Posted by Jaswinder Kaur on November 3, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Hi there,
I am a journalism student at City University London and I recently attended the Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2008 exhibition at the Natural History Museum.
I am writing an article on this event and would like to hear from wildlife/nature photographers, specifically their views on their role in conservation.
Do wildlife/nature photographers aid the cause of conservation or impede it?
This is an interesting topic, one that I did my dissertation on about 18 months ago. If it would help you could have a look at it on my website: www.drew-mellowship.co.uk.
Hope it helps !
Drew
Posted by David Kjaer on November 3, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Hi Jaswinder
If the Photographer knows his subject and is sensitive in obtaining his images the end result can only be very positive for wildlife in general. The reason for this is that the average person will not go out of their way to view wildlife so much of this is done from the comfort of their car or in an armchair at home where they will look at the TV or magazines. It is through the latter that they often come to appreciate the beauty of the natural world around them and as a result support bodies like the RSPB and take into consideration the various policies that our main political parties hold on the environment when deciding who to vote for.
Is an eco-tourist with a camera a wildlife photographer?
All are equal in the eyes of the WPOTY judges.
As to the ability to be a good/bad influence, that is really down to the individual photographers, how they behave in the field and how they use their images. Most photographers actually do very little with the shots they take, one or two of them become involved with NGO's and Charities. Very few take their ideas and views and run with them, to try to tell a story and make the rest of us (and joe public) think. They're the few who can make a difference.
I don't know about Eco-tourism, I have no personal experience of it and my views are based on what I read. I don't class Eco-Tourists with a camera as Wildlife Photographers for an Eco-Tourists primary reason for being there is that they can see it but usually not to help others to see it. To an Eco-T a picture is simply a personal record (memoir) of the experience and not a medium for further influence.
However, I have a lot of personal experience of Wildlife Photographers (and not all photographers are wildlife photographers) and would say that the benefits that the images they take far exceed any detriment that an errant few may occasionally create.
The pictures Wildlife Photographers take are often the only visable media that the mass populas has to form an opinion upon, our images are used widely in editoral, periodial and educational press simply because a picture is worth a thousand words and can occupy less space. Often language can fail where a image excells simply because words have to be remembered, but images are imprinted, in our mind. We are a visual animal and respond, primarly, to visual stimuli.
Given that most Wildlife Photographers hold wildlife in esteem, are we likely to knowingly produce an image which is detrimental to what we hold dear? No. Therefore the vast majority of our images will be taken with a positive slant to help aid what we care about, even if the content of the image itself is harrowing.
Posted by David Sewell on November 3, 2008 at 5:38 PM
You have opened a large can of worms here, Jas, and I think before you go much further you need to to define your terms tightly. I am a professional conservationist, working mainly in amphibian research. I am also an eco-tourist when I can afford it, and take wildlife photographs whenever I can, both at home and abroad. So I can fit any of your headings according to what I am doing at the time. I would also add that at the University of Kent we do a one year Masters degree in tourism (including eco-tourism) and conservation, and that is even before you add the photographic bit in!
Responsible eco-tourists, like responsible wildlife photographers, treat what they are looking at with respect. In many parts of the world eco-tourism is the only thing that stands between conservationists and the wholesale destruction of habitats and wildlife. Good wildlife pictures help an appreciation of the vanishing wildlife of the world in the west. In many of the third world countries people appreciate good pictures the same as we do, but it does not put bread on the table. People need a value to their wildlife beyond the merely aesthetic, and good eco-tourism schemes put money into local peoples' pockets.
An ex student of ours is a Rwandan, working in the Virungas with mountain gorillas. He has introduced a scheme whereby local people earn money out of the gorillas by means of handicrafts, porterage and a number of other services for eco-tourists. Villagers who, a few years ago, viewed the gorillas as a nuisance that were only there for rich westerners now regard them as an important source of income, which has helped conservation more than any photograph. However, without documentary and still photographers there would be no interest stirred in the west, without western interest there would be no eco-tourists, and without any eco-tourists the habitat of the gorillas would have made way for farmland by now.
