There is a link at the bottom where you can comment on this misguided policy.
Posted by Erik Stensland on September 24, 2014 at 7:25 PM
This would be a game changer for many of us. Many of us are passionate about preserving and protecting our national wild areas and are amongst the greatest supporters these lands could have. At the same time, there are some in our community who damage the very places they've gone to photograph. Let's hope that we can convince the gov that this is not a wise move and at the same time let's work to make our own community better caretakers of these precious places.
Thanks for the post, Phillip.
Amen, Erik. Well said.
Posted by Ed Williams on September 25, 2014 at 1:09 AM
The Code of Federal Regulations Chapter 36, Section 251.51 definition of "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 not appear to affect most of what we on this site would be doing when we are only taking photos of natural objects and scenery. Maybe I am misinterpreting the code here. Not sure.
As someone who spends his life working with protected areas and protected area authorities (in many countries around the world - in the past twelve months that has included Belarus, Namibia, Cameroon, Turkmenistan and Russia) to improve the effectiveness of what they do (which is protect wildernesses, biodiversity, ecological services) usually with limited resources (both human and financial), I can empathise with the USFS's thinking here. As protected area authorities, choices are hard: they need to generate revenues in order to finance their protection and management work as governments simply do not sufficiently subsidise them to do their necessary work. As a result, they are encouraged by people like me to seek a diversity of revenue streams. Understandably, they see tourists, visitors and photographers as a potential revenue streams (among many others).
There are many photographers who take from these fabulous wildernesses and give little back; there are still others that damage the places they visit (as Erik has stated) - all in order to get “That Shot”! Of course, some of those - but obviously not all - are making their living from those photographs and/or leading photo tours to those areas. Of course, there are others who, these days, are only interested in taking a “selfie” on their smart phone to post on some social network or other. Drawing the line at who might pay for a permit and who might not is a difficult task for any regulator. Ultimately, it often relies on the honesty of the people involved - and, sadly, there are cheats in every system. And, at the end of the day, the additional cost is most often transferred to the client.
In my most hard-nosed days, I’d say - So be it, people, live with it. If you want your wildernesses to survive, this is the way it has to be. If you don’t like it, use the power of your democracy - but ensure that the people who you vote in will ensure that the protected areas and their staff are being sufficiently funded and motivated to do their work.
Don’t we expect that a fashion photographer will pay his model; don’t we expect any business person to invest in the resources on which s/he is dependent? Why not nature photographers - especially professional/semi-professional nature photographers?
Finally, I fully acknowledge that the world is a complex place, and people can negotiate and agree on compromises. The only thing we shouldn't be compromising here is the integrity of the wilderness, the biodiversity and ecological services - and it just may be that the USFS needs a little more revenue to do their job effectively. If I were you, sitting in the US thinking about this, that would be my starting point before going to war or invoking the First Amendment. I would find out whether the revenues streams of the USFS are really limiting their ability to do their work and whether all possible other alternatives have not been fully explored. I’d also want to know how they are measuring the effectiveness of their protection/management work and how this relates to financial parameters. But, at the end of the day - in that hour of magical light - it is quite possible that without the revenue streams, organisations like the USFS will not be able to protect and/or otherwise manage the wildernesses that are their responsibility. Then the things that we most love and which we often take for granted - the wildernesses, biodiversity, the ecological services - may only become more eroded with time.
Posted by Robert Bunch on September 25, 2014 at 6:03 AM
I have never photographed in a wilderness area and very rarely on Forest Service land. I do most of my photography in Yellowstone and in public parks around Dallas where I live but until the USFS starts getting a reasonable amount from the welfare ranchers who graze their cattle on public land and do a whole lot more damage than I would ever do with my camera or the timber cutters and mining companies who clear cut timber and strip mine minerals from the national forest at cut-rate prices I will photograph any where I damn well please. I will just take a page out of old Cliven Bundys book and tell the USFS to "you know what". Maybe I can even get some militia guys to show up as an escort on my next photo outing. What about hunting and backpacking outfitters? Do they have to have a permit and how much does it cost.
I have always paid all my taxes, I served in Vietnam and I'm a
disabled veteran. I feel I am entitled to take a few pictures in wilderness areas on public lands without paying out the wazoo to do it. I would be willing to pay a reasonable fee of $50-$100 dollars but $1500--fuggedaboutit!!!
And to anyone who thinks I'm a scofflaw-well, I ain't losing any sleep over it.
I will definitely be sending in my thoughts on this bad idea.
Posted by Greg Vaughn on September 25, 2014 at 11:15 AM
When I first saw Facebook posts about this and read the Oregonian article, I was incensed, and I was immediately all over FB and other places with it. After some feedback from an outdoor photographer and writer I respect, I took a closer look at the issue and did some research.
It's important to read not just the proposal, but the original (amended) document that it refers to*. The proposal just intends to make permanent rules that have been in force for several years. And it appears that there is no change to regulations for commercial and recreational still and video photography.
You are not going to suddenly need a permit to do the type of photography most of us on NPN do, even in federally designated Wilderness areas (which are the only lands that this particular set of regulations apply to). Many nature photographers have been harrassed by overzealous rangers who didn't know, or misinterpreted, the regulations. That will probably continue, but this proposal shouldn't make that situation any worse.
There are, however, some problems with those rules that should have been addressed a long time ago, and for which the news media have legitimate concerns: "Breaking news" doesn't require a permit, but an investigative news report could very well require a permit, and it's not hard to imagine that the USFS would deny a permit for anything they thought might reflect negatively on the agency, or that was counter to the local supervisors personal politics.
For that reason, I still think it's important for all of us to comment on the official site and stand up for First Amendment rights. Ranting and raving about conclusions that some of us have jumped to (myself included), however, will probably not help.
Oregon residents in particular can have an impact on this proposal because Sen. Ron Wyden is one of the lead guys on the matter, so an email to his office would also be a good idea.
Thanks for your reasoned reply. I read the regs this morning, but had no time comment. Thank you for doing the research.
Still, the piece of this that bothers me from a 1st Amendment standpoint is the fact that the USFS will be able to vet each application for 'worthiness'. In doing so, they could reject an application that leads to factual criticism of the government--a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
I do plan to add my comment at the official site.
--P
Posted by Mark Seaver on September 25, 2014 at 7:03 PM
Greg got it right! This largely is not being relevant to general photographers and that includes professional landscape and wildlife photogs, unless they're leading workshops (and I know that folks like that have a special permitting process and fees for Yellowstone).
Here's the relevant proposed regs.
A special use permit is not required for still photography when that activity involves breaking news (sec. 45.5). A special use permit:
1. Is required for all still photography (sec. 45.5) activities on National Forest System (NFS) lands that involve the use of models, sets, or props that are not a part of the natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities of the site where the activity is taking place.
2. May be required for still photography activities not involving models, sets, or props when the Forest Service incurs additional administrative costs as a direct result of the still photography activity or when the still photography activity takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed.
BTW, the definition of model seems clearly (at least to me) not to include your family members standing in front of the entrance sign.
Yes, as Preston says, there is some reason to worry about "officials" overstepping and. as indicated park, service employees misinterpreting the regs. but this is mostly a classic "tempest in a tea pot" because some reporter didn't read carefully and wrote an inflamatory and uninformed article.
My wife is with the U.S. Forest Service for about 25 years now, and is one of the people that issues these permits. The permits really apply to large scale commercial operations working where there is habitat that might be impacted. Film crews shooting car commercials or movie scenes are some examples. (Currently "wilderness" status in our national forests means NO motor vehicles). This is nothing new and is not only mandated for wilderness areas, but for all National Forest land. Also, this same regulation is in place for all State Parks, National Monuments, National Wildlife Refuges..... the list goes on. Sure, there is always that one ranger that sees your big lens and misinterprets the law.... but other than that we pretty much have nothing to worry about. One big reason for this rule is that the Government wants to make sure that if your film crew does something stupid, like crashing their helicopter into a mountain, that your operation is insured and that they won't be sued and make the rest of us pay for it. You might be surprised to learn how much of your tax money is spent fighting lawsuits from by people that hurt themselves in our parks.
