Posted by Steve Sieren on March 31, 2010 at 2:36 AM
She says it's down until decides otherwise. Seems pretty understandable, private property destroyed, trampling flowers, suprising no mention of trash left behind. Some people actually feel the need to rip flowers out of the ground to fill their photo gaps instead of just zooming in. There is a fine for that, for each one too. Too bad we have bad people out there. There are other sites out there.
I'm sure you can understand now why sometimes keeping a tight lip on things is understandable. Sometimes things are just too fragile for the pleasure of the public. Anything we say openly can travel like wild fire.
There was a discussion on the calphoto list serve.
Some people actually feel the need to rip flowers out of the ground to fill their photo gaps instead of just zooming in.
I've heard rumors of people ripping out flowers so others couldn't get the same shot too.. there's some, umm, questionable practices out there!
Posted by Richard Wong on March 31, 2010 at 2:52 AM
There was a report from the private property owner of Cottonwood Road saying that it was all off-limits but was overtaken by photographers anyway. He didn't want to sue anyone but said it was out of hand and wanted it to stop. That report was posted on the site a day or two ago so I would assume it is for that reason.
With more and more photographers and less and less legal access to areas unfortunately I can only see this issue getting worse. As for ripping flowers out of the ground that's just boorish and stupid. As far as climbing over barbed wire personally don't do it, and it's not just us. Witnessed an older gentlemen climbing over barbed wire with a point and shoot. If your diligent and you search out places where you can get shots and deal with the access issues properly I think we'll survive. Sorry to hear about the site closing, but since I never visited it I really can't fathom why it would be closed. There's a hint in Richard's post who was the landowner going to sue the site operator?
Paul
PS
Just returned from the closed site. It appears Carol is attributing the closure to her "conscience" as a result of the wanton habits of some of the wildflower afficianados out there. Quote.
"Right now I cannot in good conscience continue to distribute "where-to-go" wildflower information. Private property is being destroyed. Flowers are being trampled. Rude and inconsiderate behavior abounds."
She has surrendered, it seems to me that an open site that preaches correct conduct and posts where bad behavior is occuring would be more helpful than harmful, but I don't know all the particulars and as Steve said there are other sites. Such as the Theodore Payne foundations Wildflower report updated every Friday in the spring.
Posted by Derek Sedillo on March 31, 2010 at 12:05 PM
Unfortunately in California this is nothing new. Some of the most beautiful lands are on private ranch land like the Tejon Ranch.
Before Carol's site went down I was at Arvin over the weekend and saw a number of ppl on the other side of the fence. There was another poster on Carol's site who responded to the upset Cottonwood Canyon ranch employee. He suggested opening up a small part of Cottonwood Canyon allowing others to photograph it after signing a release of liability waiver. The employee said the ranch owner's biggest concern was liability. When I was there over the weekend the Sherrif Deputy was asking ppl to remain just off the side of the pavement. But obviously he was there becuase some called him.
I saw that the Tejon Ranch did allow a limited number of ppl to visit the ranch this year. Hopefully more cooperation for public access will continue.
The internet is truly a double edge sword with regards to our natural environment. We share information which is extremely usefull especially in such a large state as ours where one could travel thousands of miles and not find the better blooms. However as was the case with Arvin last year and Cottonwood Canyon this year the word really gets out to a much larger audience. So where a few photographers might have been a minor annoyance, now you get hordes of ppl swarming an area.
This is why I can understand why some photographers are reluctant to share the particulars of their findings. Many spots which are peaking could be easily trampled upon. So in certain cases I would prefer someone shoot me an email and ask for more details rather than broadcasting specifics. I think of this site to have a limited audience compared to Carol's wildflower hotsheet. But even so I am sure there are a lot more lurkers here than participants. So how much information is too much? I think it depends on the location.
And of course there will always be other wildflower reporting sites which spring up.
The part that I never understood about this yearly "wildflower" rampage issue, is why is it so hard for people to understand the meaning of private property? If the land owners don't want the public to enter their properties, shouldn't their rights be respected?
These wildflower photo seekers remind me of the paparazzi.
