Permits for conducting workshops in National Parks

[john_gerlach]

For the past several years, I looked into conducting nature photography workshops in the western National Parks. In every case, a permit to do business in the park was required. The permit is very strict about the numbers of participants and even requires a detailed daily itinerary. I've run the numbers and it would add about $150 to each participants tuition by the time you paid all of the extra fees and insurance coverages. Is there such a thing as a permit that applies to all National Parks? As it stand now, it would be financially unfeasable to do a tour that included two or more parks at the same time since you would need permits for each. The added cost to a small group of participants of 10 or less would be enormous. Any suggestions?

[pathways]

No answer, but I tried same thing 2 years ago (for the GSMNP and eastern national forests) - they wanted a $150 non-refundable application fee, plus a $300 permit each year, plus yearly updated certifications of Life-Saving techniques and recusitation training. Since I usually take groups of 3 to 8 people, I dropped the issue. Here's hoping there is a better way! John.

[hans___]

Maybe plan to visit a couple State Parks, a National Forest, then ending the workshop at a National Park? This kind of itinerary has become fairly common with wilderness/tour guides in Alaska who've been hit with the same type of requirements you're dealing with (re: doing business in the NP's). Why the recent Park Service rules encourage people visit the parks with only Park Service guides (who don't go far from the visitors' centers), or no guides at all is a mystery. Hans

[mark_van_bergh2]

I recall discussing this subject with some National Park officials in Yellowstone a few years back. The solution seemed to be to run the trip more as a group of people that are simply travelling together rather than an "official" tour of the park. Assuming you are using only one or two vehicles for transport (depending of course on the size of the group) you could think of it as people carpooling to the various locations they want to photograph. To the extent some participants might have their own transportation, this would make it even easier as you would simply "meet up" at the desired location. For some this might seem like skirting the edge on this subject, and you may or may not be willing to proceed in this manner. I would also ask the Park Service or individual park for the written guidelines on when a permit is or is not required (as part of the government there have to be written guidelines somewhere), and then see the extent to which your workshop fits within these guidelines or can be modified in format so as not to require a permit. It makes me wonder if all those bus tours that visit any number of national parks on a two week trip through the west pay a permit fee as opposed to simply a higher entrance fee for the bus and its passengers. It might also be an issue for NANPA to investigate and work with the park service on considering the benefits that all the wonderful photographs that people take contribute to the parks' repuations and visitation levels. Basically free advertising for the park service.

[john_gerlach]

Mark,

 

I have been in touch with the people in charge of permits for Yellowstone since I live there for several years now. Any photo workshop that has been advertised and somebody is getting paid is clearly a group that requires a permit in their minds. I know what you are saying and have heard that some workshop leaders tell their clients if anyone asks, just say we are a group of friends that got together. I would never do this. It's simply unethical to operate illegally with the parks or anyplace else for that matter. I know the Yellowstone people have been checking the ads in OUTDOOR PHOTOGRAPHER and other magazines plus doing searches on the internet to find illegal tour operators. I am sure if illegal operators are discovered in the field, it won't be a pretty picture for both the operators and participants. I don't want to worry about this situation so everything must be 100% legal. Thanks for your thoughts.

[brian_small]

John--I know this may be a silly and redundant question, but what is the actual difference between a photo workshop in Yellowstone (or anywhere else for that matter) and a group of friends photographing together? Why should the workshop group have to pay special fees when the group of friends doesn't? I am assuming that the professional workshops aren't given special access in the parks to photo locations that the average park visitor can't get to. The idea that because a workshop leader is getting paid for his hard work and therefore the park should profit too seems unfair and ridiculous to me. Also, I'd really like to know what the money that is paid for these kinds of photo permits is actually used for? Stay in focus.......

[michael_reichmann1]

I am very interested in this topic because I am just completing plans to conduct a Landscape Photography Workshop in Yosemite in April, 2000. I have read the NPS rules and have also checked the Yosemite Home Page, and the only mention that I have come across of the need for a permit was with regard to commercial filming and wedding photography.

 

In fact, I have found regulation quotes on-line that indicate that photography by groups of up to 10 people specifically do NOT require permits.

 

I'll be speaking both with the NPS and Yosemite tomorrow and if I find out anything to the contrary I'll post it here.

 

Michael Reichmann

http://luminous-landscape.com

[john_fisher]

John, good for you. You obviously follow the ethics you advocated during your seminar in Tulsa a couple of years ago. Just another reason I thoroughly enjoyed it.

The following tells what happens to those who play "what's the difference?"

