 To be sure, nature photography can help to raise awareness and inspire the preservation of imperiled places. Photographs by Ansel Adams helped establish Kings Canyon National
Park. Photographs by Phillip Hyde helped sway public opinion to preserve Dinosaur National Park, and prevent the Colorado River in Grand Canyon from being turned into a lake by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. In this country and around
the world, photography has played an important part in preserving natural areas ranging from small city parks to our grandest national parks. There is, however, another sharp edge on this sword of conservation. I’ll share just three of
many examples. The first is general, and the last two pertain specifically to photographers.
.
Years ago while in a national park visitor center I saw a post card featuring a very nice waterfall. The location of the waterfall was not disclosed on the card, but I thought I might know where it was based on its surroundings and a hike I’d
taken. At the visitor center I asked if there was a nice waterfall on a certain creek, without mentioning the card. The woman on duty instantly replied “Oh, you must have seen the
postcard. We’ve had at least a hundred people bring the card to the desk and ask where the waterfall is”. She confirmed the location I mentioned was correct, but continued, saying there was no trail and all the foot traffic due to the
photo on the card was tearing up the alpine environment. “We can’t stop people from hiking off trail, but we’d prefer you not go”, she said. So, I didn’t go, but obviously many others have. The same waterfall was recently featured
in a popular magazine. That's great for the photographer, but not so great for the waterfall or the area around it.
.
Perhaps ten years ago I read an article in a popular photography magazine about a piece of Federal land, and ways to access it for an extra fee. About a year later I called the place to inquire about how
to go about paying and doing what I wanted to do. The person I talked with said they stopped allowing public access to those areas last year, just after an article about the place appeared in “some photo magazine” and the place was
mobbed. The road and facilities were not adequate, and they were not staffed to manage the people. So much for that photo spot.
.
I have been fortunate to photograph at many so-called photography hot spots before they were hot. I've occasionally gone back to these places after they have been featured in a widely distributed photography magazine, and I have never
failed to find them mobbed with photographers. This has often occurred even a year after the article was published. Few things are as disappointing as getting up at 4 AM, driving and hiking to some favorite spot, and finding so many
photographers that it’s difficult or impossible to capture the photograph you had in mind. Now, when I read an article in a popular magazine about someone’s favorite photo spot, I cross it off my list.
.
It’s all a matter of numbers. Anything that inspires people to preserve a place also inspires them to see it for themselves. That increases the likelihood that the place they wanted to preserve will be stomped into oblivion. It’s a
Catch 22. The fact is that very few people follow common sense rules to keep their impact on a place low, and our images pull them to the places we photograph. Entities like the National Park Service don’t help much to dull the negative
edge of our sword. Instead of thinking about fair ways to restrict the number of visitors to a level the environment can tolerate, their motto seems to be “If they’re at our gate, we must accommodate”. Bigger visitor centers, giant
parking lots, wider roads, huge restrooms, paved trails, and bus systems are among their solutions for packing more people into the parks. Acquiring and protecting additional lands, reservation systems, and visitation limits are not on
the list. These solutions seem obvious. Except for additional land acquisitions, they are also easy and cheap relative to expanding park facilities. Most importantly, they are best for the parks. They are also unpopular, and therein lies the challenge.
Notes: When I first started visiting Canyonlands National Park, its yearly visitation totaled about 57,000 people. The roads were made of dirt, canyon rim overlooks were natural, and you could hike all day without seeing anyone.
Regardless of their behavior, there were not enough people around to have a detrimental impact. By 2000 the roads were paved and widened, canyon rim overlooks were paved and had railings installed, and visitation had
increased by over seven times to about 402,000. Annual visitation to Yellowstone National Park grew by about one million visitors during the same time, and visitation to Yosemite National Park grew by about two million. |
|