Posted by David Senesac on March 31, 2010 at 1:32 PM
I've been using her site since the early days. It was a good decision as I know she cares deeply about our wildflower areas. For the last few years I've regularly posted information about reasonably publicly known locations while keeping tight lipped or vague about lesser and unknown spots. Hence my recent post on this board about the "obscure" area between Carrizo and Pacheco. There were years when locations like Shell Creek were very empty on spring weekends with just a car or two mostly from San Luis Obispo CNPS folks. And I recently posted on this board about not trespassing onto Tejon Ranch property at Arvin because this has yearly been getting more and more out of hand while some photographes and visitors have an attitude for dismissing posted areas.
There is alot worth discussing and boards like this are where such ought to occur because we as a group can have a considerable impact that will effect behaviors of other less knowledgeable people in the general public. One of the first is about trespassing itself. I know from experience most people in the public including advanced outdoor photographers have bothered little to find out the facts such as what California penal code 602.8 states and how that effects what one sees when looking at private lands. I have alot to say about this but it ought to be in its own thread.
Carol Leigh also has a Yahoo Groups Calphoto group that I have been a part of for years. Many posts on the general Calphoto site are actually posts from that site. Since it is a bit more private, there is currently discussion ongoing about her decision. One of the things several have mentioned is the issue of trampling wildflowers with most posting what I consider rather simplistic and unrealistic statements. Accordingly I posted the following that addresses that primarily:
----------------------------
Won't address Carol's decision but rather some issues to consider from comments
that have been posted.
The problem with these kind of issues is many people think in small ways with
the result being simplistic and too black and white. An example are those who
simply state "not to trample" or "those who trample" etc etc. Unless a person
stays in their car looking out the window, or only walks on trails never
wandering off, or only stays in limited areas of mineral soil, they ARE going to
trample. I've trampled trampled trampled thousands and thousands of plants over
decades and will continue to do so without guilt. In some places like say at
Point Lobos State Reserve, I never wander off official trails in areas where
such in prohibited.
In other well known public areas like Henderson Canyon at Anza Borrego State
Park, there are no fences or official trails. Just a paved road thousands of
flower seekers use and open fields. I go right into those fields but it is not
an area I trample wildflowers because the flowers do not grow so densely that
one cannot dance through the landscape on relativelty bare soils or grasses.
Simply second nature to me and I can really dance. Well that is a slight fib.
I step on every Sahara mustard plant on my way and have for many years. I do
notice those roadside areas quickly develop paths right on the vegetation and
trampling where I might not have walked. But doesn't bother me much because as
soon as one gets away from near road areas, signs of trampling disappear.
What about places like the Tejon Ranch fences at Arvin? Don't even bother
because I don't like being behind a fence and will not trespass onto posted
private property. Have been quite aware of the California penal codes for
trespass laws for many years. Sometimes I have contacted property owners and in
fact have researched who some are and then made such requests.
What about wonder of nature places like in Antelope Valley where glorious
carpets of annuals bloom so densely one venturing off roads and paths
necessarily will trample trample trample? Places with annuals that budded up
two weeks ago, began blooming a week ago, and will have gone to seed in another
two, and be dry and brown in a couple months, I will trample happily crushing
several plants with each step for long distances. Like I did last Sunday March
29, 2010 in the Temblor Hills of Carrizo Plain National Monument:
A LF photographer friend and I that first visited the area in 2006 are probably
the only humans that have ever witnessed that remote difficult to access
badlands canyon in such a bloom. Did we do something unethical? Not so black
in white after all?
Likewise in April 2003 we trampled thousands of wildlflowers in the Gorman Hills
that are in sight of millions of drivers on Interstate 5 and captured images
like this:
That day we first went in at daylight Gorman there were virtually no tracks at
all as it had been solid storming for about 3 weeks and that Saturday was the
first sunny day. By the end of the day there was a mob scene of cars parked
along Gorman Post Road and there were thigh deep trails through much of that
area. Two months later it was all brown drab and boring. In 2005 it bloomed
again though not as epicly and every place I stepped in 2003 probably had
several wildflowers growing up in those footsteps.
What about an alpine environment of summer belly wildflowers. Ahh one crushes
these wonders of nature that are not annuals but rather perrenials and one is
likely to see bare soil during your next visit three years later. So it isn't
so simple and there are few hard rules. Knowledge about what is doing goes a
long ways. I have alot more to add but will let the above lie for now.
------------------------------
Posted by Gary Crabbe on March 31, 2010 at 4:05 PM
These wildflower photo seekers remind me of the paparazzi.
