Ag Policy Blog

Photo Fees on Public Lands? C'Mon, Man!

Chris Clayton
By  Chris Clayton , DTN Ag Policy Editor
Connect with Chris:

Social media has been abuzz the past couple of days over a proposed rule by the U.S. Forest Service that would require journalists to get permits if they want to shoot photos or record videos on national forests or grasslands.

A Portland Oregonian article set off the fury with the Forest Service's acting wilderness director claiming the agency is proposing this rule based on the 50-year-old Wilderness Act. An agency spokesman told the newspaper that fees could be as high as $1,500. Reporter could face penalties of up to $1,000 for not seeking the permits.

http://www.oregonlive.com/…

In a statement on Thursday, the Forest Service said commercial filming permit fees actually range around $30 per day for up to three people. The agency noted, "The $1,500 commercial permit fee cited in many publications is erroneous, and refers to a different proposed directive." Again, that figure originally came from an agency spokesman.

I found the matter ironic on a lot of levels in an administration that argues it champions openness and transparency. I also was surprised to learn that the Forest Service has had a directive in place for four years requiring such permits.

Well, I'm sorry. I've gone to USFS grasslands and forests, shot photos and used those photos in articles. I have a lifelong belief that it's better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission -- or get a permit.

P[L1] D[0x0] M[300x250] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

This Forest Service deal made me think of the battle farmers face with EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers over the proposed waters of the U.S. rule. That's especially the case because I have used photos I shot of streams in a national forest to illustrate some stories on the waters of the U.S. proposal. Again, who decides who has to get a permit and under what conditions? I bet I wouldn't need a permit if I was doing a story about the Forest Service facing budget cuts. They would probably charge me $1,500 if I was doing a story saying the agency or a particular forest office wasn't spending its money wisely.

It seems beyond belief that a federal agency would require permits for photographing or filming on public lands, but now federal agencies have crossed that line.

The furor from media organizations has been huge. The Outdoor Writers Association of America denounced the proposed fee rule in a statement on Thursday. "The Outdoor Writers Association of America is concerned and disturbed that the U.S. Forest Service would use the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act to ratchet up its attempts to control what information is reported about wilderness areas and by whom," said OWAA President Mark Freeman, outdoors columnist for the Mail Tribune in Medford, Oregon.

The Society of Environmental Journalists has come down hard against the proposal. I've gotten a lot of support among members of the North American Agricultural Journalists and members of the American Agricultural Editors Association. I'll be drafting a letter from NAAJ on the proposed rule.

Following the flurry of outrage from journalists and commercial photographers, the U.S. Forest Service sought "to clarify the agency's intentions" in somewhat of a mea culpa.

“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 Forest Service stated the proposed rule won't affect general news gathering or documentaries. Ken Burns is safe. But the Forest Service would seek fees for filming that "falls outside of that scope" on wilderness land.

The rule, however, needs to be clarified on those points. It seems to offer no such normal latitude for journalism or documentary work.

The original proposed rule was posted in the Federal Register earlier this month. Following the reaction from journalists and on social media, the Forest Service is now extending its public comment period to Dec. 3.

"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.”

Follow me on Twitter @ChrisClaytonDTN

P[] D[728x170] M[320x75] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]
P[L2] D[728x90] M[320x50] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

Comments

To comment, please Log In or Join our Community .

Unknown
10/1/2014 | 11:53 AM CDT
Why was the farm bills comment period less than 30 days?
Unknown
9/29/2014 | 8:11 AM CDT
I farm and I am a professional photographer. I think I understand what the service is trying to accomplish. There are so many cable companies and others such as Fox that claim to be news and journalist organizations but are actually only licensed as entertainment companies, not networks in the public interest. When these companies use the public lands for profit, that is against the law according to the original act. It should also be noted that many private companies want these lands opened up for drilling and fracking. They sometimes use photography as a means to gain access and survey. I can understand the service using this as a way of simply having an idea of who is there and why. Your comment about begging forgiveness rather than get permission upsets me greatly. I operate a 200 acre private nature preserve as part of my farms conservation plan. If I caught you there with out permission you would be charged with trespass, no amount of begging will help. You would not believe how many times I have been threatened and lied to by people caught there. And with conceal carry, there is nothing more unsettling than to confront someone on your own land that holds his hand over his holster and says "you don't want to press that 911 key on that phone". As to the comment on another post about regulation with out public scrutiny, that is why there is a public comment period for this and the WOTUS regulations.
Jennifer Blackburn
9/29/2014 | 7:57 AM CDT
No, the Forest Service is Not Planning to Charge You $1500 to Photograph the Wilderness http://www.wncoutdoors.info/2014/09/no-the-forest-service-is-not-planning-to-charge-you-1500-to-photograph-the-wilderness/
Bonnie Dukowitz
9/27/2014 | 5:38 AM CDT
Do the Environmental Journalists have an opinion of WOTUS? I would bet it is opposite this one.
Jay Mcginnis
9/26/2014 | 8:25 AM CDT
Actually it seems that these permits are being used to keep people from filming ecological misuses of Federal Land such as Utah tar sand extraction. Another point is that its a way for the public lands to be self sufficient in income rather then dependent on tax payers money,,,,, both of these points benefit the conservative view of land usage.
Unknown
9/25/2014 | 10:32 PM CDT
Looks like the same trend us farmers have been facing. Agencies passing law which they don't have authority to do than after they enact the regulation(law) they ask us what we think. I thought in America proposed regulation or laws are supposed to go through a public scrutiny and congressional approval before that happens. Maybe we shouldn't be so hard on Russia because we are becoming more like the former USSR all the time.