Bushwalk Australia

Posting because I suspect this might be of interest to many here.

Rob Parsons on YouTube saying he's been contacted by PWS in relation to some of his videos.

"Recently Levi Triffit and myself were investigated for a series of infringements regarding our content creation in reserves managed by Parks and Wildlife Tasmania. Here's a breakdown of everything that happened, what we did wrong and the outcome of the investigation."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWmiLpMSBjY

Folk have been telling him for years that he's been doing the wrong thing, so claims he didn't know are blatantly false. He has improved some of his rule breaking more recently (drones etc), but he continues to use Parks for commercial gain without the appropriate licenses. He should count himself extremely lucky that he hasn't been hit with a huge fine. Instead he is having a whinge about Parks policies. Probably not the best idea when they will be issuing any permits and they also just let him off very lightly for his many infringements.

He also has had a habit of upsetting the bushwalking community. It therefore comes as no surprise that complaints have been lodged about his wrongdoings. eg.
https://bushwalk.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... s&start=30

As his claims about being some sort of witch hunt against him and his mate. This is also untrue as others have been fined in recent years. The obvious one that springs to mind is the boys who filmed a very short ski down a couloir on Fedders, they also wrote an article for Wild magazine (I think?). Someone at Parks thought that this warranted a fine.

After being a bit negative. I do have to say he does some really interesting trips. I hope he learns from his mistakes.

So, he blatantly breaks well-known rules for years, despite being repeatedly warned that he's breaking well-known rules, and then uses finally being called out to further raise his online profile? The more I see of him, the less I like him.

Mmmm, Ignorance of the law is no excuse and he does have a certain reputation on many issues.

Whilst going bush can be great for your health and well being I am afraid the era of "influencers" and "content makers" all seem to just be trying to outdo each other to gain popularity (and $$ from the inevitable advertising attached to most of these channels). I also suspect that there are other issues (like disturbance of heritage items) amongst his many videos that could also be an issue for Parks but maybe they have not found them yet in his videos.

Having said that, PWS Tasmania have been lagging behind other states on developing policies to get on top of things like drones and commercial images/filming/social media stuff. I suspect some of that is because of politics and tourism.

So according to National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002, you need a business lic to take a photo!
"take or cause to be taken any photograph or cine, video, movie or television film for or with a view to any monetary or other consideration."
as it says, "or other consideration"

crollsurf wrote:So according to National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002, you need a business lic to take a photo!
"take or cause to be taken any photograph or cine, video, movie or television film for or with a view to any monetary or other consideration."
as it says, "or other consideration"

" ... or other consideration." does not mean "for any reason". They're talking about profiting from the imagery in some way, including use as promotional material. Technically, I could be considered to be in breach of that rule because I've taken photos in reserves (including NPs) that have been published and, in return, I received a few free copies of the relevant publications. But first, that's not why I took those photos; the subsequent use is incidental and not at my instigation. Second, the returrn for their use is miserly.
It's a different matter when someone uses social media as a steady stream of income, and that use consists of footage taken within reserves. It's particularly concerning when the footage is taken with illegal equipment (such as drones).

Rob Parsons does do a good production and some cool missions. Just don't like the way he shares sensitive information with no regard for impact to the area etc and he is a bit of a @#&%
However gotta admit this is a bit of a witch hunt. Parks constantly harp on that they are under-staffed and under-funded yet they got time for a months long investigation on a try hard influencer!? What a joke
Do one of the people he argued with on here work for Parks? And started all this? Ridiculous

"other consideration " appears in many acts and regulations. I gather its about gaining some benefit from the activity (other than private personal use)

Search of Law Tasmania for "other consideration"

I would not believe everything he stated in the video. Enforcement would only have to watch a few of his videos to see he was breaking the law. He also admitted he didn't bother with the first meeting which then led to the letter. I can assure you they would not have spent weeks on the investigation as they have much bigger offenders to worry about most of the time. I suspect the fact that someone complained about him means they needed to act.

