Proposed Ansel Adam Act

[Polar01]

Thought that this maybe of some interest:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-...bill/5893/text

Cheers: Allan

[Mark von Kanel]

The land of the free

[IzzieK]

When will this be enacted into law??? I did not see when the effect date is going to be...it is only a proposal but good enough for now. Now the waiting begin...

[Shadowman]

The fact that they've started looking at legislation means those that try to prohibit will either relax their territorial tendencies or propose counter legislation to continue their current behavior. The more public response to this proposed bill the greater the chances of getting the Act passed.

[Mike Buckley]

If this becomes law, it will be a fairly significant change in ideology.

However, keep in mind that if a commercial outfit wants to do photography, they could still be refused permission or be charged for special use of the land. As an example, if the company wants to erect sets using heavy machinery, the park service would have to incur all sorts of expenses. My point is that even though the commercial company would not be charged for the photography per se, there is nothing in that bill that says they can't be charged for or refused items related to the photography. That's appropriate in my mind.

[rpcrowe]

I suspect that the prohibition against photography on Federal Lands might be aimed at commercial photography and that those tasked with carrying out the law are just a bit too over zealous.

I have heard of such problems but, no one has ever confronted me in any number of national parks and other federal lands. However, I think that this is a great idea.

[NorthernFocus]

I have heard of such problems but, no one has ever confronted me in any number of national parks and other federal lands...

Plop a tripod down with a 500mm lens on it. "Professional" looking gear dramatically increases the probability of overbearing govt officials showing up and telling you what you can't do. In all fairness no more than the chance of another photographer setting their gear up right in your way It's just people being people. Wearing badges just makes them feel like they have a license to be pushier.

Some time back I think the concept of "public service" or "civil servant" left our government. Not sure when it happened but all evidence suggests it did. Now it is just "public sector" and a lifetime pension.

[Mike Buckley]

Wearing badges just makes them feel like they have a license to be pushier.

Some time back I think the concept of "public service" or "civil servant" left our government. Not sure when it happened but all evidence suggests it did.

Generalizations such as those are never, ever accurate; at the very, very least, there are always exceptions. Sorry, Dan, but if you had seen "all the evidence," (it's not possible for you or me to see all of it) you wouldn't come to those conclusions; you would come to those conclusions or not on a case-by-case basis rather than apply them across the board to all people, all situations, etc.

[tclune]

I guess I'm alone in thinking that this proposal is a bad idea. ISTM perfectly appropriate for commercial ventures to pay fees to help support the resources from which they are economically profiting. The park service is hardly awash in the money needed to accomplish its mission. Why is this sort of user fee more outrageous than road taxes on semis?

[NorthernFocus]

Generalizations such as those are never, ever accurate; at the very, very least, there are always exceptions. ....

I stand appropriately corrected. I withdraw the "all". Just leave it at "the evidence". But never, ever? Really? Now which statement is absolute?

Isn't the definition of a generalization that it's not intended to indicate all inclusive. In general, as in more often than not. On the other hand the very fact that otherwise is considered an exception validates the general statement, no?

I admit that my data set is limited. But in addition to traveling a good bit Alaska has more state and federally controlled land than any other ten states combined. And by a wide margin. Both at work and play I deal with those folks routinely. Not to mention US customs, DOT, TSA, and congressional staff personnel. Just sayin...

[NorthernFocus]

... ISTM perfectly appropriate for commercial ventures to pay fees to help support the resources from which they are economically profiting....Why is this sort of user fee more outrageous than road taxes on semis?

What does profit have to do with it. Semis wear out the roads more than a car. They should pay more. But the impact on the resource is the same whether a tourist or a professional carries a camera into a park. Why should the professional have to pay higher access fees? Now if the professional is paying for some special permit, say to drive a vehicle in to a park that doesn't allow vehicle access to the general public, then I agree. Then there is additional impact on the resource.

I predict in about two more posts this thread is going to get political

[Andrew1]

I think the professional should only have to pay fees if they are as others indicated, using, building, blocking, reserving, whatever, of a space or location that they want restricted access to. Movie lots set up on public land that keep others out entirely shouldn't be allowed at all. Imagine planning and taking your family on a summer vacation a few hundred miles away only to find your camping spot in the all the glory of nature being overrun with working film crews. If I have to pay for my 20x20 camp site then their costs should be applicable to the area they are using. Keep in mind this is all about money. It's cheap when you don't need a studio and somebody else is paying for the majority of your "set". Of course there's always the ones that think they should be able to do whatever they want wherever they want and sometimes leave their mess behind. It's the abuse that creates the problems with the public and the authorities.

[cuilin]

this is pretty old, introduced in 2013. it was aimed at commercial photography (think big commercial photography, not a landscape photographer taking shots and selling them) and model photography in national parks. i think it may have covered photo bus tours inside parks too. anyone who's been to grand teton national park has surely seen that 15 passenger bus with the roof cut out of it so the occupants can stand up and shoot wildlife out of the roof. i've witnessed some rather unsafe practices with that particular tour van.

[NorthernFocus]

... i've witnessed some rather unsafe practices with that particular tour van.

Unfortunately there are few things more rare than common sense. And unfortunately as a nation we seem to legislate to the least common denominator. In less litigious(???) countries when people do stupid things and get hurt it's on them, not on the rest of society. Though I guess everyone has their stories.

[purplehaze]

I'm inclined to think it's a Trojan horse, part and parcel of the general assault on park lands by commercial interests in both Canada and the US. In any case, it may be dead in the water, having been introduced at the end of the last congressional session by a no-longer sitting congressman. There is some interesting commentary here. Among other things, section 2(8) is completely ahistorical. Yosemite was established as a national park in 1890; Adams wasn't even born until 1902. If I can believe Wikipedia, that is. Honestly, I don't know what I can believe anymore.

[IzzieK]

Thanks for the link, Janis...will read it later on my free hour...after sleep.

I'm inclined to think it's a Trojan horse, part and parcel of the general assault on park lands by commercial interests in both Canada and the US. In any case, it may be dead in the water, having been introduced at the end of the last congressional session by a no-longer sitting congressman. There is some interesting commentary here. Among other things, section 2(8) is completely ahistorical. Yosemite was established as a national park in 1890; Adams wasn't even born until 1902. If I can believe Wikipedia, that is. Honestly, I don't know what I can believe anymore.

[Andybazyoung]

How very sad.......

[Mike Buckley]

But never, ever? Really? Now which statement is absolute?

You're correct that my use of "never" and "ever" in the context of generalizations being discussed is absolute. It's also correct by definition.

Isn't the definition of a generalization that it's not intended to indicate all inclusive. In general, as in more often than not.

Yes. However, that's also why so many generalizations are also inaccurate. Keep in mind that I didn't refer to generalizations overall; I explicitly referred to generalizations such as yours. So, as an example, I stand by my point that you're wrong when you state that "Wearing badges just makes them feel like they have a license to be pushier." I can't prove that you're wrong any more than you can prove that I'm wrong. However, considering that your assertion demeans the people wearing the badges, I prefer to assume people are innocent until proven guilty. You haven't done that and I'm very certain that you won't be able to do so.

I'm now off my high horse.

[Mike Buckley]

section 2(8) is completely ahistorical. Yosemite was established as a national park in 1890; Adams wasn't even born until 1902.

Wow! I completely glossed over that mistake. How embarrassing, though probably not at all embarrassing to the bill's sponsor. If he was inclined to be embarrassed, he probably would have been inclined to have his staff do the necessary research.

For the record, John Muir probably had more grass roots influence in the establishment of Yosemite as a National Park than any other individual. At least that's the impression given by the park's official website.

[Shadowman]

If there is any public interest in the subject matter, another sponsor will take up the fight.