Can't believe what the state parks told me

we have pay to enter state parks and free for all state parks. The biggest difference I notice is that in the free for all parks, the trash cans are encircled by the garbage thrown out by people digging in them for cans and bottles to refund. In the pay to enter parks, there are nice neat recycle bins where people put their empty cans and bottles to be collected by the state and recycled. I personally think this difference alone is worth the cost of entry, I would pay twice as much.
as far as commercial use of public lands including photography, I have a hard time with the state laying claim to the photons being reflected off of an object, and restricting the collection of and use for profit of those photons. But if the FCC can charge for electromagnetic radiation, I guess all parts of the spectrum are up for grabs.
I guess its all part of the free for all vs. controlled use thing.

Is the OP sure this is a state park? There are some parks in Arizona that I figured were state parks but are actually on reservation land. Canyon de Chelly and the Antelope Canyons come to mind. They can charge money and restrict anything they want.

If they are charging $60 for a commercial permit that is a bargain. We have a city park that charges much more than that for a permit. I was run off the property one time for shooting pictures with a view camera. I tried to explain I was only testing a new film I wanted to try out but they insisted that I get a permit or leave. I have done several permit shoots there since and the fee was $800 or so, I don't remember the exact figure because the client paid it directly. The clincher is the client is also a sponsor of the park and the museum located on the property. They didn't get a break, the rule is no exceptions.

breal101 wrote in post #7092274
If they are charging $60 for a commercial permit that is a bargain. We have a city park that charges much more than that for a permit. I was run off the property one time for shooting pictures with a view camera. I tried to explain I was only testing a new film I wanted to try out but they insisted that I get a permit or leave. I have done several permit shoots there since and the fee was $800 or so, I don't remember the exact figure because the client paid it directly. The clincher is the client is also a sponsor of the park and the museum located on the property. They didn't get a break, the rule is no exceptions.

Ouch, what city?

It's New Orleans City Park. The best part is they charge extra if you want to use any of the attractions on the property. You have to rent them for a shoot. I blame it on the movie people who are used to paying ridiculous fees for property. And Derek, go Eagles!

DDCSD wrote in post #7087208
That didn't sound right as I read it again. I meant that the government operates in a way to lose as much money as it possibly can. I'm surprised that there's any red ink left in the world as much debt as the US government has piled up in the last hundred or so years.

I wonder if they'll bail-out my college loans...