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.

Comments

Forest Circus.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

$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: Forest Circus.

[Anonymous Coward]

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: Forest Circus.

[grcumb]

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.

[Dahamma]

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: Forest Circus.

[Phreakiture]

Actually, that's per copy per picture.

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: Forest Circus.

[Jeremy Erwin]

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: Forest Circus.

[Talderas]

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 handle that situation and the media circus that was created. This way they can greatly clamp down on any coverage of similar future standoffs.

Re:Forest Circus.

[Jawnn]

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.

Re: Forest Circus.

[ganjadude]

if its not owned by an individual, I as an american "own" it. and as such, I do have rights to be there. I dont have rights to destroy anything there, or take any plants or wildlife out of said area. But I sure as hell have rights to be there. At least in NY anyway (source - me, Im constantly out in the mountains of NY)

Re: Forest Circus.

[TwoEyedJack]

Actually, wilderness is far more restrictive. You cannot even ride a bicycle in wilderness. Wheeled game carriers? Forgettaboutit.

Re: Forest Circus.

[Jeremy Erwin]

my fault. I was extrapolating from the "Whitney Zone"- where permits are most definitely required for entry.

Re: Forest Circus.

[RatherBeAnonymous]

Most wilderness areas are restricted to day trips only, i.e. no camping, without a permit.

Re: Forest Circus.

[Terry Pearson]

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 handle that situation and the media circus that was created. This way they can greatly clamp down on any coverage of similar future standoffs.

Wasn't the forest service the ones that instituted a "free speech zone" during the Bundy incident last year? Not only that, but those taking pictures of the forest service harming animals were beaten and had their camera equipment confiscated. It seems to me that this may have more to do with silencing whistle blowers than it does with photographing nature on public lands.

I think this is a sad course of events. U.S. Forest service land should be open to the public to enjoy nature, take pictures, and more. It should not be hidden behind a locked gate, where nobody but the forest service can see it.

Re: Forest Circus.

[DanielRavenNest]

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: Forest Circus.

[Curunir_wolf]

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 Circus.

[dcw3]

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: Forest Circus.

[pspahn]

-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 most photographed wilderness area in the country as well as being a particularly dangerous hike due to loose rock and lots of traffic.

Aside from these basic measures, there are also permits for collecting firewood, Christmas trees, and other forest products (varies by region).

Re: Forest Circus.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Forest Circus.

[danbert8]

Hope you don't drive through a national forest with a dash cam...

Re: Forest Circus.

[mysidia]

This will never fly. Wilderness areas like that are considered public property and as such the government cannot prohibit people from taking pictures.

This is not unprecedented. L.A. already has similar rules if you want to take pictures from any of their public parks, forests, or other public property, you need a permit for each day from FilmLA, costing several thousand $$$.

In particular you need a permit to take pictures of the Hollywood sign, in addition you have to pay a license for trademark rights, if you want to use any of the images in a publication.

Re: Forest Circus.

[Blakey Rat]

The only thing I can think of it the fine might be "per photo" while the permit is, say, as many photos as you like for the next X months.

In that case, the fine would very very quickly become more expensive than the permit.

Re: Forest Circus.

[ganjadude]

i think the disabled people might have some complaints about that

Re: Forest Circus.

[hondo77]

No, you don't. Good luck to you on wandering through CIA headquarters, your local Air Force runways, buildings where people are processing returns for the IRS, etc.

Re: Forest Circus.

[Swave An deBwoner]

For some people it can be rather hard to pay for the training and permits to be able to get a CCW permit.

Gee, if they didn't get their firearms training in the military and they have no family or friends to teach them and they can't afford to pay for training, I'm not sure I want them to be carrying.

Re: Forest Circus.

[Optali]

It would have been brilliant if they had shot the guy XD What an opportunity lost to make good comedy

Re: Forest Circus.

[davydagger]

Its kinda why my response to the wholy Bundy fiasco was "zero fucks given".

Its painfully obvious that its not "public" land, but private government land. Its kind of obvious that zero fucks are generally given by the US government about government land.

So then some government PR person had the nerve to show up on a "left leaning" subforums I also partake in, and *demand*, I repeat *demand* that we take action/outrage/etc... against bundy for acting against the government, soley on the merit he's a right winger.

Now don't get me wrong. I couldn't say I care much for the man, listing a whole laundry list of personal flaws. But I had, have, no incentive to help the government on this issue.

Re: Forest Circus.

[davydagger]

aparantly not. Like most other things in this country, "public property" and "public ownership" is an empty phrase when it comes down to election time, and its fairly meaningless anytime else.

There are two sets of "facts" we live by. "Actual facts", and "political facts". I.E. The way they say the US runs when we decide to bomb some 3rd world country, and the way the US runs when we actually deal with the system on a day to day basis, or have some idea/complaint/gripe about the system.

Yeah sorry, no

[afidel]

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

[timeOday]

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.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[gandhi_2]

freedom of the press?
how about just freedom?

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[ron_ivi]

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:Yeah sorry, no

[plover]

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...

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[Opportunist]

You haven't been around much those last 13 or so years, have you?

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[Dahamma]

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:Yeah sorry, no

[buybuydandavis]

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:Yeah sorry, no

[MildlyTangy]

There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

What use is a soap box to defend liberty? The only soap boxes I can find in the supermarket are the size of a bar of soap (obviously), and I fail to see how this can be useful in any way to defend liberty. Is it a subtle hint that the enemies of liberty need a shower? Buggered if I know....

Ballot box? Lets see...choice #1 or choice #2....how can you choose when neither choice changes anything?

Jury box? I guess thats a way to defend liberty...but how can you in secret courts that have no juries?

Now the ammo box I can understand...Murica! F yeah! Murica! MURICAAAA!!!! Land of the FREE! Freedom! Democracy! Liberty! Guns!!...but the government have bigger guns and tanks and armored vehicles and drones and aircraft and ships and missiles and....yeah, fat lot of good your guns will do.

Maybe its tile to finally retire that faded old meme. Its utterly meaningless nowadays.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[Anonymous Coward]

What use is a soap box to defend liberty? The only soap boxes I can find in the supermarket are the size of a bar of soap (obviously), and I fail to see how this can be useful in any way to defend liberty. Is it a subtle hint that the enemies of liberty need a shower? Buggered if I know....

I think it's more a reference to the fact that if you want people to take you seriously, you need to wash.

Or, for the humour-impaired, it's a reference to the fact that bulk soap (and other things) used to be packaged in sturdy wooden crates, which were good for standing on while you shouted at people on the street corner.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[korbulon]

Or as Ron Swanson put it:

“Never Half-ass Two Things. Whole-ass One Thing.”

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[drinkypoo]

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:Yeah sorry, no

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Yeah sorry, no

[Talderas]

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

[Talderas]

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:Yeah sorry, no

[Valisky]

after observing his reaction to his Ex Tina i have lost a great deal of respect for Ron Swanson. He's no Bill Brasky.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[Cardoor]

i hate to break it to you, but freedom of the press has long since waned here - especially when it comes in conflict with any sort of moneyed or politically connected interests. whether its hacking/monitoring/raiding/harassing the few remaining independent sources, or outright banning coverage of certain things (ie, ag-gag laws) with threats of fines or imprisonment.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[NoImNotNineVolt]

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:Yeah sorry, no

[strikethree]

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 brakes (breaks?) so that controlled burns could happen. I picked up garbage at camp grounds.

In short, we did a lot of work and none of it was oriented towards profits or commercial activities or "monetizing" forests. We made the forests a safer, cleaner, and nicer place for people to hike and enjoy nature.

Are there questionable activities taking place in some areas? Probably. To write the Forest Service off as some Federal monetization group is just absurd hyperbole.

(CAPTCHA is stoned. God I wish. It has been entirely too many years...)

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[n6kuy]

de facto controller of all government land that isn't under direct and immediate control of another agency

I thought that was the BLM.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[buback]

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:Yeah sorry, no

[afidel]

Now the ammo box I can understand...Murica! F yeah! Murica! MURICAAAA!!!! Land of the FREE! Freedom! Democracy! Liberty! Guns!!...but the government have bigger guns and tanks and armored vehicles and drones and aircraft and ships and missiles and....yeah, fat lot of good your guns will do

Uh, a small minority of people in a foreign country with a gun ownership rate 1/10th that of the US just kept all our high tech war apparatus occupied for over a decade, if you think the military operating on domestic soil (massive desertions) would be able to subjugate the populace by force you're nuts.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[multimediavt]

Sorry, ignorant not "Insightful".

1. Citation or some info to back your assertion
2. All lands west of the Mississippi were bought by the Federal Govt starting with the Louisiana Purchase
3. Those lands were opened up for homesteading under the Homestead acts starting in 1862 and homesteading on those lands (most given to people for free, up to 160 acres, growing in size with subsequent legislation) continued up through the New Deal
4. Bureau of Land Management then managed any land not acquired during those acts and continues to manage Federally owned and paid for (centuries ago in some cases) land

To say that the government doesn't have the right to do with the land as it pleases (land the government can show deed to) is disingenuous at best and subverting our government's rightful authority at worst.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[drinkypoo]

There are a bunch of Native Americans who might disagree with you, there.

Your point is well-taken, but I'm talking about the USA era, not pre-USA. I come from what used to be Ohlone land and I now live in what used to be Pomo land...

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[drinkypoo]

Are there questionable activities taking place in some areas? Probably. To write the Forest Service off as some Federal monetization group is just absurd hyperbole.

The best thing to do would be to look at the USFS budget and see where the money is spent. Sadly, their 2015 budget overview is 70 pages long, and "surprisingly" doesn't begin with a simple pie chart that shows where the money is going. And I have other shit to do this morning. Then we can decide what the priorities really are.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[drinkypoo]

To say that the government doesn't have the right to do with the land as it pleases (land the government can show deed to) is disingenuous at best

To suggest that the government is a single entity which has a right to dispense with that which belongs to all of us is disingenuous at best.

and subverting our government's rightful authority at worst.

Our government has a right to that authority which we the people grant it, no more. But that land is meant to be for public use, and is being monetized to the detriment of the public.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[Sir_Eptishous]

I come from what used to be Ohlone land and I now live in what used to be Pomo land...

So you were born in Santa Clara and now live in Boonville.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[drinkypoo]

So you were born in Santa Clara and now live in Boonville.

Santa Cruz and Kelseyville actually, so better and worse respectively. The Santa Cruz Mission is just up the hill as you go from downtown to the East side. Now I live on in a town named after a man whose wife is reputed to have poured water in the gunpowder to help the natives rise up and kill her slaving, murdering, raping husband. Ah, American history.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[timeOday]

I know, and I largely agree with you, too. But you're comparing the National Forest land with an ideal that it never was in the first place.

