Should LF photographers be given special car permits to access US national parks?

My answer as to weather large format photographers should get special

permits to access National Parks by car is a resounding no. No

because areas given National Park status are truly unique and

beautiful places which need to be kept that way for all times. Yes,

they may change naturally, through flooding, fires, geologic changes

etc., but the human impact must be minimized. Human kind's imprints

are everywhere, and as the populations grow, so does the destruction

of plants, animals and landscapes. Those of us who love the natural

outdoors are well aware of the situation and knowing this makes it

all the more important we don't unnecessarily add to the carnage.

There are those who find ways to abuse the system, but that does not

justify us to stoop to that level. In choosing to be large format

photographers we are at a disadvantage but it is by choice. As I

carry my own 8x10 into the natural landscape, I often wish it were

easier. It would mean less sweat, relief to a soar back and access

to more photographic situations. But we must be wary for what we

wish for, because the benefits can be far outweighed by the

consequences. If the floodgates are opened, where everyone's needs

must be accommodated we will quickly lose what's left of our natural

areas. The NPS system is by no means perfect, but let's not add to

its decline. By stating we as photographers and other artists, be

they painters, writers, whatever, need special treatment because we

help preserve them through our work is a cop-out to just make our

endeavors easier. Our needs and desires should come second to the

goal of maintaining and preserving our National Parks and other non-

human created environments and the creatures who reside there.

Should we as LF users get special permits? No. Unless the park system

sets up a permit system for those with large picnic baskets, coolers,

baby buggies, etc. On the other hand, perhaps the park system could

consider a Photo and Art Safari bus that could haul artists and

photographers into the remote areas when the park is less crowded.

The buses could be set up for ample room for photographic gear and

easels,etc. and charge a premium fee. The bus could either visit all

the popular scenic areas for enough time to photograph a spot, or

drop the artist or photographer off at an area and pick them up

later. It might add revenue in the off season. We don't have many

truly wild areas left. What we have should be preserved. We as

photographers shouldn't get any more consideration than any other

group without being willing to pay for the priviledge. Besides, the

last thing the world needs is another photograph of the national

parks.

There are two very separate things being discussed here as one. On

one hand there is the question of whether artists with a lot of gear

should be able to drive a car on a pre-existing road which is already

travelled by vehicles (buses mostly). On the other is a debate about

the merits of making places like Great Basin NP which closed off

existing access completely to all vehicles.

<p>

It seems to me there could be some sort of infrequent accomodations to

photographers and other artists & handicapped people in the first

case. But I personally have no sympathy for people who all of a

sudden can't drive to a spot because the road has been closed off

entirely and preferably obliterated in order to protect the natural

ecology and beauty of the place. We go to these places because they

aren't full of roads and idiots (most idiots stick to roads). The

fewer roads, the better.

<p>

This happened to me just last weekend. I drove up an old logging road

in Idaho and all of a sudden I found it had been closed by the Forest

Service, and I faced a four mile walk I wasn't prepared to make. I

turned around and took other pictures. And I'm glad they closed that

road. Should've closed it ten years ago. Never should have made it

in the first place.