[quote="Hallsy6755"]
However gotta admit this is a bit of a witch hunt. Parks constantly harp on that they are under-staffed and under-funded yet they got time for a months long investigation on a try hard influencer!? What a joke
Do one of the people he argued with on here work for Parks? And started all this? Ridiculous[/quote,]

He has taken a swipe at the bushwalking community in one of his videos for suggesting he was doing the wrong thing. Any complaint is unlikely to have come from that bushwalking.com thread. That was just an easy example to post.

Here's an article I found with a simple Google search about someone posting a YouTube video of them doing the wrong thing (not sure why his googling skills are so poor)

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/9301238

I really don't understand why he thinks the rules need to change to suit him, rather than working within the rules.

The whole idea that commercial interests of any size in a National Park is OK seems so wrong.

Surely one of the principal tenets of creating National Parks in the first place is conservation.
Commercialization and conservation of Parks creates a direct conflict of interests.
That can only end badly.

doogs wrote:I really don't understand why he thinks the rules need to change to suit him, rather than working within the rules.

The 'licence' he has applied for was not made for 'youtube'.... demonstrating that the 'rules' were not made for the present day. As he demonstrates with the comparison of other states methods of managing 'youtube' like things.

-----------
As for the conflict between 'conservation' and 'commercial interests' those will continue. There are conflicts between 'conservation' and 'bushwalking' too. Managing these conflicts is the job of Parks .. they are not doing well IMO.

Warin wrote:

doogs wrote:I really don't understand why he thinks the rules need to change to suit him, rather than working within the rules.

The 'licence' he has applied for was not made for 'youtube'.... demonstrating that the 'rules' were not made for the present day. As he demonstrates with the comparison of other states methods of managing 'youtube' like things.

Why does that matter? It is a commercial operation.You need a license, whether YouTube or other money making commercial venture. The wording may need updated but the core message doesn't change.

doogs wrote:

Warin wrote:The 'licence' he has applied for was not made for 'youtube'.... demonstrating that the 'rules' were not made for the present day. As he demonstrates with the comparison of other states methods of managing 'youtube' like things.

Why does that matter? It is a commercial operation.You need a license, whether YouTube or other money making commercial venture. The wording may need updated but the core message doesn't change.

The potential impact (and budget) for making a major movie is a lot higher than a single person with an action camera walking through the bush. The demands of the licence need to reflect the risks and capacity of the endeavor.

Warin wrote:

doogs wrote:

Warin wrote:The 'licence' he has applied for was not made for 'youtube'.... demonstrating that the 'rules' were not made for the present day. As he demonstrates with the comparison of other states methods of managing 'youtube' like things.

Why does that matter? It is a commercial operation.You need a license, whether YouTube or other money making commercial venture. The wording may need updated but the core message doesn't change.

The potential impact (and budget) for making a major movie is a lot higher than a single person with an action camera walking through the bush. The demands of the licence need to reflect the risks and capacity of the endeavor.

Most commercial activity in Tasmanian Parks is low budget. I cannot think of any big budget, let alone medium budget productions that have taken place. They tend to avoid the extra hassle of permits in Reserves. I know people who have gone through the process of gaining licenses for commercial activities in Parks. I can assure you that they would have made similar or less than Rob Parsons from their efforts. They still managed to pay the fees (without complaint).

But your honour I had no idea has never been a successful defense.

As others have said he was told from very early on. Just ignored or called us trolls.

It's going to be interesting to see if others like bender and Zing are questioned or bill Wilkinson who made those silly books corrupting our poor mountains.

I understand it's going to get worse for Rob and Levi too. Once PWS are done I believe MRT are going to step in and ask for their gold back.

To be clear I took responsibility for every concern PWS raised with me, paid every cent of the thousands of dollars worth of fines I was issued, and lodged my application for the 'Business License'.
The issue I have with Parks and Wildlife Service is they have no low end bracket for commercial filming, they are too lazy to address the demand and as a result those wishing to use images collected on reserved land (that is also crown land) need to have a business licence. This takes around 90 days to receive.
How can any interstate content creators know that if they wish to film and create content while holidaying in Tasmania they need to apply for this hidden business license 90 days before they arrive?
The system is broken and it's time for change.
I got a call from the Premier, he's pissed the way PWS have handled this, they have embarrassed themselves and they said 'they need to be encouraging what Levi and I do, not prohibiting it.'
So we will be meeting to bring in some overdue changes to the department.
As for that *&^%$#! you talk about MRT.. keep dreaming. We know the guys there and they routinely throw complaints about us in the trash andwe have permission from the mining companies to work on their exploration leases.
Jealously is a curse. I'm sorry for you.

