micah_marty1 Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 Sara Louise Kras wrote to View Camera magazine (Sept/Oct issue) to express her dismay over the "no car" policy at Zion National Park in Utah (a shuttle-bus-only transport policy is also likely to be phased in at other over-exhausted national parks). She and her husband drove up to Zion�s gate with "an 8x10 and a 4x5 camera with several lenses" but were apparently unprepared to walk very far from their car (or from a shuttle bus) with their equipment. <p> "Anyone who has visited a national park in the past can see why the bus system is being put into place," Ms. Kras concedes. "Wildlife was diminishing and the overall nature experience was becoming quite frustrating and maddening fighting the traffic." <p> On the other hand, she says, "park officials should be aware of photographers, painters, and other artisans [who] wish to communicate their experience through an art medium. Special concessions should be given to these artists. They keep our national park alive through proxy for those [who] cannot visit them." <p> Ms. Kras doesn�t suggest a policy for determining who�s a photographer and who isn�t, nor does she mention such considerations as balancing the wishes of photographers and painters vs. the wishes of others who may want to drive a car in these parks (such as those who are merely disabled or elderly but not particularly artistic). Thoughts, comme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micah_marty1 Posted September 21, 2000 Author Share Posted September 21, 2000 A typo in my post above: Ms. Kras wrote "They keep our national parks alive" (not "park"); she was referring to entire National Park Service, not just Zion. Also, at the end I asked for "thoughts, comments?", not, like, "comme." <p> <><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><><> <><><><><><>< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn_kroeger Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 NPS will surely charge for such a permit... anyone not prepared to walk from a bus stop should stay in the studio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_goldfarb Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 That's the thing about remote and isolated places--they're remote and isolated and hard to get to. It seems like the Park Service wants to keep them that way, and I think photographers should want to keep them that way too, unless they would rather make stock shots of SUV's, off-roaders, and tourists in the national parks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_windom Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 As a professional photographer I am all in favor of a car permit system being put into place. However, I certainly don't think it would be fair to limit it just to photographers or other artists. It should be available to anyone who wants to take advantage of it. To discourage people from driving their cars into the National Parks they can put a hefty price tag on the permits thus limiting the number of cars entering to those who are serious about their need or desire to use a car. What price would discourage the majoirty of people from using their cars and yet make it reasonable for those of us who "need" our cars? <p> There has been talk of requiring permits just to photograph in the Parks. If that is implemented (at a cost of $200/yr?) then I would hope that a special car permit would be included.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c._w._dean Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 Another unfortunate aspect is the closing of roads in some National parks during the Fall deer mating season to prevent poaching which has become widespread despite heavy federal penalties. It seems that illegal hunting can't be prevented by means other than closing the roads. So during some months, you cannot enter the Shennandoah Park in the pre-dawn hours to photograph a nice sunrise in the Blue Ridge because the roads are closed!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sal_santamaura Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 No, LF photographers should not be given special car permits to access US national parks. I say that as a LF photographer who might benefit from such a system. The reason we LF photographers must share the pain of these shuttles systems is that, mostly, we are part of the root cause of crowding that created the need for them. And I don't mean by taking pictures which inspire more people to visit. <p> Shuttle systems, vehicle pollution controls, car pool lanes, etc. are coping strategies established to deal with an excess of people. We have too many people because humans worldwide fail to control their reproduction, and countries such as the US which have slightly more reasonable birth rates (though not nearly low enough) fail to effectively control immigration, legal or illegal. <p> As usual, the innocent are punished with the guilty. So, if your family size is small enough to make you think you should be given special treatment, forget it. Start paring down your gear to a size that can be easily carried on a shuttle bus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie_strack Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 I was in Yosemite on March 8th (middle of the week). There were at most a dozen other cars roaming the valley. We had to get in by 8:00 AM and couldn't leave until 4:00 PM. The entrance road was closed for repairs between those hours. The park service could not afford to operate a bus for the volume of visitors when I was there. <p> I was at Yellowstone about 15 years ago the week before Memorial Day. The park was practically empty. Memorial Day came and the park instantly filled up. <p> If the park service adopts this policy in peak seasons, it makes sense. If they make decisions without regard to demand, we will have to rally in the next election. <p> I doubt any LF photographers really want to photograph in the peak season anyhow. <p> I do think, however, it is rather silly of any of us to think we can preserve the parks as they exist today. Five years ago, half of a mountain fell off a peak in Yosemite. Considering its geological situation, changes have happened and will continue to happen quickly in Yosemite, regardless of man's interventions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce_arnold3 Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 There are plenty of other photogenic places in the world that are not in national parks. Besides, most national parks are over photographed anyway!!! Also, there are many national parks that have relatively low visitation that allow the use of private vehicles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_patti1 Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 I believe that it is dangerous for photographers to ask for different treatment from other park users. Whenever there is any suggestion of imposing fees on photography, we (rightfully) howl in protest, arguing that we should be treated the same as other users of the park. If we want the same benefits as other users, we must be prepared to accept the same limits as well. Arguing for differential treatment establishes a precedent that will make it easier to impose additional burdens on photographers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david richhart Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 I agree with Bruce that some parks are over photographed. If I see one more picture of Half Dome, I think I'm going to throw up... I think they should remove the golden spikes where Ansel set up his tripod and make the photographers find thier own spots!!! I don't understand why people feel they need to rush down the interstate highways at 90 mph to get to the "GOOD SPOTS", while totally missing hundreds of miles of interesting people and places on the backroads.<p> I guess the national parks are for the photographers that can't think of anywhere to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_windom Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 I spend the majority of my time photographing in the National Parks in my area. And yes, Dave, I can think of other places to go. However, in spite of the fact that many of them have been photographed extensively, there is still a big demand for images from them. Go to your local bookstore and see how many books and calendars have National Park themes. <p> Crowding is becoming a very real problem in our Parks and I agree that shuttle busses may be a viable option for helping to control this problem. However, from a purely selfish standpoint, I am against that being the only option available to us. How many busses are going to enter an area an hour before sunrise or depart an hour after sunset? Perhaps they should just limit the number of people who are allowed into certain areas each day whether it be by car or bus. Early bird gets the worm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pemongillo Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 NO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qtluong Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 I've changed my mind on that issue after spending 10 days in Denali NP. In that park, the bus system has been implementedfor a long time. After reading Joe Englender's article "Denali:the right of passage" in View Camera mag, I was expecting tohave to battle red tape and find it difficult to do seriousphotography. <p>After seeing the system work and talking to people, I had toagree that it worked fine for the number one purpose of thePark: preserving the wilderness. I also found that if you arephotographer with wilderness skills (this means only able to overnight, which isn't much), it was surprisinglyeasy to work in that park, which has at least a road (as opposed, to, for example Gates of the Artic, where I carried my 5x7,cold weather gear, and a week of food on relatively unchartedterrain). Admittedly,you'll have to slow down your pace, since you cannot zap from onelocation to another, but if your goal was to rushit, would you be using LF anyways ?This is not meant to offend anybody, but I feel that (a) we needwilderness areas (b) if you want to work in a wilderness area,you need wilderness skills. There are plenty of prime landscapelocations in unregulated land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_atherton2 Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 Sure we should, as long as we do what the movies companies do in such circumstances, or Annie Liebowitz - hand over lots and lots of mullah for the privilege. I sure any LF photographer could do it right now if they wished :) <p> Tim A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_smith Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 We are limited both by the lack of service by busses as well as the lack of space for much of our LF gear. Just try getting on a shuttle early in the morning to get to where you want to be for sunrise, or staying out late enough to photograph the waning horizon light at 10:15 at night. No busses & the park types somehow get pissed when you camp out waiting for the light.Then, try getting on a bus carrying 8x10 or larger with tripod, holders and accessories, while taking up three or more seats. Many of the bus services won't let you.Then you have the nice case of no access by car while you watch a National Park Service employee take their vehicle and LF camera gear past you and photograph the park while on government time, or using their park employee status to both get special access and keep you out, all the while doing so to make money with the images.I say make a permit available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_yates Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 What about renting llamas? <p> Weren't they suppossed to be the answer to trail damage by hooved stock? Couldn't some entreprenuer make some $ and the Park Service grant licenses (and also make some $) to vendors who would include insurance and lessons for those who find the shuttle route unacceptable? <p> I dunno, just a thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masayoshi_hayashi6 Posted September 22, 2000 Share Posted September 22, 2000 No. I should consider why I take pictures. I would not do so if I'm not moved by nature. Guess what happens if you allow another permit then another. Then I would not be moved or take another picture anymore. Dan's comment is interesting and they (the authorities) should not practice what they say no to the public. But they are feeding on themselves until they realize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn_kroeger Posted September 22, 2000 Share Posted September 22, 2000 It is my understanding that commercial permits are already available...seems to me if you want special treatment, declare that you are shooting for commercial use, pays your money, and negotiate a deal. I have watched TV commercial's being shot in NPs and they certainly get special concessions from NPS. But the last thing we need is the NPS creating a special permit and fee that applies to everyone that has a "big" or "old-timey" camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason l. Posted September 22, 2000 Share Posted September 22, 2000 The Parks should be preserved; not so photographers can go there and do their thing but simply because these are the last true "open spaces" left in our country. <p> It's getting worse folks. I don't know what it's like in your area but here, in SC, they are tearing down every last patch of green they can find to put up more of 'plastic America.' It's sick. <p> Humans need to regain the connection of spirit with the Earth. The Parks show us something of