WILD BILL
NPS on Slippery Slope with Photog Fees
By Bill Schneider, 5-04-06
Six years ago, Congress passed a law that allowed the National Park Service (NPS) and other federal agencies to charge filmmakers and still photographers “location fees.” Then, nothing happened, until suddenly in late April, the NPS announced it would start charging all photographers—even small, independent, usually financially struggling freelancers—fees ranging from $100 to $500 per day for the privilege of taking pictures in national parks. Currently, photographers pay $200 per year for this privilege. Now, that’s what you call inflation!
Instantly—and predictably—this launched a controversy. Independent filmmakers and freelance photographers claimed the fees would drive them out of business, which I’m sure is true.
I’ve been in the publishing biz all my life and have met hundreds of nature and wildlife photographers. Outdoor photography is an attractive and popular profession, to be sure. Its disciples are passionate—and definitely not in it for the money. In fact, even making an average living is extremely challenging. Nature photography is sort of like farming. The only way to make a million dollars is to start with five million.
Pile on up to $50,000 per year in “location fees,” and most freelancers would be looking for work at Wal-mart. Along with the photographers would go the wealth of incredible imagery that has collectively helped plant a deep appreciation of wild nature in the soul of the American populace.
Photogs could take pictures somewhere besides national parks, of course, but regrettably the outdoor photography market more or less equates the “outdoors” with “national parks.” Consequently, many freelancers and one-man-band filmmakers spend the bulk of their time in national parks.
Actually, I had this week’s column done yesterday, but now I’m doing a rapid rewrite. In it, I’d encouraged the NPS re-think this plan to avoid an embarrassing false start that would only make a lot of people angry and needlessly burn up dwindling agency resources. And then, pesto, in this morning’s papers, before I posted the column, it happened. If the agency would have waited until next week, at least I could have imagined the NPS director had read my column and changed her mind, but no such luck. Instead, a last minute revision, but I’m not too unhappy because this story has the right punch line.
In a memo obtained by Scott McMillion of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, the NPS officials said they “inadvertently overlooked” the category for small, independent “"videographers and cinematographers” with drafting the proposed rule. It must have been hard to say that with a straight face, but whatever. The agency quickly recognized that the proposed rule would cause untold grief, burn off some of their most loyal supporters (nature photographers) and in the end go nowhere.
This tells me how really slippery this slope is for the NPS. Usually, even in obviously lose-lose situations, agencies charge forward with their plan until the politics gets so hot and heavy, they must retreat. Witness the current proposal to sell of public lands. Everybody knows that proposal is going up in flames, but the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management blindly forge ahead with no regard for the public’s viewpoint. Not this time, though. The NPS did the right thing and beat a hasty retreat. Score one for us, the owners of federal land and employers of the NPS.
When announcing the plan, NPS Director Fran Mainella called the fees “reasonable,” but she might have been the only person on Earth who believed that.
Powerful western senators on both sides of the aisle, including Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.), the original sponsor of the legislation, had already jumped on NPS for not correctly interpreting the law. The agency probably realized they could lose the whole program, including the ability to recover costs from ad agencies shooting commercials or Hollywood making feature length films, if they didn’t back off. Plus, with enforcement of current park regulations barely making it at best, would rangers really spend time busting photographers who might be trying to sell a picture of Old Faithful?
The NPS has much bigger problems such as threats of over-development, commercial branding, declining budgets, debates over cell towers, conflicts over motorized recreation, desperate needs for maintenance and enforcement, and poor morale among agency professionals. Pick your battles, they say, Fighting a big fight with thousands of freelance and hobby photographers is the last thing the cash-strapped agency needs.
It’s sort of amazing how fast the prospect of financial ruin for an entire industry laced with a mainline dose of politics can get a ship back on course. Just a few days ago, NPS spokesperson Lee Dickinson coldly informed News Photographer Magazine that “Collecting fees is now required by law.”
This isn’t over, though. The NPS still plans to publish the final rule and start charging certain commercial filmmakers and still photographers. But which ones? The proverbial devil will be in the details.
And the details look dicey. The NPS apparently won’t charge for “news coverage” such as camera crews covering an accident or plane crash, but if the same film crew stays to shoot feature material, do they pay? No guess on how the NPS will assess fees for nature documentaries that take years of filming or magazine feature articles on park environmental issues, both of which are often solicited and supported by park employees. The agency might have a hard time getting camera crews to press conferences it calls to announce events like the opening of a new interpretive center or a major corporate donation if they charge news photographers to cover it. Even if the agency doesn’t charge for this self-promotion, if the same camera crews shoot wildlife footage as they drive out of the park, do they pay? When the President decides he needs to look a little greener, where does he go? Yellowstone or Grand Canyon, of course. Will the press crews who follow him have to pay location fees?
A rule like this should be clearly defined to have consistent enforcement. But I wonder if this is even possible.
I also must ask why after six years of ignoring the law would the NPS suddenly want to pick a fight it can’t win? I strongly suspect the answer is, they were ordered to do it. I hate going here again, but it’s hard to ignore the obvious. Is this one more embarrassment sprouting from that biggest sucking sound ever now referred to as The Trillion Dollar War? With the Iraq occupation and other Defense Department spending draining federal coffers, all other sources of money, regardless of how controversial, come in play, again akin to the land sales proposal. In her press release, Director Mainella admitted the General Accounting Office (GAO) recommended that the NPS expedite the implementation of the rule.
Well, it seems to me that the GAO needs a course in Politics 101. Based on this exercise of putting its toe in these political waters and getting it burned off, perhaps the NPS should concentrate on pressing issues that really matter and that they a chance of resolving—and take another six years to publish the final rule.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Efforts to flat-out grab the lands (Pombo plan of last December) or sell the lands have fallen flat against unexpectedly strong protest from conservative states like Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.
Administration privatizers are rethinking the situation and believe that charging fees for everything and providing bad service in return will do the trick before much time passes.
In other words, if they charge fees to access what is allowed to become an unkempt vacant lot, people will say why not let some corporations manage it?
The fee needs to be graduated and reasonable depending on whether he is given access to areas normally off limits, whether he travels with park personnel, whether it creates an inconvenience for ordinary visitors, etc.
Certainly $200/year is ridiculously low, can you imagine the howl if a rancher was given access to any public land for sheep or cattle for only $200/year for enough of them grazing to make a living for a family?
I guess one way would be basing it on sales, but that would require providing income tax records.
What about those who provide tours, are they not making money off the park too?
I really like his work and I would love to find another copy of the tv program about 264, mine got erased. But if he spends 300 days per year in the park, virtually all of his income has to come from Yellowstone, and some of the footage he has tells me he does have access that others don't. On the other hand if the New Pack keeps on, the videos may be all that is left of the roadside viewing in the Park.
My point is that rules have to be equitable, while cows do eat grass, they also control weeds and provde some benefical stirring of the soil. They are on leased land for 6 weeks to 3 months, and provide a great deal of benefit, not the least of which is food. This is versus 10 months.
Believe me, I can show you just how great pristine, never grazed public land is, full of weeds that are never controlled.