Posted by Vandit Kalia on June 30, 2008 at 11:02 AM
I've had an epiphany. I've realized some of the biggest individuals offenders when it comes to nature are nature photographers.
There are a lot of responsible, ethical nature photographers out there, for sure. But they are outnumbered by the bloody yobos who will do anything to get a shot, including disturb, disrupt and damage.
Every time I go to a national park to photograph tigers, the elephant guides - who know me by know and should know better - still try to get "action" images by getting the elephant to bother the tiger. Where did they learn this from, I wonder? Atleast 2 of the top tiger photographers I know routinely do this.
I just got back from an underwater photography trip, and EVERY photographer I saw was "farming" (moving objects from one location to another to get a better shot). Touching marine life can be very dangerous - potentially fatal - to the marine organism. Does that stop these guys? Hell no. Even David Doubilet, an otherwise great photographer who should know better than to encourage this, has released a portfolio of nudibranches which have been put onto portable light tables underwater.
The dive guides would repeatedly poke, prod and harass marine creatures in order to get them into a photogenic location. Even today, you see photographers proudly posting photos of mimic octopus (bottom dwelling creatures) in mid-water in all sorts of amazing positions. How do they get there? The guide puts a stick under the critter and flings it in the air. Repeatedly until the photog gets the shot.
I am ashamed to be share the same hobby with people such as this.
Vandit, I asure you that most serious nature photographers conduct themselves responsibly. Certainly that is true of the members of NPN. One of the things that makes Naturephotographers.net so valuable is the Nature Photographers Network Code of Conduct. It shows that we think of more than just getting the shot.
Sorry. I do not know how to make the link. Perhaps someone could help in that regard.
Vandit, I understand your anger and it also makes me angry. This is now simply an assumption, not a fact: I think this habit you're describing is happens more often in fields where animals are the subject-matter. Still I think the majority of animal-photographers respect the animal in its natural environment and leave them alone. I do not think that Landscape photographers purposely alter the environment to get the shot - at least not very often. I heard stories about photographers cutting down trees, or there is that Fatali-story that never was officially confirmed, but these things seem to be minor (in occurence).
My conviction is that nature-photographers love nature and thus respect it.
The damage I do to nature is standing in a spot long enough to crush some branches or grasses, or in the most sever case breaking off a dead-branch or some grass-stems. I hope that is ok
-Dietrich
Posted by Vandit Kalia on June 30, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Dietrich - you are correct, this is something that wildlife photographers are guilty of, not so much landscape photographers.
Will & Dietrich - I used to think it was just a small minority. Now I am not sure. In the underwater world, we ALL know how those shots are created. All these octopii flying in the air, nudibranchs oh so judiciously sitting someplace where they would NEVER end up under normal circumstances, etc. Yet no one stands up and goes, this is BS.
As for topsides - I run wildlife photo tours. I get to meet a large number of photographers, both as clients and while shooting at sites popular f or wildlife photography. You'd be surprised how many of them are open to a judicious "readjustment" of the subject.. IMO, virtually 100%. Respect for nature? The general belief among most photographers I encounter seems to be: "everyone else must respect nature; however, *I* have a special allowance because *I* am a photographer." These people would be genuinely shocked and angry if they saw a non-photographer harassing an animal. But they think it is ok for them to do it "just once."
Can anyone honestly stand up here and say they've NEVER bothered a wildlife subject or broken any park laws even a little bit to get a shot? I am ashamed to say that I cannot: I have been guilty of a few transgressions. They were quite minor in the grand scheme of things, but not in keeping with the principle under which I try to shoot. It bothers me personally that I've caved in to temptation. It bothers me that from an image sales point of view, I am trying to compete with photographers who go a lot further (and do so with regularity). But most of all, it bothers me that people such as these get away with it and have their images admired. Those images deserve to be deleted/destroyed, not displayed with pride.
Ok, now I am ranting. That was not my point (although I do feel a lot better now!). The purpose of this post is to ask - what can be done? Anything? Can we get photo editors to embrace a "zero harassment" policy when it comes to images?
Will - You got the formatting correct, but the actual address wrong. Here's the correct link for the NPN Code of Conduct.
