Forest Service: New Regulation/Fines? [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Drew Wiley

25-Sep-2014, 12:02

Often park rangers and such are required on premises just to assure the safety of the film crew and bystanders. It cost us taxpayers a lot when something goes wrong, especially a rescue. So fees are justified. If you happen to watch any of those stupid "adventure" reality shows done on public land it's pretty apparent why. I can't personally stand those kinds of shows, but once in awhile the so-called wilderness ones are so outright phony that they are worth watching for a cheap laugh. I saw one of those wilderness "ordeal" sequence that was taken about fifteen yard from a paved Yosemite highway. But they still had to arrange a phony helicopter rescue, rig safety ropes for a phony rock climbing scene (where someone could have been hurt), etc. I don't like the idea of filming movies and TV nonsense in our parks at all, but if it does happen, it should be regulated and protected from taxpayer liability. ... I was watching four young knotheads trying to climb Pingora in
Wyoming last week, just to get stuck on some ledge a fourth of the way up. I was climbing an adjacent high pass and was already higher than the summit of that thing when the finally figured out how to rappel down. I figured they'd try again the next day, and sure enough two large rescue helicopters were headed into the
Cirque late in the day. There goes fifteen or twenty grand.

Vaughn

25-Sep-2014, 13:02

It seems intended to target Hollywood or commercial filming...
...Unless a rookie security guard or ranger, in a bad mood, spots one of us setting up "a professional tripod/camera" to make an example of us.

It's all about REVENUE.

And protecting the park/wilderness.

Drew Bedo

25-Sep-2014, 14:42

As I posted; I had no problem at Yellowstone. Some places had a crowd that shifted and changed. I waited for an opening at "The Good Spot" and set up. On two occasions there was a Ranger there answering questions. In both cases, I asked if it was OK to set up and got an enthusiastic affirmative
Response.

I have never been on BLM or Forest Service administered land. When I saw the news item it got my attention.

Drew Wiley

25-Sep-2014, 15:35

Several large western states are MOSTLY Forest Service and BLM administered land. The one or two federal employees for about each million acres of it probably have better things to do than worry about someone snapping a camera shutter somewhere. In fact, most of them are stuck in some office doing paperwork. It's pretty damn rare I even encounter a ranger etc outside a Natl Park juridiction, and even then it's uncommon beyond paved roads. About the only evil eye I got for propping up a tripod during the last two weeks of wilderness travel through several distinct juridictions was from a moose. I gave it wide berth, and it declined to give me any citations in return. I have taken hundreds of backpacking trips in the West, plus road trips, and the only instance I've ever even been questioned was once from a brand new ranger here in the GGNRA. I have been approached numerous times by others rangers and docents in the same jurisdiction asking me photography questions. Some of these great Natl Parks and wilderness areas owe their very existence as public protected domain to view camera photography.
Lots of these folks are educated enough to know that. Some of them have even tried a bit of serious film photography themselves.

gleaf

25-Sep-2014, 17:11

+ several.. Commercial use is fairly specific and intense in a location. When we plan trail runs in Federal protected lands there is normally a limit on participant count due to the effect of traffic on fragile ecosystems. In KY using a state park system area for a commercial event will get you a permit cost based on the states estimate of your income from the event. Non commercial use is all ya'll come for free. Recent ATV use of a fragile hiking trail and the resultant erosive damage is sending shock waves through the system.... Please do no damage and you will be kindly remembered.

h2oman

25-Sep-2014, 18:52

The one or two federal employees for about each million acres of it probably have better things to do than worry about someone snapping a camera shutter somewhere.

+1

I've spent countless days on national forest and BLM land. The only two enforcement encounters I've had were 1) when with a dog not on a leash and 2) when we returned to our car after a day of backcountry skiing to find a note to call the forest service law enforcement guy. In the first case I was rightfully cited or warned in a respectful manner. In the second case the guy actually came by our house before we had a chance to call him - he was just checking to make sure we were OK!

I'll bet that if you were out with LF gear and ran into a ranger they would be genuinely interested in and supportive of what you were doing.

NickyLai

26-Sep-2014, 00:10

ONE person, ONE camera, ONE tripod. NO model, NO prop/set, NO alteration to the site. NO permit needed in area open to the public. That's the rule of the National Park Service that I remembered.

Found this 8/22/2013 Official Rule here, these sections mention the still photography:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/08/22/2013-20441/commercial-filming-and-similar-projects-and-still-photography-activities#p-14
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/08/22/2013-20441/commercial-filming-and-similar-projects-and-still-photography-activities#h-16

Upon quick browsing, it looks like they tried to make rule to clarify the original confusing rule. The old rule still valid.:o

David Lobato

26-Sep-2014, 05:06

Found this 8/22/2013 Official Rule here, these sections mention the still photography:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/08/22/2013-20441/commercial-filming-and-similar-projects-and-still-photography-activities#p-14
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/08/22/2013-20441/commercial-filming-and-similar-projects-and-still-photography-activities#h-16

This included both the Department of Interior (National Parks and BLM) and the Department of Agriculture (National Forests and National Grasslands). Know what federal department and agency covers the place where you visit. The laws (not only for photography) are not always the same across each department. And then there's the state and county parks as well under their own jurisdictions, and Native American Reservations are other separate entities. It's somewhat confusing but worth knowing the differences. I learned the distinctions while growing up in the West. It's useful to know where camping anywhere is okay or not, where off road driving is permissible, if public access is denied, stuff like that.

Bill Burk

26-Sep-2014, 20:20

I hope Jeff Conrad will pipe in because I don't like it.

I've added my comment.

I think any group small enough to qualify for a Wilderness Permit and act within the guidelines of that permit, should be exempt from any permit requirement for still photography or film making, regardless whether the activity is Professional, Amateur or Personal.

I also think that "Leave no trace" is best stated as "Take only pictures and leave only footprints" - I don't want them to have to change that to something like "Take only time and leave only footprints" - I guess that fits the proposed guidelines.

Brian Sims

26-Sep-2014, 20:54

Federal staff who promulgate the "rules" rarely step outside the beltway. Their job is to make rules. So they make rules. They are not bothered by the realities on the ground, or whether the rules realistically support some stated policy objective. Their job is to make rules.

Vaughn

26-Sep-2014, 21:36

One thing nice about all the panic and noise being made about this -- perhaps more forest ranger districts in the further more isolated areas are hearing about it, and it will be applied correctly and more evenly.

And as an ex-wilderness ranger of 10 years, I fully support requiring permits commercial ventures into the wilderness...above and beyond that of your average user. And most commercial ventures would not, and should not, be given permits. Some are given permits -- most notably packers.

I remember a new kid I had on my trail crew. He was going on about how they should allow at least jeep roads into the wilderness as his grandfather could not walk or ride on a horse into the wilderness. That way at least he, and others like him could enjoy the wilderness, too. It took most of the summer, but he finally realized that a wilderness with roads is no longer a wilderness...it is just like all that other Forest Service land that have jeep roads all over them...some pretty nice places, but it is not wilderness.

Jeff Conrad

27-Sep-2014, 02:15

I think the proposal is poorly worded, but I don’t think it’s a big deal for most of us here. First, it’s a change to the Forest Service Handbook, which does not and cannot impose an obligation on the public. Of course, the FSH does direct the activities of People with Guns ... Second, the proposed section only comes into play for still photography if the photography involves models or props. Now with the games the DOI agencies and the FS have played with the definitions of these terms, it’s tough to say who is a model and what is a prop. I’ve already seen some site-to-site variations, and wonder what is to come. Quite honestly, that issue concerns me far more than the latest announcement. Nonetheless, I’m going to submit comment; if nothing else, I’ll recommend striking the reference to “noncommercial still photography” (which isn’t even defined). As nearly as I can tell, that mention is without legal effect, but keeping it can only invite confusion. I’ll also probably hint that the regulations have some far more fundamental problems. But since that issue isn’t really open to comment, I’m not going to say much.

If the proposed change does present a problem and finds support in regulation (in this case, 36 CFR 251.50–51), then the regulation is what needs to be changed. That is not going to be easy.

The FS appear to have backed off a bit, and the comment period seems to have been extended:

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/forest-service-backing-off-fine

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Proposal-would-require-permit-for-media-filming-5779322.php

But I agree with Mickey Osterreicher of NPPA that the wording does not reflect the stated intent. And the impact on the press could be a lot greater than on most of us. Accordingly, the wording should be fixed.

I trust it is no secret that my general thoughts on the regulations issued in response to Public Law 106-206 would violate forum guidelines, so I’ll not express them. So far, no great evil seems to have resulted, but it may be just a matter of time. Again, other issues concern me more than the latest proposal.

In addition to commenting, I’m writing my congresswoman. I don’t think she has much interest, but she may pass the comments on to Reps. DeFazio or Walden, or Sen. Wyden, who have spoken out strongly against the proposal. I haven’t decided whether to muddy the waters by resurrecting some of the other issues. In any event, I don’t expect much to come of it.

Heroique

27-Sep-2014, 04:28

I'll bet that if you were out with LF gear and ran into a ranger they would be genuinely interested in and supportive of what you were doing.

This week I was hiking up a slippery and rocky trail w/ my LF gear (in Mount Baker-Snoqualmie NF) when I noticed a ranger coming up behind me – and gaining fast. He had a daypack with his own gear, and as he continued to gain on me, I remember thinking that my gear certainly outweighed his! He finally overtook me, and I stepped off the trail to let him pass. He stopped to greet me, and after a moment of friendly conversation, he offered to carry my assembled Ries ("your photographer's tripod," he said) to the top of the hill we were climbing. Usually, I'm possessive about my gear, but this time, in view of trail conditions, I was quick to accept! My tax dollars hard at work. As we continued our climb to the rise, which took about 10 minutes, he explained he was out to repair some trailside erosion barriers. We mainly talked about planned repairs for a washed-out FS road that was blocking access to a nearby trailhead. As we reached the summit, he handed me my tripod, wished me luck, and was on his way.

I was pleased he didn't get the memo! ;^)

tgtaylor

27-Sep-2014, 09:54

This was in my inbox this morning:

NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
Contact: (202) 205-1005
Twitter: @forestservice

US Forest Service Chief: I will ensure the First Amendment is upheld under
agency commercial filming directives

WASHINGTON, Sept. 25, 2014 – The U.S. Forest Service today released
information to clarify the agency’s intentions regarding a proposed
directive for commercial photography and filmmaking in congressionally
designated wilderness areas.

“The US Forest Service remains committed to the First Amendment,” said U.S.
Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. “To be clear, provisions in the draft
directive do not apply to news gathering or activities.”

The proposal does not apply to news coverage, gathering information for a
news program or documentary. However, if a project falls outside of that
scope and the filming is intended to be on wilderness land, additional
criteria are applied to protect wilderness values. In that case, a permit
must be applied for and granted before any photography is permitted.

The agency issued a Federal Register notice on Sept. 4 seeking public
comment on a proposal to formally establish consistent criteria for
evaluating requests for commercial filming in wilderness areas as it has on
national forests and grasslands. The proposed directive on commercial
filming in wilderness has been in place for more than four years and is a
good faith effort to ensure the fullest protection of America’s wild places.

“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.”

Congressionally designated wilderness areas are protected by the Wilderness
Act of 1964 and must remain in their natural condition. This is achieved in
part by prohibiting certain commercial enterprises, and the agency is
responsible for ensuring its policies adhere to that standard.
The public originally had until Nov. 3, 2014, to comment on the proposal.
Based on the high level of interest, the agency will extend the public
comment period to Dec. 3, 2014.

