This is nuts

[Bronco]

Now I'm fired up about this, look at this article from here: http://www.adventure-journal.com/2014/09/sneaky-sneaky-congress-quietly-tries-to-add-widespread-user-fees-for-public-lands/

 

Sneaky, Sneaky: Congress Quietly Tries to Add Widespread User Fees for Public Lands

In a classic bit of stealth lawmaking, House Resources Committee chairman Doc Hastings, a Washington Republican, last month opened the door for more widespread recreation day use fees on federal lands.

 

Without a committee hearing, Hastings sent HR 5204 (The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Modernization Act of 2014) to the floor of the House, where it could, according to critics, become law without any public hearing at all as a rider to a budget bill.

 

Federal land agencies introduced recreation fees during the reinventing government era of the late 1990s. The program, initially known as Rec Fee Demo, was used to charge parking fees at trailheads and day use areas that had previously been free. The revenues were meant to be used to improve the areas where they were collected.

 

The program was tweaked by subsequent legislation that spelled out very specifically where fees are authorized and which areas should remain free. The Forest Service tried to expand the definition of fee areas, but activists pushed back to limit charges, resulting in a series of court decisions that limited the agency’s ability to charge fees for undeveloped areas.

 

The latest version could result in many more widespread fees, both at highly developed recreation sites and those that are completely undeveloped like wilderness areas, according to the Colorado-based Western Slope No Fee Coalition.

 

“HR 5204 would allow the kind of fees that have not been controversial to continue,” the group writes, “such as fees for developed campgrounds and national park entrance fees. But in addition to those fees, it would allow general access fees for any federal recreational lands and waters.”

 

The bill is written in piecemeal manner, with amendments, additions, and deletions, and can be hard to understand (by design?). Here are some of its key changes:

 

• It would remove the ban on Forest Service and BLM charging for parking, picnicking along roads or trailsides, general access, dispersed areas with low or no investment, driving through, walking through, boating through, horseback riding through, or hiking through federal recreational lands and waters without using facilities and services, camping at undeveloped sites that do not provide minimum facilities, and use of overlooks or scenic pullouts. The bill replaces them with a single prohibition on fees “For any site, area, or activity, except as specifically authorized under this section.” The coalition says, “Since ‘this section’ authorizes fees for anything, that prohibition is meaningless.”

 

• The Forest Service and BLM would be allowed to charge day fees for entry to national conservation areas, national volcanic monuments, visitor centers, and

anywhere that has a toilet within a half mile.

 

• Interagency passes, currently $80, would automatically go up in price every three years.

“Mr. Bishop’s bill lacks any overarching vision or framework of our public lands being spaces where we all are welcome and have access,” said coalition president Kitty Benzar. “It would be a major change in policy, accomplished without public hearings or debate,” she said.

 

Benzar urged people who oppose the bill to contact their congressional delegation without delay, because Congress is expected to act within a week, before it adjourns for the election recess.

 

According to Benzar, it’s likely that Bishop and Hastings are planning to get HR 5204 attached as a rider to the FY2015 appropriations bill. Although HR 5204 has attracted no sponsor in the Senate so far, if attached as an appropriations rider it will likely pass both chambers without scrutiny or public debate, because appropriations bills are considered “must pass” in order to avoid a government shutdown.

 

The way Benzar reads the bill, it would allow general access fees for any federal recreational lands and waters, only setting a requirement that there be some kind of restroom facility within half a mile of the site.

 

The bill would authorize permit fees in “special areas,” without defining what those special areas are, giving land managers complete discretion to designate those areas.

[tvashtarkatena]

The time has come for Selfie Free Zones.

[Water]

if you're wondering "well what can I do?", someone posted a great comment on the page the story is on:

 

 

https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/hr5204

 

 

write a sternly worded letter to your congresscritter

[ScaredSilly]

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.

 

Re-read my full post as well as the proposed rules as you have not understood either.

 

0. The proposed rules concern strictly commercial photography.

 

1. There is already regulation for commercial photography - the FS is proposing making wilderness values part of the permitting process.

