Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Grand Teton Axes Controversial Plan to Require Portrait Photo Permits

  1. #1
    Tin Can's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    22,383

    Grand Teton Axes Controversial Plan to Require Portrait Photo Permits

    Go to Petapixel today

    Their headline
    Tin Can

  2. #2
    Foamer
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    2,430

    Re: Grand Teton Axes Controversial Plan to Require Portrait Photo Permits

    Quote Originally Posted by Tin Can View Post
    Go to Petapixel today

    Their headline

    There is no link attached.


    Kent in SD
    In contento ed allegria
    Notte e di vogliam passar!

  3. #3
    Tin Can's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    22,383

    Re: Grand Teton Axes Controversial Plan to Require Portrait Photo Permits

    I believe Mods frown on that

    Just go to Petapixel



    Quote Originally Posted by Two23 View Post
    There is no link attached.


    Kent in SD
    Tin Can

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    SF Bay Area, California, USA
    Posts
    331

    Re: Grand Teton Axes Controversial Plan to Require Portrait Photo Permits

    Are links now deprecated? No one has ever said anything to me about it.

    The proposed plan was idiotic as well as blatantly illegal. Whoever proposed it should be getting on with their life’s work.

    It’s worth reading the NPPA letter; if you don’t want to bother with Scribd, an unencumbered copy of the letter is linked on the NPPA website (I guess we’ll find out ...).

    For a long time after the passage of “reform″ legislation on photo permits in 2000, I was somewhat of a Cassandra. I’ve been silent in the past several years, assuming the problem had largely gone away. I think I may have been a bit premature in so doing. I recently learned of a person cited under 36 CFR 261.10(c) for photographing a vehicle—not for advertising—on National Forest System land. And I heard of something similar a year ago; I don’t know the outcome of either. But such a citation is utterly bogus; that section is clearly pre-empted by 16 USC 460l-6d. I’d think such a citation would be tossed without much debate; nonetheless, a person cited would probably need to make an appearance in federal court. Facing the possibility of 6 months imprisonment and a $500 fine—however remote the possibility of actually getting jail time might be—the person would probably need to hire an attorney.

    The solution ultimately is to raise a challenge similar to that in Price v. Barr (2021) but applied to still photography, and hopefully covering all lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture—once and for all putting the kibosh on this nonsense.

  5. #5
    Les
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Ex-Seattlelite living in PNW
    Posts
    1,235

    Re: Grand Teton Axes Controversial Plan to Require Portrait Photo Permits

    Axing the plan was probably a wise idea. What's perplexing (at least to me) why would our govt create a situation and slapping exorbitant fees (pros or not), since they are not in business tho they act as if they were in some cases. There may be situation/s where a wedding party may require law/park enforcement to allow people to gather in specific area without external gawkers who may crash the party. Paying for such service could be a good idea based on time involved, but a willy-nilly $300 permit makes lot less sense....not to mention 3% (?).

    Besides, NP charges plenty to enter the park. That does not mean that peeps can do what they want there......rules for civility are in place....tho not everyone is civil.
    Les

    On occasion I noticed there is real life outside the GG/viewfinder.

  6. #6
    Tin Can's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    22,383

    Re: Grand Teton Axes Controversial Plan to Require Portrait Photo Permits

    Gate Keepers

    Love Locked Gates

    I now am Local only

    Thanks John!
    Tin Can

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Sheridan, Colorado
    Posts
    2,432

    Re: Grand Teton Axes Controversial Plan to Require Portrait Photo Permits

    Arches NP just announced that they are instituting a PERMIT ONLY system during their busy season -- Spring/Summer. Other NPs have already done that, like Rocky Mountain NP. No permit? No access. FYI, the permits are free and basically reservations for a specific date -- you still have to pay to get in, or have a pass.

    Too many people. Too much damage. Too little money. Too bad.

  8. #8
    Alan Klein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    New Jersey was NYC
    Posts
    2,580

    Re: Grand Teton Axes Controversial Plan to Require Portrait Photo Permits

    They can use my backyard for $300 an hour.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Central Idaho
    Posts
    392

    Re: Grand Teton Axes Controversial Plan to Require Portrait Photo Permits

    Grand Teton was clearly going about this in the wrong direction.

    There can be problem of having to many weddings in a small resort town. Stanley, Idaho only has four motels and it was hosting 5 or 6 weddings a weekend. Wedding parties were booking motels a year in advance. Most of these people have never been out of or wanted to leave the big city. They get to Stanley and look at the mountains and lakes, then ask what does a person do here. They are only taking up motels from people who would love to come here to enjoy nature. The city now limits the amount of weddings that can happen on city properties. I think the park service has to enforce existing laws on party size or come up with new ones to cope with the growing problem. These people put emergency service providers to there limits and have no experience being in the outdoors.
    Last edited by Thad Gerheim; 4-Apr-2022 at 13:25.
    Thad Gerheim
    Website: http:/thadgerheimgallery.com

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Rondo, Missouri
    Posts
    2,125

    Re: Grand Teton Axes Controversial Plan to Require Portrait Photo Permits

    Quote Originally Posted by Leszek Vogt View Post
    ...why would our govt create a situation and slapping exorbitant fees (pros or not), since they are not in business tho they act as if they were in some cases...

    Same reason they slapped Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship on the pretext of protecting the taxpayers...even though between them the companies had +\-$45B in surplus cash at the time. Which the government swept. They have to do something to get back all the money they're giving away, and they can't print all of it. Inflation is already getting out of control.
    Michael W. Graves
    Michael's Pub

    If it ain't broke....don't fix it!

Similar Threads

  1. Salt Lake City to Grand Teton/Yellowstone mid-September
    By Pat Kearns in forum Location & Travel
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 26-Sep-2019, 21:26
  2. Recommended lodging at Grand Teton NP?
    By John Kasaian in forum On Photography
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 24-Jun-2017, 16:41
  3. Visiting Grand Teton National Park in the Winter
    By KyledeC in forum Location & Travel
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 29-Sep-2011, 17:47
  4. NY-NJ Path Station Photo Permits Lawsuit
    By cyrus in forum Location & Travel
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 28-Jun-2011, 13:15

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •