Forest Service: New Regulation/Fines?

[h2oman]

The one or two federal employees for about each million acres of it probably have better things to do than worry about someone snapping a camera shutter somewhere.

+1

I've spent countless days on national forest and BLM land. The only two enforcement encounters I've had were 1) when with a dog not on a leash and 2) when we returned to our car after a day of backcountry skiing to find a note to call the forest service law enforcement guy. In the first case I was rightfully cited or warned in a respectful manner. In the second case the guy actually came by our house before we had a chance to call him - he was just checking to make sure we were OK!

I'll bet that if you were out with LF gear and ran into a ranger they would be genuinely interested in and supportive of what you were doing.

[NickyLai]

ONE person, ONE camera, ONE tripod. NO model, NO prop/set, NO alteration to the site. NO permit needed in area open to the public. That's the rule of the National Park Service that I remembered.

Found this 8/22/2013 Official Rule here, these sections mention the still photography:
https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...ctivities#p-14
https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...ctivities#h-16

Upon quick browsing, it looks like they tried to make rule to clarify the original confusing rule. The old rule still valid.

[David Lobato]

Found this 8/22/2013 Official Rule here, these sections mention the still photography:
https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...ctivities#p-14
https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...ctivities#h-16

This included both the Department of Interior (National Parks and BLM) and the Department of Agriculture (National Forests and National Grasslands). Know what federal department and agency covers the place where you visit. The laws (not only for photography) are not always the same across each department. And then there's the state and county parks as well under their own jurisdictions, and Native American Reservations are other separate entities. It's somewhat confusing but worth knowing the differences. I learned the distinctions while growing up in the West. It's useful to know where camping anywhere is okay or not, where off road driving is permissible, if public access is denied, stuff like that.

[Bill Burk]

I hope Jeff Conrad will pipe in because I don't like it.

I've added my comment.

I think any group small enough to qualify for a Wilderness Permit and act within the guidelines of that permit, should be exempt from any permit requirement for still photography or film making, regardless whether the activity is Professional, Amateur or Personal.

I also think that "Leave no trace" is best stated as "Take only pictures and leave only footprints" - I don't want them to have to change that to something like "Take only time and leave only footprints" - I guess that fits the proposed guidelines.

[Brian Sims]

Federal staff who promulgate the "rules" rarely step outside the beltway. Their job is to make rules. So they make rules. They are not bothered by the realities on the ground, or whether the rules realistically support some stated policy objective. Their job is to make rules.

[Vaughn]

One thing nice about all the panic and noise being made about this -- perhaps more forest ranger districts in the further more isolated areas are hearing about it, and it will be applied correctly and more evenly.

And as an ex-wilderness ranger of 10 years, I fully support requiring permits commercial ventures into the wilderness...above and beyond that of your average user. And most commercial ventures would not, and should not, be given permits. Some are given permits -- most notably packers.

I remember a new kid I had on my trail crew. He was going on about how they should allow at least jeep roads into the wilderness as his grandfather could not walk or ride on a horse into the wilderness. That way at least he, and others like him could enjoy the wilderness, too. It took most of the summer, but he finally realized that a wilderness with roads is no longer a wilderness...it is just like all that other Forest Service land that have jeep roads all over them...some pretty nice places, but it is not wilderness.

[Jeff Conrad]

I think the proposal is poorly worded, but I don’t think it’s a big deal for most of us here. First, it’s a change to the Forest Service Handbook, which does not and cannot impose an obligation on the public. Of course, the FSH does direct the activities of People with Guns ... Second, the proposed section only comes into play for still photography if the photography involves models or props. Now with the games the DOI agencies and the FS have played with the definitions of these terms, it’s tough to say who is a model and what is a prop. I’ve already seen some site-to-site variations, and wonder what is to come. Quite honestly, that issue concerns me far more than the latest announcement. Nonetheless, I’m going to submit comment; if nothing else, I’ll recommend striking the reference to “noncommercial still photography” (which isn’t even defined). As nearly as I can tell, that mention is without legal effect, but keeping it can only invite confusion. I’ll also probably hint that the regulations have some far more fundamental problems. But since that issue isn’t really open to comment, I’m not going to say much.

If the proposed change does present a problem and finds support in regulation (in this case, 36 CFR 251.50–51), then the regulation is what needs to be changed. That is not going to be easy.

The FS appear to have backed off a bit, and the comment period seems to have been extended:

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/fo...cking-off-fine

http://www.sfgate.com/default/articl...ng-5779322.php

But I agree with Mickey Osterreicher of NPPA that the wording does not reflect the stated intent. And the impact on the press could be a lot greater than on most of us. Accordingly, the wording should be fixed.

I trust it is no secret that my general thoughts on the regulations issued in response to Public Law 106-206 would violate forum guidelines, so I’ll not express them. So far, no great evil seems to have resulted, but it may be just a matter of time. Again, other issues concern me more than the latest proposal.

In addition to commenting, I’m writing my congresswoman. I don’t think she has much interest, but she may pass the comments on to Reps. DeFazio or Walden, or Sen. Wyden, who have spoken out strongly against the proposal. I haven’t decided whether to muddy the waters by resurrecting some of the other issues. In any event, I don’t expect much to come of it.

[Heroique]

I'll bet that if you were out with LF gear and ran into a ranger they would be genuinely interested in and supportive of what you were doing.

This week I was hiking up a slippery and rocky trail w/ my LF gear (in Mount Baker-Snoqualmie NF) when I noticed a ranger coming up behind me – and gaining fast. He had a daypack with his own gear, and as he continued to gain on me, I remember thinking that my gear certainly outweighed his! He finally overtook me, and I stepped off the trail to let him pass. He stopped to greet me, and after a moment of friendly conversation, he offered to carry my assembled Ries ("your photographer's tripod," he said) to the top of the hill we were climbing. Usually, I'm possessive about my gear, but this time, in view of trail conditions, I was quick to accept! My tax dollars hard at work. As we continued our climb to the rise, which took about 10 minutes, he explained he was out to repair some trailside erosion barriers. We mainly talked about planned repairs for a washed-out FS road that was blocking access to a nearby trailhead. As we reached the summit, he handed me my tripod, wished me luck, and was on his way.

I was pleased he didn't get the memo! ;^)

[tgtaylor]

This was in my inbox this morning:

NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
Contact: (202) 205-1005
Twitter: @forestservice

US Forest Service Chief: I will ensure the First Amendment is upheld under
agency commercial filming directives

WASHINGTON, Sept. 25, 2014 – The U.S. Forest Service today released
information to clarify the agency’s intentions regarding a proposed
directive for commercial photography and filmmaking in congressionally
designated wilderness areas.

“The US Forest Service remains committed to the First Amendment,” said U.S.
Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. “To be clear, provisions in the draft
directive do not apply to news gathering or activities.”

The proposal does not apply to news coverage, gathering information for a
news program or documentary. However, if a project falls outside of that
scope and the filming is intended to be on wilderness land, additional
criteria are applied to protect wilderness values. In that case, a permit
must be applied for and granted before any photography is permitted.

The agency issued a Federal Register notice on Sept. 4 seeking public
comment on a proposal to formally establish consistent criteria for
evaluating requests for commercial filming in wilderness areas as it has on
national forests and grasslands. The proposed directive on commercial
filming in wilderness has been in place for more than four years and is a
good faith effort to ensure the fullest protection of America’s wild places.

“The fact is, the directive pertains to commercial photography and filming
only – if you’re there to gather news or take recreational photographs, no
permit would be required. We take your First Amendment rights very
seriously,” said Tidwell. “We’re looking forward to talking with
journalists and concerned citizens to help allay some of the concerns we’ve
been hearing and clarify what’s covered by this proposed directive.”

Congressionally designated wilderness areas are protected by the Wilderness
Act of 1964 and must remain in their natural condition. This is achieved in
part by prohibiting certain commercial enterprises, and the agency is
responsible for ensuring its policies adhere to that standard.
The public originally had until Nov. 3, 2014, to comment on the proposal.
Based on the high level of interest, the agency will extend the public
comment period to Dec. 3, 2014.

The proposal does not change the rules for visitors or recreational
photographers. Generally, professional and amateur photographers will not
need a permit unless they use models, actors or props; work in areas where
the public is generally not allowed; or cause additional administrative
costs.

Currently, commercial filming permit fees range around $30 per day for a
group up to three people. A large Hollywood production with 70 or more
people might be as much as $800. The $1,500 commercial permit fee cited in
many publications is erroneous, and refers to a different proposed
directive.

The Forest Service has long required permits according to statute for
various activities on agency lands, from cutting a Christmas tree to
filming a major motion picture, such as the 2013 Johnny Depp movie “The
Lone Ranger.” The Disney production obtained a permit to film part of the
movie on the Santa Fe National Forest in New Mexico.


So nothing has changed but the fees that are charged have been clarified.

Thomas

[John Kasaian]

A few years back the ranger in charge strongly discouraged me from shooting an 8x10 at Fort Point in SF without getting a permit/proof of insurance. The same with Golden Gate Park. This was personal photography, no lighting, crew, nor anything commercial---just a tripod.