Moon Rising Over Half Dome

Cool!

I have been trying to find the same type of information for Arizona and can't seem to find it.  Do you know, is it the same for any federal park or just in California?

Superbe

Jeff, try the Canadian Rockies…Revelstoke to the Pacific Coast in British Columbia is just as spectacular as Yosemite

We were just talking about that +John O'Hearn…

I have very mixed feelings about this. One could argue that these are public lands, paid for by our tax dollars, and we should not have to pay additional permitting fees for their use. I know one counter argument would be that the organization leading the workshop is operating a business, and this is simply a cost of doing business, but that cost will be entirely born by the students anyway, so really this is just raising the price of said workshops for students (which is more likely to impact me as I don't see myself leading a workshop that people would pay me for anytime in the near future!). Why should a group of students pay more to use public lands than they would pay if they simply went to the park on their own? And why do the group leaders need more instruction on ecological impact than an equivalent number of independent visitors would receive? I think this is an example of bureaucracy overstepping its bounds, and it also disproportionately impacts smaller operators.

The way people or wen thay do stopid things

Fantástica imagem , céu azul , nuvem  escura , lua e  montanha,  tudo faz linda harmonia .

menakjubkan

good one !

Beautiful

wow it's cool

Delightful.

Natural beauty

و خداوند كوهها را افريد تا از ترس امان بشيد

I'm really glad you brought that up +Andrew Wisler, as I have mixed feelings about many aspects as well.  There's a useful role for park managers to protect the resources, but that's spelled out in relevant laws, and that site I linked to has another page dedicated to the legislative basis for regulating photography, which clearly states that permit fees should apply when models of props are used, or there is likelihood of resource damage:

Public Law 106-206
5/26/2000: Signed by President; Became Public Law No: 106-206 [114 Stat. 314; cod. 16 USC 460l-6d]. 
H.R.154
One Hundred Sixth Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
(c) STILL PHOTOGRAPHY—
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall not require a permit nor assess a fee for still photography on lands administered by the Secretary if such photography takes place where members of the public are generally allowed. The Secretary may require a permit, fee, or both, if such photography takes place at other locations where members of the public are generally not allowed, or where additional administrative costs are likely.
(2) The Secretary shall require and shall establish a reasonable fee for still photography that uses models or props which are not a part of the site’s natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities.
(d) PROTECTION OF RESOURCES—The Secretary shall not permit any filming, still photography or other related activity if the Secretary determines—
(1) there is a likelihood of resource damage;
(2) there would be an unreasonable disruption of the public’s use and enjoyment of the site; or
(3) that the activity poses health or safety risks to the public.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/photo-permits/PermitRegulations.htm

A workshop leader who doesn't want to lose the privilege of operating in a park is providing oversight of students, ensuring minimal impact and resource damage in the park.  

Some federal organizations state that the purpose of permit licensing and fees is cost recovery, but like a local park where an entry fee is initiated and the fees must be raised to pay for the new fee collector, I wonder how much of the fee is simply to pay an $80,000 salary and lifetime retirement benefits to fund the permit issuer jobs. In many parks workshop leaders are required to ensure that the students paid their entry fees, so they're providing unpaid oversight and a positive influence on park revenue.  And as the story told in the letter clearly states, first aid trained workshop leaders also can help in emergency medical situations, further minimizing impact on park staff and budget.  Last but not least, providing a competent tour encourages workshop leaders to provide interpretive and educational information similar to ranger-led walks, supplementing park staff at no cost.  The advertising paid for by the workshop host and the photos produced by the group present the park and its best resources in the best light (literally and figuratively) to the public, and promote the park's visitation, enjoyment and use by others (supporting the park's charter and visitor revenue).

If both the law's clear intent and the oversight, educational and revenue benefits of qualified workshop instructors are going to be ignored in favor of expanding the bureaucratic process intended for managing film crews, there still are questions about how those fees should be collected.  Most parks tend to collect a flat fee, but should a sole proprietor running one workshop with four attendees in each of four parks really pay the exact same rate as an organization running 100 workshops in those four parks?  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average photographer makes $28,000, not far above the poverty line.  Why would federal agencies insist on putting poor people out of business by charging them $100 per customer for one weekend, while letting the major operators already dominating the workshop business in that area off at $5 to $10 per customer?  It's completely nonsensical, and seems to clearly and completely contradict any claims that the fees are related to (should scale with) resource or management impact.  The massive amount of time I'll spend filling out paperwork and communicating back and forth with the nice people at 5 or 6 agencies is time not spent making my business more effective.  A single three day workshop can easily visit lands managed by 4 or 5 agencies, so due to the bureaucratic overhead I am limited to operating in only one or two regions, severely limiting my workshop offerings in a year (and the number of times a customer will be interested in returning).  

Putting small operators out of business reduces competition and raises costs for attendees, it is bad for the local economy and minimizes tax revenue as workshops at low price points can't operate.  Fewer people can afford to take workshops with higher costs, which minimizes park visitation.

These are not hypothetical arguments.  I paid over $4100 in access and permit fees last year and I'll pay about $8000 – $10,000 in fees this year (while leaving out many of the parks and workshops I'd like to offer).  That might make a huge difference in whether or not my daughter +Nicole Sullivan can attend college next year.  I love our parks and completely understand the need to monitor and manage many commercial activities, but the ripple effect of government over-regulation damaging the smallest businesses with a "death by a thousand cuts" in lost time and additional cost affects real people, and that does have a broad and multi-generational impact.

+Jeff Sullivan Excellent analysis. I'd love to highlight what you've written – have you posted this anywhere (e.g. on your blog) that I can point to?

Thanks +Steven Christenson.  Yes, you can click on the icon toward the top right side of most G+ posts and use the "Link to this Post" menu item to get this URL you can point to: https://plus.google.com/107459220492917008623/posts/e9iQti943t2

Great photo and work! +Jeff Sullivan 
Selected as ►TOP Photo on Google+◄ for the daily photo theme:
#10000photographers by +Robert SKREINER
and shared at the page: +10000 PHOTOGRAPHERS

Our earth is a master piece, great shot sir. Keep up the good work.

Fantastic!