I was out the other day with the camera and the dog cruising a few meadows. I came across the large patch of wild daisies with lots of little critters. So I dropped the camera pack, unfolded the tripod and spent some time there. About 40 mins. later I moved on. After my rite of gratitude, (I always say thanks after a good locale – to exactly who/what I am not sure) I gave this patch one last parting glance and noticed something disturbing. I completely trampled the area. The daisy patch had a big flattened ring around it. Later that morning, I walked up on this little knoll and my morning route was clearly marked – each place I visited was pressed into the landscape. What did I kill along the way for a mere 30 images (of which only 6 were keepers)? The area resembled a crop circle created drunken high school geometry dropouts. I was really shocked. I thought I had treaded lightly.
I get into my car and we drive home all the time thinking of the next place to visit. An area I will probably beat down as well. But that line of thought sparked this… How much do we photographers exploit the things we strive to show? Isn’t it bizarre that we’ll get into a car drive 500+ miles to some natural icon only to leave a wake of carbon dioxide, sulfur and hydrocarbons along the way? Now multiply that by thousands of photographers making similar pilgrimages. Or we inadvertently step on some coral to capture a cool octopus eating a crab – oops… 60 others also stepped on that same coral bed this past year. How are the populations of birds and mammals affected by the clamor of recorded songs or the hand outs we use as lures? No genre here is immune. Aren’t we harming the things we love? What collective wrongs, what impacts do our actions have to obtain that beautifully saturated, sharp, sellable, calendar image?
I used to live and work in a National Park and I would always wander off into the forest or mountains and have seen firsthand what some photographers do for the ‘great shot’. It always pleased me to catch them in the act (esp. with my camera). During the peak season, the morning report was beset with stupid, inconsiderate and careless photographer incidents. It’s a pretty big deal in the NPS. It’s understood that some photographers will do most anything to satiate their lust, the quest for that wall-hanger. I am surprised that permits and or a fee aren’t yet required to shoot in the National Parks – it’s a great deal of manpower and paperwork on an already financially strapped agency. Sidenote: BTW, I’m not just referencing tourists with cameras; most of the rangers truly know the difference.
Am I all alone in this thought? Aren’t our actions slowly destroying the things we hold dear?
Will: I rarely enter into discussions of this sort as I'm pretty far to the right in my thinking and usually end up getting beat up by those who are perhaps more environmentally sensitive. I wonder if the deer who walk in that meadow or eat the flowers give it a second thought. We do think about it because we can and sometimes we are in fact inexcusably selfish. In the spring in Texas I see all kinds of stupid behavior, but the worst comes from the commercial guys shooting family and kid shots in the bluebonnets. My observations of obvious nature photogs is that most are very conscientious. I confess that in a couple of weeks I'm going to board a jet, fly to Colorado, rent a car and shoot as many pictures as I can in Rocky Mountatin Nationa Park. And I'll have no second thoughts unless I miss a shot I should have bagged. >=))>
Posted by Kent Staubus on July 6, 2007 at 11:42 PM
The way I look at it, grass etc. has evolved to be walked on. I do try to leave pretty flowers etc. "as is" so others can enjoy them too. Other than that, I don't worry about it. The grass, the flowers, you, me--we are all so ephemeral. It doesn't matter. As for clamor of songs, I sometimes whistle a Mozart aria when I'm walking along. His "Exsultate" is a favorite. No other creature has created a song nearly as exquisite.
"Exsultate, Jubilate!
O vos animae beatae
Dulcia cantica canendo
Cantui vestro respondendo
Psallant aethera cum me."
Rejoice, resound with joy,
o you blessed souls,
Rejoice, resound with joy,
Singing sweet songs.
In response to your singing
Let the heavens sing forth with me!
I think education is the key. The more we know about how our actions in the field affect the ecosystem with which we are interacting, the less impact we will have.
I also think that 'permiting', free or otherwise, would give some, not all, the (perceived) license to do what they darn well please to get the shot; a sort of 'damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead' mentality. Yes, these folks would be held accountable, but a permit does not teach the concept of, or the responsibilities that go along with stewardship.