<p>

Erik

Let me remind everyone here. National Parks belong to "all" the people

of this good land. They don't belong to the National Park Service and

the rangers that work for you and me. They were created for the

citizens to enjoy the outdoor experience. They were created to keep

specific scenic places and views as unspoiled as possible and allow

"access" to the average citizen. Now all of a sudden "access" has

become a catch phrase and is forbidden to the very people for whom

the parks were intended. You and me. Back in the days of the rail and

steel barons many places were bought or settled for the rich and their

friends for next to nothing. The Hearst's own thousands of acres of

prime forest and streams in NoCal that they got virtually free from

the government at the turn of the century. The NPS and US Forestry are

bloated giants that don't do what they were intended to do. Yosemite

is a travestry with all the "ammenities" within it's borders. But

let's face it. Most people who visit the National Parks are day

trippers. They come in for a couple of hours and they're gone on to

another National Park. And they all bring cars. That's the only way

they can get from point A to point B. The NPS has known for years of

the impending paralysis developing in the parks. We need to demand

that they take care of bussiness and that congress give them the money

to do this. I disagree vehemently with Dave and Bruce. Who made you

king? You don't want to take photos in the parks ok but the rest of us

enjoy our trips to shoot Half-Dome one more time. And the flowers at

YankeeBoy Basin. The Arches. There will never be too many pictures of

these beautiful areas. Shuttles? How do you get "any" camera to the

upper reaches of Zion or the North Rim of The Canyon without a car?

The upper reaches of Yosemite? Not without a car. If you are young

enough and in good enough shape, God has blessed you. Dan and I are

too damn old to get our limited equipment very far from our cars as

are my elderly parents and yours who have paid for these parks far

more than you youngsters. Permits and higher fees to keep the parks

less crowded? Bullshit. What of the poor farm worker with 4 kids and

grandma who want to visit "their" park? It costs $20 now to enter some

of "our" parks. That's outrageous! Why are we paying for Bosnia and

Iraq when we can't pay to administer the parks in a more efficient

manner so there is no cost to the people who "own" them? Permits for

LF? Hardly. I have the right as a citizen to photograph in the parks

just as much as a tourist from Germany. Format has nothing to do with

it. That is just the NPS scrambling to find more money to feed the

bloated carcass it has become. And how about those roadless areas many

of us used to enjoy exploring? Who of you can now carry enough water,

much less anything else, to hike within Great Basin National Park and

see what's there? The NPS employees just get in their truck and

"inspect" their area but we can't get in. I can't hike to many places

I used to drive into and camp but mining companies and timber

harvesters can. The park service needs overhauling and I am in favor

of shuttles in the parks. But I am also in favor of keeping the parks

open to cars and camping during off season times. James

Several issues have been raised, and I'd like to comment on a couple.

<p>

Denali National Park has a permit system for professional

photographers and artists. I used to get these when I was doing

wildlife photography. Holders of the permits, drawn by lottery from

qualifying applicants (used to require 25 published images per year, 4

of which were in publications with circulation > 250,000), can drive a

private vehicle on the park road. About the only justification for

this system is that it 1) allows NPS staff to keep tabs on the pros,

and 2) makes sure that wildlife photographers work relatively near

their cars when photographing bears. Like it or not, pros are driven

by the need for income, and as bear photographs still sell better than

most others, will do foolish things when trying to get the photograph.

In the end, this saves the bears.

<p>

Lots of pros, full-time and part-time, have made excellent use of this

system. Yes, there have been abuses, but it has worked reasonably

well. But, it creates a two class population in the park - those who

have the permits and those who don't. You can't begin to imagine how

poorly some people behave, whether NPS rangers, bus drivers, or

tourists. Most people seem ill-equiped to not have something that

someone else has. Congressional delegations have even written to the

park on behalf of constituents so that they might get a pass. So

passes based on qualifications have problems associated with them,

which ultimately add to the burden of park managers. In Denali, there

seems to be a rationale. Elsewhere, the burden may not be worth it.

<p>

I do not think that opening the system to anyone willing to pay for

the permit is a valid approach. The class strata will then be based

on wealth. Those strata permeate life outside the park, and already

affect park access enough in my opinion (aircraft overflights and

in-park accommodations for those with more disposable income). I

personally would prefer that they not have a more significant role in

the parks than they already have.

<p>

The commercial photography permits that currently exist for parks and

other Federal lands are not for landscape photographers, unless you

have props and models. Yes, these permits will give you certain

access privledges, but you also have to post a bond in most parks.

So they have costs that go beyond the application fee. And once

again, if you're not a pro, you may have trouble getting a permit,

even if you conjure up some justification that goes beyond "my

equipment is to heavy/awkward."

