Editorial: It’s essential that Forest Service make access for journalists clear

Two months ago, the U.S. Forest Service caused a stir when it looked as if it wanted to make permanent a rule that could charge journalists for reporting, filming or photographing in wilderness areas, and preclude coverage the agency deemed negative.

After considerable backlash, Forest Service officials said journalists were not the intended targets of permits. The agency was merely trying to clarify a rule for commercial activities, such as filming commercials or movies.

Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, sent a letter this week to Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell to make sure the language of the final rule matches this intent. The public comment period ends on Wednesday. There is still cause for concern, because the initial confusion was sown by the Forest Service, which, according to an Oregonian article, wanted to charge reporters and photographers up to $1,500 for permits to pursue, for example, allegations of neglect on wilderness land. An agency spokeswoman said the rule was needed to comply with the Wilderness Act of 1964.

Perhaps lines of communications got crossed, but there have been several incidents in recent years that indicate the Forest Service, at least in some jurisdictions, would like to clamp down on coverage.

Idaho Public Television was told to buy permits for a documentary it planned to shoot this year on the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act, the Seattle Times reported. Plus, the station had to persuade the government that the documentary would “be in keeping with their interpretation of the values of wilderness,” according to IPTV general manager Ron Pisaneschi.

In 2010, Idaho Gov. Butch Otter protested when Salmon-Challis National Forest officials made the same station apply for permits to cover some kids fixing wilderness trails. They eventually relented, but it was too late.

In 2007, Yellowstone Park officials told a reporter she had to buy a $200 permit and liability insurance, and then wait two weeks for approval before interviewing a wildlife biologist about wolf reintroduction, the Seattle Times reported.

So Rep. Simpson, journalists and First Amendment advocates have plenty to be nervous about as the agency differentiates between journalism and the kinds of commercial activity it wishes to curtail. The Forest Service is well within its bounds in preventing or regulating the filming of commercials or movies. Nobody wants to see pristine areas trampled for profit.

But intent won’t mean anything if it isn’t specified.

As Rep. Simpson notes in his letter, the Forest Service needs to spell out when permits are not needed to avoid confusion (or intentional misinterpretation). The Forest Service chief has said they wouldn’t be required for breaking news, background reporting or as part of a news series or documentary.

Sounds great. Just put it writing. And make sure any need for editorial control is dropped from the final draft.