I learned some interesting things recently at a mushroom foray in
Mendocino led by David Arora, the Bernie Krause of mycology. David
pointed out that he has been breaking the law (in minor ways) for 40
years; there is just no way around it. Either trespassing on private
land or picking in state parks where it is prohibited, even
conducting his scientific research is illegal, despite the fact that
taking a mushroom (the fruit) produces absolutely no damage and it is
a completely renewable resource. Except insofar as the next person
might want to eat the same mushroom, there is no impact. Michael
Pollan thinks, in fact, that the mushrooms are cultivating us, as
helpful propagators.
A social ecologist from Washington State came and talked about the
results of mushroom permitting added recently at the parks there;
they require visiting M-F 9-5, in person only, for a permit so you
can show your ID. Thus you can drive out to the parks (an hour or two
from major cities) once during the workweek and then again on the
weekend, or just choose to pick illegally. What do you think people
choose? At least in some places in the Bay Area permits are available
by mail.
Then a former park ranger came and talked about the world of
rangerdom, perhaps the most telling aspect for nature recordists. In
his characterization, a ranger can accept assignment to a remote
location for life, or prove their mettle as a manager and steward,
and work their way up through the ranks to park management and
eventually to Washington. But the only way to prove their development
of their fiefdom is to have metrics to measure the growth of areas of
usage, through visitor logs, permits and fees paid. If they can
generate revenue and show they developed usage of the resource, that
is good for their career. In short, nothing will stop these
regulations and the imposition of fees and accounting.
It is interesting to read the Park Service's concern about impact,
noise, sharing of space, etc. for film crews, and wonder why that
wouldn't be applied to snowmobiles...
Definitions of commercial filming taken from Interior Department new
proposed regulations
(http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/E7-15845.htm):
"Commercial filming means the digital or film recording of a visual
image or sound recording by a person, business, or other entity for a
market audience, such as for a documentary, television or feature film,
advertisement, or similar project. It does not include news coverage or
visitor use."
And this:
"The filming of any motion picture or taking of sound recordings or
still photography on a national wildlife refuge for subsequent
commercial use is prohibited except as may be authorized under the
provisions of 43 CFR part 5."
>I found this article relating to photography in U.S. parks. Though it
>is not audio recording relevant I can see that the same rights could be
>affected.
><http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2007/12/parks01.html>http://www.=
nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2007/12/parks01.html
>
>Enjoy!
>J.
--
Hugh Livingston
El Mirador
491 Crescent Ave #304
Oakland Calif 94610
(510) 205-HUGH
www.livingstonsound.com
|