The time-honored edict to those who enter the wilderness is that one should “take only photographs and leave only footprints.”
The U.S. Forest Service is attempting to amend that, at least for members of the media, to “take only photographs only after having applied, paid for and received the proper permit.”
Under a rule that is to be finalized in November, journalists would have to obtain a permit — with a fee of up to $1,500 — before using a still or video camera in a Forest Service-managed wilderness area. Failure to secure the permit could result in a $1,000 fine, The Oregonian reported earlier this week. The rule has been in effect as a temporary directive for four years but has gone largely unenforced, although an Idaho public television station crew was initially denied access until Idaho’s governor and a Congress member intervened. Ironically, the Idaho station was preparing a report on the protection of wilderness areas.
The intent, the Forest Service’s acting wilderness director claims, is to protect the untamed character of wilderness areas. The National Wilderness Preservation System, established 50 years ago, now encompasses 107 million acres in 44 states, including in Snohomish County: the Glacier Peak Wilderness, the Henry M. Jackson Wilderness and the recently created Wild Sky Wilderness. Those in wilderness areas are required to travel only by foot or horseback; no motorized vehicles or tools are allowed. (The Forest Service bent those rules, itself, to renovate the historic Green Mountain Fire Lookout in the Glacier Peak Wilderness, a decision we have repeatedly supported on this page.)
The Forest Service is correct to be protective of our wilderness areas, and a case can be made for oversight of their commercial use. In 2011, a photography crew shooting a Patagonia catalog embedded climbing bolts in protected rock walls at Utah’s Capitol Reef National Park. But the rule, as the Forest Service plans to apply it, is so broad it would hamper the legitimate collection of news and is an infringement on First Amendment rights. The service’s acting director claims the permit rule would not apply to members of the media as they gather breaking news, such as wildfires or rescues, but that’s a narrow exception, particularly when it leaves out coverage that could be critical of Forest Service policy or actions. A permit for photography for such coverage can’t be left to the whim of a mid-level bureaucrat.
The rule, should it be adopted and enforced, is certain to draw a legal challenge, one that will ultimately cost taxpayers much more than the Forest Service could ever hope to recoup through its permits.
The Forest Service, which is taking comment on the proposed rule, ought to go back and refocus the language, or it may find taxpayers eager to leave a footprint in an uncomfortable place.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
