[Tweeters] Legal vs Ethical

Ronda Stark rondastark18 at gmail.com
Fri Jan 29 13:55:24 PST 2016


Tim and Teresa,

I assume you are both aware the Hawk Owl was located on land belonging to a
member of the Colville and it is the Colville tribe that has jurisdiction
over prosecution of any alleged wildlife violation-- to the extent it is a
violation of any tribal laws, since federal law would not apply.

Tim, none of what you have posted re: free public access is applicable to
lands belonging to members of the Colville tribe and while I am not
conversant with the tribal code of the Colville Nation, it is the tribal
code that applies.

Ronda

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 7:30 PM, Teresa Michelsen <
teresa at avocetconsulting.com> wrote:


> I’d also like to add a reminder that tribal lands and reservations are not

> subject to the same laws as the rest of the United States, and should be

> treated just as if you are in another country. Each reservation has

> different rules, and you cannot assume that the same rights or customs

> apply. Some are open to the public, others require pre-approval for access,

> and some areas may be off-limits altogether. Aside from legal issues, they

> may also have different cultural expectations that should be respected.

> Among them, the 29 federally recognized tribes in Washington control

> millions of acres, so be sure you know where you are and what rules pertain.

>

>

>

> Of course this is also true of various Federal and State lands, including

> wilderness areas, reserves, military installations, Hanford, etc. I have

> certainly encountered curtailment of access and photography rights on the

> water (at gunpoint) in the course of doing my job (environmental cleanup of

> harbors and rivers), even though waters of the State are technically

> supposed to be navigable by the public. Just try that around an oil

> refinery, navy base, or ferry dock these days and see what happens,

> especially with binoculars or camera.

>

>

>

> Teresa Michelsen

>

> North Bend, WA

>

>

>

> *From:* tweeters-bounces at mailman1.u.washington.edu [mailto:

> tweeters-bounces at mailman1.u.washington.edu] *On Behalf Of *Timothy R

> Barksdale

> *Sent:* Thursday, January 28, 2016 3:13 PM

> *To:* TWEETERS

> *Cc:* Kevin Lucas; Izzy Wong

> *Subject:* [Tweeters] Legal vs Ethical

>

>

>

> Hello Tweets,

>

>

>

> I assume part of the motivation of posting of these is in relation to the

> relatively recent demise of the Northern Hawk Owl.

>

>

>

> As a professional film-maker/Journalist / artist / author I have been in

> touch with Mr. Krages personally. He may be the single most knowledgeable

> photographers rights attorney in the US. I've never had to do much more

> than assert my rights or show previous accreditation as a member of the

> media and the press, but clarifying exactly what they are, while I am

> carrying a camera within the United States- is. Being in a foreign country

> is NOT the same as being in the USA and I would suggest that anything I say

> below- may not apply in any foreign country - including Canada.

>

>

>

> While you are in the USA or any states, territories, etc- Photographers

> have very broad rights to photograph nearly anything if the photographer is

> in a clearly public place and after numerous court rulings, that includes

> nearly anything, but invasion of privacy and even more special cases like

> military bases or secret fighter jets you are going to lose.

>

>

>

> I have had my share of run-ins with morons over my 25 years of filming,

> and have been harassed by unexpected sources in situations where a simple

> request politely put, would have done so much more than screaming and

> trying to surround me- while standing near the shoulder of a public

> highway... Even occurring in Washington State on the Sammish Flats. I could

> have sued and filed harassment charges, in that incident, but that is just

> not my style.

>

>

>

> Recently there have been so many incidents of people confronting the press

> in public places, from the University of Missouri Quadrangle to the armed

> occupation of Malhuer National Wildlife Refuge. Threatening, intimidating

> or preventing access to a member of the press to public places is clearly

> illegal and just plain wrong. Whether Law enforcement officers must provide

> access under all circumstances to crime scenes or areas or restrictions is

> difficult to always assess. There may be some justification where an

> officer may advise a journalist that hazards or other danger lies beyond

> and into a restricted area. In most of these situations, the general public

> may be denied access but a journalist may not. But if a journalist, had a

> specific appointment -say with the nut-cases in the refuge, I suspect the

> F.B.I. may not like it- but they would probably be required to allow a

> legitimate journalist pass into blockaded areas. A court order to allow

> access would most certainly be the final result, if the journalists could

> show their safety was not in jeopardy and in some cases -even if it were.

>

>

>

> The fine line is always: what does cross into privacy.

>

>

>

> So in the situation, had I been standing on a given public road and filmed

> a Bird of any species, on private land, and come back later to find that

> bird in the act of being shot or already killed, I have that right as an

> American citizen and even more so as a journalist because of specific

> protections given to the press. In most cases, where you are in any public

> situation- anyone does. You can be asked to leave certain areas of

> questionable " public " ownership, say a Mall, but only if you are in

> violation of laws or are involved in harassing someone who has an equal

> right to expect a certain amount of privacy. In special venues which are

> owned by corporations, you may be asked to abide by certain guidelines or

> "rules". But you are still subject to your constitutional rights.

>

>

>

> If that road is private, anyone can be charged with trespassing.

>

>

>

> So Students camping in tents on the University of Missouri Quadrangle are

> clearly in a public area. They may not restrict journalists of other

> members of the public from passing freely on public ground. Do they have a

> reasonable right to expect to NOT have a journalist or other member of the

> public barge into a private tent on that public ground- I would say yes.

>

>

>

> But one is not barging into a private home on private property if a dead

> bird is clearly viewed from public places. However, if photos were taken

> with a long lens of a person inside of that building who can reasonably

> expect privacy, then again you are not going to be able to use the film.

>

>

>

> But privately proving someone did something is not in most of our

> interests. Providing material evidence which can aid in criminal

> prosecution I would suggest is in everyone's interest, as long as it was

> legally obtained. So any violation of wildlife codes, can be taken to the

> appropriate governmental agencies. There are well trained people to handle

> these cases with in appropriate divisions of government.

>

>

>

> Private property rights are clear and extensive, but preventing

> photography from a public place is not one of them.

>

>

>

> Hopefully, this discussion is helpful.

>

> Very Best,

>

>

>

>

>

> Tim

>

>

>

> Timothy Barksdale

>

> Birdman Productions

>

> P.O. Box 1124

>

> 65 Mountain View Dr.

>

> Choteau, MT 59422

>

>

>

> timothy -dot- barksdale -at- gmail- dot- com

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> Tweeters mailing list

> Tweeters at u.washington.edu

> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters

>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20160129/9b7b3a43/attachment-0001.htm


More information about the Tweeters mailing list