Hey everyone, heads up! If you didn't already know, there actually exists regulations requiring all photographers who shoot for profit (whether beginner or professional, local or foreign) to buy a permit before shooting in Canada's mountain national parks. The parks in question include Jasper, Banff, Waterton, Glacier, Kootenay, Yoho and Revelstoke parks.
If you just shoot for pleasure or never sell your images, don't worry about the requirement.
But if you sell your stuff, or hope to, then you are supposed to apply in advance before entering the park to shoot for the permit and pay astronomical fees!
Here's a link to a letter I wrote to the federal Minister of the Environment seeking to change this situation: http://chrysalizz.smugmug.com/gallery/4281210_eKGbV
Check out the regulations through Parks Canada-Jasper's website: http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/ab/jasper/activ/activ13p_E.asp
And something more...provincial parks often require fees and permits and insurance before shooting as well, or at least Alberta does. The reason this is an issue is because the rules are arbitrarily enforced and, I think, unfair. And I don't want to explain to a park ranger why I don't have a permit if I get stopped! Hopefully the more photographers who get involved, the greater our chance of changing these rules.
Samantha, I think it's just a badly worded government document. The regulations apply to commercial movie shooting, which they call film photography - the concept of shooting "films", which we today call "movies" and "serials".
(A lot of movies are being shot there lately, I believe)
Posted by Tom Nevesely on February 12, 2008 at 2:55 PM
I agree that it's most like a badly worded document but as long as it stays this way, park wardens can at their discretion fine you or prevent you from shooting.
This issue is probably nowhere near the top of the governments priority list so that's why it's extremely important that all of us (or as many of us as possible) contact the Minister of the Environment and demand they change this rule. (I sent my letter to the minister a few weeks ago after I read about this on Darwin Wiggett's website).
Thanks Samantha for posting this here and bringing this to everyone's attention.
Thanks for your interest guys. I have looked into this a bit, as has Darwin, and we spoke to officials in the parks this past summer. The thing is, everyone we spoke to said unofficially, they didn't always enforce the policy. But officially, all department heads were clear that in their interpretation, the policy DOES include ANY photography for profit. This captures us as freelancers, which is a problem.
I think the wording in the document is incredibly inane and that is why I had to clarify with the officials: "C'mon, you're kidding right? This document refers to film sets and crews and helicopters!!" But they were all serious that we are caught too.
And people I know, especially wildlife photographers, have been told to stop shooting and move on if they didn't have a permit. Which I think is unfair, and it will stay that way unless we say something about it.
Hi Samantha; I sent a note to my warden friends in Waterton and so I will get the low down from them. I shoot for the park and they've never mentioned this to me before so I suspect, as noted above, the fees apply to large film crews who invade the park. I'll let you know what I hear.
Posted by Don George on February 13, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Years ago the same issue came up in the States. One Ranger would say you needed a permit for any profit photography another would say no. The North American Nature Photographers Association (NANPA) took on the issue and finally got an official reading.
The end result was a FEE was charged for commercial filming where Park staff was required.
As far as I know that reading still holds.
I searched but couldn't find the article, but Michael Riechman at Luminous Landscape ran into this about two years ago and wrote it up, along with advice and accounting of processes under way to clarify the issue. I simply cannot remember the details clearly, however.
It would be worth your time to do a better job searching the LL site, and if you can't find the article, email him and ask for a link. If you keep your messages short, he's quite responsive to email when he's not traveling.
Posted by Brad Kargus on February 13, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Samantha,
Thank you for the heads up. Although I am not currently making money from my photos, I agree with your position.
If sending a letter, I think it would be beneficial to suggest some specifics for changes to the rules, rather than let the Ministry of the Environment, Parks Canada, etc. determine exactly what a freelance photographer is. I'm not a fountain of ideas, at the moment, but I'll try to think of some things.