The American West was first stolen from native americans, then gifted to the barons of railroads, mining, logging, and ranching, because they owned the government - Federal to a large degree but state to a huge degree. It was an incredible battle for Teddy Roosevelt to establish federal control of the lands and the US Forest Service at all, and would never happen again today, who would even dare try? The land was already being exploited and it took decades to reign it in even to the point where it is now. Setting aside all that land as wilderness was never in the cards. Look at the entrance signs - "Land of Many Uses." It is a compromise. Europe has nothing like it. Don't get me wrong, we should absolutely keep bitching about sweetheard deals and encroachment, but I also run trails in the national forest near my home every morning before breakfast, and I feel very lucky to do so.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[TwoEyedJack]

Harvesting timber is not land raping. Where I live, each summer we have the delightful experience of breathing burned trees. Last year it was so bad that there were air quality alerts for weeks on end. We can harvest and utilize trees, or we can breath smoke and pay to fight forests. A rational person would prefer harvest.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[drinkypoo]

Harvesting timber is not land raping

They're basically farming those trees on our land, at our expense since the prevailing rate would be much higher.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[rhodium_mir]

Maybe on the east coast. On the west coast that isn't even close to true. In Oregon, for example, the only national park is Crater Lake NP which is a mere 286 square miles while the National Forest Service and BLM manage 22k and 25k square miles, respectively.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[rhodium_mir]

It's true of literally any agency that controls land.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[Curunir_wolf]

I wonder if it doesn't have something to do with the fact the forest service is the de facto controller of all government land that isn't under direct and immediate control of another agency. So if your near the Pentagon and take a photo and a Marine isn't right there, you may need the USDA permit.

You can't take a picture of the Pentagon, even from non-military property with a view of the building. The MPs will jump on you quick and you'll be under military detention.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[TwoEyedJack]

And my state use to collect royalties on timber harvest to fund public schools. Now we have high property taxes and get to breath burning trees each summer.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[drinkypoo]

And my state use to collect royalties on timber harvest to fund public schools. Now we have high property taxes and get to breath burning trees each summer.

I don't know the particulars of your state's arrangement. I know that the BLM awards permits on fairly specious bases, however, and does not do a particularly ecologically-friendly job of "managing" the land.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[rmayes100]

The dead give away should be that the Forest Service is part of the US Department of Agriculture. Our forests represent the largest crop in North America if not the world. That's part of the reason pine beetles are killing a lot of the forests in the western half of the US, because they are not forests at all, they are mono-culture stands of lodge pole pines with all the susceptibility to pests and disease that any other mono-culture crop represents.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[pspahn]

You do know, logging is only allowed in National Forests, and not National Parks, right? Just checking.

Except we're talking about neither. We're talking about Wilderness Areas. Resource extraction does exist in Wilderness Areas, though it is quite limited and generally due to those acts being grandfathered in since they occurred before the Wilderness Act. Also, FTFA:

Close didn't cite any real-life examples of why the policy is needed or what problems it's addressing.

It's tough for the media to report on this story accurately when the Forest Service won't even acknowledge why this policy is necessary or what situations it addresses. Without that everyone is simply left to guess what this is all about.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[pspahn]

I suggest you familiarize yourself about the Mountain Pine Beetle.

In the context of Climate Change, would it be better to have millions of dead trees burn, millions of dead trees decompose, or millions of dead trees built into furniture?

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[pspahn]

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.

Where do these people come from? Free access to National Parks? Hardly. While I admit that a National Parks Pass is one of the greatest deals around, it is certainly not free. National Forest, on the other hand, I have never once paid to use (outside of camping with friends that prefer to use the paid campgrounds instead of open forest access). I did pay I think $7 to get a firewood permit when I lived in Summit County (allowed to cut standing-dead beetle kill only), so that wasn't free, but it was hundreds of dollars cheaper than buying the firewood for the winter. Also, I will admit that tomorrow the National Parks will be free (instead of the $10-25 entrance fee you would normally pay).

Most of the lands you are going onto as an outdoorsman are managed by the NPS and not the FS.

I would be curious to see what you come up with as a citation. The majority of Federal land is in the West. The majority of that land in the west is part of the Forest Service. There's lot of National Parks as well, but their area is nothing compared to NFS and/or BLM land.

I am an avid fisherman, and I can probably count on a single hand the number of times I've bothered to fish in a National Park. With few exceptions (Slough Creek and some of the other "Holy Grail" type streams that exist in National Parks) there are just too many people to have any fun. National Forests, on the other hand, are generally the best places to go for public fishing access.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[pspahn]

It's no mystery as to why the number of board feet of timber harvested in NFS controlled lands in 1988 was nearly 12 billion, while in 1999 it was less than 2 billion (2013 was a similar number).

While I don't discount the fact that presidential policies might have had an effect, but do you think that maybe there were less trees harvested in 2013 because they had all either died and decomposed or burned already? Take a trip to a Western forest affected by Mountain Pine Beetle and it will be evident when you look up the mountain side and see 90% of the trees standing dead. Here's some images that should give you an idea

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[Talderas]

It's managed by the NPS and the other organizations partner with them to help, including the USFS, but as far as policy and legal aspects go it's under NPS jurisdiction.

http://www.nps.gov/appa/parkmg...

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[Talderas]

I was a bit mistaken about the access permitted to national forests. I was also not talking libre not gratis when I wrote free. The appalachian trail, however, is definitely under the jurisdiction of the NPS.

Re: Yeah sorry, no

[HornWumpus]

Baron Rothschild? Seriously, who was the big money behind France back then?

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[pspahn]

I was also not talking libre not gratis when I wrote free.

