MDC - Fee for Commercial Filming on Conservation Areas

[Andy S.]

No shocker here. MDC cashing in on the recent surge in commercial outdoor/hunting photography and videography on public ground that results in financial gain for parties involved.

"A Commercial Photography Permit will be required for commercial photographers on department areas with an associated fee of $100 annually (expires June 30 each year). A Commercial Videography Permit will be required for all commercial videography on MDC areas with an associated fee of $500 per day.

Commercial photographers will also need to apply for a no-cost Special Use Permit in certain situations (allow 30 days for processing)."

MDC expands opportunities for commercial photography and filming on conservation areas

Effective July 1, professional photographers and videographers must obtain new commercial-use permits to photograph and film on MDC areas.

mdc.mo.gov

 

[Pic IN the Casa]

I'm not sure I have an issue with this.
As an example, I know dozens of birders that utilize WMA's a lot. None of them pay a fee to use the land. But you and I have to buy a license to hunt on one?
I am NOT a big gov't guy but a $20/yr use fee for non hunters to preserve habitat, roads and lots isn't out of the question.

 

[megalomaniac]

I agree with it as well. Anyone making a profit off of public lands should kick a little more $$$ back into the system, but the funds should be earmarked specifically for habitat acquisition and improvements.

However, the $500 per day videography fee is over the top unless it is a high budget endeavor (making a movie, profitable documentary, etc.) That's a ridiculous amount for the you tubers to pay.

And states should also impose fees (or completely prohibit) outfitters from guiding on public lands.

 

[Boll Weevil]

Is the keyword maybe "commercial?" Is someone videoing a hunt to post on YouTube necessarily looking to monetize it vs just share it? I don't feel strongly about it either way, just dissecting the language of the mandate itself.

 

[Antler Daddy]

I call BS if you are just filming. Now filming a movie is something else.

 

[Antler Daddy]

So, a wildlife photographer will basically need this permit.

 

[megalomaniac]

So, a wildlife photographer will basically need this permit.

Correct, if they are photographing with the intent to profit from their photos. No permit needed if not photographing commercially.

 

[TN Larry]

So THP for instance technically can't film in Missouri anymore without the $500 per day permit if I read it correctly???

 

[clwg97]

Back maybe 20 years ago, it wasn't allowed on public land at all. The first season on Drury Dream Season TV they warned the teams that you were not allowed to film for a hunting show on public areas in Missouri.

 

[megalomaniac]

So THP for instance technically can't film in Missouri anymore without the $500 per day permit if I read it correctly???

I'm just guessing, but it would all depend on the definition of 'commercial'. If THP is incorporated as a business, and is in business to generate a profit, then yes, they would be required to purchase the daily permit if they plan on filming for profit.

 

[ruger7mag]

Would THP and other youtubers be able to turn off ads, not mention sponsors, and not monetize the videos from Missouri to get around this law in the future?

 

[woodsman04]

It will all go back to what they define as commercial. The way I read it for sure you would have to have the permit if you were hunting on tv from a mainstream channel like the outdoor channel.
These you tubers, I don't think that's really commercial. I assume they make money on advertisements or what not, but they don't actually get paid to do it like the so called "pros" do.
either way, it sounds like a step in the right direction.

Im 110% all for folks videoing their hunts and posting on you tube for people to see. It's great because most of the time it is real turkey hunting with no blinds or decoys. You also don't get the im better than you stuff as you would with the main tv guys, "especially with trophy buck hunting."

But they have severely negatively impacted several public lands that I grew up hunting. Used to some of the large wilderness National Forest lands you could drive or walk enough to find a bird that ain't been messed with. In the last 3 years I bet pressure has quadrupled. Just having more drive and wanting it more don't cut it anymore. My drive to hunt and call up a wild turkey is greater than anyone's. I may have more drive than anyone else in those woods, but when there is 10 of them and 1 of me it takes a lot to find a spot by yourself.

I now shy away from hunting public because to me, it's not enjoyable to have to fight for spots or birds. I completely understand if they come in from a different direction or neither one of us knows who is where or what not.
And public ain't the only spots that's dangerous. Hunting clubs are now way over ran with turkey hunters, and to me it's worse because since they pay their dues, some folks think it's "their" turkeys.

Turkey hunting is a special sport. I hate what it's become. I truly hope that it's just a fad and it will all go away. I don't duck hunt, but I feel for the old duck hunters that now have to fight because of Duck Commander made it so popular.

I'm selfish about turkeys, and I don't care what anyone thinks. If you don't cherish them and appreciate them, I don't think you deserve to hunt them.

 

[Buzzard Breath]

I'd love to see TWRA do something similar. They could simply tie it into the existing "guide license" and make it some sort of commercial license.

 

[PickettSFHunter]

That seems severe $ wise if it applies to the YouTubers but something needs to be done with those profiting off our public lands. Put the money right back into conservation.

 

[Antler Daddy]

If a guy has a hunting license to be on the public, then that should be enough. Government overreach again.

 

[UpperTully]

I'm just guessing, but it would all depend on the definition of 'commercial'. If THP is incorporated as a business, and is in business to generate a profit, then yes, they would be required to purchase the daily permit if they plan on filming for profit.

THP is a for profit incorporated business under The Woods Guys Inc.

 

[AT Hiker]

If a guy has a hunting license to be on the public, then that should be enough. Government overreach again.

I personally see a difference between hunting and exploiting a resource.

 

[Bone Collector]

I'm not sure I have an issue with this.
As an example, I know dozens of birders that utilize WMA's a lot. None of them pay a fee to use the land. But you and I have to buy a license to hunt on one?
I am NOT a big gov't guy but a $20/yr use fee for non hunters to preserve habitat, roads and lots isn't out of the question.

them and horse back riders, etc. I would love to see them pay a use fee. As you said, we do, so why not them. would go a long way in helping with habitat and land preservation.

 

[AT Hiker]

them and horse back riders, etc. I would love to see them pay a use fee. As you said, we do, so why not them. would go a long way in helping with habitat and land preservation.

The general idea to tackle this is the "backpack tax" although it is full of criticism, which I understand completely.
Fully funding the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which is not tax payer funded, and possibly a industry volunteered excise tax, much like the ammo tax, would go a long way to supporting public lands for all users.

 

[Buzzard Breath]

them and horse back riders, etc. I would love to see them pay a use fee. As you said, we do, so why not them. would go a long way in helping with habitat and land preservation.

Some of these are already required to purchase a permit on certain WMA's.