read


nor does a prop include cameras, camera supports, and ancillary still photographic equipment.

The latest definition


a camera on a tripod, without the use of any other equipment, is not considered a prop.

seems a pretty significant departure from both of the earlier definitions, so it’s tough for me to see it as accidental. But I could be wrong—and I certainly hope that’s the case. And I hope to get some clarification this week.

[Drew Bedo]

Is there any meat in this issue for the ACLU to chew on ?. . .First Amendmendment or something? Claim you are worshiping nature (as a Druid?) or something else?

[Drew Wiley]

I've only been even questioned once, and this was by a GGNRA ranger who was completely new on the job and had never seen a view camera before. So I'd take that old Galen column with a grain of salt - probably some kind of incident lay behind it; he's been known to tweak stories more than once to make them more interesting - kinda a custom with writers with a mountaineering background (including Muir). But there have been numerous occasions where a ranger politely waited for me to take the shot and then started chatting film photography themselves, or about some friend or relative who used a view camera, or if I happen to know so and so, who also uses one in the area. Bad attitudes seem more common where rangers are just burnt out with misbehaving tourists and have a big chip on their shoulder. And where the Forest Service and BLM are concerned, they seem to hire a lot of dummies for field work who are marginally literate - high school dropout types, so it's going to be a waste of time even arguing with them. Best to hand them a can of rotgut beer and strike up a friendly conversation about
the local fishing holes or whatever.... you'll get a lot further than waving the constitution over their heads.

[Kirk Gittings]

Just out of curiosity—how do you respond to this sort of nonsense?

In that case it was simple I was there to photograph my class photographing the church.

But in cases where I am shooting LF for exhibitions and print sales I say I am a professional photographer but today I am just shooting for myself. If that doesn't do it I drag out a copy of the regs. and try and educate them. This usually really gets their back up though.

[Kirk Gittings]

Interesting comment about the Pecos Nat. Monument Kirk. I had a similar squabble about my commercial intent using my TK45 on a tripod with a light meter for fine art work about four years ago. The ranger was pretty abrupt and wanted to see my permit. I would have thought that LF use was fairly frequent there and there would be some familiarity with the process. Others around with digi P&S seemed to not arouse any suspicion.

Per Jeffs comment on response; I explained I was a fine art amateur photographer with no commercial intent; although he was polite and just said he'd prefer that I leave. So I packed it up since I had bigger fish to fry.

But this experience is unusual for me. I've spent thousands of hours on BLM and Nat Park and Monument lands with almost never any interference from an official.

I'm guessing that negative interactions occur as a function of "Time spent in the Field" so the actual frequency of objectionable interaction is very low to non existent.

I have vastly more frequent problems with local police and private entities.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Interestingly. That same trip Jan Pietrzak was there shooting his 6x17 behemoth and the same ranger didn't say a word to him except how are you doing.

[Nathan Potter]

There is a more disappointing aspect to being interrupted and even harassed while doing photography. I can't always really find fault with the individual transgressor since with some discussion and explanation of intent a certain degree of friendliness can result. The real issue for me is the interruption of that moment of concentration on a subject that I consider a near religious experience.

LF image making is a very personnel endeavor and finding and framing a scene requires a sort of "baring of one's soul to the subject" - a deeply emotional experience. Interruption by some official or even a friendly and casual observer can be very unnerving to me and ruinous to the moment. I can have a hard time recovering from such intrusions and so most often I have to just quit the scene and perhaps return later.

Just my strange philosophical bent where almost nothing is more important than immortalizing a slice of my life on film for posterity. To deny me this is to deny me my life.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Kirk Gittings]

Agreed. Right this minute I am doing an AIR at the Petrified Forrest. They made me put an "official" magnetic sign on my truck that says "Petrified Forest Artist-in-Residence". Since I am largely shooting near my truck I get all kinds of unwanted attention. I would MUCH rather be just some anonymous shmoe with a weird camera.

[Jan Pietrzak]

Lets see how to I answer this and still keep my friendship with Kirk.
1. I am nicer and more friendly.
2. I look stupid and then they leave me alone.
3. My camera is not extinct, oh you said behemoth not mammoth, sorry.
4. I was bigger than the Ranger.
5. I told him what I was doing and that we had a class from SFUAD of International Students. And that started the conversation.

Don't get me wrong I have had my share of run-ins with Ranger. One was in Death Valley NM (yes not park) He was a total jerk all the way down to his spit shined black boots. When I was back the next winter I asked about him. Some of the Rangers I knew told he had gotten transferred down to Gila for the summer nice place to be for the summer. I always wondered how much time he spent shinning those black boots.

Some Parks, I have been left alone and some Parks I have been hassled. I have never been shut down. That said, I know what will happen on the next trip.

Jan

[Kirk Gittings]

Lets see how to I answer this and still keep my friendship with Kirk.
1. I am nicer and more friendly.
2. I look stupid and then they leave me alone.
3. My camera is not extinct, oh you said behemoth not mammoth, sorry.
4. I was bigger than the Ranger.
5. I told him what I was doing and that we had a class from SFUAD of International Students. And that started the conversation.

Don't get me wrong I have had my share of run-ins with Ranger. One was in Death Valley NM (yes not park) He was a total jerk all the way down to his spit shined black boots. When I was back the next winter I asked about him. Some of the Rangers I knew told he had gotten transferred down to Gila for the summer nice place to be for the summer. I always wondered how much time he spent shinning those black boots.

Some Parks, I have been left alone and some Parks I have been hassled. I have never been shut down. That said, I know what will happen on the next trip.