<a href="http://www.nps.gov/morningreport/msg00222.html">

Yellowstone Fee Fraud</a>.

[dan_smith]

There is a difference in a paid workshop and a group of friends shooting together, in reality and ethically. Gerlach is to be congratulated for bringing the question up, even as it is a vexing problem and by fudging a bit he will make a lot more than by being honest.

Contact your congressman. It may be time to get the government to work for us as they parks benefit from the photogs taking workshops as many participants come back again and again.

Any activity that is defined as "commercial" in the parks requires payment of fees, etc., just like opening a photo business in town requires a business license, premises inspection, etc.

The idea that it is "just the cost of doing business" is reality, though asinine. For NO work, the park service wants to collect our dollars. The only way to get this changed is to hit the political drums and make enough noise that our elected folks will go to bat on this one.

[ryan_taylor1]

John,

As a couple of other contributers have noted, your ethics are appreciated. The site managers of Dry Tortugas Nat.Park are friends of mine and I will discuss this matter with them when I see them next week. I'll send along whatever information I can regarding this matter.

In response to Brian Small and Dan Smith, the permit fees are not asinine nor a rip off. The National Parks really do operate on a very small budget and the amount of money it requires to maintain and conserve these areas is astronomical. For example, in the Dry Tortugas there is currently only money for one full time and one part-time law enforcement ranger to do boat patrols of the entire park. The rangers are ensuring that illegal fishing and raping of YOUR national park is kept to a minimum. In addition, (in the Dry Tortugas) the budget for public education is on the order of a couple of thousand dollars per year, despite the fact that over the last 10 years the number of visitors has quardupled from 18,000 to 76,000 visitors per year. While many parks do have much larger budgets, they also have much larger areas to maintain and many more visitors to deal with. The National Park service works very hard on an under-funded budget to conserve these places for you. So to say that the park service collects your dollars for no work and that the fees are asinine is simply not true!

[brian_small]

Ryan--let me respond to your post this way.........I never meant to imply that park employees are ripping off the public, not working hard or have inflated budgets. I was trying to point out that it is the workshop leader who would do all the work and it seems unfair that the park get's a cut of that hard-earned money. I also am trying to understand the difference both hypothetically and in actual practice (i.e. my point about special access given for the permit dollars) between a group of friends without a permit and a workshop with a permit? Frankly, I don't see a difference. If the people in a workshop pay the same entrance fee as the general public, why should they have to pay additioinal "photography" fees? Does this make sense to you? Also, fyi, I have been to Dry Tortugas myself three times in the last 7 years and can certainly appreciate how much work and how understaffed many of our parks are. But just because someone is using a bigger camera and lens or better quality "professional" equipment, does that mean they should have to pay more money to photograph in our parks than the average visitor? Also, I too appreciate John Gerlach's stated ethics and desire to follow all the rules and I would never advocate skirting around them. The bottom line is that I think HE should be profiting from HIS work and not the park.

[cowan stark]

Is it too outlandish to suggest that the actual "business" of a photography workshop can be conducted outside the park itself? Critique and educational sessions held in the evening or during the non-prime photo hours can be done back at the motel. During the rest of the time it's just a group of folks taking pictures and getting a few tips along the way. Maybe it's something that needs to be interpreted by a lawyer, but I guess it would just open you up to more scrutiny in the long run. I guess if Hollywood came into a park to do a movie and took it over, requiring more security, cleanup, lost revenue because of restricting access to the paying public etc, then I can understand the need for a permit. But c'mon, a group of usually concientious shutterbugs who generally don't trample the flowers and feed the bears...I was a bit surprised and disappointed to find this out. Oh yeah...don't we all get to 'contribute' to the governments' cost of doing business every April 15th?!

[brian_small]

Cowan--all I can say is you seem to get it. Right On Brother!

[joe_boyd]

John,

 

You may want to pose this question to Bill Fortney of Great American Photography Weekend (www.gapweb.com). They run workshops INTO the national parks all the time. A couple of things they do is carpool paticipants into the park (generally in the paticipants vehicles), and convene all meetings, besides fieldwork, outside the park. They tell the participants where to meet inside the park and make sure everyone has a ride to get there. This procedure may put them in the "group of photographer friends" category. This procedure is workable if the private facilities on the edge of the park are "close" to the interesting areas of the park. It may be a bit tough to organize in Yellowstone (a park that GAPW doesn't visit), where driving distances can become large. GAPW has been in operation for a number of years, so they probably have a good idea of where they can visit for the least amount of hassle, expense, and the most amount of interesting subjects.