 

2. The FS is proposing making a broader inclusion for other commercial usages. Some agree with some I do not.

 

As I stated someone who makes their living from shooting commercial photos I see nothing wrong with a permit. However, re-read the conditions I put on that. In the mean time carefully think about the difference between the permit needed for a preplanned commercial shoot and the lack of there of for a commercial photographer doing a speculative shoot.

 

3. As I stated for the incidental photos taken by private individuals, they should not be charged.

 

 

Bronco regarding Bishops bill, he is a turd when it comes to Federal lands and thinks the states should control them so they can be sold to the highest bidder for extraction.

[Fairweather]

Hmmm, I just reread again and I think Jason understood your original post pretty well. "Wilderness values" would need to be defined for each permittee--and this is clearly a USFS move to codify a government interpretation of a definition of wilderness that is still being hotly debated. In other words, the most galling part of this proposal is not the fee itself, rather, it is the blatant government grab for control of the wilderness narrative.

 

 

[JasonG]

I guess I should have prefaced my response that I am pretty much against any permits/fees for wilderness areas.

 

So, I don't expect you to agree with me, but thanks for the attempt at clarifying your position.

[Drederek]

Seeing is a priviledge, not a right!

helen keller?

If Helen owned a car that would not give her the right to drive it.

[ScaredSilly]

"Wilderness values" would need to be defined for each permittee--and this is clearly a USFS move to codify a government interpretation of a definition of wilderness that is still being hotly debated. In other words, the most galling part of this proposal is not the fee itself, rather, it is the blatant government grab for control of the wilderness narrative.

 

The FS has been using the wilderness values narrative for a very long time. To bring it closer to home when dealing with the fixed anchors in wilderness that narrative was front and center as it is for other issues. So I am not surprised by the FS proposing to use it as part of the commercial permitting process. They are at least trying to be consistent. Whether one agrees with the overall premise of the narratives is a different issue.

 

 

I guess I should have prefaced my response that I am pretty much against any permits/fees for wilderness areas.

 

So, I don't expect you to agree with me, but thanks for the attempt at clarifying your position.

 

Fair enough but are you talking about private or commercial usage permits and fees? This discussion is really about commercial fees which IMHO are a different beast than those on the private side.

[JasonG]

I think if commercial outfits are abiding by the typical wilderness regs (party size, mode of transportation, etc.) then they shouldn't need a special permit. Basically I don't see how a human powered, commercial group in the wilderness is any different from a group of unruly climbers hooting and hollering their way up a route, scaring the wildlife, and drinking whiskey.

 

Not that any of us have been known to do that.

 

However, if said commercial groups are using roads for a car commercial on federal land, closing it to traffic, etc. then I would agree with you. I think the USFS has heard loud and clear that they need to narrow and clarify the rule. They overreached, and are getting beat back appropriately.

[ivan]

Seeing is a priviledge, not a right!

helen keller?

If Helen owned a car that would not give her the right to drive it.

did you know she had a car?

[Fairweather]

 

The FS has been using the wilderness values narrative for a very long time.

 

Yes, but this is the first time I can recall them trying to control dissemination of the message through coercion. Truly terrifying. Here are some reminders about our freedom--and rights that we don't forfeit just because we enter a designated wilderness:

 

From The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers"

 

From the US Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

 

On Prior Restraint and its Chilling Effect on free speech:"Prior restraint can be effected in a number of ways. For example, the exhibition of works of art or a movie may require a license from a government authority (sometimes referred to a classification board or censorship board) before it can be published, and the failure or refusal to grant a license is a form of censorship as is the revoking of a license. It can also take the form of a legal injunction or government order prohibiting the publication of a specific document or subject. Sometimes, a government or other party becomes aware of a forthcoming publication on a particular subject and seeks to prevent it: to halt ongoing publication and prevent its resumption. These injunctions are considered prior restraint because potential future publications are stopped in advance."

 

 

[Coldfinger]

Howdy all,

 

RE: Forest Service Wilderness Photo fees.......

 

Was going to post a reply but you all have run so far off of the farm (and reality) I thought maybe I would do a little reframing.

