"leading Ansel Adams away in handcuffs"

[Brian Sims]

The quote is down a ways in the article about Forest Service requiring permits for photojournalists.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024629853_forestpermitxml.html

[Drew Wiley]

Let the damn new folks squirm. Even here in the city they have to obey certain laws so they don't get in other people's way or themselves cause a hazard to emergency responders. If they just want to do a private documentary they can use small equipment and just term it a personal art project, whether it allegedly has
social relevance or not, just like we do. There are all kinds of controversies out there, like climbers turning natural sandstone arches into giant swing and bunji jumps. That's all I need - hike into some public space to see rope burns all over the rocks and natural features turned into some climbing gym. ... Same thing with film crews. And there's nothing more annoying than hiking into some really pristine wilderness area where even a fire pit or footprint is nonexistent, just to have some twin engine Otter come buzzing over your head for an hour with a filmmaker in it. It's happened to me. I don't want to cross the line into politics here. So I'll just stop at the point of saying some of us have a right to solitude and peace of mind too. The journalists can follow the rules, just like the rest of us have to.

[Brian Sims]

Drew, "The journalists can follow the rules, just like the rest of us have to."

Did you bother to read the article? If you did, you must have missed the part about the local forest service rangers applying "the rules" in an arbitrary way. You might have also noticed, that the film crew was using small gear similar to still photographers. No helicopters. No rock climbers. No "news at 11" camera crews getting in the way of fire trucks. It's like you read a completely different article than the one I posted.

[Willie]

One problem with these guys is their definition of 'commercial' is entirely at the whim of the moment.
A tripod? You might be 'commercial'.
Interchangeable lens SLR? You might be 'commercial'.

After all, when you have a run-in and don't have video of what really happened, who will the Federal Judge believe?

[Drew Wiley]

No difference. They were violating known rules. If the journalists don't like the manner these rules might apply to less intrusive newer methods, they should address
them at the appropriate hearings or feedback opportunities, or contact the relevant officials. They've got the bully pulpit and are whining all the time anyway. But as
more and more documentary work gets done by DLSR's and even smaller devices, some revision of the rules might be appropriate. And if it's a case of field employees simply not understanding the rules themselves, they do have supervisors. I grew up in a major Natl Forest, immediately adjacent to three Natl Parks and seven official Wilderness areas, plus BLM, and have seen it all. And yes, there are a certain number of dummies in the field.

[Drew Wiley]

Wille .... how come I can take a over a thousand backpack trips in my life in Fed jurisdictions, and gosh knows how much road travel over the West and never get
hassled about what kind of camera I use? No, I don't set them up on Freeways, where it's dangerous and illegal, or try to invade private property with them. The only places I've even gotten flack on public lands were in the vicinity of Polygamous cults where their own police or Forest Service officers were suspicious that I was an FBI agent mapping the area with that big tripod. I was also kidnapped once on BLM land by a doty old rancher and his helpers who simply didn't believe in the Fed Govt and assumed squatter's rights on anything their cattle wandered onto. But those are completely different scenarios. We pay taxes and fees to use certain federal lands, why shouldn't film crews? If they don't like it, then let them lobby or appeal to revise the rules. Otherwise, it just a matter of supervision and getting field employees up to speed.

[Drew Wiley]

... So Brian, according to this article, if I called myself a Journalist, I should just automatically have the right to be exempt from the same Wilderness Permit process that everyone else is subject to, including ordinary photographers? I can just trample anything anywhere I wish? Just so much whining as far as I'm concerned. Too
bad. Some of these journalists need to grow up.

[Vaughn]

Well, AA did get a ticket at Point Lobos for setting his camera up off the path...or so the story goes.

[Brian Sims]

Drew, once again I would recommend reading the article. Let me point out a key paragraph:

“We had to convince them our stories would be in keeping with their interpretation of the values of wilderness,” said Ron Pisaneschi, general manager of Idaho Public Television. “We got the permits, but now we’re saying, ‘Enough.’ That’s not right. Our role is not to be a PR office for the Forest Service. It’s to cover stories how we see fit.”

