Journalists have been drawn into the debate over what is proper commerce in America’s national parks.
The debate goes back to the beginning of Yellowstone National Park. Poachers were killing thousands of elk. Visitors were carting off pieces of the travertine hot springs commercial fisheries were set up on the park’s rivers to feed visitors and surrounding communities.
Moses Harris, the first military superintendent of Yellowstone said in 1889: “if under the guise of improvement selfish interests are permitted to make merchandise of its wonders and beauties, it will eventually become a by word and reproach.” At the time many people thought Harris went too far, halting hotel construction and discouraging visitors instead of encouraging them.
Most people agree we should not be selling logs, mining or drilling for oil in our national parks. But should Yellowstone be selling licenses to drug companies to collect species and genes of species that live in its hot springs and offer the chance for miracle cures? We do and it is advancing science while bringing money into the park.
These decisions are tough and the lines often gray. Now the Department of the Interior is revising a law that requires permits and fees for commercial filming and photography on federal lands. Photographers and television videographers covering breaking news, would be exempt. But on feature stories local managers would decide when to require permits and impose fees.
This is where it gets sticky. Last fall, a public affairs employee at Yellowstone National Park told a reporter to pay $200 and prove she had at least $1 million of liability insurance before she could interview a wolf biologist in the park according to Plenty Magazine.
That’s ridiculous.
I have covered all kinds of stories in national parks from fires, to grizzly bears and more mundane fare like dedication of historical sites. Giving the power to managers to decide who can cover what news in their national park would be like telling a county commissioner he can decide which reporters get to cover his meetings.
Charge Warner Brothers or Revolution Studios all you can get for movie permits. Photographers who are clearly not journalists also should pay. But if there is any question about a person’s journalistic credentials the burden should be on the parks to show they are not engaged in journalism.
Delicious
Digg
Yahoo
Photographers who are clearly not journalists?
I think that statement's a bit troublesome. How would park authorities differentiate between a for-profit photographer, a news photographer, and an amateur or hobbyist?
It might be difficult to keep your bias in check on this one.
Our national parks are preserved in as much their natural state as possible for the enjoyment of present and future generations. Pretty easy then to prohibit cutting a tree, grazing some livestock, digging up minerals and killing wildlife for sport or consumption. If commercial exploitation via photography is regulated why not commercial benefit via written word? Hard to draw a line between those two methods of communication.
In contrast, perhaps there is after all a bright line between "news" (e.g., grizzly mauls camper) and feature stories extolling the virtues of visiting a national park. Certainly a feature written for the West Yellowstone Chamber of Commerce promoting winter visitation would come under that category.
Here's one for Mr. Barker to contemplate: would "Saving All The Parts" be news, or a commercial venture? I know the book was not given away.
No bright line
As anyone who has published books knows you don't get rich except in a few remarkable cases. Most of the time you don't get your money back for the work and time involved. On the other hand, I made money on the movie, "Firestorm:Last Stand in Yellowstone" and it clearly was not journalism.Bernard has a good point but I stick with my burden.
Rocky
Journalists in parks
Given the hostility to Rocky, perhaps he needs to pack a piece to fend off hostile rangers.
Is isn't rangers...
bloggers are worse.
Freemuth has the answer...
Rocky, all you gotta do is pack heat, not a camera, in Yellowstone Nat'l Park.
Oooooh.
Yea, become a major convicted felon by threatening US government employees with a weapon on Federally owned and operated National Park Service land.
You, too can be Claude Dallas!
First Amendment rights
A journalist should have the absolute right to write or take pictures on public lands, without government interference or censorship.
This latest maneuvering is just another episode of the Bush admininstration not wanting the public to know what's going on. Dilapidated buildings, lack of trail maintenance, failure to manage for endangered species are examples of things going on with our public lands that Bush and company want to keep under wraps.
Our journalists are FREE-RANGE!
We let them roam about picking morsels at will from any convenience store they wish.