quote:
Originally posted by skinneejHow does that change the argument? These places were not paid for by Obama’s personal funds. They are “public” property, paid for by the taxes of individual taxpayers and these commercial photographers (they pay taxes too). Why should they be forced to pay for something that they have already paid for?
Changes the argument significantly since it appears as though nearly everyone to post in this thread made the assumption that every John Q. Public snapping a pic with his smartphone would incur a $1500 fine (except Fred67, who appears to have developed the right idea about where this kind of ordinance is aimed).
The referenced interim directive deals exclusively with commercial filming operations. These kinds of activities could impact the use of public lands by the public / damage the area / impact local wildlife / require travel into areas normally off-limits to the public due to safety or other concerns / etc, hence more oversight required.
quote:
FSH 2709.11, Chapter 40, Section 45.51a - Permit Requirements A special use permit is not required for still photography when that activity involves breaking news (sec. 45.5). A special use permit: 1. Is required for all still photography (sec. 45.5) activities on National Forest System (NFS) lands that involve the use of models, sets, or props that are not a part of the natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities of the site where the activity is taking place. 2. May be required for still photography activities not involving models, sets, or props when the Forest Service incurs additional administrative costs as a direct result of the still photography activity or when the s