Wow! Why do these issues always come to light the last day before it
is too late to comment? Guess I better gather my thoughts and send in
a comment.
It is hard to trust the premise behind these pending regulations
limiting filming, photography, or audio recording on public lands,
while at the same time our country is subjected by an administrative
mindset to ignore the scientific community =96 and that is working hard
to cripple our Endangered Species Act, and that would love to see
habitat protections thrown out completely so a few rich men can
exploit our lands and line their own pockets as well as the pockets of
a few powerful others.
I fear this may be an attempt to keep the eyes and ears of the public
blind to the current states of our public lands. To a large extent
our public relies on recorded sounds and images in whatever format
(entertainment, documentary, news) to form their own opinions
regarding the condition of our world beyond ones own physically
practical reach.
Sounds like this might make things more difficult for anyone carrying
a recorder or a camera onto public lands.
John Hartog
Portland Oregon USA
--- In Bernie Krause <> wrote:
>
> > Check this out, folks.
>
> Bernie
>
>
> > From: SEJNews <>
> > Date: October 17, 2007 3:08:58 PM PDT
> > To:
> > Cc:
> > Subject: SEJ-TIPSHEET: WATCHDOG EDITION of 17 OCTOBER 2007
> > Reply-To:
> >
> > TIPSHEET WATCHDOG EDITION
> > 17 OCTOBER 2007
> >
> > This biweekly WatchDog edition of TipSheet focuses on First Amendment
> > issues of concern to environmental journalists. You can find a fuller
> > version of most articles, frequent updates, and other tools and
> > information on the Web site of the Society of Environmental
> > Journalists.
> >
> > TipSheet WatchDog Edition is produced by the SEJ as an ongoing
> > activity
> > of its First Amendment Task Force <http://www.sej.org/foia/
> > index6.htm>,
> > and distributed through the TipSheet partnership between SEJ and the
> > Radio & Television News Directors Foundation. The contents of TipSheet
> > WatchDog are posted to the FOI area of the SEJ Web site at
> > <http://www.sej.org/foia/index7.htm>.
> >
> > ***************************************************************
> > IN THIS ISSUE...
> > ***************************************************************
> >
> > -- Interior Proposes Photo Fee Rule
> > -- House Passes Shield Law 398-21; White House Threatens Veto
> > -- Veterans' Hospitals Won't Share Cancer Data
> > -- Toledo Blade Covers Nuclear Cover-Up Trial
> > -- Judge Denies Media Access to MSHA Probe of Crandall Canyon
> > -- Minnesota Scientist Finally Gives Atrazine Testimony
> >
> > ***************************************************************
> > FULL VERSIONS of all the WatchDog stories are posted at
> > <http://www.sej.org/foia/index7.htm.
> >
> > ***************************************************************
> > INTERIOR PROPOSES FEE/PERMIT RULE FOR FILMING IN PARKS, REFUGES
> >
> > The Interior Department has proposed codifying its rules on
> > photography, filming, and sound-recording on public lands it
> > administers -- rules which some newsgatherers complain badly cramps
> > their ability to do their jobs.
> >
> > The deadline for public comments on the proposed rule is Friday, Oct.
> > 19, 2007. The Society of Environmental Journalists and other groups
> > expect to file comments urging Interior to ease restrictions on
> > newsgathering.
> >
> > The Interior proposal is not a drastic shift in policy -- but it would
> > make filming policy more consistent across some of Interior's major
> > component agencies: the National Park Service, the Fish & Wildlife
> > Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. It is not clear that it
> > would regularize policy across various Park System units, which now
> > vary widely in how they apply the policy.
> >
> > The proposal would decide several key issues in ways that restrict
> > journalists:
> >
> > -- Is documentary a form of news? The proposal allows agencies to say
> > "no."
> > -- Are freelancers representatives of the news media? Agencies can say
> > "no."
> > -- Are independent producers and production companies news media?
> > Again: "no."
> > -- Can public radio reporters interview park staff or record wolf
> > calls? The rule allows parks to require a permit, even though the law
> > gives it no authority to do so.
> > -- Do still photographers with handheld cameras need permits? The rule
> > allows a park service employee to deny permission to photograph if
> > he/she feels the photography is "inappropriate."
> >
> > While Interior's proposal continues the agency's current policy of
> > exempting "news coverage" from permit requirements, it also allows a
> > very narrow definition of "news." Current policy exempts only
> > "breaking" or "spot" news (such as a wildfire or presidential
> > photo-ops) from permit requirements. One park (Yellowstone) defines
> > news as "an event that cannot be covered at any other time or
> > location." That could exclude coverage of grizzly bear conflicts,
> > snowmobile policy decisions, bioprospecting, budget and maintenance
> > debates, and traffic jams.
> >
> > -- "Proposed Rule: Making Motion Pictures, Television Productions,
> > Soundtracks or Taking Still Photographs on Certain Areas Under the
> > Jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior," Department of the
> > Interior, Federal Register, August 20, 2007, pp. 46426-46432
> > <http://www.sej.org/go/071017-1.htm>.
> >
> > -- You can comment on the proposal from your computer at the online
> > federal rulemaking portal:
> > <http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main>. The docket ID
> > is DOI-2007-0035 <http://www.sej.org/go/071017-2.htm>.
> >
> > **********************************************************
> > HOUSE PASSES SHIELD LAW 398-21; WHITE HOUSE THREATENS VETO
> >
> > The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill Oct. 16, 2007, to
> > create a federal
> > shield law which would offer limited protection for reporters from
> > being compelled to
> > disclose confidential sources.