The other problem with trying too hard to define very rigorous rules is that you run into grey area. For some animals, your very presence hiking through their territory, even on a trail, might be considered distressing for instance. I'm sure there are many other examples.
I can't speak for other countries, but here, when I see the kind of conduct you describe I photograph it and send the photos to the authorities. The authorities may or may not do anything, but it's what a citizen can do...
Education is the key, Vandit. You run Wildlife photo tours. Do you have a similar code of conduct as here at NPN? Do you make sure your clients are familiar with this code? If you see one of your clients break a part of the code do you remind him of his error? Remember the safety of both himself and the beast is being compromised. One of the biggest mistakes people make regarding wildlife is that when the animal allows a person to get close it accepts his presence. It seems to be tame and therefore harmless. Not true. It is still dangerous. This is proven by the way elk behave in Jasper National Park. They are fearless of humans and they are dangerous. More dangerous than bears. More people have been hurt by elk than by bears.
I have made the mistake of getting too close but I know better now and I won't make the same mistake again.
I happen to agree with Vandit. We are our own worst enemies. I could list many examples where I've seen professional and amateur photographers,(even participants in photo workshops) be disrepectful and inconsiderate to other persons trying to enjoy nature, breaking park rules, and harassing wildlife.
I would expect nature and landscape photographers are more environmentally ethical than the rest of our American or Western culture and society. Simply because many tend to greatly value and respect nature more than the average urban Jane and Joe. With generations before the 70s decade there were a great many abuses of all manner from rampant big game hunting, to feeding bears in our national park dumps, to digging up natural plants like cactus beside park roadsides, to fouling water supplies, to destroying endless ecosystems with industry on and on. After the 60s American environmental movement gained traction and increasingly changed ethical status quos.
However not everyone has gotten the message. There are always new young people entering the ranks of nature visitors that need to be instructed as to what is acceptable. And some adults have lived such sheltered lives they are forever clueless about anything beyond popular media. Of course some rednecks and bada$$es will always be beligerent with the attitude of chucking beer cans etc wherever they are, national park or not.
Today nature and landscape photography with all the raging post processing manipulation attitudes, hardly has much ethical ground to stand on, so it is little surprise that it carries over to the capture side of the equation. Given the huge increase in photographers with the current surge of digital cameras, one can expect there will be some that choose unethical behaviors if they think it is to their advantage and they can do so without others knowing or getting caught. Thus where a sign says "Stay on the trail to prevent damage to plants", one might expect some will climb over the fence regardless if they think no one will see them. Another person when visiting a national park may toss out some food so a nearby roadside bear moves closer in order for them to make a closer shot. And the person on an underwater dive sees other people abusing reef creatures to take pictures and without a second thought readily adopts the same behavior since it suits their agenda. It goes on and on of course.
Some people simply have bought into one level or another of some degree of lying, cheating, manipulating, scamming attitudes as long as others are doing so, or they can get away with whatever without their public persona suffering in what they see as a dog eat dog world where being ethical and moral is a strategy for losers.
So its up to the rest of us to put up a strong enough voice with policy, legal measures, and or peer pressures to affect these others to act more ethically.
Today nature and landscape photography with all the raging post processing manipulation attitudes, hardly has much ethical ground to stand on, so it is little surprise that it carries over to the capture side of the equation.
David, I think it's disingenuous to equate post capture photo manipulation to doing damage to natural areas or animals. While the two may be loosely related (i.e. you may say someone devious enough to try to pass manipulated photos off as "straight" may also be unscrupulous enough to do anything - including cause harm - to get the shot) there is a vast difference there. I don't see manipulating photos as having any kind of cause and effect relationship. I would not argue that much damage to nature would be prevented if everyone agreed on photo manipulation.
I wonder if the biggest problem is people who don't realize what they are doing, and how damaging it can be. One photographer breaking a tree branch, moving some coral, flushing a bird, etc. might do very little or no harm. But every photographer doing it can have a huge impact - yet very few may consider this when looking at their own actions.
This would also apply to more obvious abuses. Cutting down a tree to get a shot may not actually be a big deal (it's only one tree), until you consider what would happen if everyone thought that way.
