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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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

[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.)

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

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.

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...

[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: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..."

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!

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.

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?

[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: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:Bogus justification

[Dahamma]

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

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