Regarding Luminous Landscape, I found the following links that I think only mention US National Parks (sorry if the link isn't direct):
Brad, thanks for the links. I am aware of the U.S. position and feel that at most we should pay a fee (I think we should even fight this though--we pay a fee to even enter the parks, whether we make a profit or not--and other artists such as writers and painters are not required to pay a fee and obtain a permit before producing a painting or book that sells. Why should individual, freelance photographers have to?). I agree we should send the Minister our suggested changes. I am open to ideas, and plan to look into the U.S. situation more. So far the Minister has not responded to my first letter, but I can send in some ideas as to what we want to see happen anyway!
Steve: I would be curious to know what the Waterton rangers say because we spoke to department heads in Banff, Jasper and Kootenay but not Waterton and their interpretation was that, even though it obviously refers to film crews and sets, it included all 'commercial photography'. Also, after I was pressing for more concrete answers from the people in these parks, I was sent to someone in Ottawa who never provided an answer either. Like I said, I think it is very unclear and hopefully if we move on it we can influence the policy or at least have it clarified.
Sam
Posted by Dan Borzynski on February 13, 2008 at 9:59 PM
The US situation, in many respects, is pretty straightforward. If you are a still photographer working alone, you can go and shoot where you want in any area normally accessible to the public, with any equipment and tripods.
There are a few reasonable exceptions with tripods, like in some historic homes or underground in Mammoth Caves, where tripods and public crowds just won't mix. These aren't anti-photography exceptions - just an acknowledgement of the realities of tripods and crowds.
It is at least consistantly enforced here, the very stray ranger aside.
I received a reply from Waterton and as individual photographers we can escape under the radar. The permit regulations are geared towards large film crews that invade the park and rely on the guidance of NPC staff to assist them in locations, safety, etc. Though they use the word photography they are actually referring to moving film, not still photography. Individuals such as ourselves are practically invisible and the parks staff have no intent in chasing us. Of course we need to abide by the written safety rules (don't harass the wildlife and don't place our self in questionable situations). Once we set up the big lens we are noticable so we need to set a good example for others to follow. All common sense....
Parks stated "It is virtually impossible to separate a professional photographer shooting in the park from a regular visitor taking pics for the family album. The intent is to ensure photography/film
crews do not damage the park."
They went on to say that selling images in the park would require a business license so I will follow up on this. They are likely referring to stock images sold to NPC and not prints sold on consignment through local vendors.
Hope this helps to solve the issue. From my point of view it's business as usual and I would not worry about the wardens chasing us when there are enough other issues in the parks for them to worry about.
Cheers,
Steve
Steve: thanks very much for looking into this in Waterton for us. At least some wardens have a sensible interpretation of the regulation!
But other park departments are not on board. When I spoke to the department head in Banff, she said, while the policy DOES include freelancers, they were obviously more concerned about film projects and didn't enforce the policy against freelancers. In Jasper though, the department head there was ADAMANT that the exact same policy included individual freelancers and he wouldn't comment on whether they enforced the policy or not.
From all the confusion out there, I don't think we can say it is business as usual just yet.
I agree with your interpretation and the person in Waterton that this policy (obviously) should only apply to film and commercial projects, but this is not the interpretation held by other parks. Here is my concern: if we as photographers just sit by and let this muddle continue, there is the possiblity of being asked to move on by a ranger in a park--and I don't think that is fair.
Also, Kananaskis Country in Alberta has similar rules and fees, and there the policy is enforced at times (especially against wildlife photographers).
Can you tell me the name of your friend in Waterton? I would love to speak with them and see if we can get some consensus among the other departments.
Dialogue is a good start.
Posted by Darwin Wiggett on February 19, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Well... let me wade in here. I also have talked with numerous people in the parks and depending on who I talk to I get different stories. Some that head up a park give a response like Waterton - "this does not apply to freelancers". Others say "it does apply but we don't enforce it usually" (e.g. Banff), while others say "it applies AND we enforce it" (e.g. Jasper).
I can get department heads to say 'off the record' what their interpretation is - but I can not get anyone to put it in writing an 'official' letter that I can carry around to show wardens or publish on NPN for all to use. So... that means it is the Park's interpretation against yours, guess who would probably win if push came to shove?