I think stewardship is the key: be as careful and conscientious as we can. Not everyone will be... But those of us who are, or try hard to be, can keep trying and be good examples for others, I hope.
I think you can relax about some minor trampling. I say that as someone active as a citizen scientist who monitors plants, some of them rare, for the Chicago area "plants of concern" organization. My observation is that many plants benefit from disturbance and some actually require it. A little Google work will turn up many articles on the benefits of controlled grazing in grassland habitats for example.
There are exceptions of course. Heavily visited confined areas such as the vernal pools trail at the Santa Rosa Plateau in Southern California will get many thousands of visitors in just a couple of months if a bloom has occurred. There are also very fragile habitats such as lightly vegetated sand dunes and rock outcrops where even a few visitors can have a major impact.
Compared to other impacts, such as habitat loss, I think trampling, while unsightly, has a minor impact on all but the most fragile environments.
Wow! A major guilt trip! I think concern about where we plant our big feet is warranted because we may well step on things that are having a struggle. On the morning of July 4, I was in the wetlands photographing the geese again, and didn't give a thought to what was in the grass until I saw these tiny things hopping frantically around to get out of my way. I thought they were crickets or small grasshoppers, but when I looked more closely, they were baby frogs, the size of one of my fingernails. I have no desire to squish anything, and I try to be very careful about where I step, but truthfully, plants are very resilient and so are the "tiny world" creatures that we mostly don't see. Remember, the deer trample down beds to sleep in and the grasses go back to an upright stance when they leave. Yes, we all need to be concerned about what we do and where we walk, but if we are aware of these things and cast a wary eye around, I don't think the damage is permanent. If you go back the next day, your tracks will be gone.
I'm not as concerned about low use areas as much as high use areas like national parks. I carefully play by the rules in the parks, but I can pretty well document that we photographers along with everyone else are loving the landmarks to death. You can do the same. Look at your past photos and compare them with what you see today. Wear from foot traffic is unbelievable. I'll support any NP effort to confine folks to developed (and hardened) trails in high traffic areas around the major landmarks along with limits on access to untrampled areas. Of course those measures along with enforcement require a budget. Higher fees are fine by me, but only if they're applied across the board.
Your thoughts strike home with us all. No one among us would have our favorite areas destroyed, nor would we encourage others to do so. And I certainly understand the conflict created when the consequence of one's actions are both destructive and creative. I can offer only one way to morally justify your actions: When the positive that you've created outweighs the negative impact. For example, if one of your photographs educates someone about the subject, and creates a new level of understanding in the viewer, then isn't the cost of obtaining the image offset? Philosophically, this is still very soft ground to tread upon, but this seems to be the strongest argument that can be made.
I should have clarified - I wasn't so concerned with the grasses, my concern was with what was tucked within. Contrary to Kent's hypothesis; grasses evolved during the Cretaceous Period and not because they can be walked upon. It just so happened the intercontinental regions were getting drier and warmer and this family filled a niche left by those that failed. Their success is due to the amount of traffic and grazing the family can tolerate.
And yes we are ephemeral. But does that mean we need to hasten the process? Just look at recent history. Look at the numbers of cultures, critters and plant species brought to and crossed over into extinction due to this philosophy. Our National Parks are so successful because they are an oasis. We essentially made everything else around them ephemeral.
David, Sara, Hank and Brian - thanks for offering your thoughts. I was a bit dismayed and thought I may be all alone for a bit ... you turned that around. Preston, maybe a small dose of common sense is also in order. But should the NPS be responsible for that? Thou shall not herd bison...Thou not shall cut trees... How many thou shall nots must they state?
In regards to Mozart - that's completely subjective with a western civ. bias. Personally I prefer the song from a warbler anyday.
And those that said Amen to Kent’s observations… personally, it astounds me.
Will, a dose of common sense would certainly be a boon! Unfortunately, one cannot legislate that everyone have it. So, all we can do is attempt to educate, develop a list of 'Do's and Don'ts' and then dole out reward or punishment as the case may be. This is not the optimum scenario, of course; but it's the best we can do for those whose common sense piggy banks are below the minimum balance!
