Forest Service says media needs photography permit in wilderness areas

http://www.oregonlive.com ^ | 09/23/2014 | By Rob Davis

[vetvetdoug]

I guess our tax money subsidizing the NPS salaries and the upkeep of the parks isn't enough. Now one cannot even photograph the area without permission? I wonder what handwringing liberal pencil neck bedwetting Democrat came up with this policy?

[TexasCajun]

And there ya go:

Liz Close, the Forest Service's acting wilderness director, says the restrictions have been in place on a temporary basis for four years and are meant to preserve the untamed character of the country's wilderness.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Welcome to Amerika.

[SnuffaBolshevik]

"Now people won’t be able to see the forest for the fees."

Well played sir.

[thackney]

planning ahead for the next Bundy Standoff? Less Press, less problems.

[dware]

You got a permit for that freedom?

[Drango]

0bama! FU

[FlingWingFlyer]

If you like your forests, you can keep your forests. You just can’t take pictures of the trees.

[no-to-illegals]

dang ... and my tree hugging permit has expired too.

[IYAS9YAS]

They didn’t say a thing about production companies filming the likes of “Prospectors”. Wonder what they are worried about.

Anyone doing business on Forest Service operated land (or BLM, or NPS, etc...) needs to get a permit to operate said business (whether it be outfitter/guides, recreation lodges, ski areas, photography for profit - not personal photography, or filming for profit - again, not personal filming), logging, etc.... The way the system works is a significant portion of the fees paid are distributed out to the states to make up for lost revenue because the state doesn't have operations on these lands.

It makes some sense. Not as much sense as eliminating the bureaucracies and giving the land and control back to the states, though.

That being said, if it's news stories, then that falls under freedom of the press, and there should be no fee whatsoever.

[nikos1121]

Hahahaha....Try and get it from us. Bwahahahahahaahhhaaa.

[Sacajaweau]

Ridiculous

[Da Coyote]

Bring it, forest service.

Please.

[Mjaye]

Now people won’t be able to see the forest for the fees.<<<<<<<<

Excellent!!!!!!!!!!

[Ouderkirk]

Like the assault weapons bans...it’s just another law/rule/ whatever that I simply will not follow.

It is issued by a Mullah Obama appointee, and thus it’s application to me is at my sole discretion. Anyone so challenging my right to photograph PUBLIC lands will be subject to the S.S.& S. (shoot, shovel, and shut up) rules. They will need to live to report me...from way out there in the wilderness. Betcha they won’t make it out and will never be heard from again.

Looks like being a USFS stooge is going to become a high risk endeavor.

[grumpygresh]

Photography on public land illegal w/o a permit? Looks like national forests and the like would be a good place for the Feds to set up concentration camps, rendition centers, ammo dumps etc.
This has got to be satire.

[WayneS]

Interesting.

I thought we were SUPPOSED to be neglecting the wilderness.

[WayneS]

Permits cost up to $1,500, says Forest Service spokesman Larry Chambers, and reporters who don't get a permit could face fines up to $1,000.

I'm no mathemagician, but it looks to me like the fine for not having a permit costs less than getting a permit.

[TurboZamboni]

They're hiding Bigfoot from us because they don't want us to find out it's plan to make us eat broccoli for school lunches.

[IYAS9YAS]

Photography on public land illegal w/o a permit?

No. Personal photography/filming is perfectly legal. Photography or filming for profit (i.e. movie industry, TV shows, selling prints, etc...) requires a permit, as does any other for-profit venture on public land.