Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2014 - 02:53pm PT
|
Like that's going to stand up in court...
Greedy republicans, squandering our money in frivolous lawsuits....
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2014 - 02:55pm PT
|
Greedy republicans, squandering our money in frivolous lawsuits....
Good one, Jay!
Of course, it's a Democrat in charge, and the trial lawyers are one of that party's biggest bankrollers, but I still like your comment.
John
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2014 - 03:13pm PT
|
The FS is desperate to figure out a way to pay for their $14 Million Arcadia Taj Mahal.
I guess that would entail 14,000 fines, right?
|
|
skitch
climber
East of Heaven
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2014 - 03:21pm PT
|
It's only for the Media, but I still don't think it is legal. . .
|
|
skitch
climber
East of Heaven
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2014 - 03:55pm PT
|
From: Oregonlive.com
Here are seven key things you should know about the policy.
1. These rules are already in place. The Forest Service says they've been in place for 48 months and are now being chaptered in law.
The agency adopted the rules shortly after it refused to allow an Idaho Public Television crew into a wilderness area in 2010 to film student conservation workers because the show sold DVDs of its episodes. Idaho's governor intervened and the Forest Service caved to pressure.
2. This isn't just about the media. The policy applies to documentary film crews, nonprofits and private citizens who might use a photo or video to sell something or earned a salary while in the wilderness area. They'd need a special permit first.
3. The policy narrowly defines the circumstances when media wouldn't need a special permit to shoot photos or videos. It allows for photos and videos during breaking news events, describing them as "an event or incident that arises suddenly, evolves quickly, and rapidly ceases to be newsworthy."
But many events, like large wildfires, can arise suddenly and last for weeks.
4. The Forest Service couldn't provide any actual examples of what problems it's trying to address. Liz Close, the agency's acting wilderness director, said the agency was implementing the Wilderness Act of 1964, which aims to protect wilderness areas from being exploited for commercial gain.
"It's not a problem, it's a responsibility," she said. "We have to follow the statutory requirements."
Another federal agency that also manages wilderness areas, the Bureau of Land Management, does not require any special permit for newsgathering.
5. The Forest Service is giving itself wide discretion to decide when it would and wouldn't grant a special permit. "If you were engaged on reporting that was in support of wilderness characteristics, that would be permitted," Close said.
Press advocates worry that would allow the agency to squelch coverage of stories it didn't like.
6. The rules apply across huge swaths of Oregon and the West. More than 63,000 acres on Mount Hood is federally designated wilderness, including the peak. Oregon has 48 wilderness areas, including parts of Mount Jefferson and Mount Washington.
7. A serious fight is brewing. Gregg Leslie, legal defense director at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Alexandria, Va., said his organization would consider suing over the plan if the Forest Service continues to pursue it. The National Press Photographers Association also said it would also weigh litigation.
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2014 - 04:24pm PT
|
So will they also be charging per footprint?
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2014 - 04:38pm PT
|
So I shouldn't publish this pic I took last week?
|
|
Don Paul
Big Wall climber
Aurora Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2014 - 04:53pm PT
|
Seems unreasonable and maybe unconstitutional. But I would generally support efforts to reduce commercial use of public lands like the forest service manages.
In Washington DC, most of the parks and monuments are on NPS land, guarded by NPS swat-trained teams. Ever notice that you never see news reports broadcasting from in front of a famous monument? For example, you could do a story on the Ferguson race riots in front of the Lincoln Memorial. Except that the nps rangers would bust you in a couple of minutes if you didn't get a permit.
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2014 - 05:01pm PT
|
or earned a salary while in the wilderness area. They'd need a special permit first.
There are many, for hire, trail rides throughout the Black Elk Wilderness around Harney Peak. I have to wonder how many of them have permits. Maybe the part I quoted above doesn't apply to them.
|
|
mike m
Trad climber
black hills
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2014 - 05:08pm PT
|
I think they are turning the average American against the wilderness act.
|
|
Kung Phu Panda
climber
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2014 - 07:17pm PT
|
Interesting conversation
On the one hand, I'm in favor of:
Seems unreasonable and maybe unconstitutional. But I would generally support efforts to reduce commercial use of public lands like the forest service manages.
In Washington DC, most of the parks and monuments are on NPS land, guarded by NPS swat-trained teams. Ever notice that you never see news reports broadcasting from in front of a famous monument? For example, you could do a story on the Ferguson race riots in front of the Lincoln Memorial. Except that the nps rangers would bust you in a couple of minutes if you didn't get a permit.
That said, I'm assuming they are doing this for sinister reasons like:
The agency adopted the rules shortly after it refused to allow an Idaho Public Television crew into a wilderness area in 2010 to film student conservation workers because the show sold DVDs of its episodes. Idaho's governor intervened and the Forest Service caved to pressure.
Which is basically trying to prevent anyone from making a dollar from Park Service lands. That said:
There are many, for hire, trail rides throughout the Black Elk Wilderness around Harney Peak. I have to wonder how many of them have permits. Maybe the part I quoted above doesn't apply to them.
I will guarantee you that they are paying a concession license, and if they aren't I guarantee that someone from the NPS would be VERY interested in learning more about these trail rides.
As someone who works in the ski industry on NPS land, I can assure you that they take a cut of everything that gets earned. As far as commercial recreation goes, the NPS is like the Tax Man. They ALWAYS get their cut.