Either way, National Parks are among the most restricted places in the country. You can't have dogs. You pay to get in. You have to stay on the trails. Any kind of fishing/hunting is highly restricted. Camping involves setting up a tent in what amounts to a parking lot.

National Parks have a lot of beauty and I appreciate some of these rules, but they are definitely not places where you are free to do as you wish.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[drinkypoo]

I suggest you familiarize yourself about the Mountain Pine Beetle.

No, I suggest that you do that. In most of the BLM land, there's long since no native trees.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[BarbaraHudson]

There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

What use is a soap box to defend liberty? The only soap boxes I can find in the supermarket are the size of a bar of soap (obviously), and I fail to see how this can be useful in any way to defend liberty. Is it a subtle hint that the enemies of liberty need a shower? Buggered if I know....

Soap used to be delivered in wooden crates. Handy to have one around to stick things in, kind of like the plastic crates that bags of milk are delivered to the stores today. Most people would have had one or more hanging around. So, if you wanted to make a speech and be seen, you could just grab one of the ubiquitous soap boxes and stand on it.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[Dahamma]

First: it's Bryson, not Branson.

Second: As someone else pointed out as well, the National Park Service and National Forest Service are two entirely different things. Bryson hates the NFS, but while pointing out flaws thinks very differently of the NPS. It's a major point of the book he goes into at length. I can't believe as a supposed "outdoorsman" you don't even know the different between the NFS and NPS.

And for the most part he loved the Appalachian Trail and what's being done with it. You clearly didn't read the book, so why should I take your post critiquing it with anything more than a grain of salt? If you don't think someone who hiked over 1000 miles on the AT doesn't have the right to have an opinion on it, you are a tool.

And Third: yes, I have done extensive back county hiking, including many multi-day hikes in Yosemite, Big Sur, Big Basin, the Shawnee NF, etc. So please go take your elitist attitude somewhere else.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[Dahamma]

Camping involves setting up a tent in what amounts to a parking lot.

That one is completely untrue. You can do backcountry hiking in many National Parks - and in fact while it does require a permit, it's basically always granted because 99.9% of the tourists (including you, it sounds) don't get more than a couple miles from the trailhead and "campgrounds".

Go on a 3-4 day hike (especially semi-offseason) and halfway through day 1 you may not encounter another human for the rest of the hike.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[Dahamma]

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.

Your anecdote, while minority encouraging, it completely unrepresentative of the larger STATISTICS. Doubt there are many Navajo employees outside of New Mexico and Arizona, which in any case are two fairly insignificant logging states. And facts are facts - if the NFS has the 2nd most road construction engineers of any organization in the world and manages the largest network of roads in the world, they clearly build a lot of roads. It's not something that can be debated :)

And it's possible (and common) for good people to work for shitty organizations. I have nothing against the checkers at Walmart, either, they work hard for their paycheck like many other people.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[thogard]

The USDA's budget is 100x that of the BLM. Sure one is dept of Ag and the other is Dept of Interior but I'm not sure it matters much since I think the USDA has claim to all BLM land as well.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[pspahn]

because 99.9% of the tourists (including you, it sounds)

Honestly, and with few exceptions (Black Canyon being one, but that's a permit that can take years to get), I prefer to stay out of the National Parks, as they tend to be exactly the type of place I am looking to avoid when I visit nature. Yes, you can avoid the crowds and go hike in somewhere. Even then you're dealing with a bunch of weekend warriors (including you, it sounds) that get territorial about camp sites and cock-sure with all that fancy gear that gets used twice ... maybe three times before it sits in the garage for six years collecting dust.

Go on a single day hike (several days in a row, of course) up and down a Western river canyon. If you know what you're doing, you can time the bug hatch with the off-peak Mondays and Tuesdays following holidays so as to also avoid all that weekend warrior traffic to and from the cities as a bonus.

Even beyond that, "camping" should not involve a 3-4 day hike to get somewhere to avoid crowds. That's called backpacking. The camping I refer to in my previous comment is done on gravel lots with a parking space adjacent and a number on a post and some over-zealous retiree driving around in a golf cart. This fact alone makes your entire post redundant.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[q4Fry]

A picture is worth 500 trees, if they're selling trees at $2 each, and fining for pictures at $1,000 each.

But seriously, thanks for posting this. I remembered reading the book and was hoping someone would make the citation so I could remember the numbers.

Re:Yeah sorry, no

[multimediavt]

To suggest that the government is a single entity which has a right to dispense with that which belongs to all of us is disingenuous at best.

I don't believe I suggested or implied any such thing. The government of the U.S. is elected by people from all over the U.S. and those representatives get together to decide on rules and regulations to govern the people and land the U.S. possesses. Just because you happen to be in the minority of people that think all land not private property should be used by the public any way they see fit doesn't make it so. The land does belong to all of us, but we don't get to individually decide what to do with it, and the people have spoken, the rules are in place. If you don't like them work through your government representatives to change those rules. Remember, you still have to convince the rest of us that what you want to do is correct otherwise the votes won't be there and your changes won't happen. That's how democracy works. You also seem to be describing the government as some giant profit center that's taking money from the people and doing nothing with it. Again, if you don't like what they do with the money or you don't like paying that money, see the steps above again for how to change that. Again, good luck. And where does it say in any government document that the land in question is "there for public use"? If that were true you could walk onto any military installation and do what you wanted because it's on Federal land! No, not how that works. There are rules and those rules are made by the people, for the people by people of the people, also known as our government.

WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

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:WTF?

