You are here

Photographer Hoping To Document Sites With Potential To Be Included In National Park System

Alternate Text
If he raises $20,000, a Washington, D.C.-based photographer will crisscross the nation to document sites he believes should be in the National Park System.

A Washington-based photographer is hoping to spend six months on the road documenting sites across the United States that he believes have the potential to be included in the National Park System.

Zack Frank, a professional photographer with a long list of credits, has identified 54 locations, ranging from the North Woods of Maine and Blackwater Falls in West Virginia to "a second Yosemite in the mountains of Wyoming." If he can raise $20,000, he'll set out on the road to photograph locations that will go into a 200-page landscape photography book to be called Undiscovered America.

Over the last 7 years I'™ve been researching these unknown natural landscapes and the major difference between these places and the National Parks is that these areas weren'™t lucky enough to be championed by people like John Muir, Timothy O'™Sullivan or Ansel Adams. As a result they'™ve gone overlooked by most artists and travelers. Fortunately, it'™s not too late to give these locations the attention they deserve before they end up overly commercialized like Niagara Falls or destroyed like West Virginia's eroded mountaintops. The locations range from privately owned lands and American Indian reservations to state preserves and lesser-known Department of the Interior sites. The environments include: the deepest canyon in the United States (deeper than the Grand Canyon), a second Yosemite in the mountains of Wyoming, the greatest undeveloped wilderness in the east, the largest remaining natural habitat in the Great Plains, canyons carved out of the painted desert, caves, badlands, mountains, forests, wetlands and much more.


Pledge levels range from $5 all the way to $3,000, a donation that would gain you "official sponsor" status of his project. You can learn more of Mr. Frank's project, watch a short video explaining it, and donate to it, at this site.


I appreciate that you're interested in my project, however that's a very strange question and it appears you're looking for a fight. I'm happy to address questions about my project but I'm not able to predict the economic ebbs and flows of the next 150 years. My project is similar to the naturalists who campaigned for new parks in the 20th century, in that they didn't know how their beloved landscapes would be funded either, but it didn't stop them from dreaming of conservation.

The funding issues are short-term problems

Really?  So what is your "short term" solution for fixing them?

The funding issues are short-term problems when considered over the next 150 years. For example, 150 years ago we still had not established Yellowstone. This project is about a vision for the future, and I know that none of these sites will be made National Parks tomorrow. I'm going on this trip to inspire people to protect most of these overlooked natural wonders before our economic short-sightedneas turns them into oil feeds and pit mines. No one is currently trying to raise awareness for these sites, and thats the purpose of my project. this is certainly not a summer vacation.

The park system has $billions of maintanence backlog and you want to add/expand 72 units?  As if taking pictures (which already existing by the thousands) would accomplish that. 

Looks to me like you are just trying to get other people to pay for your summer vacation.

I'm glad the list makes sense now! If you know know anyone who might be interested please pass my project along to them. Thanks for your support and for wishing me luck!

> The article above says "Potential To Be Included In National Park System" and that's not actually accurate... I'm writing about places that could instead be given the "National Park" designation.

That's a significant difference,  you should have pointed out earlier the mistake. Your list now makes more sense to me. Good luck on the project.  



With due respect, 19 of the 72 locations that will be in my book (the project says 54, but i've already photographed the rest so I didn't include them in the project) are in the NPS in some capacity. They are all sites that I think would benefit from being expanded. Pinnacles and possibly "Rim Rock Canyons" are being established as they are, without additional lands out of politics. That does not mean that they won't be expanded in the future, but expanision is much more likely as a NP than a NM. That's why NM's are included. The article above says "Potential To Be Included In National Park System" and that's not actually accurate... I'm writing about places that could instead be given the "National Park" designation along with the current 59. The book is only about the "National Park" designation and will represent my thoughts on sites that could be established over the next 150 years.

I also have lists of sites that could be established as new National Monument and Historic/Battlefield parks as well, but they are not the focus of this project.

Thanks again for hearing me out. I'm sure there is more area in which we agree, than disagree. I'm just trying to do my part for the parks.

Thanks for clarification & sorry for mispelling. I am not going to argue further your statements about "pro" photographers, do what you'd like with suggestions. I still think it makes little sense to include NMs and other existing NPS sites in a book about sites worthy of NPS protection. In fact the level of protection of NMs & NPs is *exactly*  the same. Case in point Pinnacles was sold to Congress as a mere name change.

Add comment


This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

National Parks Traveler's Essential Park Guide

Recent Forum Comments