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.htm