Forest Service regulation on photography

Juano

I apologize if this has already been discussed, I don't post much on this forum. I just found out that the Forest Service is proposing to require a special permit for still photography in their protected areas.

"The proposed directive is necessary for the Forest Service to issue and administer special use authorizations that will allow the public to use and occupy National Forest System (NFS) lands for still photography and commercial filming in wilderness."

Note that there is no "commercial" before "still photography". The complete text of the reg can be found here.

Wiren

Juano wrote: »

I apologize if this has already been discussed, I don't post much on this forum. I just found out that the Forest Service is proposing to require a special permit for still photography in their protected areas.

"The proposed directive is necessary for the Forest Service to issue and administer special use authorizations that will allow the public to use and occupy National Forest System (NFS) lands for still photography and commercial filming in wilderness."

Note that there is no "commercial" before "still photography". The complete text of the reg can be found here.

See this..... Clarification of Forest Service statement on photography

There has certainly been a justifiable outcry regarding our rights.... they are "saying" that they are using this rule to keep folks ruining the forest by using large props to obtain imagery or video.... makes sense, but there certainly needs to be strict guidelines on keeping them from extending it further......

Fiddlestix

For the majority of us who simply wish to capture images in our national parks and forests, this is not an issue. My understanding is that the permit for still photography applies to the use of models, sets or props or when photographing areas that not not normally accessible to the general public. I have included and extract from the applicable regulation below. And as much as they may think otherwise, our spouses are NOT considered models!

45.51 - Still Photography
45.51a - Permit Requirements
A special use permit is not required for still photography when that activity involves breaking news (sec. 45.5). A special use permit:
1. Is required for all still photography (sec. 45.5) activities on National Forest System (NFS) lands that involve the use of models, sets, or props that are not a part of the natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities of the site where the activity is taking place.
2. May be required for still photography activities not involving models, sets, or props when the Forest Service incurs additional administrative costs as a direct result of the still photography activity or when the still photography activity takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed.

Juano

Wiren wrote: »

See this..... Clarification of Forest Service statement on photography

There has certainly been a justifiable outcry regarding our rights.... they are "saying" that they are using this rule to keep folks ruining the forest by using large props to obtain imagery or video.... makes sense, but there certainly needs to be strict guidelines on keeping them from extending it further......

Fiddlestix wrote: »

For the majority of us who simply wish to capture images in our national parks and forests, this is not an issue. My understanding is that the permit for still photography applies to the use of models, sets or props or when photographing areas that not not normally accessible to the general public. I have included and extract from the applicable regulation below. And as much as they may think otherwise, our spouses are NOT considered models!

45.51 - Still Photography
45.51a - Permit Requirements
A special use permit is not required for still photography when that activity involves breaking news (sec. 45.5). A special use permit:
1. Is required for all still photography (sec. 45.5) activities on National Forest System (NFS) lands that involve the use of models, sets, or props that are not a part of the natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities of the site where the activity is taking place.
2. May be required for still photography activities not involving models, sets, or props when the Forest Service incurs additional administrative costs as a direct result of the still photography activity or when the still photography activity takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed.

Thank you for clarifying, I will sleep better tonight!

Stumblebum

Agenda 21.

Google it.

It always starts with a rule that only affects a slim minority of folks such as income tax or anything that Govt. wants to enforce. They introduce it as a benign thing, only affecting few folks. They never have any intention of stopping there, and slowly and surely rules are expanded and people that fall in under it increases.

In long run they don't want anybody anywhere except in cities living in small apartments.
Oppose all power grabs.
Oppose all abuse of forests also.

Otherwise, Agenda-21 would succeed.
Peace!

Fiddlestix

Stumblebum wrote: »

Agenda 21.

Google it.

It always starts with a rule that only affects a slim minority of folks such as income tax or anything that Govt. wants to enforce. They introduce it as a benign thing, only affecting few folks. They never have any intention of stopping there, and slowly and surely rules are expanded and people that fall in under it increases.

In long run they don't want anybody anywhere except in cities living in small apartments.
Oppose all power grabs.
Oppose all abuse of forests also.

Otherwise, Agenda-21 would succeed.
Peace!

Be VERY careful what you write! They are watching and they are listening!

Sam

There are quite a few real issues here, but for this discussion let's focus on still landscape photography.

The way this proposal is written it does appear to OK amateurs taking landscape photos without the need to buy a permit. God help you if you have a website, pro gear and or a business card.

What is very unclear is whether the same amateur can then sell these images without violating this law / policy.

It seems to imply that if your a fine art landscape photographer like Ansel Adams, and are selling your images you will need a permit.

So we, you and I buy the land, pay to have someone administer the land, then we need to pay to actually put our little toes on the ground, and now need to give them more money if there is a remote chance of selling a photo.

The wording is unclear, as intended. Any assurances from ANY government / elected official is irrelevant. They can say anything and can't be held responsible, or accountable.

The only thing that does mater is what is written. If it is clear and unambiguous we are in pretty good shape. If it vague and fuzzy we be in deep brown stuff.

OH yea and about your input, it is meaningless. The decision is already made. Anyone tells you different they are lying or ignorant.

Sam

Seefutlung

Fiddlestix wrote: »

Be VERY careful what you write! They are watching and they are listening!

Actually, yes they are. I am so interested to Google some terrorists website sites just to look round ... but I have this fear of being marked and listed somewhere ... and those black, unmarked helicopters following me ...

Juano

Well, let's wait and see how this whole thing pans out.

JonaBeth Russell

This stinks, right up there with charging through-hikers to get through the land or sleep there in the back country. As Stumblebum and Sam have both pointed out, this is a steamy pile for sure.

ian408

The politicians have said it only applies to "commercial" photographers. But as written, there are a couple of things that could qualify you has commercial. Lighting and a model are two things. Which makes the legislation unclear and like Sam said, regardless what anyone says, it's what is written that matters.

JC

Back country permits are so dirt cheap everywhere I've been, I don't have a problem with them. I had to clean up a trail of food and gear left behind by backcountry fishermen once (In Grizzly territory, where we saw two Grizzlies, we think), on Yellowstone's Sky Rim, after they had been emergency evac'd after running out of water. (Idiots, I assume, some of the gear they abandoned were mostly full propane canisters, so I know they had a way to boil water, and the north facing slopes still had snowfields, bowls of cooked Ramen, packets of tuna, and fish bait, we collected all we could find and sacrificed my rope hanging it in a tree, since we all had full packs and didn't want to be lugging around their gear, but didn't want it lying around to attract Grizzlies either), so I'm ok with permits and minor costs to keep the park in the loop and somewhat compensated for use. So as a non-commercial shooter, I'm mostly ok with these regulations, as they are designed, for the cases where photography could conceivably add to the ranger's work load. We'll see how the local enforcement goes, when an amateur goes in with what a local ranger thinks is "pro" gear, and could conceivably get hassled. I was nearly arrested (I think) outside of Tecopah, CA, shooting the moon across one of the wetlands, by a sheriff who didn't understand how I could be shooting at night, and thought it must be a cover for something nefarious. He was starting to ask to search my car when I chimped my last couple of shots for him, and convinced him I was harmless.