That had occured to me, but wasn't sure - and of course I still would
like to take more
ann
On 9/27/2014 11:33, John wrote:
New rules wouldn't apply to any photos you had already taken before
those rules went into effect anyway.
On 9/26/2014 7:16 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
That is certainly "more better" :-)
Now I can feel free to make a calendar of places in my favorite parks
from photos I took 30 years ago
Hurray for the outcry
ann
On 9/26/2014 18:37, Darren Addy wrote:
Follow-up:
http://petapixel.com/2014/09/26/forest-service-delays-decision-controversial-permit-rules-amid-public-outcry/
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 7:43 PM, steve harley <[email protected]>
wrote:
on 2014-09-24 16:07 Darren Addy wrote
I can perhaps understand the rationale for film crews, but the still
photography requirement is SILLY, IMHO:
http://petapixel.com/2014/09/24/us-forest-service-proposes-controversial-expensive-photo-permit-rules/#more-146255
today Denver Post digs in a little bit further than that article:
<http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26606988/feds-proposal-charge-limit-access-wilderness-areas-draws?source=rss>
and the Forest Service is trying to clarify, but it still seems
pretty muddy
to me; i had gone over the comment page and tried to to read the
regulations, but never really found the
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