> >
> > Shortly before passage, the White House threatened to veto the bill
> > (HR 2102). It passed by an astonishing 398-21 margin, with Republicans
> > abandoning the White House position in droves after the House added an
> > amendment addressing some national security concerns. If that margin
> > held, it would be more than enough to override a veto. A 2/3 vote is
> > needed to override.
> >
> > Attention now shifts to the Senate, where a similar bill is awaiting
> > floor action.
> >
> > The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bill (S 2035) by a 15-4
> > vote. The relative weakness of GOP opposition there suggests that
> > getting it to the floor may be quite feasible. It is easier to block
> > floor consideration of a bill in the Senate than in the House, since
> > 60 votes are needed to cut off debate (cloture) and bring a bill to a
> > vote.
> >
> > -- Extensive Background at the Web site of the Coalition of
> > Journalists for Open Government: <http://www.cjog.net/>.
> >
> > *******************************************
> > VETERANS' HOSPITALS WON'T SHARE CANCER DATA
> >
> > Cancer registries have been part of the public health system in the
> > U.S. since before World War II. They serve many purposes: not only do
> > they aid the collection of statistics so that physicians can gauge how
> > the battle against cancer is going, but they can help pinpoint "cancer
> > clusters" that may be caused by environmental factors.
> >
> > Virtually every state in the U.S. has a registry of cancer cases,
> > under a national surveillance system run by the Centers for Disease
> > Control and Prevention (CDC). This system has been dealing -- for the
> > most part successfully -- with patient privacy issues for decades.
> > Cancer registries often share medical data while restricting access to
> > information about patient identity.
> >
> > Now the hospitals in the federal Veterans Affairs (VA) system are
> > saying they will not share cancer data with state registries unless
> > the states sign restrictive agreements. The VA says it is protecting
> > patient privacy. For now, the VA seems to have the upper hand, since
> > states can not force a federal institution to obey state law,
> > according to an Oct. 10 story in the New York Times.
> >
> > ******************************************************
> > TOLEDO BLADE COVERS DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR COVER-UP TRIAL
> >
> > A federal jury in Toledo may soon be deciding whether some company
> > officials engaged in a cover-up of safety problems at the Davis-Besse
> > nuclear power plant.
> >
> > Although the story has gotten little national attention, the Toledo
> > Blade's Tom Henry has covered the trial in detail.
> >
> > The latest of Henry's stories in the Blade (Oct. 13) is at
> > <http://www.sej.org/go/071017-3.htm> and you will find links to most
> > previous stories there. You can also find them in the Web edition of
> > the WatchDog at <http://www.sej.org/foia/index7.htm>.
> >
> > **********************************************************
> > JUDGE DENIES MEDIA ACCESS TO MSHA PROBE OF CRANDALL CANYON
> >
> > Federal district judge Dee Benson ruled Oct. 9, 2007, that a group of
> > news media companies could not have access to an investigation by the
> > Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) into the Crandall Canyon
> > mine collapse in Utah Aug. 6, which killed six miners and three
> > workers trying to rescue them.
> >
> > While MSHA is investigating factors that led to the accident, MSHA
> > itself has been criticized for decisions that may have led to the
> > collapse.
> >
> > A group of media companies went to court seeking to attend
> > investigatory proceeding being held by MSHA. The companies included
> > the Associated Press, CNN and The Salt Lake Tribune.
> >
> > ************************************************************
> > SCIENTIST FINALLY GIVES ATRAZINE TESTIMONY HE WAS FIRED OVER
> >
> > A scientist who was fired shortly after he asked permission to testify
> > before the Minnesota legislature on Atrazine pollution of water
> > finally had his say.
> >
> > "Paul Wotzka is a hydrologist who logged 16 years monitoring water
> > quality for the Minnesota Department of Agriculture before moving to
> > the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency last year," reports KARE-11 in
> > Minneapolis-St. Paul. "On March 20th Wotzka took a call from
> > Representative Ken Tschumper, a dairy farmer who advocates banning
> > Atrazine from use in Minnesota."
> >
> > Tschumper had read an article that quoted Wotzka saying Atrazine
> > levels were up in Minnesota trout streams. Wotzka sent a request to
> > his bosses asking permission to testify. They denied the request, and
> > two weeks later fired him. Wotzka has now filed a whistleblower
> > lawsuit.
> >
> > The MPCA did not manage to silence Wotzka, though. State Sen. John
> > Marty (D) invited him to testify Oct. 10 at a hearing on Atrazine and
> > scientific integrity.
> >
> > *******************************************************
> > FULL VERSIONS of all the WatchDog stories are posted at
> > <http://www.sej.org/foia/index7.htm.
> >
> > *******************************
> > Next WatchDog: October 31, 2007
> >
> > Journalists: Please tell your colleagues about TipSheet and TipSheet
> > WatchDog Edition. For free subscription send name and full contact
> > information to <>. Have a tip? Comments? Contact Joseph A.
> > Davis, editor, at 301-656-2261, <>. WatchDog team
> > includes
> > Ken Ward, Jr., SEJ 1st Amendment Task Force Chair; Robert McClure, SEJ
> > Board/Task Force Liaison; Vince Patton, Adviser; Beth Parke, SEJ
> > Executive Director; Cindy MacDonald, Web Associate; and you.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > SEJ-tipsheet mailing list
> >
> > To manage your subscription or unsubscribe: http://lists.sej.org/
> > mailman/listinfo/sej-tipsheet
> >
>
>
> Wild Sanctuary
> POB 536
> Glen Ellen, CA 95442
> 707-996-6677
> http://www.wildsanctuary.com
>
> Google Earth zooms: Earth.WildSanctuary.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
|