Obama Admin: Now Charging $1,500 To Take Photographs In National Wilderness.

[Rikurzhen]

Give a liberal power and you get a Totalitarian State that makes liberals swoon with desire:

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 any of the nation's 100 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​

 

[mudwhistle]

The U.S. Forest Service Wants to Fine You $1,000 for Taking Pictures in the Forest
The Forest Service oversees 193 million acres of wilderness. In a month, you won't be able to take a picture in them without getting a fine -- even if the new rules are unconstitutional.
By Eric Vilas-Boas on September 24, 2014

Ascent Xmedia/Taxi/Getty Images


Nice photo. That'll be $1,000, please.

This week's most profoundly wrongheaded display of nonviolent press infringement comes from an unlikely source: The U.S. Forest Service. New rules being finalized in November state that—across this country's gloriously beautiful, endlessly photogenic, 193 million acres of designated wilderness area administered by the USFS—members of the press who happen upon it will need permits to photograph or shoot video.

And yes, it does sound like one of the dumbest things you've ever read.

"It's pretty clearly unconstitutional," said Gregg Leslie, legal defense director at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Alexandria, Va. "They would have to show an important need to justify these limits, and they just can't."

Wait! It gets better.

[Liz Close, the Forest Service's acting wilderness director] didn't cite any real-life examples of why the policy is needed or what problems it's addressing. She didn't know whether any media outlets had applied for permits in the last four years.

The slap you just heard was of more than 34 million American hikers hitting palm to forehead. And the clicks you heard came from nature photographers from coast to coast ignoring those new rules.

Maybe outrage shouldn't be your first reaction. Maybe it's good for the forests. You won't have news crews traipsing about, trampling leaves. You won't get as frustrated as you might otherwise have been when you pass some dude with a camera on a trail. Maybe we'd all be better off, even.

Wrong.

The Organic Act of 1897, the legislation that kicked off, in a big way, the establishment of the modern U.S. Forest Service, clearly provides (emphasis added):

The jurisdiction, both civil and criminal, over persons within such reservations shall not be affected or changed by reason of the existence of such reservations, except so far as the punishment of offenses against the United States therein is concerned; the intent and meaning of this provision being that the State wherein any such reservation is situated shall not, by reason of the establishment thereof, lose its jurisdiction, nor the inhabitants thereof their rights and privileges as citizens, or be absolved from their duties as citizens of the State.

For any journalist, both parts of that statement are very important. All U.S. citizens enjoy the right of the First Amendment, and courts have very clearly upheld the rights of a citizen to take photographs taken in a public place—even the unpopular ones, and even ugly, boring ones of trees and mountains.

And as for "duties as citizens of the State." Well, it's called the Fourth Estate for a reason. That's what the U.S. Forest Service is hurting here: The understanding that the public has a right to this land, and right to know about it, with media more expressive than words.

With this:

A hiker takes the trail approaching Minaret Lake, getting a great view of Reigelhuth Minaret - Sierra Nevada.

John Mock/Getty Images

Close, of the Forest Service, doesn't seem to agree.

She said the agency was implementing the Wilderness Act of 1964, which aims to protect wilderness areas from being exploited for commercial gain.
"That's kind of a distortion," says Peter Essick, an award-winning National Geographic photographer who has worked with the Forest Service before, as well as the other agencies that oversee American wildernesses for years to produce truly remarkable work.

"When the Wilderness Act was created in 1964, there were plenty of people doing photography," he says. "Nothing in the Wilderness Act says photography is not approved or banned."

When he goes out to shoot, Essick takes the utmost care to the follow the rules of "leave no trace," and he does it with 65 pounds of gear on his back. He's a nature photographer: Not trashing the place is pretty much rule number one.

There's another layer to this, too. The USFS and the other agencies have used photography since their inception to tell the story of the wilderness. All the words in the world can't show you as much as one beautiful Ansel Adams photo. Coincidentally, Essick spent lots of time photographing the Ansel Adams Wilderness, named for the famous photographer, for his own book.

Over and over again, the establishment of an American wilderness, the National Parks, the core idea that you can escape to a more primitive, but nonetheless essential part of this country, has been referred to as America's best idea. It's why city-dwelling, suburb-raised punks like me can have so many feelings toward land that has filled our lungs with fresh air and our hearts with wonder. It's why I swell with pride when my little sister, gritting her teeth through cuts and tears, finished her first hike. It's why I look forward to enjoying it with my children when they come along.

That feeling needs to stick around.

And, believe me, I get it. No one wants annoying reporters or photographers damaging the environment, even if "breaking news" is happening. (This is the only case in which this rule wouldn't apply—and it happens to be entirely unenforceable.)