As David B said, the fact that there are no clear-cut lines makes it easy for photographers to give in to temptation. The very presence of humans is disturbing, albeit to a small extent. So is whistling to get the animal to perk up its ears and look in the direction of the photographer acceptable? Apparently yes - this is a universal practice among guides all over the world. From there, it is a slippery slope. There are always justifications: "it isnt any worse than that", "everyone else does it", "it preaches conservation and so is actually better in the long run" - all valid arguments under specific conditions, but absolutely void when applied to all.
David S - you said:
"I would expect nature and landscape photographers are more environmentally ethical than the rest of our American or Western culture and society. Simply because many tend to greatly value and respect nature more than the average urban Jane and Joe. "
In today's era of digital communication and image sharing, I think the "wildlife/nature" bit is being overshadowed by the "photographer" bit. Everyone wants to write impressive trip reports with cool photos, have nice galleries, etc. etc. So there is a greater urge to create good photos, which in turn has an adverse effect on ethics. The fact that NPs are increasingly looking down on photographers as rule-breakers indicates that this is more widespread than we would think.
Will - good point re. the code of conduct. I generally lay down my expectations from photographers on how the trip will be run during the briefing at the start of the trip, but it may be a good idea to formalize it into a "code of conduct" document that they sign.
On a larger level, is there some sort of method that can be used to bring editors of some of the leading nature mags (Audubon, NG, etc.) to support this and publicize this? If this gets enough publicity and the code of conduct becomes a universally-recognized/accepted doctrine, you'll see more photographers starting to follow the rules IMO.
Vandit
Posted by Kent Staubus on July 1, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Obviously this is a sign of just how competitive selling photos has become. No, I wouldn't any of the things you mentioned. But then, there is no pressure on me to sell photos. While there's a relative handfull of people doing this to sell photos, the real problem might be they do it on photo tours, as you suggest. That teaches even more people it is "OK." Realistically all we can do is watch our own actions and try to positively influence those around us. We can also not buy (and generate demand for) photos that seem to have crossed the line, and possbily even write letter to the editors of magazines that use them.
I too agree wholeheartedly with Vandit. I find it absolutely disgusting what many photographers do to get a shot.
I don't think it's just wildlife photographers, as some have suggested. I have also often seen landscape photographers venture where they shouldn't, risking damage to a fragile ecosystem, in order to get a shot.
For hobbyists/amateuers like myself, who sell occasionally photos but certainly don't rely on it for an income, it's definitely an addiction to add that perfect shot to your portfolio. For those who do rely on photography for an income, that perfect shot means money in the pocket, giving further temptation to do things a photographer shouldn't.
I admit that 6-7 years ago, when I first took up birding and photography, I was more concerned about the shot than the resource. If I saw a rare bird, for example, it wasn't enough...I also HAD to have the photo.
Wasn't long though before I realized that without reponsible behavior by the photographer, there is a danger that there will BE no resource to shoot. Now I'm quite content to keep my distance, enjoy the resource, and only capture the photo if conditions safely allow.
Vandit,,,,,,To be honest, the title of this post rubs me the wrong way to begin with and probably colors my response. In another online forum, a photographer went on a vicious rant against goose hunters. A quick look at her portfolio contained images of owls baited with live mice. Is this ethically consistent? Images of deer being hand fed were also posted. Is this harmful to the deer?
You photograph tigers from the back of an elephant? How does the elephant feel about this? Is the behavior of the tigers influenced by associating elephants and humans? You lead groups to photograph wildlife? Are groups more disturbing to the wildlife than individuals? Are game drives by vehicle or elephant acceptable? My point is that we all manage to justify our little bit of disturbance. When doing close up work in a local field, I flush up hundreds of moths, damselflies and other small insects that become prey for the dragonflies and robberflies. Is this detrimental? If I take an image of a dragonfly eating a moth that I scared up, should I disclose this to an editor? What rules apply here? If a field is mowed annually, is breaking a stalk of grass in that field to get the shot ok?
All we can do is act responsibly according to what we truly believe to be correct and encourage others to do so in a way that does not alienate them. If the welfare of the ecosystem was truly our highest goal, we'd stay the hell out of the remaining wild places and push for laws to keep EVERYONE out.
