Ag Policy Blog
Photo Fees on Public Lands? C'Mon, Man!
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.
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
© Copyright 2014 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.
Comments
To comment, please Log In or Join our Community .