<p>

What should be done? I have heard that Grand Canyon NP is considering

allowing consessionaires to operate small shuttles to take people to

overlooks for sunset/sunrise. I think that this has some merit for

most parks which plan to close their roads to private vehicles. These

won't be as cheap as a standard bus, but they should still be

affordable for small groups going to one or two places. As many other

respondants noted, the parks' welfare should come before that of the

photographers.

<p>

The other issue that I would like to speak to is the one of NPS

rangers (or BLM or NFS staff) having special access privledges to

public lands. This has been a significant problem in Denali NP, where

rangers have been allowed to photograph bears along the park road

while being on a bicycle, or allowed to do photography for sale while

using government vehicles, often while on duty. I have been told by

park managers that this custom developed because these rangers 1)

donate duplicate images to the parks and 2) don't get paid very much

as rangers. In my opinion, these answers are inadequate. Many pros

and amateurs donate images to the NPS, but do not gain special access

privileges. The decision to become a park ranger is a voluntary one.

If you don't like the pay, work elsewhere. I have also seen several

instances in which park rangers who subsequently became professional

photographers, continued to have special access rights. This gives

them an inherent competitive advantage over other professionals.

Unfortunately, these abuses will continue because park managers

support them.

<p>

In some respects, those of us who share or sell our images of the

parks are to blame for their popularity. But if the parks were not

popular, various administrations would have done away with at least

some of them. Maintaining the parks' popularity while not allowing

them to be loved to death is the problem facing park and other public

land managers. I know that I don't have the solution, but I would be

opposed to one that gives preferential treatment to any group of

people without a justification that involves protection of the

resource.

There is a solution for the means to access most park areas but it has

it's problems too. I like the shuttle system now in place at Yosemite

with a couple of modifications. And this shuttle system can be

applied at most of the parks in the west that I've visited(that means

all of them). The main problem with the shuttle system itself is that

the shuttle busses don't go everywhere in the park that people visit.

You can't get to the upper reaches of Yosemite NP on a bus. You

can't access the Merced below the turn off at 120. And they don't

start early enough in the morning and operate late enough in the

evening. Many people hike to Half-Dome during the day and many are

forced to walk back to Curry in the dark. And if they are staying in

the tent area to the west of the Village, the walk is a very long one

indeed. And not everyone is young and fit. But everyone is entitled to

use the park. You can't get to Tuolumne or any other destination

outside the Valley unless you use a car. The problem with a shuttle

system is where do you leave your car? Mariposa? El Portal? And now

how about Zion NP? One of my favorite destinations for B&W

photography. The Valley is nice but I prefer the Mesa areas on top.

How do I get there without a car? It's 20 miles to the top. It's hard

enough of a hike with LF gear as it is because of the scarcity of

parking places along the road anywhere above the Canyon. Checkerboard

Mesa has about 30 parking places but that is just about at the end of

the road through the upper Zion area. And hiking through this area, it

isn't easy going from one little canyon to the next without getting

back to the road and driving to the next canyon entrance. When I

attended a workshop by Charles Farmer a few years back, we were going

to rent a 15 passenger van to help alleviate the crowd of vehicles.

The Park Service (I don't know where the term "service" comes from)

wanted 90$ and $10 a head to enter the park for the purposes of a

workshop. Well since we all had Golden Eagle passes, we all got in our

cars and drove into the park and fuck the NPS and their stupidity.

They spend millions of tax dollars on studies on how best to handle

the crowds but never see the answers standing right in front of them.

Do you realize how many cars are in Yosemite just to get people to

work? Move all of these amentities outside the park and it wouls

alleviate a great number of people and reduce some of the traffic. Get

congress to fund the means of transport within the parks instead of

helping fund wars around the world. And make sure that whatever answer

they come up with accommodates "all" economic and physical groups who

use these parks of ours. They are not just for the young, fit and rich

among us but for all the citizens of this country.

First, let me say that Dave Richart's response is right on the money!