[I'm New Around Here]

Oh yes, the only explanation must involve those evil corporations, not some over-reaching government entity full of do-gooders and tree-huggers. Those people never make stupid policies or punish the common citizens.

Re:WTF?

[Opportunist]

And those tree huggers would mind you taking a photo of their precious trees ... why exactly?

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

And those tree huggers would mind you taking a photo of their precious trees ... why exactly?

You realize that you are talking about the Forest Service that prefers to hug trees with chain saws, don't you?

Re:WTF?

[Feyshtey]

Wow. Did you overdose on your conspiracy pills this morning? Seriously dude, turn off MSNBC and get help. Right Now.

Re:WTF?

[Sir_Eptishous]

You seem to have overlooked the part where the evil corporations OWN the over-reaching government outright.
You should try paying attention once in a while.

Re:WTF?

[I'm New Around Here]

If the logging and paper companies owned the Forestry Service, there wouldn't be a forest left to serve.

Numbers

[imemyself]

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

Re:Numbers

[sconeu]

You missed the point of his amusement. It's cheaper to pay the fine than to get the permit.

Re:Numbers

[jxander]

Perhaps intentional. The forest service (or whoever is behind this) has to know that the whole concept is unconstitutional and will not survive a day in court. So the draftsman decided to have a little laugh with it, and make sure we all knew it wasn't being taken seriously

Re:Numbers

[Harlequin80]

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:Numbers

[cbeaudry]

You think you can get the picture back from the internet once it has been posted?

Re:Numbers

[oodaloop]

I found it funny too, then found out it's $1,000 per picture per copy. So one picture distributed 10 times would be far more costly than getting a permit.

Re:Numbers

[n6kuy]

... has to know that the whole concept is unconstitutional

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.

... and will not survive a day in court.

You must be new to America, yeah?

Re:Numbers

[Jeremy Erwin]

Here's the fee schedule for commercial photography Essentially, if you have more than 50 people on site (and therefore require the most expensive permits), a $1500 permit fee will be a very small portion of your costs. I'm guessing that $5 million in liability insurance will prove costlier, but, of course, that's only needed if you
a.) rent a helicopter or use one you already own
b) pay for aviation fuel
c) pay the pilot

and so on...

Re:Numbers

[Jeremy Erwin]

fee schedule

Re:Numbers

[CaptainDork]

And I predict a "blacklist" database to go with it.

Re:All federal parks should be turned into state..

[afidel]

Looking into the history of the grand canyon to see why that is not such a good idea...

Forest Service already wilting from the blowback

[decaffeinated]

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.

For the money, by the money

[EzInKy]

Free access to anything is anti-capatilistic. Money must be exchanged for the people to enjoy the sights in the land of the free.

Re:For the money, by the money

[Anonymous Coward]

While I know that you are trying to be funny there is something that should be pointed out here.
The U.S. Forest Service is funded by tax money and the federal parks are public property, it belongs to all of us.
It's fair to say that they should try to prevent someone from doing an disproportional amount of damage to the parks, but trying to limit the public access to public property is just immoral.
While the analogy halts a little, if I as a private entity tried to limit your access to your property that would be considered theft.

Not only does this need to be shut down, but someone needs to ask whoever thought this was a good idea what the fuck they are doing and if they really are suitable for a job where they are supposed to serve the public interest.

Re:For the money, by the money

[Talderas]

The US Forest Service is a separate organization from the US national Park Service and they manage separate land.

Re: Petitions.org...

[jsh1972]

Didn't read TFA, but the summary at least specifies this is for media - says nothing about private citizens taking pictures or video on their vacations or whatever.

Already backing down

[pgd7sen]

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

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Bogus justification

[Loki_1929]

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:Petitions.org...

[spire3661]

A simple tripod is not an issue and should never require a permit. Its not some special rig, its a stand for a camera, nothing more.

Re: Petitions.org...

[I'm New Around Here]

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:Petitions.org...

[plover]

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:Don't we own the land?

[dowsell]

Must resist.... must resist.... must.... "All your trees are belong to us", "I for one welcome our tree hugging overlords". "But they've got root access..."

Re:there's an easy solution to this shit.

[plover]

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.

Should we jump to conclusions?

[naughtynaughty]

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!

Re:Should we jump to conclusions?

[lannocc]

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:Should we jump to conclusions?

[atomicthumbs]

so a landscape photographer who wants to take photos in the woods needs a permit? wow.

Re:Should we jump to conclusions?

[ruir]

Nature copyrighted, such a vanguard concept. And do not talk about it, forest guards family have to eat. (note to idiots, this is sarcasm)

Re:Should we jump to conclusions?

[LWATCDR]

You do know that the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

It actually sounds pretty good as a law to me.

Re:Should we jump to conclusions?

[n6kuy]

... the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

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 perhaps he thought little of at the time.
--Thomas De Quincey, "Second Paper on Murder"

Re:Should we jump to conclusions?

[ClioCJS]

The slope *is* slippery, and it's not a fallacy. 100% of government laws to prevent commercial photography get applied against non-commercial photography. 100%. Go read the PhotographyIsNotACrime blog. You can find story after story, month after month, year after year, of people being arrested for "not being allowed to film" in an area. The fact of the matter is, the enforcers never read the fine print in these laws, and 100% of the time, they apply to you and me. Calling this fallacious because of a logical fallacy in a list of logical fallacies is actually the logically fallacy here. It's a bit counter-intuitive, but if you stop to realize the government itself is illogical, then you realize: All slippery slope arguments pertaining to encroaching government are actually true. If not all, 99%.