I agree with everything you said in your 2nd post.
I think it's important to be aware, to tread lightly, and be respectful. We might all be "so ephemeral", but we also all live in the ONLY time that exists, which is the present .. which would place a somewhat greater import and responsibility on who we are, and what we do.
I also think folks have focused on one part of your post, and ignored the greater perspective you asked about:
I get into my car and we drive home all the time thinking of the next place to visit. An area I will probably beat down as well. But that line of thought sparked thisƒ How much do we photographers exploit the things we strive to show? IsnÍt it bizarre that weÍll get into a car drive 500+ miles to some natural icon only to leave a wake of carbon dioxide, sulfur and hydrocarbons along the way? Now multiply that by thousands of photographers making similar pilgrimages. Or we inadvertently step on some coral to capture a cool octopus eating a crab ? oopsƒ 60 others also stepped on that same coral bed this past year. How are the populations of birds and mammals affected by the clamor of recorded songs or the hand outs we use as lures? No genre here is immune. ArenÍt we harming the things we love? What collective wrongs, what impacts do our actions have to obtain that beautifully saturated, sharp, sellable, calendar image?
Certainly everything is relative, and I'd gladly put my impacts up against those of say, oh, I dunno, how about, uuhhmmmm for example, "Steve Rogel" or "Lee Raymond" or "Pete Correll" or "Lee Scott". Anyday. :)
Well obviously of course you are not alone M8t. We could all stop breathing and let nature be what it is, but we can't and so we try and do our best along the way. The key word there is "try". Rather than be a miserable bunch, we actually care what we step on and the enviroment, others don't give a ....... hmmmm american term.......hoot. Maybe we make up for it in other areas that we don't even know of Will.
All the best M8t and yeah BTW, very nice shot sir.
Man is part of nature and man has an impact on a lot of other parts of nature. Other species certainly do the same...look at the beaver. Man tends to think of nature as a static thing and some try to keep it as status quo. Man will put out small fires building the fuel supply to the point we have fires that end up burning for days out of control. The forested Northeast is what most would be considered the 'natural' condition....look back over the last 100,000 years and it has only been this way about 3% of that time. Lots of the "wild" flower patches are those that were seeded by man and took up the space of some other plant and impacted the bugs in that region as well. Virtually everything man does impacts nature. Even if man ceased to exist.....that would have an impact on nature. Use common sense and common curtesy...we share the planet.
I don't do photography to make money so don't feel any motivation to visit popular photography areas. Over my photo years I've rarely encountered other photographer and never seen evidence of photographer presence. In my office I have a calendar of my favorite regional photographer (and NPN member I might add). His shots are of less visited areas and I'd wager he could say the same for most of his calendar shots. I plead guilty to tramping through a few flower pack meadows and probably leave some downbeaten areas where I've set up and moved around to position my gear. I wouldn't do this in fragile areas and am certain after a short time or at worst a season of snow and spring growth that my presence would be unnoticed. And I'd doubt my impact would be noticed by a passer-by.
I'm sure there are places pock marked with tripod holes and trampled by photo visitors, but it's always been a bit mysterious to me why a person would go out for an outdoor experience and end up in one of these spots? Needless, it's most unfortunate and inexcusable that folks don't tread lighter. But in terms of picking environment issues in the wild worth fighting about , I think off-roaders, general overuse, and developers are at the top of my list.
As a general group of photographers who look to document what beauty is out there so that other can see these things and hopefully want to save them for other generations, we probably do have some special obligations and should set an environmental example. But to me it goes further than excursion into a meadow. It's the footprint of our lifestyle and goes back to what and how much we consume, and how we try to give back to the environment.
I'm hoping not to appear contrite, but I just don't see photographer damage where I go and in the overall list of our human trangressions, it's not too high on my list of problems.
The areas like our National Parks, serve as magnets to draw the large crowds. If we didn't have those magnets many more areas would receive more visitors and higher impacts so to me, the high impact on our National Parks is a reasonable price to pay to minimize the impact on the areas that receive less advertising.