I'm kind of with Anil on this; even though I'm not a huge wildflower photographer or chaser, I stopped paying much attention to the area 'alerts' as it seemed to propegate some literal 'stampedes'. I feel bad enough being out in a field on my own, but to see a crowded field being overrun smacks of the exact opposite of what they seek to portray. It's a contradiction that the quest for beauty results in such ugliness. Personally, I'd rather be on a remote backroad, finding my own way. (Submitted respectfully)
Personally, I'd rather be on a remote backroad, finding my own way.
I totally agree, Gary.
Although, admittedly one could be photographing within inches of another person and the images would not look the same in many cases with wildflowers, but the need for breathing room is essential IMO.
Let's really face the facts though, this issue will only get worse over time. The autumn tree peeping is only a small example. This does not entirely mean only photographers. Rock Creek Canyon waterway was really pristine a good 10 to 15 years ago now. With all the trampling along the creek by all types, it's just not the same anymore. Plenty of abandoned fishing line and trash to go around out there now.
Anil is also right about the respect for property owners, or lack there of, but again, it also leads into public lands as well. I could site many National Park's under siege with careless types, including photogs too. Needless to say Park Rangers spend more time defending the property these days then they do at campfire talks. When was the first time you recall seeing a ranger carrying a 9mm? For those who go back that far in time. They typically would not need that during a campfire talk about nature either.
Posted by Rodney Ninow on March 31, 2010 at 6:31 PM
David you said: "Places with annuals that budded up two weeks ago, began blooming a week ago, and will have gone to seed in another two, and be dry and brown in a couple months, I will trample happily crushing several plants with each step for long distances."
IMO it is attitudes like that that cause the problem. Why is it ok for you to see the flowers undisturbed, but also ok for you to ruin it for the next person who comes by?
Posted by David Senesac on March 31, 2010 at 9:21 PM
Rodney like I said that thinking is small. For you that don't have access to that group here is part of Rodney's post,
"We stayed on trails or shot from the road. It wasn't necessary to trample flowers to get good shots as far as I am concerned. We did drive up Hurricane rd into the brightly colored hills, no trampling was needed. I am always careful when shooting wildflowers if I want to venture further into the landscape. If I can't make it without trampling, I don't go.
Just because others are trampling, doesn't mean I have to. Just because it is
remote, doesn't mean you have to trample."
I strongly disagree with this and I know both most photographers and botonists would also. I expected to draw some out with my strong statements because it is just that attitude that needs to be better understood. If people are always limited to roads and trails as you related then it would be impossible to go a great many places where wildflowers bloom in most magnificence. That is because at some of those places there is no place to step that is not plants. There are many places where one ought not venture off official trails and I mentioned some. And there is a definet difference between trampling on annuals versus perenials that I also noted. There indeed are a wide range of situations and the same shoe doesn't necessarily fit all situations. The implication that attitude makes is two-fold, one that it is destructive to spring wildflower environments and two that it mars the experience other visitors might have.
With your attitude it would be hypocritical to venture anywhere but on the paved paths within the fenced in public pathway areas of Antelope Valley State Poppy Reserve or beyond the obvious jeep roads in the unfenced park areas. However the state park management knows that there is another experience to be had so an even larger part of that state park land on the other side of the fence where Hamiliton Buttes lies can be more freely accessed. A place one cannot walk without stepping on flowers on every step. There are in fact a great many such places in Antelope Valley where goldfields in particular cover every square inch of vast areas. The park does not advertise going into that area in order not to spur thousands of people without experience from trampling those areas. But the mere fact its dirt roads have been open to the public to freely walk about in for decades speaks to the wisdom that such can be ok if not overstressed. As long as the numbers about the Hamilton Buttes remain low, the soil will not be compacted and annual seeds will continue to propagate year after year including most places people stepped.