Do wildlife/nature photographers aid the cause of conservation or impede it? They do both, but in my opinion without them many other species would have gone the way of the dodo in the last 25 years.
The latter (eco tourist) may do more harm than good if they try to emulate the full-frame head-on shots that are often used to 'sell' eco tours, images that are usually taken by pros.
However the photographer taking the original image may have been very ethical, used a long (v expensive) lens and did the subject no harm. The 'aspirational' photographer/ecotourist may not have the same equipment/ethics and in trying to get up-close do considerable damage to the subject.
Often 'eco-tours' are sold on the basis of there being benefits to the communities/ecosystems they visit, and many do have such benefits in various ways such as employing local staff, investing in local conservation work etc, but many many other eco-tours would do more good for the environment by actually staying at home. Fact is that for the majority of tourists with little subject knowledge they have to take the word of the tour leader/company that the way they operate is ethical, and many are not.
I recently came across a website which purports to use environmental/nature photography as a force for good but intends to achieve this by (and I quote directly):
"One project is Focus On Planet Earth Expeditions. We are inviting thousands of average American citizens to travel on special “Focus On” trips to thousands of ecosystems and communities around the planet to capture images of our natural and unnatural world."
How much good will that do? The environmental cost of flying them there is dreadful enough, but what effect will the physical presence of thousands of average Americans have on fragile places? And to what end are all these images being created? To simply attract more people to the fragile areas to the point where the location cannot cope any more, and is so degraded it is far less attractive?
In my experience over 15 years leading nature photography tuitional courses, for every knowledgeable and concerned individual who wants to learn more about the craft of image-making and the subject and how its environment works, there is another who simply wants to ‘collect’ wildlife pictures. The latter cares little for the subject beyond how it will fit in their image collection, or will be judged in the local club. And that’s not to be overly critical of the latter- they are all really nice people, but they don’t want an earful of enviro-waffle which they feel has little relevance to them and their life.
In doing this work am I part of the problem? Absolutely right I am. So I try to be part of the solution too with the work I do, and the stance I take professionally, and how I use my images, and allow them to be used by others.
None of us are fence-sitters, however we try to kid ourselves, we’re either part of the problem, or part of the solution, but in truth we’re all a bit of both, with our status changing as often as we change lenses.
Google ‘the myth of the non-consumptive user’ and you’ll see what I mean.
Oops - sorry, seem to be echoing some of David's well-made points above which I didn't see before I posted.
Posted by eric weight on November 4, 2008 at 1:27 AM
The only thing that can save the environment and the wildlife within it is money. If there is no money in it, it will eventually have to make way for something that generates income. Even designating something an SSSI will not save it (to be topical). Overall then I feel that both wildlife photographers and photographers of wildlife have a benefit IMO. That doesn't mean we are all perfect, that we never get it wrong or that what is done in the name of wildife photography never has a negative effect; just that our work generates a desire to see things that may then not be destroyed so easily for all the reasons listed among the comments above. Sorry to be so cynical, but if it generates cash for the cause, it will usually help.
Good luck with your article. Eric
Posted by Adam Seward on November 4, 2008 at 6:25 AM
Some of the photographers who presented at WildPhotos, such as Xi Zhinong and Brian Skerry, are producing work of great importance for wildlife conservation. In both cases they do this by increasing public awareness of the damage caused by human activites to the environment and wildlife. Xi Zhinong and his colleagues are showing the environmental riches of China to the Chinese, together with pictures showing what is happening to their environment. They also told me they are involved with raising awareness of trade in animals and animal parts. Brian Skerry's work is showing the impact of commercial fishing on the marine environment. Although science is describing what is going on, Brian's pictures show this far more effectively to a much wider audience. In both cases, if the market can be convinced that there is a problem with over expoitation of resources, then there is hope for change. Without that, conservationists are facing an uphill battle.
Posted by Danny Green on November 4, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Hello Jas
I think this is a good topic and I would like to see more of them on UKNP.
Below I have posted two shots that I have recently taken while working on Seals.
