It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

National Forest Service will soon fine photographers $1000 for taking pictures???

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   
My first thread so I'm hoping I've chosen wisely on the location?

I'm originally from Montana and have lived in Oregon for the past 27 years so when I read this I was utterly dumbfounded. Whether or not the idiots responsible for this legislation have a leg to stand on is certainly up for discussion so I'm asking ATS members what you think?

Could this actually happen or is this even real? Cheers

Source




posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: spookysully


Forest Service says media doesn't need permit

Well, here's what they're saying down here in my neck of the woods. Seems like someone inserted their foot firmly into their mouth, and their boss is now saying "Wait, that guy's an idiot. Who in the heck let him talk to the press?"



SEATTLE (AP) — Faced with increasing criticism of a proposal that would restrict media filming in wilderness areas, the head of the U.S. Forest Service said late Thursday that the rule is not intended to apply to news-gathering activities.

The rule would apply to commercial filming, like a movie production, but reporters and news organizations would not need to get a permit to shoot video or photographs in the nation's wilderness areas, Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell said in a phone interview Thursday.

"The U.S. Forest Service remains committed to the First Amendment," he said, adding: "It does not infringe in any way on First Amendment rights. It does not apply to news-gathering activities, and that includes any part of news."

Forest Service officials had said earlier in the week that news organizations, except in breaking news situations, would be required to obtain a permit and follow a number of criteria if they wanted to film in designated wilderness areas.


Pretty sure its mountains out of molehills. Besides, if you're in the good spots, nobody'll be around for miles.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: spookysully

Wow that's interesting (and crazy!). Here is snopes on the issue:
Forest Finer


Claim: The U.S. Forest Service is proposing new rules that would require permits for commercial filming and photography in federally designated wilderness areas.


It's true. Though this should be noted:


Origins: On 25 September 2014, a new rule proposed by the U.S. Forest Service pertaining to photography and film permits sparked internet outrage. According to circulating posts about the issue, the agency would like to charge fees of up to $1,500 before allowing "commercial filming and photography in federally designated wilderness areas." When the proposal is finalized in November 2014, reporters and other media outlets who do not obtain permits could face fines of up to $1,000. (Tourists and park visitors snapping photographs for personal, non-commercial use would not be affected by the proposed regulations.)


So this shouldn't effect you or I with our measly cell phone cameras (like your source is suggesting), but rather commercial media outlets. I still disagree with this and view it as a violation of the first amendment though.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   
That's just ridiculous.

How does taking a picture of something need a permit, you cant copyright nature.

How long will it be before they charge you for remembering what you see with your own eyes.

Feds in America are so up there own asses.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: CloudsTasteMetallic
a reply to: spookysully


Forest Service says media doesn't need permit


Pretty sure its mountains out of molehills. Besides, if you're in the good spots, nobody'll be around for miles.


Thanks for the replies! I don't usually pay much attention to what I read on fb but this got my ire up and I had to reach out and ATS was my (good or bad?) option.. Ha ha!

The article mentioned cellphone photo's but I think it was meant for shock and awe to a certain extent. Couldn't agree more with you Clouds on the good spots. I've been either hiking, hunting or stumbling through the rockies since I was a kid and I know area's they'd need satellite footage to prosecute. Cheers guys!



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
If you take a picture of nature, then post it on a website where you make money to show where you went on vacation or to promote an area or just because it was a nice picture, would it be for commercial use than?



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: spookysully

See they make laws like this not for the ordinary people. But for those times when someone takes a photo they shouldn't, or is in a place taking picutres of stuff they shouldn't, and don't know it, or do know it. This kind've law gives them the backing to take those pictures and keep the ordinary citizens from finding about about them.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: spookysully
As mentioned in another thread on the subject...
Parks departments are being seriously underfunded. For an example of how this issue is being dealt with in Canada, I recommend listening to this report from the CBC:
Due to budget cuts, Parks Canada explores charging a fee when wildlife is spotted
www.cbc.ca...





posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Thanks for the link! Listening now..

Edited to add...I'm trying to listen, having much trouble with the player for some reason.



edit on 22p20142014k1422000000FridayFriday by spookysully because: trouble with the player



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   
I have seen things like this many times with the forest service, BLM and park service.

The administration makes rules and laws that are not clear. Sometimes with the intent to bypass congress.

Then lower rank flunkies around the country read the laws any way they want to and try to enforce then in ways out side the way the law or rules were written.



posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Burls Just Wanna Have Funds


originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
Due to budget cuts, Parks Canada explores charging a fee when wildlife is spotted
www.cbc.ca...

If you think that's bad, then you should probably avoid reviewing the latest funding proposal from the Ministry of Silly Walks.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Filming a movie in a wilderness with horses, multiple actors, big cameras, trucks--that's one thing, but---what about a legal hunter whose buddy is filming the hunt? If the filming is strictly for commercial film making, and the primary goal is not to be successful in a licensed activity--like hunting or fishing, where the filming is secondary to the activity--- then a fee or fine would be appropriate.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
If you take a picture of nature, then post it on a website where you make money to show where you went on vacation or to promote an area or just because it was a nice picture, would it be for commercial use than?


I can see both sides of this...I think they are trying to slice out the average joe taking pics and video or news reporters from the Movie Studio that shows up with 5 trucks, 3 trailers and massive crew to film movie scenes. Hopefully they figure it out.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: beezzer
If you take a picture of nature, then post it on a website where you make money to show where you went on vacation or to promote an area or just because it was a nice picture, would it be for commercial use than?


I can see both sides of this...I think they are trying to slice out the average joe taking pics and video or news reporters from the Movie Studio that shows up with 5 trucks, 3 trailers and massive crew to film movie scenes. Hopefully they figure it out.


When talking about legislators and law enforcement, don't count on it.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: spookysully


Once again the progressive PTB are hard at work. They will claim this is for the greater good and for the protection of all.......YA. What is it really about......Power & control.



When you break this down to it's core roots as a problem this is what you find. Putting the rights of the masses over the rights of the individual. Also remember America is not a democracy it is a republic ruled by law. When you understand what that really means stories like this begin to make sense.



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: spookysully

I saw this article and a few others like it. AWFUL! Granted, I believe that natures beauty is unforgettable because it is absolutely breath taking. However, to fine/charge people for something that is so stunning is unethical.

BTW- so jealous of you for growing up in the great northwest, I went their for the first time this past summer and I must say, once I am done with this joke we call college, I will be making my way up there multiple times a year. Montana/Glacier National park was one of the best experiences of my life. I need to make my way to Oregon. Go Ducks.



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: spookysully

I don't care what Forest Service's intent, are trying to do, blah blah blah. Whatever it is, the answer is no and up yours.




top topics



 
7

log in

join