Posted by Marc Adamus on November 9, 2009 at 10:17 PM
I got my tour business started a few years ago, and one valuble thing I learned is the importance of insurance and permits that cover me, my group and the places we visit.
Although I don't usually agree with the requirements that are put in place by entities such as the National Park Service, Forest service, etc. for leading photo tours, I have to obey them. So does everyone. I am quite frankly disappointed that so many photogs out there these days (many new to the tour/workshop business) choose to disregard these requirements.
For example, you cannot just decide you're going to lead a tour in Zion, Rainier, Glacier, etc. You have to fill out an application for a speacial use permit (often 4-8 months in advance) that demonstrates you have the proper insurance (that covers the park service as well as your group), training, etc. This is often called outfitters insurance, and is available at reasonable rates for those doing a few or more tours every year.
There are now rangers and other officials looking specifically for groups of photographers out there and asking for permits, and even searching the web for tour advertisements to see if permits have been acquired in advance! I've dealt with them myself. There is a crackdown happening because there are LOTS of photographers not playing by the same rules every commercial enterprise is required to.
Do us all a favor, and make sure that if you're going to lead a workshop/tour somewhere other than say, BLM land, you have the proper permits to do so.
Posted by Darwin Wiggett on November 9, 2009 at 11:00 PM
I agree 100%. A photo tour leader needs permits, liability insurance, and commercial auto insurance. Leading a tour without these things is foolish. Also many photographers lead tours to foriegn countries without work visas... bad idea.
Also if you are hired by a tour company to be the photo leader make sure the company covers your permits, insurance etc.
And as a participant signing up for a workshop always ask the leader of they have all the appropriate insurance and permits.
Darwin
Posted by Steve Sieren on November 9, 2009 at 11:04 PM
I remember telling you this about the forest service a while back when I first joined NPN but you ignored me Marc.
You can't even bring more than 10K dollars worth of equipment across the border with out having fill out tons of paperwork in the airport let alone if you're a working professional or just a hobbiest photographer.
Posted by Ron Niebrugge on November 9, 2009 at 11:12 PM
I agree Marc. I'm going to promote the fact I have the necessary insurance and Commercial Use Authorization (CUA) as a selling point. Clients really should be asking tour leaders for a copy of the permit, I would expect it. How would you like to be on the trip of a lifetime and have a Park Ranger shut the tour down because the tour leader didn't get a CUA.
There is also a common misunderstanding - even if the tour leader is using a lodge or outfitter with a CUA, the tour leader still needs one of their own, at least in the United States. With the Park Service cracking down, I think we are going to see some disappointed clients who didn't do their due diligence when picking a tour leader.
Posted by Marc Adamus on November 9, 2009 at 11:32 PM
Steve, I don't recall what you're talking about (if you're talking to me at all). But again, the reason I'm posting this is to make sure we're all on the same page here regarding permits. I've learned a lot about this over the years, and I want to make sure others who are interested in leading tours are aware of the facts.
I agree with the premise of this discussion whole heartedly. I have considered doing tours, and perhaps workshops in the future, so this info is timely.
As I see it, if one attempts to 'fly under the radar' they might not see the mountain that looms up suddenly in front of them.
It only makes sense to have sufficient insurance, hold halmless agreements and all required permits in hand when taking folks who are under your care out into the 'wild'. We owe our clients that assurance. Not only will they feel protected, you will have garnered their respect as a professional.
-P
Posted by Carl Donohue on November 10, 2009 at 4:42 AM
Hey Marc
I'm glad you posted this; it's an issue that's been bugging me for a while. I know of several photographers who run tours without the appropriate permits; some I see in the same places every year. Some I know just tell the people in their trips to not disclose the fact that it's a paid operation, and tell any rangers “we're just friends”, etc ... And Ron is correct, in my understanding - even if a photographer, say, is staying with a camp outfitter, or lodge, the photographer is still required, in a National Park, to have a CUA. Many that come up to Alaska every year do not.
By the way, I hope I don't imply here that any of the workshops I see advertised on this site are run this way; I'm not, as I don't know. But I know very well that some workshops and tours I see advertised elsewhere sure are.
As Marc says above, folks, please do get the appropriate permits and insurance, etc. It's good form.
Another reason to do so is that playing within the rules allows you to have some input into the rules; in Wrangell - St. Elias National Park, for example, the NPS is currently considering some restrictions of commercial groups in a certain area of the park. They've welcome input and comments from those people who would be affected by those rules. By having my permits and so forth, I (along with others, of course) was invited to hear preliminary plans, proposals and considerations, as well as asked for my input. It appears very likely at the moment that the rules that will be engaged will reflect much of that input. If we care about these places we go to photograph, and share that experience with others along the way, it's in our own interest to help shape the regulations and ways these places are run.
It's good form all round.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by John Reed on November 10, 2009 at 7:05 AM
Great information all but it is causing some confusion to someone who is also getting very serious about beginning this sort of effort next year, so, yeah, very timely!
I thought I read/was told that, for National Parks at least, you did not require a permit as long as what you were doing did not require any special set-up such as one would have with a commercial model shoot (lights, props, assistants, etc etc), or as long as you did not require any assistance such that Park staff would be required, or as long as you did not disrupt the normal operations of the Park for other guests. I may not have the wording right but I think this is the gist. Is this incorrect?
As regards insurance, I have aquired business liability insurance. How can I know if that's the same as "outfitters insurance" and/or if it is adequate?
What exactly is a CUA? Is that just another way of saying "permit"?
Finally, if one gets everything one needs for National Parks, is that going to be good enough for other federally managed areas (Fish & Wildlife Service, Forest Service, etc)?
I lied, finally, I would also assume then based on the tone of this topic that state parks and other state managed areas probably have similar restrictions? Anybody have any input on that? How far does it go...county? city?
Sorry for so many questions but I am a person who DOES like to follow rules. I respect our photo community and would never want to be one of the selfish, careless ones that screw it up for everybody else so please help.
John, a CUA is a Commercial Use Authorization. All NPS-managed lands (parks, monuments, recreation areas, etc.) require it if you are engaging in any sort of for-profit operation. The costs are usually reasonable but vary by park. You are required to show proof of liability insurance, describe your activities etc. In some areas you also need to be certified for First Aid and CPR (a good thing to be, regardless of anything else).
Like it or not, we live in a litigious society. If you operate without a permit, you are putting yourself, your group, and the agency at risk. Not obtaining one or even knowing you need one can be used to show negligence on your part which will also void any kind of liability waiver.
I mentioned this in a previous blog post. I would urge anyone considering a photo workshop to ask their instructors about permits and insurance.
Beyond the legal risks, when workshop guides are caught without these permits, they give all of us a bad reputation and I have heard grumbling from rangers about reckless photographers before.
Guy
Posted by Kent Staubus on November 10, 2009 at 9:25 AM
I avoid tours because I like to go at my own pace. I also generally like to photo at night now using an extensive portable lighting system. (I now have about 9,000ws of power. ) I'm not aware of any photo tour guys that know anything about how to do that. I do sometimes have people come from out of state and pay me several hundred dollars to help them find & photo birds/animals, but mostly I do this either on state land or private land. National Parks are too crowded. I have them do the driving in their vehicle.
Kent in SD
Posted by Steve Sieren on November 10, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Since you are writing to inform you might want to mention that all or any subcontracted Co-leads, guides or assistants need to be written into the policy.
It was a popular topic a couple of years ago, but with or without a tour on your coattail, it behooves you also to have a copy of the agency's regs regarding photography, and frankly to carry them with you. Not all agency employees are as well informed about regs as they think they are. As noted, attitude and enforcement varies from agency to agency, and even from park to park.
And yeah, enforcement is up. We stopped to talk to a couple of other photographers at one location and were approached by a ranger to see if we were part of a workshop---- simply because he saw a group of photographers standing together and talking about shooting a particular scene. Lots of the workshops they see are small, and 3 or 4 photographers standing in a group is all the excuse they need to check for illegal workshops.
I have to laugh, because it's pretty easy to spot the illegal workshop groups. The participants are awfully proud to be part of a workshop and anxious to talk to you about it, even as the group leader hovers in the background hopping from foot to foot, almost literally. Often the leader will move out of sight or out of earshot once the discussion turns to workshops. It would be interesting to hear the "orientation talk" these illegal leaders have to give their clients about talking to other people.
Though we choose not to run workshops, we're still affected because of our pro status. We've been approached by agency staff simply because we have "pro" gear and they want to know if we have a permit to shoot there. That can get dicey without a copy of the regs, because some employees are absolutely convinced that if you're a pro photographer, you need the permits. Wrong, but that's another topic. We do buy the permits for our local parks where we do model shoots, as required, but have never done those shoots in a national park. And yeah, we pack a boat load of liability insurance even though we're not doing workshops. In the law, if we're shooting professionally and cause someone or something harm due to our activities, we and our business are liable for the damages. And by extension in the "deep pockets" tradition, the land owner or manager is also responsible and can be sued. It's really easy to understand why the parks want proof of your insurance and control of your activities.
Do us all a favor, and make sure that if you're going to lead a workshop/tour somewhere other than say, BLM land, you have the proper permits to do so
Marc: there are no exemptions for BLM land, although Alabama Hills is exempted. You can bet your booty that if you're operating on government-managed public lands, the government wants a piece of your pie.
Posted by Kurt Budliger on November 10, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Great topic and one that is very timely as more and more nature photographers start workshop components to expand their businesses. Even with a permit in hand my guess is some of the these workshop companies may still be in violation of the regs. Most of the time the permits are written for a specific group size. This is done for many reasons, not the least of which is to control group sizes and potential impact on the resource and other visitors. I bumped into several very large (upwards of 20 participants) workshop groups in Acadia National Park last month. These were workshops sponsored by some of the more salient companies with some of the "most respected" photographers in the business. In one case, after speaking with one of the participants about how he was enjoying his experience I learned the workshop was advertised with a max number of participants at 12, but overbooked to include 19. Given the advanced planning needed to acquire a permit (if they even had one) I would guess they were over their permitted group size by 60% Not only was the participant I spoke with upset about the group size but it had a huge impact on me as a solo shooter, to say nothing of the potential resource impacts of traipsing 20 photographers around in 6 cars.
Posted by Marc Adamus on November 10, 2009 at 11:57 AM
>"Marc: there are no exemptions for BLM land, although Alabama Hills is exempted."
I didn't know that. Also, I'd think the Alabama Hills would be the absolute last place on earth they would exempt.
I figured I'd learn at least something from this thread. Not that I do a lot of tours on BLM land anyway.
I have noticed, however, that if you pretend to be a mining or cattle company, you can get away with anything you want on BLM land.
>>"I thought I read/was told that, for National Parks at least, you did not require a permit as long as what you were doing did not require any special set-up such as one would have with a commercial model shoot (lights, props, assistants, etc etc), or as long as you did not require any assistance such that Park staff would be required, or as long as you did not disrupt the normal operations of the Park for other guests"
Exactly why I posted this. I'd heard that (or very similar) from way more than one photographer out there. I wanted to collectively clear up any misinterpretations on the various requirements.
>>"I thought I read/was told that, for National Parks at least, you did not require a permit as long as what you were doing did not require any special set-up such as one would have with a commercial model shoot (lights, props, assistants, etc etc), or as long as you did not require any assistance such that Park staff would be required, or as long as you did not disrupt the normal operations of the Park for other guests"
Maybe I can clear up that point a bit. It's a reference (and accurate) to the activities of pro photographers in general and not workshops or tours.
Our attorney has convinced us that liability insurance is a good idea for anyone shooting pro, whether doing workshops or not. In court a very large deal can be made of your pro status if you injure people or property while you're shooting. We're packing $2,000,000 per person per incident, and though it's not perfect protection, it will certainly help protect us in case of a mishap.
Posted by Carl Battreall on November 11, 2009 at 12:11 PM
In Alaska, BLM stands for the Bureau of Land Mismanagement. Photographers and the NPS have been at each others throats since the late seventies and early eighties, when Galen and the Yosemite park rangers had their battles. The rangers at most of the popular parks go out of their way to question photographers that look professional, so imagine a group of them, that must make their day to harass a whole group of photographers
A professional wildlife photographer friend of mine was threatened by a ranger, almost put in handcuffs and dragged away, because he was too close to a bear at Katmai, he was standing with a group of tourist and because he had the big glass and looked pro, they singled him out.
The irony is that without the power of photography, many, if not most National Parks, would not exist.
Discussion
20 repliesAlthough I don't usually agree with the requirements that are put in place by entities such as the National Park Service, Forest service, etc. for leading photo tours, I have to obey them. So does everyone. I am quite frankly disappointed that so many photogs out there these days (many new to the tour/workshop business) choose to disregard these requirements.
For example, you cannot just decide you're going to lead a tour in Zion, Rainier, Glacier, etc. You have to fill out an application for a speacial use permit (often 4-8 months in advance) that demonstrates you have the proper insurance (that covers the park service as well as your group), training, etc. This is often called outfitters insurance, and is available at reasonable rates for those doing a few or more tours every year.
There are now rangers and other officials looking specifically for groups of photographers out there and asking for permits, and even searching the web for tour advertisements to see if permits have been acquired in advance! I've dealt with them myself. There is a crackdown happening because there are LOTS of photographers not playing by the same rules every commercial enterprise is required to.
Do us all a favor, and make sure that if you're going to lead a workshop/tour somewhere other than say, BLM land, you have the proper permits to do so.
Also if you are hired by a tour company to be the photo leader make sure the company covers your permits, insurance etc.
And as a participant signing up for a workshop always ask the leader of they have all the appropriate insurance and permits.
Darwin
You can't even bring more than 10K dollars worth of equipment across the border with out having fill out tons of paperwork in the airport let alone if you're a working professional or just a hobbiest photographer.
There is also a common misunderstanding - even if the tour leader is using a lodge or outfitter with a CUA, the tour leader still needs one of their own, at least in the United States. With the Park Service cracking down, I think we are going to see some disappointed clients who didn't do their due diligence when picking a tour leader.
As I see it, if one attempts to 'fly under the radar' they might not see the mountain that looms up suddenly in front of them.
It only makes sense to have sufficient insurance, hold halmless agreements and all required permits in hand when taking folks who are under your care out into the 'wild'. We owe our clients that assurance. Not only will they feel protected, you will have garnered their respect as a professional.
-P
I'm glad you posted this; it's an issue that's been bugging me for a while. I know of several photographers who run tours without the appropriate permits; some I see in the same places every year. Some I know just tell the people in their trips to not disclose the fact that it's a paid operation, and tell any rangers “we're just friends”, etc ... And Ron is correct, in my understanding - even if a photographer, say, is staying with a camp outfitter, or lodge, the photographer is still required, in a National Park, to have a CUA. Many that come up to Alaska every year do not.
By the way, I hope I don't imply here that any of the workshops I see advertised on this site are run this way; I'm not, as I don't know. But I know very well that some workshops and tours I see advertised elsewhere sure are.
As Marc says above, folks, please do get the appropriate permits and insurance, etc. It's good form.
Another reason to do so is that playing within the rules allows you to have some input into the rules; in Wrangell - St. Elias National Park, for example, the NPS is currently considering some restrictions of commercial groups in a certain area of the park. They've welcome input and comments from those people who would be affected by those rules. By having my permits and so forth, I (along with others, of course) was invited to hear preliminary plans, proposals and considerations, as well as asked for my input. It appears very likely at the moment that the rules that will be engaged will reflect much of that input. If we care about these places we go to photograph, and share that experience with others along the way, it's in our own interest to help shape the regulations and ways these places are run.
It's good form all round.
Cheers
Carl
I thought I read/was told that, for National Parks at least, you did not require a permit as long as what you were doing did not require any special set-up such as one would have with a commercial model shoot (lights, props, assistants, etc etc), or as long as you did not require any assistance such that Park staff would be required, or as long as you did not disrupt the normal operations of the Park for other guests. I may not have the wording right but I think this is the gist. Is this incorrect?
As regards insurance, I have aquired business liability insurance. How can I know if that's the same as "outfitters insurance" and/or if it is adequate?
What exactly is a CUA? Is that just another way of saying "permit"?
Finally, if one gets everything one needs for National Parks, is that going to be good enough for other federally managed areas (Fish & Wildlife Service, Forest Service, etc)?
I lied, finally, I would also assume then based on the tone of this topic that state parks and other state managed areas probably have similar restrictions? Anybody have any input on that? How far does it go...county? city?
Sorry for so many questions but I am a person who DOES like to follow rules. I respect our photo community and would never want to be one of the selfish, careless ones that screw it up for everybody else so please help.
Thanks very much,
John
Like it or not, we live in a litigious society. If you operate without a permit, you are putting yourself, your group, and the agency at risk. Not obtaining one or even knowing you need one can be used to show negligence on your part which will also void any kind of liability waiver.
I mentioned this in a previous blog post. I would urge anyone considering a photo workshop to ask their instructors about permits and insurance.
Beyond the legal risks, when workshop guides are caught without these permits, they give all of us a bad reputation and I have heard grumbling from rangers about reckless photographers before.
Guy
Kent in SD
And yeah, enforcement is up. We stopped to talk to a couple of other photographers at one location and were approached by a ranger to see if we were part of a workshop---- simply because he saw a group of photographers standing together and talking about shooting a particular scene. Lots of the workshops they see are small, and 3 or 4 photographers standing in a group is all the excuse they need to check for illegal workshops.
I have to laugh, because it's pretty easy to spot the illegal workshop groups. The participants are awfully proud to be part of a workshop and anxious to talk to you about it, even as the group leader hovers in the background hopping from foot to foot, almost literally. Often the leader will move out of sight or out of earshot once the discussion turns to workshops. It would be interesting to hear the "orientation talk" these illegal leaders have to give their clients about talking to other people.
Though we choose not to run workshops, we're still affected because of our pro status. We've been approached by agency staff simply because we have "pro" gear and they want to know if we have a permit to shoot there. That can get dicey without a copy of the regs, because some employees are absolutely convinced that if you're a pro photographer, you need the permits. Wrong, but that's another topic. We do buy the permits for our local parks where we do model shoots, as required, but have never done those shoots in a national park. And yeah, we pack a boat load of liability insurance even though we're not doing workshops. In the law, if we're shooting professionally and cause someone or something harm due to our activities, we and our business are liable for the damages. And by extension in the "deep pockets" tradition, the land owner or manager is also responsible and can be sued. It's really easy to understand why the parks want proof of your insurance and control of your activities.
Marc: there are no exemptions for BLM land, although Alabama Hills is exempted. You can bet your booty that if you're operating on government-managed public lands, the government wants a piece of your pie.
I didn't know that. Also, I'd think the Alabama Hills would be the absolute last place on earth they would exempt.
I figured I'd learn at least something from this thread. Not that I do a lot of tours on BLM land anyway.
I have noticed, however, that if you pretend to be a mining or cattle company, you can get away with anything you want on BLM land.
>>"I thought I read/was told that, for National Parks at least, you did not require a permit as long as what you were doing did not require any special set-up such as one would have with a commercial model shoot (lights, props, assistants, etc etc), or as long as you did not require any assistance such that Park staff would be required, or as long as you did not disrupt the normal operations of the Park for other guests"
Exactly why I posted this. I'd heard that (or very similar) from way more than one photographer out there. I wanted to collectively clear up any misinterpretations on the various requirements.
Maybe I can clear up that point a bit. It's a reference (and accurate) to the activities of pro photographers in general and not workshops or tours.
Perhaps no one has told you that "BLM" = Bureau of Livestock & Mining
A professional wildlife photographer friend of mine was threatened by a ranger, almost put in handcuffs and dragged away, because he was too close to a bear at Katmai, he was standing with a group of tourist and because he had the big glass and looked pro, they singled him out.
The irony is that without the power of photography, many, if not most National Parks, would not exist.