Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Government Censorship

Forest Service Wants To Require Permits For Photography 299

An anonymous reader points out this story about new regulations for media who wish to take pictures or video in federally designated wilderness areas. "The U.S. Forest Service has tightened restrictions on media coverage in vast swaths of the country's wild lands, requiring reporters to pay for a permit and get permission before shooting a photo or video in federally designated wilderness areas. Under rules being finalized in November, a reporter who met a biologist, wildlife advocate or whistleblower alleging neglect in 36 million acres of wilderness would first need special approval to shoot photos or videos even on an iPhone. Permits cost up to $1,500, says Forest Service spokesman Larry Chambers, and reporters who don't get a permit could face fines up to $1,000. First Amendment advocates say the rules ignore press freedoms and are so vague they'd allow the Forest Service to grant permits only to favored reporters shooting videos for positive stories.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Forest Service Wants To Require Permits For Photography

Comments Filter:
  • Forest Circus. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 25, 2014 @11:35PM (#48000109)

    Anyone who has worked with them knows why they are called "The Forest Circus".

    If they are trying to make even MORE enemies among the public, this is a great idea.

    doesn't the public already own public land?

    • Re: Forest Circus. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 25, 2014 @11:38PM (#48000135)

      $1,500 for the permit, but maximum fine is only $1,000. Why would anyone bother buying a permit, since the fine would be cheaper?!

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Knowing how the US government works, they'd probably try to impose a $1000 fine per picture.

        This will never fly. Wilderness areas like that are considered public property and as such the government cannot prohibit people from taking pictures.

        • by grcumb ( 781340 )

          Knowing how the US government works, they'd probably try to impose a $1000 fine per picture.

          Actually, that's per copy per picture. They're counting on Ansel Adams to pay down the national debt.

          • by Dahamma ( 304068 ) on Friday September 26, 2014 @01:02AM (#48000459)

            I was going to say, Ansel Adams is turning over in his grave... but we'd never know if he really was, since he was cremated and his ashes placed in a Wilderness Area, so you'd probably have to pay $1500 to prove it.

          • Actually, that's per copy per picture.

            This makes me wonder if video will be counted as 24/25/30/50/60 pictures per second of video. It would only take 17 seconds of 720p to run up a $1,000,000 fine.

          • Possibly, I was under the impression that Ansel Adams took most of his photos of national parks and not wilderness areas. This fine is levied by the US Forest Service which does not manage or have jurisdiction over national parks which the US National Park Service has jurisdiction. The US Forest Service is the same bunch of fools that thought bring what qualifies as essentially SWAT teams to the Bundy standoff was a brilliant idea. This fine, I have no doubt, is directly related to their bungling of how to

            • Re: Forest Circus. (Score:4, Informative)

              by Curunir_wolf ( 588405 ) on Friday September 26, 2014 @10:44AM (#48003241) Homepage Journal

              The US Forest Service is the same bunch of fools that thought bring what qualifies as essentially SWAT teams to the Bundy standoff was a brilliant idea.

              That was the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), not the US Forest Service. Totally different agencies. The BLM is under the Department of the Interior, while the US Forest Service is part of the Department of Agriculture.

          • Actually, they should be paying Ansel and Virginia Best Adams' estate for the "Ansel Adams Wilderness", which spans just south of Yosemite across four government land management jurisdictions: Departments of Interior, Agriculture, State Parks and Federal Parks all share a piece of Ansel's Wilderness. Photography promotes the success and popularity the remote and spectacular public landscapes enjoy. Without this media, why would anyone travel so far into such remote and treacherous wilderness? Its out of
        • You want to bet? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by pablo_max ( 626328 ) on Friday September 26, 2014 @01:03AM (#48000463)

          "This will never fly."

          I am betting it will fly. While I have not personally had any run ins with the forest service, I know folks who have.
          I had one buddy who was ticketed for driving his quad on his neighborhood's private road by a US Forest service agent on Patrol from the adjacent land.
          The local judge was going to though the ticket out since you normally cannot get a ticket on your own property. That was until he noticed the ticket came from the forest service.
          The judge told him plainly, "sorry son, even we don't F with them. Just pay the ticket and let this go. Just be glad they only gave you a ticket and didn't take your home".