Re:Should we jump to conclusions?

[Sir_Eptishous]

on National Forest System lands that takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed

WTF is this bullshit?!?
Really?
There are wilderness designated areas in National Forests that people are in on a constant basis:

Wilderness is an area of Federal Land that is free from modern human control or manipulation, is undeveloped, and provides outstanding opportunites for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. Wilderness areas are generally over 5,000 acres in size and may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

Heck, there are wilderness areas where ranchers can graze cattle.

Re:Should we jump to conclusions?

[jd.schmidt]

Yes, setting up a tent for camping in a park costs more than simple day use, you need a camping permit. When we decided that people using the parks should help or mostly pay for them, guess what, people using the parks need to pay for them. The park service is trying to set rules such that the more you "use" the park, aka the more disruptions your presence causes to others and nature, the more you pay. That crazy thing about all this is the right wing can't even remember that they asked for this in the first place.

Re:Should we jump to conclusions?

[pspahn]

Sure, let's find out. I was heading up to Indian Peaks Wilderness this weekend to take some fall color photos. I have a tripod that looks and acts more like a hiking staff. My girlfriend was going to wear a nice dress, so I guess she's going to be a model.

And in the event I actually see anyone else up there, I'll be sure to let them know where to find my permit.

Re:Should we jump to conclusions?

[Phoenix Rising]

No. Exactly the opposite. The definition the USFS defines for Still Photography does not include landscape photographers.

Re:Should we jump to conclusions?

[LWATCDR]

Then it is not a slippery slope.

Re:Should we jump to conclusions?

[ClioCJS]

It's a slippery slope, just not a slippery slope fallacy.

It's time to fire samzenpus

[Anonymous Coward]

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:It's time to fire samzenpus

[Nimey]

I have to agree, this is nothing but yellow journalism and /. and Dice should be ashamed of it.

Re:It's time to fire samzenpus

[ClioCJS]

Huh?? This WILL affect normal civilians. Calling journalism "yellow" when the only fallacy is your own inability to understand how this affects you and me -- THAT's the failing here.

Re:It's time to fire samzenpus

[Sir_Eptishous]

Mmmm... Can you smell that?
It's that sickly sweet, sort of decaying flesh odour of AC apologetics.
Hey, genius, jump over and read this before you start awarding Nobel prizes to the idiots that penned this rule.

Here is an excerpt for you:

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.

Re:It's time to fire samzenpus

[CaptainLard]

Dice should be ashamed of it.

Why? We're all here posting and pumping up the page views...

You want to bet?

[pablo_max]

"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:You want to bet?

[Skylinux]

mhhh what is that called ... oh yea Bullshit! and citation needed!

Re:You want to bet?

[pablo_max]

...driving his quad on his neighborhood's private road...

I did. Because it is a privately owned road. I.e. private property.

Re:You want to bet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation

Re:You want to bet?

[Charliemopps]

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:You want to bet?

[amiga3D]

That joke is old.....but I still laughed.

Re:You want to bet?

[Bob_Who]

Appeals Court will deal with that crap. Ever since they started carrying guns everyone is afraid of these armed bureaucrats. Time to get some ACLU lawyers on this thuggery.

Re:You want to bet?

[Bob_Who]

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:You want to bet?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

They don't care. They didn't pay for it. We did.

Re:You want to bet?

[Logger]

You obviously aren't paying your required rent to your politicians.

Re:You want to bet?

[HornWumpus]

You don't get out of the burbs much do you?

Re:You want to bet?

[dcw3]

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:You want to bet?

[HornWumpus]

I'll just suggest anybody read the thread and decide who the complete idiot is...

It's the city twit who's commenting on things he clearly has no clue about. HOAs in rural America? That's analogous to some bumpkin telling you to help out your local volunteer fire department.

Re:You want to bet?

[antdude]

And you must be rich by now.

Re:You want to bet?

[gandhi_2]

I will take a country bumpkin in a any emergency, including a fire, over any metro hipster you can find clutching apple products in coffee shops.

Re:You want to bet?

[gandhi_2]

the best part? you are forced to fund your own attacker for as long as they feel like attacking.

Re:You want to bet?

[Tablizer]

It may be one or few jerks doing this. It's difficult to tell with the info given. Every org has jerks.

Re:You want to bet?

[dcw3]

I've worked around govt. employees for 38 years. It's not a unique situation, it's commonplace.

Re:You want to bet?

[sribe]

Then it's not his property, it's the neighbourhood association's property.

Who the fuck do you think the "neighborhood association" is, dumbass???

It would be composed of the property owners in the neighborhood, who also own some part of the property jointly, meaning, if you can follow this complex trail of logic, that he is one of the owners of the property in question.

Re:Petitions.org...

[Opportunist]

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:Petitions.org...

[Opportunist]

Because you simply do NOT want to take Italy as your role model when it comes to bureaucracy.

What is the cause?

[bradley13]

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:What is the cause?

[frovingslosh]

You're not paying attention. The cause is that the Forest "Service" wants to prevent reporting of their mismanagement of the land.

Re:What is the cause?

[bradley13]

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:What is the cause?

[swb]

The Forest Service probably has their own SWAT team and they're looking for some action.

Re:What is the cause?

[Talderas]

Their handling of the standoff with Bundy was a fiasco. This is their response for future engagements.

Re:Don't we own the land?

[Dahamma]

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...

Re:Petitions.org...

[x0ra]

how about the First Amendment ?