By the way, this doesn't only apply to photographers. Wanna jump your motorcycle over the Snake River? You need a permit. Wanna walk a tightrope over the Grand Canyon? You need a permit. Wanna burn a big wooden man out in the middle of the desert? You need a permit. Good thing too, as I don't think that any of us want to pay extra to clean up the mess that gets left behind.
Posted by Luke Ormand on September 26, 2014 at 11:07 AM
Ahh, very refreshing for CVT to bring some knowledge to this discussion. Many times stories like this "go viral" and everyone believes the sky is falling. While the government has been known to do some STUPID things, 98% of their rules/polices/laws make sense and are adequately designed to protect.
As someone who works in (local) government, protecting the environment, I can attest to some dumb laws, but there's always a good intention in it. Furthermore, there are many laws or rules which exist that on face value seem stupid, but as CVT points out, make sense when you start extrapolating potential worst-case scenarios which could result in the absence of said law.
Where I live, many people dislike zoning laws and complain that it is the land of "no". There is an Indian reservation along a major thoroughfare that is not subject to zoning laws. This area is the ugliest place around because they put a million signs advertising discounted cigarettes and promoting their smoke shops every 2 feet. So, as pointed out above, it may be an inconvenience for a few, but it protects us all (and our resources) in the long run.
Posted by Eva McDermott on September 27, 2014 at 4:13 PM
Once again, half truths and omitted information in "news" articles create a stir. I am finding more and more, we really need to do more research when we see something like this before going off the deep end. News media, social media tend to cause hysteria to push their own agendas.
Discussion
11 replieshttp://www.shutterbug.com/content/say-what-us-government-wants-charge-you-1500-photographing-wilderness-areas
There is a link at the bottom where you can comment on this misguided policy.
Amen, Erik. Well said.
There are many photographers who take from these fabulous wildernesses and give little back; there are still others that damage the places they visit (as Erik has stated) - all in order to get “That Shot”! Of course, some of those - but obviously not all - are making their living from those photographs and/or leading photo tours to those areas. Of course, there are others who, these days, are only interested in taking a “selfie” on their smart phone to post on some social network or other. Drawing the line at who might pay for a permit and who might not is a difficult task for any regulator. Ultimately, it often relies on the honesty of the people involved - and, sadly, there are cheats in every system. And, at the end of the day, the additional cost is most often transferred to the client.
In my most hard-nosed days, I’d say - So be it, people, live with it. If you want your wildernesses to survive, this is the way it has to be. If you don’t like it, use the power of your democracy - but ensure that the people who you vote in will ensure that the protected areas and their staff are being sufficiently funded and motivated to do their work.
Don’t we expect that a fashion photographer will pay his model; don’t we expect any business person to invest in the resources on which s/he is dependent? Why not nature photographers - especially professional/semi-professional nature photographers?
Finally, I fully acknowledge that the world is a complex place, and people can negotiate and agree on compromises. The only thing we shouldn't be compromising here is the integrity of the wilderness, the biodiversity and ecological services - and it just may be that the USFS needs a little more revenue to do their job effectively. If I were you, sitting in the US thinking about this, that would be my starting point before going to war or invoking the First Amendment. I would find out whether the revenues streams of the USFS are really limiting their ability to do their work and whether all possible other alternatives have not been fully explored. I’d also want to know how they are measuring the effectiveness of their protection/management work and how this relates to financial parameters. But, at the end of the day - in that hour of magical light - it is quite possible that without the revenue streams, organisations like the USFS will not be able to protect and/or otherwise manage the wildernesses that are their responsibility. Then the things that we most love and which we often take for granted - the wildernesses, biodiversity, the ecological services - may only become more eroded with time.
