it's a joke in my view. however, even the state of montana is finding ways to earn revenue from photographers. In 2008 the state now requires a permit to still photograph on lands they manage. . . can you imagine, Montana taxing people to take photos of birds and mountains, what a joke. . . I paid mine, i think i'm one of two guys in the whole state that buy the permit. . . LOL

Pay the money and move on. It's worth a discussion, but if you dont pay it, there's 5 guys usually ready to take the business that will willingly fork it over just to be a part of the community. . . today is a new day for photographers, the days of "pro" are over. . . everyone's a pro these days even one's that dont make a dime off their images, they have the money to buy the best and pay the fees but dont have to make a cent on it because they dont need it. . .

Very interesting stuff. I just don't think I looked very.... Professional when I was around the rings. I only pointed my camera at one dog and didn't have my bag or more than one camera with me. I did see a few with multiple cameras around their necks and a few with press passes.

Tony,
thanks for your point of view but I disagree with you. And, in fact, this morning the Show Chair contacted me to let me know they've reverted to prior policy and no photographers would be charged or asked to produce liability coverage.

In my view, if you aren't willing to protect your rights, you soon won't have any. This wasn't about whether it's OK to charge photographers "vendor fees" to photograph at shows but why photographers were being singled out and other "vendors", such as professional handlers, were being ignored. The simple fact is, no show chair in the world would take on the Professional Handlers. They wouldn't have a show. So we -- the photographers -- were an easy target.

I'm all for policies that treat everyone fairly. I'm sure there must be one out there somewhere . But to discriminate against a group of professionals simply because you can is not something I tolerate easily. Especially when I'm in that group.

Jim

I think the tough part of enforcing this would be the advanced amateurs that are also dog owners. I know plenty that take photos ringside and sell very cheap or give them away to other owners. Now, are they breaking rules under this first thought or not?

They would have to print in the program that no cameras would be allowed without the vendor fee and that surely would NOT make owners happy. I know as an owner/mother that venues my kids/dogs are competing, I expect the right to take photos

Its altogether tough. I see many sides of the issue. I could argue for, against, back and forth. It just could not FAIRLY be enforced

it's okay to disagree that's a good thing. I just choose my battles. I wont let a small fee get in my way. it's no worth the fight and at the end of the day, people want to deal with people who are excited to do their job, not people who want to moan about fees. I hate the fact that I pay so many fees, and if I wanted I'd fight them all, but at the end of the day, I only have a few decades left on this earth and i'm going to make them the funnest and most rewarding of my life. . .