[ryan_taylor1]

Brian -- Your point is well taken. However, I do see a difference between a group of friends out doing photography and a workshop held for commercial gain. The park service works hard to keep these natural areas intact to photograph in the first place. If someone is going to make a commercial gain from the American public's Nat. Parks then I think the Park Service should be paid a fee. Finally, the permits help the park keep track of who is doing what in the park (especially helpful in the event of accidents, lawsuits etc.) However, I certainly do understand John's dilemma. Perhaps, a single incidental business permit for multiple parks or a discount for multiple parks would be in order. I could discuss this issue in much greater detail but I'd rather not take up too much room here. Feel free to e-mail me with more thoughts on the idea. -Ryan

[steve_thompson]

This has turned into quite a debate, which is healthy. Let me pose this. Many of the National Parks are bordered by National Forests. I believe the Forests are under the Agriculture department and the Parks under the Interior department. As far as I know permits are not required in National Forests ( correct me if Iam wrong). Maybe the best we can hope for is consistency from our Government. Course this could result in required permits for National Forests, road side bathrooms, and rationing of film.8)

[dennis_young]

I've read all the comments up to this point, and would like to clear up some misunderstandings. I contacted the Visitor Services Office at Yellowstone about the matter discussed.

 

In order to conduct business operations in a Natioal Park, even if fees are collected outside the park, an Incidental Business Permit (IBP) is needed. A business can request an IBP from the park, and have several employees conducting tours, guide services, etc. An annual IBP at Yellowstone costs $200.00 annually. How would that even equate to $150 extra per person?

 

The permit, as someone else stated, allows the Park Service to regulate the number of businesses providing that service. Some businesses provide several services, photography may be one of many. The money at Yellowstone goes to off-set costs involved with administering the permit.

 

These are mostly administrative costs, such as providing guide cards for the business, obtaining and filing proof of insurance by the business for their clients, making sure that the insurance coverage is adequate, and making sure that the insurance also covers any exposure to the National Park Service. In a claim, guess who the next person in line is, after the business.

 

Currently there is hold on all new IBP issued by Yellowstone until a review is done of the services already available, and an evaluation of whether more permits need to be issued, whether old permits should be pulled, and what types of business needs exist.

 

Individuals inside the van are charged a $10.00 entry fee per person. The park gets a percentage of that fee, which goes directly for items related to serving the public. Fee enhancement was designed to help with repairs and construction of new facilities and provide better service to the public. Projects that I have seen include new restrooms, repair of plumbing, roads, etc.

 

I thank John for not trying to get around the system by providing false informatio about the groups intended purpose. I also have to say that if caught, the financial costs are little, compared to the leader's reputation, and the termination of the group activity.

 

I hope this clears up some of the mystery of conducting business in a National Park. Commercial photography is another matter entirely.

[cowan stark]

Thanks, D.Young for clearing some of this us. One fee for all parks is probably the best compromise, and would probably keep costs down by only doing the paperwork once. I really don't advocate bending the rules to break them, but my point is that if John's, and other ethical workshop operators' livelihood is being threatened, then perhaps the rules need to be challenged. For starters, check out NANPA's web site (http://www.nanpa.org) and review the congressional testimony given concerning commercial photography and permits. Some of it is very relevent to this discussion, especially the plight of someone trying to make a living in the field. I agree the issues are somewhat different. However, note these general statements made to NANPA by an NPS official in 1996 (again relates to commercial photography, but...)

 

"It is the policy of the National Park Service to permit and encourage photography within the National Park System to the fullest extent possible consistent with the protection of resources and the enjoyment of visitors.

 

Care should be taken that conditions be reasonable. Liability insurance requirements and other limitations should not be made unduly burdensome."

 

It seems they are neither encouraging photography or keeping things 'unduly burdensome.'

 

Also, if they need more toilets, why not raise the general admission fees? Is it really necessary to make John Gerlach to subsidise them?!

[mark_van_bergh2]

The comments about the incidental business permit for Yellowstone has helped me recall a similar conversation with an NPS person at Yellowstone a few years ago when I made my inquiries about the subject (see my earlier posting). I recall that was the same response I got back then. It doesn't sound like they have made much progress.

 

From the earlier posting about researching the issue for Yosemite and not finding similar permit requirements, it is possible that each park has some discretion to administer such a requirement. As I suggested previously, it would make sense to ask the officials providing the information for the requirements in writing and also for the source of the requirement. That is, is it an NPS rule applicable to all parks, a Dept. of Interior rule published in the Code of Federal Regulations, or an individual requirement of that park? If this sounds like a lawyerly thing to do, I apologize, but that's my daytime job. It would not surprise me to find out that Yellowstone's management may have adopted a requirement that applies only to that park. The question is then whether they can do so under NPS or Department of Interior rules and procedures.

