Forest Service says media needs photography permit in wilderness areas

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

[Dallas59]

The Soviet Union never died...

[JimRed]

These mindless unelected beaurcrats are unaware who owns these lands.

These mindless unelected bureaucrats need to be identified so those within reach can...uh, so they can have "accidents".

[tumblindice]

Franklin B. Hough, US Forest Service: Holy underwear! Sheriff murdered! Innocent women and children blown to bits! Naked brown bears! Mexican marijuana fields going unbribed!
We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!
No photographs without permission and a fat fee and’or fine! More exclamation marks!

[Lockbox]

What’s next, need a permit for White House picture?

[Steve_Seattle]

"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."

Is it a REQUIREMENT that public officials must be liars? She cites the 1964 Wilderness Protection Act as a rationale for this policy, but somehow the Act was in place for 46 years before anyone thought that this particular policy was needed "to protect the wilderness from commercial exploitation."

[Steve_Seattle]

"I wonder what handwringing liberal pencil neck bedwetting Democrat came up with this policy?"

You left out "pantywaist" and "metrosexual".

[Steve_Seattle]

"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."

The article claims more than that. It says that reporters doing investigative journalism in these areas require a permit. So, for example, if a reporter found out that the Forest Service was allowing a road to be built, or something else intrusive, in a wilderness area, a reporter would need a permit to take a picture of the road. And if the Forest Service didn't want any bad publicity, they could deny the permit.

[Disambiguator]

Taking pictures of the forest steals some of it’s spirit essence and weakens mother Gaia.

It saps and impurifies her precious bodily fluids.

[DPMD]

Let ‘em try stopping us.

[DannyTN]

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

Good one.

[Dust in the Wind]

I knew they put fees on every thing but thought I’d inject it.

[hal ogen]

So now (in addition to being a criminal because I post-on and read Free Republic) I am a criminal because I take a picture of a beautiful sunset over BLM lands out back of my property and sell it? These degenerate federal “workers” are such asses.

[old curmudgeon]

Stories like this once upon a time got me angry.,

Assuming it is true, I am glad to see it.

My reasoning is that the Marxists will finally go too far and create a constitutional case in the Supreme Court and by that, it is possible to get this country back to laws by the rules specified in our Constitution.

There is a lot of money in the news media and they could easily finance a trip to the Supreme court, whereas you and I can not.

So I say show your colors, Park Service and lets have at it.

[IYAS9YAS]

It says that reporters doing investigative journalism in these areas require a permit.

Falls directly under the First Amendment regarding Freedom of the Press. It will fail in court.

[IYAS9YAS]

So now (in addition to being a criminal because I post-on and read Free Republic) I am a criminal because I take a picture of a beautiful sunset over BLM lands out back of my property and sell it? These degenerate federal “workers” are such asses.

If you take the picture from your property, no. If you take it while on BLM land, yes, if you're selling it. It's congress that made the laws these fees fall under, not the employees. However, in this case, it appears to be a misinterpretation of the law by an employee. This falls squarely under the First Amendment and Freedom of the Press, and this would likely be shot down in court.

Most of the fees collected are eventually remitted to the state where they were collected. The theory is that the federal land causes the state to lose out on revenue from business operations that could exist where federal lands exist, so the fees work to offset that lost revenue.

It would be much better for the fed to divest itself of the land, and let it go to the states.

[waxer1]

Is this a joke? What is happening to my country? Please tell me this is satire.

[KoRn]

Doesn’t this violate the freedom of the press?

Technically such lands are PUBLIC property.

[Magnatron]

"I wonder what handwringing liberal pencil neck bedwetting Democrat came up with this policy?" You left out "pantywaist" and "metrosexual".

Ray: Everything was fine until the grid was shut down by dickless here.

Walter Peck: They caused an explosion!

Mayor: Is this true?

Peter: Yes sir, it’s true. This man has no dick.

[MeshugeMikey]

Ansel would tell em to sit down and shut up
<

br>

[ourworldawry]

“America is a communists Country and freedom is just about gone.”

No it’s not. It means, “communists” are running it, and that’s a problem for the American people....the ‘substance’ of the Constitution. What do you think they’ve been doing all this time when they weren’t tending to America’s REAL problems? Well...they were/are working very HARD to see that you and I FEEL that it is such a nation. This way, it will be far easier to institute what they really want to do. You know...”eeeease us into it. Now, I don’t about you, but kneeling, and patiently waiting for it, is not how I ‘roll’.

And, nor do I expect any TRUE fellow Americans to ever posture themselves in such a way, either. Because THAT, will be what allows another country to become more “exceptional” than we.