Feds Deny CO Extreme Skier His Place as Great Ski Movie Producer

Should people be able to make money filming on public lands?

http://www.mountainnewsdesk.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=61&Itemid=67

I personally don't have a problem with it, especially as I think it drives more people to utilize those particular lands.

Make it simple. If you choose to film, then a certain percentage of profits or a upfront fee are required. The park's service would benefit.

I'd love to see that movie, it looks awesome.

That does seem like a pretty stupid rule.

But your anti-fed, "these are OUR lands" argument is pretty silly too.

They are not INDIVIDUALLY our lands, for each individual to do what they want on.

They are community lands, which means some rules are going to be in place.

So, OK, pretty stupid sounding rule. But why resort to childish rhetoric. I mean, unless that's your thing.

Jeff Fiedler wrote:That does seem like a pretty stupid rule. But your anti-fed, "these are OUR lands" argument is pretty silly too. They are not INDIVIDUALLY our lands, for each individual to do what they want on. They are community lands, which means some rules are going to be in place. So, OK, pretty stupid sounding rule. But why resort to childish rhetoric. I mean, unless that's your thing.

Case in point...

unofficialnetworks.com/shit…

I guess you did not get it.

The article is nothing but a few catch phrases to mock how different political factions would react to it...

Loving our lands to death
Think of all the jobs it will create.

I seem to remember another group who chants everything is "ours".

Jeff F, quit hating on Occupy Wall Street, they are the ones that claim everything is "ours".
Next, read the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution and report back...

I don't understand... what's the difference between Davenport's movie and virtually any other climbing or skiing film made EVER? Is it a Colorado thing?

Thank you CJC for the "rest of the story".

Exit question. If states had more control over their public lands, rather than layer upon layer of Government Bureaucracy control in far-off DC, would Davenport have more luck petitioning his case in Denver?
Where it is not that difficult to get a meeting with Hickenlooper.

State level bureaucrats are more accessible than their counterparts in DC and CO public servants would be more understanding of what is good for our state.

This movie could drive tourism for the state and would be good for our state's image.

Did Davenport's movie-making somehow interferer with someone's wilderness experience?

Would the interference been lessened by a government permit?

Should the outdoor community rally around state rights to gain more local control of their public lands?

Or stick with the central-planners model?

Watchdog -- I'll play.

For arguments sake, lets assume 10th Amendment put federal lands under control of States. That still doesn't mean that individuals get to do what they want without restrictions. Just different entities making the rules.

Not sure what your occupy wall street comment is about. I assume OWS wants less influence by resource extraction companies?

Many liberals knee-jerk hate on the state rights thing because it takes away the ability to ram liberalism down everyone's throats.

I stand with Thomas Jefferson as an anti-federalist.

I stand with the Bill of Rights which limits the fed's power with a balance of state power.

Change we need. Not a liberal utopia, but time to restore the law written in the Constitution.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/

This is kinda funny actually. . . Chris is a big boy... if not maybe he can ask Warren or their crew to handle it. What a joke... he can suck it up deal...

If I got to ski for a living im pretty sure I wouldn't be bitching about not following the rules and not being able to make money from breaking the rules.

BOOO FU*KING HOOO

Um... there are hundreds if not thousands of ski movies filmed all over public lands that have been sold for profit for a long time... matchstick, poor boy productions, etc... did they all have permits? I doubt it.

This difference from the other forum is that it is Wilderness Land and not just public land... and they applied for a heli permit after the fact:

Actually the issue wasn't about NF land it was wilderness land. You need a permit to shoot video/film in wilderness land. This was incorporated into the wilderness act. I believe that photos are ok. The forest service didn't like the use of a helicopter for filming the ski of Castle's East Face. They applied for the permit after the shooting was done and were rejected.

What if the movie is shown in exchange for gifts?

I would give an old backpack, a gift cert or small piece of silver to watch that movie.

Would Free Market Capitalism straight from the bottle get Mr. Davenport onto the silver screen?

Real capitalism is scary - trade and barter oh my!

Watchdog- you realize this isn't Supertopo, right? You might want to take your weak attempt to stir things up over there.

State rights are important to you because the state is the only entity that can protect you from Federal overreach.

Obamacare = zero state rights. You do as the central planners tell you.

How did liberals react when Arizona asserted its state's right to enforce current federal immigration law?

Liberals hate freedom when it is not liberalism. Liberalism only works if you have total control. Do the math, it is not hard to see...

Liberalism has failed (run its course, I should say) and the free market has been crumpled into an over-regulated, over taxed, government-restricted version of what a free market could and should be.

Time for a new path...the cynicism and modern dogma are old.

The Watchdog wrote: Time for a new path...the cynicism and modern dogma are old.

...says the guy who made an account solely to promote far right dogma

Chris should just sell his Audi or Toyota Tundra to pay for the permits.

Hah! This shitpile of a thread was destined for obscurity after two days with no interest but lo and behold.... its humble creator the Watchdog took it upon himself to relight the torch of freedom!

Negative style points for resurrecting your own lame-ass thread.

Funny comments by both of you guys above by the way.

Taxing followed by redistribution makes movie producers of us all!

Nick Stayner wrote:Hah! This shitpile of a thread was destined for obscurity after two days with no interest but lo and behold.... its humble creator the Watchdog took it upon himself to relight the torch of freedom! Negative style points for resurrecting your own lame-ass thread. Funny comments by both of you guys above by the way.

Actually I had no idea the movie existed and am very interested. Politics aside, what backcountry skier wouldn't want to watch Chris ski CO's 14ers.

Hope he finds a way to release or at least show it.

Scott McMahon wrote: Politics aside, what backcountry skier wouldn't want to watch Chris ski CO's 14ers?

This one.

And I don't think the specific issue of Chris and his lack of permits is "lame" or uninteresting. Watchdog took this issue and used it to attempt to troll a number of only tangentially related hot-button political topics. That's what I think is lame.

...and I'm probably lame too for bumping this thread not once, but twice now.