There is one point that is being overlooked here. Whenever I go to the Parks, such as Elk Island or Jasper, almost everyone is carrying a camera. And everyone of them is taking shots of the magnificent scenery. Are they all nature photographers? Part of the learning process in becoming a nature photographer is to cultivate a respect for the environment and the creatures that reside there. I have seen a group of whitetail deer grazing along side the road in Jasper completely surrounded by "nature photographers". A true nature photographer would have declined to join them.
David, I believe a true nature photographer is more than someone who carries a camera around and takes pictures. As I already alluded to, a true nature photographer has cultivated a respect for the environment and will not cause undue stress to any creatures. A deer surrounded by humans surely would be under stress. Would you have joined that throng of photographers? I think not. Why? Because I believe you have the well being of the beast at heart. Besides that, what kind of shot would you have gotten? A photo of a deer with someone in the background taking a photo of the same deer or of you taking a photo of a deer.
Thanks for this topic. I just came back from a trip of many months of photographing in Indian jungles - mostly in the south. I too felt the same. Many times I have noticed vehicles almost surrounding the animals or chasing them with photographers on 10 fps.
In one place I almost slapped the driver - u got it right I tapped his head....as he was driving like a maniac and almost ran down a hare. But this attitude was there regardless if there were photographers. Just people seem to demand or reward a sighting with fat tips. I am sure you are aware that one cannot simply drive into Indian jungles, park and take pictures. So it is not just photographers who are to blame. The park management, the guides, the tour operators and the people.
I saw this change in recent years. Gone are the days when in a jungle you would meet people who liked nature and shared what they saw during their trip. Now people discuss the menu and complain that they didn't see a tiger.
I am glad that as a tour operator you are addressing this issue and you are in the best position to create a better touring environment. I hope others follow the suit.
Aha...I think what I wasn't clear on, Will, was what you meant by "completely surrounded". When I read that, I envisioned a semi-circle on the road/roadside, with the deer free to wander off away from the road. I've never seen a deer completely surrounded the way you describe - wouldn't it freak out? Isn't that not only bad for the deer, but potentially dangerous?
Beyond that, I'd say your definition is more of a "true wildlife photographer" but I think you're spot on. Of course, "undue stress" is a little vague. Is driving a car into an African park and following an elephant, for instance (which I've done), causing "undue stress"? The elephant didn't seem to mind one way or the other, but the guides also knew to look for signs of aggression, or warnings that the elephant didn't want us there. And he was free to leave the roadside. So I would say that no, it wasn't "undue stress", but I could see other people disagreeing.
Thank you all for the comments. Atleast I feel better in knowing that I'm not the only one who's noticed this.
David C - thank you for your considered response to what I wrote. You are correct - every little thing we do has an impact on wildlife: the very act of going to see them is, in effect, disturbing them. I also agree that it is possible to get into a very convoluted debate on how much is acceptable.
But I am not arguing from the point of view of ethics. I am arguing from a position of "is it environmentally sustainable?"
Frankly, in this day and age of dwindling nature, zero impact (absolutely nothing to disturb wildlife) is neither practical nor desirable. Zero impact affects the general public's enjoyment of wildlife - which leads to less tourist spending on wildlife viewing (who'd spend big $$$ on wildlife trips if they only had limited sightings?). And the fact is, the survival of a LOT of species depends on tourist dollars. This has been proven in many, many destinations, especially in developing nations.
Similarly, I have no problems with hunting (well, ok, I *personally* do, but I can tolerate it even if I dont like it), if it is done in a manner that is environmentally sustainable. In fact, in the US, hunters contribute a significant amount of money for conservation. In Africa, hunting dollars help preserve species and ecosystems that would otherwise have dwindled. So it has its place.
But a lot of stress that photographers provide is not sustainable if scaled up. That could be a simple test: if everyone does <this>, is it sustainable?
Also, I dont want to be argumentative, but I think that the vast majority of responses on this thread indicate that it is a wider problem than you might imagine. Merely doing the best we can aand gently encouraging others is not really enough. I think it starts with peer pressure - take shots where animals are obviously disturbed and provide strong negative feedback. I've started to email editors of magazines which publish shots of animals under obvious stress. Perhaps if we all start doing that, and calling out photographers who harass, it will reduce this sort of behavior.
