how many of you have heard about the photographer that was fined a 1000.00 dollars just for taking pictures in a national park ,what will our forest service dream up next :face-icon-small-sho
no pictures in wilderness areas with out a permit
- Thread starter mtncat1
- Start date
I am guessing that there is way more to that story then just taking photos. but then there wouldn't be a controversy. Say trespassing on restricted land and believing they are above the law and generally just being a dumbazz. just a guess though
K
Dunno but there is some proprosal for journalists to have to apply and pay to take photos.
http://www.ktvz.com/news/walden-challenges-usfs-mediaphoto-wilderness-permit/28242638
Just read this the other day.
So stupid.
http://www.ktvz.com/news/walden-challenges-usfs-mediaphoto-wilderness-permit/28242638
Just read this the other day.
So stupid.
D
Scott is correct if commercial work only.....the tourism industry is huge and competitive and and states with scenic beauty are tired of seeing advertisement and photos used from other states to attract tourism....
How many times have photos been taken of the Grand Tetons only to be used in marketing/advertisement for the great state of Tennessee.
DPG
How many times have photos been taken of the Grand Tetons only to be used in marketing/advertisement for the great state of Tennessee.
DPG
SOoooo that's why all the disgruntled Chinese ?? Thought it was strange they were there.....
If you can't tell the difference between the Smokeys and the Tetons...LOL
there is a lot more to the story, this has been national news and has been discussed in news papers across the country. a freelance photographer took a picture in a national park and used it in a project. he was apparently cited for this and issued a citation. the forest service has also been reported to have not issued permits and denied access to employee interview's, until the content of the pieces was approved. this is a free speech issue and has been thought to reach much farther than commercial work. think about you using go pro footage in a semi pro type movie and be subject to this rule. Utah has had back door taxes such as the bird watching stamp. it happens and has happened .so think seriously about it folks
What is this world coming to??? That is freaking ridiculous. Well these guys aren't getting any revenue from sledders riding in the "Wilderness areas" so they have to come up with a way to make money off people somehow. LOL
D
I have visited both Smokey Mt. Wyoming & Grand Teton Tennessee it was just like my AAA magazine said it would be :face-icon-small-hap
DPG
V
I'll buy a $20 permit to ride in the wilderness if that helps anyone. Not sure I'd even take any pictures, unless selfies count.
we already buy permits to ride, that what a license is supposed to be for .
K
Journalists or no.. no one should have to pay the government to take a damn picture of the forest..
Freaking stupid.
Freaking stupid.
This has been going on for years already in Montana nothing new. Its funny that the permit is 1500 but the fine is 1000.
I do not call a bird watcher stamp a back door tax. I call it equity. I register my atv and sleds. I buy hunting and fishing licenses. For each, I pay search and rescue fees. Guess I will get eight times better service than the guy who buys one fishing license. For the hunting and fishing licenses, I pay $20 in habitat stamps. I pay for my duck stamp. All of these pay for access, animal support, parking, etc. I think the birders and photographers really should help.
I also think that the newspapers whining about the commercial fee as a first amendment issue affecting only their first amendment interests are wrong. It is a free speech issue for every non commercial user.. But, all of us who make other commercial uses of the Forest are paying fees and are licensed--guides, outfitters, loggers,miners, trial groomers etc. Why not a COMMERCIAL photographer?
I also think that the newspapers whining about the commercial fee as a first amendment issue affecting only their first amendment interests are wrong. It is a free speech issue for every non commercial user.. But, all of us who make other commercial uses of the Forest are paying fees and are licensed--guides, outfitters, loggers,miners, trial groomers etc. Why not a COMMERCIAL photographer?
Last edited:
what if they wake up one morning and decide that because you post a photo or video on line that you are now a professional and should be subject to this bs law.
Similar threads
