New Wildlife Photography permits upcoming

Dedicated exclusively to field herping.

Moderator: Scott Waters

Post Reply
hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

New Wildlife Photography permits upcoming

Post by hellihooks » September 26th, 2014, 6:05 am

Not sure how many of us this affects, but...
https://www.facebook.com/groups/sonoran ... 848987000/

User avatar
Owen
Posts: 1923
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 11:35 pm
Location: San Jose', Northern Catcrapistan

Re: New Wildlife Photography permits upcoming

Post by Owen » September 26th, 2014, 8:10 am

Spell it out, man!

Some of us don't/won't do Facebook.

User avatar
Don Becker
Posts: 3355
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 3:21 am
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Re: New Wildlife Photography permits upcoming

Post by Don Becker » September 26th, 2014, 8:16 am

Can't see the post unless you are a member of the group.

User avatar
PrimitiveTim
Posts: 154
Joined: September 8th, 2013, 8:05 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: New Wildlife Photography permits upcoming

Post by PrimitiveTim » September 26th, 2014, 8:57 am

I think this is what he's talking about...

http://juneauempire.com/state/2014-09-2 ... am-picture

User avatar
Owen
Posts: 1923
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 11:35 pm
Location: San Jose', Northern Catcrapistan

Re: New Wildlife Photography permits upcoming

Post by Owen » September 26th, 2014, 9:12 am

OK, got it... seems to be for those that profit financially from photography.

My local county parks charge:
  • Photography fee (daily) ​$50.00 ​Fee charged to commercial photographers for one day photography session. (Photography permit is included in the reservation for a wedding site.)
    Filming (For-Profit/Movie/Advertising) ​$900.00 ​Single filming session
    Filming (Non-Profit/Training) ​$250.00 ​Single filming session

hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: New Wildlife Photography permits upcoming

Post by hellihooks » September 26th, 2014, 12:17 pm

sorry... didn't realize some couldn't view it. Busy busy day :roll:

User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2432
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: New Wildlife Photography permits upcoming

Post by chris_mcmartin » September 26th, 2014, 2:28 pm

Owen wrote:OK, got it... seems to be for those that profit financially from photography.
It's easy to see why we would think that--I don't know if it's an honest oversight which will create unintended consequences, or an intentional deception to get people think "it doesn't apply to me," but here is the actual policy the Feds are looking at enacting:

https://www.federalregister.gov/article ... gister.gov

It specifies "commercial filming," but uses no "commercial" qualifier for still photography... :|

Jimi
Posts: 1871
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: New Wildlife Photography permits upcoming

Post by Jimi » September 26th, 2014, 3:20 pm

I don't FB either. Way too creepy for my blood. But following Chris' link, I see this in the Federal Register:
this policy provides the criteria used to evaluate request for special use permits related to still photography and commercial filming in congressionally designated wilderness areas
So...I would guess this affects NOBODY here.

From the purpose and need section:
The proposed directive FSH 2709.11, chapter 40, is currently issued as the third consecutive interim directive (ID) which is set to expire in October 2014. The previous directive addressed still photography in wilderness and did not provide adequate guidance to review commercial filming in wilderness permit proposals.
I'm thinking this is aimed at people who are going out and trying to make money selling stills and video. Probably stimulated by the drone explosion currently happening. It's the wild west out there and low-flying drones in jurisdictional wilderness are surely conflicting with other uses & users (wildlife; people wanting to unplug and get away from machines). I reckon the Forest Service needs to try & bring some order out of the growing chaos.

My $.01 guess anyway...but to reiterate, I seriously doubt it affects anyone here. I think Jim's subject line qualifies as "click bait". (Sorry Jim!) Not worth getting paranoid about. Not even remotely related to the "should herpers need a hunting license to take pictures?" conversation either.

More detail for the detail-oriented:
Section 45.1c—Evaluation of Proposals

This proposed section would include criteria in addition to that of still photography to incorporate commercial filming activities. Furthermore, the Agency is proposing to clarify when a special use permit may be issued to authorize the use of NFS lands if the proposed activity, other than noncommercial still photography would be in a congressionally designated wilderness area.

The proposed directive for FSH 2709.11, chapter 40, section 45.1c is as follows:
45.1c—Evaluation of Proposals

A special use permit may be issued (when required by sections 45.1a and 45.2a) to authorize the use of National Forest System lands for still photography or commercial filming when the proposed activity:

1. Meets the screening criteria in 36 CFR 251.54(e);

2. Would not cause unacceptable resource damage;

3. Would not unreasonably disrupt the public's use and enjoyment of the site where the activity would occur;

4. Would not pose a public health and safety risk; and

5. Meets the following additional criteria, if the proposed activity, other than noncommercial still photography (36 CFR 251.51), would be in a congressionally designated wilderness area:

a. Has a primary objective of dissemination of information about the use and enjoyment of wilderness or its ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value (16 U.S.C. 1131(a) and (b));

b. Would preserve the wilderness character of the area proposed for use, for example, would leave it untrammeled, natural, and undeveloped and would preserve opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation (16 U.S.C. 1131(a));

c. Is wilderness-dependent, for example, a location within a wilderness area is identified for the proposed activity and there are no suitable locations outside of a wilderness area (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(6));

d. Would not involve use of a motor vehicle, motorboat, or motorized equipment, including landing of aircraft, unless authorized by the enabling legislation for the wilderness area (36 CFR 261.18(a) and (c));

e. Would not involve the use of mechanical transport, such as a hang glider or bicycle, unless authorized by the enabling legislation for the wilderness area (36 CFR 261.18(b));

f. Would not violate any applicable order (36 CFR 261.57); and

g. Would not advertise any product or service (16 U.S.C. 1133(c)).
the federal code mentioned in the beginning (36 CFR 251.54(e)) is here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/251.54

seems pretty reasonable....

Cheers,
Jimi

User avatar
Ribbit
Posts: 601
Joined: June 12th, 2010, 9:28 am
Location: Monterey Peninsula, CA
Contact:

Re: New Wildlife Photography permits upcoming

Post by Ribbit » September 26th, 2014, 3:57 pm

It looks like all the media coverage has caused the forest service to modify their position: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/fores ... g-off-fine

John

User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2432
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: New Wildlife Photography permits upcoming

Post by chris_mcmartin » September 26th, 2014, 4:35 pm

Jimi wrote:
this policy provides the criteria used to evaluate request for special use permits related to still photography and commercial filming in congressionally designated wilderness areas
So...I would guess this affects NOBODY here.
I'm still (pardon the pun) uncomfortable with the wording..."still photography and commercial filming," as that phrase is used several times throughout the proposal. Why not "commercial still photography and commercial filming?" Much less ambiguous.

At this level of government, I'd hope these things aren't written in a vacuum...I'm sure legal teams have combed over the exact wording...there must be a reason "commercial" is omitted from "still photography." Usually when things like this are questioned, the response from the government spokesperson is, "Of course it isn't meant to stop someone from taking a personal photo..." but that clarification is never codified. Not sure if a video clip of said Q&A could be used in a legal-defense capacity.

Does this mean someone hoping to photograph a vista for entry in the county fair, with a cash prize for the winning photo, needs a permit? Probably not, but would it be so bad to clarify that in the actual code? In my opinion, that's precisely why there's a comment period--to request clarification.

hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: New Wildlife Photography permits upcoming

Post by hellihooks » September 26th, 2014, 6:47 pm

No offense taken Jimi... wasn't trying to be alarmist... just didn't have time to figure this out... figured I get the best critique here, figuring others may find it somewhat interesting, as well... :| jim

hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: New Wildlife Photography permits upcoming

Post by hellihooks » September 27th, 2014, 5:15 am


User avatar
chrish
Posts: 3298
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:14 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: New Wildlife Photography permits upcoming

Post by chrish » September 27th, 2014, 5:47 am

This made me go back to read parts of the Wilderness Act of 1964 which set up the wilderness areas.
(c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights,
there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area
designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the
administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in
emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no
temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of
aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any
such area.
The way I read that, commercial filming in Wilderness areas was already prohibited (unless there is a more recent amendment?). So this permitting scheme isn't stopping an activity, it is authorizing one.

And as for Photography/Video permits, this isn't a new idea. National Parks have required these permits for years, as do many state and even local parks. You can't use their resource commercially without a permit. I don't think it is unreasonable, except coming from the Forest Service this seems a bit odd. And it only appears to (have) referred to wilderness areas, not all FS land.

It is interesting to think about how this does affect us in this day of easy photography and videography.
What if you are just taking pics or videos for your herping website? Seems ok.....but what if you start selling ad space on your website?
I recently sold a few photos to a guy publishing a book on Central Texas Natural History. If they had been taken in wilderness, Would I have needed a permit for those photos if I had known in advance I was going to sell them to him?

Is it even OK to herp in Wilderness areas? My read has always been no since all plants and animals in that area are protected. I've always viewed the wildlife in Wilderness areas as having the same protections as National Parks (no flipping rocks or logs, no bags or hooks, etc).

User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2432
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: New Wildlife Photography permits upcoming

Post by chris_mcmartin » September 28th, 2014, 10:44 am

IMPORTANT INFORMATION! This gets back to my questioning how the language could be so sloppy, and surely the lawyers have combed through the new proposal to ensure it "reads correctly" and whatnot.

"Still Photography" is being used as previously defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (who knew?), as follows:
Still photography—use of still photographic equipment on National Forest System lands that takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed or where additional administrative costs are likely, or uses models, sets, or props that are not a part of the site's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities.
Source: CFR 251.51, http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECF ... pt36.2.251


Basically, Jimi is correct in that "most of us have nothing to worry about," albeit for reasons more complex than assuming it wasn't meant to cover recreational photographers.

8-)

User avatar
snake_girl85
Posts: 12
Joined: August 24th, 2010, 12:34 pm
Location: Central IL

Re: New Wildlife Photography permits upcoming

Post by snake_girl85 » September 30th, 2014, 7:36 am

Wondering if this has anything to do with it...
http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/5845 ... g.html.csp

Jimi
Posts: 1871
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: New Wildlife Photography permits upcoming

Post by Jimi » September 30th, 2014, 9:21 am

Chrish, you wrote:
Is it even OK to herp in Wilderness areas? My read has always been no since all plants and animals in that area are protected. I've always viewed the wildlife in Wilderness areas as having the same protections as National Parks (no flipping rocks or logs, no bags or hooks, etc).
You have been doing yourself a disservice. Congressional wilderness designation is basically a form of land-use zoning. But wilderness is always designated for (or "carved out of") some already-public land (federally-public; and by "public" I do not just mean BLM). The agency that already had the land, typically keeps the land that becomes wilderness. There is no "wilderness agency".

So, you have BLM-administered wilderness, USFS wilderness, NPS wilderness, and (I believe) USFWS (NWR Refuge) wilderness. (Surely there is no DoD or BoR or USACE wilderness. That's too funny to contemplate...)

Anyway the point is, whatever the agency's rules are about wildlife use, are typically what apply to "their" wilderness. So for example the USFS wilderness areas in "the crown of the continent" are some of the most treasured elk hunting places in North America. You just have to pack in with horses, you can't go driving your ATV around and road hunt. Virtually all USFS land is open for hunting and fishing. And herping. Wilderness or not.

Remember, except for a small number of exceptions, wildlife is managed by the states. Most federal agencies just (that is, they have to...) defer to the state wildlife agency for management of wildlife on the lands the federal agency administers (whatever the "land-use zoning"). Remember also that wildlife can be thought of as a severed estate - severed from the surface estate. Much like minerals and water and air are estates, severed from the surface estate. Just because you own or manage the land does not mean you own or manage the wildlife, or the minerals, or the air.

USFWS (Refuges) and NPS were granted authority by Congress (i.e., in their establishing or "organic" Acts) to manage the wildlife on the lands they administer. BLM and USFS were not. Neither were DoD, BoR, USACE etc. They have a legal responsibility to not wreck the wildlife. But that is different from legal authority over the wildlife.

So generally, when you're in USFS or BLM wilderness and you want to hunt or fish (and I include herping in these 2 broad categories), just follow the state fish and game regs and you're good.

Disclaimer - I'm no lawyer. In some small details I may have made some mistakes here. But in the broad strokes, I am quite confident I got it right.

cheers,
Jimi

Jimi
Posts: 1871
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: New Wildlife Photography permits upcoming

Post by Jimi » September 30th, 2014, 9:36 am

Still photography—use of still photographic equipment on National Forest System lands that takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed or where additional administrative costs are likely, or uses models, sets, or props that are not a part of the site's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities.


Source: CFR 251.51, http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECF ... pt36.2.251


Basically, Jimi is correct in that "most of us have nothing to worry about," albeit for reasons more complex than assuming it wasn't meant to cover recreational photographers.
Chris M:

That's a vastly more restrictive interpretation than even I made. Here's why:
on National Forest System lands...at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed
Such places practically do not exist. There are a small number of closed-to-the-public research areas. Their aggregate acreage is miniscule. Otherwise the whole ~190 million acres are NOT locations that are "generally closed to the public".

So my "don't even worry about it, guys" appears to be vastly strengthened. Assuming everything that follows "or" (models, sets, props etc) does not apply to herp photographers. Yeah? No?

Anyway, not quibbling or taking personal offense. Just zeroing in on a curious definition, and pointing out its implication in relation to the subject line of this thread.

cheers,
Jimi

User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2432
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: New Wildlife Photography permits upcoming

Post by chris_mcmartin » September 30th, 2014, 7:32 pm

Jimi wrote:So my "don't even worry about it, guys" appears to be vastly strengthened. Assuming everything that follows "or" (models, sets, props etc) does not apply to herp photographers. Yeah? No?

Anyway, not quibbling or taking personal offense.
It sounds like we're in agreement--after all, I did say you were correct! :P


But some of us DO still have to worry. We herpers are often mistaken for models... :lol:

Post Reply