I feel about "Arches" as you do about half dome...give me a break. I

loved it, well said, sir! As to the question posed, I think that a

certain arrogance develops in many of the photographers who label

themsleves as "serious". They tend to believe that they are saving

something for future generations. These are the same people who leave

cigarette butts, film cans, film boxes, papers, food wrappers, etc. in

the name of preserving the natural beauty of a park. I am, by no

means, an eco-nut, however you really do need to savor the irony of

the actions of these "serious" photographers. I say no to special

permits for photographers. We are no better than a family with their

video camera. Maybe this will force photographers to start looking at

everything they have missed in their own back yard.

Well David, I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement. It's a nice

troll but it nonetheless shows how utterly uniformed and out of touch

you are with "real" serious photographers. And I'm glad I won't need

to trip over you in Arches or any other beautiful place because I know

you will be in your backyard swing shooting pictures of your swingset.

And that's Mr. Mickelson to you pal.

No. I live relatively close to Zion and visit there frequently and

have to say that in the fall photographers are one of the most

problemmatic user groups in the park. I have seen our fellow large

formatters park vehicles willy nilly along the roads damaging

unprotected landscape and congesting traffic because they didn't

leave enough room for two way traffic. All because it was close to

the shot. This is not to say anything about people who park their

tripods in the middle of traffic or have the gall to ask hikers (who

spent the better part of the day climbing several thousand feet) to

move so they could set up a shot. To think that we deserve special

priveledges (sp?) because we are serious artists is to not understand

the nature of the problem. There are numerous groups who also have

legal rights to use the park for their personal interests (kayakers

and rock climbers come to mind) for whom vehicular access would be

highly desirable, but, the attitude that parking as close as possible

to a desired location has significantly diminished the quality of our

most popular national parks. When you have the experience of

visiting Zion on a non-holiday weekend and the scenic drive looks

more like the parking for the Michigan-Ohio State game then something

has to change. For me I'm happy to hike.

I agree wholeheartedly with you Kevin. But take the amateur point and

shooter out of the picture and the park gets pretty deserted. People

like you, me and hopefully some of the rest of this group know better

than to do stupid things to the already desecrated environment we try

to capture on film. I tend to go to Zion and most places in the off

season or in season I get to the shot so early that most of the

amateurs are still in bed daring not to brave the cold. And yes there

are millions of places away from the road and the parks and many of us

shoot these places. I've gone to many places I won't name that are

absolutely stunning and never seen a soul. And even in our parks if

you get the hell off the road a couple hundred feet you seldom see

anybody. But I ask you to always remember that there are those who

cannot, for one reason or another, get too far off the road or

pathway. I have met many photographers who can no longer pack a 45

and can't walk more than a few hundred paces from their car. These

photographers have just as much right to photograph Half-Dome or

The Great Arch as anyone else. That doesn't diminish their validity

nor there images. Hopefully when you reach my age you will still

be able to get out and about. These places will still be available

to everyone and not just the rich or you won't have to wait a year

or two to get a permit to visit. When I say serious photographer I

mean someone that takes the time to be careful where they step, where

they park their car, takes the shuttle when available, is courteous,

doesn't leave their end tears from their 120 film pouch laying all

over the place, and generally regards the environment with the respect

it deserves. I've been known to get a little hostile towards folks who

don't show the same respect for a place that I do. And hopefully

ther rest of us will do the same. Put it out there and help protect

the environment from the idiots. But just because someone wants a shot

of Delicate Arch doesn't mean they deserve any disrespect from anyone.

Someone doesn't want an image of something that may have been shot a

million times before they were even born doesn't need to go there and

take the shot. But that doesn't mean they need to spout their

disrespect of anyone who wants that shot. It shows to me what they're

like inside. To each his own. We've got enough self-serving stuck up

people around. We don't need that attitude among "serious"

photographers here at the forum. And if you"re serious, you can call

me James.

I read in many responses the question "how do you get there without a

car?�

<p>

WALK. Has anyone read Ansel's accounts of how he used to get around

in the High Sierras?