 

Whether it is worth pursuing this issue would, of course, depend on the cost of complying with Yellowstone's requirements. But if the park is not issuing any more permits for an indefinite period, and the option is doing a workshop or not doing a workshop in one of the most popular parks, then it may be worth spending some time to check it out. It may also be the case that this is a way for the park to attempt to manage the huge crowds it gets during the summer months, and may be less of an issue in the "off season" of the spring, fall, and winter (my inquiry of a few years ago concerned a group traveling in the park on snowmobiles during winter).

 

Presumably, those running workshops already have the required insurance to protect themselves, and the only added cost would be for the permit fee. I agree that the last thing a workshop leader wants to have happen is to have a park ranger question what a group is doing and, upon learning they have no permit, to require the group to leave or, even worse, take the group leader somewhere else to work out the problem.

 

I too applaud John's ethics. I also would not simply take at face value what someone in the Visitors Office or Park Office says on the subject as they could be wrong or misunderstand the applicable requirements (as a lawyer with extensive dealings with the Federal Communications Commission I have found that this is often the case with staff persons).

 

Mark Van Bergh

[jana_mullerova1]

My $0.02 to the ethics/fees aspect: If I ever get to Yellowstone (I hope so), I may meet John Gerlach who will be on job there while I'll be just having a great time. Actually we'll be doing the same thing - taking pictures and talking about it with other folks, walking around, using the park's facilities. I do NOT see where there could be a difference. I think it is not fair if John has to pay extra. If the NP needs more money (no doubt it does), I support the idea of increasing the entry fee for every one visitor, no matter what is his/her purpose of visit. High fees are fair in reflecting a visitor's impact on a site and (in free-market economy) reflecting the principle that nature is a resource. Also, high fees will make people carefully consider visits to Nature Parks and perhaps go less often - and, I'm sorry to say, this is only desirable.

[john_gerlach]

A few years ago, I contacted several National Parks which included Olympic, Joshua Tree, Bryce Canyon, and a few others. Each sent me their information regarding an Incidental Business Permit. After reading the info very carefully and running the numbers, I decided to drop the idea of leading western workshops. I threw away this info a couple years ago, so I will have to rely on my memory--which no one should rely on, but I will do the best I can. As I recall in the case of Olympic National Park, I believe the annual permit was $300. You also needed to pay daily fees as well for each client which amounted to another $50 per person. You had to buy liability insurance which cost $1500. Since any business should have liability insurance anyway, let's take this off the table. Let's say the total tour package which includes all meals, instruction, room, transportation was $1200. Let's say you had 10 participants. Then the fee would only be $300/10 + $50 per person which would be $80. I believe they had one more income producer. You were also suppose to fork over 3% of the gross income from the workshop that was conducted in their park. 3% of $1200 is $36 so the total would be $116 per customer for entrance fees. A person who entered the park on their own could purchase a week pass for $15 (at least that what it is in Yellowstone).

 

Without taking any sides, I would like to pose a question in the interest of understanding what is really happening. Do businesses really pay fees and taxes? With all businesses that I know of, the cost of doing business is passed on to the customer. If that is true. Why does it cost a park visitor nearly 8x the admission to enter a park as a member of a workshop than someone on their own would have to pay? As it appears to me, any extra fees and taxes imposed on businesses are added to the cost of goods and services and passed on to the customers. Recently, there has been a huge billion dollar settlement against (I believe GM) for a car crash. If that settlement stands, I fully expect to pay part of it when I buy my next Suburban.

 

But. let's get back to the park situation. The real problem I see is it cost a lot more time and money to do one workshop in 10 National Parks than to conduct 10 workshops in one National Park which really doesn't work with our industry. Whereas, most companies who get an IBP are able to do multiple programs in one park which greatly reduces the cost per client.

 

Finally, a word of warning. Companies that conduct business in National Forests around my home in Idaho do need a permit as well. To be safe, consider that all public land requires business permits until proven otherwise. This includes National and State Forests, county parks, National Parks, etc.

 

Thanks for listening and I have enjoyed all your thoughtful comments, but there still is no workable solution that I know of.