Ahhh there's the arrogant ignorance that got you in this mess to begin with.

I'm sure the liberals will help you out though...

Yeah the liberals.. and about half of the population..

ILUVSWTAS wrote:It's going to be interesting to see if others like bender and Xing are questioned

We're not expecting a call, sorry to disappoint. As discussed ad infinitum we approached PWS a few years ago about the potential need for some kind of commercial permit or other arrangement. After peppering both their Media Management and Legal teams with a tonne of potential situations where what we were doing could be seen as 'commercial' (including non-direct/incidental financial rewards like AdSense revenue, sponsorships, free gear to review etc) we were told emphatically that they weren't - it's a personal travel/holiday blog/vlog. At the time we didn't think that was entirely realistic, but when you're more than happy to give someone money and they keep saying "no", well, that was that.

Without getting into the weeds (again)... when things like merchandise, Patreons and other premeditated financial intentions enter in the picture, that's when commercial use becomes an issue.

ILUVSWTAS wrote: or bill Wilkinson who made those silly books corrupting our poor mountains.

Don't let not being a fan cloud basic logic. They've had nearly 30 years to officially have an actual problem with the premise of The Abels. He would have been shut down years ago if Parks desired it so. I'll save genuine legal advice for those qualified to give it, but at a guess, Statute of Limitations might have something to say about it too....

The books are more photo coffee table books with basic route notes anyway, rather than actual guide books a la Chapman (which are/have been scrutinised to a higher degree for obvious reasons). And save for the voluntary submissions from a handful of professional landscape photographers, the majority of the photography used was provided gratis by recreational/amateur photographers (including yourself, apparently) on regular bushwalks simply doing their thing. Again, no premeditated commercial intent.

headwerkn wrote: They've had nearly 30 years to officially have an actual problem with the premise of The Abels. He would have been shut down years ago if Parks desired it so.

A meeting was held with Bill PRIOR to production and he agreed to modify some details regarding text, routes and maps in his books. That satisfied the intent of the existing management policies at the time of publication. Similar meetings were held with other authors/guide book authors when Parks were aware of pending publications. They also proactively advised existing guidebook authors of management policies regarding promotion of some areas.

Alas, these days there doesn't seem to be much of that going on - again, I suspect politics and tourism win out over conservation management.

Don't think that this is just an issue in Tasmania. Its happening world wide and most Parks agencies are struggling to have any sort of control or regulation of internet/blogs/youtube/instagram media. Just remember they are your parks and if you don't speak up about their management, impacts by users etc then the legacy for future generations will be significantly diminished.

Robparsons wrote:I got a call from the Premier, he's pissed the way PWS have handled this, they have embarrassed themselves and they said 'they need to be encouraging what Levi and I do, not prohibiting it.'
So we will be meeting to bring in some overdue changes to the department.

Parks did not embarrass themselves and for the Premier to suggest so is embarrassing and unproffessional of him. They were likely following up on a complaint and therefore needed to follow the appropriate the rules and fines set out in the current policies/management plan. Others have received similar infringements in recent years. I really don't think any alteration to the permit system will be as straight forward as you and Jezza hope. It may end up with a vlogging permit for on track walkins, however, any off-track filming in the World Heritage Area can be seen to have negative impacts on the Wilderness Values of the area. Other Parks may me easier for 'off track' filmong, such as Freycinet or Ben Lomond, but then it would be a little odd to have two (already confusing) sets of rules for different National Parks in the state.

Robparsons wrote:I got a call from the Premier, he's pissed the way PWS have handled this, they have embarrassed themselves and they said 'they need to be encouraging what Levi and I do, not prohibiting it.'
So we will be meeting to bring in some overdue changes to the department.

