Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Forest Service Wants To Require Permits For Photography

Posted by samzenpus on from the no-film-for-you dept.

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.

19 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. Forest Circus. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re: Forest Circus. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      $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?!

    2. Re: Forest Circus. by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

    3. Re: Forest Circus. by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  2. Yeah sorry, no by afidel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Yeah sorry, no by timeOday · · Score: 5, Informative
      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.

    2. Re:Yeah sorry, no by ron_ivi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Yeah sorry, no by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Yeah sorry, no by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:Yeah sorry, no by buybuydandavis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Yeah sorry, no by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Numbers by imemyself · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!
  4. Forest Service already wilting from the blowback by decaffeinated · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  5. Re:Don't we own the land? by dowsell · · Score: 5, Funny

    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..."

  6. Should we jump to conclusions? by naughtynaughty · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!

  7. It's time to fire samzenpus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Petitions.org... by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  9. Re:You want to bet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Citation

  10. Re:You want to bet? by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.