Likewise in the Temblor Range cattle have grazed those areas included the places I just visited for decades. Their hoof prints and dried pies were in many areas. Obviously a few cattle walk those place though maybe not during the flower blooms and the mere fact they walk those areas with their great weights much like deer doesn't seem to have made much a difference. So much for an argument I might be destroying future flower growth. Note if lots of people did so in the same place, yes flowers would not grow in such spots much like naturally occurs on animal trails through otherwise pristene areas. Also if I trek into remote areas and unavoidably make trample paths as I go along, how does that effect others viewing? If everyone else had that attitude, there would be no one else to see my trample paths so you must be referring to others that also must make trample paths to go there after me. I would be marring their experience? Even when I go into such remote areas I am careful not to make tracks in most aesthetic areas because one never knows when another photographer or visitor might happen along. Well another trampling friend. Actually the western Temblor is very much an eroded badlands and there is much in geological processes occurring over short periods of years that allow only annual plants to gain much a foothold before surface change, hence one reason for a lack of trees. I'm sure you saw some people along areas you viewed about Hurrican Road walking into the flower fields and obviously did not approve. My own ethical attitude is the more public a location the less likely I might go into such areas. And when I do, am quite careful about where I make paths through flower fields. Obviously one uses paths others have already made and avoid especially aesthetic areas of flowers. Conversely the less public an area, the more freely a person might choose to move about.
A few years ago I and a few other publicly well known pros were working the Shell Creek area midweek one April before any reports had been released on any public websites that the area was peaking in blooms. Thus we had a rather pristene experience to enjoy and without communicating our ethical attitudes or even talking to each other proceeded over a few days to created a modest maze of access paths to various areas. And did so without marring the visual experience. In the following weeks comments were made on Calphoto Groups how subsequent visitors were considerate and understanding enough to stay on our paths without making new ones and how nicely many lead to good locations to view and photograph from. For those of you that don't know Shell Creek that is private land, there is a paved road along a small stream of short distance to park along and a single dirt road path into the western acreage. Almost NO ONE only stays on that single dirt road on any year. And many people visit the eastern acreage where for the first visitors there are no paths. Yet with the above attitude it would be hypocritcal for you to even use a path that someone had made days before that everyone was now using. You would have to stay just on the dirt road.
Posted by Paul Duval on March 31, 2010 at 10:02 PM
Obviously there's very strong feelings pro and con on this issue. I believe for the most part the professionals and people who belong to this network are responsible individuals that do their best to not leave a trace, however as David noted in some places this is impossible. I don't know how many of us realize that many of the areas that would have coverage don't because they are grazing fields, and all the growing flowers were eaten or trampled by the animals. In hilly areas all those crisscrossing marks on the hillsides aren't natural animal trails they are made by cattle. This is not license to run wild through the flowering fields I'm merely pointing out that our feet can tread much more lightly than domesticated meat on the hoof. Where we have access. In some areas of the Eastern Sierra there are grazing fields where access is not denied, this may be due to the fact that most of the valley land in owned by the LA DWP and the ranchers are just using it, but if some of the behaviors described previously were going on I could see the gates getting locked. All of us hold in our hands and feet what the future will hold as it relates to how photographers are percieved, by their peers the public and landowners. So much of our freedom is being reduced by the careless acts of a few irresponsible people who either don't care or don't use the brains god gave them. It's up to us what happens.
Paul
Posted by Rodney Ninow on March 31, 2010 at 10:20 PM
David, I guess that is where we differ. I prefer to tread lightly, and not get my shot at the expense of nature. Sure, I go off trail, but if there is a field of flowers, and my choices are trample, go around, or don't go at all, I will choose the last two.
Too much talk about all this. Carol is not responsible for the actions of people she doesn't know. Who's to say which inconsiderate or unlawful 'tramplers' got their directions from Carol? Further, it is the posting of the community members on the site that sends others out, although she does publish a general list of locations. It's sad to see Carol react in fear rather than stand up for her rights of speech, directed at individuals that must make their own moral decisions. If I have an automobile accident on a roadtrip, I don't go after the bookstore that sold me the map. But sadly, modern scumbag lawyers would.
I am there with Anil and Gary. LIkewise, private property is private and it should be respected.
David, - How can you say you get property owner's permission and that you respect and never cross wire. Gorman Hills is all private property and signs are posted all along Gorman Post Road. So becareful about what you say.