what this land was like before it was corrupted. So the Parks are the only viable means of re-awakening man's need for open, unpolluted, undeveloped spaces. <p> So people need to be able to visit the Parks but this must be accomplished in a way that preserves the very reason that people should see to the Parks. <p> The bus system is a good idea. If you are shooting 8x10 as I do; carry it on your back along with everything else. If you can not, then go to a smaller format. The Park is more important than our desire to photograph them. <p> I would even go further to say that the number of visitors allowed to enter the Parks should be reduced by about 30% in the most visited ones and anywhere up to 30% in the rest, depending on visitation. <p> I know this contradicts my assertion that people need to visit the Parks to regain the connection with the Earth. But that is more of an ideal whereas I am now speaking from a more practical viewpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_anton Posted September 22, 2000 Share Posted September 22, 2000 I have to agree with Jason K. Let's not forget what the parks stand for. It is scary to see the increased traffic moving through these areas. I cannot imagine what will happen in 20 years! <p> With regards to the large equipment, if you can't carry it, move to a smaller format. MF offers 'movements' now. Besides, something about photographing a natural scene and knowing that my car is behind me that makes me feel funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_anton Posted September 22, 2000 Share Posted September 22, 2000 I have to agree with Jason K. Let's not forget what the parks stand for. They are protection areas. It is scary to see the increased traffic moving through these areas. I cannot imagine what will happen in 20 years! If there are special permits involved, i beleive that they should be carefully monitored. And by all means, there should be a fee for this. Gone are the days where people can do what they please in the parks. If North Americans have a problem with this, visit Europe and see how their wilderness areas are holding up. <p> With regards to the large equipment, if you can't carry it, move to a smaller format. MF offers 'movements' now. Besides, something about photographing a natural scene and knowing that my car is behind me that makes me feel funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilhelm Posted September 22, 2000 Share Posted September 22, 2000 I just read that Edward Weston claimed "There's nothing photogenic more than 100 yards from your car." (Inexact quote). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john lehman, college alask Posted September 22, 2000 Share Posted September 22, 2000 Since commercial use permits are already available, the question comes down to whether the Park Service should provide special access for LF photographers who are either hobbiests or who would lose money on their commercial work if they had to pay the fees. Translation of question: would it serve the public interest to subsidize these two groups? Since there are already too many people using the parks, there is clearly no public good served by increasing the number of commercial images promoting them. Similarly, why should one hobby be publically supported and not others? Shouldn't birders be allowed the same access? Painters? Black powder hunters? <p> Backpacking permits are still available for all of these parks, and while this may be impractical for 8x10 and 11x14 users, it is certainly possible with 4x5 -- even for those of us born when Truman was president :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_smith Posted September 22, 2000 Share Posted September 22, 2000 On the idea that the parks are our "last open spaces", you havent' spent much time in the Great Basin. We have a lot of open space and much of it has no roads on it and we want to keep it that way in spite of the redneck politicians like Jimmy 'the jerk' Hansen, our local U.S. Representative who is no friend of either wilderness or open spaces.Visibility in our area is normally 75 miles plus though Magcorp, the US No. 1 polluter fouls it constantly. When a new area is designated a National Park, National Historic Area, National Monument or other national designation you can kiss a lot of access goodbye. The locals are often the first to be shut out, photogs or cowboys or hunters or whatever. New administrators take over and immediately the old jeep trails close, the dirt roads are blocked off and these new land cops don't like horses either. Anyone who frequented Great Basin National Park before it became one watched access from the West disappear and a lot of rules come into being. Photographers quickly lost access to areas and trailheads they used to drive up to in vehicles as diverse as 4x4's, Audi's and Subaru's. Now they are no trespassing areas or fenced off, with a 5-10 mile hike on the old road being required. Sounds easy to many until you realize you are going uphill with a 6000 foot elevation gain just to get to what used to be a trailhead with a dirt pullout for your vehicle.Photographer access? Yes, it is still there and now you have to add in 2-4 gallons of water as well. Where before you could zip up a 1-2 mile trail with an 8x10, gaining a few thousand feet you are now shut out. So is the sheepherder and cowboy who used to ranch in the area. I see no problems with photographer access on a permit basis, just like Tule Lake wildlife refuge does. A reservation basis with NO FEES for normal photogs. Involve a production crew and you invoke fees.It is simple and easy to do. Show up the day before & no one yet has the thing reserved and it is yours.It would be easy to administer and could have some regulations, such as go in by 5AM and don't come back out before a specific time, with road driving OK though limited in the shuttle bus area. Yes, some park personnel are excellent. Some photograph their own stuff and don't manipulate the system. But there are those who use their position to keep others out, many of us know some of them.The U.S. National Parks get so much positive publicity from the photography in the parks that restricting it is foolish and counterproductive. And, take up two or three seats on the shuttle very often with a pile of LF gear and you will soon find yourself not welcome at all. So, make an exception by permit for photogs, painters and the few others who have heavy and bulk gear to carry. It can be done in a way that doesn't interfere with the normal running of the parks. As for why anyone would want to photograph in some of them in the height of the tourist season...what if you want pictures showing the crowding? Besides, everyone shoots a bit differently & at times the light may be coming from the angles you like when all the tourists are there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now