Davenport=denied

[hairy]

There is an assumption being made here, which looks correct, that Dav (or whoever did the filming) intended this as a commercial venture. If he didn't (or could claim he didn't) initially film for commercial purposes (and didn't use a tripod?? What an idiotic criteria) then he should be fine regardless of what they say.
Now if his sponsors set aside money specifically to film, and we know they had commercial ends in mind, it would change things, but that isn't the only way to understand the situation. I wouldn't necessarily assume he had a contract that stipulated filming this for commercial purposes (but that may have been the case, who knows).

contracts...ahhhhh, now we are getting somewhere, if I am sposored, and I provide ads on my gear, am I then commercially skiing...cuz I got a pack and jacket that have logos on them....so back to the contract....contracting prior to shooting is a no-no in my book...time and materials after the fact...pay my bill please.....I love contracting cuz you can always get an advance.....

[cj001f]

CJ you're a tool.

Get a life dude, 7,000 posts and it's the same inane drivel all the time from you.

I caught your "deadbeat state" comment the other day and let it slide.

So you're saying when all the ski resorts close we shouldn't be allowed access to our public lands, I'm confused.

Do you ever ski, or are you here 24/7.

another whitetrash posterchild at work - I'm surprised drivel is in your vocabulary - but then it was federal funds that likely paid for that teacher (look it up buddy boy, your states a deadbeat - you wisely let that slide).

I'll spell it out for you: few ski areas are opening because ski areas without real estate loose money. I didn't realize skiing required lifts, but thats another difficulty I have relating to the mentally deficient.

I'll summarize better: Free filming on public lands = corporate welfare

[mtbakerskier]

Fuck the forest circus. Requiring film permits from crews that are leaving ZERO impact on the land is pure bull shit.

We would NOT have WILDERNESS areas if it was not for Photographers and FILMERS! Why the FUCK should we have to pay money to do our job when we are not leaving any impact on the land, are not preventing others from ussing the land, and are helping to bring awarness to the area?

It would be one thing if it was a large hollywood crew that was going to leave an impact on the land, and prevent others from free accessing it while filming. I dont know of a single ski industry film that consits of a big enough crew to leave an impact or prevent others from ussing the area.

Oh btw any forest cirus pricks that are reading this, you can find my "film permit" right between my first and third fingers.

[cj001f]

Why the FUCK should we have to pay money to do our job when we are not leaving any impact on the land, are not preventing others from ussing the land, and are helping to bring awarness to the area?

Because you are making money from the land? You know, the same reason why guiding concessions have to pay?

[mtbakerskier]

I'll summarize better: Free filming on public lands = corporate welfare

BULLSHIT!

Public Land does not set the shoot up, produce the film, market the film, and sell the film. People do! Sure having a great backdrop is nice, but common you can create a good pic anywhere.

[mtbakerskier]

Because you are making money from the land? You know, the same reason why guiding concessions have to pay?

I'm not making a FUCKING CENT from the LAND! I make my living off of my skills ussing my camera and marketing my images. The LAND doesnt do a FUCKING thing. Why should I have to pay to hike in the woods to shoot a few pics of my friends that happen to be athletes ? How is that any different than you going for a hike and shooting pics of your friends / family?

Why should we pay to use the forest, when you can go to the smithsonian for free?

Oh BTW, guiding operations generally take large enough groups in that are going to leave an impact no matter how carefull they are.

And finally whats the point of having the forests, and wilderness areas if we the free american people have to pay to use them? Don't we already pay taxes???? These lands are our LANDS and we all have an equal right to freely use them.

[Trackhead]

Fuck the forest circus. Requiring film permits from crews that are leaving ZERO impact on the land is pure bull shit.

We would NOT have WILDERNESS areas if it was not for Photographers and FILMERS! Why the FUCK should we have to pay money to do our job when we are not leaving any impact on the land, are not preventing others from ussing the land, and are helping to bring awarness to the area?

It would be one thing if it was a large hollywood crew that was going to leave an impact on the land, and prevent others from free accessing it while filming. I dont know of a single ski industry film that consits of a big enough crew to leave an impact or prevent others from ussing the area.

.

Just be happy you're only shooting about 10fps max and don't show them in rapid sequence, cause if you go up to 30fps, THEN you need a permit.

