A U.S. Forest Service proposal to require permits and fees for commercial photographers and filmmakers who use wilderness areas has drawn opposition from those who could be affected.
Sen. Mark Udall, chairman of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on National Parks, urged the Forest Service on Thursday to reverse course on the proposal.
“A picture is worth a thousand words, but the U.S. Forest Service’s proposed rule on wilderness photography conjures only one: Wrong,” Udall said in a news release.
The Forest Service proposal to require media to obtain permits to film or shoot photographs in wilderness areas would affect more than 3.5 million acres of such lands in Colorado, as well as those who document the landscape.
Late Thursday, the Forest Service released a statement to “clarify” the agency’s “intentions.”
“The U.S. 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, the Forest Service release said. However, if a project falls outside that scope and filming is on wilderness land, additional criteria are applied to protect the wilderness, it said. A permit would have to be obtained before any photography is permitted.
The Forest Service currently issues special-use permits and charging fees — ranging from $30 per day on the low end and up to $800 per day for a “Hollywood” production — for .
News reports have cited a $1,500 commercial permit fee, but that number “refers to a different proposed directive,” the Forest Service said in its release. The release did not cite the exact directive to which the $1,500 fee is hitched.
The new proposal, however, has some, including professionals who use the wilderness areas, concerned about the possibilities of restricted access and increased costs.
John Fielder, a who advocates for open space and wildlands, said the prospect of encumbered access is troublesome.
“I can’t imagine the Forest Service would want to impose anti-artistic” measures on wilderness areas, Fielder said.
Potentially limiting access of photographers and videographers, through red tape and fees, would hurt the movement to expand wilderness in Colorado and elsewhere, Fielder said.
“The only way we are going to make more wilderness is by allowing the media to do what it does,” Fielder said. “The media’s artistic expression is important to wilderness protection.”
The current proposal should “not include cameras and video cameras,” Fielder said. “Without these devices, we can’t do what we do.”
Shooting films and commercials in Colorado brings millions of dollars in revenue annually to the state, including projects that tap into the beauty of wilderness areas.
“When commercial film- makers want to come here, they are interested in access,” said Donald Zuckerman, commissioner of the . “To the extent that could be denied, or is going to take a long time, that’s not a good thing.
“I understand the protection of wilderness areas, and that should exist.”
The Wilderness Act, which celebrates its 50th anniversary this year, has land constraints already in place, including limits on use of heavy and mechanical equipment.
Chris Strebig, a spokesman with the U.S. Forest Service in Colorado, said the comment period on the proposal has been extended to Dec. 3, and public meetings are planned.
Kieran Nicholson: 303-954-1822, knicholson@ denverpost.com or twitter.com/kierannicholson
