Expensive Permits for Photography on Federal lands???

That's nuts. And in conflict with past practices of the USFS, which allowed permit regulated commercial use of their lands for guide services, etc. I agree, blast your senator and your congressman on this.
 
Chester":eqj1kfge said:
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/09/forest_service_says_media_need.html

Unelected, faceless, bureaucrats doing what they do.
Every time enviro types get their way either public access or private property rights are lost and fees-taxes go up.
Click to expand...

Or the air gets easier to breath or the smog is reduced... Anyone who saw what the LA basin looked like pre smog controls in cars might be happy that a few "enviro types" were around then.
 
If I read correctly this AM, there is a four year delay on implementing this. And the article mentioned that 1st amendment rights likely will see it never implemented.
 
These people have nothing to do with being environmentalists. They are trying to control every aspect of our lives without us having a vote. This is just another in a long list of tyrannical regulations by this government. Contact your reps and senators and take as many pics on PUBLIC LAND as you can.
 
If I am not mistaken, the authorization for the regulation dates back to the 1960s.

Rather than toss out terms like "enviros" and "this government", let's just contact our elected representatives and senators, and let them know our opinion on the reg, and ask for their support.
 
Wandering Sagebrush":wdpep7t2 said:
If I am not mistaken, the authorization for the regulation dates back to the 1960s.

Rather than toss out terms like "enviros" and "this government", let's just contact our elected representatives and senators, and let them know our opinion on the reg, and ask for their support.
Click to expand...
yup, the enabling language is broadly written, contained in the 1964 Wilderness Act, I believe. The crux is in interpretation and implementation of the language, much like interpretations of the US Constitution. Consequently, we all need to send the message to our reps in Congress that this interpretation sucks.

I note that today, the USFS backed off from including recreational and news picture takers, but repeated its intent to focus on commercial users of wilderness. We need to keep the pressure on, or this will come back.
 
Yes this needs to be stopped, not delayed. They ( the evil they) will just wait until we are not looking again and try to enact it. They dont have to vote on it or pass it just start enacting it. The core problem in congress ( all of it, well most of it, both sides) have slowly given up there right and duty to pass law over to committees and boards of offices full of un elected regulators how just pass regulation and slowly take away our rights and privileges based on their wants and desires. Concress needs to take back their power and duty to pass laws, all laws by a vote.

So for anyone that is good with this resent attempt to volatile your freedom let me ask you this.. How many photos on the c-brat calendar where taken on public lands or water???? so who of you is going to admit to your crimes and pay the fines and penalties today? How many photos on this site( which is not listed as a none profit but does not turn a profit, but does sell advertising) which is a commercial activity??? How many of you have paid wink flash to print photos taken on public land??

The law beng used from the 60's, much like the clean water and air law from the same area, is hopelessly out of date due to the technology of today. They should be re written by congress or replaced by new law passed by congress. But hey its still illegal to shoot camels in Nevada so I would not wait for congress to do its job. Me I will just keep taking pictures when and where I want and the little commie regulators can go to hell.
 
Certainly not a new situation. We used to live in the Black Hills, about an hour and a half from Mt. Rushmore. Occasionally, we had clients who wanted their image or product with Rushmore in the background. Even though Gutsun Borglum said that the public would never have to pay to see the monument, the Park Service enacted a "use fee" for commercial images taken on-site. To add further insult to Borglum's wishes, in 1989, The Rushmore Society (a private funding group) took funds from the state of South Dakota to "improve" the facilities around the monument. One of those improvements is a parking ramp... so, you don't have to pay to see Mt. Rushmore, only to PARK there. ($11 per vehicle) Any access pass you have for the National Parks does not cover "parking." They used to have non-paid parking. The parking ramp is considered a "consessionaire".

BLM camping in LTVA areas in Arizona and California used to be free for up to 2 weeks, then $50 for up to 180 days. That has gone to $40 and $180; no change in services.

Having worked in National Parks, it seems to me that the Government is looking to turn more over to concessionaires, who can charge what the market will bear, with authorization from the NPS.

Having a "photography fee" is simply another way to try to get more use fee. Our National Parks are one of the best ideas our Government has instituted. As "the people" (as in: "we, the people..." all share ownership in those parks and public lands. Those are YOUR parks. I have no issue with an entrance fee - the parks have to be maintained, and those who use it should share in that funding. There are those within the public lands sector who would be happy to see the public not allowed on THEIR land. Ridiculous fees are one way to move towards that goal.

Contact your elected officials - state your opposition.
 
Wandering Sagebrush":23oj1bm5 said:
Mike, Bill: please delete this thread.
Click to expand...

If folks participating can't do so calmly and without invoking political name calling, it will indeed be locked.

My take - as with most everything in life, this is not a black/white issue. There's a huge difference between personal use, and a movie studio setting up a production in the middle of a wilderness area.

My guess is, most anything private and/or journalistic in nature couldn't survive the most rudimentary of court challenges. But somewhere between these obviously protected activities and a Hollywood studio setting up shop - there's certainly room for restrictions.

And, even when it comes to personal and journalistic use - the nature of the photographic medium is important. Handheld cameras are one thing, but a hobby I'm heavily involved in - RC flying - just took a hit in this area. Most every National Park now bans "drones" - but that's a heavily skewed term that encompasses far more than most people realize.

Recent headlines of National Parks banning "drones" didn't take into account the reality of the new restrictions - ALL RC flights are now prohibited in most of these areas. For me personally, this just eliminated the float plane flights on Lake Crescent in the Olympic National Park our club has been doing for decades. It's undertaken from a populated area, surrounded by businesses and vehicle traffic, and not the least bit remote. We've never once had a complaint, and in fact, always draw spectators. And yet, this activity is somehow more disturbing to the "wilderness" than a ski boat blasting by with tunes blaring.

Much as this sucks and makes no sense, I understand the bigger picture. If I'm 10 miles back in the woods somewhere, or half-way up Half Dome - the last thing that moment of quiet needs, is some dork hovering his quadcopter overhead ruining the experience for everyone in proximity. Hand-held cameras are essentially silent, and more importantly don't intrude on anyone any more than the mere presence of the person utilizing them.

Yes, our congress critters need to be contacted when dopey stuff like this hits the media. But people also need to realize these issues aren't as simple as the headlines make them out to be.
 
You might be interested in reading the entire proposal in the Federal Register posted Aug 28, 2014 and located at https://www.federalregister.gov/article ... f_contents


Notice Of Proposed Directive; Request For Public Comment.
Summary

The Forest Service proposes to incorporate interim directive (ID) 2709.11-2013.1 into Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2709.11, chapter 40 to make permanent guidance for the evaluation of proposals for still photography and commercial filming on National Forest System Lands. The proposed amendment would address the establishment of consistent national criteria to evaluate requests for special use permits on National Forest System (NFS) lands. Specifically, this policy provides the criteria used to evaluate request for special use permits related to still photography and commercial filming in congressionally designated wilderness areas. Public comment is invited and will be considered in the development of the final directive.
Unified Agenda
Commercial Filming in Wilderness

and comments needs to be posted by 11/3/2014

I recommend all interested parties post their comments
 
Back
Top