I generally avoid RMNP in the summer because of the crowds, but am grateful that the crowds are there rather than dispersed through out the mountains. But even in RMNP, most of the crowds seem to stay very close to the roads. Many years ago, I'd just arrived at the visitor center in Zion NP after spending two weeks in the back country. A bus load of tourists pulled into the parking lot, swarmed over the rest rooms and the counters selling souvenirs, and within a few minutes were climbing back on their bus when one of them announced, "We've seen Zion, let’s get going to Bryce!" While I was hiking in the back country, I saw VERY few people. The roads and the easily accessible major trails near the roads were crowded while the rest of the Park was nearly deserted.
7,000 members of the Rainbow family just spent a week in the wilderness within five miles of my cabin here in Arkansas. These peace-loving, mild-mannered, environmentalists did more resource damage to the national forest and nearby designated Wilderness area than all the photographers will do in the US this year, and probably next too, and maybe the year after. It is all relative. There certainly are exceptions to everything, but in general nature photographers do far more to help protect the land with the images they take (by inspiring others to protect our great earth) then they ever do damage to it.
Oh yes, and even though it is required by federal law for groups of 75 people or more, the Rainbow family did not have a permit, and the 100+ law enforcement people on the scene all week simply stood by and let them alone (except for other obvious violations). Go figure.
Wow
Bill I was going to respond, first, to your remarks but had a mishap with my computer and I just got back to the thread.
I am always impressed by how we love to see a trail made by rabbits or beavers or moose or ....... Likewise we are respectful of how our ancestors cleared land, trapped hunted and fished. We are conversely apologetic about our own use of the earth.
We are at a point where many animals and many living organisims are threatened. On the other hand the majority of sites which I visit are thriving ecosystems and resiliant by nature. I am not afraid to take my place in time and I will use my share and hopefully contribute my share. I am however a responsible and experienced woodsman who has been taught by his elders how to respect nature. My children have been taught to respect nature as well.
Honestly I do not really understand what the impact of my life will have on the natural world but when I think about it I often feel like you do. I only hope that the score will be even.
Rick T
My environmental sensitivity is tempered by reminding myself that man is indigenous to planet earth, and thus, we are just as much a part of nature as the deer.
Oh yes, we absolutely have a certain responsibility of stewardship of the land because MOST of us are more intelligent than the deer. However, I don't agree with some of the points in the Leave No Trace mantra. For example, since when is a stone fire ring ugly? As long as it contains only ashes and no litter, what's the problem? If you leave your ring in tact, maybe the next guy will use it instead of chewing up the ground to create yet another one. It seems silly to me to try to make it look like no other human has ever been there when the trail is clearly man-made, and we all know that thousands of humans have been there before us.
sorry, I digress. Will, I understand how you feel about what you left in your wake. I've felt the same way at times. However I doubt that you did any kind of permanent damage and now you've learned something. Next time you'll be that much more aware of your impact on the ground.
I had a similar experience at the Painted Hills (Oregon) a few years ago. The Rangers told us we could cross the fence as long as we're careful about leaving footprints. This is one place where I agree that footprints are not at all attractive and should be avoided. Anyway, we were told to use our own judgment. well when I was on my way back to the road, I realized that I had left huge imprints in the mud, and some of the grass was trampled. I was quite disappointed in myself and I no longer jump the fence when I visit PH. The rest of the group seemed to be able to go out there and come back without leaving "sign", but for whatever reason, I couldn't.
In general, I try to stay on the trail, and when I do leave the trail, I avoid making the ground look trampled. I don't feel bad about leaving footprints in most places, but I do avoid making the ground look trampled. There is a difference.
Posted by David A Bliss on July 12, 2007 at 12:09 PM
A friend of mine and I used to argue about the nature of man. His argument was that man tends to be aggressive and hurtful. My argument was that man in inherently selfish. My conclusion (through observation ) isn't that people go out of their way to hurt someone or something else, but that through their self centered actions others may be hurt. How does this relate to this discussion?