I can understand your perception Youssef because it is probably based on the situation after 2003 when suddenly a whole lot of photographers became aware of that area. I can say that because in 2003, the last time I wandered into those hills there were no No Trespassing signs in the area people visited including where we shot all our film. And in fact some photographers had been walking in that specific area for years including those reporting such on Carol's site in the earlier years simply because it was at such a low level that the land owners probably considered it trivial. The penal code states fenced areas need to be posted at least every 1/3 mile and there were none in that area. Note areas further south along that road have always been posted. But not the area that was bought by the firm that tried to build a water bottling plant in the main spring. The spring area is the spot where visitors in 2003 tore open a hole in the barbed wire fence and where hundreds of people swarmed every day for a few weeks. If the bottle company wanted people out of there they didn't complain at that time probably because they didn't want bad publicity as the plan still needed to be approved by the LA county zoning dept. However subsequently they made sure afterwards it was all posted. So no I don't go into posted areas.
"The penal code states fenced areas need to be posted at least every 1/3 mile and there were none in that area."
A fence is designed for two purposes: Maintain privacy, and keep trespassers out. The penal code may state one thing, but the landowner's Winchester says something different!
Posted, or not, crossing a fence onto private property without permission is against the law, period! Secondly, we must respect the rights of property owners. As we have all seen, the disrespectful acts of a bunch of goofballs ruins the opportunities for those who care enough to respect the rights of others.
--P
Posted by David Senesac on April 11, 2010 at 12:02 AM
Preston >>> "...Posted, or not, crossing a fence onto private property without permission is against the law, period!"
Indeed IF one knows a land is private. And that is the really issue and why posting is important. Say if one can see a ranch or farm within the enclosed area. The problem with many fenced lands in rural areas is there isn't such an easy connection between fenced areas and the fact the land might be private. Most public lands as those owned by the blm, national forests, the state of California, and various governmental units are also fenced and within urban zones are usually very posted with appropriate information as to how the public may or may not access. However many such public lands in more rural areas may be fenced but not posted as to such government ownership. Also the fact a land has cattle grazing is not necessarily proof a land is private because public lands are often leased for grazing purposes. In fact anyone that hikes our urban parks will often see lots of cattle. One reason I have quite a collection of BLM surface management maps for areas of California I might work.
So without a way to tell private from public lands a visitor without an ethical issue might choose to enter those lands. If a landowner shows all they can legally do the first time is inform the trespasser they are on private lands and please leave immediately. That has in fact happened to me once and in that case after striking up a short conversation, the friendly landowner allowed me to climb a little hill and take an image of a beautifyul oak. If the person does not leave or returns a second time then the local sheriff may be called and a person would be cited. Accordingly it is up to landowners to post lands if they have a problem with trespassing. Most trespassing problems have always been with hunters and is the reason rural lands are usually posted "NO HUNTING or TRESPASSING...". If one drives out of the way rural roads especially dirt roads, one will sometimes find grazing lands that are unfenced open range and many are not even posted because so few people drive those roads landowners apparently don't bother with posting as long as trespassing remains trivial.
Posted by Rodney Ninow on April 11, 2010 at 6:50 PM
Earl, interesting point about the national park. It's my understanding, that while there are trails in such parks, a person is free to go off trail whenever he wants as long as he is fit to survive and navigate in the wilderness. Are the areas you mention posted that you cannot go off trail?
Discussion
22 repliesToo bad, it was a great site. But, as Buddha said, nothing is permanent except death and taxes.
http://www.calphoto.com/wflower.htm
I'm sure you can understand now why sometimes keeping a tight lip on things is understandable. Sometimes things are just too fragile for the pleasure of the public. Anything we say openly can travel like wild fire.
I've heard rumors of people ripping out flowers so others couldn't get the same shot too.. there's some, umm, questionable practices out there!
Paul
PS
Just returned from the closed site. It appears Carol is attributing the closure to her "conscience" as a result of the wanton habits of some of the wildflower afficianados out there. Quote.
"Right now I cannot in good conscience continue to distribute "where-to-go" wildflower information. Private property is being destroyed. Flowers are being trampled. Rude and inconsiderate behavior abounds."
She has surrendered, it seems to me that an open site that preaches correct conduct and posts where bad behavior is occuring would be more helpful than harmful, but I don't know all the particulars and as Steve said there are other sites. Such as the Theodore Payne foundations Wildflower report updated every Friday in the spring.
Before Carol's site went down I was at Arvin over the weekend and saw a number of ppl on the other side of the fence. There was another poster on Carol's site who responded to the upset Cottonwood Canyon ranch employee. He suggested opening up a small part of Cottonwood Canyon allowing others to photograph it after signing a release of liability waiver. The employee said the ranch owner's biggest concern was liability. When I was there over the weekend the Sherrif Deputy was asking ppl to remain just off the side of the pavement. But obviously he was there becuase some called him.
