The Times - Serving Waitsburg, Dayton and the Touchet Valley

DAYTON - Would a hiker need a permit to take photos while walking the Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness -- the roughly 176,500 acres located in the Blue Mountains of southeastern Washington and northeastern Oregon? The obvious answer is'no.'

Unfortunately, a soon-to-be-finalized Forest Service measure on the matter makes that less than obvious. In fact, it's so unclear that local landscape photographer Nick Page recalls being informed by a Park Ranger that he would need to purchase a $150 permit to take photos on local wilderness land.

"The first year I took photos there with no problem. The second year I was told that if I was going to take photos I would need a permit. I was lead to believe that applied to amateurs as well as professionals. I just said, 'no thanks' and went somewhere else," said Page.

A recent rash of media coverage has brought to light a potentially troubling Forest Service measure that regulates the rights to take photographs or video in congress designated wilderness areas. The directive, which has been in place for over four years, according to Forest Service spokesman Larry Chambers, is now ready for finalization. In light of the recent media attention public comment on the directive will be taken through Nov. 3 and can be made at http://1. usa.gov/1tYjzIK

Critics of the measure, which is intended to protect federal wilderness areas from damage caused by commercial filming, express concern about the directive's open-ended language as well as potential infringement on the first amendment right to free speech. For example, photography or filming must have the "primary objective of dissemination of information about the use and enjoyment of wilderness or its ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value."

Under these guidelines, permits could be issued based on the discretion of the issu- ing officers and denied based on political agendas. The guidelines apply to news reporters as well as photographers, with an exception for "breaking news coverage" such as fires or rescues. Several news articles have mentioned the possibility of the regulations applying to cell phone photos or videos taken by bloggers as well.

In the earlier example of photographer Nick Page, it's evident where confusion could arise. The Commercial Filming and Photography permit section of the Wenaha Tucannon Wilderness Forest Service website states, "If you are shooting still photographs or home movies for personal use (i.e. that does not involve advertisement of a product or service, the creation of a product for sale) then a special use permit is not required." One could see where, as a landscape photographer, Page could be required to obtain a permit since he could be creating photographs for sale.

And yet, further down the page, a section on still photography states that "National Forest visitors and professional or amateur photographers do not need a special use permit to take still photographs" unless the photography meets one of several criteria that Page's did not. It's easy to see where officials could have difficulty determining when a permit is required and when it is not.

This photo by Dayton photographer Nick Page was taken in the federally designated Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness prior to his being informed he would need a $150 photography permit in order to shoot there.

Page said he was "quite concerned" when the articles about the measure first hit the news. "It appeared to be a pretty desperate money-grab and it looked as if I would either have my choice of shooting and taking the risk of a fine or not shooting in the wildlands at all," he said. But as he researched further, Page said he realized the measure was "geared toward keeping the large, destructive car commercial shoots and the like out of the national forests."

Still, he is concerned that the language is open-ended enough that it could affect more than the targeted demographic, as it apparently already has.

"Frankly, I will take my chances, because I have a very hard time seeing myself or any other photographer ending up in jail for trying to show the beauty of our native wildernesses. I am pretty sure there would be riots in the streets before anything like this would be allowed to happen. Photographers are some of the most important resources we have when it comes to wildlife conservation and to think that the National Forest Service would alienate such a valuable, free resource is idiotic," said Page.

Interested parties may read the measure in its entirety and leave public comment by visiting http://1.usa.gov/1tYjzIK