And, photography permits are cheaper, or not necessary in many cases.

I think all these rules and regs are in place for big projects. Such as the recent "Steep" documentary rigging cable cams, heli's, etc, etc. Unfortunately, they affect the little guys too. Typical government "jumping through hoops".

[hairy]

another whitetrash posterchild at work - I'm surprised drivel is in your vocabulary - but then it was federal funds that likely paid for that teacher (look it up buddy boy, your states a deadbeat - you wisely let that slide).

I'll spell it out for you: few ski areas are opening because ski areas without real estate loose money. I didn't realize skiing required lifts, but thats another difficulty I have relating to the mentally deficient.

I'll summarize better: Free filming on public lands = corporate welfare

what if they don't incorporate?.........you must think corporate greed is killing america too....birkinstock's?

[hairy]

Produced by the Inyo County Film Commission Through the The United States Forest Service Inyo National Forest Economic Recovery Program Grant Grant No. 03-DG-11050454-013
http://www.inyolocations.org/index.html


sometimes it benefits the tax base and the socioeconomic impacts far outweigh and negative concerns about use....and bringing backcountry skiers to your area is paramount to the surviveability of the agencies dedicated to promoting and marketing and managing the lands....if there isn't recreation, there is mining and timber sales..........this is an ongoing saga here in the eastern sierra....use fees are the future, and they want to collect fees for everything, so I am sure there is room for negotiation for ol Dav....

[mtbakerskier]

CJ,

If you feel so strongly about permits than, I want you to take EVERY FUCKING ski VIDEO, Magazine, and any other image of skiing or anything in the wilderness that you have in your house / office and throw them away, then send EVERY PERSON that created one of those pieces a check to cover the costs of the permits.

If you do that I'll pay for a permit every time I am on forest land........


Your not going to do that now are you??????


Seriously pull your fucking head oout of your ass and realize that NO ski film company, magazine or photographer would be able to do the work they do if they had to pay for a permit every fucking time they worked as you suggest.

[Telemarketeer]

I think that their reasoning is that a film specifically promoting travel in WILDERNESS areas to access the states 14ners which are already growing in popularity (especially in summer) will have a negative effect on the wilderness aspect or the areas. Increasing traffic and therefore increasing manpower needed to manage these lands.

Ski movies rarely tell you where they are, and they are rarely filmed in WILDERNESS areas. National forrest, yes, wilderness, no. Each state has a different set of laws regarding their wilderness areas and each wilderness area has different rules and regs.

This film is specifically documenting sweet lines done in wilderness areas and saying "Hey look at me skiing this sweet line in a wilderness area." (I think they even used a helicopter to film on pyramid which is borderline illegal in a wilderness area)That, like it or not, is the reason the FS is screwing with him. (Just look at what happened to Dean Potter, pretty similar but in a natl park with paved roads everywhere, not even a wilderness area)

I aint sayin it's right, but this is their point of view. I personally think they should let him show the film. It is a free country still isn't it?

[cj001f]

I'm not making a FUCKING CENT from the LAND!

so the shot would be exactly the same on a different mountain, or in the middle of new york city? BULLSHIT!

Why is taking a picture of Half Dome different than the Taj Mahal?

you can call it corporate or business or whatever. those resources belong to all of america

[hairy]

the feds use intimidation, they say all kinds of things, then leave open loopholes in the regs to avoid constitutional liabilities....

[mtbakerskier]

so the shot would be exactly the same on a different mountain, or in the middle of new york city? BULLSHIT!

Why is taking a picture of Half Dome different than the Taj Mahal?

How would you know if either existed with out pictures? Would there be large sections of wilderness protected today if it wasnt for the work of photographers like Ansil Adams?

Do truckers pay more to use the nations free ways than the average joe?

[mtbakerskier]

those resources belong to all of america

EXACTLY we all have an EQUAL right to USE THEM! None of the National monuments in Washington DC require fees to use them, why then do National Parks require fees to visit them?

[cj001f]

How would you know if either existed with out pictures?

Do truckers pay more to use the nations free ways than the average joe?

uh, because I've been there?

truckers get subsidized - we, all of america - pay for the damage they do. I disagree with subsidizing the trucking industry that benefits a hell of alot more people than the ski photography industry, so I'm not seeing why the ski industry should be different.

