Wyoming Outlaws Citizen Science, Bans Photos Of Yellowstone

[Webster]

....reading this article below, there's several state-federal conflicts that come to mind: the Surpremacy Clause, the First Amendment, etc..

(Inhabitat) Imagine: you’re in Yellowstone National Park and it’s the trip of a lifetime. And you’ve taken the picture (or two) of a lifetime. Perhaps it’s one of the geysers, or a magnificent sunset or a black bear playing in the trees. What if you submitted that photo to the National Weather Service for them to publish on their Facebook page or to a contest sponsored by the Forest Service? According to a new law in Wyoming, that could land you in jail.

It is now illegal in Wyoming to share data collected about the environment in Wyoming with the federal government. Huh? Yeah. Of course, the real reason for the law has nothing to do with pictures or the National Weather Service. Instead, it has a lot to do with the E.coli bacteria that seems to be running rampant in Wyoming waterways. Apparently, there is more bacteria than is deemed safe by federal standards and instead of confronting the issue and dealing with it, Wyoming has decided to threaten prison to anyone who might bring it up.

Why? Well, politics of course. There are a lot of cows in Wyoming—it’s big business there. The cows spend a lot of time in and next to streams. If we mention that there’s E.coli in the waterways, that could result in increased regulation of the ranchers who graze their cattle on public lands. Hence the new law.

The Clean Water Act recognized that it would be almost impossible for every environmental issue across the country be dealt with by a government official exclusively. That’s where citizens come in. Citizens are authorized in the statutes to bring lawsuits against polluters and citizen scientists are relied upon to gather necessary information. Now, if you act in good conscience against a polluter, you are viewed as a criminal in Wyoming—and potentially other states too. This law makes it a crime to collect data from any “open” land. Any land, then, outside of a city or town no matter who owns it—the federal government, the state or a private citizen. It also means that you are, in essence, obligated to keep any information you discover—even if it’s a public health threat—to yourself.

“It runs afoul of the supremacy clause because it interferes with the purposes of federal environmental statutes by making it impossible for citizens to collect the information necessary to bring an enforcement lawsuit,” according to Justin Pidot, an associate law professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, in Slate. The law violates the First Amendment, he says, because it singles out “speech about natural resources” and makes it criminal to participate in expressive activities. It also criminalizes public interaction with federal and state agencies—which violates the First Amendment right to “petition the government.

Thoughts?

 

[DrLeftover]

Of course there is a bit more to the story, and it isn't quite as sensational as

But still....

CHEYENNE, Wyo. – A new state law gives police the power to cite people for trespassing if they step onto private land to gather "data" – including photographs – that they plan to give to the government.

The law doesn't say someone actually has to give the data or photographs to authorities, only that they intend to. And law professor Justin Pidot said a broad reading of the measure suggests it might also extend in some cases to public lands, like a national park after hours. The law is similar to "ag gag" laws in Utah and Idaho that make it illegal to secretly take photos or videos on farms without explicit permission.

"This is the kind of law that many people would find to be disturbing," said Pidot, who wrote an essay about the data-trespassing law for Slate. Pidot is an assistant professor at the University of Denver's Sturm College of Law, and has represented water-quality groups in Wyoming.
the blog site made it out to be.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/14/wyoming-data-trespassing/27310567/


More:

Did Wyoming Really Just Outlaw Citizen Science?
http://blog.ucsusa.org/did-wyoming-...n=Feed:+TheEquation+(The+Equation+-+UCS+Blog)

 

[Webster]

*re-reads original article* Come to think of it, it is too sensational. Question still remains: why did they pass it? What threat was it meant to deal with?

 

[DrLeftover]

... What threat was it meant to deal with?

My bet would be:

Unwanted, Intrusive, Federal Intervention into local affairs.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

My bet would be:

Unwanted, Intrusive, Federal Intervention into local affairs.

This makes a lot of sense and I kinda of like it for keeping the federal government away. If a person goes on private property without permission then fine I am good with the law. But if they try to enforce this on public land which is all of ours then this needs to be stopped.

 

[DrLeftover]

The bit about Federal Land is probably unenforceable.

The rest remains to be seen.

But the idea of keeping Uncle from going through your trash does have some appeal.