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

[David Richhart]

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.

I guess the national parks are for the photographers that can't think of anywhere to go.

[Mark Windom]

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.

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.

[Paul Mongillo]

NO.

[QT Luong]

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.

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.

[tim atherton]

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

Tim A

[Sean Billy Bob Boy yates]

What about renting llamas?

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?

I dunno, just a thought

[Masayoshi Hayashi]

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.

[Glenn Kroeger]

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.

[Jason_1171]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Dave Anton]

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!

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.