I couldn't agree more, Kevin. What you've expressed is just another
facet (an important one) of the issue.
Basically, Interior has never had a consistent policy on media access
and activities. It varies from administration to administration,
from year to year, day to day, venue to venue, and interpretation of
the mandate du jour from the park authorities. I was arrested
and ticketed once for recording waves at Pt. Reyes National Seashore
(a National Park). It was early one morning. No one else was on the
beach. I was busted for two reasons: (1) interfering with other
visitors (who were there in spirit only), and (2) using a tripod (a
quadrapod, apparently, would have been acceptable). AND, I was then
an outside contractor on assignment for the NPS. Go figure.
I still say that a few hundred of us should gather at a convenient
Interior-managed spot, set up our gear in the presence of
serious media outfits =96 local, national and international =96 and go
about our business. We have to be prepared to be busted
(current ticket cost is about $54), but we'll have lots of fun and,
perhaps, turn this damned thing around once and for all.
What I don't understand is that supposedly there is a pro-active
visitor soundscape program run out of the NPS office in
Ft. Collins that actively promotes visitor listening and recording.
Go figure.
Bernie
On Oct 22, 2007, at 10:20 PM, Kevin Colver wrote:
> A few more thoughts for Bernie (and anyone else worried about
> regulating our recording activities and publications).
>
> Bernie, I've been thinking about why it bothers me to have my
> recording activities regulated and taxed. Maybe part of it is my
> INTP personality that likes some independence. But I think some of
> it can be summarized in one sentence:
>
> For me, nature recording is an expressive art and I feel that my
> freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment to the
> Constitution.
>
> Nature Recording as an Art
>
> I am aware that some see nature recording as the mere collection of
> sound effects. For me, however, recording is as much an expressive
> art as photography, pottery, poetry, or painting. You have heard me
> mention that I wish I could be the "Ansel Adams" of nature sound
> recording. Truth is, time and other restraints make this unlikely,
> but I do have a few good works in my collection and hope to add a few
> more in my days.
>
> I often go to great pains to choose a location, season, time of day,
> appropriate weather conditions, ect. in preparing to record. This
> may include significant expense in travel, obtaining permissions,
> studying natural history and also includes choice of quality
> equipment. Once in the field I can spend as much time and care
> picking a mic location for the audio scene as any photographer or
> painter would do in framing their work. Back in the studio the work
> is cropped, edited, EQed if desired, and molded into the finished
> piece which then expresses what I wish to convey about the natural
> world. All of this sounds like the work of an artist.
>
> Most of the recordists I know are currently producing "realist" or
> "documentary" works of art in their recording. I have heard a few
> works that go into the abstract and surrealism. I can imaging a
> future where the recording art expands into modes we can hardly
> imagine now. The artistic medium is young but will blossom. Even
> though our work is largely realistic now, it remains an artistic
> expression, our impression of the natural world.
>
> Our Expression should be protected by the First Amendment
>
> Most other more developed mediums of self expression enjoy hearty
> protection from regulation and restriction. A journalist would never
> seek government permission and pay a use fee before writing and
> publishing a story about Yellowstone National Park. A musician
> doesn't pay a fee to write a song about the Everglades. An artist
> doesn't get a permit to paint the sunset over Grand Canyon. A
> sculptor doesn't seek permission to sculpt the grizzly bear she saw
> at Katmai NP. Nor should a recordist be submitted to any regulation
> regarding the publication of sounds recorded in public lands.
>
> True, some collection of media can involve impact beyond that of the
> average park visitor. I should not be permitted to unduly disturb
> wildlife, other park visitors, or endanger anyone. I should be asked
> to compensate for unusual use of park resources and personel. If I
> wish to bring a large crew and cast to a park and film a feature
> movie there would be the need for extra care and impact fees. These
> regulations and fees should fit the IMPACT OF THE ACTIVITY not THE
> CONTENT OF THE MOVIE. The movie producer should not have to pay a
> fee because the park was part of the subject of the story, only fees
> related to extra expenses and impact his activities have had on the
> park.
>
> This is a critical difference that I think is overlooked in this
> discussion. I do not object to regulations that relate to activities
> outside the normal hiking, camping, observing, and enjoying the park
> done by millions of visitors. Listening is a normal park activity,
> even when assisted with electronic equipment. Only unusual
> activities that HAVE UNUSUAL ADVERSE IMPACT should be subject to
> unusual regulation and fees. My park entrance fee and normal park
> regulations should suffice if my activities are as benign as those of
> the average park visitor.
>
> I would hope that the ACLU or some such interested party might help
> us stand up for our civil freedoms of expression should any
> regulations occur. Seems to me that such regulation is
> unconstitutional. It also seems like it's easy to pick on us because
> of our small numbers
>
> Well, Bernie, I'll get off this little soap box. Thanks for
> listening. I'll get back to my sounds in the studio. Had a great
> year and looking forward to spring!
>
> Kevin Colver
>
>
>
Wild Sanctuary
POB 536
Glen Ellen, CA 95442
707-996-6677
http://www.wildsanctuary.com
Google Earth zooms: Earth.WildSanctuary.com
|