I saw that the Tejon Ranch did allow a limited number of ppl to visit the ranch this year. Hopefully more cooperation for public access will continue.
The internet is truly a double edge sword with regards to our natural environment. We share information which is extremely usefull especially in such a large state as ours where one could travel thousands of miles and not find the better blooms. However as was the case with Arvin last year and Cottonwood Canyon this year the word really gets out to a much larger audience. So where a few photographers might have been a minor annoyance, now you get hordes of ppl swarming an area.
This is why I can understand why some photographers are reluctant to share the particulars of their findings. Many spots which are peaking could be easily trampled upon. So in certain cases I would prefer someone shoot me an email and ask for more details rather than broadcasting specifics. I think of this site to have a limited audience compared to Carol's wildflower hotsheet. But even so I am sure there are a lot more lurkers here than participants. So how much information is too much? I think it depends on the location.
And of course there will always be other wildflower reporting sites which spring up.
Derek
These wildflower photo seekers remind me of the paparazzi.
There is alot worth discussing and boards like this are where such ought to occur because we as a group can have a considerable impact that will effect behaviors of other less knowledgeable people in the general public. One of the first is about trespassing itself. I know from experience most people in the public including advanced outdoor photographers have bothered little to find out the facts such as what California penal code 602.8 states and how that effects what one sees when looking at private lands. I have alot to say about this but it ought to be in its own thread.
Carol Leigh also has a Yahoo Groups Calphoto group that I have been a part of for years. Many posts on the general Calphoto site are actually posts from that site. Since it is a bit more private, there is currently discussion ongoing about her decision. One of the things several have mentioned is the issue of trampling wildflowers with most posting what I consider rather simplistic and unrealistic statements. Accordingly I posted the following that addresses that primarily:
----------------------------
Won't address Carol's decision but rather some issues to consider from comments
that have been posted.
The problem with these kind of issues is many people think in small ways with
the result being simplistic and too black and white. An example are those who
simply state "not to trample" or "those who trample" etc etc. Unless a person
stays in their car looking out the window, or only walks on trails never
wandering off, or only stays in limited areas of mineral soil, they ARE going to
trample. I've trampled trampled trampled thousands and thousands of plants over
decades and will continue to do so without guilt. In some places like say at
Point Lobos State Reserve, I never wander off official trails in areas where
such in prohibited.
In other well known public areas like Henderson Canyon at Anza Borrego State
Park, there are no fences or official trails. Just a paved road thousands of
flower seekers use and open fields. I go right into those fields but it is not
an area I trample wildflowers because the flowers do not grow so densely that
one cannot dance through the landscape on relativelty bare soils or grasses.
Simply second nature to me and I can really dance. Well that is a slight fib.
I step on every Sahara mustard plant on my way and have for many years. I do
notice those roadside areas quickly develop paths right on the vegetation and
trampling where I might not have walked. But doesn't bother me much because as
soon as one gets away from near road areas, signs of trampling disappear.
What about places like the Tejon Ranch fences at Arvin? Don't even bother
because I don't like being behind a fence and will not trespass onto posted
private property. Have been quite aware of the California penal codes for
trespass laws for many years. Sometimes I have contacted property owners and in
fact have researched who some are and then made such requests.
What about wonder of nature places like in Antelope Valley where glorious
carpets of annuals bloom so densely one venturing off roads and paths
necessarily will trample trample trample? Places with annuals that budded up
two weeks ago, began blooming a week ago, and will have gone to seed in another
two, and be dry and brown in a couple months, I will trample happily crushing
several plants with each step for long distances. Like I did last Sunday March
29, 2010 in the Temblor Hills of Carrizo Plain National Monument:
http://www.davidsenesac.com/Spring_2010/HM0804b.jpg
A LF photographer friend and I that first visited the area in 2006 are probably
the only humans that have ever witnessed that remote difficult to access
badlands canyon in such a bloom. Did we do something unethical? Not so black
in white after all?
http://www.davidsenesac.com/images/print_06-q3-3.html
Likewise in April 2003 we trampled thousands of wildlflowers in the Gorman Hills
that are in sight of millions of drivers on Interstate 5 and captured images
like this:
http://www.davidsenesac.com/images/print_03i3-35.html
That day we first went in at daylight Gorman there were virtually no tracks at
all as it had been solid storming for about 3 weeks and that Saturday was the
first sunny day. By the end of the day there was a mob scene of cars parked
along Gorman Post Road and there were thigh deep trails through much of that
area. Two months later it was all brown drab and boring. In 2005 it bloomed
again though not as epicly and every place I stepped in 2003 probably had
several wildflowers growing up in those footsteps.
