when it comes to “wilderness areas” it’s very much possible to damage the space, as well the peace, quiet and solitude that wilderness is supposed to imply.
1 Like
To be fair, it is now 8am Saturday in the timezone Cory lives in, and he has a young family and other things to do than boing boing.
I share some of the concerns raised but expecting a 24hr manned “we will correct the article” presence is a bit much.
3 Likes
And while we’re at it I’d like to impose a $50 fine every time someone takes a photo of some beautiful scenery with some twit(s) standing in the foreground, $500 if it is a “selfie”, and $5000 if it is published someplace where I might accidentally see it.
1 Like
If this was a rare one off I’d agree, instead it is often par for the course with Corey posts. He makes knee jerk, click baity false claims in the headline, body copy, or both, and then never makes corrections. There is something seriously wrong with BB when Gawker has higher editorial standards. :-p
2 Likes
I am willing to bet this idea was seeded by an accountant rather than an expert in forestry. How much revenue is this going to generate? I’m guessing very little. Are there 100 stories a year published about US forests by journalists? What is the cost of enforcing this against someone who flouted it? A day in court probably costs over $1000 in the salaries of the judge and ushers, upkeep of the building, etc… A voluntary scheme might make sense, with a clarification that the fee only applies to registered companies (eg limited liability companies that enjoy legal protections) with a turnover > $1M. Why not just get congress to fund the forestry commission adequately in the first place, rather than make them into oppressive toll-masters?
1 Like
Psst: a typo in your link to SUBMIT COMMENTS keeps it from being clickable. URL for those who want to act is https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/09/04/2014-21093/proposed-directive-for-commercial-filming-in-wilderness-special-uses-administration
Disclaimer: similar authoritarian experiences may be offered by big business, small business and small government. Effectiveness may vary according to education levels.
8 Likes
All true. May I add a bit? The national parks have had similar regs for commercial photo and film in frontcountry, for years now. There, small outfits with demonstrated know-how and low impact pay little if any fee. I believe there is still an outright prohibition on commercial wilderness filming. And America As We Know It has not come to an end.
I too am appalled at the lack of research supporting this post. For several years I have noticed that all that BB science-y stuff goes out the window whenever public lands tyranny can be a theme. Rather disappointing.
1 Like
What if I release a personal photo to the public domain or CC license it so as to allow subsequent commercial use?
You’re new to this whole politics thing, aren’t you?
2 Likes
And another small contingent tries to dogpile every new post with nitpicky idiocies. There’s plenty of fuckery to go around. Step one in posting a comment: ask yourself whether you are just dogpiling on behalf of the crowd who likes BB (or doesn’t think that everything CD posts is the worst thing evar) or whether you are just dogpiling on behalf of the crowd of the concern trollies. Then do what you were going to do to begin with, but do so honestly rather than just trying to find new creative ways to be a driving trollies idiot.
2 Likes
This is the only aspect of the proposed rule that I find frightening. Everything else is content-neutral, but this clause gives the Forest Service veto power over the project based on their arbitrary assessment of its purpose. Everything else addresses mitigation of the environmental impact, and the costs of administration. I have no problem with cost recovery or impact mitigation, but requiring government approval of the message offends against the freedom of speech.
As an amateur photographer who’s occasionally sold vacation photos, I also wonder about the definition of “noncommercial still photography”. If someone buys a picture that I took at the time with no intent to sell it, can the Forest Service look back and fine me for taking it?
So if I take a photo that’s going to make me money on my street corner, should I pay my city or state for the right?
National Forests are public land, owned by us, the people. The Forest Service does not own them, they only manage them. This is a gross overstep, and has nothing whatsoever to do with their actual mandate. It is nothing but an idiotic cash grab, which will hurt them in the end.
If this passes, I probably won’t be venturing to a national forest for my next outing, since I’m at the stage of my career where I don’t know if some of my photos are private, or will possibly become commercial. It isn’t worth the legal quagmire.
Edit: reading further… This article seems to be nothing but misinformed clickbait… Nothing to see here, move along.
It’s justifiable, if you are dealing with film productions that could damage the environment, or use up forest serviceresources, or simply cause a lot of disturbances that prevent other people from enjoying the wilderness. Then the question becomes–do you reall need to exploit this particular natural resource to make a television commercial for, say, Jeep trucks. If it’s minimally invasive, then there’s very little to justify a content restriction.
there’s also the matter of some covered sites being of spiritual and cultural significance to native groups, - rock art, for instance.
Really, the forest service should do a better job of justifying restrictions in written statements.
2 Likes
If I were a rabid John Galt-libertarian, and I wanted to make a documentary showing what a waste of land the Federal wilderness is, and how it should be privatized, or if I were producing a piece that was devoted to saying that the wilderness should be repurposed to training camps for the National Authoritarian Youth Brigade, that should have evenhanded treatment to those producing paeans to the wild lands. Restrict it by impact, not by content.
Hint: I’m not a Galt-libertarian or a proponent of militaristic youth training for the Nationalist Party. In fact, I enjoy the wilderness more than the typical American, and am all for its preservation. But I also get to see the sausage being made.
I’m a member of one trail club that is advocating actively AGAINST a wilderness designation for one parcel, because there is an existing trail in the parcel that crosses a deep gorge by a bridge that is in need of repair. A wilderness designation would mandate the removal of the bridge, and essentially cut off access, not only to that parcel but to a much larger wilderness beyond, to humans. Or at least restrict it to those who are not prepared to do technical climbing to reach the river, and then take a dangerous ford to the other side. Those opposing us take the line in the Wilderness Act, “where man is a visitor who does not remain” as meaning “where man is not even a visitor,” and deny that any good can ever come from public enjoyment of public lands. Unfortunately, it’s impossible to try to take a moderate stance in the face of such radical environmentalism without being labeled as “wanting to rape the planet.”
I’m not reassured by the assurances of the Forest Service chief that the law will not be interpreted in such a way as to forbid my photography, because I might someday sell a picture. An assurance by a bureaucrat that he will not enforce the law strictly is an invitation to his successor to crack down on violators. And it’s not exactly a moot point: I have sold vacation pictures, taken in designated wilderness areas, in the past. Some of those pictures have crossed in the definition of ‘commercial’ photography because they employed models: the day I sell a picture to someone who is using a human image to endorse a product, service, or even idea, that person becomes a model, and generally the buyer demands a model release. It’s far from clear that some bureaucrat will not look back in time and decide that the original photograph was unlawful. Particularly if somehow I incur a bureaucrat’s ire for unrelated reasons.
3 Likes
How is what you’re doing right now more constructive and praise-worthy than what I did?
I would genuinely like to know.
Uh huh…
Not sure what an authoritarian business is… But ok, yea, businesses charge money for things, thanks for the update, bro.
A monopoly, for starters.
1 Like
What is a starter monopoly? ( I kid, I kid )
It’d be nice if articles were amended to correct such factual accuracies, something even our (in the UK) corrupt and generally hopeless newspapers can achieve.
