One March morning 19 years ago, I was photographing gray wolves at a private game preserve that charged a small admission fee. The magnificent creatures lived in a huge, enclosed area that looked natural enough, a grand place to capture behavioral and portrait wolf photos for my files.

This was my first visit there and within an hour an incident occurred that flabbergasted me. An official approached, asked my name and then said pro photographers must buy a permit beyond the admission cost to shoot images. I do not recall the figure but it was high.

The expensive photography equipment – I suppose – had given me away, but I had made no attempt to hide anything. His request was completely foreign to me at the time, and it angered me enough to shake my head in disgust and shout, “What a shortsighted policy!”

My crack may surprise folks not into selling photos, but my reasoning proved sound. I then explained to the official that the requirement ensured that any published photo would not include where-to information beyond the fact that it was a game preserve in an mid-Appalachian state. No free PR for that place.

The park guy did not know my name but had made two assumptions:

A photographer with thousands of dollars of gear was a pro.

More importantly, on my photography vest, a coveted patch among photographers showed the name of a photography manufacturer – a company that gave it to pro photographers who received discounts.

The preserve worker knew what the patch meant because the media flocked to this place. You know that some of them had fought him about a photography fee.

Back then I was teaching still-photography seminars with the late Bill Silliker Jr. and told him about the incident. This full-time photographer said the policy was a growing problem for pros shooting images of wildlife, landscape and outdoor action in federally designated wilderness areas and parks. He said the feds were making noise about charging professional photographers and videographers for “special-use permits” way back then.

In the early 2000s after three decades of photography, I drifted out of it and never encountered permit fees again until noting a recent proposal by the federal government.

The U.S. Forest Service has initiated a proposal that would require “special-use permits” before professionals and, much to my surprise, even amateurs could shoot photos, film or video in federally designated wilderness areas – even with cell-phone cameras. Permits could cost up to $1,000 to $1,500, but as of this writing the feds have reached no decisions.

For pros, this federal policy has the potential of interfering with media-reporting to the public and with research projects.

Also, and no small consideration, workers at a federal agency decide who can shoot photos and how much it will cost. Image the opportunities for corruption.

(When I told Silliker about my encounter at the wolf preserve, his comment about “growing problem” specifically referred to federal lands like Denali Park in Alaska, where he went every year before his death. He said the park had a long list of photographers entering a lottery for a coveted photography spot, and he had no guarantee that he could go there in the the lottery program during any given year.)

This U.S. Forest Service plan strikes me as a violation of the First Amendment, which doesn’t say we have freedom of the press except for, say, nature-subject shots on government land. The U.S. Forest Service claims that it will try to do something so it won’t violate the First Amendment. We shall see.

The U.S. Forestry Service is ignoring a fact with this federal proposal. In 1964 the Wilderness Act passed in part because outdoor journalists wrote about wild areas in the U.S. The publicity led to a public movement to save places that were – after all – public and bought with tax money. Also, it surprises folks like me that the U.S. Forest Service would attempt to influence coverage in wilderness areas on the 50th anniversary of the Act.

Here’s how corruption works in one situation like this: In places with limited slots for photographers wanting photography access, forestry officials may choose media people who agree with their philosophies.

In Maine back in the mid-1990s, a well-known environmental reporter here told me that information and education officials at our Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife never answered her calls or returned messages – no surprise to me. Before she told me, an IFW male official had told me that they avoided the woman because of her ultra-liberal politics.

I hope those days have ended.

Ken Allen of Belgrade Lakes, a writer, editor and photographer, may be reached at

KAllyn800@yahoo.com