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

[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

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

They yearn for the good ole days under Bush where you could rape and pillage our public lands while the Government looked the other way

 

[jknowgood]

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?

That money they use is our money dumbass. We even paid for the land in the first place.

 

[jknowgood]

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!

They yearn for the good ole days under Bush where you could rape and pillage our public lands while the Government looked the other way

Yeah and the sky didn't fall and the seas didn't rise.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

That money they use is our money dumbass. We even paid for the land in the first place.

The government is us

 

[Mr Natural]

And why shouldn't We The People make some money off the commercial use of our property?

 

[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

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

They yearn for the good ole days under Bush where you could rape and pillage our public lands while the Government looked the other way

Yeah and the sky didn't fall and the seas didn't rise.

Very true

The sky didn't fall and the sea didn't rise and Bush looked the other way on drilling and logging

 

[rightwinger]

And why shouldn't We The People make some money off the commercial use of our property?

Consider the source

These are the same people who complain that Cliven Bundy has to pay to graze his cattle on public land

 

[bendog]

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​

As your own link points out, any restriction on actual news gathering would be obviously unconstitutional, and there has been no known hinderance of news gathering. What your objection is to charging Budweiser or some other client of an ad agency from using the national forests for profit, is something you'd have explain.

 

[ogibillm]

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

cliven bundy is pissed.
call up the militia!

 

[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

cliven bundy is pissed.
call up the militia!

They are conservatives......of course they are willing to surrender our natural resources for free

You want an oil well in the middle of Yellowstone? Drill baby, drill!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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

I remember singing that in school.

Lol

 

[ogibillm]

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

cliven bundy is pissed.
call up the militia!

They are conservatives......of course they are willing to surrender our natural resources for free

You want an oil well in the middle of Yellowstone? Drill baby, drill!

no no no. that would be crazy. you'll have to pay.
how's 10% of market value sound?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

Yeah, if you're a member of the PRESS. Note, this is for commercial purposes of the press, not for normal folk taking pictures. You read the report right?

 

[Jarlaxle]

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, the obvious thing would be to take the damn photos and just pay the fine if caught...since the fine is less than the permit!

 

[eagle1462010]

http://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/media/types/testimony/SENR_04-28-2010_S1241_Testimony.pdf

2010......letter on changes to the permit costs. The Forestry Service rejected it and said the old laws were sufficient. At that time it was a $200 permit fee............

But.............but..........you see they already get to pay LAND USE FEES............

Here's the data on that with the costs and how to apply.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5346441.pdf

aka they ALREADY PAY TO FILM THERE. And have been paying to film there for a long time. At higher rates than the $1500, which used to be $200 in 2010.................

So..........they are charging a permit fee on top of LAND USE FEES...................

Aka.......the argument about them paying to use the land is covered in another schedule of fees.............sooooooooooooo that argument that they should pay is MUTE.

 

[rightwinger]

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, the obvious thing would be to take the damn photos and just pay the fine if caught...since the fine is less than the permit!

So you pay the fine and don't get to finish your photoshoot

 

[rightwinger]

http://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/media/types/testimony/SENR_04-28-2010_S1241_Testimony.pdf

2010......letter on changes to the permit costs. The Forestry Service rejected it and said the old laws were sufficient. At that time it was a $200 permit fee............

But.............but..........you see they already get to pay LAND USE FEES............

Here's the data on that with the costs and how to apply.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5346441.pdf

aka they ALREADY PAY TO FILM THERE. And have been paying to film there for a long time. At higher rates than the $1500, which used to be $200 in 2010.................

So..........they are charging a permit fee on top of LAND USE FEES...................

Aka.......the argument about them paying to use the land is covered in another schedule of fees.............sooooooooooooo that argument that they should pay is MUTE.

If you don't want to pay.....find somewhere else to shoot

$200 is chump change and was short shifting the taxpayer

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[eagle1462010]

http://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/media/types/testimony/SENR_04-28-2010_S1241_Testimony.pdf

2010......letter on changes to the permit costs. The Forestry Service rejected it and said the old laws were sufficient. At that time it was a $200 permit fee............

But.............but..........you see they already get to pay LAND USE FEES............

Here's the data on that with the costs and how to apply.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5346441.pdf

aka they ALREADY PAY TO FILM THERE. And have been paying to film there for a long time. At higher rates than the $1500, which used to be $200 in 2010.................

So..........they are charging a permit fee on top of LAND USE FEES...................

Aka.......the argument about them paying to use the land is covered in another schedule of fees.............sooooooooooooo that argument that they should pay is MUTE.

If you don't want to pay.....find somewhere else to shoot

$200 is chump change and was short shifting the taxpayer

You didn't look at the site for the permit did you......................It's another fee added to other fees that were already in place, which actually charge by the hour...............and number of people....................

It's just another TAX......oops FEE..........to add to other fees because you people love to take money after money after money.

 

[rightwinger]

http://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/media/types/testimony/SENR_04-28-2010_S1241_Testimony.pdf

2010......letter on changes to the permit costs. The Forestry Service rejected it and said the old laws were sufficient. At that time it was a $200 permit fee............

But.............but..........you see they already get to pay LAND USE FEES............

Here's the data on that with the costs and how to apply.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5346441.pdf

aka they ALREADY PAY TO FILM THERE. And have been paying to film there for a long time. At higher rates than the $1500, which used to be $200 in 2010.................

So..........they are charging a permit fee on top of LAND USE FEES...................

Aka.......the argument about them paying to use the land is covered in another schedule of fees.............sooooooooooooo that argument that they should pay is MUTE.

If you don't want to pay.....find somewhere else to shoot

$200 is chump change and was short shifting the taxpayer

You didn't look at the site for the permit did you......................It's another fee added to other fees that were already in place, which actually charge by the hour...............and number of people....................

It's just another TAX......oops FEE..........to add to other fees because you people love to take money after money after money.

Guess what?

Our government is under a sequester. National parks need to pay for themselves . Increased fees are a way of life

I would rather see those using the parks for commercial use pay more than force visitors to