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.

The Forest Service has long required permits according to statute for
various activities on agency lands, from cutting a Christmas tree to
filming a major motion picture, such as the 2013 Johnny Depp movie “The
Lone Ranger.” The Disney production obtained a permit to film part of the
movie on the Santa Fe National Forest in New Mexico.

So nothing has changed but the fees that are charged have been clarified.

Thomas

John Kasaian

29-Sep-2014, 07:40

A few years back the ranger in charge strongly discouraged me from shooting an 8x10 at Fort Point in SF without getting a permit/proof of insurance. The same with Golden Gate Park. This was personal photography, no lighting, crew, nor anything commercial---just a tripod.

Vaughn

29-Sep-2014, 07:58

And I have been up there with an 8x10 and with an 11x14 in the past year or so without a word from the rangers.

Drew Wiley

29-Sep-2014, 08:50

John - I only shoot 8x10 about twenty weekends a year in GGNRA. With exactly one exception - a brand new Ranger on horseback imported from the East, who didn't know the rules yet - the most problem I've ever gotten from them is getting plied with a lot of film development questions and updates on modern view cameras, and where to purchase film and darkroom gear these days. I also interact with their remodeling crews here rather frequently. A rather friendly lot in general. But I'll admit I never hang out right beside the GG Bridge. That seems to be an ideal hunting ground for the Highway Patrol, bagging careless gawking drivers. In fact, I've never even taken a shot of the Bridge in my whole life!

John Kasaian

29-Sep-2014, 16:41

And I have been up there with an 8x10 and with an 11x14 in the past year or so without a word from the rangers.
This was several years back. I doubt if these gals are still there.

Kodachrome25

29-Sep-2014, 17:15

I have not had time to read through all the stuff...been out producing works on public lands...;-)

But one thing I am wondering about is the artist in residency programs at the national parks which happens to be open to professionals as well as amatuers.....how in the heck is that going to play out? I was ready to apply for one for next year but now I am having second thoughts as to not potentially put my name on a list of professionals and come under permit scrutiny.

gleaf

29-Sep-2014, 17:21

Simplified news release on what's really happening...
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5355613.pdf

Bill Burk

29-Sep-2014, 19:27

...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 don't find this exact language elsewhere, but it's encouraging to see the words "Generally, professional and amateur photographers will not need a permit".

Jeff Conrad

29-Sep-2014, 21:57

A few years back the ranger in charge strongly discouraged me from shooting an 8x10 at Fort Point in SF without getting a permit/proof of insurance. The same with Golden Gate Park.

John,

The NPS ranger was simply dead wrong. A permit was required for photography of “any vehicle, or other articles of commerce or models for the purpose of commercial advertising.” And the ranger would be wrong today as well, even with the murkier regulations. In the late 1980s, a photographer shooting 4x5 in the GGNRA was threatened with arrest if he didn’t leave (he did). Galen Rowell’s column on the incident in Outdoor Photographer spooked photographers for at least a decade, and gave rise to all sorts of mythical nonsense about what was required. But 36 CFR 5.5(b) was unchanged from 1966 to late last year, so that ranger—like the others—was dead wrong. The gist of that column was included in Galen Rowell’s Vision, where he mentions 36 CFR 5.5(b); I can’t remember whether he did so in the original column.

Golden Gate Park is run by San Francisco, and you need a permit for any commercial photography (whatever that may be). Doesn’t sound like you were close in either case.

The Golden Gate Bridge is a special district, and any commercial photography (specifically including stock) on (but of course not necessarily of) District property requires a permit. And for stock, they charge $2000 per day. How they could ever determine you were shooting stock is beyond me.

For the most part, my experience has been like Drew’s (and many others here)—rangers are the nicest folks you could ever meet. The handful of jerks are the ones who give rise to all the horror stories.