Wilderness areas have it bad enough already. The United States pumps "on the order of nearly 60 million 'short tons'" of carbon monoxide into the air every year, the EPA tells us. We dump 1.2 trillion gallons of untreated sewage stormwater, and industrial waste into the water that—eventually—is supposed to make it back to your faucet, your hot shower, the water bottle you give your kid on his hike. And no one likes seeing headlines like "Sequoia National Park is Stuck in Pollution Hell" or "Where the Smog Ends Up."

But do the good people running the USFS really think that charging a journalist $1,500 for a permit—and a fine of $1,000 per shot to those who don't get one—is going to aid that cause? Do they think adding a roadblock to the essential act of newsgathering and to the creation of free publicity for the forests is a wise decision?

Read more here The U.S. Forest Service Wants to Fine You 1 000 for Taking Pictures in the Forest - Esquire​

 

[Youch]

Give a liberal power and you get a Totalitarian State that makes liberals swoon with desire:

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 any of the nation's 100 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​

So a fine is less than the permit? That is dumb.

Rik,

Totalitarian state is correct. But hey, they gotta keep finding new ways to take property from us, as that is hard-wired in their DNA.

 

[Seawytch]

You guys are so totes adorbs...

• 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.
  
  
• 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.
  

Proposed Directive for Commercial Filming in Wilderness; Special Uses Administration

 

[Youch]

You guys are so totes adorbs...

• 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.
  
  
• 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.

Proposed Directive for Commercial Filming in Wilderness; Special Uses Administration

Yes, the growing Administrative State, the 4th branch of government, does indeed manufacture mountains of regulations to justify their existence and generate revenue.

Thanks for proving the point with your citation.

 

[Seawytch]

You guys are so totes adorbs...

• 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.
  
  
• 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.

Proposed Directive for Commercial Filming in Wilderness; Special Uses Administration

Yes, the growing Administrative State, the 4th branch of government, does indeed manufacture mountains of regulations to justify their existence and generate revenue.

Thanks for proving the point with your citation.

What I proved is that the sky is not falling, Chicken Little.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Okay liberals justify this.we know you're for it.

 

[Seawytch]

Okay liberals justify this.we know you're for it.

The proposed directive is necessary for the Forest Service to issue and administer special use authorizations that will allow the public to use and occupy National Forest System (NFS) lands for still photography and commercial filming in wilderness. The proposed directive FSH 2709.11, chapter 40, is currently issued as the third consecutive interim directive (ID) which is set to expire in October 2014. The previous directive addressed still photography in wilderness and did not provide adequate guidance to review commercial filming in wilderness permit proposals. The notice and comments are collected and used by Forest Service officials, unless otherwise noted, to ensure the use of NFS lands are authorized, in the public interest, and compatible with the Agency's mission and/or record authorization of use granted by appropriate Forest Service officials.​

 

[Stephanie]

Lovely, they can now tell you were and when you can take a picture on OUR LANDS in the United States the LAND OF THE FREE...oops scratch that used to be, THE LAND OF FREE

 

[Wildman]

as expected a liberfool comes along to defend this commie like action.

any more seebytches out there ?

 

[Stephanie]

as expected a liberfool comes along to defend this commie like action.

any more seebytches out there ?

if the guberment says it the "best thing for us" she's all for it

 

[Seawytch]

Use permits for commercial photography on Federal protected Wildlife land are not new. The sky is not falling and your iPhone selfies at monuments are safe.

 

[Mad Scientist]

"This Land is your Land! This Land is my Land!
Unless is designated, a U.N. Heritage Site!"

I remember singing that in school.

 

[Stephanie]

"This Land is your Land! This Land is my Land!
Unless is designated, a U.N. Heritage Site!"

I remember singing that in school.

Not anymore. it's this land IS the governments land and you get charged to see it
ObamaNation ain't she grand

 

[Old Rocks]

Lovely, they can now tell you were and when you can take a picture on OUR LANDS in the United States the LAND OF THE FREE...oops scratch that used to be, THE LAND OF FREE

Hey, silly bitch, I am out and in federal lands probably more than any private citizen I know. Yet I have never been asked to pay for taking the many pictures I have taken in our National Parks and Wilderness Areas. If you are filming for profit, why should not our government, which has to pay for fire control and many other things in these areas, have some of that profit?

 

[rightwinger]

You guys are so totes adorbs...

• 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.
  
  
• 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.

Proposed Directive for Commercial Filming in Wilderness; Special Uses Administration

You mean our conservative board members are overreacting again?

 

[Stephanie]

NEVER forget this picture folks

VOTE THESE FASCIST out of our lives

 

[rightwinger]

So, if you want to use public lands for commercial purposes, you have to pay for it

I can see why our board conservatives are outraged

 

[rightwinger]

NEVER forget this picture folks

VOTE THESE FASCIST out of our lives

You don't think our national monuments should be protected from vandals?
Lincoln Memorial shut down after vandals splash paint on it - The Washington Post

 

[Seawytch]

So, if you want to use public lands for commercial purposes, you have to pay for it

I can see why our board conservatives are outraged

Well...because Obama, that's why!