What about an alpine environment of summer belly wildflowers. Ahh one crushes
these wonders of nature that are not annuals but rather perrenials and one is
likely to see bare soil during your next visit three years later. So it isn't
so simple and there are few hard rules. Knowledge about what is doing goes a
long ways. I have alot more to add but will let the above lie for now.
------------------------------
I'm kind of with Anil on this; even though I'm not a huge wildflower photographer or chaser, I stopped paying much attention to the area 'alerts' as it seemed to propegate some literal 'stampedes'. I feel bad enough being out in a field on my own, but to see a crowded field being overrun smacks of the exact opposite of what they seek to portray. It's a contradiction that the quest for beauty results in such ugliness. Personally, I'd rather be on a remote backroad, finding my own way. (Submitted respectfully)
I totally agree, Gary.
Although, admittedly one could be photographing within inches of another person and the images would not look the same in many cases with wildflowers, but the need for breathing room is essential IMO.
Let's really face the facts though, this issue will only get worse over time. The autumn tree peeping is only a small example. This does not entirely mean only photographers. Rock Creek Canyon waterway was really pristine a good 10 to 15 years ago now. With all the trampling along the creek by all types, it's just not the same anymore. Plenty of abandoned fishing line and trash to go around out there now.
Anil is also right about the respect for property owners, or lack there of, but again, it also leads into public lands as well. I could site many National Park's under siege with careless types, including photogs too. Needless to say Park Rangers spend more time defending the property these days then they do at campfire talks. When was the first time you recall seeing a ranger carrying a 9mm? For those who go back that far in time. They typically would not need that during a campfire talk about nature either.
IMO it is attitudes like that that cause the problem. Why is it ok for you to see the flowers undisturbed, but also ok for you to ruin it for the next person who comes by?
"We stayed on trails or shot from the road. It wasn't necessary to trample flowers to get good shots as far as I am concerned. We did drive up Hurricane rd into the brightly colored hills, no trampling was needed. I am always careful when shooting wildflowers if I want to venture further into the landscape. If I can't make it without trampling, I don't go.
Just because others are trampling, doesn't mean I have to. Just because it is
remote, doesn't mean you have to trample."
I strongly disagree with this and I know both most photographers and botonists would also. I expected to draw some out with my strong statements because it is just that attitude that needs to be better understood. If people are always limited to roads and trails as you related then it would be impossible to go a great many places where wildflowers bloom in most magnificence. That is because at some of those places there is no place to step that is not plants. There are many places where one ought not venture off official trails and I mentioned some. And there is a definet difference between trampling on annuals versus perenials that I also noted. There indeed are a wide range of situations and the same shoe doesn't necessarily fit all situations. The implication that attitude makes is two-fold, one that it is destructive to spring wildflower environments and two that it mars the experience other visitors might have.
With your attitude it would be hypocritical to venture anywhere but on the paved paths within the fenced in public pathway areas of Antelope Valley State Poppy Reserve or beyond the obvious jeep roads in the unfenced park areas. However the state park management knows that there is another experience to be had so an even larger part of that state park land on the other side of the fence where Hamiliton Buttes lies can be more freely accessed. A place one cannot walk without stepping on flowers on every step. There are in fact a great many such places in Antelope Valley where goldfields in particular cover every square inch of vast areas. The park does not advertise going into that area in order not to spur thousands of people without experience from trampling those areas. But the mere fact its dirt roads have been open to the public to freely walk about in for decades speaks to the wisdom that such can be ok if not overstressed. As long as the numbers about the Hamilton Buttes remain low, the soil will not be compacted and annual seeds will continue to propagate year after year including most places people stepped.
Likewise in the Temblor Range cattle have grazed those areas included the places I just visited for decades. Their hoof prints and dried pies were in many areas. Obviously a few cattle walk those place though maybe not during the flower blooms and the mere fact they walk those areas with their great weights much like deer doesn't seem to have made much a difference. So much for an argument I might be destroying future flower growth. Note if lots of people did so in the same place, yes flowers would not grow in such spots much like naturally occurs on animal trails through otherwise pristene areas. Also if I trek into remote areas and unavoidably make trample paths as I go along, how does that effect others viewing? If everyone else had that attitude, there would be no one else to see my trample paths so you must be referring to others that also must make trample paths to go there after me. I would be marring their experience? Even when I go into such remote areas I am careful not to make tracks in most aesthetic areas because one never knows when another photographer or visitor might happen along. Well another trampling friend. Actually the western Temblor is very much an eroded badlands and there is much in geological processes occurring over short periods of years that allow only annual plants to gain much a foothold before surface change, hence one reason for a lack of trees. I'm sure you saw some people along areas you viewed about Hurrican Road walking into the flower fields and obviously did not approve. My own ethical attitude is the more public a location the less likely I might go into such areas. And when I do, am quite careful about where I make paths through flower fields. Obviously one uses paths others have already made and avoid especially aesthetic areas of flowers. Conversely the less public an area, the more freely a person might choose to move about.
A few years ago I and a few other publicly well known pros were working the Shell Creek area midweek one April before any reports had been released on any public websites that the area was peaking in blooms. Thus we had a rather pristene experience to enjoy and without communicating our ethical attitudes or even talking to each other proceeded over a few days to created a modest maze of access paths to various areas. And did so without marring the visual experience. In the following weeks comments were made on Calphoto Groups how subsequent visitors were considerate and understanding enough to stay on our paths without making new ones and how nicely many lead to good locations to view and photograph from. For those of you that don't know Shell Creek that is private land, there is a paved road along a small stream of short distance to park along and a single dirt road path into the western acreage. Almost NO ONE only stays on that single dirt road on any year. And many people visit the eastern acreage where for the first visitors there are no paths. Yet with the above attitude it would be hypocritcal for you to even use a path that someone had made days before that everyone was now using. You would have to stay just on the dirt road.
Paul
David, - How can you say you get property owner's permission and that you respect and never cross wire. Gorman Hills is all private property and signs are posted all along Gorman Post Road. So becareful about what you say.
http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/04/08/wildflower-tipster-pulls-plug-web-site/
A fence is designed for two purposes: Maintain privacy, and keep trespassers out. The penal code may state one thing, but the landowner's Winchester says something different!
Posted, or not, crossing a fence onto private property without permission is against the law, period! Secondly, we must respect the rights of property owners. As we have all seen, the disrespectful acts of a bunch of goofballs ruins the opportunities for those who care enough to respect the rights of others.
--P
Indeed IF one knows a land is private. And that is the really issue and why posting is important. Say if one can see a ranch or farm within the enclosed area. The problem with many fenced lands in rural areas is there isn't such an easy connection between fenced areas and the fact the land might be private. Most public lands as those owned by the blm, national forests, the state of California, and various governmental units are also fenced and within urban zones are usually very posted with appropriate information as to how the public may or may not access. However many such public lands in more rural areas may be fenced but not posted as to such government ownership. Also the fact a land has cattle grazing is not necessarily proof a land is private because public lands are often leased for grazing purposes. In fact anyone that hikes our urban parks will often see lots of cattle. One reason I have quite a collection of BLM surface management maps for areas of California I might work.
So without a way to tell private from public lands a visitor without an ethical issue might choose to enter those lands. If a landowner shows all they can legally do the first time is inform the trespasser they are on private lands and please leave immediately. That has in fact happened to me once and in that case after striking up a short conversation, the friendly landowner allowed me to climb a little hill and take an image of a beautifyul oak. If the person does not leave or returns a second time then the local sheriff may be called and a person would be cited. Accordingly it is up to landowners to post lands if they have a problem with trespassing. Most trespassing problems have always been with hunters and is the reason rural lands are usually posted "NO HUNTING or TRESPASSING...". If one drives out of the way rural roads especially dirt roads, one will sometimes find grazing lands that are unfenced open range and many are not even posted because so few people drive those roads landowners apparently don't bother with posting as long as trespassing remains trivial.