 

First off, from my perspective this is yet another example of the "Free Press" (maybe the "paid press") running off foaming at the mouth to shock the public about the bad conduct of the "federal government". I.e. catering to the 2014 edition of sedition aka the "sagebrush rebellion."

 

What really cracks me up is that the FS and its rule expressly excludes news gathering (either of a discreet incident, a serial edition or a long term project) from the fee. All the while "journalists" are decrying the end of journalism in wilderness (not that I have seen many if any real journalists anywhere near the actual outdoors). Apparently our intrepid journalists are once again either too dumb or too dishonest to do any research.

 

Secondly, as things stand there is a total hodgepodge of local district rules regarding COMMERCIAL (i.e. not news but strictly for $$) filming in wilderness and this rule is an attempt to provide one overarching and perhaps fair policy.

 

Kinda seems a good idea as it would rob local dictators of their little fake and arbitrary fiefdoms.

 

And last but not least please do keep in mind that the $$ behind the anti-fed thing wants to frack, mine and cut the Fu*k out of our public lands.

 

A little disappointed that those who enjoy those wild places cant be bothered to do more than (apparently) get their britches in a bunch over something they saw on Fox and/or Facebook.

 

Anyhow, thought maybe you all could post a few more germane facts than found on the other thread which is, it seems, one of those inevitable ones where the "Spray" Lords overrun the Climber's Post.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Coldfinger

[num1mc]

 

What really cracks me up is that the FS and its rule expressly excludes news gathering (either of a discreet incident, a serial edition or a long term project) from the fee. All the while "journalists" are decrying the end of journalism in wilderness (not that I have seen many if any real journalists anywhere near the actual outdoors). Apparently our intrepid journalists are once again either too dumb or too dishonest to do any research.

 

I think if you read up, you'll see that journalists doing "breaking" news are exempt, but serial editions, long-term projects and the like are not.

 

Maybe journalists aren't the only ones too dumb or dishonest to do any research, maybe sprayers like you?

[Fairweather]

Coldfinger, I didn't see a FoxNews post in the bunch here, but if it fits your sensibilities, HuffPost is reporting on this as well. And Seattle Times isn't exactly an anti-government rag last time I checked. In any event, you should know that, at the end of the day, all American news/journalism is "for profit." And this proposed rule would leave the USFS in the position of deciding who is and is not a journalist based on their storyline and its adherence to the official narrative. Bad mojo.

 

Anyhow, aren't you the guy who once ranted about the NPS searching his tent?

[Drederek]

Seeing is a priviledge, not a right!

helen keller?

If Helen owned a car that would not give her the right to drive it.

did you know she had a car?

All I know is she moaned with one hand!

[Coldfinger]

They already and for many years have been issuing permits for this stuff, they are simply trying to make uniform and even rules that apply everywhere.

 

Here in Wyo the latest rage is to "give" billions and maybe trillions of dollars worth of land to the states (read for industrial exploitation), even though these GOP types decry "handouts".

 

Guess other citizens in states elsewhere might view this "gift" as a handout.

 

But the point is there has been a lot of nonsense and anti fed "reporting" and it is definitely yet another attack in that war on public lands.

 

BTW not sure why this particular commercial use should be excluded from regulation when commercial guides and outfitters are not.

[Coldfinger]

And I am definitely NOT saying he FS isn't wrong or even off its rocker here or many other times; I just don't trust the "reporting" on this one.

 

Seems more sensational and click on that banner driven than substantial.

 

[Coldfinger]

“The U.S. Forest Service remains committed to the First Amendment,” agency Chief Tom Tidwell said. “The directive pertains to commercial photography and filming only. If you’re there to gather news or take recreational photographs, no permit would be required.”

 

“This proposed regulation is just one example of the kind of federal overreach that comes when we lock up our public lands in wilderness designations,” Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said Friday. (DRILL BABY DRILL)

 

 

 

 

[pcg]

“The U.S. Forest Service remains committed to the First Amendment,” agency Chief Tom Tidwell said. “The directive pertains to commercial photography and filming only. If you’re there to gather news or take recreational photographs, no permit would be required.”

