Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 221
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    colorady
    Posts
    1,203

    Davenport=denied

    GLENWOOD SPRINGS — Aspenite Chris Davenport’s plan to show a film of him skiing 14,000-foot high peaks in Colorado has run into a challenge as great as the feat itself.

    The White River National Forest and five other national forests in Colorado denied two requests by Davenport and filmmaker Ben Galland to commercially film him skiing high peaks within wilderness, White River Forest Supervisor Maribeth Gustafson announced Monday.

    The U.S. Forest Service concluded the film would not promote the wilderness characteristics of solitude and untrammeled nature, according to a statement released by the agency.

    Davenport, 36, successfully completed a goal to climb and ski all 54 of the “fourteeners” in Colorado within one year. He accomplished his goal on Jan. 19 with three days to spare.

    Rich Doak, the acting recreation staff officer in the White River, headquartered in Glenwood Springs, said the agency wasn’t discrediting Davenport’s accomplishment. However, agency officials felt the film does not promote wilderness values or ethics but rather focuses on the concept of the “ski challenge."

    “Really good skiing doesn’t promote wilderness,” Doak said.

    Some groups will applaud the decision as upholding the ideals of wilderness while others will feel the Forest Service is overreacting, he said.

    “This is about us looking at our direction and making a tough decision,” Doak said.

    The case is strange because some of the film footage was shot before Forest Service authorization was sought, according to the agency. The decision will require Davenport and Galland to remove the footage shot on peaks within wilderness or risk a fine, jail time or both.

    Commercially filming in wilderness without permission could be punishable by a $5,000 fine, up to six months in jail or some combination.

    Davenport said he will comply with the Forest Service decision, even though he feels strongly that the film promoted wilderness values.

    “I’m a little bit disturbed by their take on that,” he said.

    The film will be significantly different but salvagable without footage from peaks located within wilderness, according to Davenport.

    See Tuesday's Aspen Times for more on the Forest Service's decison and Davenport's film.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    2,055
    Quote Originally Posted by ULLRismyco-pilot View Post
    The film will be significantly different but salvagable without footage from peaks located within wilderness, according to Davenport.
    So does this mean there will be a film?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Jack Tone Road
    Posts
    12,778
    Quote Originally Posted by ULLRismyco-pilot View Post
    The U.S. Forest Service concluded the film would not promote the wilderness characteristics of solitude and untrammeled nature, according to a statement released by the agency.
    Clearly, I haven't seen the film, but if Davenport's movie doesn't fit the bill then what does?

    Other than the Juicy Fruit commercial, obviously.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Corner of Percocet and Depression
    Posts
    4,199
    I understand the ideal, but the decision seems to be a bit rash.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Three-O-Three
    Posts
    13,935
    So does this affect his presentation in Golden on Friday?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    eastern sierra
    Posts
    880
    http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/lewisclark/l...guidelines.pdf
    It just so happens this is my area of expertise and the request caused evaluation which in turn negated the ability to do it without a permit...as soon as you ask, you need a permit....no ask, no tell, no problems

    forest
    B. All feature-length motion picture and commercial video filming using crews, specialized
    equipment, sets, special effects and vehicles will normally require a Forest Service permit.
    CoIt is the policy of the National Park Service to allow filming and photography consistent with the protection and public enjoyment of park resources. Therefore, the primary consideration in the evaluation of permit requests in the Southeast Utah Group is the potential for resource damage and the disruption of normal public use.



    park
    Permits are not generally required for:

    Visitors engaged in filming/photography intended for their personal use and enjoyment
    The filming of a breaking news event by news crews
    Filming conducted pursuant to a cooperative agreement or contract with the National Park Service
    A request for a filming or photography permit may be denied if:

    The requested activity represents a potential for an adverse impact on the parks natural, cultural, wilderness or recreational resources or the visitor experience, or poses health or safety risks
    The requirements for supervising the project exceed the staffing capacity of the affected park
    The applicant fails to obtain insurance/bonding, or to agree to pay assessed cost recovery
    The request includes entry into areas closed to the visiting public or activities not permitted to the average park visitor
    mmercial still photography may require a permit when:
    1) Activities may adversely affect NFS lands or disrupt forest visitors and/or Forest Service
    management;
    2) Photos of national forest users will be offered for sale;
    3) Photos will feature a commercial product for sale when NFS lands, signs, or other
    readily identifiable NFS features appear in the photo.




    ask a lawyer, but I have been doing this 30 years and if you don't ask, or warrant a discussion from them, they have no cost....you cannot alter or do anything to alter the scene as in throwing in a few m-80's.....anyone wanna disagree with me here and now cuz I got sources and I am armed for bear on this one....
    Last edited by hairy; 05-02-2007 at 10:07 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    colorady
    Posts
    1,203
    Still a film but I think it can't have footy of the 14ers in wilderness areas. I think this includes pyramid, but I'm not sure. I think they said that there are 5 peaks he cannot include, maybe someone else has more details.........

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ventura Highway in the Sunshine
    Posts
    21,333
    The FS should make him pay the fee, plus some fine for filming w/o a permit, and let this move on. I can understand the FS policy, but let's face it, climbing and skiing wilderness peaks is a big part of what the wilderness is all about, or lets go back and pull all the Ansel Adams shots of the wilderness

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    colorady
    Posts
    1,203
    Video = no way
    Still shots = yes way

    This is why Ansel is in the clear and Dav is fucked in the rear

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    eastern sierra
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by ULLRismyco-pilot View Post
    Video = no way
    Still shots = yes way

    This is why Ansel is in the clear and Dav is fucked in the rear
    wrong by all acounts...you can film anything in the public domain...breaking news is someone skiing a new line homer...news being the key here...be a reporter filming something and if it winds up in a film....geeeeezzzzz....too many PC people these days

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    colorady
    Posts
    1,203
    Right! BUT,, you cannot film for profit or gain. Just what I heard in a previous article.. It is reasoned that it affects the wilderness in a negative way, therefore it is illegal.

    I don't really know what I'm talking about but this is what I was lead to believe from what I have read on the subject so far....

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Movin' On
    Posts
    2,214
    I personally think this is bullshit. People seeing the film would undoubtedly inspire more people to jump on the conservation bandwagon, but the forest service isn't so much about conservation as they are about bureaucratic control. They are a somewhat corrupt organization, and they certainly don't always act in the best interest of the public especially when it comes to land exchanges and enforcing this crap.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    eastern sierra
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by ULLRismyco-pilot View Post
    Right! BUT,, you cannot film for profit or gain. Just what I heard in a previous article.. It is reasoned that it affects the wilderness in a negative way, therefore it is illegal.

    I don't really know what I'm talking about but this is what I was lead to believe from what I have read on the subject so far....
    chewgotta trust me on this one....the profit motive isn't discussed when filmed, the goal is to film a current event as is no staging or requirements to affect the public....if a film is later produced from said captured events, no law is broken....all the way davenport, I will film you anywhere, anytime here in the sierra....I am especially intersted in filming north cooler williamson
    Last edited by hairy; 05-02-2007 at 10:23 AM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    eastern sierra
    Posts
    880
    next argument

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    7,804
    Quote Originally Posted by ULLRismyco-pilot View Post
    Commercially filming in wilderness without permission could be punishable by a $5,000 fine, up to six months in jail or some combination.
    Thats it?

    5k or 6mos?

    Shit.
    seems like they could strike a deal or something

    the USFS is really being stupid here

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    eastern sierra
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by ULLRismyco-pilot View Post
    The case is strange because some of the film footage was shot before Forest Service authorization was sought, according to the agency. The decision will require Davenport and Galland to remove the footage shot on peaks within wilderness or risk a fine, jail time or both.

