Posted by Graham Brown on November 23, 2007 at 6:58 AM
I went to Portree on the Isle of Skye in 2006 to photograph sea eagles from a boat that went out twice a day. Superb to see the birds so close up. Went back this year only to find that there were 2 companies now operating trips each going out 4 times a day and throwing lots of fish out. As a result the seals are now there for a free dinner and the eagles will not come down. Just a note to say that if you planning to go to Skye don't be suprised if you don't see them. Commercial greed has ruined the chance for nature lovers to see these majestic birds. Graham
Posted by Andy Astbury on November 23, 2007 at 7:29 AM
Graham - what a great close-up image - very powerful
Composition - wise I think it could do with a bit of anti-clockwise rotation to get the wings on the frame diagonal and it would be nice to see this at 720 pixels and up your jpeg quality so the file is 150Kb or so - there's a lot of detail here and it would be nice to see it clearer.
Superb shot though - excellent job
Posted by Paul Gibbs on November 23, 2007 at 7:33 AM
Stunning shot, i agree with andy, shame about the people over feeding and bring in the seals, but things may change.
Posted by Mark Sisson on November 23, 2007 at 7:37 AM
That's the difference between the UK and Norway eh!
Lovely shot and nice colours in the sky too - and I bet there's more in the underwings to be squeezed out or seen in a bigger file.
Mark
Posted by Gary Beers on November 23, 2007 at 8:31 AM
Great image, disappointing news (particularly as I am off to Skye next June)
"Commercial greed has ruined the chance for nature lovers to see these majestic birds."
With respect Graham:
How about public demand from nature lovers to see these birds has meant a decrease in available places and an increase in demand for more opportunities to go out? And the seals are only doing what they're programmed to do - get fish, eat fish.
I really dont think it's either fair, or completely accurate to blame the boat operators, who live in a marginal economy and are probably only trying to respond to public demand. And trying to earn a living in exactly the same way as some of the photogs who buy their services.
A good friend of mine runs a couple of cruise boats off one of the west coast islands and is wrestling with just such a dilemma - increased demand means he's having to turn people away and numbers would certainly sustain a third boat, but he has grave concerns that the island destination that the tour goes to, and where the guests go ashore, cannot sustain such an increase as the birdlife would possibly be affected and the rough tracks eroded further.
We (and I certainly include myself in this) nature/natural history/environment photographers need to continually remind ourselves (or be reminded) that we are often also part of the problem. 'The myth of the non-consumptive user' encompasses us too.
These issues of sustainable tourism in rural areas are difficult and complex ones - I'd be first to admit I have no answers, but increased awareness of the complexities is a really good thing for us.
I did a presentation earlier this week to a mixed group of Swedish, Icelandic, Norwegian, Finnish and Scottish tourism entrepreneurs as part of an EU funded skills sharing conference. Amongst other things in my talk I showed a sequence of images of the Moray Firth dolphins doing their thing and informed the group of the economic value these 160 animals (estimated total population) have to the local economy of Inverness. It's estimated at between £5 and £7 million per annum. There were a few astonished expressions evident.
Sorry - long post - and please dont interpret this as a criticism of you personally Graham - thats not the intent. Just meant to offer another perspective. And speaking of 'other perspectives' - after my presentation I was sat for dinner beside the Icelandic delegate, who said, "I liked your images, £5 million is a lot of money, and I really like dolphins - pan-fried in butter they are very tasty". And he laughed heartily.
Complex issues, no simple answers.
That aside - I like the image! The cloud really adds something to it that many 'blue sky' images lack - I think it gives a sense of depth that the clear blue cloudless backgrounds dont.
Posted by Graham Brown on November 23, 2007 at 6:11 PM
Thanks for your comments John but i find this increased boat activity self defeating because if you cannot see the sea eagles all you get is a trip round the bay which is not very interesting and interest in these trips will probably wane. Graham
Hi Graham - give some thought to a couple of alternatives and give me some idea of which one would be preferable to you, or suggest some others yourself, and if you can be bothered - perhaps a few reasons why:
1) Banning all boat operators from artificially feeding the eagles and increasing the cctv observation facilities so theres a special premium facility where you could personally control the camera and download a live digital feed either still or video into a pendrive or onto dvd to take away with you. But access to this facility would be priced fairly high so that some of the income would go to the boat operators to compensate for their lost income.
