Hi there friends and followers, I need your help.... The US Forest Service, in its infinite wisdom, has put a few rules on the books that effectively ends any editorial photography in wilderness areas. This goes beyond requiring permits for commercial shoots with models and props or guiding photographic excursions (which, for the record, I believe should be permitted.) The rules state that a permit is required for all photography done in wilderness areas for commercial gain, including journalism unless it is deemed a newsworthy event. Cost of the permit: upwards of $1500 Fine if caught without permit: $1000 If you arent in the business, this may come as a surprise to you but there aint nobody gettin rich doing landscape photography today. The vast majority of images photographers take never sell. In my opinion,there is absolutely no way most professional nature photographers could pay this permit and stay in business. Some may choose too disregard the rule, but I simply couldnt risk flying under the radar and possibly getting fined $1000. So what else is wrong with the rules beyond the monetary issues? I can tell you 3 right off the bat. 1. It assumes professional nature photographers are the problem. Yes at first glance, photographers may have a greater impact on the environment than just hikers but for the most part, professional nature photographers are some of the most conscientious environmentalists I know. For every nature photographer behaving badly in the wilderness, I can show you 100 yahoos destroying the landscape on their annual trip into the back country. 2. It unfairly singles out photographers to penalize. Hey...landscape photographers arent the only ones out there making money off our wilderness areas without permits. How about the guy writing for the local newspaper or the writer doing background research for their novel? What if someone hauls their oils up the trail to paint...should they be required to have a permit? If a musician is inspired on a trip to write a song, should he be prevented from doing so simply because he didnt purchase a permit ahead of time? I know it sounds ridiculous...because it is....but it is also unfair. If we are going to require permits, it should be for everybody....not just photographers. 3. I saved the best for last :) The rules state that the Forest Service may exempt certain entities from needing permits for filming or photographing wilderness areas for situations deemed newsworthy. Well guess who gets to decide what is newsworthy? I bet you guessed it....The Forest Service. Now Im not one to go ranting and waving the Constitution around in peoples faces, but Im pretty uncomfortable with a branch of the government deciding what is newsworthy and what is not...or requiring journalists to purchase a permit if they want to film or photograph. I agree a policy is needed but I wish the Forest Service would follow the National Park Services lead. Their policy is basically summed up by stating that a permit is needed for anyone wishing to film in the parks which involves activities not normally associated with visitors (models, lights, prop etc.) or requiring access to areas restricted to the general public. That seems like a reasonable balance to me. So what can you do? Well first you can use social media to spread the word. There are a ton of photographers spreading this around and please share a post about this at least once. Second, you can comment on the rule through the link in the article below. Thirdly, if you have a moment, please contact your representative in Congress and voice your displeasure. Thank you so much for taking the time to read my rant :)
Posted on: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:18:28 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015