Slashdot Mirror
Forest Service Wants To Require Permits For Photography
An anonymous reader points out this story about new regulations for media who wish to take pictures or video in federally designated wilderness areas. "The U.S. Forest Service has tightened restrictions on media coverage in vast swaths of the country's wild lands, requiring reporters to pay for a permit and get permission before shooting a photo or video in federally designated wilderness areas. Under rules being finalized in November, a reporter who met a biologist, wildlife advocate or whistleblower alleging neglect in 36 million acres of wilderness would first need special approval to shoot photos or videos even on an iPhone. Permits cost up to $1,500, says Forest Service spokesman Larry Chambers, and reporters who don't get a permit could face fines up to $1,000. First Amendment advocates say the rules ignore press freedoms and are so vague they'd allow the Forest Service to grant permits only to favored reporters shooting videos for positive stories.
Anyone who has worked with them knows why they are called "The Forest Circus".
If they are trying to make even MORE enemies among the public, this is a great idea.
doesn't the public already own public land?
This will get overturned the first time a journalist fights it, freedom of the press is probably the most important right in a democracy and this supreme court has shown that they're very strong advocates of the first amendment (perhaps too much so in their interpretation of corporate personhood, but that's another thread).
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
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?
Definitely not cool...but am I the only one that found the numbers amusing
Permits cost up to $1,500, says Forest Service spokesman Larry Chambers, and reporters who don't get a permit could face fines up to $1,000
Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
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.
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 based on user account deletion
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."
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.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
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.
John
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..."
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!
I mean seriously, why does this guy still have a job as an editor? Story after story, with distorted, inflammatory headlines or summaries, that end up being picked apart as "zomg nanny-state" baiting for the right-wing faction of the slashdot community.
These postings from samzenpus are not news for nerds, or stuff that matters. They're disingenuous advertising click-bait for a once-proud website that has let itself be co-opted by randroids.
"This will never fly."
I am betting it will fly. While I have not personally had any run ins with the forest service, I know folks who have.
I had one buddy who was ticketed for driving his quad on his neighborhood's private road by a US Forest service agent on Patrol from the adjacent land.
The local judge was going to though the ticket out since you normally cannot get a ticket on your own property. That was until he noticed the ticket came from the forest service.
The judge told him plainly, "sorry son, even we don't F with them. Just pay the ticket and let this go. Just be glad they only gave you a ticket and didn't take your home".
Because you simply do NOT want to take Italy as your role model when it comes to bureaucracy.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I haven't been able to find anything, but presumably something triggered this? Did some major Hollywood movie move in 20 trailers, 30 trucks and a demolition derby - and lay waste to a national park?
I mean, the proposed rule is stupidly worded, but I expect - thirteen layers back - it was meant to solve an actual problem.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Wow, this was one topic I didn't think would get Godwinned.
Another power grab by a federal government agency. Some kind of dick size complex.
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.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
The National Park Service was established in 1916 to oversee federal parks. It reports to the Secretary of the Interior. The US Forest Service was establish in 1876 and reports to the USDA. They regulate different land.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
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?
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