For a reality check of where this might be headed just venture into Kananaskis with a long lens and shoot wildlife by the road. In K-country they have similar regulations as the national parks - technically all photography, still and film, needs a permit. But they specifically target wildlife photographers. Many wildlife shooters have been booted out of the park under the 'do you have a permit' routine. Nobody does and so the wardens chase you out.
When asked why they do this the response was: "We target you photographers with big lenses because your actions encourage people to stop and get out of their cars and place themselves and animals in danger". There are actually public safety laws and animal harassment regulations in the parks that they could use to get the same result but instead if they see someone with 'pro' gear they play the permit card.
It seems as though landscape shooters are not targeted as I have seen many,many wardens while shooting and have never been stopped nor do I know any landscape shooters turfed from the parks. But wildlife photography is another story - lately a few photographers shooting bears, wolves and elk in Jasper have been getting the same treatment as Kananaskis - can you see where this is headed??? That is why we need to effect a change and get a new policy for still photography.
So... put on your big lens and shoot in the parks at your own peril - bear spray does not work well on wardens darwin
Posted by Darwin Wiggett on February 19, 2008 at 5:24 PM
When I inquired in Jasper National Park with the man in charge this was the 'official' response:
To set the record straight:
Photographers who shoot in the parks who have an intent: to sell immediately, to potentially sell in the future or to publish photographs require a permit. Just as we require film companies to get a permit to shoot "stock" footage, professional photographers need a permit to increase their stock of images whether they have a specific project in mind or not.
Non-profit organizations who wish to shoot and publish photos or shoot and broadcast public service messages need a permit (discounts are available to those projects which may bring fees down to $0).
The fee schedule is posted in the Canada Gazette http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2006/20061014/html/suppl4-e.html#i5
Posted by Brad Hill on February 19, 2008 at 7:27 PM
It's my thinking that getting a more clearly worded out of Parks Canada will be very tough. It is likely that they WANT to keep the interpretation in the gray-zone - that way they can choose to enforce it at their discretion. Given that the severity of the "problem" of photographers will vary with the park (e.g., bear traffic jams in Banff being a classic example) and the season, I can see why Parks Canada might want to leave some wiggle room in their policy.
The FIRST question I would ask is: Do photographer's actually cause problems in the parks? I haven't personally seen a study on this question, but it may exist. Anecdotally, though, I can say that I HAVE seen BOTH casual and serious photographers harassing wildlife and also initiating and/or contributing to wildlife traffic jams. To be honest, I would guess that because there are so many more "casual" photographers than serious photographers they cause more of the problems (than the serious shooters). But overall I could probably concede there is a problem to solve.
Next question: Can a permit system solve the real or perceived problem? I actually doubt it. I suppose that if we assume that the bulk of the problem is caused by thoughtless photographers (as opposed to the rest of us thoughtful ones!), then implementing a system where the photographer is forced to act proactively (and ahead of time) to get a permit MIGHT help solve the problem (assuming, of course, there is sufficient enforcement to catch the bad photographers as well). But there's a LOT of assumptions in this model.
Anyway...perhaps fighting the policy per se is not the way to go, especially if the Parks folks can prove or effectively argue they have a problem to solve. Self-policing by the community of photographers is not likely going to work (we'd end up preaching primarily to the converted and not often to those responsible for the problems). So perhaps we should focus on tweaking and/or streamlining the permit process so that:
1. Permits can be easily and quickly accessed (including on-line)
2. Permits are priced reasonably
3. Permits are required of ALL photographers in the park - including the casual "point-and-shooting" tourist
In the best case scenario (in Utopia) this could even IMPROVE shooting in Canada's National Parks. In the more likely scenario it would turn into an administrative and enforcement nightmare for the Parks...
Just my 2 cents worth...
Brad
PS: I have found myself AVOIDING shooting in Canada's National Parks over the past several years, largely because of the way idiots screech to a stop or park in a hazardous way if they even catch a glimpse of me (and my LONG lenses) near a road...