I was camping in the State Forest Colorado State Park last summer. This is an area known for moose, and they are often seen from the roadside. I stopped on the roadside, along with a number of other photographers, some with big white lenses, and some with point and shoots. We were respectfully shooting from the roadside, which was plenty close enough for the majority of lenses on display. Sure enough, someone with a big white lens felt that his shot was more important than the rest of ours, and proceeded to tramp down into the willows and try to circle around. Anybody who knows about dealing with moose knows this is a bad idea. His safety wasn't my concern, though. If he was charged, it was his own fault. What irritated me was that his crashing around in the willows caused the moose to move up into the trees. This one person's action ruined the experience for a half dozen other people.
I have spent a fair amount of time in the desert SW, including Arches, Caynonlands, Canyons of the Ancients and Hovenweep, Mesa Verde, etc... The cryptobiotic soil is vital in these areas to prevent erosion. I can't tell you how many photographers I have seen traipse over the soil without giving it another thought. To carry this over to Curtis' comment, I camped at the end of a BLM road in Canyon of the Ancients. It is difficult to camp in these areas without disturbing the soil, but there was a spot where someone else, possibly many others, had already camped. There was already a fire ring (which I actually didn't use), and a spot to put up a tent. While I felt bad about the soil being disturbed, it was better for me to camp in an area that had already been disturbed than destroying a different spot.
Too many times I have seen photographers (by that I mean people with SLRs, expensive glass, tripods, etc...) with an attitude of entitlement. "I am getting the shot, because I deserve it..." These same people are of course the first to complain about the "tourists."
It really comes down to knowing the area we are shooting. In another thread, there was a discussion about whether on not nature photographers should be involved in eco-politics. While I felt that people need to do what is in their hearts in this matter, I do believe that nature photographers need to be naturalists. We need to understand and appreciate the areas in which we are visiting. We do not have entitlement. In fact, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. I do not believe this means we cannot leave an impact on an area. We just need to understand how big an impact we are leaving. In a SWA that I shoot close to home, I have yet to see another photographer. I walk through the grass fields and reeds without a second thought (other than watching for rattlesnakes ). I will not leave much of an impact on this area, and there are very few others who will follow my tracks. In heavily visited areas, on the other hand, if you leave a track, others may use it. Then that track becomes heavily damaged, and leaves a scar that could take years, if not decades to heal.
Discussion
22 repliesI get into my car and we drive home all the time thinking of the next place to visit. An area I will probably beat down as well. But that line of thought sparked this… How much do we photographers exploit the things we strive to show? Isn’t it bizarre that we’ll get into a car drive 500+ miles to some natural icon only to leave a wake of carbon dioxide, sulfur and hydrocarbons along the way? Now multiply that by thousands of photographers making similar pilgrimages. Or we inadvertently step on some coral to capture a cool octopus eating a crab – oops… 60 others also stepped on that same coral bed this past year. How are the populations of birds and mammals affected by the clamor of recorded songs or the hand outs we use as lures? No genre here is immune. Aren’t we harming the things we love? What collective wrongs, what impacts do our actions have to obtain that beautifully saturated, sharp, sellable, calendar image?
I used to live and work in a National Park and I would always wander off into the forest or mountains and have seen firsthand what some photographers do for the ‘great shot’. It always pleased me to catch them in the act (esp. with my camera). During the peak season, the morning report was beset with stupid, inconsiderate and careless photographer incidents. It’s a pretty big deal in the NPS. It’s understood that some photographers will do most anything to satiate their lust, the quest for that wall-hanger. I am surprised that permits and or a fee aren’t yet required to shoot in the National Parks – it’s a great deal of manpower and paperwork on an already financially strapped agency. Sidenote: BTW, I’m not just referencing tourists with cameras; most of the rangers truly know the difference.
Am I all alone in this thought? Aren’t our actions slowly destroying the things we hold dear?
http://tinyurl.com/2x4j2f
http://tinyurl.com/2hnga6
Kent in SD
"Exsultate, Jubilate!
O vos animae beatae
Dulcia cantica canendo
Cantui vestro respondendo
Psallant aethera cum me."
Rejoice, resound with joy,
o you blessed souls,
Rejoice, resound with joy,
Singing sweet songs.
In response to your singing
Let the heavens sing forth with me!
Alleluia.