          • mhhh what is that called ... oh yea Bullshit! and citation needed!

            • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 26, 2014 @06:35AM (#48001323)
              Citation [wikipedia.org]
            • Re:You want to bet? (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Charliemopps ( 1157495 ) on Friday September 26, 2014 @07:04AM (#48001433)

              Its not. (well it could be but the story is possible)

              I've dealt extensively with the forest service and the DNR legally. My family does cranberry farming which involves wetlands. They've been a thorn in our side for over 30 years. Throwing a rock into a wetland is illegal. They can take your car and equipment for it to. We had a dike collapse during a heavy rain storm so we re-built it. They took us to court and complained that by rebuilding the dike we'd filled in a wetland. We won in the end thanks to Google maps. Another time they sent a squad of armed guys onto the land because we were having an "uncontrolled burn" and fined us. We went to court over it, and won because the burn was on an ISLAND. That's right, surrounded on all sides by a lake. The island was only about 100ft across with no structures on it. The judge asked how 100ftsq piece of grass in the middle of lake could be uncontrolled. They said we didnt have any way to put out spot fires or some nonsense. Then we pointed out that the purpose of the island was it was where our well/pump was and there was a 20k gallon per hour diesel pump in the photos they'd provided the judge!

              They've sued us/taken us to court dozens of times over the years. It's probably cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars by now and they've never won. Not once.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Bob_Who ( 926234 )

                They've sued us/taken us to court dozens of times over the years. It's probably cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars by now and they've never won. Not once.

                We need to fire all of these extra federal employees who have nothing better to do than trump up charges and deploy swat teams and lawyers on innocent people on private property adjacent to their domain. We can offset these costs with their termination. We can fertilize the forests with their failures, and end all of their wasted paper they throw around in an effort to spare the trees. F*ckwads.

              • by dcw3 ( 649211 )

                This is the typical kind of crap that people wanting more government completely miss. These kind of jackasses are often finding phony problems in order to justify their positions.

              • the best part? you are forced to fund your own attacker for as long as they feel like attacking.

          • by Bob_Who ( 926234 )
            Appeals Court will deal with that crap. Ever since they started carrying guns everyone is afraid of these armed bureaucrats. Time to get some ACLU lawyers on this thuggery.
        • Re: Forest Circus. (Score:4, Informative)

          by Jeremy Erwin ( 2054 ) on Friday September 26, 2014 @06:50AM (#48001371) Journal

          Unless you have a permit, you don'nt have the right to be in a wilderness area. That's the whole point if wilderness areas: the human impact is minimized.

          • if its not owned by an individual, I as an american "own" it. and as such, I do have rights to be there. I dont have rights to destroy anything there, or take any plants or wildlife out of said area. But I sure as hell have rights to be there. At least in NY anyway (source - me, Im constantly out in the mountains of NY)
          • by dcw3 ( 649211 )

            Um, no. Even the Forest Service says so on their permits page.

            The Forest Service offers many activities such as hiking, biking, skiing, camping, birding, using cabins, driving for pleasure, harvesting mushrooms, and gathering firewood. Many of the facilities and services associated with these opportunities are free. Some do require fees or permits to help maintain, manage and improve the amenities that you enjoy.

          • by pspahn ( 1175617 )

            -1 Overrated. This is just not true and those who modded it up should feel shame.

            This might be true for some very specific, high-traffic and relatively accessible wilderness areas (Gunnison Gorge comes to mind) but not so for the rest. Generally you will only need a permit to camp overnight during summer. Many times permits aren't required outside of June 1 - Sept 15. Additionally, many permits cost nothing and are self-issued by the user. I know they do this in the Maroon Bells due to being the one of the

    • by Jawnn ( 445279 )

      doesn't the public already own public land?

      No, citizen. Your corporate overlords own that land, and the government agencies that regulate it. Get with the program.