Jeff Conrad

29-Sep-2014, 22:18

Simplified news release on what's really happening...
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5355613.pdf

The section on still photography is a very interesting take, and one that’s slightly different from what’s in 36 CFR 251.50–51. Here the interpretation is the same as former 36 CFR 5.5(b) and similar policy that was in the Forest Service Manual—and what almost certainly was the intent of Pub. L. 106-206.

Drew Wiley

30-Sep-2014, 09:12

Galen was pretty well known for exaggerating stories for the sake of getting his foot in the door with publishers. Nice guy, but had his career persona to cultivate
too. Not uncommon with the climber crowd, e.g., Greg Mortensen etc. And as time went by, Rowell developed a conspicuous stock business virtually married to the
heyday of that whole SUV commercial mentality. It's allegedly where most of his income came from. Now I suppose action cam sequences have largely taken over.
I've hauled all kinds of view camera around that part of the world without incident going clear back to 70's, and as I already indicated, was confronted exactly once,
and that took less than a minute to resolve. The new ranger went back and studied the rules, and that was that. I can understand how the Bridge itself and key
infrastructure does need to be monitored for homeland security purposes, as well as far its known track record regarding suicides, or how in the City itself one needs
to be responsible and safe on things like sidewalks. It's a common sense thing. But overall, a lot of fuss about nothing. But what people from the outside looking in
do need to understand is that some of these spaces involve a lot of different agencies, each in charge of this and that. For example, the intersection of the Bay
Bridge and Eastshore State Park involves twelve different public agencies, and they don't always get along with each other. Each has different priorities; so a degree
of confusion is inevitable for any uncommon usage. I know the people in charge. One of them has a silver print from one of my view camera shots hanging on his
own living room wall.

Jeff Conrad

30-Sep-2014, 17:19

Drew,

Neither of us was there (and neither was Rowell), so who knows what really happened? Rowell was certainly known for sometimes treating rules (e.g., closed areas) as advisory, and complaining about the consequences. But I’ve heard enough similar stories from all manner of people in all manner of places (including a few in this thread (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/archive/index.php/t-106434.html), where you and I made similar comments) that I have no problem believing this one. In almost all cases, the photographers involved did not know the law, so they may have been more pliable than if they had been better informed.

Sometimes, the situation gets more serious. Several years ago, a person was photographing a nude model in the Island in the Sky region of Canyonlands. Nothing in NPS regulations prohibit nudity under the circumstances, and there was no one else nearby—so there were no issues that merited intervention. Nonetheless, a ranger cited the photographer for not having a permit, and told the photographer that because of the area’s moral standards, a permit would not have been issued. The ranger confiscated all the photographer’s equipment (it was returned a couple of days later). There are at least a couple of problems with this. First, I cannot think of a law that would have required a permit. Pub. L. 106-206, which required the DOI to require a permit for photography involving models, imposed an obligation on the DOI, not photographers—the latter would require an implementing rule, which wasn’t issued until several years later. In short, the citation and equipment were illegal, and should be properly described as armed robbery. Now this all happened right at the edge of the Grand Overlook; had things gotten testy, the outcome could have been pretty ugly. What would I have done? Well, I certainly would have set the ranger straight on the law; if that didn’t work, I really don’t know—it’s one thing to comment here, and quite another to comment when facing People with Guns. Second, if the ranger was correct about the capricious denial of a permit application, there is a serious Fifth Amendment issue—but that’s one for the courts to sort out.

Again, as so many of us have said so many times, incidents like this are a tiny fraction of agency–visitor interactions, so they need to be kept in perspective. I’ve never been hassled by the NPS, BLM, or FS. But incidents like this are the ones that get attention (and probably make for good columns ...).

