This is nuts

[num1mc]

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....

 

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.

 

Seriously?

[ScaredSilly]

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.

 

Hmm, you might want to start working for the timber, mining, grazing, and other extractive industries. Because their view point is very similar. While they do get a permit and do have impact they also pay far less than what they would pay if on state or private land.

 

Now lets take your argument one step further. A climbing guide takes clients into the wilderness, their activities have no impact, if they earn enough income they pay an income tax. Yet they pay for a permit. So why should not a commercial photographer?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fairweather]

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.

 

Hmm, you might want to start working for the timber, mining, grazing, and other extractive industries. Because their view point is very similar. While they do get a permit and do have impact they also pay far less than what they would pay if on state or private land.

 

Now lets take your argument one step further. A climbing guide takes clients into the wilderness, their activities have no impact, if they earn enough income they pay an income tax. Yet they pay for a permit. So why should not a commercial photographer?

 

Your point about guide services is good, and I too have some issues with this arrangement. But comparisons to extractive uses are absolutely ridiculous. And to try to pigeonhole pcg is this way is very poor form.

[Fairweather]

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.

 

Are you saying the "constitution angle" is not a legitimate concern? More and more, the pro-government left seems to see it as an obstacle, so I'm wondering if this is where you are coming from.

 

As for permits, I think you are (deliberately?) conflating extractive uses with benign. Woodcutting should require a permit. Taking your Cub Scouts out for a hike should not. Nor should taking pictures for any purpose. You wouldn't tolerate being asked by a government employee to produce papers while walking down a city sidewalk; why should we tolerate it while walking along a trial?

 

[pcg]

A climbing guide takes clients into the wilderness, their activities have no impact, if they earn enough income they pay an income tax. Yet they pay for a permit. So why should not a commercial photographer?

Good point.

 

Well... the guide can certainly more easily afford it. Yes, that's right. When a guide takes a group into the wilderness he is immediately getting paid for that venture. It's a commercial venture. It may or may not be for the landscape photographer. He is throwing the dice for every trip. First he hopes to get a decent photo. Then he hopes to sell it.

 

Another difference, while a photographer's decision to sell or not to sell has no impact on the wilderness, his feet do. He brings just one pair with him. When the guide decides to bring paying customers, he brings along additional pairs with additional impact.

 

Still, if guides have to buy a permit, then maybe landscape photographers should also. The problem is, how do you determine a reasonable cost. Most make far less than guides and most are hobbyists who only hope to make a small dent in their costs. They lose money on a regular basis. A hefty permit fee is not an option.

Edited September 28, 2014 by pcg

[Coldfinger]

Hey Fairweather!

 

Point is there is a big campaign in Utah and Idaho and Wyoming to "return" Federal lands to the "rightful" owners according to the "correct" reading of the Constitution (one which I would add, not ONE court has accepted over many years and many attempts).

 

So there actually IS a constitutional issue here: crackpot armchair lawyers, rabble rousers, tea party idiots and conservative "journalists" raising the constitution any time it serves their ideological purpose (despite the actual legal claim being totally bogus).

 

But the bottom line is the big $$$ investors and industry and corporate interests who back this campaign to serve their own greedy ends.

 

Or put another way false patriots preaching sedition (as in the recent governor's candidate in the Wyo GOP primary--Taylor Haynes--who announced he would have state law enforcement officials arrest ANY federal employee out on federal lands) while wrapping themselves in idiotic interpretations of the constitution.

 

[ScaredSilly]

A climbing guide takes clients into the wilderness, their activities have no impact, if they earn enough income they pay an income tax. Yet they pay for a permit. So why should not a commercial photographer?

 

Good point. The guide can certainly more easily afford it. Yes, that's right. When a guide takes a group into the wilderness he is immediately getting paid for that venture. It's a commercial venture. It may or may not be for the landscape photographer. He is throwing the dice for every trip. First he hopes to get a decent photo. Then he hopes to sell it.

 

Still, if guides have to buy a permit, then maybe landscape photographers should also. The problem is, how do you determine a reasonable cost. Most make far less than guides and most are hobbyists who only hope to make a small dent in their costs. They lose money on a regular basis. A hefty permit fee is not an option.

 

Why would a guide be able to more easily afford it? The guide is also throwing the dice. They are paying for a permit up front and hoping to have paying clients. So still not much of difference both are speculative.

 

That said your point on the cost of a permit is really what I think this conversation should be about. The articles are noting the maximum permit cost at being $1500. Further, as I stated I think, if implemented photographers should be able to get a permit forest wide - and to add your point at a reasonable cost.

 

I think that would be fair considering all other commercial ventures need a permit.

 

 

But comparisons to extractive uses are absolutely ridiculous. And to try to pigeonhole pcg is this way is very poor form.

 

Fair enough, the way it was written stuck a cord. As Coldfinger noted there is a huge push especially here Oootah over Federal lands with people thinking because it is public land people should able do what they want regardless.

[Fairweather]

Hey Fairweather!

 

Point is there is a big campaign in Utah and Idaho and Wyoming to "return" Federal lands to the "rightful" owners according to the "correct" reading of the Constitution (one which I would add, not ONE court has accepted over many years and many attempts).

I am aware of resistance to additional federal wilderness designations--and given the litigious nature of many green orgs, I agree with the resistance. I'm not up to speed on the "return to the states" movements you cite--but if the courts have consistently sided with the federal position, what are you worried about? And won't idiotic proposals like this one by the USFS only lead to additional erosion of support for wilderness? Sounds like a dumb idea on so many levels.

[num1mc]

Hey Fairweather!

 

Point is there is a big campaign in Utah and Idaho and Wyoming to "return" Federal lands to the "rightful" owners according to the "correct" reading of the Constitution (one which I would add, not ONE court has accepted over many years and many attempts).

 

So there actually IS a constitutional issue here: crackpot armchair lawyers, rabble rousers, tea party idiots and conservative "journalists" raising the constitution any time it serves their ideological purpose (despite the actual legal claim being totally bogus).

 

But the bottom line is the big $$$ investors and industry and corporate interests who back this campaign to serve their own greedy ends.

 

Or put another way false patriots preaching sedition (as in the recent governor's candidate in the Wyo GOP primary--Taylor Haynes--who announced he would have state law enforcement officials arrest ANY federal employee out on federal lands) while wrapping themselves in idiotic interpretations of the constitution.

 

So those of us against this increased permit scope are false patriots,crackpot armchair lawyers, rabble rousers, tea party idiots etc etc etc?

 

So anybody who doesn't agree with you of the USFS is in bed with Rush Limbaugh? Nice smear.

[Pete04]

I recently purchased a beautiful photograph directly from a photagrapher displaying his work at a local independent coffee shop. I wonder how a $1500 permit would have affected his business. With the median national income at $51k/yr , a $1500 permit is equivalent to roughly 1 week of work. Is this worth it? That's a tough one, but I'll take a shot:

Let's say that I'm an out of work entrepreneur minded fellow with an eye for photographs and nature. I pay the $1500 with money borrowed from a friend b/c a bank wouldn't give me a loan despite record profits that quarter. Since I'm now out of money, I download a pirated copy of Photoshop. I'm arrested for software piracy, take out a loan to fight the case, become indebted. With my criminal record, I can't get a job so I take out a school loan and attend college. Four years later, mired in debt and dealing with a minor chemical dependency that I acquired in college I get an entry level job at a green energy firm and it collapses because its uncompetitive despite significant subsidies. After months of unemployment, I have to take a job with Big Energy Co. because they're hiring; unfortunately, my job is to take photographs of dilapidated houses in the woods and un-inspected backcountry huts so Big Energy Co. can pursue eminent domain cases against these rural properties.

 

I'd rather have just been able to take photographs and sell them at market price to a consenting consumer.

 

I'm going to go back to watching amazing, free, commercial movies.

[ScaredSilly]

I wonder how a $1500 permit would have affected his business.

 

Except that is not the permit fee - we do not know except that is maximum amount proposed. It could be $15 …

[Pete04]

I wonder how a $1500 permit would have affected his business.

 

Except that is not the permit fee - we do not know except that is maximum amount proposed. It could be $15 …

 

$15 would certainly be less onerous and more palatable...

[Fairweather]

I wonder how a $1500 permit would have affected his business.

 

Except that is not the permit fee - we do not know except that is maximum amount proposed. It could be $15 …

 

The money is not the issue.