<p>

If you can not hike with your gear, I am truly sorry; and I am being

sincere here. But to say that the Parks "were created for the

citizens to enjoy the outdoor experience..." is a gross

understatement of the reason the Parks exist.

<p>

Humans need to get it through their collective head that this planet

does not belong to us. It is not our possession; and for sure not a

single one of us will take even a grain of sand with us when we check

out. The Parks/Public Lands exist [or should exist] to preserve in

some limited way what we _know_ should be preserved to a much larger

degree.

<p>

Again, the Parks are more important than our enjoyment of them.

There should be NO cars in any of the Parks except public transport

to the main entrances. And I agree, get ALL of the amenities out of

the Parks.

<p>

Is the NPS inefficient? YES! And we should be among the most vocal

groups out there telling the NPS and congress what is wrong.

<p>

By the way, I am renewing my membership in the Sierra Club today.

May I please suggest that, if you love the land, you should support

this most important organization.

<p>

Regards,

<p>

Jason.

Congrats Micah on asking a question which has generated a lot of

discussion!

<p>

As I recall one of the major problems NPS faces is congress-beings

too willing to vote for preservation of area "X" but not willing

enough to vote for an NPS budget increase. They are holding things

together with spit and binders twine and a lot of unpaid overtime and

volunteer hours.

I couldn't agree more with Jason. What he said reminded me of what

has become a very important set of words to me over the last few

years.

<p>

"The Earth does not belong to us, we belong to the Earth."

-<i>Chief Seattle, 1854</i>

<p>

People need to stop thinking of the Earth, national parks included,

as a possesion or some source of income, and start looking at it as

what it really is- a living, breathing organism encompassing every

plant and animal it supports. It distresses me to see so many

harmful things being done to the Earth while seemingly few

individuals even acknowledge that anything is even wrong. The Earth

as a whole is far from healthy, there's no questioning that. What we

can quesetion is how it got that way and how we can try to fix it.

It is the responsibility of every person who has <i>ever</i> enjoyed

nature in any way, shape, or form at any point in their lives to do

something to preserve and promote it.

<p>

We, as large format photographers, posses an interesting capacity to

capture things on film in a way that is entirely unique to large

format photographers. We are able to create images with more detail

by far and thereby visual impact than our smaller format brethren.

So what? I say that because of this ability to impress, we have

every right and responsibility to use our talents to promote

conservation in any and all ways that we can. We should start

focusing less on such things as where in the parks we can park our

cars, and more on the things that will actually bring about a

positive change in the way the Earth is treated, both inside the park

system and out.

Dave, there are an enormous number of small and medium format shooters

that would disagree with your statement that we LF enthusiasts have

anymore uniqueness in the way our images look or convey information.

And many have never bought into the Gaia concept of the earth. Just do

your part for your part of the earth. And don't blame the people who

go to NP's to enjoy them. Blame the NPS for their mismanagement and

shortsightedness in dealing with a problem that was building long

before we photographers started showing up to shoot in these

wonderous places. And while you're at it talk to the governments of

southeast asia who have sold off half their trees and now are

swimminmg for their lives in the floods they have caused.

Photographers didn't cause that. James

James,

<p>

I never blamed photographers for anything. Nor did I put any blame

on any park-goers, photographers or otherwise. And how did southeast

Asia factor into this? All I'm saying is that we should <i>all</i>

do what we can. And that goes for non-photographers too.

Furthermore, I never said that non LF shooters couldn't create

perfectly unique images. In fact, many of my favorite landsape

images were shot on 35mm and rollfilm. However, there's no denying

the impact of the incredible detail from a LF image, and that's

something the smaller formats just can't provide, period. Before you

jump down my throat, let me just say that I don't believe that LF is

any "better" than 35mm or rollfilm, but it most certainly is

different. Every photographer, regardless of format, is capable of

creating very unique and powerful images, but not necessarily in the

same way. Large format is just a different way of doing things.