    Commercially filming in wilderness without permission could be punishable by a $5,000 fine, up to six months in jail or some combination.

    the above pretty much sums it up eh.....once they sought permission for some unknown reason, they were screwed....rookie mistake...they will learn and just git-r-dun and show the film later....

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    eastern sierra
    Posts
    880
    I would risk the fine and take a stab at challenging the law in court...never gonna see jail...ask for a public defender and they drop the need for a defender just by saying you aren't eligible for jail time so defend yourself....as soon as they asked, cost was incurred and a permit was required...I hope this is clear enough....does it sound like I have been there done that yet?...they need a new production company with balls....it's the publics land in the public domain...end of story....am I at 1500 yet...I so wanna be cool....Suit, care to shoot me down on this one...video 2.0 collaboration of video creating a more roubust medium just like this forum is web 2.0...anybody game for breaking new trail...
    Last edited by hairy; 05-02-2007 at 10:59 AM.

  18. #18
    sledneckripper Guest
    I ride my 'bile all over NF land and along wilderness boundaries while filming for sledneck movies, and i don't recall the producers ever having to get a permit.

    Weak sauce.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Impossible to knowl--I use an iPhone
    Posts
    12,168
    Quote Originally Posted by ULLRismyco-pilot View Post

    Commercially filming in wilderness without permission could be punishable by a $5,000 fine, up to six months in jail or some combination.

    Davenport said he will comply with the Forest Service decision, even though he feels strongly that the film promoted wilderness values.
    I would be shocked if any sort of penalty were imposed, and especially if it actually stuck. If I were Dav I'd go ahead and show what I had already and see what happens. And then I'd never ask for permission again.

    I'd really like to get a qualified law-talking guy's opinion on this, it's hard to believe there's anything that would allow the USFS to interfere in this way.
    [quote][//quote]

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Colorado Cartel HQ
    Posts
    16,033
    Skiing is not a crime.
    Follow me on Instagram

    brett.mcnary

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    eastern sierra
    Posts
    880
    and as a side note, this also applies at a ski area...no disruption of the environment or access not available to others means all is in play...public domain filming cannot be restricted unless you cause the need for a restriction....private land ski areas can restrict filming by telling you to leave their property...

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    7,804
    if this was me, id edit the video so it was a relatively fast FPS slide show just to be an ass. but alas, Dav seems like a genuinely nice, respectful, and honest person, and if he does choose to abide by their rules, no matter how stupid they are, he gets a lot of my respect as an individual.
    (because we all know for sure he's no pussy)

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    P-tex, CA
    Posts
    8,197
    My God. Its not that hard to understand that we need to protect the wilderness areas from trampelling (sp), polluting, etc but seriously, when the hell are people going to start using common sense in this country?

    As I read the above permit rules, all I think about are Hollywood films with crew, transport, etc, etc. Its a no brainer that we need to regulate that segment.

    But here, we are talking about two people with a DVcam. Two people that would probably put a rock back in its place if it was moved. We pay an insane amount of taxes, and I think in the common sense world (which fails to exist), the people in charge of disallowing the use of the footage should take a step back and realize the purpose of the regulation.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    in ewe
    Posts
    1,298
    I've been saying this for years and nobody notices.

    Environmentalists don't like skiers.

    They don't want us in the mountains.

    They don't want anyone to enjoy nature.

    They just wanna be nature nazis and lock it all up and return it to what it was pre Lewis and Clark, I've actually heard hairy legged subaru drivng lesbo forest circus freaks say that.

    Skiers, the new endangered species.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Powpow New Guinea
    Posts
    2,983
    Quote Originally Posted by skier666 View Post
    We pay an insane amount of taxes, and I think in the common sense world (which fails to exist), the people in charge of disallowing the use of the footage should take a step back and realize the purpose of the regulation.
    Do you think the FS sees any of that or do you think it's spent in the middle east?

    Bottom line is if he had applied for a permit, this wouldn't be an issue. I agree with the intent of the regulation, but do think it's been poorly applied in this case.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •