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.
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.
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.
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."
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...
John
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.
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.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
That is just simply not true as far as federal land designated a wilderness in the United States. Any backpacker can tall you. There is no need for a permit to enter any federal publicly owned wilderness unless posted otherwise. In a decade of traveling local, state, and federal land systems I have never seen any postings in, on, or around any federal land that states a permit is necessary for entry. A permit is required for taking of lumber, minerals, wildlife, extended stays, and occasionally overnight stays. There can even be usage fees. But no permit required. Please stop it with this "you don'nt have the right" nonsense. The United States takes rights and ownership of land usage very seriously and it is very clear that the rights holders are the public.
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