--W.A. Mozart K 165 (1773)
I also think that 'permiting', free or otherwise, would give some, not all, the (perceived) license to do what they darn well please to get the shot; a sort of 'damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead' mentality. Yes, these folks would be held accountable, but a permit does not teach the concept of, or the responsibilities that go along with stewardship.
-PB
Another "Amen," Kent. Thanks.
There are exceptions of course. Heavily visited confined areas such as the vernal pools trail at the Santa Rosa Plateau in Southern California will get many thousands of visitors in just a couple of months if a bloom has occurred. There are also very fragile habitats such as lightly vegetated sand dunes and rock outcrops where even a few visitors can have a major impact.
Compared to other impacts, such as habitat loss, I think trampling, while unsightly, has a minor impact on all but the most fragile environments.
And yes we are ephemeral. But does that mean we need to hasten the process? Just look at recent history. Look at the numbers of cultures, critters and plant species brought to and crossed over into extinction due to this philosophy. Our National Parks are so successful because they are an oasis. We essentially made everything else around them ephemeral.
David, Sara, Hank and Brian - thanks for offering your thoughts. I was a bit dismayed and thought I may be all alone for a bit ... you turned that around. Preston, maybe a small dose of common sense is also in order. But should the NPS be responsible for that? Thou shall not herd bison...Thou not shall cut trees... How many thou shall nots must they state?
In regards to Mozart - that's completely subjective with a western civ. bias. Personally I prefer the song from a warbler anyday.
And those that said Amen to Kent’s observations… personally, it astounds me.
-PB
I agree with everything you said in your 2nd post.
I think it's important to be aware, to tread lightly, and be respectful. We might all be "so ephemeral", but we also all live in the ONLY time that exists, which is the present .. which would place a somewhat greater import and responsibility on who we are, and what we do.
I also think folks have focused on one part of your post, and ignored the greater perspective you asked about:
Certainly everything is relative, and I'd gladly put my impacts up against those of say, oh, I dunno, how about, uuhhmmmm for example, "Steve Rogel" or "Lee Raymond" or "Pete Correll" or "Lee Scott". Anyday. :)
Cheers
Carl
All the best M8t and yeah BTW, very nice shot sir.
Danny.
Bill
I'm sure there are places pock marked with tripod holes and trampled by photo visitors, but it's always been a bit mysterious to me why a person would go out for an outdoor experience and end up in one of these spots? Needless, it's most unfortunate and inexcusable that folks don't tread lighter. But in terms of picking environment issues in the wild worth fighting about , I think off-roaders, general overuse, and developers are at the top of my list.
As a general group of photographers who look to document what beauty is out there so that other can see these things and hopefully want to save them for other generations, we probably do have some special obligations and should set an environmental example. But to me it goes further than excursion into a meadow. It's the footprint of our lifestyle and goes back to what and how much we consume, and how we try to give back to the environment.
I'm hoping not to appear contrite, but I just don't see photographer damage where I go and in the overall list of our human trangressions, it's not too high on my list of problems.
I generally avoid RMNP in the summer because of the crowds, but am grateful that the crowds are there rather than dispersed through out the mountains. But even in RMNP, most of the crowds seem to stay very close to the roads. Many years ago, I'd just arrived at the visitor center in Zion NP after spending two weeks in the back country. A bus load of tourists pulled into the parking lot, swarmed over the rest rooms and the counters selling souvenirs, and within a few minutes were climbing back on their bus when one of them announced, "We've seen Zion, let’s get going to Bryce!" While I was hiking in the back country, I saw VERY few people. The roads and the easily accessible major trails near the roads were crowded while the rest of the Park was nearly deserted.
Oh yes, and even though it is required by federal law for groups of 75 people or more, the Rainbow family did not have a permit, and the 100+ law enforcement people on the scene all week simply stood by and let them alone (except for other obvious violations). Go figure.
Tim Ernst in Arkansas
Bill I was going to respond, first, to your remarks but had a mishap with my computer and I just got back to the thread.
