I visited North Cascades National Park, or more accurately, Ross Lake National Recreation Area this past weekend. While at the Newhalem visitor center, I purchased the new "America the Beautiful – National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass" Annual Pass - Cost $80. The rangers at the desk were quite freindly, informative and welcoming. I asked about where I could best view the Picket Range without taking a back country trek and they eagerly pointed me in the direction of the boardwalk and a very nice view of the range through a gap in the hills.
When I returned I was all smiles and said something to the effect that I now knew where my evening photo shoot would be. The two exchanged a glance and I suddenly felt the need for a parka. I then asked if there were any time restrictions on accessing the parking lot and boardwalk and the shook their heads "no" and I said thanks and left.
maybe it was my choice of words... maybe saying "photo shoot" implied to them that I was going to traipse a photo workshop through the visitor center or something.
Whatever the case, I felt suddenly unwelcome when they found out I was a photographer. And it's not like I expected that reaction. most of the time when I've encounter forest service personnel, they've actually gotten enthused about telling me their favorite camera angles and photo locations. Maybe the Department of Interior has a different attitude than the Department of Agriculture.
Has anyone else run into this kind of reaction from NPS personnel?
Curtis, the phrase "photo shoot" may have been it. Perhaps due to the regulations governing commercial photography and their task of enforcing them, they perceived you as someone they would have to "deal with."
Just speculation, but if you had said "return to take some pictures" instead it may have been received differently. In any case, I wouldn't loose any sleep over it.
Posted by Basil Greber on July 10, 2007 at 9:12 AM
Maybe they thought you'd return with a couple of girls and pull off a fashion/modelling shoot in their national park...
Most NPs are overworked, underpaid and understaffed. In that climate it's pretty easy to start stereotyping people and lumping the good with the bad. Get acquainted with the staff and start looking at some of the people hassles they deal with, and it's hard not to become a stereotyper. Sad to say almost everyone they deal with is wearing a camera of some sort, and the most eggregious violators are often the ones who make large noises about what great photographers they are.
If you can afford the time to get acquainted with the staff in a particular park, or at the very least demonstrate a concern for rules, regs and the health of the resource, you'll usually break through the stereotypes they're burdened with. But short of that, you're likely to pay for the sins of your predecessors.
One "parkie" I know compares photographers to gun enthusiasts. 99.99999999999999999999% of gun owners are safe, responsible and considerate, but they all pay for the actions of the .000000000000000000001% that aren't. Same applies to photographers.
If you're doing a photo shoot for commercial purposes in a National Forest, you're required to file for a Special Use Permit. (This really applies for any commercial activity, not just photography.) It usually only gets applied when it's a larger production company shooting a commercial, but it does apply to the lone still photographer under certain instances. Even though you probably don't meet the criteria, it sounds like the words "photo shoot" raised an eyebrow or two.
The main thing is that you will be required to have insurance, so that when you and your camera come tumbling down Half Dome, the Park doesn't get sued. (The National Parks are sued regularly by people that are hurt in the wilderness. Just google National Forest Lawsuit, and settle down for a weeks worth of reading) A significant portion of the Parks funds (your money) goes towards defending and settling these suits.
Good point Charlie. Past threads at NPN and elsewhere have discussed permit requirements for NPs, as well as state parks. Your reference for the forest service is welcome. In broad terms most requirements are based upon specific types of activities, and as you suggest, are generally aimed at larger operations rather than individuals unless the individual seeks special treatment other than that allowed to the general public. For example, we purchase a $200 permit each year for shooting in Alaska State Parks- not because we shoot scenics and wildlife photos there, but because we regularly use two for portrait shoots requiring at least one tech and sometimes even portable lighting equipment. Even with the permit, our access and activities are restricted and often supervised- in fact to a greater degree than is true for the general public. It all seems very reasonable to us, and in fact I feel a little guilty when taking shots I intend to sell in other parks and in such a way that doesn't require a permit. The parks are valuable to us, and any time we "take" from them for free, it feels a little like stealing.
hmmm... Well at $80/year for a park/forest pass, I'll have to disagree with your last point Hank. I wouldn't feel the least bit guilty about selling them a photo. I would figure I'd done them a valuable service, and I paid a fair price for the opportunity to create an asset that they found valuable enough to purchase. I don't see where you've "taken" anything for free. You paid for your pass, you bought your permits, and you paid through the nose for all that gear to create that asset that they found valuable enough to purchase.
Discussion
6 repliesWhen I returned I was all smiles and said something to the effect that I now knew where my evening photo shoot would be. The two exchanged a glance and I suddenly felt the need for a parka. I then asked if there were any time restrictions on accessing the parking lot and boardwalk and the shook their heads "no" and I said thanks and left.
maybe it was my choice of words... maybe saying "photo shoot" implied to them that I was going to traipse a photo workshop through the visitor center or something.
Whatever the case, I felt suddenly unwelcome when they found out I was a photographer. And it's not like I expected that reaction. most of the time when I've encounter forest service personnel, they've actually gotten enthused about telling me their favorite camera angles and photo locations. Maybe the Department of Interior has a different attitude than the Department of Agriculture.
Has anyone else run into this kind of reaction from NPS personnel?
Just speculation, but if you had said "return to take some pictures" instead it may have been received differently. In any case, I wouldn't loose any sleep over it.
Basil
If you can afford the time to get acquainted with the staff in a particular park, or at the very least demonstrate a concern for rules, regs and the health of the resource, you'll usually break through the stereotypes they're burdened with. But short of that, you're likely to pay for the sins of your predecessors.
One "parkie" I know compares photographers to gun enthusiasts. 99.99999999999999999999% of gun owners are safe, responsible and considerate, but they all pay for the actions of the .000000000000000000001% that aren't. Same applies to photographers.
If you're doing a photo shoot for commercial purposes in a National Forest, you're required to file for a Special Use Permit. (This really applies for any commercial activity, not just photography.) It usually only gets applied when it's a larger production company shooting a commercial, but it does apply to the lone still photographer under certain instances. Even though you probably don't meet the criteria, it sounds like the words "photo shoot" raised an eyebrow or two.
The main thing is that you will be required to have insurance, so that when you and your camera come tumbling down Half Dome, the Park doesn't get sued. (The National Parks are sued regularly by people that are hurt in the wilderness. Just google National Forest Lawsuit, and settle down for a weeks worth of reading) A significant portion of the Parks funds (your money) goes towards defending and settling these suits.
Look here, and read FSM 2709.11 40 Section 45.5
http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsh/2709.11/2709.11_40.doc
You didn't get a damn thing for free Hank...