Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

USFS Photo Ban and Their Photo Competition (VANITY)
10/1/2014 | me

Posted on 10/01/2014 9:22:26 AM PDT by llevrok

A few days ago, news broke about the US Forest Service demanding that one needed a $1500 permit to take photos on US Forest Service managed land. That was in response to a news organization who was filming a story on the forests and was denied access to the National Forest with out a permit. The "reason" given was that the USFS did not want their (note "their") forests commercially exploited at the risk of harm to the environment with increased human contact the photographs may encourage.

This news went viral quickly, especially among the media, claiming a violation of 1st amendment rights.

Stories followed about all photography being banned with out a permit.

The USFS quickly back pedaled and said this did not apply to journalists nor recreational photographers - only commercial ones ( NatGeo is now banned?).

So I'm in the HQ of the Olympic National Forest yesterday, looking for a road map so I (a recreational photog) can go shoot some fall foliage and saw a poster for a photo contest

If they want to discourage people coming into the forests due to exploitation of the forest's beauty, why sponsor a $25,000 contest?

And with tin hat firmly affixed, I also ask - what are you really hiding in "your" forests, USFS?


TOPICS: Government; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: photography; usfs

1 posted on 10/01/2014 9:22:26 AM PDT by llevrok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: llevrok

[If they want to discourage people coming into the forests due to exploitation of the forest’s beauty, why sponsor a $25,000 contest?]

They want names.


2 posted on 10/01/2014 9:25:39 AM PDT by stars & stripes forever (Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: llevrok

And, I might add, is the government ponying up $25,000 of MY money to do this at all??????


3 posted on 10/01/2014 9:27:51 AM PDT by rlmorel (The Media's Principles: Conflict must exist. Doesn't exist? Create it. Exists? Exacerbate it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: llevrok
And with tin hat firmly affixed, I also ask - what are you really hiding in "your" forests, USFS?

The Village :)

4 posted on 10/01/2014 9:27:53 AM PDT by latina4dubya (when i have money i buy books... if i have anything left, i buy 6-inch heels and a bottle of wine...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: llevrok

Why BOTHER protecting the forests, when the border is wide open to anyone with a book of matches and who hates the US? I mean... c’mon!!

None of this makes sense any more!


5 posted on 10/01/2014 9:31:53 AM PDT by SMARTY ("When you blame others, you give up your power to change." Robert Anthony)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: llevrok

Thanks for posting the poster pic.

Yes, they do appear to be trying to mitigate the backlash over their recent unconstitutional limitation on the right to access public lands.

Ironically the real reason is, they want to limit negative perceptions of their public lands management.


6 posted on 10/01/2014 9:38:13 AM PDT by zipper (In Their Heart Of Hearts, Every Democrat Is A Communist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: llevrok

The forests here in the Northwest are full of foreigners picking salal (greenery)for the florist industry. You see their vans parked everywhere.


7 posted on 10/01/2014 9:39:13 AM PDT by Pilated
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: llevrok

Kneel! Kneel before your masters! All hail the government employees!


8 posted on 10/01/2014 9:59:16 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: llevrok

Oops - we took pictures in a wilderness area: Editorial

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/09/oops_-_we_took_pictures_in_a_w.html


9 posted on 10/01/2014 10:04:36 AM PDT by Rio (Proud resident of the State of Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: llevrok
The Forest Service doesn't require a permit for personal photography or filming. Only commercial use.

The FS's take, while wrong, is that the news crews are there for "commercial purposes". Unfortunately for the FS, the First Amendment trumps them in this area.

10 posted on 10/01/2014 10:08:11 AM PDT by IYAS9YAS (Has anyone seen my tagline? It was here yesterday. I seem to have misplaced it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stars & stripes forever

But, on the southern border, the illegals ARE CROSSING the “pristine wilderness” national rec areas and national forests - where the Border Patrol is FORBIDDEN to drive! - with so many people and trash that the national wreck areas are being destroyed.

But this is the Obama administration, and Obama’s national press corpse.


11 posted on 10/01/2014 10:09:32 AM PDT by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but socialists' ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson