Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-19-2015, 03:28 AM   #1
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,464
Wyoming just made photography illegal in most of the state

https://legiscan.com/WY/text/SF0012/id/1151882

You can face a $5,000.00 fine and a year in jail if you share nature photos with the government. Or photos of any sort of environmental disaster, even those that are an imminent threat to public health.

And don't expect the ACLU to try and do something about it. They closed up shop in Wyoming...

05-19-2015, 03:51 AM   #2
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,254
Wow. I lack the intellectual rigour to read the whole document, but look at the British licence to "roam".
05-19-2015, 04:08 AM   #3
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
GlassJunkie's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: St Petersburg
Photos: Albums
Posts: 402
This is to protect against "FRACK WHACKS".

About time the scaremongers that threaten landowners/ companies with litigation and bodily harm can be prosecuted.Nature photogs are fine...
05-19-2015, 04:13 AM - 1 Like   #4
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Pensacola Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 130
An additional law against trespassers. Don't trespass and there won't be any problems. I've never felt that having a camera granted me any extra rights to go onto someone else's property. On one hand there is lots of federal public land in Wyoming that probably does not need unqualified people helping out. On the other the oil, gas and mining industry in Wyoming is also pretty large and is probably a huge influence in the legislature. I assume "open land" means un-fenced.

05-19-2015, 04:18 AM - 1 Like   #5
Closed Account
enoxatnep's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The edge of nowhere, Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 467
This bill relates to trespassing onto "private open land" to collect "resource data" - yes, including photographs. If I was an owner of a tract of land and somebody showed up and started snapping away and collecting soil samples, etc., I'd sure want a law like this to protect my rights! There's nothing in this law that states a person cannot snap away at will in Yellowstone or near the Grand Tetons or at the Devil's Tower, etc., so please don't jump to the wrong conclusions about its purpose and intent.
05-19-2015, 04:23 AM   #6
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,464
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by _Ben Quote
I assume "open land" means un-fenced.
The bill's definition of "Open Land"

QuoteQuote:
"Open Land" means land outside the exterior boundaries of any incorporated city, town, or subdivision.
QuoteQuote:
"Collect" means to take a sample of material, acquire, gather, photograph or otherwise preserve information in any form from open land which is submitted or intended to be submitted to any agency of the state or federal government
QuoteQuote:
"Resource data" means data relating to land or land use, including but not limited to data regarding agriculture, minerals, geology, history, cultural artifacts, archeology, air, water, soil, conservation, habitat, vegetation or animal species.
The bill was promoted by ranchers because of a lot of embarrassing reporting of e coli in drinking water, cattle being allowed to graze too close to rivers...
05-19-2015, 04:48 AM - 1 Like   #7
Banned




Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 390
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
photograph or otherwise preserve information in any form from open land which is submitted or intended to be submitted to any agency of the state or federal government

The way I see it, personal use is unaffected by this law, so, not a big deal unless you plan on sharing these pics with the guys flying those black helicopters that are following you around!

05-19-2015, 05:09 AM   #8
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 4,833
The law appears to be limited to *private* open land, places where you are already trespassing. The last part of the law demands that other branches of government delete data that violates this law - good luck, States can't do much after the Feds have data.
05-19-2015, 05:37 AM - 2 Likes   #9
Veteran Member
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,186
I'm surprised so many on this forum seem to be okay with this law. Even if it won't be used explicitly to hunt nature photographers and hikers with a camera by the current courts, it is written broadly enough to allow a lot of trouble for people in the future, if/when the legislature becomes more aggressive. Or it can be used on technicalities to silence some people and to rake in some money. And still, even if casual photographers are never affected by this law, it is a law put forth to silence people who care about the land they live on. That's not very good.

But hey, its not my country, and the EU (both as the EU or at the level of individual member states) is passing laws that limit information, photography, and so on. These laws seem to only be used against people and rarely against any big businesses, companies, government agencies. Its almost as if the intent was to protect big interests all along.

Last edited by Na Horuk; 05-19-2015 at 05:44 AM.
05-19-2015, 05:40 AM - 1 Like   #10
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
MJSfoto1956's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,305
QuoteOriginally posted by GlassJunkie Quote
About time the scaremongers that threaten landowners/ companies with litigation and bodily harm can be prosecuted.Nature photogs are fine...
IMHO, anyone who defends this law is either being disingenuous or ignorant of the wording and intent of the law:

"The new law is of breathtaking scope. It makes it a crime to “collect resource data” from any “open land,” meaning any land outside of a city or town, whether it’s federal, state, or privately owned. The statute defines the word collect as any method to “preserve information in any form,” including taking a “photograph” so long as the person gathering that information intends to submit it to a federal or state agency. In other words, if you discover an environmental disaster in Wyoming, even one that poses an imminent threat to public health, you’re obliged, according to this law, to keep it to yourself."

Michael
05-19-2015, 05:59 AM   #11
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
People with something to hide will use their influence to hide it. This is what I like to call the "rule of the psychopaths". It is at it's heart, protection for those who take actions on their land, that have consequences far beyond their land. And this is the whole quandary for states like Wyoming and many resource extractors. They do things that negatively affect people living beyond the boundaries of their properties. And the simple fact is, many of these endeavours would not be profitable at all, if the rule of causing zero environmental damage was invoked.

For example, the cost of paying damages for damage to drinking water caused by fracking, or cancers caused by sweet gas, would make the production of many oil wells unprofitable. SO the problem for the economic sociopath then becomes, "how can I make money", and too often the answer is "by risking someone else's health." But to the sociopath or psychopath, other people's well being doesn't matter.

The mantra of the innocent is, "we have nothing to hide", The mantra of the psychopath, is "you shouldn't have the right to look." It's pretty clear who runs the state of Wyoming.