This is an interesting little tidbit.

Isn't PWS just enforcing/applying the law as they interpret it? You'd know the details far better than me, but seems like PWS' main concerns were fires and drone use? After all that's what the fines were for?

If there's a legislative issue and the law is wrong, that's on the Premier and Government to fix though Parliament?

Are you saying Premier Rockliff reckons PWS should be encouraging people to light fires and fly drones? Or was it more about the business license side of things? (Which again would be on him and the Government to change the law to fix? Ie, making a condition for smaller content creators.)

The very fact PWS called me earlier to confirm my email because I needed to give dates and fill out a 'Commercial Filming Permit' application not a 'Nature Based Tourism' application shows how unprepared they are for all of this. I assured the lady that my compliance officer and also the manager of the Nature Based Tourism had given me the NBT to fill in, and no dates were necessary as I was to have 5 year coverage for the entire state for the agreed fixed price. She checked, called back and said she had made a mistake and would begin processing it immediately. Funny huh.. I asked as I am being interviewed for the nightly news tomorrow if PWS are taking into account its lack of transparency regarding the whole matter and that due to the lack of information provided by PWS on their websites that thousands of individuals are unwillingly and unknowingly breaking the law. She would not comment on the matter.

Were you fined for not having a business licence?

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

How is a YouTube channel "Nature Based Tourism"?

For context

Filming permits across the country

Tasmania - https://parks.tas.gov.au/about-us/condu ... al-filming
Victoria - https://www.parks.vic.gov.au/get-into-n ... guidelines
New South Wales - https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topi ... y-licences
Queensland - https://www.des.qld.gov.au/search?query ... it_button=
South Australia - https://www.parks.sa.gov.au/permits-and ... ng-permits
Western Australia - https://www.dbca.wa.gov.au/licences-and ... al-filming
Northern Territory - https://nt.gov.au/parks/permits-for-par ... g-in-parks

For those interested, here's the ABC article:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-19/ ... /102747924

don't think it comes off the way young mate thinks it should have.

For those interested, here's the ABC article:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-19/ ... /102747924

don't think it comes off the way young mate thinks it should have.

Robparsons wrote:To be clear I took responsibility for every concern PWS raised with me, paid every cent of the thousands of dollars worth of fines I was issued, and lodged my application for the 'Business License'.
The issue I have with Parks and Wildlife Service is they have no low end bracket for commercial filming, they are too lazy to address the demand and as a result those wishing to use images collected on reserved land (that is also crown land) need to have a business licence. This takes around 90 days to receive.
How can any interstate content creators know that if they wish to film and create content while holidaying in Tasmania they need to apply for this hidden business license 90 days before they arrive?
The system is broken and it's time for change.
I got a call from the Premier, he's pissed the way PWS have handled this, they have embarrassed themselves and they said 'they need to be encouraging what Levi and I do, not prohibiting it.'
So we will be meeting to bring in some overdue changes to the department.
As for that *&^%$#! you talk about MRT.. keep dreaming. We know the guys there and they routinely throw complaints about us in the trash andwe have permission from the mining companies to work on their exploration leases.
Jealously is a curse. I'm sorry for you.

wow the arrogance is astounding. no one is jealous of you mate.

your videos have clickbaity rubbish titles designed to generate clicks and revenue for yourself. that much is blatantly obvious, you're in it for $$ and exposure but for some reason you think you don't need to follow the same rules as everyone else.

rockliff is a clown who'd sell off the entire reserve estate to the lowest bidder if he could get away with it. you'd think someone who claims to have an affinity for the outdoors and wilderness areas would realise that.

north-north-west wrote:How is a YouTube channel "Nature Based Tourism"?

It's not. There is an option in the commercial filming license for 'Documentaries'. These are basically shortish documentaries. By putting him on to a Nature Based Tourism license seems very bizarre and very generous. Like I have said before, others making small budget filming projects have paid the fees, without complaint. Surely the onus is on him to make his business viable and not Parks?