GRITTY - FILM PERMITS - YOUR THOUGHTS?

[mcfd45]

So how do you determine over use? Is it 1 guy making money off our lands or a train of guys doing the same?

I would say that any group larger than 15 people would need a permit. The permit fee would be dependent on the equipment and the size of the workforce. It’s easy to articulate how 1 person will do a fraction of the damage that 100 will do. Charging a 3 man crew the same as the guys filming a Hollywood production is asinine.

 

[Elkdreamer]

I would say that any group larger than 15 people would need a permit. The permit fee would be dependent on the equipment and the size of the workforce. It’s easy to articulate how 1 person will do a fraction of the damage that 100 will do. Charging a 3 man crew the same as the guys filming a Hollywood production is asinine.

I disagree. If you make money off public land a set fee should be paid.

 

[mcfd45]

I disagree. If you make money off public land a set fee should be paid.

Then I would say no film permits are needed.

 

[ttucci16]

I disagree. If you make money off public land a set fee should be paid.

So you basically want a flat tax in order to use public land? Not a bad idea to simplify the "Permit" issue for the little guy. I do think you need more for a big production company though. The amount of space and resources something large would take up needs to be offset with the money it costs to refurubish anything that was messed up. Most trailheads require that you have less than i believe 7 people when camping in wilderness areas. Don't quote me on that though.

 

[mcfd45]

So you basically want a flat tax in order to use public land? Not a bad idea to simplify the "Permit" issue for the little guy. I do think you need more for a big production company though. The amount of space and resources something large would take up needs to be offset with the money it costs to refurubish anything that was messed up. Most trailheads require that you have less than i believe 7 people when camping in wilderness areas. Don't quote me on that though.

I would add that the fees would be used to cleanup and repair any damages (which are bound to happen) and could even be used to pay for services by the rangers. Traffic control, extended hours of operations for park employees, maybe even someone to observe and make sure they don’t do anything stupid.

 

[Elkdreamer]

So you basically want a flat tax in order to use public land? Not a bad idea to simplify the "Permit" issue for the little guy. I do think you need more for a big production company though. The amount of space and resources something large would take up needs to be offset with the money it costs to refurubish anything that was messed up. Most trailheads require that you have less than i believe 7 people when camping in wilderness areas. Don't quote me on that though.

So you would rather the little guy does not pay anything and get on the internet and cries like a little school girl?

 

[ttucci16]

So you would rather the little guy does not pay anything and get on the internet and cries like a little school girl?

Not sure what you're asking to be honest??? I think the little guy should have to pay something if he is making money off of his content. ( I feel like a $500 flat rate per year would be reasonable) I think everyone needs skin in the game honestly. I think it should be gradually more expensive based off of size, production, impact on the environment, and any other possibles that need to be in there. The funds also need to show use. It shouldn't go to pad anyones salary. The funding should be directly put into road maintenance, bathrooms, cleanup, wildlife management, range management, etc. I think the way they are doing it is typical of the feds (They tend to muddy things up and lump everyone into one bucket) They should simplify the process to where any joe can understand the process.

 

[mcfd45]

So you would rather the little guy does not pay anything and get on the internet and cries like a little school girl?

He built a livelihood over his brand. He emailed the USFS and made sure he was complying with the laws. They said he was and that he didn’t need to use permits. Then they tried to charge him with not getting permits.
He literally did everything right. He will lose monetization and his brand is harmed by a BS case.
the CFR is so large that a person can’t possible know every law. He verified he was within the law and now he pays the price for an overweight government that tends to be incompetent.

 

[Elkdreamer]

He built a livelihood over his brand. He emailed the USFS and made sure he was complying with the laws. They said he was and that he didn’t need to use permits. Then they tried to charge him with not getting permits.
He literally did everything right. He will lose monetization and his brand is harmed by a BS case.
the CFR is so large that a person can’t possible know every law. He verified he was within the law and now he pays the price for an overweight government that tends to be incompetent.

His brand is on our land. Pay the fees or go home.

 

[Elkdreamer]

He built a livelihood over his brand. He emailed the USFS and made sure he was complying with the laws. They said he was and that he didn’t need to use permits. Then they tried to charge him with not getting permits.
He literally did everything right. He will lose monetization and his brand is harmed by a BS case.
the CFR is so large that a person can’t possible know every law. He verified he was within the law and now he pays the price for an overweight government that tends to be incompetent.