Frankly, in this day and age of dwindling nature, zero impact (absolutely nothing to disturb wildlife) is neither practical nor desirable. Zero impact affects the general public's enjoyment of wildlife - which leads to less tourist spending on wildlife viewing (who'd spend big $$$ on wildlife trips if they only had limited sightings?). And the fact is, the survival of a LOT of species depends on tourist dollars. This has been proven in many, many destinations, especially in developing nations.
I feel like you're contradicting yourself a little here Vandit. "Zero impact" is completely desirable. If a real zero impact policy were in place, tourist dollars wouldn't matter at all. And no species survival would depend on money (if a real zero impact policy and/or enforcement were in place).
Now if you want to argue that it's not practical due to population explosion and the need for resources, then trying to find a managable, sustainable method of regulating what goes on in wild areas makes sense. But that's different than arguing that limited impact with good things coming from the dollars spent is somehow better than zero impact.
Of course, there's the selfish side of me too, that thinks a zero impact policy would be awful. In reality, I think that the main reason there's not a movement for more zero impact areas is that no one really wants that. Too many people want to get out and interact with nature and in wild areas. (More rhetorically, what good is a wild area if no one ever gets to visit it? Why does it matter if a species exists if we can't ever see it? )
No contradiction, although perhaps a little more clarity on my part would have been better. So let me try for the clarity, as I think that we are actually saying the same thing.
I agree that in an ideal world, wildlife would not rely on tourist dollars for survival and species survival would not be in doubt. In such cases, zero impact is of course ideal. I was referring to the status quo of reality today, where even animals have to justify their existence monetarily in order to survive. In such an instance, zero impact in practice would be the death sentence for a lot of species, especially in developing nations. Desirable in principle/theory? Of course not. Desirable in reality? Yes, especially considering the alternative.
I also agree with your personal statement re. zero impact being awful to you (and to me). I dont think that a little disturbance is a bad thing or the end of the world for animals, provided it is limited and not taken to the extremes. The animal should always have the option of responding to the disturbance in its own way - by staying or leaving. Also, the photographer should do his best to minimize that disturbance (my test is: can this action be harmful to the animal if done by many people and/or over extended periods of time?).
Of course every little thing we do disturbs the animal and there is indeed a grey area between what we know to be ok and what we know to be harmful. However, the existence of a grey area and the difficulty in determining exactly what the cutoff point is should not absolve us of the responsibility of following ethical and nature-friendly practices when taking photos. Nor should it stop us from pushing harder to stop others from crossing the limit.
On the subject of zero impact, and I agree with what you are saying, Vandit, I want to also point out that humans are a part of the natural world too and there is always going to be human and wildlife encounters. You ask if this action can be harmful to the animal if done by many people over extended periods of time. To this I would answer "yes" but not for the animal. Why? Because wildlife will eventually become habituated to humans. In other words, they loose their natural fear of humans. In time the beast will no longer be stressed by close human presence but annoyed. Suddenly that animal seems to be tame while in reality it is barely tolerant of the human being lurking near it. So it is the human who finds himself in danger. Most attacks on humans by animals have been from animals that have lost their fear of humans.
Animals and humans alike will always face stress. I think a deer would be even more stressed by the presence of a pack of wolves than a group of humans. ( come to think of it I would be stressed out too.
Discussion
24 repliesThere are a lot of responsible, ethical nature photographers out there, for sure. But they are outnumbered by the bloody yobos who will do anything to get a shot, including disturb, disrupt and damage.
Every time I go to a national park to photograph tigers, the elephant guides - who know me by know and should know better - still try to get "action" images by getting the elephant to bother the tiger. Where did they learn this from, I wonder? Atleast 2 of the top tiger photographers I know routinely do this.
I just got back from an underwater photography trip, and EVERY photographer I saw was "farming" (moving objects from one location to another to get a better shot). Touching marine life can be very dangerous - potentially fatal - to the marine organism. Does that stop these guys? Hell no. Even David Doubilet, an otherwise great photographer who should know better than to encourage this, has released a portfolio of nudibranches which have been put onto portable light tables underwater.
The dive guides would repeatedly poke, prod and harass marine creatures in order to get them into a photogenic location. Even today, you see photographers proudly posting photos of mimic octopus (bottom dwelling creatures) in mid-water in all sorts of amazing positions. How do they get there? The guide puts a stick under the critter and flings it in the air. Repeatedly until the photog gets the shot.