I agree with the need to protect resources and infrastructure, but it needs to be done lawfully. Otherwise those who purport to protect us are every bit as bad as those from whom they would protect us. I suppose there’s no problem with enforcement personnel asking a photographer what he’s doing, but the photographer can tell those people to get lost, and in most cases, that should be the end of it. I don’t suggest that this is the best response; it’s generally not a good idea to finish the day with more enemies than you started out with (anyone remember Jay Garner?).

Interagency turf wars are as American as cherry pie. But they are no excuse for not following or knowing the law.

As usual, we’re getting a bit off the original topic. Though I don’t care for the current regulations, I don’t think the latest FS proposal will lead to many photographers being led away in handcuffs. As dsphotog stated, the regulations were always about commercial filming—they just didn’t get worded very well.

dsphotog

30-Sep-2014, 18:39

Only the "bad" stories make the news.....
I've never had a problem in a park or wilderness...
Since my big cameras make me a slow moving target, I think it's extra important not to be an bother to anyone, and don't do anything stupid.
I don't want to give guards, cops, or rangers an excuse to find a reason to want me out of their territory.
I try to be a good ambassador for "traditional photography", on the other hand, when I want to make a shot, I don't ask first, I'd rather plead ignorance to some silly rule.

gleaf

1-Oct-2014, 05:11

For those who want to put up with RESTRICTIONS & PERMITS & INSPECTION of your all both going in and coming out.....
There is not too far from the Los Angeles basin an exquisite natural and protected world heritage preserve that FS cares for.
Nothing but Nothing left behind. And yes to you must pack out your own waste.
And yes it requires a permit... but you just might get the photo's no one else will ever have.
Perhaps FS might appreciate the LF approach to the nature they so carefully preserve.

Drew Wiley

1-Oct-2014, 09:28

Interesting, Jeff.. but with people habitually skinny-dipping out in the wilderness, seems a bit hypocritical. But at one time, prior to the trail bike invasion, that Moab
area was kinda xenophobic, and certain local cops tried to act tough toward outsiders. I remember. The other thing is, that certain well-known pro photographers who talked the eco talk in print could sometimes be pretty damn roughshod on protective rules in person, even to the point of engaging in what any of us would unequivocally term vandalism. So would any ranger that encountered such activity. I don't want to mention any names. But this whole thing of "deserving" to get an out-of-bounds shot of something sealed off, or having the right to collect a rare souvenir of something deliberately protected, because your ego has gotten a bit overinflated from public recognition - well, go figure. It gives all of us photographers a bad name and inevitable spawns a degree of suspicion among authorities.
We all need to consider what they have to deal with too. A lot of we country kids dreamed of outdoor careers, but were a bit naive about the system. Some got to
the upper ranks of the FS and then found out that meant a desk job in a city. Others thought they'd be out there with deer and cougars, but found out there were
stuck doing law full-time enforcement of careless or drunken campers. People get into these positions for the same reasons we like to go outdoors. But things happen - boring paperwork, internal politics and peck-orders, unruly public activities, forest fires, you name it. I don't like being accosted anymore than anyone else.
But in comparison to the sheer extent of my travels (and I'm in some kind of public park jurisdiction at least once every single week with large camera gear), the
negative incidents have been extremely rare. And in general, it's been a very small percent of the authorities who have behaved like bad apples, just like in most
other careers.

Kirk Gittings

1-Oct-2014, 15:34

I never give cause and yet have had problems many times-by far mostly in AZ with the NPS. In addition to stories I have told before, I was once at Wupatki with my assistant and a 4x5 and told I needed a permit for commercial shooting. Trouble is I am a commercial shooter but this was personal work-which is a bit hard to explain but either way I did not need a permit for what I was doing-on a common trail, no models, not blocking access, within normal hours etc. They did not believe me but let me go when I showed them their own regs on still photography. Same day at another site in Wupatki we hiked away from my SUV a little ways on a legit trail and I turned around and saw a park Ranger intently pointing a flashlight into my vehicle looking for who knows what. I confronted her and she said she was looking to see if we were stealing artifacts. I got angry and asked her "based on what? What were we doing but looking at ruins and taking photographs?" She had no explanation. I think we embarrassed them when we showed them their own regs and had followed us and were looking to find some way to get us. 99% of rangers I have encountered have been terrific, but the bad ones still leave me with really bad feelings.

