This is nuts

[olyclimber]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/09/24/u-s-forest-service-wants-to-charge-1500-to-take-photos-on-federal-wild-lands/

 

$1500 to take photos in Federal Wilderness. Who owns these lands after all? Oh thats right, we do.

[olyclimber]

Someone please tell me this is an Onion article. I supposed to many people taking photographs were wearing out the landscape.

[ivan]

freedom isn't free

[olyclimber]

If this goes through the terrorists have won.

[pcg]

freedom isn't free

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"... Thomas Jefferson

 

Photographers aren't affected unless they sell their work. I think the government has figured out that most photographers don't make enough income to even pay taxes, so an annual $1500 permit is the best way to squeeze money out of a turnip. Oh yes, the photos must be approved by the Forest Service!???

Here's the proposed directive. You have until Nov. 3 to comment...

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/09/04/2014-21093/proposed-directive-for-commercial-filming-in-wilderness-special-uses-administration

 

[telemarker]

If this cuts down on or eliminates GoPro footage of rock or ice climbing, I'm all for it.

[Water]

really? I can't get enough of this...

[video:youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcGRfQXYZsY

[telemarker]

AK-47 can be grandfathered in.

[Water]

[olyclimber]

damn it that vid just ruined my onsite betaless repeat. in fact, just knowing that the route exists ruined it for me. what a rig! would have preferred some death metal with it more though, seems like that would fit better.

[DPS]

"I hesitate to write about soloing the North Face of Chair Peak because it is the most important climb of my life. It has taught me a great deal about climbing and the climbing community. It has taught me that action is more important than posturing. Climbing itself is about action. Life is also about action. Anything else is just window dressing. But, I have to write about it. I hesitate also because any type of writing about climbing is usually fraught with misunderstanding, and elicits questions about motives from the audience. I will try to avoid this by writing this for myself primarily, and for the public secondarily. It seems that it is a rare breed indeed that can write about their own climbs at any length without garnering condemnation from the hoards of arm-chair climbers."

-CJB

Edited September 25, 2014 by DPS

[Rafe1234]

As for AK-47.. "I bolted it like you would protect a trad line.."

 

That dude is such a clown... I like to believe CJB was just a fictitious character created by someone to troll climbing sites.

 

Regarding the post...Does legislation like that exist anywhere else around the world?

Edited September 25, 2014 by Rafe1234

[pcg]

Regarding the post...Does legislation like that exist anywhere else around the world?

I think in North Korea they also insist on approving any photos you've taken.

[num1mc]

"I hesitate to write about soloing the North Face of Chair Peak because it is the most important climb of my life. It has taught me a great deal about climbing and the climbing community. It has taught me that action is more important than posturing. Climbing itself is about action. Life is also about action. Anything else is just window dressing. But, I have to write about it. I hesitate also because any type of writing about climbing is usually fraught with misunderstanding, and elicits questions about motives from the audience. I will try to avoid this by writing this for myself primarily, and for the public secondarily. It seems that it is a rare breed indeed that can write about their own climbs at any length without garnering condemnation from the hoards of arm-chair climbers."

-CJB

http://www.modelmayhem.com/2742611

[ScaredSilly]

Interesting ... I think the media in most cases should not need a permit (a news story with a timely interest vs a news feature story with no time factor). However, if a someone wants to come into any federal lands for the main purpose of taking photographs for commerce then a permit should be required (i.e National Geographic, a photographer selling photos on a speculative basis, i.e. a pro-photog Ansel Adams, Galen Rowell). Private individuals are not part of this proposed rule making, unless they perhaps later sell their photos (i.e. Patagonia fun hog).

 

In reading the rules it seems that in general these are the current rules that apply to all Forest Lands, with the exception of pro-photos and private person later selling a photo. However, the Forest Service now wants to bring in the permit process the Wilderness Act requirements. I can understand that perspective.

 

I think the concern should be with incidental photos and with pro-photogs like those I mentioned above. With pro-photogs I see no reason why they should not have a permit - however, it should be a forest wide permit rather than on a per forest basis. As for the incidental photos, they should not be charged.

 

 

 

[ivan]

they can have your iphone when they pry it from your cold, dead, latte-clutching hand

[JasonG]

However, if a someone wants to come into any federal lands for the main purpose of taking photographs for commerce then a permit should be required (i.e National Geographic, a photographer selling photos on a speculative basis, i.e. a pro-photog Ansel Adams, Galen Rowell).

 

I disagree completely. You think we need more regulation on federal land? For something as benign as taking a photo or shooting some video? What about the guy who just shoots a bit to supplement his gear closet? Or someone like Scurlock who takes photos from the air of wilderness?

 

IMO, it is a completely ridiculous regulation and I hope they don't waste their limited resources attempting to enforce it. There are more than a few roads and trails that need the money for maintenance.

[Fairweather]

Unchecked executive-branch rule-making like this is sure to make the forest police even more popular with the folks. This bizarre rule will never stand, but it's still frightening to think that our federal agencies have grown arrogant enough to dare propose this sort of nonsense. I wonder what could have made them so bold?

[kevino]

Isn't there already something like this in place on national parks?

[ivan]

aLl Ur PhOToN$ R B3l0nG 2 u$!

[Drederek]

Seeing is a priviledge, not a right!

[Pete_H]

See article in today's Seattle Times

[ivan]

Seeing is a priviledge, not a right!

helen keller?

[Bronco]

Sounds like another misguided attempt to generate revenue that will probably result in a negative cash-flow after enforcement costs are tallied. Cue the drones.

[AlpineK]

According to circulating posts about the issue, the agency would like to charge fees of up to $1,500 before

allowing "commercial filming and photography in federally designated wilderness areas." When the proposal is finalized in November 2014, reporters and other media outlets who do not obtain permits could face fines of up to $1,000. (Tourists and park visitors snapping photographs for personal, non-commercial use would not be affected by the proposed regulations.)

 

Snopes

 

The USFS is currently accepting comments on the issue here. The period of public comment will be open until 3 November 2014.