I am ashamed to be share the same hobby with people such as this.
Vandit
Sorry. I do not know how to make the link. Perhaps someone could help in that regard.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
My conviction is that nature-photographers love nature and thus respect it.
The damage I do to nature is standing in a spot long enough to crush some branches or grasses, or in the most sever case breaking off a dead-branch or some grass-stems. I hope that is ok
-Dietrich
Will & Dietrich - I used to think it was just a small minority. Now I am not sure. In the underwater world, we ALL know how those shots are created. All these octopii flying in the air, nudibranchs oh so judiciously sitting someplace where they would NEVER end up under normal circumstances, etc. Yet no one stands up and goes, this is BS.
As for topsides - I run wildlife photo tours. I get to meet a large number of photographers, both as clients and while shooting at sites popular f or wildlife photography. You'd be surprised how many of them are open to a judicious "readjustment" of the subject.. IMO, virtually 100%. Respect for nature? The general belief among most photographers I encounter seems to be: "everyone else must respect nature; however, *I* have a special allowance because *I* am a photographer." These people would be genuinely shocked and angry if they saw a non-photographer harassing an animal. But they think it is ok for them to do it "just once."
Can anyone honestly stand up here and say they've NEVER bothered a wildlife subject or broken any park laws even a little bit to get a shot? I am ashamed to say that I cannot: I have been guilty of a few transgressions. They were quite minor in the grand scheme of things, but not in keeping with the principle under which I try to shoot. It bothers me personally that I've caved in to temptation. It bothers me that from an image sales point of view, I am trying to compete with photographers who go a lot further (and do so with regularity). But most of all, it bothers me that people such as these get away with it and have their images admired. Those images deserve to be deleted/destroyed, not displayed with pride.
Ok, now I am ranting. That was not my point (although I do feel a lot better now!). The purpose of this post is to ask - what can be done? Anything? Can we get photo editors to embrace a "zero harassment" policy when it comes to images?
Vandit
The other problem with trying too hard to define very rigorous rules is that you run into grey area. For some animals, your very presence hiking through their territory, even on a trail, might be considered distressing for instance. I'm sure there are many other examples.
I have made the mistake of getting too close but I know better now and I won't make the same mistake again.
Thanks David for helping out with the link.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
However not everyone has gotten the message. There are always new young people entering the ranks of nature visitors that need to be instructed as to what is acceptable. And some adults have lived such sheltered lives they are forever clueless about anything beyond popular media. Of course some rednecks and bada$$es will always be beligerent with the attitude of chucking beer cans etc wherever they are, national park or not.
Today nature and landscape photography with all the raging post processing manipulation attitudes, hardly has much ethical ground to stand on, so it is little surprise that it carries over to the capture side of the equation. Given the huge increase in photographers with the current surge of digital cameras, one can expect there will be some that choose unethical behaviors if they think it is to their advantage and they can do so without others knowing or getting caught. Thus where a sign says "Stay on the trail to prevent damage to plants", one might expect some will climb over the fence regardless if they think no one will see them. Another person when visiting a national park may toss out some food so a nearby roadside bear moves closer in order for them to make a closer shot. And the person on an underwater dive sees other people abusing reef creatures to take pictures and without a second thought readily adopts the same behavior since it suits their agenda. It goes on and on of course.
Some people simply have bought into one level or another of some degree of lying, cheating, manipulating, scamming attitudes as long as others are doing so, or they can get away with whatever without their public persona suffering in what they see as a dog eat dog world where being ethical and moral is a strategy for losers.
So its up to the rest of us to put up a strong enough voice with policy, legal measures, and or peer pressures to affect these others to act more ethically.
...David
David, I think it's disingenuous to equate post capture photo manipulation to doing damage to natural areas or animals. While the two may be loosely related (i.e. you may say someone devious enough to try to pass manipulated photos off as "straight" may also be unscrupulous enough to do anything - including cause harm - to get the shot) there is a vast difference there. I don't see manipulating photos as having any kind of cause and effect relationship. I would not argue that much damage to nature would be prevented if everyone agreed on photo manipulation.
