Slashdot Mirror
Forest Service Wants To Require Permits For Photography
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.
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?
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).
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
The requirement for a permit when using tripods or shooting movies makes sense. Those things can be disruptive on the trails. Anything else is overkill. We need a petition to kill this before it gets any further. The idea that we'll have a steady flood of people confessing "crimes" on their FaceBook pages simply by having some familiar landmark in the background is mind boggling.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Immediate constitutional challenge, and it would win.
The Forest Service usually is pretty good, but at times, they can be complete idiots.
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?
... parks.
Look, lets have everything we have from the parks now... just put them under state control. It would be for the best.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
And aren't these the same government organizations that are always stashing away budgeted money and failing to report it until a random audit finds they have millions stuffed in a tree trunk somewhere?
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
Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
Looking into the history of the grand canyon to see why that is not such a good idea...
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
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.
Free access to anything is anti-capatilistic. Money must be exchanged for the people to enjoy the sights in the land of the free.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
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
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
and the permit is 1500.. who's going to buy a permit?
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.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
No poaching photos in the king's forest.
If i visit one of your national parks or other scenic natural areas under their purview, and i'm taking family photos if this will be just another way the united states government shakes down tourists for cash.
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... "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!
Photographing trees doesn't kill them, and if you had lights strong enough to kill them, the lights are not photographing, they're lighting.
There's no justification for this license. The forests are owned by the US, not the Forestry service, they are just keeping it for the people.
Your post reads a bit like.
Hitler killed 6 million Jews and a clown.
Where the clown just is added as a distraction.
If you're Michael Bay and you want to film a movie, somebody probably needs to step in and put a stop to it.
I removed the unnecessary parts for you:
We welcome Captain Obvious to the party, along with his delayed observation.
--
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.
"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".
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.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Wow, this was one topic I didn't think would get Godwinned.
"would first need special approval to shoot photos or videos even on an iPhone."
Well yeah, the type of camera you use doesn't make any difference. You're taking a photo.
Or should it be a case of "you can take pictures, but only with your phone. Oh, you've got a 41Mp Lumia 1020? Go ahead..."
Another power grab by a federal government agency. Some kind of dick size complex.
or lack of a dick or brain ?
seriously blonde moment ?
channeling a dead dictator ?
email hacked by "The Onion" ?
blackmailed by someone holding their nude photo stash ?
Money-making scheme:
1) Publish story of animal cruelty, forest mismanagement, secret government base, etc in national park.
2) Forestry department denies claims; no-one pays to see the truth.
3) Forestry department pays me to video healthy trees and wildlife.
What are the names of the people behind this idiocy?
Not their media spokesman, but the government employees advocating this bullshit.
Let's find out who they are and make their lives a living hell.
Does anyone have names?
"...they'd allow the Forest Service to grant permits only to favored reporters shooting videos for positive stories."
That's what its about, then.
"She said the agency was implementing the Wilderness Act of 1964, which aims to protect wilderness areas from being exploited for commercial gain."
On the bright side, look at the speed here. It ONLY took them 50 years to implement this act from 1964!
It seems that DRM is more viral than the GPL.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
... it'll probably be shot down by a drunk Hunter.
Another fucking US government agency that doesn't want any record of it's incompetence.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Funny how the media only gets excited about stuff when it affects *them*. The way that they've been acting as a mouthpiece for the current administration, instead of keeping an eye on corrupt government, then maybe they shouldn't be granted the right under the 1st Amendment. These media are such hypocrites.
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.
What's the release date on this?!
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.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
The max $1000 fine is cheaper than the max $1500 permit. Makes much more sense to take your chances and maybe pay the fine than to try and be legit about it.
http://xkcd.com/1425/
Liz Close, the Forest Service's acting wilderness director is a fucking idiot that needs to be fired, and blacklisted from any and all government positions for life.
The definition of Commercial Still Photography as referenced by the regulation is here:
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=965db9bd836139d60448acb7bd8976aa&ty=HTML&h=L&r=PART&n=pt36.2.251#se36.2.251_150
"Still photographyÃ"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."
A camera around your neck or on a tripod would be fine. Building a movie set would require a permit. I'm OK with requiring a permit for someone to build a movie set on Forest Service land.
So long as you don't sell any pictures, because of this little nugget:
"Commercial use or activity - any use or activity on National Forest System lands (a) where an entry or participation fee is charged, or (b) where the primary purpose is the sale of a good or service, and in either case, regardless of whether the use or activity is intended to produce a profit."
So two guys walk in the woods with the exact same cameras, walking the exact same route, having the exact same impact on the resource. One takes pictures for fun, one for a nature calendar. Guess who needs a permit?
Yes, I work for the federal government. This looks like a political appointee's tactic to raise money and extended to the limit to control the flow of information at the same time.
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.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Also, the US Forest Service manages 193,000,000 acres to the National Park Service's 84,000,000.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
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 touch with common sense and makes me think we need to hire someone else to make these decisions on our behalf. Its ridiculous to run our country with a bunch of government employees. We need to run it and they need to work at McDonald's if they can't generate revenue and manage budgets without taxing certain people who promote albeit profit off the public lands that belong to every citizen of the planet, even the distant future people who will one day benefit from the photography or other journalistic endeavors. I guess they figure Ken Burns and Ansel Adams types owe them something just because they have the authority and wear the stupid uniforms. No, I don't want fries with that.
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 controlling trail access and, in general, monitoring any usage of the area that can alter the environment. The current rule on photography requires permits for commercial crews that need to bring in special equipment, have exclusive use of an area for the day, and so on. In extending the regulation to have commercial or 'media' use of photographs themselves be the criterion for the permit requirement rather than impact on the land, the Forest Service would be changing its role from steward to landowner trying to maximize profit on his acreage.
Who run the Forest Service.... not more embarassing photos of stump fields...
This is a vast overreach!
Michael Bay is the new Hitler?
When did this happen? I mean, I agree, I just missed the memo...
Absolutely not. I live in the middle of the Jefferson National Forest. Within 10 minutes of my home there is also 1,000+ acres of state wilderness, and 1,000+ acres of town wilderness recreation land. Of the three the more local the ownership, the more draconian the laws.
Better known as 318230.
You have great site – realy
The Web industry has established various award schemes for websites
A blog award is an award for the best blog in a given category. Some blog awards are based on a public vote and others are based on a fixed set of criteria applied by a panel of judges.
owietlenie led
Monitoring Floty
plan kont
Microsoft Dynamics NAV
rachunek kosztów
NAVISION roll-out
Slippery slope is the argument "if we let them ban filming movies, the next thing you know they'll ban all photography". The fallacious version stops there, just silently assuming that ALL slopes are slippery, rather than asserting that a particular slope is in fact slippery. The non-fallacious version points out that the number of pages of federal regulation has grown by 10,000% in the last few decades - showing that indeed the federal government DOES tend to enact more and more regulation. That slope really is slippery, and it's not fallacious to point that out.
Also GP said the current regulation IS too broad. Lannoc didn't say "if we allow this regulation, next thing you know they'll have a regulation that is too broad". So although Lannoc actually used the words "slope" and "slippery", the argument wasn't slippery slope - he asserts that the current regulation is too broad, not that it will become too broad. He (she?) also asserts that "the slope is getting slippery", rather than implying the assumption that all slopes are slippery, which would be the fallacy.
The worst part is that they COULD accomplish their legal goals without violating the Constitution.\
The way to do this simple:
1)Make the law "SHALL ISSUE" rather than "May Issue". This means the government would not be able to refuse to issue said license
2) Make the law a sliding scale, based on the size of equipment. I.E. Camera phones and similar stuff weighing ounces could be free, while equipment weighing up to 1 lb could cost $100, Over 1 lb could cost $500 per pound of equipment. Equipment would include lighting, filters, lenses, cases for all of this, power supplies, light meters, generators, film, filters, supports and mounts (including tripods and monopods), etc etc.