Re:Bogus justification

[Dahamma]

Wow, this was one topic I didn't think would get Godwinned.

Re:Petitions.org...

[linearZ]

The Supreme Court does say that money is free speech. Free as in a $1500 beer.

Another Power Grab

[Kalium70]

Another power grab by a federal government agency. Some kind of dick size complex.

This forest is locked down by DRM

[StripedCow]

It seems that DRM is more viral than the GPL.

Nazis

[sociocapitalist]

Another fucking US government agency that doesn't want any record of it's incompetence.

Re:Petitions.org...

[Feyshtey]

Or just make a law against interfering with access. Apply that both to tripods, and to bureaucratic knobs that want to regulate pictures on public land.

Proposed Policy indicates best solution

[fygment]

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.

Fire Liz Close

[AndyKron]

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.

Re:All federal parks should be turned into state..

[Talderas]

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:All federal parks should be turned into state..

[Talderas]

Also, the US Forest Service manages 193,000,000 acres to the National Park Service's 84,000,000.

Re:there's an easy solution to this shit.

[Talderas]

Thank you Martin Blanke.

Re:Petitions.org...

[Jeremy Erwin]

A display? , in a wilderness area? Do you know what wilderness is?

Re:as a soon to be tourist of the USA

[Talderas]

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:How to make money

[Talderas]

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.

Re: Forest Mc Circus.

[Bob_Who]

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.

Cram in regulations while Democrats still lead

[Applehu Akbar]

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.

Re:Cram in regulations while Democrats still lead

[rahvin112]

Everyone is the press. There is no accreditation or state licensing for reporters that limits their ranks. Any attempt to call actions that are clearly reporting because it's done by a private citizen are nothing but attempts to suppress speech. See, free speech IS free press.If you don't have free speech you don't have a free press, and if you don't have a free press you don't have free speech. It's why they are grouped in the 1st amendment, they ARE the same thing.

The only thing required for you to be a reporter is for you to report on something.

To Protect the Lumber industry

[Squidlips]

Who run the Forest Service.... not more embarassing photos of stump fields...

Re:To Protect the Lumber industry

[Sir_Eptishous]

BINGO!

Re: All federal parks should be turned into state.

[Dan East]

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.

It's not, and that wasn't actually slippery slope

[raymorris]

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.

Many ways they could make the $ but legally

[gurps_npc]

From what I read, the law looks like a blatant violation of the First Amendment. You can't stop people from taking pictures.

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.

Re:Many ways they could make the $ but legally

[Jeremy Erwin]

It's a sliding scale based on the crew size, as well as whatever extra work is required from the forest service to facilitate your activities. So yeah, if you have 60 people working as cast and crew, and a few rangers need to put in 50 hours of work managing your logistics, and it's a multi day shoot, it's going to cost more than if 2 or three guys take pictures for a couple of hours.

Commercial photography and filming request

Re:Bogus justification

[Kinthelt]

Wow, this was one topic I didn't think would get Godwinned.

That's something Joseph Stalin would say.

Re:All federal parks should be turned into state..

[Karmashock]

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.

Re:Bogus justification

[Bob_Who]

..... 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..

Yet another out-of-control govt agency

[RogueWarrior65]

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?

Re:Yet another out-of-control govt agency

[sl3xd]

Dogs have been eugenically engineered by humans for tens of thousands of years, and are therefore an artificial life form. They usually eat food that comes from a factory, and is artificial. Since you have an artificial life form eating artificial food, it's excreting artificial poop. Its urine is water that has been polluted by artificial processes. Hence the impact study.

By some definitions, anything created by a human is artificial, so all of our bodily wastes are artificial.

Re:Yet another out-of-control govt agency

[RogueWarrior65]

But then the Forest Service morons are also phony...I mean artificial...and hence their opinions are suspect.

Re:Yet another out-of-control govt agency

[HornWumpus]

In CA they like to drop boulders in the choke points to stop us wheeling in the forest.

It's a real pain; having to bring our own dozers and explosives in to clear the roads back out. Half the damage to the forests in the last decade has been routing around forest service obstructions.

Re:Yet another out-of-control govt agency

[david_thornley]

Look, if you get a bunch of dogs in one place, there's probably going to be a lot more dog poop than coyote poop per square meter. (Actually, I don't know much about coyotes. Do they like to poop in one place, or all over?)

Re:Yet another out-of-control govt agency

[RogueWarrior65]

Yep. Our Sheriff's Office Forest Patrol (who legally outranks the Forest Service BTW) refers to the Forest Service as the boulder fairies because they boulders appear during the night. Oh, and there are gates that are supposed to be 50-inches wide to restrict jeeps and large side-by-side ATVs from going through. That would be fine if they didn't mount the hinges on the inside of that 50 inches so you can't get a full 50 when you open the gate.

Re:Yet another out-of-control govt agency

[HornWumpus]

We've occasionally returned the gates to their yard. Only after they are beyond reuse of course.

Re:Yet another out-of-control govt agency

[RogueWarrior65]

Hee hee. That reminds me of the urban legend from way back in MIT's history. The city of Cambridge decided to install parking meters. Some students didn't like that so they went out an bought a parking meter at a junkyard and made sure that they got a detailed receipt for it. Then they stated going around campus hacksawing off parking meters. Whenever a cop saw them walking around with a meter and stopped them, they'd just show the receipt for the junkyard one. Pretty soon, there were no more meters around campus.

Re:All federal parks should be turned into state..

[Talderas]

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.

Social Justice

[biggaijin]

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.)