I have always paid all my taxes, I served in Vietnam and I'm a
disabled veteran. I feel I am entitled to take a few pictures in wilderness areas on public lands without paying out the wazoo to do it. I would be willing to pay a reasonable fee of $50-$100 dollars but $1500--fuggedaboutit!!!
And to anyone who thinks I'm a scofflaw-well, I ain't losing any sleep over it.
I will definitely be sending in my thoughts on this bad idea.
It's important to read not just the proposal, but the original (amended) document that it refers to*. The proposal just intends to make permanent rules that have been in force for several years. And it appears that there is no change to regulations for commercial and recreational still and video photography.
You are not going to suddenly need a permit to do the type of photography most of us on NPN do, even in federally designated Wilderness areas (which are the only lands that this particular set of regulations apply to). Many nature photographers have been harrassed by overzealous rangers who didn't know, or misinterpreted, the regulations. That will probably continue, but this proposal shouldn't make that situation any worse.
There are, however, some problems with those rules that should have been addressed a long time ago, and for which the news media have legitimate concerns: "Breaking news" doesn't require a permit, but an investigative news report could very well require a permit, and it's not hard to imagine that the USFS would deny a permit for anything they thought might reflect negatively on the agency, or that was counter to the local supervisors personal politics.
For that reason, I still think it's important for all of us to comment on the official site and stand up for First Amendment rights. Ranting and raving about conclusions that some of us have jumped to (myself included), however, will probably not help.
Oregon residents in particular can have an impact on this proposal because Sen. Ron Wyden is one of the lead guys on the matter, so an email to his office would also be a good idea.
*For anyone interested in reading the regs, go to http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsh?2709.11 and click on the link for wo_2709.11_40.doc. The relevant part is section 45.5
Thanks for your reasoned reply. I read the regs this morning, but had no time comment. Thank you for doing the research.
Still, the piece of this that bothers me from a 1st Amendment standpoint is the fact that the USFS will be able to vet each application for 'worthiness'. In doing so, they could reject an application that leads to factual criticism of the government--a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
I do plan to add my comment at the official site.
--P
Here's the relevant proposed regs.
A special use permit is not required for still photography when that activity involves breaking news (sec. 45.5). A special use permit:
1. Is required for all still photography (sec. 45.5) activities on National Forest System (NFS) lands that involve the use of models, sets, or props that are not a part of the natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities of the site where the activity is taking place.
2. May be required for still photography activities not involving models, sets, or props when the Forest Service incurs additional administrative costs as a direct result of the still photography activity or when the still photography activity takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed.
BTW, the definition of model seems clearly (at least to me) not to include your family members standing in front of the entrance sign.
Yes, as Preston says, there is some reason to worry about "officials" overstepping and. as indicated park, service employees misinterpreting the regs. but this is mostly a classic "tempest in a tea pot" because some reporter didn't read carefully and wrote an inflamatory and uninformed article.
By the way, this doesn't only apply to photographers. Wanna jump your motorcycle over the Snake River? You need a permit. Wanna walk a tightrope over the Grand Canyon? You need a permit. Wanna burn a big wooden man out in the middle of the desert? You need a permit. Good thing too, as I don't think that any of us want to pay extra to clean up the mess that gets left behind.
i think these guys got it right:
http://www.wncoutdoors.info/2014/09/no-the-forest-service-is-not-planning-to-charge-you-1500-to-photograph-the-wilderness//
As someone who works in (local) government, protecting the environment, I can attest to some dumb laws, but there's always a good intention in it. Furthermore, there are many laws or rules which exist that on face value seem stupid, but as CVT points out, make sense when you start extrapolating potential worst-case scenarios which could result in the absence of said law.
Where I live, many people dislike zoning laws and complain that it is the land of "no". There is an Indian reservation along a major thoroughfare that is not subject to zoning laws. This area is the ugliest place around because they put a million signs advertising discounted cigarettes and promoting their smoke shops every 2 feet. So, as pointed out above, it may be an inconvenience for a few, but it protects us all (and our resources) in the long run.