Im a small business that has to play by the government rules every day.

 

[TimberDoodle]

Had to unfollow the guy. He knows the rules, but didn't know, but did and didn't like them, etc. Two of his bigger campaigns that I can recall: defending Greentree's poaching, and defending illegal filming and playing the victim.

 

[mmw194287]

Couple of disjointed thoughts:

• I'm curious why he even asked if he needed a permit or how he explained what he was doing when he asked. It's plain as day if you Google "do I need a permit to film on forest service land" one of the first results is a document from the forest service that says on the first page you need a permit when filming " involves the advertisement of a product"
• If I want to start guiding fishing trips in Yellowstone or any other national park, I'm going to need a permit to do so, even if it's just going to be me and one or two clients fishing catch-and-release. Even if I just do it once. If it was just me and my buddies, I wouldn't need a concessionaire's permit. Even if I did it every single day of the summer. Same number of boots on the ground, taking up the same stretch of water, putting the same pressure on the fish. Some people may think that's idiotic, I think it makes perfect sense...I'm using a resource that doesn't just belong to myself to make a profit.
• There are content creators out there who think the process is cumbersome, expensive, etc., but they follow the rules and don't trash talk the agencies. Instead they work with them and lawmakers to highlight the problems and try to fix them.
• Everyone in the industry is aware of the need for permits to film on public land...I know people who have done the exact same hunt two years in a row, and got a film permit the second year because they were now working for the company whose gear they wore...not for any kind of feature film, but just for B roll of the product in use. It limited where they could go and made the hunt tougher when the weather didn't cooperate (they had to get the permit months in advance). Some people and companies like to go above and beyond to avoid any appearance of impropriety, even if they could probably fudge it if they got caught.
• I've had to jump through a ton of hoops to stay legal and spent a pile of money on physicals, coast guard certification, etc. to take people fishing out of an outboard jet in a skinny little creek in Alaska in the summer. It was very expensive and took a big chunk out of my earnings to stay legal. I also know there were a lot of guides fishing the same area that didn't get the license because they thought it was too expensive and ridiculous...they always had ways of justifying it: they either "weren't actually guiding" or the whole thing was so ridiculous they'd pay the fine but it was all BS, etc.

 

[Elkdreamer]

Just fix it all. Go hunting on your own terms and dont tell everyone that has internet service you killed and animal.

 

[ttucci16]

Couple of disjointed thoughts:

• I'm curious why he even asked if he needed a permit or how he explained what he was doing when he asked. It's plain as day if you Google "do I need a permit to film on forest service land" one of the first results is a document from the forest service that says on the first page you need a permit when filming " involves the advertisement of a product"
• If I want to start guiding fishing trips in Yellowstone or any other national park, I'm going to need a permit to do so, even if it's just going to be me and one or two clients fishing catch-and-release. Even if I just do it once. If it was just me and my buddies, I wouldn't need a concessionaire's permit. Even if I did it every single day of the summer. Same number of boots on the ground, taking up the same stretch of water, putting the same pressure on the fish. Some people may think that's idiotic, I think it makes perfect sense...I'm using a resource that doesn't just belong to myself to make a profit.
• There are content creators out there who think the process is cumbersome, expensive, etc., but they follow the rules and don't trash talk the agencies. Instead they work with them and lawmakers to highlight the problems and try to fix them.
• Everyone in the industry is aware of the need for permits to film on public land...I know people who have done the exact same hunt two years in a row, and got a film permit the second year because they were now working for the company whose gear they wore...not for any kind of feature film, but just for B roll of the product in use. It limited where they could go and made the hunt tougher when the weather didn't cooperate (they had to get the permit months in advance). Some people and companies like to go above and beyond to avoid any appearance of impropriety, even if they could probably fudge it if they got caught.
• I've had to jump through a ton of hoops to stay legal and spent a pile of money on physicals, coast guard certification, etc. to take people fishing out of an outboard jet in a skinny little creek in Alaska in the summer. It was very expensive and took a big chunk out of my earnings to stay legal. I also know there were a lot of guides fishing the same area that didn't get the license because they thought it was too expensive and ridiculous...they always had ways of justifying it: they either "weren't actually guiding" or the whole thing was so ridiculous they'd pay the fine but it was all BS, etc.

No offense, but it sounds like you didn't listen to the podcast at all. You're comparing yourself as a guide to someone who self films hunts. If you listened to the podcast, he literally explains that he verified with the USFS that he doesn't need a permit, THEN they came after him two years later after sitting on the case for a year.

 

[mmw194287]

No offense, but it sounds like you didn't listen to the podcast at all. You're comparing yourself as a guide to someone who self films hunts. If you listened to the podcast, he literally explains that he verified with the USFS that he doesn't need a permit, THEN they came after him two years later after sitting on the case for a year.

You're right, I didn't listen to the podcast. I'm not offended at all.

And I understand the distinction between a fishing guide and a self-filming hunter who uses his films to advertise products and is compensated for said advertisement. The point of those comparisons was two-fold: 1) one of the arguments made on his behalf is that he doesn't impact the land any more than a guy who is filming hunts without the intent of making money (I made the point that the same could be said for a fishing guide who has the same impact on the land as an everyday fisherman); 2) the other argument is that expensive, unncessary stuff that makes it harder to make a living doing what you want is unfair (many other occupations have similar barriers to entry), but that doesn't mean you ignore the rules

I am curious, however, when he "verified with the forest service,." Did he say I film hunts with paid sponsorships and insert advertisements and links into the videos per the contract? Or did he say that he films his own hunts and doesn't charge people to watch them? I'm not picking on the guy or trying to be a "hater," just curious what exactly was verified.

 

[ttucci16]

You're right, I didn't listen to the podcast. I'm not offended at all.

And I understand the distinction between a fishing guide and a self-filming hunter who uses his films to advertise products and is compensated for said advertisement. The point of those comparisons was two-fold: 1) one of the arguments made on his behalf is that he doesn't impact the land any more than a guy who is filming hunts without the intent of making money (I made the point that the same could be said for a fishing guide who has the same impact on the land as an everyday fisherman); 2) the other argument is that expensive, unncessary stuff that makes it harder to make a living doing what you want is unfair (many other occupations have similar barriers to entry), but that doesn't mean you ignore the rules

I am curious, however, when he "verified with the forest service,." Did he say I film hunts with paid sponsorships and insert advertisements and links into the videos per the contract? Or did he say that he films his own hunts and doesn't charge people to watch them? I'm not picking on the guy or trying to be a "hater," just curious what exactly was verified.

I went back and relistened to get the verbage of what he says. This is what he is saying that the USFS lady said "If you're not going to have any direct monetization from your film, then you're not considered commercial and don't need a permit." Brian then states, "My content isn't sold, in a theater, sold on dvds, linked back to my website where I sell products, sold on amazon, linked to affiliate partners, and is not being funded directly by sponsors.

I think the only distinction between a fisherman and a guide would be the vetting/safety of clients. Maybe a guide uses the resource more than a single fisherman....I don't have a clue to be honest. Maybe it's also a way to regulate how many people are using the resource as a business.

 

[TheTone]

I went back and relistened to get the verbage of what he says. This is what he is saying that the USFS lady said "If you're not going to have any direct monetization from your film, then you're not considered commercial and don't need a permit." Brian then states, "My content isn't sold, in a theater, sold on dvds, linked back to my website where I sell products, sold on amazon, linked to affiliate partners, and is not being funded directly by sponsors.

I think the only distinction between a fisherman and a guide would be the vetting/safety of clients. Maybe a guide uses the resource more than a single fisherman....I don't have a clue to be honest. Maybe it's also a way to regulate how many people are using the resource as a business.

by that logic of his then I’m sure he never used film views , follows, comments etc to negotiate payment from sponsors then either.
As others have said I’d be happy if all the huckster, influencers making a living hunting were gone

 

[Idaho Brad]

A handful of films were in a designated wilderness. Filming without a permit in a wilderness is a special kind of ignorant. Does he or whoever was taking drone footage have a commercial license to film with said drone?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[Idaho Brad]

It's yer basic "pay the toll to get the roll" scenario. End of discussion. Was the conversation between the forest circus and Brian documented in any way? If not, It's hearsay. If so, fight the ticket, clear thy record.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[WCB]

He monetizes off his videos, plain and simple. He knows the rules and chose not to pay the fees. Unless these videos had zero product discount codes and not linked to "Gritty" he is using them as advertising for his brand and his sponsor brands.

People making the argument that other Youtubers are doing it outside of the hunting realm and getting away with it, are making a weak argument. Then he should turn them in and shine a spot light on it. Be another brick in the "hunters pay the vast majority of money towards conservation" argument.

As to drones....I think they should be banned from use during any hunting season.