Re:Petitions.org...

[ganjadude]

it should be fairly simple. is it commercial? if so - permit, if not, fuck off. its my camera its photos for me (and my friends) im not making money on it so fuck off.

Re:Bogus justification

[jsepeta]

How do I commercially gain from protecting the forest from human abuse / misuse?

Pictures... of public forests... in the open...

[morcego]

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?

Re:All federal parks should be turned into state..

[Karmashock]

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 guess it's a matter of time

[BringsApples]

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.

Re:Petitions.org...

[spire3661]

Just because some bureaucrat decided that a tripod is the sign of a pro does not make it reality. Its a way to fleece people of money. I paid $30 for my tripod, it doesnt automatically make me a pro, just an amateur who likes long exposures.

This is a losing battle.

[foradoxium]

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.

More Samzenpus flamebait

[jd.schmidt]

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?

Re:Petitions.org...

[istartedi]

This is my understanding of the tripod issue. Definitely not weight, who cares about that? It's the legs spreading around, and the attitude that people have. You let those things in, you'd be surprised at what jerks people can be. OK, back country, nobody's gonna know. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about right below Bridalveil falls on a warm Sunday afternoon. It's crowded already. We don't need your tripod.

Now of course you could just pass a rule "not to be disruptive" as others have suggested. Problem? It'd be at the discretion of the rangers. Disputes would arise. Ranger: "His tripod and long lens were taking up space, and he was there for an hour trying to catch the light, telling people to move". Photog: "There's no rule against tripods or long lenses, and people with iPhones tell others to move sometimes too". And so on and so forth. It's easier just to ban certain types of equipment. I'm not saying it's the best way to handle it. It's just the reality of how laws and rules work. They're blunt instruments.

That's why a lot of people, even officials, will go "wink, wink, just do this" even though it's against the rules. Taking your tripod and some trash bucket lenses up to a peak at 3 AM for sunrise shots? Technically it might be against the rules but you won't bother anybody. You might even be able to sell the pictures for quite a while before anybody notices; but if you start making a name for yourself or disrupting popular spots, you're going to have to play by the rules.

Government at it's finest...

[superdave80]

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...

Re:Petitions.org...

[pspahn]

What about a not-so-simple tripod? I use a Trek-Pod. Does this mean hiking staffs shouldn't be allowed either?

We need to read the facts first...

[SoloHiker]

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

Re:We need to read the facts first...

[Ray_Patterson]

The problem then is if you have a friend hold an off-camera flash while you snap a few pictures of another friend who may be dressed nicely you will have a ranger who thinks that person is a model and kick you out or fine you. You'll be kicked out faster too if the ranger hears your friend mention they'd like to buy one of those pictures from you. Someone posing for a portrait for their house/office is not a model, but I have met rangers who think just posing for a picture makes the person a model.

Re:We need to read the facts first...

[jd.schmidt]

No, a model is someone being paid to model. If there is no money or compensation involved, you wouldn't be modeling.

misspoke, old growth, not native

[drinkypoo]

the two words mean different things. was doing something else.

if there's pines there it's because they wanted them there

broken window

Re:there's an easy solution to this shit.

[BarbaraHudson]

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.

... well, the pen IS mightier than the sword ... (sorry, couldn't resist).

And unfortunately, the ballot box is too far after the fact to be an effective regulator of "stupid people with stupid proposals," because sheeple have a very limited attention span and don't want to believe anything that goes against their previous actions. Before Rob Ford dropped out of the race, he was running a strong #2 in the polls for re-election. Heck, one of my sisters said that people were only making fun of him because he was fat.

Re:there's an easy solution to this shit.

[plover]

A strong #2? So who was supporting the Laughable Bumblefsck? It seems like a long list of very ignorant people to beware of.

And was your sister unaware of the booze, weed, crack, and even horse(!); the bullying; the thefts; the racism; the homophobia; the perjury; the groping; or the other assaults? Or was she simply glossing over them all in repayment for some preferential treatment that had somehow benefited her?

Re:Bogus justification

[Tablizer]

It's called Fox News Anchor Women

Re:there's an easy solution to this shit.

[BarbaraHudson]

A strong #2? So who was supporting the Laughable Bumblefsck? It seems like a long list of very ignorant people to beware of.

People who took everything he said at face value, probably because they voted for him before, and can't be bothered to do any fact checking when he says things like "My administration has had the lowest rate of tax increase in history". And the crack allegations were fake - right up until he admitted them (me - I said he was probably doing the whole "no comment" thing while trying to buy the video, and it turns out I was right). And then it was "the poor guy has a problem, people should just leave him alone. How would you like it if people treated you like that?" Totally sidestepping the issue that the guy can't do his job, was doing a very public meltdown, and despite multitudes of chances, only apologized (partially) at each step of the way when revelations made it impossible to do otherwise.

So yes, these ARE people that needed to be given a whack with a clue-by-four. Too bad that so many of them still don't get it. But there's no way her vote would be influenced by any sort of favor. She's already done the whole whistle-blower thing, including testifying in court. Such people tend to be on the "outs" when it comes to the distribution of privilege.

Re: All federal parks should be turned into state.

[Karmashock]

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.

Photography on Federal Lands

[Gruff 2005]

This whole post is wrong. None of the supposed facts check out. Google it, US Forest Service Photography.

So ??

[RockDoctor]

pay for a permit and get permission before shooting a photo or video in federally designated wilderness areas

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?

Re:It's not, and that wasn't actually slippery slo

[LWATCDR]

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.