  • Yeah sorry, no (Score:5, Interesting)

    by afidel ( 530433 ) on Thursday September 25, 2014 @11:35PM (#48000113)

    This will get overturned the first time a journalist fights it, freedom of the press is probably the most important right in a democracy and this supreme court has shown that they're very strong advocates of the first amendment (perhaps too much so in their interpretation of corporate personhood, but that's another thread).

    • Re:Yeah sorry, no (Score:5, Informative)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Thursday September 25, 2014 @11:50PM (#48000193)
      The odds of them actually fining a reporter doing anything like reporting are nil. That is clearly not the intent of it, as it has an exception for reporting news. I guess the problem is writing the law in a way that disallows shooting commercials or movies, without creating some objectionable corner cases.

      Unless there has actually been any issue with this, it's just another trumped up nonstory that will be inflated to cartoonish proportions in the comments to follow.

      • Re:Yeah sorry, no (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ron_ivi ( 607351 ) <sdotno&cheapcomplexdevices,com> on Friday September 26, 2014 @12:59AM (#48000441)

        I guess the problem is writing the law in a way that disallows shooting commercials or movies

        I don't think that's what they're targeting.

        Wouldn't be surprised if the real target are environmentalists who complain about aggressive logging.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          You do know, logging is only allowed in National Forests, and not National Parks, right? Just checking.

          Also, go read the actual proposal. The regulations in question have been THOROUGHLY mis-reported by the media, specifically because it relates to what they do. I'm not saying I agree with what's being proposed, but you won't find an unbiased analysis in the media on this topic. They're going on the offensive on the proposals. Do yourself a favor, and see that for what it is.

          • The US Forest Service manages national forests while the US National Park Service manages national parks. I'm not sure why you bring that up because the aggressive logging is in national forests and not national parks.

      • Re:Yeah sorry, no (Score:4, Informative)

        by plover ( 150551 ) on Friday September 26, 2014 @01:01AM (#48000451) Homepage Journal

        The odds of them actually fining a reporter doing anything like reporting are nil. That is clearly not the intent of it, as it has an exception for reporting news. I guess the problem is writing the law in a way that disallows shooting commercials or movies, without creating some objectionable corner cases.

        Unless there has actually been any issue with this, it's just another trumped up nonstory that will be inflated to cartoonish proportions in the comments to follow.

        To be fair, the wording written in the Forest Service Handbook is incredibly vague, and encompasses all photography, not just commercial or news photography. http://www.fs.fed.us/specialus... [fs.fed.us]

      • Re:Yeah sorry, no (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Dahamma ( 304068 ) on Friday September 26, 2014 @01:17AM (#48000501)

        The Forest Service is still a fucking joke. Read A Walk in the Woods (generally a hilarious and insightful travel book) by Bill Bryston if you want an honest critique of the US Forest Service.

        The [U.S.] Forest Service is truly an extraordinary institution. A lot of people, seeing the word forest in the title, assume it has something to do with looking after trees. In fact, no—though that was the original plan.

        IIn fact, mostly what the Forest Service does is build roads. I am not kidding. There are 378,000 miles of roads in America’s national forests. That may seem a meaningless figure, but look at it this way—it is eight times the total mileage of America’s interstate highway system. It is the largest road system in the world in the control of a single body. The Forest service has the second highest number of road engineers of any government institution on the planet. To say that these guys like to build roads barely hints at their level of dedication. Show them a stand of trees anywhere and they will regard it thoughtfully for a long while, and say at last, “You know, we could put a road here.” It is the avowed aim of the U.S. Forest Service to construct 580,000 miles of additional forest road by the middle of the next century.

        The reason the Forest Service builds these roads, quite apart from the deep pleasure of doing noisy things in the woods with big yellow machines, is to allow private timber companies to get to previously inaccessible stands of trees. By the late 1980s—this is so extraordinary I can hardly stand it—it was the only significant player in the American timber industry that was cutting down trees faster than it replaced them. Moreover, it was doing this with the most sumptuous inefficiency. Eighty percent of its leasing arrangements lost money, often vast amounts. In one typical deal, the Forest Service sold hundred-year-old lodgepole pines in the Targhee National Forest in Idaho for about $2 each after spending $4 per tree surveying the land, drawing up contracts, and, of course, building roads. Between 1989 and 1997, it lost an average of $242 million a year—almost $2 billion all told, according to the Wilderness Society.