I am always impressed by how we love to see a trail made by rabbits or beavers or moose or ....... Likewise we are respectful of how our ancestors cleared land, trapped hunted and fished. We are conversely apologetic about our own use of the earth.
We are at a point where many animals and many living organisims are threatened. On the other hand the majority of sites which I visit are thriving ecosystems and resiliant by nature. I am not afraid to take my place in time and I will use my share and hopefully contribute my share. I am however a responsible and experienced woodsman who has been taught by his elders how to respect nature. My children have been taught to respect nature as well.
Honestly I do not really understand what the impact of my life will have on the natural world but when I think about it I often feel like you do. I only hope that the score will be even.
Rick T
Oh yes, we absolutely have a certain responsibility of stewardship of the land because MOST of us are more intelligent than the deer. However, I don't agree with some of the points in the Leave No Trace mantra. For example, since when is a stone fire ring ugly? As long as it contains only ashes and no litter, what's the problem? If you leave your ring in tact, maybe the next guy will use it instead of chewing up the ground to create yet another one. It seems silly to me to try to make it look like no other human has ever been there when the trail is clearly man-made, and we all know that thousands of humans have been there before us.
sorry, I digress. Will, I understand how you feel about what you left in your wake. I've felt the same way at times. However I doubt that you did any kind of permanent damage and now you've learned something. Next time you'll be that much more aware of your impact on the ground.
I had a similar experience at the Painted Hills (Oregon) a few years ago. The Rangers told us we could cross the fence as long as we're careful about leaving footprints. This is one place where I agree that footprints are not at all attractive and should be avoided. Anyway, we were told to use our own judgment. well when I was on my way back to the road, I realized that I had left huge imprints in the mud, and some of the grass was trampled. I was quite disappointed in myself and I no longer jump the fence when I visit PH. The rest of the group seemed to be able to go out there and come back without leaving "sign", but for whatever reason, I couldn't.
In general, I try to stay on the trail, and when I do leave the trail, I avoid making the ground look trampled. I don't feel bad about leaving footprints in most places, but I do avoid making the ground look trampled. There is a difference.
I was camping in the State Forest Colorado State Park last summer. This is an area known for moose, and they are often seen from the roadside. I stopped on the roadside, along with a number of other photographers, some with big white lenses, and some with point and shoots. We were respectfully shooting from the roadside, which was plenty close enough for the majority of lenses on display. Sure enough, someone with a big white lens felt that his shot was more important than the rest of ours, and proceeded to tramp down into the willows and try to circle around. Anybody who knows about dealing with moose knows this is a bad idea. His safety wasn't my concern, though. If he was charged, it was his own fault. What irritated me was that his crashing around in the willows caused the moose to move up into the trees. This one person's action ruined the experience for a half dozen other people.
I have spent a fair amount of time in the desert SW, including Arches, Caynonlands, Canyons of the Ancients and Hovenweep, Mesa Verde, etc... The cryptobiotic soil is vital in these areas to prevent erosion. I can't tell you how many photographers I have seen traipse over the soil without giving it another thought. To carry this over to Curtis' comment, I camped at the end of a BLM road in Canyon of the Ancients. It is difficult to camp in these areas without disturbing the soil, but there was a spot where someone else, possibly many others, had already camped. There was already a fire ring (which I actually didn't use), and a spot to put up a tent. While I felt bad about the soil being disturbed, it was better for me to camp in an area that had already been disturbed than destroying a different spot.
Too many times I have seen photographers (by that I mean people with SLRs, expensive glass, tripods, etc...) with an attitude of entitlement. "I am getting the shot, because I deserve it..." These same people are of course the first to complain about the "tourists."
It really comes down to knowing the area we are shooting. In another thread, there was a discussion about whether on not nature photographers should be involved in eco-politics. While I felt that people need to do what is in their hearts in this matter, I do believe that nature photographers need to be naturalists. We need to understand and appreciate the areas in which we are visiting. We do not have entitlement. In fact, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. I do not believe this means we cannot leave an impact on an area. We just need to understand how big an impact we are leaving. In a SWA that I shoot close to home, I have yet to see another photographer. I walk through the grass fields and reeds without a second thought (other than watching for rattlesnakes