Looking through the forums I see that this issue has come up a few times in the past regarding the US NPS and these discussions are parallel to those. At one time I heard / read that carrying a tripod or a long lens labelled one as a professional photographer. Maybe true enough years ago but these days tripods are more commonly used and longer lenses are more readily available so this "rule" is not so hard and fast anymore. Coming back to the conversation I had with Waterton, they are not looking for the individual photographer as they can not judge by looking at someone if they are photographing for profit or for pleasure. They claim the shooting permit is to be issued to a "film crew" that requires their assistance while in the park. Sorry to Samantha but I don't really want to name the Waterton staff. I'm afraid that, if we start naming Park's staff who provide their personal view on the subject, then NPC will get their backs up and draw a line in the sand.
As Darwin notes above, we need to follow the regulations of the park while in the park.The wardens have the power to decide if we are bending or breaking the rules and we need to be conscious of the fact that we are setting an example for others to follow. If we are the instigator in the creation of the "bear jam" (and the wardens definitely frown on us for that) then we can expect to receive the cold shoulder and the "by the book" reaction.
For myself I float under their radar because I do my best to become invisible. I seldom stop on the roadside to shoot and will pass by just about every bear I see from the truck. Parks do not want people stopping on the highway as this is a serious safety hazard due to the narrow roads, out of control tourists and unpredictable wildlife. The first thing we read when entering the park is to keep our distance to the wildlife. Creeping forward to get the shot only leads to others feeling that they can do the same. Many times I have witnessed stupid and careless acts by tourists and other "photographers" - lets let the wardens worry about them so that we can focus on our interests.
I met a few people tonight and mentioned this issue to them. Two ladies had heard of similar rumblings in the park (Banff) and so it appears that the tide is rising on the permit topic. I would hate to stir up a hornets nest but I will talk again with my Waterton friends. I doubt that they will provide a carte blanche letter for us to use however they may suggest on a path forward. However, government means bureaucracy which means time so I don't expect anything good (or bad) will happen soon.
On another of Darwin's points, I also believe that the landscape shooter is immune to the issue primarily because they're off the beaten track; generally out of view of the public; photographing when most everyone is still asleep; and not carry the "big gun" that so often draws attention. Again, being invisible and not being responsible for a traffic jam. So, as a wildlife shooter we just need to keep the same low profile.
I really believe that the issue boils down to photographers loosing their marbles to get "that bear shot" without thinking of their safety or the welfare of others. If we think smart and be smart then I'm confident that we will be OK. Maybe I'm lucky in my part of the world but I know many of the Waterton staff and they often let my colleagues and I know where the wildlife are hanging out, where the kills are and recent animal events in the park. However, it's taken years to gain their trust and not everyone has this advantage. Again, think smart and be smart, we're travelling down an interesting road....
Posted by Darwin Wiggett on February 20, 2008 at 9:32 AM
I do not shoot roadside wildlife not because of the possibility of an encounter with a warden but because I do not want to add or create a bad situation (bear jam) and stress to the animal. The problem I have is wardens singling out those who have 'pro' looking gear and treating them differently than someone photographing the same bear with a point-n-shoot. The person with the big lens is thrown out of the park but the person with the point-n-shoot is told to drive on - both should be treated equally - e.g. told to move on which wardens have the power to do.
Having the 'discretionary' ability to 'pick on' a select group of park users is unacceptable. Using the "Where's your permit?" card when they have the power to move people on using other park regs is hugely distasteful - essentially they use that permit requirement to prevent the photographer from ever coming back to that park because the permit is too pricey and they will not issue permits for wildlife photographers anyway.
I have a 'van permit' that allows me to take people into the parks to photograph and I get paid as a guide or workshop leader. I can go as often as I want and take as many people as I want. The cost of the permit is only $60 per year per park. But if I want to be 'official' and get a permit as an individual freelance photographer then my costs are $500 per day! This makes no sense.
Numerous photographers have told me of situations when they were shooting bears from a the side of the road (pulled off safely), using a window mount and no other car was in sight. They were told to leave and then were followed by the wardens vehicle to make sure they did not stop to take photos. In June in Kananskis when the bears are out eating dandelions in the ditch, the wardens stop anyone with 'pro' looking gear whether you are shooting a bear or not.Effectively they are banning a complete group of park users on the basis of camera gear.
So... we need clear regulations and clear definitions. If all photographers have to pay a fee to shoot in the park, then so should writeres, and painters etc. You can not discriminate against one group of users to 'solve' a problem. Darwin
Discussion
17 repliesIf you just shoot for pleasure or never sell your images, don't worry about the requirement.
But if you sell your stuff, or hope to, then you are supposed to apply in advance before entering the park to shoot for the permit and pay astronomical fees!
Here's a link to a letter I wrote to the federal Minister of the Environment seeking to change this situation: http://chrysalizz.smugmug.com/gallery/4281210_eKGbV
Check out the regulations through Parks Canada-Jasper's website: http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/ab/jasper/activ/activ13p_E.asp
And something more...provincial parks often require fees and permits and insurance before shooting as well, or at least Alberta does. The reason this is an issue is because the rules are arbitrarily enforced and, I think, unfair. And I don't want to explain to a park ranger why I don't have a permit if I get stopped! Hopefully the more photographers who get involved, the greater our chance of changing these rules.
Samantha Chrysanthou
(A lot of movies are being shot there lately, I believe)
This issue is probably nowhere near the top of the governments priority list so that's why it's extremely important that all of us (or as many of us as possible) contact the Minister of the Environment and demand they change this rule. (I sent my letter to the minister a few weeks ago after I read about this on Darwin Wiggett's website).
Thanks Samantha for posting this here and bringing this to everyone's attention.
I think the wording in the document is incredibly inane and that is why I had to clarify with the officials: "C'mon, you're kidding right? This document refers to film sets and crews and helicopters!!" But they were all serious that we are caught too.
And people I know, especially wildlife photographers, have been told to stop shooting and move on if they didn't have a permit. Which I think is unfair, and it will stay that way unless we say something about it.
The end result was a FEE was charged for commercial filming where Park staff was required.
As far as I know that reading still holds.
It would be worth your time to do a better job searching the LL site, and if you can't find the article, email him and ask for a link. If you keep your messages short, he's quite responsive to email when he's not traveling.
Thank you for the heads up. Although I am not currently making money from my photos, I agree with your position.
If sending a letter, I think it would be beneficial to suggest some specifics for changes to the rules, rather than let the Ministry of the Environment, Parks Canada, etc. determine exactly what a freelance photographer is. I'm not a fountain of ideas, at the moment, but I'll try to think of some things.
Regarding Luminous Landscape, I found the following links that I think only mention US National Parks (sorry if the link isn't direct):
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t10761.html
about 2/3 down this page:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/new/new-2006.shtml
Brad
Brad, thanks for the links. I am aware of the U.S. position and feel that at most we should pay a fee (I think we should even fight this though--we pay a fee to even enter the parks, whether we make a profit or not--and other artists such as writers and painters are not required to pay a fee and obtain a permit before producing a painting or book that sells. Why should individual, freelance photographers have to?). I agree we should send the Minister our suggested changes. I am open to ideas, and plan to look into the U.S. situation more. So far the Minister has not responded to my first letter, but I can send in some ideas as to what we want to see happen anyway!
Steve: I would be curious to know what the Waterton rangers say because we spoke to department heads in Banff, Jasper and Kootenay but not Waterton and their interpretation was that, even though it obviously refers to film crews and sets, it included all 'commercial photography'. Also, after I was pressing for more concrete answers from the people in these parks, I was sent to someone in Ottawa who never provided an answer either. Like I said, I think it is very unclear and hopefully if we move on it we can influence the policy or at least have it clarified.
Sam
There are a few reasonable exceptions with tripods, like in some historic homes or underground in Mammoth Caves, where tripods and public crowds just won't mix. These aren't anti-photography exceptions - just an acknowledgement of the realities of tripods and crowds.
It is at least consistantly enforced here, the very stray ranger aside.
Parks stated "It is virtually impossible to separate a professional photographer shooting in the park from a regular visitor taking pics for the family album. The intent is to ensure photography/film
crews do not damage the park."