        So, basically, the forest service is tasked with monetizing the National Forests of the United States, not "preserve the untamed character of the country's wilderness", as the Forest Service "spokeswoman" claims. And they can't even do that right. I guess maybe they know a picture is worth a thousand trees, and they are worried too many pictures will help prove their incompetency to the US population.

        • Or as Ron Swanson put it:

          “Never Half-ass Two Things. Whole-ass One Thing.”

        • Re:Yeah sorry, no (Score:5, Insightful)

          by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Friday September 26, 2014 @04:28AM (#48001031) Homepage Journal

          So, basically, the forest service is tasked with monetizing the National Forests of the United States, not "preserve the untamed character of the country's wilderness",

          Yes, exactly like the Bureau of Land Management, the greatest land grab perpetrated against the people of the United States. IN WHICH rather than homesteading, the land was declared the property of the federal government, and they monetize it by selling land-raping permits (oil, coal, fracking, timber, and cattle grazing — the latter of which is not precisely land-raping, but simply -suppressing, since a portion of that land was cleared from forest specifically for the purpose of cattle ranching, back in the late 1800s and early 1900s.)

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by buback ( 144189 )

            Yes, exactly like the Bureau of Land Management, the greatest land grab perpetrated against the people of the United States.

            There are a bunch of Native Americans who might disagree with you, there.

        • The Forest Service is still a fucking joke. Read A Walk in the Woods (generally a hilarious and insightful travel book) by Bill Bryston if you want an honest critique of the US Forest Service.

          I second this sentiment. A Walk in the Woods is fucking hilarious. I've been wanting to thru-hike the AT for many years, so recently I settled for reading Bill's book instead. Fantastic read.

        • So, basically, the forest service is tasked with monetizing the National Forests of the United States,

          I could see it being characterized that way but seriously, I feel offended by it. Why?

          I did volunteer work for the Forest Service in New Mexico in the 80s. I did not see a single logging operation. I did not see a single road being built (we traveled along paths that *might* be called roads to get deep into the forest) nor maintained. The Forest Service employees were mostly Navajo. They knew the forest well. They were there to maintain it. I helped clear some hiking trails of brush. I helped build fire bra

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gandhi_2 ( 1108023 )

      freedom of the press?
      how about just freedom?

    • Re:Yeah sorry, no (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Friday September 26, 2014 @01:12AM (#48000493)

      You haven't been around much those last 13 or so years, have you?

    • Re:Yeah sorry, no (Score:5, Insightful)

      by buybuydandavis ( 644487 ) on Friday September 26, 2014 @02:29AM (#48000709)

      There's been a lot of supreme and federal court action on the right to take photographs in public.

      It's just another federal bureaucracy that doesn't give a shit about the law and shakes down citizens at gun point.

    • i hate to break it to you, but freedom of the press has long since waned here - especially when it comes in conflict with any sort of moneyed or politically connected interests. whether its hacking/monitoring/raiding/harassing the few remaining independent sources, or outright banning coverage of certain things (ie, ag-gag laws) with threats of fines or imprisonment.
  • WTF? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Is this the oil and gas industry's idea to stop people from taking whistleblower photos of fracking or oil extraction on public land that has been leased to the energy companies? What else could be the motivation behind this ridiculousness?

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by Feyshtey ( 1523799 )
      Wow. Did you overdose on your conspiracy pills this morning? Seriously dude, turn off MSNBC and get help. Right Now.
  • Numbers (Score:5, Funny)

    by imemyself ( 757318 ) on Thursday September 25, 2014 @11:38PM (#48000133)
    Definitely not cool...but am I the only one that found the numbers amusing

    Permits cost up to $1,500, says Forest Service spokesman Larry Chambers, and reporters who don't get a permit could face fines up to $1,000
    • Perhaps intentional. The forest service (or whoever is behind this) has to know that the whole concept is unconstitutional and will not survive a day in court. So the draftsman decided to have a little laugh with it, and make sure we all knew it wasn't being taken seriously
      • by n6kuy ( 172098 )

        ... has to know that the whole concept is unconstitutional

        Federal beureaucrats don't care about such things. They have no disincentive to cause them to care. They'll propose it anyway. Maybe it'll actually get through. But if not, oh well. Maybe next time. There are no penalties to them for proposing something unconstitutional.

