gooseff

I also use a padded Peak 1 stove bag. I too have a Kirk BH1. I have been thinking about trying to beef up the padded bag a little. My plan is to use some ensolite foam from an old sleeping pad that I no longer use. Probably line the stove bag with a heavy duty ziplock (cut to size of course) before puting in the added padding. I have noticed that the stove bag by itself is a little over-sized, hence the opportunity to put in more padding.

best of luck.

Well, I am back from Arches. It was a wonderful weekend - more sun than expected.

I was planning to do the Delicate Arch hike on Sunday morning, at sunrise. Another photog in the park had told me that was a good time to head up (despite the west-facing aspect!). I took that advice, but I lost my motivation when I saw how overcast the morning skies were. Not the best advice in my opinion. I would rather be there at sunset, given the aspect. Instead, I hiked up to the upper overlook - of course it is not nearly as scenic. We ran out of time, came back home on Sunday afternoon so I didn't head up at sunset.

Bert Nelson (another photo.net'er) posted some pictures of the damage under the arch on his own web site. He contacted me after I posted the previous message. Bert, if you see this, please post the link for all to see. The damage was several square feet almost directly under the arch.

I did inquire about the incident to one of the rangers. She told me that the park had tried everything on the burns and nothing had worked. She also let me look at a press release that mentioned the criminal investigation, and that the fires were set directly on the bare sandstone, which is contradictory to Fatali's claim that aluminum pans were used.

If you take the "classic" compositions of the delicate arch, from across the bowl in front of the arch, you *may* see a black discoloration in your pictures between the legs of the arch. It seems to be in a plane perpendicular to the arch, so it should not be all that easy to see in pictures looking straight at the arch.

Again, I am really only going off of Bert's pictures and what I know about the incident.

Ed, I don't blame you for not taking the time to read through all of the postings of the Fatali incident. Accoriding to one poster, he could not see any evidence of the burn marks. Are they just too small to notice or were they cleaned by people or nature? No one has really answered that, as far as I know.

I am heading out to Arches this weekend and will let you know what I find. I have been very curious about this since I heard about it, I'll certainly be looking carefully.

I have to agree with Rod and Stu on this one. From all that Fatali has said since this has happened, nothing has even hinted at a humble appology. I too was hoping something resembling that would come out. But having read his reply to the previous thread - which seems similiar to his explanation on his web site (which is now gone, or at least I could not find it), I am only further disappointed. He appologizes for the way he put out the fires, and the carelessness associated with puting them out, but not for starting the fires, which was the problem in the first place.

And in reply to our European contributors - I realize that as Americans we are closely associated with our government and insdustries. But, we all have to realize that it is OUR OWN INDIVIDUAL actions for which we have the most responsibility. If the law says "Fires are prohibited" then no one should build a fire - any kind of fire. Given Fatali's experience in the UT desert and particularly the national parks as a professional nature photographer, I am stunned that he would think he and his workshop were above such a law.

His partitioning of blame is not working with me either.

Mr. Fatali, I appreciate your willingness to enter this forum. You are probably getting plenty of email about this.

I am still unclear why you or anyone thought that setting the fires would be okay. I understand the effect you were going for, I just don't see how the desire for that affect meant you could break the park rules. (My assumption is of course that any fires are prohibited outside of designated fire pits or campground bbq's.) So, why was it okay in aluminum pans? Why was it okay in the sandy pit below the arch? Did you think the special use permit you refer to (that I assume was in the Friends of Arizona Highways tour guide's name) gave you inferred or explicit allowance to set fires? You say you did not see it, but did the FofAH guide imply this was okay according to the permit?

Whenever I enter a national park, the overwhelming feeling I get is "don't start a fire outside of a designated fire ring or metal bbq". I am really suprised that no one in the group quesitoned this.

I too have read "his side". I agree, it seems to have been an accident, and from what I can tell, Fatali appears to be a well-intentioned nature photographer. Fires should not have been set anywhere near Delicate Arch, and of all people Fatali should have known that. I suspect he did, but was intentionally breaking the rules, expecting that nothing would go wrong, that he and the entire class were in control of the fires.

If you are going to "do the crime, you better be prepared to do the time (or pay the fine)". I think we have all broken laws or rules to some extent and gotten away with it (speeding, or perhaps our tax forms aren't completely accurate, etc.). In some cases it's accidental, in others it is deliberate with malicious intent, and in others, it is deliberate but without malicious intent. I think Fatali's actions fall in to the final category.

Let's take this in a different direction. Suppose all had gone well and no scars had been left behind. When the rest of the world saw the photos, (I suppose we still may at some point, it's not clear to me that photos were not made here) would Fatali have admitted to what he did? Delicate Arch is incredibly recognizable, given the right perspective, most of us would be able to identify it in his pictures. In that case, there is no way to say it wasn't taken in Arches, where such fires are prohibited. If all had gone well, even if he had admitted what had happened, it is likely he would not have incurred any consequences. In this hypothetical case, he didn't really get caught, and many people would marvel at the pictures. But, it still would have been wrong (according to Park rules - unless he did have a permit that allowed this) - we just wouldn't have as long a thread about it.

Similarly, I know of a prominent Colorado nature photographer who says he generally respects private property boundaries, but on two occasions has adimtted to trespassing to get *the shot* for pictures that were published, that (I am assuming) he made a lot of money from. To the best of my knowledge he has not been prosecuted in any way. But, what he did was still wrong. He deliberately broke the law, twice. I am shocked that he tells these stories at public shows. Consequently, I have refrained from purchasing any of his work.

Ultimately, it is up to individual choice. I may choose to go 60 mph in a 55 mph zone because I don't think I will get caught, and I realize what the consequences are. If caught, I will grudgingly pay the fine. I would not however, even conceive of lighting fires under Delicate Arch, because the possible consequences are too grave. Every choice we make has some possible outcome. We cannot always predict what those are, but we can lessen the risk of certian accidents or having certain bad things happen by avoiding specific situations in the first place. Lighting the fires was risky, and the outcome from this situation was not anticipated. More importantly, it could have been avoided without the fires altogether (obviously).

I hope we can all learn from this, and generally it sounds like we have (as a collective). It is easy to chastize Fatali because things went badly. I do hope that he ultimately does what he can to rectify the situation. He made a very dumb decision. In a wider sense though, we should all consider this example the next time we think about altering a natural scene in any way. "How much impact could my actions have?" "Is this illeagal?" and on and on.... I disagree with an ethic that would allow fires under Delicate Arch. Just because one may be able to get away with something is no reason to do it - rather it is just one possible outcome.

For what it is worth, much of the west (if you are downwind) has been impacted by fires that are not even in the local area. Many of the bigger fires in Colorado have been either controlled or put out, but the haze has been pretty bad for several weeks in the Boulder area. We get a clear day after some rain, but the rain has been rare. I drove from Denver to Salt Lake City via I70 last week and could not even see the La Sal mountains to the south of I70. You would have better luck waiting a while, hopefully. But, if you are going to call around, ask about air quality or clarity.

My experience tells me that yes, it is dumb to put yourself in harm's way. That doesn't always stop me though.

Also, there was some mention of public lands in Montana being closed to the public by the governor this past weekend. Anyone know any details?

A quick note about shooting from helicopters in case you haven't done that before. Yes, if you can open the windows, you can get better shots for sure. I have spent 2 summer seasons in the Dry Valleys of Antarctica where we get around by helicopter (either A-stars or Bell 212's). No, we don't use the A/C, but shooting through windows has been a factor. If you are forced to shoot through windows of a helicopter keep a few things in mind:

1) As one post above advised, use a polarizer to cut down on the glare, that helps.

2) Watch those wide angle lenses, you may not notice when you take a picture, but those rotor blades sneak in easily. I have many pictures that were ruined this way. Most of the time I used a Nikon 28-105 zoom and tried to zoom in enough to keep those blades out. 28mm is about as wide as you will be able to shoot from within a helo and not get too much of the craft itself in the frame. Obviously, the long end is also nice for certain compositions.

3) If you get to ride "shotgun", A-stars at least have a small window you can slide open for better photographing. Not sure about other models.

4) Finally, if you are stuck shooting through a window you cannot open, use a lens shade. I had one on most of the time in Antarctica and I was much happier bumping my shade into the window than the end of my lens or filter. Helicopter rides aren't always smooth.

Hope you have a great trip. Best of luck.

Re: your last question, I was in RMNP last Friday. Most of the park was right on the edge of a snow storm (really hazy bright sun). Lots of elk could be seen from the road. 2 weeks ago I went to Dream Lake at sunrise. There is still lots of snow on the trails in the shady spots. It's quite solid in the morning though, so a good pair of hiking boots is okay. Later in the day, it's probably soft and sloshy. Trail Ridge Road probably won't be open until Memorial Day - shouldn't be a problem for you in late June. Neither should the snow on the trails I imagine. The traffic on the roads is another problem though....

WRT the butterfly pavilion, what is the lighting like? Is it indoor or outdoor light? Can you get away with ISO 100 or 200 on a monopod okay?

Also worth checking out is Great Basin National Park. I have been there in July and it was fantastic. The contrast that this lush mountain park has with its salt-flat desert surroundings are incredible. The jouney there is hot, but GBNP is quite alpine and refreshingly green.

I think one other thing needs to be said, overall any park is beautiful at almost anytime of year.

If you really want to photograph elk in thier rutting season, then time and place are a bit more restrictive. Rocky Mountain National Park is fantastic anytime of year, but there are far fewer people from October to early May. Yellowstone and Grand Teton are also superb - again, rightfully crowded in the summers. Southern Utah has magnificent vistas, but can be nearly unbearable from May through August if you don't enjoy the heat. Don't rule out Olympic National Park. The ecosystems within the park boundaries of ONP are incredible.

If you go to a national park expecting solitude, serenity, and great weather, you may be disappointed unless you know where to go within the park and you get luck with the weather. But if you go to any national park with an open mind and few absolute expectations, you will experience nature to some degree and find many interesting subjects to photograph - even in rain, sleet or snow.

Don't just visit one, see them all, experience them all.