2) Introduce a permit system where only a certain number of trips per day are made, its controlled carefully and you have to enter a lottery to get a space. The date/time of each slot is fixed and supply will exceed demand so only 50% of applicants will be successful, and the price of this would be at least double the existing cost but perhaps more.
No trick questions, I know some of the people and local issues/politics involved in these conundrums and its always good to have a fresh opinion from a thoughtful consumer. But also - no pressure - I dont want you to feel you have to respond.
As someone born and living in the highlands and actually earning a living here from working in and with the environment I'm always interested in fresh perspectives on what attracts people and how they see resolutions to the inevitable issues such resource use creates.
Anyone else care to chip in also would be good. I dont want this to be a polarized discussion - I think we're all on the same side and we're certainly all similar consumers whether we go to Donna Nook, Gigrin, or Skye so your observations and thoughts would be welcome.
Posted by Graham Brown on November 24, 2007 at 6:05 AM
Hi John. I understand your arguement but if people can't see nature then there is no point in having it. The first year i went on these trips (5 in all) everybody on those trips were 'over the moon' with the experience they had had but this year i only went on 2, saw no eagles, and everybody was so disappointed and thought they had been conned because it was advertised as a sea eagle trip. If they change their advert to boat trips around the bay then fine but how about all those people who would love to see these birds close up,thats now gone because i don't know anywhere else in this country where you can see them close up.I also feel a bit annoyed because i made the 1200 mile round journey to see them again. Graham
"I understand your arguement but if people can't see nature then there is no point in having it."
I am sure this does not come across as you intended, for by 'it' we may substitute nature when I assume you meant the trip
It's a hard one really, especially where the sea is concerned.
In this case I would suggest that the two competitors for punters pounds meed to get their act together. If they co-operate thesy have have a business in 3 years, if they don't they will not and possibly be done for false advertising: I have often wondered about the legality of advertising ( and taking money/ 'a contract' for) a "X" watching trip when the "X" is more than likely not going to turn up. In an increasing litigious society I would suggest they co-operate as the amount of money is a 'small claim' and easily done.
Either way I am sure the eagles will still catch food
Posted by Paul Thomas on November 24, 2007 at 6:43 AM
First of all great image
As to your other points, I feel the term "commercial greed" may be a bit hard on people who are probably just trying to feed their families at a time when traditional industries such as farming and fishing are struggling.
I agree with TomW that sometimes a bit of local cooperation can be valuable - this is happening on the Moray Firth with the Dolphin Space Programme which has a voluntary code for boat operators and recreational users guidance which basically gives the dolphins room to do their thing without harassment.
I dont know whether any such arrangement is in place on Skye.
Still curious though - how many of you would be up for a lottery system as I outlined above, albeit at increased cost, if it meant the eagles were seen more frequently and the whole resource was therefore 'managed' more carefully??
Posted by Graham Brown on November 24, 2007 at 1:55 PM
Yes you're right i didn't mean "if we can't see nature-------" but there is no control over the exploitation of nature in this case and i can see that money can be made by the locals at least in the short term. But this as i mentioned before is the only site of this kind where nature lovers can get close to these birds and surely this should be preserved. Thanks i have enjoyed the discussion. Graham
Discussion
15 repliesComposition - wise I think it could do with a bit of anti-clockwise rotation to get the wings on the frame diagonal and it would be nice to see this at 720 pixels and up your jpeg quality so the file is 150Kb or so - there's a lot of detail here and it would be nice to see it clearer.
Superb shot though - excellent job
Lovely shot and nice colours in the sky too - and I bet there's more in the underwings to be squeezed out or seen in a bigger file.
Mark
With respect Graham:
How about public demand from nature lovers to see these birds has meant a decrease in available places and an increase in demand for more opportunities to go out? And the seals are only doing what they're programmed to do - get fish, eat fish.
I really dont think it's either fair, or completely accurate to blame the boat operators, who live in a marginal economy and are probably only trying to respond to public demand. And trying to earn a living in exactly the same way as some of the photogs who buy their services.
A good friend of mine runs a couple of cruise boats off one of the west coast islands and is wrestling with just such a dilemma - increased demand means he's having to turn people away and numbers would certainly sustain a third boat, but he has grave concerns that the island destination that the tour goes to, and where the guests go ashore, cannot sustain such an increase as the birdlife would possibly be affected and the rough tracks eroded further.
We (and I certainly include myself in this) nature/natural history/environment photographers need to continually remind ourselves (or be reminded) that we are often also part of the problem. 'The myth of the non-consumptive user' encompasses us too.
These issues of sustainable tourism in rural areas are difficult and complex ones - I'd be first to admit I have no answers, but increased awareness of the complexities is a really good thing for us.
I did a presentation earlier this week to a mixed group of Swedish, Icelandic, Norwegian, Finnish and Scottish tourism entrepreneurs as part of an EU funded skills sharing conference. Amongst other things in my talk I showed a sequence of images of the Moray Firth dolphins doing their thing and informed the group of the economic value these 160 animals (estimated total population) have to the local economy of Inverness. It's estimated at between £5 and £7 million per annum. There were a few astonished expressions evident.
Sorry - long post - and please dont interpret this as a criticism of you personally Graham - thats not the intent. Just meant to offer another perspective. And speaking of 'other perspectives' - after my presentation I was sat for dinner beside the Icelandic delegate, who said, "I liked your images, £5 million is a lot of money, and I really like dolphins - pan-fried in butter they are very tasty". And he laughed heartily.
Complex issues, no simple answers.
That aside - I like the image! The cloud really adds something to it that many 'blue sky' images lack - I think it gives a sense of depth that the clear blue cloudless backgrounds dont.
1) Banning all boat operators from artificially feeding the eagles and increasing the cctv observation facilities so theres a special premium facility where you could personally control the camera and download a live digital feed either still or video into a pendrive or onto dvd to take away with you. But access to this facility would be priced fairly high so that some of the income would go to the boat operators to compensate for their lost income.
2) Introduce a permit system where only a certain number of trips per day are made, its controlled carefully and you have to enter a lottery to get a space. The date/time of each slot is fixed and supply will exceed demand so only 50% of applicants will be successful, and the price of this would be at least double the existing cost but perhaps more.
No trick questions, I know some of the people and local issues/politics involved in these conundrums and its always good to have a fresh opinion from a thoughtful consumer. But also - no pressure - I dont want you to feel you have to respond.
As someone born and living in the highlands and actually earning a living here from working in and with the environment I'm always interested in fresh perspectives on what attracts people and how they see resolutions to the inevitable issues such resource use creates.
Anyone else care to chip in also would be good. I dont want this to be a polarized discussion - I think we're all on the same side and we're certainly all similar consumers whether we go to Donna Nook, Gigrin, or Skye so your observations and thoughts would be welcome.
I am sure this does not come across as you intended, for by 'it' we may substitute nature when I assume you meant the trip
It's a hard one really, especially where the sea is concerned.
In this case I would suggest that the two competitors for punters pounds meed to get their act together. If they co-operate thesy have have a business in 3 years, if they don't they will not and possibly be done for false advertising: I have often wondered about the legality of advertising ( and taking money/ 'a contract' for) a "X" watching trip when the "X" is more than likely not going to turn up. In an increasing litigious society I would suggest they co-operate as the amount of money is a 'small claim' and easily done.
Either way I am sure the eagles will still catch food
As to your other points, I feel the term "commercial greed" may be a bit hard on people who are probably just trying to feed their families at a time when traditional industries such as farming and fishing are struggling.
Paul
I agree with TomW that sometimes a bit of local cooperation can be valuable - this is happening on the Moray Firth with the Dolphin Space Programme which has a voluntary code for boat operators and recreational users guidance which basically gives the dolphins room to do their thing without harassment.
I dont know whether any such arrangement is in place on Skye.
Still curious though - how many of you would be up for a lottery system as I outlined above, albeit at increased cost, if it meant the eagles were seen more frequently and the whole resource was therefore 'managed' more carefully??