New National Park Photo Rules - Fees???

Sorry in advance this this has been covered before...

Looks like The NPS may start charging fees for serious photography in National Parks:

http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2006/04/fees.html


http://www.nps.gov/applications/release/Detail.cfm?ID=643

While perusing another forum I found this topic being discussed as well. Someone there found a bit of the new law that pertains to the still photography we nature photographers typically engage in. I included the content of his post here.

part of the wordage from the law. The still photography part I enclosed in ****. I am trying to get a link to the entire law as written.


Public Law 106-206
106th Congress

An Act

To allow the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a fee system for commercial filming activities on Federal land, and for other purposes.
< >

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress @ssembled,

SECTION < > 1. COMMERCIAL FILMING.

(a) Commercial Filming Fee.--The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture (hereafter individually referred to as the ``Secretary'' with respect to lands under their respective jurisdiction) shall require a permit and shall establish a reasonable fee for commercial filming activities or similar projects on Federal lands administered by the Secretary. Such fee shall provide a fair return to the United States and shall be based upon the following criteria:
(1) The number of days the filming activity or similar
project takes place on Federal land under the Secretary's
jurisdiction.
(2) The size of the film crew present on Federal land under
the Secretary's jurisdiction.
(3) The amount and type of equipment present.

The Secretary may include other factors in determining an appropriate fee as the Secretary deems necessary.
(b) Recovery of Costs.--The Secretary shall also collect any costs incurred as a result of filming activities or similar project, including but not limited to administrative and personnel costs. All costs recovered shall be in addition to the fee @ssessed in subsection (a).

********(c) Still Photography.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall not require a permit nor @ssess a fee for still photography on lands administered by the Secretary if such photography takes place where members of the public are generally allowed. The Secretary may require a permit, fee, or both, if such photography takes place at other locations where members of the public are generally not allowed, or where additional administrative costs are likely. (2) The Secretary shall require and shall establish a reasonable fee for still photography that uses models or props which are not a part of the site's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities. ************

(d) Protection of Resources.--The Secretary shall not permit any
filming, still photography or other related activity if the Secretary determines--
(1) there is a likelihood of resource damage;

[[Page 114 STAT. 315]]

The whole tax/user fee thing is just nuts and is going to get worse I'm sure. Last fall, I bought a sandwich and a drink and saw a little county park in Michigan that I thought I would eat my lunch at while on the road. When I pulled in, the daily entrance fee for non-county residents was $8.00. Now this wasn't the grand canyon or anything, just a little no-name county park. I've heard rumblings about differing state legislatures wanting to somehow get money from people viewing fall folliage. . . from their cars. . . and from mushroom hunters. I'm only half kidding, I can imagine the outdoor beauty police in a few years, "Sir, do you have a permit to view that sunset??? Is your wilderness passport stamped for fall prime foliage looking?" It's just crazy.

OK, I'll get off the soapbox. . .