I wonder if the biggest problem is people who don't realize what they are doing, and how damaging it can be. One photographer breaking a tree branch, moving some coral, flushing a bird, etc. might do very little or no harm. But every photographer doing it can have a huge impact - yet very few may consider this when looking at their own actions.
This would also apply to more obvious abuses. Cutting down a tree to get a shot may not actually be a big deal (it's only one tree), until you consider what would happen if everyone thought that way.
David S - you said:
"I would expect nature and landscape photographers are more environmentally ethical than the rest of our American or Western culture and society. Simply because many tend to greatly value and respect nature more than the average urban Jane and Joe. "
In today's era of digital communication and image sharing, I think the "wildlife/nature" bit is being overshadowed by the "photographer" bit. Everyone wants to write impressive trip reports with cool photos, have nice galleries, etc. etc. So there is a greater urge to create good photos, which in turn has an adverse effect on ethics. The fact that NPs are increasingly looking down on photographers as rule-breakers indicates that this is more widespread than we would think.
Will - good point re. the code of conduct. I generally lay down my expectations from photographers on how the trip will be run during the briefing at the start of the trip, but it may be a good idea to formalize it into a "code of conduct" document that they sign.
On a larger level, is there some sort of method that can be used to bring editors of some of the leading nature mags (Audubon, NG, etc.) to support this and publicize this? If this gets enough publicity and the code of conduct becomes a universally-recognized/accepted doctrine, you'll see more photographers starting to follow the rules IMO.
Vandit
Kent in SD
I don't think it's just wildlife photographers, as some have suggested. I have also often seen landscape photographers venture where they shouldn't, risking damage to a fragile ecosystem, in order to get a shot.
For hobbyists/amateuers like myself, who sell occasionally photos but certainly don't rely on it for an income, it's definitely an addiction to add that perfect shot to your portfolio. For those who do rely on photography for an income, that perfect shot means money in the pocket, giving further temptation to do things a photographer shouldn't.
I admit that 6-7 years ago, when I first took up birding and photography, I was more concerned about the shot than the resource. If I saw a rare bird, for example, it wasn't enough...I also HAD to have the photo.
Wasn't long though before I realized that without reponsible behavior by the photographer, there is a danger that there will BE no resource to shoot. Now I'm quite content to keep my distance, enjoy the resource, and only capture the photo if conditions safely allow.
You photograph tigers from the back of an elephant? How does the elephant feel about this? Is the behavior of the tigers influenced by associating elephants and humans? You lead groups to photograph wildlife? Are groups more disturbing to the wildlife than individuals? Are game drives by vehicle or elephant acceptable? My point is that we all manage to justify our little bit of disturbance. When doing close up work in a local field, I flush up hundreds of moths, damselflies and other small insects that become prey for the dragonflies and robberflies. Is this detrimental? If I take an image of a dragonfly eating a moth that I scared up, should I disclose this to an editor? What rules apply here? If a field is mowed annually, is breaking a stalk of grass in that field to get the shot ok?
All we can do is act responsibly according to what we truly believe to be correct and encourage others to do so in a way that does not alienate them. If the welfare of the ecosystem was truly our highest goal, we'd stay the hell out of the remaining wild places and push for laws to keep EVERYONE out.
Regards,,,,,,David
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Hey Will - Could you define that term? I'm not sure I understand your point in that last post...
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Thanks for this topic. I just came back from a trip of many months of photographing in Indian jungles - mostly in the south. I too felt the same. Many times I have noticed vehicles almost surrounding the animals or chasing them with photographers on 10 fps.
In one place I almost slapped the driver - u got it right I tapped his head....as he was driving like a maniac and almost ran down a hare. But this attitude was there regardless if there were photographers. Just people seem to demand or reward a sighting with fat tips. I am sure you are aware that one cannot simply drive into Indian jungles, park and take pictures. So it is not just photographers who are to blame. The park management, the guides, the tour operators and the people.
I saw this change in recent years. Gone are the days when in a jungle you would meet people who liked nature and shared what they saw during their trip. Now people discuss the menu and complain that they didn't see a tiger.
I am glad that as a tour operator you are addressing this issue and you are in the best position to create a better touring environment. I hope others follow the suit.