On the other side I have been working recently a lot at the Petrified Forest as an AIR and have nothing but terrific experiences.

Only the "bad" stories make the news.....
I've never had a problem in a park or wilderness...
Since my big cameras make me a slow moving target, I think it's extra important not to be an bother to anyone, and don't do anything stupid.
I don't want to give guards, cops, or rangers an excuse to find a reason to want me out of their territory.
I try to be a good ambassador for "traditional photography", on the other hand, when I want to make a shot, I don't ask first, I'd rather plead ignorance to some silly rule.

Drew Wiley

1-Oct-2014, 16:18

Maybe they had pilfering incidents before after dark, had reason to be suspicious, and were doing a routine check. I've been scolded by ranch owners on back roads
around here who saw my truck pulled over and assumed I was dumping trash on the side of the road, where this kind of thing routinely happens. I've been around
Wupatki any number of times, but never after dark. I've been positively harassed by cops and rangers a few times in the Arizona strip, including the North Rim of
GC, even run out of town, four times on a single trip (when my wife was along, who is nonwhite); but those were unquestionably accidental encounters with cult members, who pretty much dominate that neighborhood and its public roles, clear up to Kanab. On the other hand, I've been through that part of the world any
number of other times with no incident. I was a little cautious about setting up the 4x5 and taking interesting shots of particularly rednecky themes in rural Nevada
last week, and could have kicked myself for forfeiting a couple real interesting shots, but decided it would be wiser to use the 6x7 and move quickly instead. It was
right in the heart of one of the more recent potentially violent spasms of the Sagebrush Rebellion, and didn't want to be once again suspected of being a Govt spy.

Kirk Gittings

1-Oct-2014, 18:02

It was not after or even near dark, it was like maybe 3:30 in September, well before the park closing. The flashlight was used I presume to peer into darker areas of the floor. We were in the official group parking lot for that particular ruin and had paid and displayed our entrance fee. If there was some ongoing problem they were exploring they could have said so-but they didn't. I'm pretty sure they were trying to find something to get me back for showing them up earlier by knowing their own regs better than they did.

Jeff Conrad

1-Oct-2014, 18:14

Drew, I have absolutely no sympathy for people who break the rules and then whine about the consequences—and we’re likely thinking of some of the same people. Neither am I impressed when someone runs roughshod on the landscape even if not actually breaking any rules—I’ll never forget my reaction to an article in the Zone VI Newsletter describing how to “properly” cut saplings that were interfering with the composition. I loved Fred Picker, but could hardly believe he had written this.

But my take is similar to Kirk’s. Although comparatively infrequent, there have been more than a few incidents of rangers from all federal agencies insisting that any “commercial” photography needed a permit, when that has never been the case. Those responsible were too lazy to read the laws, too stupid to understand them, or they simply thought the laws did not apply to them. Such people are properly described as criminals, badge lickers to the contrary notwithstanding. Those clowns need to be retrained or replaced; holding my breath I am not.

With the person in Canyonlands, I was less concerned with the hypocrisy of the ranger’s allegation about “local moral standards” than with illegality of such a criterion even if the ranger was correct. When a law delegates policy decisions to low-level enforcement personnel—and here I would emphasize low—it offends the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Even more egregious was the fact that there was no law that could have even remotely been construed as requiring a permit.

As we’ve all said yet again, the vast majority of encounters with field staff are just great. Unfortunately, one clash with one of the jerks tends to linger in memory far longer that do the good experiences. I’ve expressed my concerns with the current regulations many times; those concerns arise only because the wording in a couple of places is sufficiently vague so as to give one of the jerks an opening to push someone around. It’s sad that so much time and energy is expended discussing the actions of said jerks. And even sadder for those on the receiving end of their antics.