The first one shows a couple too near a young seal pup, its mother was just out of shot going mental at them but they didn't take a blind bit of notice and carried on taking pictures. Now are these wildlife photographers or Eco-tourists? To some people these are wildlife photographers, to wildlife photographers they are Eco-tourists.
The second picture shows two coastguards running and chasing after the seals to catch one which had been caught in some fishing net, the whole colony was very frightened by this action and most went into the sea to escape and didn't return for the whole day.
Who is right and who is wrong?
I would be interested to hear your own and other peoples veiws on both these images.
Danny
Posted by Jaswinder Kaur on November 4, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Dear all,
Thank you for your comments.My view is that it really does depend on the individual.While wildlife photographers do have a set of ethical guidelines they abide by, most eco-tourists don't.And it is especially important for organisers of such trips to ensure that in the process of capturing stunning images, the subject is not distressed or hurt in any way in the process.
Good intentions sometimes are just that good intentions.
Danny -- I think Picture 1 is wrong and I think Picture two is right.I hope they did manage to release the seal caught in the fishing net.
I agree with Danny G that this is a subject that should be discussed a lot more on a forum of this type.
The images he presents above perfectly illustrate the complexity and emotive nature of the issue. These sorts of behaviour (good or bad) are what a lot more people should be recording more often imho.
What I find really quite perplexing is that there have been apparently 299 views of this topic, which is on a subject that is arguably of huge importance to everyone who points a camera at a natural subject, yet there have been only 8 or 9 people who have actually responded.
Moderator - how does the counter work - am I right to assume these have been 299 separate IP addresses? Or how does the counter work? Curious.
Do these other (possibly) 290 people have no opinion on this subject?
Posted by Danny Green on November 4, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Hello John
I am not 100% sure but I think each time you look at the post it records it again so it might be made up of just you and me
I wanted to use the first picture as a guide to people going out to the seals this year to keep there distance from them but decided not to post it originally because I didn't want to come across as preaching to anyone as I always encourage people to enjoy what they do, but these are times when I think nature photographers must be aware of our own actions and must behave responsibly. 99% of nature photographers that I have met over the years are very passionate about wildlife and always put the subject first but it is that1% that gives us all a bad name and I think we should all be aware of the problem. Lets face it its not just amatuers but one or two proffessionals have reputations that stink and I think the sooner they are weeded out the better. Regarding the images I think number 1 is out of order and a real shame because the people who make the decisions class these people as wildlife photographers and that can only be bad for all of us. Number 2 to me was more distressing as the seals were scared out of their wits and you could see the fear on there faces you don't get this with photographers, the end result one seal was saved from death so you could argue that it was justified. Just my two cents.
Danny
Posted by eric weight on November 4, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Hi John,
Perhaps I am not the best person to comment, because I can never help adding my two'pennorth to these kind of topics, but I really wouldn't want to see the site become too bogged down with controversy or ethical discussion. I use it to improve my photography and not really to put the world to rights. I don't think the balance is bad at all and that is down to the firm but fair hands of the mods. I admit that I haven't looked lately, but isn't there a forum on NPN devoted to this sort of subject for those that want to use it?
With regards Danny's photos: No1 seems to be a case for education more than condemnation and it is easy to appreciate his concern not to appear to preach. Maybe the two people in the picture are among the 290 odd lurkers and will have a better idea of what is sensible next time. The 2nd picture demonstrates pretty effectively the hard choices that conservationists face every day. Jaswinder has certainly picked herself a subject with plenty to go at. Eric
you've mentioned an important aspect of this whole topic - the operator. i'll give you a strong example, which you can probably verify with a little research. i'm involved in shark conservation, mostly through active dissemination of our shared message and i actively support wherever i can, any initiative to press politicians into making decisions that are positive towards sharks.