If they did this, they would not have offended anyone, stopped the wild abuses they claim are occuring, and end up making MORE money.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
In Italy, anyone who uses a tripod is a commercial photographer and must buy permits. This isn't "slippery slope" ... it's quicksand.
... it is NOT public land any more.
Wow, this was one topic I didn't think would get Godwinned.
That's something Joseph Stalin would say.
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
Two points.
1. We have state parks that are as well run as anything the feds manage.
2. I referenced the fed managed land to point out that just because the feds are running something doesn't mean they're doing it well.
Look, I generally hold that people that live in an area tend to care more about that area then people that live thousands of miles away and have never been there before.
Do you disagree? Do you think that people that live in a place care less about it then people that have never been there? Yes or no?
Kay... so given that you have to conclude that the locals care more why would you put people that do not live there and may not have ever seen the place with their own eyes more control over it then the people that actually happen to reside there in the first place?
And before you say something about locals turning national parks into strip mines or something equally goofy... I will again remind you of the state parks where for some reason that doesn't happen... so why this fixation on federal control of something that could very easily be state run? Just tell me why you care? Because I have been upfront with my interests here. I think the feds mismanage these properties because they don't really matter to them as much. The closure of federal parks during the budget crisis was a good example of that. The feds did that as a political power play. They did not do it to save money as they claimed because closing the parks actually COST them more money then leaving them open. They had to put rangers on guard duty keeping people out of parks. They had to put them on overtime. They spent MORE money keeping people out then they would have simply running the parks as usual. And yet they tried to keep them out to put pressure on political rivals to relax budget controls.
This is just one of the many things you expose our park system to by leaving it in federal control. Every time there is a budget dispute you could see a sitting president play games with the parks. I believe a park ranger pulled a gun on a tour bus of senior citizens during this last altercation. I'd just assume avoid this situation in the future. Give the parks to the states.
The feds can save whatever they're spending on parks for whatever they want to spend money on elsewhere. The states would be very happy to take up stewardship of the parks and should run them as well or better then the feds.
I really don't see the argument for not doing this yesterday.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
..... and scantily clad women running around between them.
OK...how much for the scantily clad women? I'll be their best boy. I'll trade in a gaffer and key grip..
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?
Well, since you missed my point. Your comment was off topic as is this pointlessly long response that I didn't read in its entirety because it was quite obvious that you missed the point and are just looking for even the slightest reason to go off on some rant about some cause that you feel is near and dear to you. This slashdot topic is discussing the US Forest Service and a stupid policy they're trying to implement. Bringing in national parks has no bearing what-so-ever since they are under the dominion and control of the US National Park Service which is completely distinct and separate from the US Forest Service.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
The National Parks belong to all the people of America. But, only the rich privileged class can afford to vacation in Yellowstone. What about the poor underprivileged minority children in our big cities? They can't afford to pack an SUV and drive to Yosemite, or Bryce Canyon, or Glacier or whatever. It's only fair that the rich exploiters should be soaked by the Forest Service so that the government gets more money to help the people who really need it. If they take the money away from parasitic capitalist vacationers, good! They probably have too much, anyway. (I'm kidding, of course. Unfortunately, the government isn't.)
How do I commercially gain from protecting the forest from human abuse / misuse?
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Are these guys serious? This sounds like the city of Rio de Janeiro requiring a license before you can show the state of christ the redeemer on any video piece (advertisement, movies etc), which is tried to do (not sure if they passed the law or not). It is insane.
These are public places. What's next, the FAA requiring a license before you can shoot a picture of the sky?
morcego
Wrong. This is ANOTHER stupid law and ANOTHER sign that the parks are being mismanaged. My solution to this ONGOING problem is to turn the parks over to the states where they will likely be better taken care of and problems at the federal level will not effect the parks at that point.
That was my point... which YOU missed.
Good day, sir.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
before the EPA does this same sort of thing with air. It'll start out as an authority to monitor air pollutants, but then they'll start telling people that unless they're indoors, gathering more than 100 people at any place outdoors produces to much carbon at one place. And so if you want to have a concert/civic function outdoors, you can just pay them $1,500.
Eventually people will all walk around with guns and shoot anyone in that tries to fine them for such. It'll be such an event that everyday people will help complete strangers hide the body.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
I used to be an Usher for a Professional Basketball team before cameras on cellphones came out. Originally any camera other then a normal Point and Shoot were banned due to media licensing rights, we would confiscate and destroy film if someone was caught using one.
When Cellphones started to have cameras and video, we were originally told to do the same. Confiscate and watch them delete the image/video...but it was so ridiculously cumbersome that that was very quickly reversed. They are so prolific and hard to catch in the act, it's near impossible to enforce.
I can't believe the lawyers for the Forest Service haven't mentioned what happened in the Sporting industry...well actually I do believe it.
Permits cost $1500.00 and Fines without permit cost $1000.00. I should have been a Forest Service Treasurer.
Just to be clear, the $1500 cost is for major film production, think very disruptive to enjoyment of other park users (well, unless you went hiking to watch film being made, then again, you probably will get shooed away since they paid their fee). Less disruptive minor commercial shoots cost more like $30, kind of in the same cost range as your day use pass. Hikers and general public can take all the pictures they want with the cost of the day use pass. I know it is an outrage to pay for use of a public resource, maybe we could go back to the old days were parks were free and we just paid for them with taxes?
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.
Hmmmm... should I pay the $1,500 up front, or risk the $1,000 fine? Decisions, decisions...
Almost sounds like the Ag-Gag anti-photo people think the woods is a logical extension.
What the hell's going on with the USA?
You guys are becoming more and more, well, fucked.
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.... 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
Conspiracy theories are fun, but I incompetence is probably an adequate explanation here.
Those who do evil figured out a long time ago that the easiest way to not get caught is to make all of your actions look like incompetence.
Indeed, I'd suggest that only those who regularly use incompetence as an excuse for their own misdeeds pretend to be ignorant of such an obvious fact.
the two words mean different things. was doing something else.
if there's pines there it's because they wanted them there
broken window
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's called Fox News Anchor Women
Table-ized A.I.
Explain these draconian laws? Because another point I'd lay out there is that the enforcement and policing of federal parks is so poor that drug cartels are growing marijuana in them. That either isn't happening or is happening much less in state parks. Which is another argument in favor of giving them to state institutions where the state should at least police the land for people growing drug plantations.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
This is just wrong. What does the Forest Service have to say in the matter. It's none of their business to be the thought police.
This whole post is wrong. None of the supposed facts check out. Google it, US Forest Service Photography.
So, you film your footage just outside the designated area, with the boundary sign visible in the background. "And here is Joe Bloggs, sacked by $FedralAgency$ for revealing the increase in cases of Yogi-buggering in Jellystone Pork Barrel."
Like, it's never been done before.
Does America still have freedom of movement and of association?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Agreed but trying to prove you have a valid point by calling it a slippery slope is a terrible choice.
The law may be too broad but I have come to the conclusion that laws are a lot like wishes in DnD. If you do not close every loophole something terrible will happen.
If you make the law too broad then it can restrict perfectly safe and reasonable actions which is bad.
If you make the law too narrow and then it does provide the protection that is needed.
This law is designed to prevent film crews setting up a shoot in the middle of a national forest.
What you do not want is to prevent visitors from getting a snap of the wife and kids at Old Faithful.
You also have a middle ground of say a bunch of high school kids shooting a youtube video with sets and props.
Or a small independant film.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.