The US Forest Service has issued a proposal to
require an expensive and extensive permitting process for anyone poised to photograph
or film on federally-designated wilderness areas for “commercial gain,”
triggering outcry from professional and amateur photographers, reporters,
outdoor writers, and First Amendment supporters in mass.
According to the controversial proposition,
photographs and film, even if shot with a smartphone, would be subject to
approval by Forest Service administration, following a detailed application
designed to verify the intent of the media.
Upon approval, acquisition of a permit would cost up to $1500. Those apprehended for violating the act could
be hit with a fine of up to $1000.
Now, before you dismiss this, readers, with a
confident “Ah, that will never happen,” let’s take a look at the details.
The proposal first gained public attention when
the governmental agency posted a notice on the Federal Register on September 4
seeking public comment.
In response to the outcry, the Forest Service has
since spoken up to clarify that such an implement would not interfere with
reporters or recreational photographers, one with commercial activity. The regulation, the Forest Service states,
has been deemed vital in honoring the 1964 Wilderness Act, which requires that
the nearly 110 million acres set aside by Congress as “wilderness area” be
preserved in their natural state.
Moreover, the Forest Service wishes to direct
attention to the fact that this measure has been effective since 2010, though
with minimal enforcement.
But even during a period of minimal enforcement,
and with the Forest Service claiming to side with reporters and only oppose
commercial motors, in 2010, the agency denied a public Idaho television station
access to a wilderness area to film student conservation workers, according to
the Oregonian.
This
exemplifies governmental overreach to a T.
In what started out as, and may still be viewed as, a beneficial measure
in preserving America’s wildernesses, this government agency has slowly slipped
a collared leash around the neck of the free reporter.
Though the application seems to be tailored to evaluate
commercial filming projects, requiring others to undergo the process is truly a
violation of the First Amendment Freedom of the Press. There seems to be some confusion about the
idea that hampering personal freedoms is synonymous with limiting them.
For even if this regulation has the intent that is
commonly cited, giving the Forest Service—a government agency—the power to
determine whether or not an individual or project will be issued a permit and,
at that, how much it will cost, opens the door for biased governmental
politicking in the media world. And with
smartphone cameras creating a hazy border between recreation and
news-gathering, the path becomes laborious and winding. Beware, the slippery slope.
Furthermore, it seems to this author that the
Forest Service would be doing itself a huge disservice by burgeoning the
permitting process and hindering photographers wishing to photograph the beauty
of nature in wilderness areas. If you’ve
ever visited a national park or wilderness area, or dream to some day visit one
far away from home, chances are your desires were inspired by photography,
whether on the cover of a pamphlet, on the internet, or in a magazine or book. What would happen to growing public interest in
the outdoors if this advertising and appreciation of nature was decreased or
discouraged through the process being discussed?
Thankfully, our country’s lawmakers, on both sides
of the political spectrum, agree that this proposition is out of bounds.
The Washington
Post cites U.S. Representative Greg
Walden’s (R. – OR) letter to Forest Service Chief Thomas Tidwell: “It is also very troubling that journalists
could be held to different standards at the discretion of the issuing officer
depending on the content of their stories and its relevance to wilderness
activity.”
U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D. – OR) also acknowledges
the potentially First Amendment-violating rules, saying that the Forest Service
should be careful of overstepping, according to the Oregonian.
As an outdoor communicator, this issue poses a
threat to me personally, as it should to anyone that enjoys recreating on our
Nation’s public lands—most anyone reading this column. Though this issue seems to be one that will
be shaken down by legislators and the outspoken few, don’t let it earn a
foothold.
In response to the large-scale public protest that
erupted with this breaking news, the Forest Service has extended their public
comment period to November 3. Take a
stand for your public lands, and write the agency, your local legislator, or
both with your opinion on the matter. Or
visit the website for the Federal Register and submit a formal comment.
Originally published in the Rural Virginian
No comments :
Post a Comment