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.
Forest Circus. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
$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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: Forest Circus. (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Hope you don't drive through a national forest with a dash cam...
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: Forest Mc Circus. (Score:2)
You want to bet? (Score:4, Interesting)
"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".
Re: (Score:2)
mhhh what is that called ... oh yea Bullshit! and citation needed!
Re:You want to bet? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That joke is old.....but I still laughed.
Re:You want to bet? (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
I've worked around govt. employees for 38 years. It's not a unique situation, it's commonplace.
Re: (Score:3)
the best part? you are forced to fund your own attacker for as long as they feel like attacking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
...driving his quad on his neighborhood's private road...
I did. Because it is a privately owned road. I.e. private property.
Re: Forest Circus. (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
-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
Re: Forest Circus. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a permit for doing news reporting, including photography/viedography, within wilderness areas.
Then it violates the First Amendment "freedom of the press" clause. Charging the news media for exercising a constitutional right isn't allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Or as Ron Swanson put it:
“Never Half-ass Two Things. Whole-ass One Thing.”
Re:Yeah sorry, no (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
The Appalachian Trail is managed by the US National Park Service and not the US Forest Service. Most of the lands you are going onto as an outdoorsman are managed by the NPS and not the FS. In fact, if you're on the lands managed by the FS and you don't have a permit you're likely there illegally. It's the national parks that you have free access to.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
freedom of the press?
how about just freedom?
Re:Yeah sorry, no (Score:5, Insightful)
You haven't been around much those last 13 or so years, have you?
Re:Yeah sorry, no (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF? (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
And those tree huggers would mind you taking a photo of their precious trees ... why exactly?
Numbers (Score:5, Funny)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You must be new to America, yeah?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You missed the point of his amusement. It's cheaper to pay the fine than to get the permit.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately you can guarantee that if you do get caught and issued with the fine you will be required to buy a backdated permit AND pay the fine.
Re: (Score:2)
You think you can get the picture back from the internet once it has been posted?
Forest Service already wilting from the blowback (Score:5, Informative)
Already backing down (Score:2, Insightful)
Forest Service delaying media wilderness photography rules amid growing outcry about First Amendment [oregonlive.com]
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bogus justification (Score:4, Informative)
In other words, if you're Brian Williams and you'd like to film a news story there, you have every right to do so. If you're Michael Bay and you want to film a movie there, somebody probably needs to step in and put a stop to it before the forest is obliterated by a multi-kiloton series of non-nuclear explosions and scantily clad women running around between them.
Re:Bogus justification (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, this was one topic I didn't think would get Godwinned.
Should we jump to conclusions? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.
It actually sounds pretty good as a law to me.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's time to fire samzenpus (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
I have to agree, this is nothing but yellow journalism and /. and Dice should be ashamed of it.
Re: (Score:3)
What is the cause? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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....
Re: (Score:3)
The Forest Service probably has their own SWAT team and they're looking for some action.
Re: (Score:2)
Their handling of the standoff with Bundy was a fiasco. This is their response for future engagements.
Another Power Grab (Score:2)
Another power grab by a federal government agency. Some kind of dick size complex.
This forest is locked down by DRM (Score:2)
It seems that DRM is more viral than the GPL.
Nazis (Score:2)
Another fucking US government agency that doesn't want any record of it's incompetence.
Proposed Policy indicates best solution (Score:2)
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.
Cram in regulations while Democrats still lead (Score:2)
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
To Protect the Lumber industry (Score:2)
Yet another out-of-control govt agency (Score:3)
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?
We need to read the facts first... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Looking into the history of the grand canyon to see why that is not such a good idea...
Re: (Score:3)
The National Park Service was established in 1916 to oversee federal parks. It reports to the Secretary of the Interior. The US Forest Service was establish in 1876 and reports to the USDA. They regulate different land.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the US Forest Service manages 193,000,000 acres to the National Park Service's 84,000,000.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Petitions.org... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you simply do NOT want to take Italy as your role model when it comes to bureaucracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Petitions.org... (Score:4, Insightful)
But private citizens can be journalists too. That's what the bloggers keep saying. So this rule could apply to anyone who posts an illicit video on their facebook page. Especially if that person is criticizing the government, or the Forest Service in particular.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with tripods is not the weight, it's that they might be set up in a place where they block a trail or interfere with access to a display. It's not ordinarily a problem in some places, but they can be in more crowded areas. But placing them in non-disruptive locations is already required in the rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Then make it a rule to put it where it doesn't block someone instead of going nuts with permits worse than any communist country ever did.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A display? , in a wilderness area? Do you know what wilderness is?
Re:Don't we own the land? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the California Park system. A bunch of corrupt bureaucrats who somehow actually knew how to save money, if hurting their organization in the process.
This is the US Forest Service, one of the most incompetent and inefficient government organizations ever created (and that's saying a lot!)
http://joshuasowin.com/archive... [joshuasowin.com]
Re: (Score:2)
it's all up to you. if you're in the room the next some some retard with too much power makes a suggestion like this, just stab him in the throat with your pen. if we just put down all these fucks before they got too high up in society we'd have a fuckin' utopia by now.
Yeah, a utopia; or at least a caliphate.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you Martin Blanke.
Re: (Score:2)
The US Forest Service is a separate organization from the US national Park Service and they manage separate land.
Re: (Score:2)
Lucky for you that the national parks are under the management of the US National Park Service and not the US Forest Service. Thus the fine, even if implemented, would not apply to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Your plan is flawed. National parks are not managed by the US Forest Service. They are managed by the US National Park Service. Two different organizations.