Having said all this, again, I don’t think the FS proposal rises to that level. If anything, it distracts from the greater issue.

Dave Wooten

2-Oct-2014, 08:16

Are BLM regs same as national forest/park regs? I'd like to get a copy.

Drew Wiley

2-Oct-2014, 08:38

BLM, FS, and NP's are all different agencies. Official Wilderness areas might be administered by any of them, or jointly in certain cases. You also have things like designated Recreation Areas, with another layer of stricter rules due to anticipated higher public usage, as well as inholdings with grazing and mining rights in numerous cases. So you really need to study to specific jurisdiction involved when in question, or if there is not appropriate signage. This is easy to do nowadays
because you can simply search the relevant web page for the SPECIFIC Natl Forest or NP involved. But this does not mitigate Jeff's remark above about rogues,
be they either individuals on Fed land assuming squatters rights or doing illegal activity like growing dope. There are also no doubt a number of outright poorly educated jerks in the lower ranks of the BLM and FS, who might be in cahoots with some drug operation or illegal logging activity themselves. It's best to outright
avoid those areas where you might have suspicion about shady activity, regardless of who is involved, and obviously steer clear of anyone high or drunk acting wigged out. But in general, I've had a lot more to fear from drunken hunters in the Fall than any deliberately criminal types. If they're drinking and shooting from
the road, I quickly hike in at least a mile before doing photography, or if doing shots from the roads, first drive around a bit to see where the hunters actually are.
Unfortunately, in some places fall color does coincide with elk or deer season, but that can also be researched in advance.

Drew Wiley

2-Oct-2014, 12:21

Jeff - I actually know of a well-published outdoor photographer who sawed a significant limb off one of the most ancient bristlecone pines (in a designated preserve),
and displayed it on his fireplace mantle. That took some nerve. But it does show that the dissing works both way ... we complain about rogue rangers, but they no
doubt have good reason to complain about rogue pro photographers.

bobwysiwyg

2-Oct-2014, 14:08

Drew Wiley

2-Oct-2014, 15:06

It wasn't ignorance. He bragged about it.

Jeff Conrad

2-Oct-2014, 17:17

Dave,

The regulations for the BLM, FWS, and the NPS are the same; they’re codified at 43 CFR Part 5. There are some additional regulations for the FWS at 50 CFR Part 27, Subpart G. You’ll need to use the 2013 edition because the 2014 edition (updated October 1) hasn’t yet been posted (as far as I know, there have been no changes). Regulations for the FS are at 36 CFR 251.50–51; for some reason, the 2014 edition isn’t yet posted, so again, you’ll need to use the 2013 edition. The picture for the FS is complicated somewhat because these regulations rely—in some cases explicitly, in others implicitly—on definitions in the Forest Service Handbook at 2709.11, Chapter 45 (the proposal that began that thread involves a change to this part of the FSH).

All of these regulations are governed by Public Law 106-206, codified at 16 USC 460l-6d.

Any site-specific policy is subject to Pub. L. 106-206 and the regulations. If there’s a conflict, the superior law controls; however, making such a point could be a tough—and costly—row to hoe.

Briefly, you need a permit for still photography if the photography

Uses models or props; or,
Takes place in an area closed to the public; or,
Takes place in an area where the agency would incur additional administrative costs to prevent resource damage or bloodshed.

The definitions of “model” and “prop” are a bit loopy, but for the most part work to no harm. The definitions of “prop” are worded so that they conceivably could be read by enforcement enthusiasts as including anything other than a camera and tripod—though such a reading would be a bit of a stretch. I doubt this was the intent of Pub. L. 106-206, but the definitions read as they read. So far, I am unaware of any great evil that has resulted.