        ... and will not survive a day in court.

        You must be new to America, yeah?

    • I found it funny too, then found out it's $1,000 per picture per copy. So one picture distributed 10 times would be far more costly than getting a permit.
  • by decaffeinated ( 70626 ) on Thursday September 25, 2014 @11:43PM (#48000161)
    When both Rep. Earl Blumenauer (uber liberal) and Rep. Greg Walden (mega-conservative) object to a new regulation, expect a very frosty reception at the next relevant Congressional hearing. The wilting is described here [oregonlive.com].
  • The next article about this at oregonlive was two days later (25th) and says the Forrest Service is delaying the decision.

    Forest Service delaying media wilderness photography rules amid growing outcry about First Amendment [oregonlive.com]
  • by danheskett ( 178529 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .tteksehnad.> on Friday September 26, 2014 @12:09AM (#48000287)

    "She said the agency was implementing the Wilderness Act of 1964, which aims to protect wilderness areas from being exploited for commercial gain."

    The Wilderness Act was designed to protect wild lands from being exploited in the traditional sense of the word - meaning, deforested, mined, or otherwise permanently changed.

    If we are talking about some sort of mega industrial photography in which the flash bulbs destroy the trees, or a camera crew of 10,000, sure, that's exploitation for commercial gain.

    But if we are talking about the normal filming or photography associated with any day to day activities or programming, then there is no exploitation for commercial gain.

  • by naughtynaughty ( 1154069 ) on Friday September 26, 2014 @12:45AM (#48000405)
    This does not apply to tourists. This does not apply to someone pulling out their video camera to video the family frolicking through the wilderness. Here is the definition of "still photography" that the proposed regulation uses: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/re... [ecfr.gov] "Still photography—use of still photographic equipment on National Forest System lands that takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed or where additional administrative costs are likely, or uses models, sets, or props that are not a part of the site's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities." Does that sound that bad? You'll also need a permit for commercial filming, if you are a business and want to make a film set in a certain designated wilderness areas you'll need a permit. Stop the presses!
    • by lannocc ( 568669 )

      This does not apply to tourists. This does not apply to someone pulling out their video camera to video the family frolicking through the wilderness.

      Not so fast...

      You'll also need a permit for commercial filming

      Exactly. Here is the definition for "commercial filming", from the same source:

      Commercial filming—use of motion picture, videotaping, sound recording, or any other moving image or audio recording equipment on National Forest System lands that involves the advertisement of a product or service, the creation of a product for sale, or the use of models, actors, sets, or props, but not including activities associated with broadcasting breaking news, as defined in FSH 2709.11, chapter 40.

      I find this far too encompassing. Sets or props could apply to just about anything. See that tent in the photo you're taking? Looks like a prop to me.

      Prop (noun): a stick, rod, pole, beam, or other rigid support.

      The terms, they are muddy. This slope is getting slippery.

      • by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

        You do know that the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

        It actually sounds pretty good as a law to me.

        • by n6kuy ( 172098 )

          ... the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

          Not if the slope actually is slippery, but the slipperiness of the slope needs to be shown, not just asserted.

          Humor:
          If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination. Once begin upon this downward path, you never know where you are to stop. Many a man has dated his ruin from some murder or other that perha

        • The slope *is* slippery, and it's not a fallacy. 100% of government laws to prevent commercial photography get applied against non-commercial photography. 100%. Go read the PhotographyIsNotACrime blog. You can find story after story, month after month, year after year, of people being arrested for "not being allowed to film" in an area. The fact of the matter is, the enforcers never read the fine print in these laws, and 100% of the time, they apply to you and me. Calling this fallacious because of a logi
    • so a landscape photographer who wants to take photos in the woods needs a permit? wow.
      • by ruir ( 2709173 )
        Nature copyrighted, such a vanguard concept. And do not talk about it, forest guards family have to eat. (note to idiots, this is sarcasm)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 26, 2014 @01:01AM (#48000453)

    I mean seriously, why does this guy still have a job as an editor? Story after story, with distorted, inflammatory headlines or summaries, that end up being picked apart as "zomg nanny-state" baiting for the right-wing faction of the slashdot community.

    These postings from samzenpus are not news for nerds, or stuff that matters. They're disingenuous advertising click-bait for a once-proud website that has let itself be co-opted by randroids.

    • by Nimey ( 114278 )

      I have to agree, this is nothing but yellow journalism and /. and Dice should be ashamed of it.

    • Huh?? This WILL affect normal civilians. Calling journalism "yellow" when the only fallacy is your own inability to understand how this affects you and me -- THAT's the failing here.
  • What is the cause? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Friday September 26, 2014 @01:17AM (#48000503) Homepage

    I haven't been able to find anything, but presumably something triggered this? Did some major Hollywood movie move in 20 trailers, 30 trucks and a demolition derby - and lay waste to a national park?

    I mean, the proposed rule is stupidly worded, but I expect - thirteen layers back - it was meant to solve an actual problem.

    • You're not paying attention. The cause is that the Forest "Service" wants to prevent reporting of their mismanagement of the land.
      • Conspiracy theories are fun, but I incompetence is probably an adequate explanation here. Some commercial project left a mess somewhere, a faceless bureaucrat heard about it, and this idiocy is the result....

    • by swb ( 14022 )

      The Forest Service probably has their own SWAT team and they're looking for some action.

    • Their handling of the standoff with Bundy was a fiasco. This is their response for future engagements.

  • Another power grab by a federal government agency. Some kind of dick size complex.

  • It seems that DRM is more viral than the GPL.

  • Another fucking US government agency that doesn't want any record of it's incompetence.

  • It's cheaper to _not_ get a permit?! So what reporter would?
    That's one screwed up Service.
    Clearly the same brainiacs that came up with that 'deterrent', are the problem. They can't even manage that right!

    Solution: get rid of them, put in someone halfway competent, and the resulting improved performance of the Forest Service will mean that you won't have or need whistleblowers and the attendant bad press.

  • I live within walking distance of wilderness, and spend a lot of time hiking in it with my 400-member club and documenting our adventures in pictures. Because my images go up on a public site and are regularly used in local newspaper stories about the wilderness, does that make me "media"? Would an amateur photographer who occasionally sells a print (lots of those around here too) come under this regulation?

    The Forest Service is supposed to be in charge of keeping designated wilderness pristine by controlli

  • Who run the Forest Service.... not more embarassing photos of stump fields...
  • by RogueWarrior65 ( 678876 ) on Friday September 26, 2014 @09:58AM (#48002691)

    For those of you who don't live in Arizona, the Forest Service mandated a certain percentage of permanent road closures in the state. Coconino (basically between I-40 and the Grand Canyon) decided to close down 80% of the roads. Yes, eight zero percent. But here's the catch: They don't physically block off the roads. You're supposed to know which roads are open and which aren't and if they find you on a closed road they can fine you. State Game & Fish and the Sheriff's Offices have already said that they aren't going to enforce this crap. Oh, and search & rescue operations aren't exempt from these rules. Hell, a local search dog unit wanted to hold a national conference and do some training in the forest. The Forest Service demanded an environmental impact study be done. What the hell are they worried about? Dog poop? How is that any different from coyote poop?

  • by SoloHiker ( 2651287 ) on Friday September 26, 2014 @12:53PM (#48004477)
    As a rabid nature and wildlife photographer. this took be aback for a minute. After some quick Google'ing, the intent of the new regulation makes sense. Here's an ABC print story: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertai... [go.com]. A quick quote from the story: "Professional and amateur photographers will not need a permit unless they use models, actors, props; work in areas where the public is generally not allowed; or cause additional administrative costs, the agency said in a release." I've got no problem with this whatsoever. SteveB

Trying to be happy is like trying to build a machine for which the only specification is that it should run noiselessly.

Working...