If you read the original Forest Service rule, it was worded like a 6 year old wrote it. It could be taken almost any way you wanted.
After lawmakers came after them, they suddenly did a about face from what they said two days earlier. No matter what the hype, unless the wording of the rule is changed, any forest ranger can decide whats commercial. If you want to post a photo on CR, a commercial website, they could require a permit as its now written.
From the Oregonian:
"The U.S. Forest Service's chief backed off proposed restrictions on photography in wilderness areas Thursday after facing sweeping protests from lawmakers, First Amendment advocates and media outlets across the country.
"The U.S. Forest Service remains committed to the First Amendment," the agency's chief, Tom Tidwell, said in a statement. "To be clear, provisions in the draft directive do not apply to news gathering or activities."
Tidwell's statement said he was attempting to "clarify the agency's intentions" and would not require a permit for news-gathering or recreational photographs in wilderness areas.
Tidwell didn't explain why others in his agency told The Oregonian the opposite just two days earlier.
On Tuesday, Liz Close, the agency's acting wilderness director, said the Forest Service would permit reporting in wilderness depending on its subject matter, with exceptions for breaking news. "If you were engaged on reporting that was in support of wilderness characteristics, that would be permitted," Close said.
She acknowledged that reporters shooting videos, even on iPhones, would need special permits.
The agency's news release Thursday said the maximum $1,500 permit fees reported by The Oregonian and widely cited by other publications were "erroneous, and refers to a different proposed directive."
That information had been provided to The Oregonian by the Forest Service's top spokesman, Larry Chambers. The agency didn't say what other directive it referred to.
Critics of the Forest Service plan said they were heartened to hear the agency backing off, but that it needed to do more.
"Unless or until they change the proposed regulations, I don't think what the Forest Service chief says aligns with what they've proposed," said Steve Bass, president and CEO of Oregon Public Broadcasting. "It's easy to say that. Now let's take the action to demonstrate that."
Bass said his organization's reporters, who frequently produce documentaries in wilderness areas, have had permitting problems before with the Forest Service.
"The biggest problem with these regulations are that the exemptions for news are too narrow and the definition of commercial are too broad," Bass said.
Earlier Thursday, the Forest Service said it was extending a public comment period by a month, to Dec. 3, to allow more input on its photography rules. A host of bipartisan lawmakers said the proposal should instead be scrapped.
The agency's policymakers told media outlets in early September that they had little reason to be interested in the policy. When it was announced, Robert Westover, a public affairs specialist, wrote in an email: "This announcement is expected to be non-controversial with very little interest outside of the film industry for both entertainment and educational film makers."
The Forest Service's rules have caused problems before. In 2010, the agency refused to allow an Idaho Public Television crew into a wilderness area to film student conservation workers. The agency ultimately caved to pressure from Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter.