Cheers,
Rajesh
Beyond that, I'd say your definition is more of a "true wildlife photographer" but I think you're spot on. Of course, "undue stress" is a little vague. Is driving a car into an African park and following an elephant, for instance (which I've done), causing "undue stress"? The elephant didn't seem to mind one way or the other, but the guides also knew to look for signs of aggression, or warnings that the elephant didn't want us there. And he was free to leave the roadside. So I would say that no, it wasn't "undue stress", but I could see other people disagreeing.
David C - thank you for your considered response to what I wrote. You are correct - every little thing we do has an impact on wildlife: the very act of going to see them is, in effect, disturbing them. I also agree that it is possible to get into a very convoluted debate on how much is acceptable.
But I am not arguing from the point of view of ethics. I am arguing from a position of "is it environmentally sustainable?"
Frankly, in this day and age of dwindling nature, zero impact (absolutely nothing to disturb wildlife) is neither practical nor desirable. Zero impact affects the general public's enjoyment of wildlife - which leads to less tourist spending on wildlife viewing (who'd spend big $$$ on wildlife trips if they only had limited sightings?). And the fact is, the survival of a LOT of species depends on tourist dollars. This has been proven in many, many destinations, especially in developing nations.
Similarly, I have no problems with hunting (well, ok, I *personally* do, but I can tolerate it even if I dont like it), if it is done in a manner that is environmentally sustainable. In fact, in the US, hunters contribute a significant amount of money for conservation. In Africa, hunting dollars help preserve species and ecosystems that would otherwise have dwindled. So it has its place.
But a lot of stress that photographers provide is not sustainable if scaled up. That could be a simple test: if everyone does <this>, is it sustainable?
Also, I dont want to be argumentative, but I think that the vast majority of responses on this thread indicate that it is a wider problem than you might imagine. Merely doing the best we can aand gently encouraging others is not really enough. I think it starts with peer pressure - take shots where animals are obviously disturbed and provide strong negative feedback. I've started to email editors of magazines which publish shots of animals under obvious stress. Perhaps if we all start doing that, and calling out photographers who harass, it will reduce this sort of behavior.
Vandit
I feel like you're contradicting yourself a little here Vandit. "Zero impact" is completely desirable. If a real zero impact policy were in place, tourist dollars wouldn't matter at all. And no species survival would depend on money (if a real zero impact policy and/or enforcement were in place).
Now if you want to argue that it's not practical due to population explosion and the need for resources, then trying to find a managable, sustainable method of regulating what goes on in wild areas makes sense. But that's different than arguing that limited impact with good things coming from the dollars spent is somehow better than zero impact.
Of course, there's the selfish side of me too, that thinks a zero impact policy would be awful. In reality, I think that the main reason there's not a movement for more zero impact areas is that no one really wants that. Too many people want to get out and interact with nature and in wild areas. (More rhetorically, what good is a wild area if no one ever gets to visit it? Why does it matter if a species exists if we can't ever see it? )
No contradiction, although perhaps a little more clarity on my part would have been better. So let me try for the clarity, as I think that we are actually saying the same thing.
I agree that in an ideal world, wildlife would not rely on tourist dollars for survival and species survival would not be in doubt. In such cases, zero impact is of course ideal. I was referring to the status quo of reality today, where even animals have to justify their existence monetarily in order to survive. In such an instance, zero impact in practice would be the death sentence for a lot of species, especially in developing nations. Desirable in principle/theory? Of course not. Desirable in reality? Yes, especially considering the alternative.
I also agree with your personal statement re. zero impact being awful to you (and to me). I dont think that a little disturbance is a bad thing or the end of the world for animals, provided it is limited and not taken to the extremes. The animal should always have the option of responding to the disturbance in its own way - by staying or leaving. Also, the photographer should do his best to minimize that disturbance (my test is: can this action be harmful to the animal if done by many people and/or over extended periods of time?).
Of course every little thing we do disturbs the animal and there is indeed a grey area between what we know to be ok and what we know to be harmful. However, the existence of a grey area and the difficulty in determining exactly what the cutoff point is should not absolve us of the responsibility of following ethical and nature-friendly practices when taking photos. Nor should it stop us from pushing harder to stop others from crossing the limit.
Vandit
Animals and humans alike will always face stress. I think a deer would be even more stressed by the presence of a pack of wolves than a group of humans. ( come to think of it I would be stressed out too.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada