Wilderness Pictures no more, maybe.

[delcecchi]

Washington Post had this story

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govb...ral-wild-lands/

Quote:

The U.S. Forest Service is finalizing plans to fine photographers who shoot on federal wild lands without a permit.

Under the measure, still photography and commercial filming in Congress-designated wilderness areas would require a permit, and shoots would also have to be approved and meet certain criteria like not advertising any product or service and being educational.

Permits would cost up to $1,500, even if someone was taking photos or video with their phone, and fines for shooting without a permit could be as high as $1,000, according to the Oregonian. A spokesman for the Forest Service did not immediately return a request for comment.

Critics have characterized the rules as too vague and say it infringes on the First Amendment’s free speech clause.

“The Forest Service needs to rethink any policy that subjects noncommercial photographs and recordings to a burdensome permitting process for something as simple as taking a picture with a cell phone,” U.S. Sen Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) told the Oregonian. “Especially where reporters and bloggers are concerned, this policy raises troubling questions about inappropriate government limits on activity clearly protected by the First Amendment.”

The Forest Service is accepting public comment on the measure until Nov. 3.

So, leave those cameras home, boys. Don't take your cameras to woods son.

(apologies to johnny cash)

[eyeguy 54]

when cameras are outlawed, only outlaws will have cameras

[Dbl]

This one has been bounced around for some time now. The temp restrictions have been in place for four years! The policy applies to MEDIA or private individuals that profit from their work of the Forest service land. This one won't last, the press already has lawsuits planned! Plus why would you pay for a $1500 permit and not take the fine levied instead which is $1000? Truly our government at its finest!

[leech~~]

This can't even be true! Don't those Bastrds work for us?

[nofishfisherman]

Plus why would you pay for a $1500 permit and not take the fine levied instead which is $1000? Truly our government at its finest!

Just a guess but I assume the $1000 fine would be on top of the requirement to purchase the permit you should have had in the first place. At least thats they way it would work in logical society. Its anyones guess as to how it would really be handled.

Either way I don't see this one lasting too long. Not without some serious reworking of the language and adding clarity.

[leech~~]

More or less what they are saying is. "We own Federal wild lands, and you can't take pictures of our property without a permit!

We the people own it!

[eyeguy 54]

crazy!

[Kettle]

This is quite over the top, I have several photos framed in my house that would have required me to have a permit??!!??? Outlandish

Kettle

[Dbl]

Just a guess but I assume the $1000 fine would be on top of the requirement to purchase the permit you should have had in the first place. At least thats they way it would work in logical society. Its anyones guess as to how it would really be handled.

Either way I don't see this one lasting too long. Not without some serious reworking of the language and adding clarity.

Not according to a few sources I looked at. This is one that most folks are just plain going to ignore. Someone will be a test case for the courts and then the folly of this policy will be tested.