Careful with that "tweet" button, folks.
Last week Outside Magazine, in the daily ritual of feeding social media channels, reached back two years for a cool nighttime photograph from Arches National Park that, unfortunately, inadvertently promoted camping in an area of the park that is off-limits to camping.
What's going on? The social media-driven decay of sound journalism, perhaps. In the frenzy by countless outlets -- news sites, bloggers, conservation groups, ring-wing outlets, left-wing outlets, politicians, etc. -- to gain notice and build "followers" and "likes," we're seeing at times some playing fast and loose with the facts. Or not fully taking a moment to consider the implication of what they post.
That was Outside's mistake last week. In a "tweet" on Twitter, the magazine's social media staff posted the above 2014 photo of an illuminated tent on a ledge near Delicate Arch with a lone individual standing on an outcrop gazing at Delicate Arch. The photographer also seems to have used some lighting in the bowl beneath the iconic arch to help illuminate it.
In a few words promoting the image, Outside wrote: "This shot of Arches National Parks illustrates why it's a great place to run away to."
Sure, it's a gorgeous shot, one that convinced the magazine's online editors back in 2014 to run it on their site. But pitching a tent overlooking Delicate Arch is also against park regulations, and the photographer would have been ticketed had a ranger come upon him.
Unfortunately, with nearly a quarter-million followers on Twitter, Outside is telling folks it's OK to pitch their tents within sight of Delicate Arch.
"If this is a true picture without any 'shopped' editing, then camping is prohibited in the depicted area," Arches Chief Ranger Kevin Moore said. "Since there is a prop it maybe a commercial violation as well."
On Arches' "Backcountry Camping" page on its website, there is a clear explanation of where one can, and where one can't, pitch their tent outside of the Devils Garden Campground.
Backcountry camps at Arches must be:
* at least 1 mile (1.6km) from (and out of sight of) any designated road,
* at least 0.5 mile (0.8km) from (and out of sight of) designated trails,
* out of sight of any arch named on a USGS topographical map, and established before sundown.
The park also has posted a map that clearly shows where backcountry travelers can camp, and the area around Delicate Arch is in the 'no camping' zone.
Jenna Giddens, the National Park Service's field operations supervisor for interpretation at Arches and Canyonlands national parks, said not only is it illegal to camp in view of Delicate Arch, but it's also against park regulations to artificially illuminate arches in the park.
“Illuminating the features is a huge problem. We have a lot of people who want to photograph the night sky, and it ruins the images," she said Friday.
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
Its likely this was a planned and staged shot and after taken, everyone packed up and left. Much ado about nothing.
Do you have evidence for that otherwise baseless assertion?
"Nothing", because there was forethought and planning before temporarily violating a couple of regs. OK, then, whatever you can justify.
before temporarily violating a couple of regs
What regs did they violate? If they did, then no it isn't OK but if they pitched a tent for a photo op and didn't camp, I don't see any violation.
They'd need a permit for commercial photography. Plus there's the violation for illuminating the bowl beneath Delicate Arch, as the ranger said.
Beyond that, the greater problem is that media should recognize a responsibility not to mislead, consciously or unconsciously, through their words and pictures. As I noted, Outside's Twitter feed goes to a quarter-million folks. How many might see that photo and say, "Cool, I want to camp there!" Or even want to try to get the same photo for themselves?
Would you also say it's OK to pitch a tent on the apron of Old Faithful for a cool photo? Or on top of Half Dome?
Everytime a magazine has a picture inside a national park they need a permit? Did you get a permit for every picture you have posted here? As to the illumination, given that it is time lapse photo, that could have been a flash light or lantern, certainly having a flashlight or lantern isn't against the rules. As to Old Faithful or Half Dome I don't know that either would bother me, particularly if done under the circumstances of this photo, at night with few others around.
National park pictures are the least of their sins in that regard.
Permits generally are not needed for news gathering photos, EC. At Arches, the regulations are pretty specific. For instance, the following generally will not be permitted:
I don't see Outside's reporting any less "news gathering" than some of NPT's stories. If its illegal it shouldn't be done but in this case a pretty petty complaint. By the way, this month's Outside has a picture of someone walking across Yosemite Falls. Was that illegal? Is it promoting?
There is a line, perhaps fine at times, but existent just the same between commercial photography and news gathering.
As for someone walking across Yosemite Fall, not illegal that I know of, but I wouldn't recommend it.
You're a good man, Kurt. I'm amazed you keep responding.
No evidence, which is why I used "likely" and didn't make an assertion. But to make you happy, Kurt provided some regs that indicated even that activity would be illegal.
Yep, anytime one sets up a prop to be used in commercial photography, which is the case here, one would definitely need to secure a permit. In this case, the NPS would not have approved of the image, since it would have promoted illegal camping in a sensitive area.
Rules, EC! I know you walk through life oblivious to almost everything in your self-righteous and deluded manner, but come on you're wearing the dunce cap again.
Gary - can you read or are you overcome by your desire to make personal attacks? My words "What regs did they violate? If they did, then no it isn't OK...."
I think it's evident that this article mentions some of the regulations they broke. I mentioned another one - using a prop for commercial photography without securing a permit. Tossing up a tent that is not permitted in a camping exclusion zone would be considered using a prop for commercial interests. If they didn't use a tent, nor lit the area, they could have took the photo without needing to secure a commercial permit. Here's the rules:
https://www.nps.gov/arch/planyourvisit/filming.htm
In the rules it states: "The project includes a portrayal of activities that are not permitted within a national park"
While you may have read this article, you obviously failed to comprehend many of the statements found within it, and so all of this back and forth banter is a waste of everyone's time, since your reading comprehension has failed you. So, please return to the corner and sit facing the wall while wearing the dunce cap.
Once again Gary - I said if they broke the rules it was not OK. I acknowledged later, after someone showed me the rules you linked to, that they broke the rules. Of course, that is assumming they didn't get a permit. Do you know for a fact they didn't?
Simple logic would dictate that the NPS would not have approved this photography crew of setting up a prop and illuminating the bowl for this image, since the shot violates quite a few of it's own rules - and promotes an idea that is against park regulations Obviously, National Park Service staff are quoted in this very article stating rules that were broken. So, it's highly doubtful they secured a permit. I'd say, no, the photographers that took this image failed to inquire, let alone secure a permit.
Y'know what they say about assumptions, Esteemed Comrade. Seems like you're making yourself one of those things that results when you assume things.
Just reading the last few posts remind me of the Kindergarten kids arguing, "Did to." "Did not." "Did to." "Did not." "Did to." "Did not." "Did to." "Did not." "Did to." "Did not." "Did to." "Did not." "Did to." "Did not." "Did to." "Did not."
Fellow Travelers, we all need to stop falling for troll bait. It just feeds the troll's endless need for attention and accomplishes nothing. The park apparently dealt with this and a money grubbing magazine goofed again. What else needs to be said?
I have assumed nothing. I asked what rules were violated and indicated that if they had been broken it wasn't OK. I was later shown the exact rules and indicated they had been broken.