<p>

Blaming how the NPS screwed things up in the past solves absolutely

nothing. Arguing like this solves even less. I think we can all

agree that something needs to be done, whether the intricacies of our

personal philosophies agree or not. Therefore, why not concentrate

on how to change the current state of things and prevent further

environmental damage? It's certainly a better option that engaging

in pointless disputes such as this.

Unfortunatley, no one will ever know beyond doubt what Chief Seattle

said.

<p>

http://www.synaptic.bc.ca/ejournal/wslibrry.htm

Quite true. That's the problem with history- sometimes the specifics

aren't as clear as we would like. However, whether or not we know

what Chief Seattle said <i>exactly</i> on that day, it's the

sentiment/philosophy behind what he said that counts. The idea that

the Earth cannot be owned in the sense that one may own personal

posessions is the key. And, regardless of whether people may agree

with that idea or not, it is definitely something worth pondering.

<p>

Just my $0.02 for the day...

300 million visitors to Nat'l parks in year 2000. Do we as

individuals really believe all these folks have a right to drive their

cars through the parks???? Come on folks! Beauty is a necessity for

most of us,rich or poor, but having wild places left to enjoy is a

privelidge not a right. We as photographers are just going to have to

tough it out like other groups with needs. I am certainly in no

position to hike but tough luck for me. The inept park service needs

to change, but that is not a decent justification to destroy the

parks. Greed, is just that, what do you really want a wild place with

all of its splendor or 3oo million visitor with cars?

It is quite clear that the original question has been used as

stepping stone for a number of indivuals to express relatively narrow

points of view. For those of you who have used a shuttle system such

as the system in place in Denali, you will attest to the fact that it

does not work most of the time. Standing by the road in the pouring

down rain with thousands of dollars of camera gear, waiting for a bus

with an empty seat, is not particularly pleasant. Sitting on a bus

with a large camera pack in your lap becomes more unpleasant when you

are in the asile seat and you have to move whenever the person next

to you wants to get in or out. Getting off a bus and having to walk

1 - 2 miles back because the bus driver, who fancies himself or

herself as a "professional" photographer, claims that they did not

hear you, makes it much more difficult. Finally, having to carry

camping equipment because the bus does not run during the "magic"

hours makes it almost impossible.

<p>

Years ago, the national parks virtually begged professional

photographers to promote the parks so that they could get more

funding from the federal governmnet. Now that we have achieved sucess

and the parks have become popular, they want us to go away. The fact

is that the overcrowding is being used as an excuse to expand the

private consessions in the parks (for political payback). This has

become quite clear with Denali reducing the number of road permits

given to professional photographers (the permits are being given to

the busses). In addition, Denali has significantly increased the

eligibility requirements for the permits.

<p>

Now to address some of the asides. First, for those of you who do not

want to see another picture of Half Dome or Delicate Arch, you most

certainly are not professional photographers. As John Shaw has said,

everyone has a picture of Mount Rainier but nobody has the best

picture of Mount Rainier. Secondly, for those of you who begrudge the

Ansel Adams tripod holes, what is wrong with letting others learn the

art of photography by emulating the masters?

<p>

I do not believe that the format used should be a criteria, nor do I

believe that the number of photographs one has published should be a

criteria. On the other hand, an incentive system that removes a large

number of vehicles from the roads would reduce congestion enough

that "needs" vehicles could be allowed. This access could be

controlled by a reasonable permit system which would take into

account the needs of the applicant. The current Yosemite valley

system may be the basis (with some modification) for a future model.

Paul: I have used the Denali bus system last summer, carrying

a full 5x7 and 35mm system and overnight gear, and was

quite surprised at how easy it was to work in the park, after

hearing opinions such as yours or Joe Englender's.

Denali is a

wilderness park, and as such photographers wishing to work in

it should be able to somewhat survive in the wilderness. We

should be grateful that there is a bus system at all, which certainly

won't be the case of Gates of the Artic and other wilderness parks.

If you want to make the best picture of Denali, fine, but it's not

the job of the NPS to help you do so more than it's their job to

help you reach the summit of the mountain.