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

[Dave Anton]

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.

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.

[M.]

I just read that Edward Weston claimed "There's nothing photogenic more than 100 yards from your car." (Inexact quote).

[John Lehman]

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?

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 :-)

[Saulius]

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.

[Doug Paramore]

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.

[Erik Ryberg]

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.

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.

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.

Erik

[james mickelson]

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

[Bruce M. Herman]

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

[james mickelson]

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.

[David N. VanMeter]

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.