[ryan_taylor1]

John-- I didn't realize quite what the parks charge to conduct business inside their boundaries. I did however, find out why they are now charging so much. Apparently the company that runs the concessions (tram tours, canoe rentals etc.)had virtually a monopoly ripped the park service off for many years. They essentially paid nothing to operate in the parks and made enormous profits. The park service then decided this was no longer acceptable and implemented the fees that are now in place. I think this is fine for large corporations. Unfortunately though, the park didn't have the foresight to differentiate between someone who is running a small business and a large corporation. As a result (as you have discovered) the cost of doing business in Nat. Parks for small businesses is prohibitively expensive.

 

I also asked about the possibility of getting a single permit to work in more than one Nat. Park and that doesn't look promising. Although the Dept. of the Interior runs all the parks, each park runs itself somewhat independently, and I was told that it is doubtful any parks would accept a permit from another park. (Another case of the right hand not talking to the left).

 

As I stated in my previous posts, I think the park should be paid, but for small businesses the fees should certainly be feasible. Again I appreciate your honesty. Sorry I couldn't offer better news!

-Ryan

[mark_van_bergh1]

All of the contributions responding to John's initial question, and his additional responses, point up a significant problem that it seems NANPA is in the best position to address. It has developed a relationship (of some sort) with the NPS and presumably has a number of members for whom this is a relevant issue, either as a workshop leader/provider or a participant.

 

Different companies have the concession rights in different parks, and the deals they have struck are not necessarily the same for each park. The photographic workshop market is relatively limited, particularly as applied to workshops in national parks, and they are not the sort of businesses that have cost the NPS revenues from bad deals with TRW, Amfac, or the like (two concession companies in some of the parks). There are a number of "businesses" for which the permit requirement doesn't make alot of sense. Would a private (or public) school conducting a biology or geology field trip in a park also require a permit? How is a photography workshop different and is it a meaningful difference in the context?

 

Although I'm a NANPA member I have not been active with the committees or other activities, particularly government relations (i.e., lobbying) to know whether it is doing anything on this subject. One relatively easy approach, though not necessarily one that will see immediate benefits, is to petition the Department of Interior or National Park Service to adopt a rule or set of standards applicable to all parks setting forth when permits are required and if they are at least establish reasonable requirements. There are certain other federal regulations that require federal agencies to assess the impact of their requirements on small businesses and seek to minimize the impact. It strikes me this is precisely the type of activity that NANPA should be involved with.

 

Mark Van Bergh

[weldon_lee]

Hi John,

 

While permits are required in most national parks, at some locations they're good for 2 years. This allows me to spread the cost over several workshops. Even when the permits are only good for a year, the cost is still much less than $150 per participant, including NPS insurance and first aid requirements.

 

For what it's worth, Ding Darling, and other NWRs, are now requiring permits in order to hold workshops.

 

Concerning insurance costs, I've found the industry to be very competitive. Shop around. I carry insurance well above NPS requirements, plus insurance on my photo equipment. The entire package is only $500 a year. If you're interested in my carrier and agent, e-mail me at wlee@frii.com.

 

Concerning workshops in Yellowstone, I conducted workshops there for a couple of years. When I first contacted park service personnel concerning a permit, I was told that although a moratorium on issuing new permits was in affect, they anticipiated it to lift within a few months. With this information in hand, I decided to go ahead and advertise workshops in the park. Unfortunately, the park never came through on their promise to begin issuing permits. With people signed up and their airline reservations made, I went ahead with the workshops anyway. Last year I was told the same thing by park personnel, and once again they failed to halt the moratorium. Facing the same set of circumstances as the previous year, I went ahead with my workshop last February. That was enough for me. I simply don't like doing business in this manner. It just isn't right. In spite of advertising (in several places) a fall wildlife workshop in Yellowstone, I've rescheduled it for Rocky Mountain National Park.

 

Hope this infortmation helps.

 

Weldon Lee

[dan_walsh2]

According to Director's Order #53: Special Park Uses, A commercial photographer does not always have to get a permit.

http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DOrder53.html

 

Here is the official wording:

--------------

A permit is not required for:

* A visitor using a camera and/or a recording device for his/her own personal use and within normal visitation areas and hours; or

* A commercial photographer not using a prop, model, or set, and staying within normal visitation areas and hours; or

* Press coverage of breaking news. This never requires a permit, but is subject to the imposition of restrictions and conditions necessary to protect park resources and public health and safety, and to prevent impairment or derogation of park resources or values.

 

If you plan to have a workshop at a National Park I would have "Director's Order #53 in your back pocket. There is a sunet date for this document on Dec. 31, 2006. This means that an administrative body must justify the documents exhistance. We'll have to wait until 2007 to see how it changes.

 

According to the lawyer I referenced this document allows you to photograph in the National Parks until your heart is content. Share this document with a Ranger if needed.