Jan

:)

[Chauncey Walden]

Knowing you two, Jan probably pointed at Kirk and said "you ought to hassle that guy." Hey Kirk, while you're down at the petrified forest try to learn the secret of the perpetual woody;-)

[Heroique]

I wish I had some dramatic showdowns to share. I’ve had none.

Over the years, by the main paved roads, or in the backcountry, I’ve had numerous NP rangers drive by me, or hike near me, as I work next to my Ries. In almost every case, I’ve initiated contact – mostly, with a distant wave – like I’m expecting them, or glad to see them. I think this may be my secret for never being hassled or challenged. Ever. After hundreds of encounters. Over a few decades.

Or, it might have little to do with me, and everything to do with the attitude of rangers in Olympic NP and North Cascades NP, though that sounds unlikely. I doubt they’re different from rangers elsewhere, from Florida to Alaska. Maybe I’ve just been very lucky.

Now, a request to see a backcountry permit, or fishing permit, etc., is another story...

[Jeff Conrad]

I'd take that old Galen column with a grain of salt

I’m sure Rowell got the information second hand, so who knows what really happened? But I’ve heard enough similar reports—some from people here—that I have no problem taking Rowell’s column at face value. I have a bit less patience with some of the hysterical reactions to it, although I confess that at the time that column freaked me out a bit.

I haven’t been hassled by anyone in the BLM, FS, or NPS, and I’ve only been approached once in California state parks—perhaps I’ve been lucky. And I’ve spent little time in state parks in the Los Angeles area (e.g., Malibu Creek) where there’s a lot of commercial filming and enforcement is more aggressive. To be honest, I can probably easily count on both hands the number of times I’ve even encountered rangers. I have had a few less pleasant encounters with local yokels, but even then it’s been a pretty minor issue.

[Jeff Conrad]

Is there any meat in this issue for the ACLU to chew on ?. . .First Amendmendment or something?

The ACLU have recently joined a number of cases involving the right to photograph police as protected by the First Amendment, and in most cases, have prevailed. I’m not sure what we’re talking about here is the same thing, though. Some organizations have maintained that taking any photographs is protected, but I think it’s far from established.

We should bear in mind that, at least formally, the rules will change on September 23, so our discussion of previous experience may be irrelevant. The new rule may raise some due process issues—but I think we need to see what transpires. And I’m not sure this is the type of issue that grabs the ACLU’s attention anyway.

[Drew Wiley]

Maybe they thought you were stealing rocks in the Petrified Forest, Kirk... or maybe it was that "Love Live Hayduke" bumper sticker! I've photographed there with a
view camera and no ranger incidents. I did have an old Brooklyn couple chew me out there once, after they stopped and walked over to see what all the fuss was
about...."Is theah a deah over theah? A beah?" ..."Then whyya takin a pickcha for if therah no deah or beah?" I got the last chuckle when they realized they had
locked their keys in the car. No problem, the ranger would simply radio for a locksmith in Flagstaff, who would appropriately charge for the four-hour round trip.
Don't imagine there is a locksmith in Holbrook; maybe a towing guy could do it, but he would probably tack on a "Brooklyn surcharge".

[Racer X 69]

Is there any meat in this issue for the ACLU to chew on ?. . .First Amendmendment or something? Claim you are worshiping nature (as a Druid?) or something else?

There you go!

[Racer X 69]

Now, a request to see a backcountry permit, or fishing permit, etc., is another story...

You use your camera for fishing?

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h194/racerx6948/Smilies/icon_rofl.gif

[Drew Wiley]

If you have enough holes in the bellows, a view camera should comprise a perfectly functional fishing net.

[Kirk Gittings]

Knowing you two, Jan probably pointed at Kirk and said "you ought to hassle that guy." Hey Kirk, while you're down at the petrified forest try to learn the secret of the perpetual woody;-)

calcedony viagra?

[TXFZ1]

You use your camera for fishing?

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h194/racerx6948/Smilies/icon_rofl.gif

When backpacking in Colorado with the Sierra Club, we would buy hunting/fishing permits as it included insurance for emergency rescues.

David

[Jeff Conrad]

I’ve updated my article at http://www.largeformatphotography.info/photo-permits/. I haven’t been able to get a clarification on what constitutes “any other equipment,” so there really isn’t any new information since my original post.

I should remind that the proposed location fee schedule—which will apply to the Forest Service as well as the DOI agencies—is open to public comment until 23 September. The DOI have obviously responded to comments that earlier fee schedules were unreasonably burdensome for small-scale photographers and filmmakers; the proposed fees are now $10/day (or $250/month) for still photography involving 1–3 people and only a camera and tripod, and $50/day for still photography involving 1–5 people and “more than a camera and tripod.”

There should be little impact for landscape photographers who use only a camera and tripod and don’t photograph “models”; no permit or fee will be required. For other circumstances, the reasonableness of the proposed fees obviously depends on the meaning of “more than a camera and tripod.” If this will be taken literally, applying to equipment such as a camera-mounted flash, a handheld light meter, or even collapsible reflectors or diffusers that might be used in portrait photography or in close-ups of flowers and similar things, $50/day seems pretty outrageous. It should be mentioned that the proposed fees are in addition to application processing fees and any other fess associated with cost recovery. The proposed fee schedule does not address insurance requirements.

The specifics were covered in the Federal Register on 22 August 2013, at 78 FR 52209–11; comments can be sent via e-mail to location_fee_notice_2013@nps.gov, with “Commercial Filming Fee Schedule” in the subject line.