The author’s article misses the point I believe. What is a commercial entity? What is a breaking news story? What are wilderness values? And why do bureaucrats get to decide it?

To quote the usfs official, rather than one’s interpretation,

““The proposal does not apply to news coverage, gathering information for a news program or documentary. However, if a project falls outside of that scope and the filming is intended to be on wilderness land, additional criteria are applied to protect wilderness values. In that case, a permit must be applied for and granted before any photography is permitted

http://www.wncoutdoors.info/2014/09/no-the-forest-service-is-not-planning-to-charge-you-1500-to-photograph-the-wilderness/

There’s a lot of conflicting info out there right now…

I think that is why many people are concerned. Alas, press releases aren’t the law. And the law, as proposed, allows too much wiggle room for interpretation.

ps. I had the full documented linked.

Paul, I’m in agreement with you that public comments (protest) should be made, but any such protest should fully read the fine print involved and not rely solely on some articles written about it. I do think it is poorly written. But I did appreciate the clarification from them that “Generally, professional and amateur photographers will not need a permit unless they use models, actors or props; work in areas where the public is generally not allowed; or cause additional administrative costs.

BTW..from your link

“The proposal does not apply to news coverage, gathering information for a news program or documentary. However, if a project falls outside of that scope and the filming is intended to be on wilderness land, additional criteria are applied to protect wilderness values. In that case, a permit must be applied for and granted before any photography is permitted”

So the govt decides what is a “wilderness” value??? And what is reporting??? And it is for photography AND filming both at the that. Thanks for highlighting my point! 🙂

Reminds me of when my old company said, upon being bough out: “No worries”. Two months later 130 ppl were laid off.

So, you are relying on a govt agency to decide what is disruptive or not? 🙂 Great. The proposal, as written, is far too broad and needs to defined more. Would a documentary, critical of the logging, that happens to use still photos, be considered disruptive and need a permit?

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/09/04/2014-21093/proposed-directive-for-commercial-filming-in-wilderness-special-uses-administration?utm_campaign=email+a+friend&utm_medium=email&utm_source=federalregister.gov

notice this statement:
“Q5. How does the Forest Service define commercial filming and still photography? The following definitions for commercial filming and still photography, found in FSH 2709.11, section 45.4, track the requirements for a permit for those activities in the Act of May 26, 2000 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6d):
Commercial Filming. The use of motion picture, videotaping, sound-recording, or any other type of moving image or audio recording equipment on National Forest System lands that involves the advertisement of a product or service, the creation of a product for sale, or the use of actors, models, sets, or props, but not including activities associated with broadcasting breaking news. For purposes of this definition, creation of a product for sale includes a film, videotape, television broadcast, or documentary of historic events, wildlife, natural events, features, subjects, or participants in a sporting or recreation event, and so forth, when created for the purpose of generating income.”

It appears that for just plain photography where you are not going to be requiring anything special from the Forest Service (such as access to a special location), that you’ll be left alone — note the press release from the Forest Service: “The proposal does not change the rules for visitors or recreational photographers. Generally, professional and amateur photographers will not need a permit unless they use models, actors or props; work in areas where the public is generally not allowed; or cause additional administrative costs.”

http://www.fs.fed.us/news/releases/us-forest-service-chief-i-will-ensure-first-amendment-upheld-under-agency-commercial

That’s why I included the foot note about the logging and the amount of miles of road to support it. Indeed! As an aside, don’t forget videoing also falls under this potential new umbrella set of rules.