They went on to say that selling images in the park would require a business license so I will follow up on this. They are likely referring to stock images sold to NPC and not prints sold on consignment through local vendors.
Hope this helps to solve the issue. From my point of view it's business as usual and I would not worry about the wardens chasing us when there are enough other issues in the parks for them to worry about.
Cheers,
Steve
But other park departments are not on board. When I spoke to the department head in Banff, she said, while the policy DOES include freelancers, they were obviously more concerned about film projects and didn't enforce the policy against freelancers. In Jasper though, the department head there was ADAMANT that the exact same policy included individual freelancers and he wouldn't comment on whether they enforced the policy or not.
From all the confusion out there, I don't think we can say it is business as usual just yet.
I agree with your interpretation and the person in Waterton that this policy (obviously) should only apply to film and commercial projects, but this is not the interpretation held by other parks. Here is my concern: if we as photographers just sit by and let this muddle continue, there is the possiblity of being asked to move on by a ranger in a park--and I don't think that is fair.
Also, Kananaskis Country in Alberta has similar rules and fees, and there the policy is enforced at times (especially against wildlife photographers).
Can you tell me the name of your friend in Waterton? I would love to speak with them and see if we can get some consensus among the other departments.
Dialogue is a good start.
I can get department heads to say 'off the record' what their interpretation is - but I can not get anyone to put it in writing an 'official' letter that I can carry around to show wardens or publish on NPN for all to use. So... that means it is the Park's interpretation against yours, guess who would probably win if push came to shove?
For a reality check of where this might be headed just venture into Kananaskis with a long lens and shoot wildlife by the road. In K-country they have similar regulations as the national parks - technically all photography, still and film, needs a permit. But they specifically target wildlife photographers. Many wildlife shooters have been booted out of the park under the 'do you have a permit' routine. Nobody does and so the wardens chase you out.
When asked why they do this the response was: "We target you photographers with big lenses because your actions encourage people to stop and get out of their cars and place themselves and animals in danger". There are actually public safety laws and animal harassment regulations in the parks that they could use to get the same result but instead if they see someone with 'pro' gear they play the permit card.
It seems as though landscape shooters are not targeted as I have seen many,many wardens while shooting and have never been stopped nor do I know any landscape shooters turfed from the parks. But wildlife photography is another story - lately a few photographers shooting bears, wolves and elk in Jasper have been getting the same treatment as Kananaskis - can you see where this is headed??? That is why we need to effect a change and get a new policy for still photography.
So... put on your big lens and shoot in the parks at your own peril - bear spray does not work well on wardens
To set the record straight:
Photographers who shoot in the parks who have an intent: to sell immediately, to potentially sell in the future or to publish photographs require a permit. Just as we require film companies to get a permit to shoot "stock" footage, professional photographers need a permit to increase their stock of images whether they have a specific project in mind or not.
Non-profit organizations who wish to shoot and publish photos or shoot and broadcast public service messages need a permit (discounts are available to those projects which may bring fees down to $0).
The fee schedule is posted in the Canada Gazette http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2006/20061014/html/suppl4-e.html#i5
The FIRST question I would ask is: Do photographer's actually cause problems in the parks? I haven't personally seen a study on this question, but it may exist. Anecdotally, though, I can say that I HAVE seen BOTH casual and serious photographers harassing wildlife and also initiating and/or contributing to wildlife traffic jams. To be honest, I would guess that because there are so many more "casual" photographers than serious photographers they cause more of the problems (than the serious shooters). But overall I could probably concede there is a problem to solve.
Next question: Can a permit system solve the real or perceived problem? I actually doubt it. I suppose that if we assume that the bulk of the problem is caused by thoughtless photographers (as opposed to the rest of us thoughtful ones!), then implementing a system where the photographer is forced to act proactively (and ahead of time) to get a permit MIGHT help solve the problem (assuming, of course, there is sufficient enforcement to catch the bad photographers as well). But there's a LOT of assumptions in this model.