back in october the shark alliance held their second european shark week, and asked for as many signatures as possible for a petition to pressure the european comission to lower total allowable catches for certain shark species. now, for me, here's the crunch. in 2007 the alliance's shark week yielded over 20,000 signatures, BUT, if you draw a comparison with sharm el sheik, egypt's biggest dive resort and probably europes biggest dive destination by far, receives something along the line of 20,000 licensed divers PER WEEK, that's not even including 'experience' programs like snorkelling or try dives. IF (big if) the operators in sharm took the effort to be involved in the shark alliance's petition effort, then hundreds of thousands of signatures would be possible throughout the year, not just 20,000. but the truth is, and this is true amongst many many operators in nearly every part of the world, that most of them are happy to take the tourist dollars, and they are also happy to moan that legislation as it stands does not protect their local wildlife, but they seem lacking in any effort to become directly involved in conservation.
maybe this is not their fault, maybe they don't have access to information, maybe we all rely too heavily on the large NGO's to take all the responsibility, but the operators are in a prime position to affect conservation outcome because they are receiving an enthusiastic audience week in week out, that on the whole would bend over backwards (or at least sign a letter or petition) to help protect the amazing wildlife they have seen on their short trip.
also, as a huge aside, there is much talk recently of the negative effects of airtravel, which is largely correct within the confines of a discussion on bucket and spade holidays to benidorm, but, given nearly all threatened wildlife in the world today are bedfellows with poor people in third world countries, nearly all of whom protect the wildlife because they recognise it is an important source of tourist income, what will happen if that income dries up because the greenies in the uk persuaded everyone not to go on an aeroplane?
now i'll play devil's advocate on danny's photos. ok the first image at first looks terrible, but what if those people were from the city, and this was their first outing to 'the countryside' and from that first outing they became so enamoured with wildlife in general that they became staunch advocates of conservation?
most of us (i would guess) on this forum had some kind of early introduction to the great outdoors and grew up with wildlife and learned to understand it as we grew up with it, it would be in our first if not second nature to recognise that the seal pups mother would be distressed, but, do the people in the image really know that? would any of us take the time to explain it to them? or would be just run up to them and clump them on the head with a 500 mm lens? such people are future conservationists, or at worst, they went out once to see the great outdoors but were chased away by a grumpy man with a big lens.
The counter is a view counter and increments every time anyone clicks on the topic. It doesn't count unique views.
As to the photos, I'd actually say that both show the need for education - the first for the couple of photographers who need to give the wildlife more room to 'breathe' (and to not block an animals retreat route); and the second shots of the two 'officials' trying to extricate the net because if they took a bit of time to 'stalk' the animal instead of chasing around then they might have found it easier to catch. If you go low at Donna Nook, then the seals pretty much ignore you and don't see you as a threat (in fact I've had to kneel up/stand up to get seals to back off that have approached too close for my comfort). The 2nd shot would also show the need for people not to discard bits of net - if the net had been visible...
Eric/John, yes we do need more discussion of the sort...there is a forum for 'hot topics' - we'll usually put up with some civilised discussion in this forum, but if it goes beyond limits then we ask people to move over to the 'hot topics' forum and carry on there. Hopefully we'll soon be able to split the photos and discussion into a couple of separate forums which might allow us a bit more room for manouvre.
I have removed the two photographs above as in each photograph there is an identifable person and the subsequent posts did go on to potentially alledge that they these people were potentially in error in their actions; is subjective and argueable.
This site is a forum for the critique of photographs, not a site to exposure identifable people who the contributor feels, in their subjective opinion, are in error. If you feel that strong about the conduct of identifable, or identified, people please post them on your website.
T
Posted by Peter Barritt on November 5, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Interesting discussion. I know a fair bit about ethics and often the nub of ethics is what the "primary intention" of the act was. In other words what motivated the photographer to get out of bed and travel into a natural environment to take the photo. The amateur may have more worthy motivation than the professional who is, after all, trying to make a living out of it. Those of us who love nature and wildlife are likely to benefit it and harming the wildlife we are trying to photograph should be a complete anathema to us.
In many deveIoping countries I am absolutely convinced that ecotourism saves habitats and wildlife, as it becomes a primary commercial activity in places like India and Kenya. Overpopulation, poverty and rich pickings from traditional medicine racketeers means that poaching wildlife makes excellent short-term economic sense. The only thing that justifies the expense of providing anti-poaching patrols is if eco-tourism depends on it. I suspect that the drop in tourism revenues for many years following civil war may prove to be a reasonable deterrent against further violence. Tourism in Kenya at present is in a desperate state for example. I have just got back from Croatia which is another classic example of this. Most of the national parks in Croatia are still closed. In the Congo the rebel leader is promising to allow farmers into the Virunga national park to farm.
Of course out travels contribute to global warming but buying up logging rights for rain forest and other endangered areas via organisations like World Land Trust can help to offset these emissions.
Ultimately the welfare of the wildlife must be our primary concern and trying to do our best to protect it for posterity should be an active responsibility for all of us who love the natural world. Personally I find the time spent outdoors watching nature is the most pleasurable and relaxing part of my life.
Peter
Posted by Magnus Hird on November 5, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Hi Jas,
You've certainly started an interesting debate here! I think trying to draw differences between so called eco-tourists and wildlife photographers is fraught with difficulties, arguably the same person can be both on different occasions. It also implies that their values are different, which they may not be. I guess what you are driving at is whether taking pictures of wildlife and the natural world results in positive or negative outcomes. The simple answer is both! The more complex answer is that the balance of the two changes in each circumstance!
I believe that in the circumstances of photographers who behave responsibly, take the time to understand what it is that they are trying to photograph, approach it in a manner least likely to cause harm, and ideally try and use their results to improve things, then the overall outcome is more positive than negative.
However there are always going to be circumstances where this does not occur and we have heard recounted stories of behaviour which isn't ideal. Some of this occurs due to ignorance of the effects (and quite innocent at times), some of it occurs due to craving for "the shot" and should generally be discouraged. However there are always exceptions and difficult decisions and situations that require debate.
Discussion
21 repliesI am a journalism student at City University London and I recently attended the Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2008 exhibition at the Natural History Museum.
I am writing an article on this event and would like to hear from wildlife/nature photographers, specifically their views on their role in conservation.
Do wildlife/nature photographers aid the cause of conservation or impede it?
Thanks.
Cheers,
Jas
This is an interesting topic, one that I did my dissertation on about 18 months ago. If it would help you could have a look at it on my website: www.drew-mellowship.co.uk.
Hope it helps !
Drew
If the Photographer knows his subject and is sensitive in obtaining his images the end result can only be very positive for wildlife in general. The reason for this is that the average person will not go out of their way to view wildlife so much of this is done from the comfort of their car or in an armchair at home where they will look at the TV or magazines. It is through the latter that they often come to appreciate the beauty of the natural world around them and as a result support bodies like the RSPB and take into consideration the various policies that our main political parties hold on the environment when deciding who to vote for.
With the natural world a picture is priceless!
David
What is a Wildlife Photographer? Is an eco-tourist with a camera a wildlife photographer?
Tom -- good question. I suppose a wildlife photographer can be either a professional or eco-tourist. I wonder if the latter do more harm than good?
All are equal in the eyes of the WPOTY judges.
As to the ability to be a good/bad influence, that is really down to the individual photographers, how they behave in the field and how they use their images. Most photographers actually do very little with the shots they take, one or two of them become involved with NGO's and Charities. Very few take their ideas and views and run with them, to try to tell a story and make the rest of us (and joe public) think. They're the few who can make a difference.
(Welcome to NPN & UKNP BTW
However, I have a lot of personal experience of Wildlife Photographers
The pictures Wildlife Photographers take are often the only visable media that the mass populas has to form an opinion upon, our images are used widely in editoral, periodial and educational press simply because a picture is worth a thousand words and can occupy less space. Often language can fail where a image excells simply because words have to be remembered, but images are imprinted, in our mind. We are a visual animal and respond, primarly, to visual stimuli.
Given that most Wildlife Photographers hold wildlife in esteem, are we likely to knowingly produce an image which is detrimental to what we hold dear? No. Therefore the vast majority of our images will be taken with a positive slant to help aid what we care about, even if the content of the image itself is harrowing.
Responsible eco-tourists, like responsible wildlife photographers, treat what they are looking at with respect. In many parts of the world eco-tourism is the only thing that stands between conservationists and the wholesale destruction of habitats and wildlife. Good wildlife pictures help an appreciation of the vanishing wildlife of the world in the west. In many of the third world countries people appreciate good pictures the same as we do, but it does not put bread on the table. People need a value to their wildlife beyond the merely aesthetic, and good eco-tourism schemes put money into local peoples' pockets.
An ex student of ours is a Rwandan, working in the Virungas with mountain gorillas. He has introduced a scheme whereby local people earn money out of the gorillas by means of handicrafts, porterage and a number of other services for eco-tourists. Villagers who, a few years ago, viewed the gorillas as a nuisance that were only there for rich westerners now regard them as an important source of income, which has helped conservation more than any photograph. However, without documentary and still photographers there would be no interest stirred in the west, without western interest there would be no eco-tourists, and without any eco-tourists the habitat of the gorillas would have made way for farmland by now.
Do wildlife/nature photographers aid the cause of conservation or impede it? They do both, but in my opinion without them many other species would have gone the way of the dodo in the last 25 years.
David
However the photographer taking the original image may have been very ethical, used a long (v expensive) lens and did the subject no harm. The 'aspirational' photographer/ecotourist may not have the same equipment/ethics and in trying to get up-close do considerable damage to the subject.
Often 'eco-tours' are sold on the basis of there being benefits to the communities/ecosystems they visit, and many do have such benefits in various ways such as employing local staff, investing in local conservation work etc, but many many other eco-tours would do more good for the environment by actually staying at home. Fact is that for the majority of tourists with little subject knowledge they have to take the word of the tour leader/company that the way they operate is ethical, and many are not.
I recently came across a website which purports to use environmental/nature photography as a force for good but intends to achieve this by (and I quote directly):
"One project is Focus On Planet Earth Expeditions. We are inviting thousands of average American citizens to travel on special “Focus On” trips to thousands of ecosystems and communities around the planet to capture images of our natural and unnatural world."
How much good will that do? The environmental cost of flying them there is dreadful enough, but what effect will the physical presence of thousands of average Americans have on fragile places? And to what end are all these images being created? To simply attract more people to the fragile areas to the point where the location cannot cope any more, and is so degraded it is far less attractive?
In my experience over 15 years leading nature photography tuitional courses, for every knowledgeable and concerned individual who wants to learn more about the craft of image-making and the subject and how its environment works, there is another who simply wants to ‘collect’ wildlife pictures. The latter cares little for the subject beyond how it will fit in their image collection, or will be judged in the local club. And that’s not to be overly critical of the latter- they are all really nice people, but they don’t want an earful of enviro-waffle which they feel has little relevance to them and their life.
In doing this work am I part of the problem? Absolutely right I am. So I try to be part of the solution too with the work I do, and the stance I take professionally, and how I use my images, and allow them to be used by others.
None of us are fence-sitters, however we try to kid ourselves, we’re either part of the problem, or part of the solution, but in truth we’re all a bit of both, with our status changing as often as we change lenses.
Google ‘the myth of the non-consumptive user’ and you’ll see what I mean.
Good luck with your article.
I think this is a good topic and I would like to see more of them on UKNP.
Below I have posted two shots that I have recently taken while working on Seals.
The first one shows a couple too near a young seal pup, its mother was just out of shot going mental at them but they didn't take a blind bit of notice and carried on taking pictures. Now are these wildlife photographers or Eco-tourists? To some people these are wildlife photographers, to wildlife photographers they are Eco-tourists.
The second picture shows two coastguards running and chasing after the seals to catch one which had been caught in some fishing net, the whole colony was very frightened by this action and most went into the sea to escape and didn't return for the whole day.
Who is right and who is wrong?
I would be interested to hear your own and other peoples veiws on both these images.
Danny
Thank you for your comments.My view is that it really does depend on the individual.While wildlife photographers do have a set of ethical guidelines they abide by, most eco-tourists don't.And it is especially important for organisers of such trips to ensure that in the process of capturing stunning images, the subject is not distressed or hurt in any way in the process.
Good intentions sometimes are just that good intentions.
Danny -- I think Picture 1 is wrong and I think Picture two is right.I hope they did manage to release the seal caught in the fishing net.
Jas
The images he presents above perfectly illustrate the complexity and emotive nature of the issue. These sorts of behaviour (good or bad) are what a lot more people should be recording more often imho.
What I find really quite perplexing is that there have been apparently 299 views of this topic, which is on a subject that is arguably of huge importance to everyone who points a camera at a natural subject, yet there have been only 8 or 9 people who have actually responded.
Moderator - how does the counter work - am I right to assume these have been 299 separate IP addresses? Or how does the counter work? Curious.
Do these other (possibly) 290 people have no opinion on this subject?
I am not 100% sure but I think each time you look at the post it records it again so it might be made up of just you and me
I wanted to use the first picture as a guide to people going out to the seals this year to keep there distance from them but decided not to post it originally because I didn't want to come across as preaching to anyone as I always encourage people to enjoy what they do, but these are times when I think nature photographers must be aware of our own actions and must behave responsibly. 99% of nature photographers that I have met over the years are very passionate about wildlife and always put the subject first but it is that1% that gives us all a bad name and I think we should all be aware of the problem. Lets face it its not just amatuers but one or two proffessionals have reputations that stink and I think the sooner they are weeded out the better. Regarding the images I think number 1 is out of order and a real shame because the people who make the decisions class these people as wildlife photographers and that can only be bad for all of us. Number 2 to me was more distressing as the seals were scared out of their wits and you could see the fear on there faces you don't get this with photographers, the end result one seal was saved from death so you could argue that it was justified. Just my two cents.
Danny
Perhaps I am not the best person to comment, because I can never help adding my two'pennorth to these kind of topics, but I really wouldn't want to see the site become too bogged down with controversy or ethical discussion. I use it to improve my photography and not really to put the world to rights. I don't think the balance is bad at all and that is down to the firm but fair hands of the mods. I admit that I haven't looked lately, but isn't there a forum on NPN devoted to this sort of subject for those that want to use it?
With regards Danny's photos: No1 seems to be a case for education more than condemnation and it is easy to appreciate his concern not to appear to preach. Maybe the two people in the picture are among the 290 odd lurkers and will have a better idea of what is sensible next time. The 2nd picture demonstrates pretty effectively the hard choices that conservationists face every day. Jaswinder has certainly picked herself a subject with plenty to go at.
hi jas,
you've mentioned an important aspect of this whole topic - the operator. i'll give you a strong example, which you can probably verify with a little research. i'm involved in shark conservation, mostly through active dissemination of our shared message and i actively support wherever i can, any initiative to press politicians into making decisions that are positive towards sharks.
back in october the shark alliance held their second european shark week, and asked for as many signatures as possible for a petition to pressure the european comission to lower total allowable catches for certain shark species. now, for me, here's the crunch. in 2007 the alliance's shark week yielded over 20,000 signatures, BUT, if you draw a comparison with sharm el sheik, egypt's biggest dive resort and probably europes biggest dive destination by far, receives something along the line of 20,000 licensed divers PER WEEK, that's not even including 'experience' programs like snorkelling or try dives. IF (big if) the operators in sharm took the effort to be involved in the shark alliance's petition effort, then hundreds of thousands of signatures would be possible throughout the year, not just 20,000. but the truth is, and this is true amongst many many operators in nearly every part of the world, that most of them are happy to take the tourist dollars, and they are also happy to moan that legislation as it stands does not protect their local wildlife, but they seem lacking in any effort to become directly involved in conservation.
maybe this is not their fault, maybe they don't have access to information, maybe we all rely too heavily on the large NGO's to take all the responsibility, but the operators are in a prime position to affect conservation outcome because they are receiving an enthusiastic audience week in week out, that on the whole would bend over backwards (or at least sign a letter or petition) to help protect the amazing wildlife they have seen on their short trip.
also, as a huge aside, there is much talk recently of the negative effects of airtravel, which is largely correct within the confines of a discussion on bucket and spade holidays to benidorm, but, given nearly all threatened wildlife in the world today are bedfellows with poor people in third world countries, nearly all of whom protect the wildlife because they recognise it is an important source of tourist income, what will happen if that income dries up because the greenies in the uk persuaded everyone not to go on an aeroplane?
now i'll play devil's advocate on danny's photos. ok the first image at first looks terrible, but what if those people were from the city, and this was their first outing to 'the countryside' and from that first outing they became so enamoured with wildlife in general that they became staunch advocates of conservation?
most of us (i would guess) on this forum had some kind of early introduction to the great outdoors and grew up with wildlife and learned to understand it as we grew up with it, it would be in our first if not second nature to recognise that the seal pups mother would be distressed, but, do the people in the image really know that? would any of us take the time to explain it to them? or would be just run up to them and clump them on the head with a 500 mm lens? such people are future conservationists, or at worst, they went out once to see the great outdoors but were chased away by a grumpy man with a big lens.
kindest regards,
mark.
The counter is a view counter and increments every time anyone clicks on the topic. It doesn't count unique views.
As to the photos, I'd actually say that both show the need for education - the first for the couple of photographers who need to give the wildlife more room to 'breathe' (and to not block an animals retreat route); and the second shots of the two 'officials' trying to extricate the net because if they took a bit of time to 'stalk' the animal instead of chasing around then they might have found it easier to catch. If you go low at Donna Nook, then the seals pretty much ignore you and don't see you as a threat (in fact I've had to kneel up/stand up to get seals to back off that have approached too close for my comfort). The 2nd shot would also show the need for people not to discard bits of net - if the net had been visible...
Eric/John, yes we do need more discussion of the sort...there is a forum for 'hot topics' - we'll usually put up with some civilised discussion in this forum, but if it goes beyond limits then we ask people to move over to the 'hot topics' forum and carry on there. Hopefully we'll soon be able to split the photos and discussion into a couple of separate forums which might allow us a bit more room for manouvre.
This site is a forum for the critique of photographs, not a site to exposure identifable people who the contributor feels, in their subjective opinion, are in error. If you feel that strong about the conduct of identifable, or identified, people please post them on your website.
T
In many deveIoping countries I am absolutely convinced that ecotourism saves habitats and wildlife, as it becomes a primary commercial activity in places like India and Kenya. Overpopulation, poverty and rich pickings from traditional medicine racketeers means that poaching wildlife makes excellent short-term economic sense. The only thing that justifies the expense of providing anti-poaching patrols is if eco-tourism depends on it. I suspect that the drop in tourism revenues for many years following civil war may prove to be a reasonable deterrent against further violence. Tourism in Kenya at present is in a desperate state for example. I have just got back from Croatia which is another classic example of this. Most of the national parks in Croatia are still closed. In the Congo the rebel leader is promising to allow farmers into the Virunga national park to farm.
Of course out travels contribute to global warming but buying up logging rights for rain forest and other endangered areas via organisations like World Land Trust can help to offset these emissions.
Ultimately the welfare of the wildlife must be our primary concern and trying to do our best to protect it for posterity should be an active responsibility for all of us who love the natural world. Personally I find the time spent outdoors watching nature is the most pleasurable and relaxing part of my life.
Peter
You've certainly started an interesting debate here! I think trying to draw differences between so called eco-tourists and wildlife photographers is fraught with difficulties, arguably the same person can be both on different occasions. It also implies that their values are different, which they may not be. I guess what you are driving at is whether taking pictures of wildlife and the natural world results in positive or negative outcomes. The simple answer is both! The more complex answer is that the balance of the two changes in each circumstance!
I believe that in the circumstances of photographers who behave responsibly, take the time to understand what it is that they are trying to photograph, approach it in a manner least likely to cause harm, and ideally try and use their results to improve things, then the overall outcome is more positive than negative.
However there are always going to be circumstances where this does not occur and we have heard recounted stories of behaviour which isn't ideal. Some of this occurs due to ignorance of the effects (and quite innocent at times), some of it occurs due to craving for "the shot" and should generally be discouraged. However there are always exceptions and difficult decisions and situations that require debate.