Saw this today. What is this all about and thoughts?
http://www.shutterbug.com/content/s...aphing-wilderness-areas#.VCRAq6Iocs4.facebook
http://www.shutterbug.com/content/s...aphing-wilderness-areas#.VCRAq6Iocs4.facebook
Gerry B and Burnham what do you think
- Thread starter Husabud
- Start date
- Replies 15
- Views 2K
MasterBlaster
Administrator Emeritus
They can kissa mah assa!
Burnham
Woods walker
The report linked, in the Oregonian newspaper, says it would be a permit required of reporters and media, not regular people just taking pictures. Still, seems like idiocy to me.
gf beranek
Old Schooler
The whole idea of this proposal is soooo bad. I'm going to have to look into it in more detail before I say much more.
Sad
Sad
sotc
Dormant hero!!
Guides need a licence, seems dumb all the way around but if one industry gets it why shouldn't they all. On a side note, I work on FS ground a lot and don't need a federal permit... inconsistency at it's finest
sawman
TreeHouser
Don't we the people own the parks?
Al Smith
Mac Daddy
Wilderness or not it still stinks .If the gov which would be us who own it who else then,the Chinese ? Lawdy the longer it goes the more stupid it gets .If this keeps up they are going to put a tarrif on the air we breathe --mumble grumble ---
gf beranek
Old Schooler
Al says it best.
woodworkingboy
TreeHouser
It happens in different places. The government spends like there is no tomorrow then figures out ways to get more money from the people to help cover the mismanagement. They can get pretty creative in coming up with crazy ways to get their hands on your dough, and rarely does it lead to getting smarter on the spending.
mdvaden
Treehouser
- Joined
- May 4, 2007
- Messages
- 1,456
Do you think the permits should be free?
For example, what if people go to Red Buttes Wilderness for a serene wilderness experience, and happen to encounter a Nat Geo film crew because the recording was not managed in some way that would reduce the likelihood of an overlap?
Or do you prefer than any video crew, small or large, can record in wilderness, whenever they want, anywhere they want, as long as they want?
Or lets' consider a redwood park.
If a couple wanted a serene small wedding in Stout Grove, you would support the San Francisco Chronicle, MSNBC or others, dropping into the same grove, the same day, or all day, unannounced, completely uncoordinated?
woodworkingboy
TreeHouser
Perhaps it's naive to think so, but reserving a time to not conflict with others doesn't have to be synonymous with a fee. Even if you pay a required fee, are they going to be scheduling certain days and hours to not conflict?
mdvaden
Treehouser
- Joined
- May 4, 2007
- Messages
- 1,456
I'm familiar with the photography / wedding permits for the redwood parks, and at least for that, they do try to keep weddings from dominating certain areas, certain times of year.
RE the wilderness permits, the $1500 sounds steep.
In the redwoods, I inquired about photography permits and those are $200 for an entire year.
...
In "real" wilderness it is of course silly, but in some of the more overrun areas, management would be a good idea.
If you want to do anything that involves more than 10 people in a state forest here, you need a permit.
There are places in your National parks that are so overrun, that it is not worth going there.
Delicate arch in Arches NP comes to mind, as does all of Yosemite for that matter.
Imagine Prekestolen in Norway with 155000 visitors a year ( which is why I haven't been there for 40 years!)
Management is not neccessarily always a bad thing.
Which doesn't mean a 1500$ fee isn't .
Burnham
Woods walker
Fair points made there.
Similar threads
