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

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

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>

<><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><

NPS will surely charge for such a permit... anyone not prepared to

walk from a bus stop should stay in the studio.

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.

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..............

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I've changed my mind on that issue after spending 10 days in

Denali NP. In that park, the bus system has been implemented

for a long time. After reading Joe Englender's article "Denali:

the right of passage" in View Camera mag, I was expecting to

have to battle red tape and find it difficult to do serious

photography.

<p>

After seeing the system work and talking to people, I had to

agree that it worked fine for the number one purpose of the

Park: preserving the wilderness. I also found that if you are

photographer with wilderness skills (this means only able to

overnight, which isn't much), it was surprisingly

easy 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 uncharted

terrain).

Admittedly,

you'll have to slow down your pace, since you cannot zap from one

location to another, but if your goal was to rush

it, would you be using LF anyways ?

This is not meant to offend anybody, but I feel that (a) we need

wilderness areas (b) if you want to work in a wilderness area,

you need wilderness skills. There are plenty of prime landscape

locations in unregulated land.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I just read that Edward Weston claimed "There's nothing photogenic

more than 100 yards from your car." (Inexact quote).

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 :-)

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.