BLM on the other hand... BLM = more freedom to do stuff, which also means more opportunity to commercially profit from the land. You can interpret that statement as you see fit.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2014 - 10:34pm PT
|
The Wilderness Act states:
(2) Nothing in this Act shall prevent within national forest wilderness areas any activity, including prospecting, for the purpose of gathering information about mineral or other resources, if such activity is carried on in a manner compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment.
And:
(6) Commercial services may be performed within the wilderness areas designated by this Act to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas.
I don't think they have a leg to stand on. Its not like we are talking about an activity that "uses up" or "depletes" a resource.
|
|
Kung Phu Panda
climber
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2014 - 09:03am PT
|
The Wilderness Act states:
(2) Nothing in this Act shall prevent within national forest wilderness areas any activity, including prospecting, for the purpose of gathering information about mineral or other resources, if such activity is carried on in a manner compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment.
And:
(6) Commercial services may be performed within the wilderness areas designated by this Act to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas.
I don't think they have a leg to stand on. Its not like we are talking about an activity that "uses up" or "depletes" a resource.
As someone with legal training, I would caution you on a simple plain text reading. Legislative rules are words of "art" that can have very different meanings in in legal context vs our normal everyday usage. The only way to understand how the courts will interpret a law is to look up the past case law and see how the court has interpreted the language. I remember writing a moot court brief thinking, the definition of employee is super clear and obvious and then realizing that defining who is and isn't an employee for the purposes of worker's comp is about as clear as a glass of mud. Your probably right in your interpretation, but the application of law can be incredibly nuanced
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2014 - 09:37am PT
|
FortMental gets it. What he didn't mention was that outsourcing everything
frees up FS employees for the important stuff like sitting in their offices
planning their retirement.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2014 - 01:56pm PT
|
There's sort of a grey area here. If you're involved in a commercial activity that doesn't impact others significantly(like say selling a single pic that turned out well), this seems like overkill.
But I'm all for charging large, organized efforts that impact other users. There certainly a history of doing this for guided trips for instance.
Where to draw the line on that continuum is the big question.
|
|
paganmonkeyboy
climber
mars...it's near nevada...
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2014 - 07:34pm PT
|
wow.
anyone out there with the FS want to comment ? unofficially, of course...
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2014 - 07:59pm PT
|
"Backcountry fee
Walk-through fee
Mtn bike fee
communing with nature fee"
You think FortMental jests....
STOP THIS BILL
DEAR PUBLIC LANDS SUPPORTER
Action is urgently needed to stop a bill introduced in the House, and already rammed through Committee and ready for a floor vote.
HR 5204 would authorize the Forest Service and BLM to charge fees for all public lands, for any activity, by any person, any time.
Details follow. Please TAKE ACTION NOW!
Kitty Benzar
STOP THIS BILL
HOUSE BILL WOULD ALLOW FEES FOR ALL PUBLIC LAND ACCESS
Just before the House adjourned for their August recess, HR 5204 The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Modernization Act of 2014, was introduced by U.S. Representative Rob Bishop (R-UT) and rammed through the House Resources Committee, without a hearing, by its Chairman, U.S. Representative Doc Hastings (R-WA).
It's likely that Bishop and Hastings are planning to get HR 5204 attached as a rider to the FY2015 appropriations bill. Although HR 5204 has attracted no sponsor in the Senate so far, it's likely that if attached as an appropriations rider it will pass both chambers without scrutiny or public debate, and become the law of the land, because appropriations bills are considered "must pass" in order to avoid a government shutdown.
HR 5204, if enacted, could destroy the concept of public lands as places where everyone has access and is welcome. Every place, every activity, every person, could be required to pay a fee - an additional tax on top of the taxes that already support public lands - for access, regardless whether they are highly developed like National Parks and Forest Service or BLM campgrounds, or completely undeveloped like Wilderness Areas.
HR 5204 would allow the kind of fees that have not been controversial to continue, such as fees for developed campgrounds and National Park entrance fees. But in addition to those fees, it would allow general access fees for any federal recreational lands and waters. It would accomplish this by two types of fee: Day Use Fees and Permit Fees.
The only meaningful requirement for a Day Use Fee would be that where you park there is a toilet of some kind (could be a porta-potty or a stinky outhouse) within 1/2 mile.
The only meaningful requirement for a Permit Fee would be that where you park gives access to a "special area." Neither "special" nor "area" is defined. The land agencies would have complete discretion to claim that any place at all is a "special area."
So where there is a toilet it could be called a Day Use Fee. Where there is not a toilet, it could be called a Permit Fee. The result is the same: there would not be anyplace where a fee is not allowed. And since the agencies would get to keep all the fee money directly, there would be not be anywhere that they wouldn't have a strong incentive to charge a fee.
Public lands? Forget that. Not any more. Not if this passes.
There is other stuff in HR 5204 (like no more fee-free days, citizenship checks on annual pass holders, and overhead costs rising from 15% to 25%), but they only rearrange the deck chairs on the sinking ship of our public lands.
A detailed analysis of the major provisions is on our website at this link.
Congress is on vacation until the week after Labor Day. When they return, the 2015 appropriations bills will be among the top items of business. If Bishop and Hastings succeed in getting HR 5204 attached to one of them, it's almost guaranteed to pass.
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2014 - 09:32pm PT
|
I contacted our house representative and both of our senators requesting that they vote against this bill.
I have personally went into both of the local FS offices nearly a dozen times in the last three years to let them know what I thought of their current and future plans they are implementing. Having worked with many of them side by side on many fires we've had, they used to consider my opinions. The last year they've been down right obstinate on there position in regards to the future plans. Seems to me the lines of communication between us and them is waning.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!