Anyway...perhaps fighting the policy per se is not the way to go, especially if the Parks folks can prove or effectively argue they have a problem to solve. Self-policing by the community of photographers is not likely going to work (we'd end up preaching primarily to the converted and not often to those responsible for the problems). So perhaps we should focus on tweaking and/or streamlining the permit process so that:
1. Permits can be easily and quickly accessed (including on-line)
2. Permits are priced reasonably
3. Permits are required of ALL photographers in the park - including the casual "point-and-shooting" tourist
In the best case scenario (in Utopia) this could even IMPROVE shooting in Canada's National Parks. In the more likely scenario it would turn into an administrative and enforcement nightmare for the Parks...
Just my 2 cents worth...
Brad
PS: I have found myself AVOIDING shooting in Canada's National Parks over the past several years, largely because of the way idiots screech to a stop or park in a hazardous way if they even catch a glimpse of me (and my LONG lenses) near a road...
As Darwin notes above, we need to follow the regulations of the park while in the park.The wardens have the power to decide if we are bending or breaking the rules and we need to be conscious of the fact that we are setting an example for others to follow. If we are the instigator in the creation of the "bear jam" (and the wardens definitely frown on us for that) then we can expect to receive the cold shoulder and the "by the book" reaction.
For myself I float under their radar because I do my best to become invisible. I seldom stop on the roadside to shoot and will pass by just about every bear I see from the truck. Parks do not want people stopping on the highway as this is a serious safety hazard due to the narrow roads, out of control tourists and unpredictable wildlife. The first thing we read when entering the park is to keep our distance to the wildlife. Creeping forward to get the shot only leads to others feeling that they can do the same. Many times I have witnessed stupid and careless acts by tourists and other "photographers" - lets let the wardens worry about them so that we can focus on our interests.
I met a few people tonight and mentioned this issue to them. Two ladies had heard of similar rumblings in the park (Banff) and so it appears that the tide is rising on the permit topic. I would hate to stir up a hornets nest but I will talk again with my Waterton friends. I doubt that they will provide a carte blanche letter for us to use however they may suggest on a path forward. However, government means bureaucracy which means time so I don't expect anything good (or bad) will happen soon.
On another of Darwin's points, I also believe that the landscape shooter is immune to the issue primarily because they're off the beaten track; generally out of view of the public; photographing when most everyone is still asleep; and not carry the "big gun" that so often draws attention. Again, being invisible and not being responsible for a traffic jam. So, as a wildlife shooter we just need to keep the same low profile.
I really believe that the issue boils down to photographers loosing their marbles to get "that bear shot" without thinking of their safety or the welfare of others. If we think smart and be smart then I'm confident that we will be OK. Maybe I'm lucky in my part of the world but I know many of the Waterton staff and they often let my colleagues and I know where the wildlife are hanging out, where the kills are and recent animal events in the park. However, it's taken years to gain their trust and not everyone has this advantage. Again, think smart and be smart, we're travelling down an interesting road....
Having the 'discretionary' ability to 'pick on' a select group of park users is unacceptable. Using the "Where's your permit?" card when they have the power to move people on using other park regs is hugely distasteful - essentially they use that permit requirement to prevent the photographer from ever coming back to that park because the permit is too pricey and they will not issue permits for wildlife photographers anyway.
I have a 'van permit' that allows me to take people into the parks to photograph and I get paid as a guide or workshop leader. I can go as often as I want and take as many people as I want. The cost of the permit is only $60 per year per park. But if I want to be 'official' and get a permit as an individual freelance photographer then my costs are $500 per day! This makes no sense.
Numerous photographers have told me of situations when they were shooting bears from a the side of the road (pulled off safely), using a window mount and no other car was in sight. They were told to leave and then were followed by the wardens vehicle to make sure they did not stop to take photos. In June in Kananskis when the bears are out eating dandelions in the ditch, the wardens stop anyone with 'pro' looking gear whether you are shooting a bear or not.Effectively they are banning a complete group of park users on the basis of camera gear.
So... we need clear regulations and clear definitions. If all photographers have to pay a fee to shoot in the park, then so should writeres, and painters etc. You can not discriminate against one group of users to 'solve' a problem. Darwin