Galt's Gulch

No photos in national parks without a permit? … the forest service is taking comments

Posted by NoMoreObama 10 years, 3 months ago to News
14 comments | Share | Flag

Just when you thought that the federal government couldn't get any more intrusive (or stupid) ...
SOURCE URL: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/1000-dollar-fine-for-pictures-in-the-forest?src=soc_fcbks

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 3 months ago
    How do such imbeciles end up in the bureaucracy? Why is there no recourse? Shouldn't the public be able to bring suit against bureaucrats that deny citizens their rights?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 3 months ago
      I have a post on point, inspired by a client, called the Regulatory Bill of Rights http://hallingblog.com/regulatory-bill-o....

      This is a much more effective idea than REINS being pushed by the repubicans
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 3 months ago
        Hello dbhalling,
        Wow! you put quite a bit of thought into this.
        The only thing I wouldn't mind seeing added (unless I missed something) is a provision that holds the author of the arbitrary regulation personally liable and fined or punished accordingly. We must have upfront deterrence for these mindless do-gooders.

        Even the REINS bill is a step in the right direction, though I agree with your assessment.

        Regards,
        O.A.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 3 months ago
          Sounds like a good point, but it would need to be finely tuned based on fraud or intent to deceive by the part of the official.

          I had a really cool client who pushed me on this idea. My first reaction was that it was not worth spending the time on it, but he got me thinking. He was a great story teller, became very rich lost everything at 64 and got a lot of it back. Unfortunately, he died at age 67 or so. Something simple that should not have killed him.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 3 months ago
    Bush actually started this and I had a fishing showing and we shot film in a national park, it was a reservoir, and none of us realized this. They threatened to sue and fined us $500. If you are taking "commercial pictures" in a national park you have to file for a permit and pay a fee. They don't promise and particular turn around and do not return the fee if they turn you down. The supposed justification for this blatant violation of the 1st amendment is that the National Park service was spending so much money supporting Hollywood films. In our case, we were not asking for anything from the Park Service except to be left the F--- alone.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by desimarie23 10 years, 3 months ago
    Obviously they have too much time on their hands. "You can 'exploit' the scenery...but only if you pay for it." Absurd. They just take all the beauty out of the world...one chunk at a time.

    Idiots.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 3 months ago
    Is this $%!# real? It would at least make sense, although still be wrong, to charge the media to travel through the national park. But photos don't impact anything. Why can you do a sketch but not a photo?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 10 years, 3 months ago
    This is so stupid that it must be some sort of rope-a-dope. There must be some other illegal legislation or regulation taking place that we are supposed to be distracted from.

    Or, maybe a living person somewhere thinks this is a good idea....(?).....
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 3 months ago
    Suppose I download the DEM data for a given region of a national park, and create a photo-real image of it (as is possible nowadays; check out Avatar).

    Would I then be subject to criminal persecution, as would a photographer? How would my image be any less harmful to the national park than an actual photograph?

    Suppose I'm an artist, and set up my easel in the middle of the park, and again paint a near photo-real image... same rule apply?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo