Hassled in Death Valley

[eric]

A permit is not required for:

* A visitor using a camera and/or a recording device for his/her own personal use and within normal visitation areas and hours; or
* A commercial photographer not using a prop, model, or set, and staying within normal visitation areas and hours; or
* Press coverage of breaking news. This never requires a permit, but is subject to the imposition of restrictions and conditions necessary to protect park resources and public health and safety, and to prevent impairment or derogation of park resources or values."

I read this a while ago while preparing for my Grand Canyon Trip. I actually did print it out just so I can have it and not get any trouble.

 

[Loose Gravel]

...
I was told not too long ago by a NPS Ranger in Joshua Tree Nation Park, that if you get a ticket on National Park Land that ticket stays with you forever. So if you ever get stopped by any police officer it shows up as a federal alert. I have no way of checking to see if that is true or not because I know no one I trust who can confirm that...

Gary, No doubt it goes on your permanent record. Kidding. I know from my ranger buddy when he worked in Yellowstone, if he gave a ticket he encouraged the offender to pay it on the spot because as the ticket was under federal jurisdiction, the federal court wouldn't take the time to be bothered with tickets and those given to foreigners especially. However, if you pay the officer for the ticket, then they had their money in hand and if I recall, that money stayed with the specific park rather than going off to Washington like other park fees.

 

[BradS]

What dark and pestilent times these are! Our government sees fit to threaten its people at seemingly every opportunity. Baaah!

Tripod owners are obviously a menace to right thinking society and should probably be rounded up under cover of darkness and imprisioned on some foresaken remote island.

 

[c6h6o3]

They asked if we were a photo group and the answer was no.

Whenever they ask you that, say "Yes", no matter how ad hoc the group may actually be. The phrase "Photo Group" seems to posess magically good qualities, and we in the DC Users Group (a different gaggle of people every time we go out) have found it very effective in nullifying the negative effects of the word "tripod" at the National Arboretum (and they use rent-a-cops, who are more unreasonable than even NPS Police).

 

[rpsawin]

The park rangers have some latitude in determining a photographer's status as pro or not. They factor the type of equipment as part of that determination. Perhaps this is an opportunity for a large group of photographers, embracing many levels, to provide input and possibly help develop some rasonable guidelines for the NPS. Without some guidlines from the photo community the odds are we will see an increase of random encounters with park rangers.

Bob

 

[DannL]

The park rangers have some latitude in determining a photographer's status as pro or not.
Bob

Oh Please . . . how can a NPS Park Ranger make the determination whether or not I derive my primary income through photography??

. . . especially based on the size and age of "my" equipment. Should I carry a previous year's profit and loss statement when I go shooting? <<

 

[Flotsam]

My rule is that anyone who uses anything other than his cellphone to take pictures of anything other than his family smiling stupidly in front of a well known landmark _must_ be a professional commercial photographer.

I just sent my job application in to the NPS. Wish me luck .

 

[rpsawin]

Oh Please . . . how can a NPS Park Ranger make the determination whether or not I derive my primary income through photography??

. . . especially based on the size and age of "my" equipment. Should I carry a previous year's profit and loss statement when I go shooting? <<

My point is how the rule is currently being enforced. If your point is that it is ridiculous I agree. Otherwise, what is your point? You are free to proceed as you please. You can carry financial statements, tax retuturns, permission slip from your wife....I don't care. This is what was explained to me at Mt. Rainier NP last fall.

Bob

 

[DannL]

My point is how the rule is currently being enforced. If your point is that it is ridiculous I agree. Bob

No infact, I do not find anything about this subject ridiculous. I do find it hard to believe that NPS personnel can make the determination whether a specific individual is a professional photographer or an amateur photographer, unless the photographer specifies such. With the age of the NPS and the rules and guidelines that must be in place to make the parks system functional, I can not believe they simply "wing it". So, what factors do NPS personnel use to make the determination? . . . Your clothing, your camera make and model, your hair style, the car you drive, the number of persons in your group, your tripod, your backpack, the size of your lens?

Please don't take what I've said in the wrong context. I "do understand" that they could arbitrarily make a determination on my professional status. But if they are, then IMHO that system is broken and needs to be fixed.

 

[Gary892]

Gary is there a local town that has newspaper coverage for the area? I'd like to write a little article for their publication.

Second, were these rangers out of a specific office. I would like the number to call. The best way to handle stuff of this type is to barrage them with complaints. With the number of us around we should let them know our voice. I don't mind permits for large commercial usage but for enthusiasts it's bs.

Wayne, I don't know what office they were out of. They were professional but it was the comment about the tripod that got me. I posted this experience just to let others know about it and be aware, not to start a debate or cause problems.

Gary

 

[jstraw]

This document:

http://home.nps.gov/applications/digest/permits.cfm?urlarea=permits

is perfectly clear except for two points.

First, is it:

"commercial filming and still photography" or is it "commercial filming and still photography?​

Second is the fact that there is wiggle room in the statement:

"Park would incur additional administrative costs to monitor the activity."​

Clear those up and there is a crystal clear policy on that page.

 

[copake_ham]

What a tempest in a teapot this thread is!

Did they ticket the individuals? No.

Did they stop them from shooting pics? No.

Did they sieze their gear or do it harm? No.

Were they "out of line"? Yes.

One other question for Gary. How old were these Rangers? Could they have been "newbies" who "think" they know the regs but really don't? If so, cut them some slack - we've all been in that kind of situation.

Finally, an observation.

Would any of this have happened if the LF and MF shooters had not been accompanied by a d****** shooter? Geez, I've keep telling you folks that those damn d****** shooters are a nuisance!

 

[raucousimages]

After the last hassel I had in Death Valey I called NPS and was told that if I had what looked like "Pro Gear" to a ranger then I could be concidered a profesional photographer and needed a permit to shoot in the park.

 

[waynecrider]

After the last hassel I had in Death Valey I called NPS and was told that if I had what looked like "Pro Gear" to a ranger then I could be concidered a profesional photographer and needed a permit to shoot in the park.

I could certainly see the justification of charging pro's, and groups being led by pro's, but I have not ever heard of a pro not getting a permit. Why take the chance. Maybe what should be done is to check into the office, or write a letter ahead of time stating the purpose of the visit. Maybe we should even carry some identification as to our employment; Who knows. But the real deal here is that it is our parks, we pay for them, and we have a right to use tripods and gather for recreational purposes. It's another thing if the rangers are polite, but if they have snotty attitudes when approaching anyone, they should be called on it.

Once this thread is done I'll be printing and sending it to the governor and the state senators. If anyone would like to word another document for signature that everyone can download please let me know.

 

[alan c. davis]

So the old adage "take nothing but photos, leave nothing but footprints" is dead in the water now. Coming from Australia I must admit I haven't heard any type of crap like this over here yet but I often get the feeling that Rangers resent us being in THEIR parks. C'mon the parks belong to the people and park rangers are paid from the public purse. My first instinct if told I couldn't take photos would be to tell the ranger to go get *****d.

 

[Curt]

What is there in Death Valley that it has to be policed so heavily and what are the photographs of? Or was it just the "act of" that was in question?

 

[David Henderson]

Am I reading this wrong, or is the operative ruling that commercial still photography is permitted in National Parks unless it falls within certain defined categories which seem to go well beyond using a tripod and a large camera? It is difficult to see that they have the right to ask whether you are professional or not unless your activities fall within those defined to require a permit.

If that's the case then the rangers are wrong to intervene, question or comment upon legitimate use made of the facility, in the same way as a security guard who tries to prevent you from taking a picture of "their building" from a public place is wrong. The problem seems to be that there are no effective sanctions against someone who harrasses you unreasonably. They can be wrong today and wrong again tomorrow because they are not taken to task for their unreasonable behaviour unless their superiors and/or the law are involved. If they are allowed to successfully bully, then they'll keep doing it.

 

[c6h6o3]

Am I reading this wrong, or is the operative ruling that commercial still photography is permitted in National Parks unless it falls within certain defined categories which seem to go well beyond using a tripod and a large camera? It is difficult to see that they have the right to ask whether you are professional or not unless your activities fall within those defined to require a permit.

All photography is permitted. The crux of the matter for the rangers and Park Police is that commercial work requires a permit to photograph and the fees to obtain one are truly onerous. (At the National Arboretum, which is not a National Park, the fee is $500.00 / day and I think the NPS facilities run about the same.) Put yourself in their shoes for a minute. They're required as part of their jobs to make that determination and to run you off if you're doing commercial work without a permit. Commercial work with models and lights almost always involves a tripod. Location wedding photography might not use lights, but it will almost certainly use a tripod. So when they see a tripod they're going to ask you about it because the probability is high that you are doing commercial work of some kind.

Maybe it's because I live in the Washington, DC area where the cops are a little more savvy about such things, but I've found the Park Police to be quite reasonable. I had an 8x10 set up on the C&O Canal NHP and when they asked me if I was a pro, I said no. Then they asked me if I sold the photographs (to my way of thinking this was the right question to ask) and when I replied "Don't I wish!" they let me continue working unmolested. I don't think they liked the idea of not having an excuse to roust me, but they left me alone. They never said a word about the equipment. They're sworn law officers and believe it or not some of them can actually be sensitive to legal concepts. I've found that if you talk to them about things and let them know that you're not trying to make their jobs any tougher, they'll respond positively.

It's the rent-a-cop clones that the Dept. of Agriculture hires that I've always found to be hopeless. When they hassle me I just pack up and move on.

 

[Jim Noel]

For 21 consecutive years I have been in DV with groups of friends ranging from 3 or 4 to 20+.

Essentially all of us use 4x5 or larger. It is not unusual to see half a dozen of us on the Salt Flats or in the dunes with LF cameras. We do not intentionally stay together during the day, but sometimes it happens.

Most of our time is spent in areas less visited by the general public.

I have spoken with the Park Superintendent about commercial photography and workshops. There is a fee for this as well as the requirement to insure the park for liability.

Never has any of the group been questioned about our motives, etc.

I think you just ran into a couple of over-zealous rangers who need to be reported so that others aren't hassled.

You must write the Park Superintendent give him the date and location of the incident, and, if you have them, the badge numbers or names.

 

[JBrunner]

The things I've read say nothing of a tripod, and as stated, mention the use of models and props, and say nothing of the "professional status" of the photographer. If it indeed is moving toward the tripod makes it commercial BS, it amounts to individuals charged with enforcing the law, also making up what that law is.

That is seriously uncool, as they are not people who are allowed to make laws, although lately in this country, there seems to be some confusion on law enforcement and security services part, regarding who makes the law. How stupid is that?

Next thing.

I'm a pro. That doesn't mean I make helluva allot of money. I most certainly make less money than the vacationing executive with his digigizmo. Maybe I want to shoot in Death Valley, but just landscape shots, placing no more strain on the park or parks infrastructure than any other visitor (in fact, probably less). Maybe for the time I put in, I'll get a sellable picture. Maybe not. Its always a gamble, and the returns are uncertain, and slim. During the time I'm there I'll spend about five hundred dollars or so in the area. Repeat this scenario for as many view camera photographers as there are.

Throwing a big fee on top of the uncertainty of even getting a good photograph is a total deal breaker. We, and our multiple five hundred bucks, will go elsewhere.

They lose, and they lose big. How stupid is that?

Next thing.

For working photographers, what it amounts to, is discrimination based on your ability to pay, or maintain an unrecognized profile.

It effectively slams the door to anybody with a view camera.

It places an end to serious amateur or pro film photography in the park system, in the tradition of St Ansel, handing it over on a platter to digiheads with autometering, autobracketing, DSLR's with image stabilizing lenses, and photo stitching software, because they can get away without using a tripod, and therefore "aren't pro", and the occasional large car or fashion shoot, who will spend more having latte's shipped in, than on the location fee. How stupid is that?

 

[David Henderson]

"All photography is permitted. The crux of the matter for the rangers and Park Police is that commercial work requires a permit to photograph "

Tell me, where is this documented please? The material I've actually read about photography in National Parks doesn't say this at all, and indicates that commercial photography is allowed without permit unless certain conditions apply. I suspect that Mr Brunner may have seen the same thing which is referenced above in the post by jstraw.

There is a problem with this thread insofar as that we can't seem to agree on what the photographers rights are. I think that the vast majority of commercial still photography (in the sense of photography for profit or potential profit) in US National Parks requires no permit. There is a document that says so. Is there another that supersedes or denies this? Because if there isn't then we are simply talking here about rangers making it up as they go along - and needing to be discouraged from doing that by their Management.

 

[jstraw]

I was pointed to this link in this in this thread and I can't be the only one that's read it.

http://home.nps.gov/applications/digest/permits.cfm?urlarea=permits

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I was pointed to this link in this in this thread and I can't be the only one that's read it.

http://home.nps.gov/applications/digest/permits.cfm?urlarea=permits

That makes it very straightforward in policy, if not in execution. And unless you're bringing in a herd of models, still photography permits are from free to cheap.

 

[gr82bart]

That makes it very straightforward in policy, if not in execution.

Oh Scott ... you should know better with this crowd!

Regards, Art.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Like I said, the POLICY is straightforward. Interpretation thereof being left to others, well... get two people to look at the same document and you'll get at least three opinions.