[mtbakerskier]

CJ, please TELL me EXSACTLY how me taking a picture impacts the land anymore than you skiing / hiking on the exact same land?

How in the hell does a picture create a lasting negative impact on the land?

[mtbakerskier]

uh, because I've been there?

truckers get subsidized - we, all of america - pay for the damage they do. I disagree with subsidizing the trucking industry that benefits a hell of alot more people than the ski photography industry, so I'm not seeing why the ski industry should be different.

CJ dont EVER LOOK at ANOTHER PICUTRE of the wilderness / skiing or a single ski movie ever again.

[cj001f]

CJ, please TELL me EXSACTLY how me taking a picture impacts the land anymore than you skiing / hiking on the exact same land?

So I don't owe anyone money for anything as long as I don't do any impact or lasting damage? Sweetness! You won't mind if I steal some images of yours for use as background? There won't be any lasting damage.

[cj001f]

oh - there's what I've been missing in the Law!

If it's skiing related it's cool and they can do no wrong

[powder11]

why then do National Parks require fees to visit them?

... to pay the rangers who work there. I think your a bit off track here, Davenport is being scrutinized for wilderness area, not national park land. I dont think land access was or is the issue. all he had to do was pay $150 for a permit to film in wilderness areas and nobody would be having this discussion. for a guy travelling around colorado in an RV climbing peaks for a year straight, I think he could've come up with the $150. Davenport is also charging $30 a head to see his movie, so its not like he's not trying to profit off his film. sounds to me like he didnt know about the permit and this is more of a poor planning on his part issue. I doubt any of the places you shoot require a permit, so I'll continue enjoying your work without worrying if its legal or not

[Telemarketeer]

You guys are missing the point.

I think that their reasoning is that a film specifically promoting travel in WILDERNESS areas to access the states 14ners which are already growing in popularity (especially in summer) will have a negative effect on the wilderness aspect or the areas. Increasing traffic and therefore increasing manpower needed to manage these lands.

Ski movies rarely tell you where they are, and they are rarely filmed in WILDERNESS areas. National forrest, yes, wilderness, no. Each state has a different set of laws regarding their wilderness areas and each wilderness area has different rules and regs.

This film is specifically documenting sweet lines done in wilderness areas and saying "Hey look at me skiing this sweet line in a wilderness area." (I think they even used a helicopter to film on pyramid which is borderline illegal in a wilderness area)That, like it or not, is the reason the FS is screwing with him. (Just look at what happened to Dean Potter, pretty similar but in a natl park with paved roads everywhere, not even a wilderness area)

I aint sayin it's right, but this is their point of view. I personally think they should let him show the film. It is a free country still isn't it?

[mtbakerskier]

So I don't owe anyone money for anything as long as I don't do any impact or lasting damage? Sweetness! You won't mind if I steal some images of yours for use as background? There won't be any lasting damage.

Hummmm...... Lasting damage.... well if I was only selling a limited number of editons than yeah it would create lasting damage.

Answer my FUCKING QUESTION! HOW IS ME TAKING A PHOTO LEAVING ANY MORE OF AN IMPACT THAN YOU TAKING A PIC ON THE EXACT SAME LAND??? TELL ME EXACTLY HOW THE ACTION OF ME TAKING A PHOTO HAS ANY MORE OF AN IMPACT ON THE LAND THEN YOURS?????

Let me get this straight you would rather not EVER see another pic or film of anyone skiing ever again?

[mtbakerskier]

[QUOTE=powder11;1258418]... to pay the rangers who work there. QUOTE]

BULL SHIT. Not a SINGLE cent of that film permit money goes to paying a single ranger.

[mtbakerskier]

[QUOTE=ULLRismyco-pilot;1258419]You guys are missing the point.

I think that their reasoning is that a film specifically promoting travel in WILDERNESS areas to access the states 14ners which are already growing in popularity (especially in summer) will have a negative effect on the wilderness aspect or the areas. Increasing traffic and therefore increasing manpower needed to manage these lands.

QUOTE]

Don't you think that its good that the wilderness is growing in popularity???? The more people that exprience it, the more people are going to want to protect it and insure that its going to be there for centuries to come. Plus the 14ners pose a significant physical barrier to most people.