Last edited by normhead; 05-19-2015 at 06:06 AM.
05-19-2015, 06:03 AM   #12
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern Wisconsin
Posts: 725
I'm not an attorney.... but it sounds like a law that will at some point be challenged in Federal court and overturned. Just my 2 cents.
05-19-2015, 06:04 AM   #13
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
GlassJunkie's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: St Petersburg
Photos: Albums
Posts: 402
Neither disingenuous or ignorant

QuoteOriginally posted by MJSfoto1956 Quote
IMHO, anyone who defends this law is either being disingenuous or ignorant of the wording and intent of the law:

"The new law is of breathtaking scope. It makes it a crime to “collect resource data” from any “open land,” meaning any land outside of a city or town, whether it’s federal, state, or privately owned. The statute defines the word collect as any method to “preserve information in any form,” including taking a “photograph” so long as the person gathering that information intends to submit it to a federal or state agency. In other words, if you discover an environmental disaster in Wyoming, even one that poses an imminent threat to public health, you’re obliged, according to this law, to keep it to yourself."

Michael
Have you ever seen an eco advocate/terrorist maim someone? I have, saw the injuries, treated the victims, and have no respect for trespassers and criminal extortionists. Ignorance is playing the "progressive arrogance" you displayed in your above comment and attack on me you just laid out, without knowing anything about why I have my view... Criminals are criminals, elegant simplicity.
05-19-2015, 06:08 AM - 3 Likes   #14
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by GlassJunkie Quote
Have you ever seen an eco advocate/terrorist maim someone? I have, saw the injuries, treated the victims, and have no respect for trespassers and criminal extortionists. Ignorance is playing the "progressive arrogance" you displayed in your above comment and attack on me you just laid out, without knowing anything about why I have my view... Criminals are criminals, elegant simplicity.
References?

What I have seen is widespread condemnation of environmentalists based on an incident in California, where the environmental activists were blamed, but in the end it turned out that the forestry company was cutting on private land, the man involved was not an environmentalist but the land owner, and he'd spiked his own trees, which the forestry company had illegally cut, and the only one charged in the incident, was the forestry company, for not having proper safety equipment on their saw. So examining the actual incident in question, it went from being eco-terrorist spiking trees, to a completely irresponsible forestry company passing on the blame.

SO, yes, I definitely need a reference. I've too often before dug in to these kinds of statements, and found the case against the environmentalists has been blown way out of whack, or that they didn't even do what the popular wisdom has them doing. I once actually had a logger call my friends down at Earth Roots in Toronto environmental terrorists, people I know well, and who I have co-operated with on more than a few environmental challenges, and who haven't been involved in anything but petitions and court challenges for over 30 years.

Most of the time, if you know what you're talking about, this stuff is nonsense, no matter which side proposes it. Wild unsubstantiated allegations are just that.

By the way, some of the loggers who told me about this California case, changed the location to BC and assured me they knew the man who was injured. So, I been down this road before. Pardon my skepticism.

My advice for this kind of examination is, stay on good terms with everyone, find out what everyone has to say, make up your own mind.

If you haven't done part "A", stay on good terms with everyone and hear what everyone has to say, you're simply not credible. You're a propagandist for one side or the other.

IN every given incident, the environmentalists may be wrong, or the corporations may be wrong, but in the end, these incidents in no way affect the validity of the arguments proposed. Even if environmentalists attack and injure some people, fracking may still pollute water reserves, and just because environmentalists say fracking pollutes water reserves doesn't mean it does. But, I fail to see how restricting and punishing those trying to collect data is good policy.

The simple fact is, air and water pollution are not restricted to the property of the resource extractors, and while people may record the differences in water quality from nearby wells, and air quality, it is extremely difficult to prove where the source of the pollution is. Wyoming just made it even more difficult than it already is. I am reminded of the family in Alberta who went around blowing up oil wells. They were all dead of cancer before the government even started investigating. Sadly, for some companies, that's part of corporate strategy.

Last edited by normhead; 05-19-2015 at 06:36 AM.
05-19-2015, 06:11 AM   #15
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Working From Home
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,276
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
People with something to hide will use their influence to hide it.
Note: Not directed at the Quoted poster - a general response, so 'You' is collective, not individual.

If I own something, I own it. Just like my backyard, I don't particularly want just any old body coming onto my land and snooping around, looking for something they don't like - especially since the snooper decides what's to not like.

Stop presuming that just because someone owns some large chunk of land in a wide-open, barren state in the USA that you've likely never seen, he the owner must by definition be up to no good. Some of those tracts in Wyoming (and northern Colorado) have been owned by one family for nearly 200 years. Back then - and today - they, more than anyone, were and are proper stewards of their land. It's in their interest so to be.

Re-read your Civics textbook. This is a Consitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Wyoming is a Sovereign State. They make their laws, they have their rights - indepndent of what the Feds (and you) might think about them. Lest you are a registered voter there (while most definitely entitled to your opinion and the right to express it) you don't have a vote.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
bill, colorado, cows, land, law, people, photography, photos, reason, response, sign, streams, subject, violence, wyoming, zero
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bill to make Street Photography (and more) illegal passes in Arkansas Senate interested_observer General Photography 37 04-13-2015 04:16 AM
My K-01 shot just made the front page of the Flickr Blog Doundounba Pentax K-01 16 08-06-2014 08:18 PM
My Most Awesome Experience With The Greatest Lens Ever Made GoremanX Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 100 03-18-2014 05:56 PM
Landscape Hiking in the Snowy Range, Wyoming Colorado CJ Post Your Photos! 5 09-25-2013 06:17 AM
The State of Large Format Film Photography??? ajoe Photographic Technique 3 02-05-2011 05:30 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:30 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top