I think their complaint is regarding this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."--1st amendment of the US constitution (underlining is mine)

I can't find anywhere in the article that says the media thinks they should be exempt from permit processes everyone else is subject to. Can you?

[Drew Wiley]

Drew, once again I would recommend reading the article. Let me point out a key paragraph:

“We had to convince them our stories would be in keeping with their interpretation of the values of wilderness,” said Ron Pisaneschi, general manager of Idaho Public Television. “We got the permits, but now we’re saying, ‘Enough.’ That’s not right. Our role is not to be a PR office for the Forest Service. It’s to cover stories how we see fit.”

I think their complaint is regarding this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."--1st amendment of the US constitution (underlining is mine)

I can't find anywhere in the article that says the media thinks they should be exempt from permit processes everyone else is subject to. Can you?

[cps]

I thought the interesting point of the article really had to do with the first amendment/censorship issues possibly raised by the way the NFS/NPS are inconsistently implementing their commercial permitting policies. Since those policies appear to hinge on pretty subjective criteria (e.g. whether the content will be "news" or not), it is not surprising that there is inconsistent handling. To me, it is not surprising that some local officials might decide to interpret those rules as excluding commercial activities that would lead to messages the service doesn't like. Or that the rules could be used to make it harder for such projects to take place even if it isn't explicit policy.

That would seem to be a genuine problem.

If the permitting process is about protecting the wilderness, then I would think the only content that should matter from an official perspective is the timing, extent, and type of intrusion expected, not the message.

[Drew Wiley]

I just detected the same ole whine whine whine of people trying to get paid for a scoop thinking they have special rights. Then of all things they have the never of combining this with a picture of Sawtooth Lake, right in the middle of a popular Rec area known for having people problems and repetitive serious forest fires. So go
figure - cranky seige-mentality rangers come with the territory. ... So right at the corner of our own business here, right next to an entire lot of stacked framing lumber, right under a major freeway overpass, some homeless encampment starts a giant fire. It spreads onto the freeway. The fire dept is going nuts trying to get
thru all that black smoke and cut thru the fence and get some poor scatterbrained dud out alive - the same guy that started it. More fire trucks are coming along with medics. Then guess who shows up? The TV crews. Then rubberneckers. So then the police have to be called in for crowd control, and even have to keep yelling at the damn media crew to get themselves and their big van out of the way and respect a safe perimeter. Does their 1st amendment right give let them do just anything, even if it violates common sense and public safety? Just an example. But petty feuds between different public agencies and even different administration
styles are routine amidst public roles. A smart documentarian should learn to bend with the punches and not inflame their chances by irritating authorities in the first
place. I don't have a perfect track record, but a pretty good one. If someone approaches me with a suspicious look at my gear I strike up a plebian conversation about the local hunting or fishing holes and defuse the suspicion from the start, or maybe compliment their horse if appropriate. An in-your-face journalist might have legal rights, but I don't know how one can be effective they're anticipated to make you look bad in the first place. Sure there are abuses that here public awareness, but there are a helluva lot of manufactured scoops that administrators have a right to be wary of too. Lawyers can wrangle about the fine points. I'd rather just take the picture and let others cipher the implications. Believe me, there's PLENTY of infighting among the numerous NP, State Park, Coastal Commission,
and other agencies around here, and always some food fight going on with the press. I prefer to ignore it and enjoy life.

[Drew Wiley]

Sorry to answer that obliquely. If you want a straight answer I could ask one of my nephews. He's probably the most prominent land access constitutional lawyer in the country right now, and last year was keynote speaker at the US convention of State Supreme Court Justices. First he'd probably spend about six month to draft a 200 page synopsis of key nuances to the various potential arguments, then his firm would cut open an owl and carefully examine its entrails to weigh the odds of any specific court venue ruling one way or the other. Not exactly a roll of the dice, but what the probability might be, one way or another, given the makeup of a PARTICULAR appellate court, or even the US Supreme Court itself. There would be no definite answer. Never. Judges and juries all have differing opinions too. Just
odds and whether or not its worth the effort.