I have recently been alerted to a serious problem of disturbance of dippers along two well known rivers in Derbyshire. These locations have been revealed though magazine articles and possibly through various forums (not known) and it seems that a flood of photographers have been visiting these sites this spring of which a small minority have been causing disturbance - two photographers causing a pair to desert their nest. This has come to me firsthand from a Natural England (formerly English Nature) member of staff who politely asked one unnamed photographer to come out of the river and move away from the nest site. He refused to do so. This sort of behaviour is obviously totally unacceptable and regrettably tars all wildlife photographers with the same brush. Incidents of this nature do a great deal of harm to the reputation of nature photograohy as a whole and can ruin access and working relationships with conservation organisations that other photographers may have worked hard to build up. Above all, the subject's welfare must be put first and every photographer must behave responsibily and with the ethics set out by the nature photographers code of conduct. I have been asked by Natural England to urge photographers not to visit these sites during the coming weeks as this is the critical period of the dippers breeding season. Hopefully members will respect this request.
Hi Mark,
I believe I took most of my Dipper shots at one of these sites ( from the bank I hasten to add ) and the biggest problem I encounted was with the ramblers who stop just opposite one of the nest sites to grab a breath and eat their lunch , on one occasion three ramblers walked into the river with their dog to have a look at one of the nests and I'm quite sure this happens all the time , everybody who visits these sites , not only photographers , should show the upmost respect for the welfare of these birds.
I guess these must be the two locations mentioned in the Mike Lane book I recently posted a link to? If so, surely Mike Lane is to blame for the disturbance. And the irresponsible photographers concerned, of course.
Maybe I should withdraw my link to said book, which may be the main culprit for revealing the sites. I wonder if any of the other sites Mike mentions have suffered from an excessive influx of photographers? Obviously, everyone on this board is above suspicion.
If these indeed are the sites mentioned in the book I can tell you that certainly at one there are signs regarding the control of dogs. I was there late in the year last year and my visit coincided with a running event and dogs in the water was a very common phenomenon indeed. After suffering dogs entering the water for the fifth time over two different locations I left without taking a single frame having spent less than 2 hours at the site. I have no idea whether this is a common occurrence but in my two hours I saw three other photographers walking the bank but eight dogs chasing around in the water. Not my kind of place and I won’t be returning (nothing to do with the killer walk uphill to the car park).
However having said all that, as photographers we should recognise that we can be a very identifiable and easy target in situations like this and should behave accordingly.
I entirely agree that dogs off leads are of equal concern and indeed Natural England also mentioned this to me when I spoke with them regarding this problem. Whilst I cannot condone the situation with dogs, it is perhaps less of a problem in so much that the dog may not be close to the nest site for very long and will quickly move on thereby the birds aren't kept away from the nest for too long. The same applies to ramblers and again always a problem where a public right of way is adjacent to prime habitat for a particular species. In their defence this is usually done very innocently whereas photographers are fully aware of the implications of their actions. Because we are conspicuous with long telephoto lenses etc. then it is more important for us to be squeaky clean in this regard and to set a good example. I would like to think that most nature photographers are equally keen naturalists and so we have an important role to play in highlighting such problems not just to other photographers who may not be aware of the problems they can potentially cause, but to also to other organisations such as ramblers etc. The use of images to send out the right messages that can be used in raising awareness is an important role that we can all play. It is important that we all seek to use our pictures to further the conservation message whenever possible, This brand of 'Conservation Photography' is gaining momentum - see the ILCP web site in the states http://www.conservationphotography.net/ and is something that we should be looking towards establishing here in the UK.
We should be naturalists, first and foremost. Photography is our pursuit but should never take priority over the subjects welfare. As we spend more time observing wildlife and nature than many others, we should set a good example and also educate others about these sort of issues.
You'll have seen plenty of discussion on this topic on here already on another thread no doubt, but I have to say that the level of ignorance (and I think I mean this in the lack of knowledge sense) of so many when it comes to understanding the needs of the subject matter they are trying to photograph is incredible. I won't even work in certain parts of my garden for longer than 5-10 minutes at this time of the year with nesting Blue Tits, Blackbirds and Robins (mind you it's a good excuse to leave the weeding for a bit longer!!).
As someone who enjoys a lot of publicity in the photo and outdoor press generally I'm sure you'll agree that magazines have a responsibility to ensure these aspects of good practice are constantly being highlighted when the "get out and photograph wildlife type features" are running - with equipment being relatively cheap these days and so much good material out there for people to aspire to and try to match the danger is that the wrong mentality can easily creep in and this is what we are seeing, and not I fear people who are naturalists first.
I'm sure you'll be using your influence to get the point you've put so well on here - and that may be a better audience as it's more general photogaphers rather than the slightly more specialist interest (and one would hope therefore sensitive approach) of the posters on here.
Discussion
7 repliesShame on the magazines to reveal the locations(although i spect they did'nt expect things like that to happen),
Thanks for the heads-up on this on going problem
Oh and great shots in your website Mark
I believe I took most of my Dipper shots at one of these sites ( from the bank I hasten to add ) and the biggest problem I encounted was with the ramblers who stop just opposite one of the nest sites to grab a breath and eat their lunch , on one occasion three ramblers walked into the river with their dog to have a look at one of the nests and I'm quite sure this happens all the time , everybody who visits these sites , not only photographers , should show the upmost respect for the welfare of these birds.
Kind regards
Andy...
Maybe I should withdraw my link to said book, which may be the main culprit for revealing the sites. I wonder if any of the other sites Mike mentions have suffered from an excessive influx of photographers? Obviously, everyone on this board is above suspicion.
However having said all that, as photographers we should recognise that we can be a very identifiable and easy target in situations like this and should behave accordingly.
Regards
JohnS
We should be naturalists, first and foremost. Photography is our pursuit but should never take priority over the subjects welfare. As we spend more time observing wildlife and nature than many others, we should set a good example and also educate others about these sort of issues.
Rob
You'll have seen plenty of discussion on this topic on here already on another thread no doubt, but I have to say that the level of ignorance (and I think I mean this in the lack of knowledge sense) of so many when it comes to understanding the needs of the subject matter they are trying to photograph is incredible. I won't even work in certain parts of my garden for longer than 5-10 minutes at this time of the year with nesting Blue Tits, Blackbirds and Robins (mind you it's a good excuse to leave the weeding for a bit longer!!).
As someone who enjoys a lot of publicity in the photo and outdoor press generally I'm sure you'll agree that magazines have a responsibility to ensure these aspects of good practice are constantly being highlighted when the "get out and photograph wildlife type features" are running - with equipment being relatively cheap these days and so much good material out there for people to aspire to and try to match the danger is that the wrong mentality can easily creep in and this is what we are seeing, and not I fear people who are naturalists first.
I'm sure you'll be using your influence to get the point you've put so well on here - and that may be a better audience as it's more general photogaphers rather than the slightly more specialist interest (and one would hope therefore sensitive approach) of the posters on here.
All the best
Mark