So I guess if Ansel Adams were alive and working today he would need to pony up $1500 a year to take photos, or is "further clarification" still needed.

[Fairweather]

Remember, Ansel would be required to pay for his permit only after a government censor approved his images and captions. So there's that...

[Fairweather]

“The U.S. Forest Service NSA remains committed to the First Amendment,the privacy of its citizens” agency Chief Tom Tidwell James Clapper said.

 

Same same?

Edited September 28, 2014 by Fairweather

[Eric T]

So I guess if Ansel Adams were alive and working today he would need to pony up $1500 a year to take photos, or is "further clarification" still needed.

 

Perhaps the government could look through Mr. Adams images and bill his estate retroactively.

 

 

[Coldfinger]

Fine, just don't whine when your favorite non NPS mountain range is cut, mined and/or drilled and filled with yahoos and their ORV's and garbage....

 

Feel like the anti-wilderness, anti-environment angle IS a big part of the story if not THE story. Then there's the guardians of the constitution angle.

 

I mean it is SUCH an injustice and constitutional violation to have to walk into the local FS office and get a permit. Sheesh I feel like my basic human rights are totally violated when I have to go get a woodcutting permit.

 

Nevermind when I have to get a group permit to lead my den of cub scouts up there.

[genepires]

I think the cowboy from Wy has got the story straight and the reactionists are just......reacting as they always do. The sky is falling down!

 

thanks for bringing sensibility to the clown punching shit show.

 

[pcg]

Fine, just don't whine when your favorite non NPS mountain range is cut, mined and/or drilled and filled with yahoos and their ORV's and garbage....

 

Feel like the anti-wilderness, anti-environment angle IS a big part of the story if not THE story. Then there's the guardians of the constitution angle.

 

I mean it is SUCH an injustice and constitutional violation to have to walk into the local FS office and get a permit. Sheesh I feel like my basic human rights are totally violated when I have to go get a woodcutting permit.

 

Nevermind when I have to get a group permit to lead my den of cub scouts up there.

the reactionists are just......reacting as they always do.

I don’t mind paying reasonable permits when there is reasonable justification, as in the examples stated by Coldfinger. However, the original statements by the NFS were vague and raised concerns that don’t fall into the same category as those examples. They invited comment and they got a strong reaction, as they should. They have since made clarifying statements that have largely addressed the feedback they received.

 

Here is why so many people (many of whom are landscape photographers that sell prints) were justifiably alarmed.

 

From the Notice of Proposed Directive…

“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 excerpts from the Proposed Directive itself that raised concern for me...

 

“A special use permit may be issued (when required by sections 45.1a and 45.2a) to authorize the use of National Forest System lands for still photography or commercial filming when the proposed activity:

5. Meets the following additional criteria… other than noncommercial still photography… would be in a congressionally designated wilderness area (and):

a. Has a primary objective of dissemination of information about the use and enjoyment of wilderness

c. Is wilderness-dependent, for example, a location within a wilderness area is identified for the proposed activity and there are no suitable locations outside of a wilderness area”

 

Here is what I objected to:

Some people take photographs inside wilderness areas that they may then hope to sell, either to offset some of the costs of an expensive hobby, or to perhaps make a net income. This can reasonably be construed as “commercial still photography” and thus would be subject to the aforementioned permit and review process.

1) I don’t believe that I should have to pay a permit if I desire to sell a print of a photograph I took on our land. My decision to sell or not to sell has no impact on wilderness and is nobody’s business, but mine. If I earn enough income from that activity I’m happy to do my part and pay an income tax.

2) I don’t like the government deciding if my photos meet their criteria.

 

The NFS, for whatever reason (lack of foresight, poor communication, or perhaps bad intention) left the door open to an interpretation that many quickly objected to. There were other objections as well (free press issues, etc.), but I think those were due to a misreading of the NFS statements. I am grateful that their subsequent clarifying statements indicate that their intent is not to fetter commercial landscape photographers with either a permit or a review process, both of which could have been intended within the wording of their broad original statement.