Took this shot on a recent trip to Donna Nook using a long lens as to not encroach within the animal's 'circle of fear'.
The day I went, there were approximately 60 - 70 photographers - the whether was rough so I'm guessing that usually there would have been more.
Seeing so many togs set me off thinking about the impact that we must surely be having on the seals. With that in mind I've been trawling the net to see if there are any 'impact assessment studies' being conducted that factors in us photographers.
Guess what? We're being monitored!
Posted by Iain Tookey on December 5, 2008 at 6:19 PM
First up, I think the pic is fab, a nice representation of what it's like out there most days for a seal I should think.
Second, are 'we' having an impact on the seals? Yes, of course we are.
Same as we impact all wildlife either as photographers or not.
They are impacted at sea with the crap we chuck out there, they are impacted by climate change (which some argue is man made), they are impacted by shipping, they are impacted by food source issues linked to man, and yes, they are sometimes disturbed by photographers and other well meaning folk.
I've seen the post you linked to before on another forum I frequent, which suggests that's about all there is. The poster in question is working for 5 weeks doing a 'study', of exactly what I'm not sure. I also don't see how the death of one pup, however tragic, can be attributed directly to photographic activity either, except by anecdotal 'evidence' put forward by people whose motives are unknown. Pups die all the time, mostly without any 'help' from human contact.
The mortality rate amongst pups is massive, but I'm sure you already know that, and if it were not the case, then you wouldn't be able to move at DN for seals! I don't think anybody is keeping tabs on the actual numbers all that accurately, but recent evidence suggests their numbers are increasing.
I'm not defending the ill mannered, ill informed, and frankly moronic behaviour of some photographers that has been talked about recently, if indeed it is happening (but lets not go there again!), but we should get it into perspective.
You've posted a couple of times at least on this subject in even my short tenure here on UKNP, so what do you want to see happen?
If a proper study concluded that people would be better off not going out to the seals, and the numbers backed it up, then I'd support a ban. But, that isn't happening to my knowledge, and the seals live on a bombing range, so if it were a serious issue, then surely they'd stop that too?
Posted by John Robinson on December 5, 2008 at 8:18 PM
I am amazed at the advice to keep batteries warm as "it will be cold this weekend." Seems out of context and divorced or contradictory with the general gist of the message. I am also confused as to why such an important seal site is not wardened. When I worked in conservation with NCC, volunteers would queue up to get a job.
Don't they like seals ?
JohnR
Sorry just got the answer. If they charge everyone £1 a time then according to the numbers of visitors projected or sugeested then that would pay for a warden.
It seems to me that mandatory rules for the site need to be enforced by someone, or some organisation, or else this problem goes on and on and on...
I have just googled "Seals Donna Nook" and it is frightening ! I SUGGEST EVERYONE DOES IT.They are being exploited as an attraction where these animals can be "photographed by anyone with a simple camera " I could not believe what I have just read and then have the stupidity to wonder why the colony is being so exploited.
It all makes sense now.
It seems to me that most of the complaints about the problems that photographers are causing are coming from - guess what ?
-photographers.! Is it not the old story ?
It frightens me when I see posts similar to that which Chris has pointed out simply because I have seen what public perception twinned with scientific (pseudo or otherwise) study can acheive.
I would suggest that, whether you beleive the highlighted post or not, unless we are a lot more diligent in our behaviour there will be problems ahead.
To me one of the answers is education about what an animals circle of fear actually is and how you recognize it; it is a complex piece of edication for it differs per individual animal and species.
Generically, for a seal, I would suggest it is about 8m minimum ( for a big bull less, for a nursing cow more) but it also depends if they have detected you. If you shoot upwind and upright ( not on belly) and the above distances are accurate, if not slightly short.
Get low, down wind, blending with the natural colour, edging closer with minimum, short, movements and these distances can be shortened, unless you are detected when you have to stop and shuffle back well back; still low and in reverse.
Posted by Mark Fellowes on December 6, 2008 at 5:51 AM
We're all familiar I'm sure with the concept of 'the tragedy of the commons' - this is just another example.
Look at this from the perspective of the type of person we're criticising (EDIT: just to be clear - what I mean is the odd bad apple, not all togs who go to DN). While we all agree that the animal's welfare is paramount, the consequences to you of not following that rule is absolutely zero. The benefit of not following the rule is that you potentially get a great shot. I don't believe for a moment that education will work - on a daily basis we see examples of people taking their own self-interest over the greater good, simply because they can (everything from over-fishing to fly-tipping). Therefore this isn't ignorance, but a rational choice from their perspective. Most people are not stupid, but many are selfish.
I know from conservation biologists that I work with that people responsible for DN are very concerned about photographers behaviour and numbers, and at some point they'll have to regulate access, especially if numbers of people going continues to rise. That will ruin DN from a togs point of view (I saw a similar thing happen at Boulders in South Africa), but when a resource is free the only way to limit consumption is to control availability of that resource - what else can you do?
In response to Iain - there are two issues raised (and I agree that one dead seal pup is not going to tell us anything). First, are seal population dynamics affected by photographers on DN? Probably not, but since we don't know how well they'd do in the absence of photographers we simply can't tell and any study is therefore scientifically dubious. What is clear though is that non-photographers are pretty offended by the behaviour of some photographers, and that perception matters. Second, other factors (often viral epidemics) may be more important in determining the population size of seals, but that's no reason not to get our own house in order. This isn't a conservation issue, but a welfare issue, and that's where some people have been going wrong.
Finally, we don't actually 'know' how the seals feel about this, and AFAIK we don't know the consequences for their pups' survival and so on. If there is, then clearly we must respond, but to be honest, I don't care if there ISN'T an effect - I just feel very uncomfortable seeing people behave in that way, which is why I decided not to go back.
Not going to get into any ethical arguments but as an aside, Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust have stated that they believe that this year has been the most successful breeding season on record with an estimated 1250 pups being born which is good news
Posted by Rene de Heer on December 6, 2008 at 7:41 AM
Maybe a simple solution would be to stop everyone , incl nature photographers, from visiting and photographing the seals at Donna Nook.
Rene de Heer
Just to put things in perspective a man has been arrested in shetland following the discovery of 18 dead pups on a beach, maybe having so many people patrolling the beach is not a bad thing.
I have to try and help deal with fishery seal conflicts in the north east of scotland and it is not simple, especially when they are travelling as far upstream as dunkeld to catch salmon that are said to be worth £1000 each to the scottish economy, sites like DN are very good for getting people close to nature although we must be careful and respectful.
Just for interest one study of seal haul out sites showed two things: in rocky sites once a seal has been disturbed and has gone into the water it will not return until the next tide' secondly big boats are much less of a problem than a sea kayak which to a seal looks like an orca.
A couple of points about DN - are their any signs telling people how to behave around the seals.
Also does the site have a management group, if so are any of the local photographers able to attend, your knowledge may be of use to deal with the issue and in the long term may help stop draconian measure being put in place whilst still protecting the seals.
Louper
Posted by Andy Astbury on December 6, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Either that Rene - or make it access by permit only.
Some of the actions I witnessed the other week made my blood boil. In itself, permit issue might not go very far towards curtailing all lunatic behaviour, but I'm certain it would go some way to curbing numbers at least.
Nice shot Chris - I'd lose some off the top and try getting rid of the blue cast, judging by the colour of the sand.
Posted by Mark Fellowes on December 6, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Hi Ian
I genuinely don't think that your last point is a fair one - even the big glass guys had to start somewhere, and I don't recall seeing many people with 70-300s or P&S cameras when I was there! On the other hand there was lots of 70-200 and 300 F2.8s. My experience involved someone with a high-end DSLR and a wide angle lens who just walked up to their target, machine-gunned it from close range and then went to the next one, leaving behind a line of very stressed seals.
I think that the concern is simply about the poor behaviour of a small minority who seem to put their own results ahead of the welfare of their subject. Normally we don't get to see this, but it's pretty obvious at DN, just because there's lots of witnesses to it when it occurs. I think that your points about signs and management are right, because otherwise I fear that the decision to control access will be taken by others.
Rene: I really hope not, I think that the solution is proper management.
Fundamentally, I think in part it comes down to where people put the emphasis when they say that they're a wildlife photographer. Which comes first, the wildlife or the photography, welfare of the subject or the resulting image?
Right - I'm meant to be working, not getting worked up! I will stop looking at UKNP and get on with it!
All the best
Mark
Posted by Paul Inglis on December 6, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Hi Chris,
Lovely image!
As with anything a balance needs to be sort. Closing it down would solve nothing. I agree with Tom that education is the key. Also having a warden would help to achieve that along with various signs poniting out various codes of conduct in bite sizes.
Posted by Magnus Hird on December 6, 2008 at 1:46 PM
This is a lovely shot Chris, like the cool blues
I've never been to Donna Nook but I have witnessed some awful human behavior around animals in the past that even heavy access prices (for example flying to India, travelling to relatively isolated reserves and hiring drivers, then paying park entry fees) hasn't stopped, so clearly just charging isn't the solution. I think Tom is spot on in saying this is about education but that John also has a very good point and that even a voluntary access fee would generate funds that could fund some kind of warden or ranger service for the limited periods when this is a big issue. Who knows, how far would a fiver from every UKNP subscriber go? Arguably pretty far in terms of goodwill and demonstration of collective responsibility even if not in terms of physical presence.
Even if it could just fund a access control gate that funnels every visitor past a specific point where a large sign describing appropriate behaviour around the seals could be placed - as Ian Hay asks, I also wonder whether there is actually any information to guide those whose wildlife encounters are based on a zoo model where they can get very close, be noisy etc.
Lastly I think the valuable point made by the item linked to is that we have a responsibility to police ourselves if we want to retain access to places like Donna Nook.
I agree it was meant to be a joke with a smilee but I am posting on a blackberry so it did not work, hence I deleted the comment some time ago.
Sorry
Looking at the lwt website it says a warden is present, is this true?
One last comment, the behaviour you are describing could be seen as harassment, if so I would call the police and ask to be put through to the wildlife crime officer. It would be better if this was done by fellow photographer than a member of the public. If the police do show up and have. Quite work in the busy car park this would I am sure have the desired effect.
Ok another last point could this forum come up with a site specific code of conduct based on good feildcraft and send it to lwt as a suggestion, it could have what the signs of distress are and the number of the warden and wildlife crime officer, that way photographers could report the bad behaviour of the public as well.
Louper
Posted by Mark Fellowes on December 6, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Hi Ian
No need to apologise - I didn't think what you said was offensive in the slightest (And I'm secretly jealous of the 600F4 owners!).
To be honest, I kicked myself afterwards for not having the bottle to say something, and I take it as a lesson learned, and is probably why I don't want to go back.
When I was there the wardens patrolled the board-walk (which I actually though was the place to be to get the pup shots - as a tog you can't be accused of harassing the seals when there's a fence in front of you and half of Lincolnshire behind you!). I think that simply having a warden out on the sands having a quiet word would do the trick.
Interesting range of views but there have been 422 views of this thread and only 14 replies! This sort of stuff needs discussing . . .
Iain T - thanks for a more considered reply this time round, it is appreciated.
In answer to your question (“so what do you want to see happen?”): I have no authority to ‘police’ anyone at Donna Nook (or elsewhere) and I certainly have no desire to become the Mary Whitehouse of wildlife photography! Instead I’ve tried to stimulate debate amongst us photographers via this forum. As for my personal view, it is based around the concept of FREEDOM (no, I'm not a tree hunger or hippie):
To visit wild animals in their own environment is a privileged freedom, one that comes with responsibility. I hold down a day job, ‘jumping through hoops’ to make a living - when I visit places like DN I do so to escape all that for a while and indulge a passion (I'll make an assumption that many others reading this are in a similar position). So, as an interest group we have a choice - regulate ourselves or get regulated. Personally, I don't wish to give up my freedom.
I want more people to see wildlife spectacles like Donna Nook . . . not less! We need the natural world to be valued - its importance should register higher in our general society. The obvious contradiction to my FREEDOM concept is that more visitors, equals more control. So maybe DN should be managed for 'nature tourists' - a 'tool’ for promoting wildlife. After all isn’t that the function of the Farnes and Smoker?
A general comment: I take natural history photographs, not because I've got a pumped up ego and I want to be the 'next big name', but because it gives me an excuse to get back to nature - like a great many other togs, I was a naturalist first. I’m not saying I haven’t made mistakes when approaching subjects – of course I have! But because my start point is as a naturalist I‘ve learned to curb the need to secure an image at all costs.
Ok, I’m going to shut up shortly but before I do; I’d just like to say thanks for all the feedback to my posts on the UKNP forum, I’ve learned things along the way and I’ve also seen some really exceptional images.
This is my last post on the forum as I need to concentrate my thoughts elsewhere.
Cheers,
Chris
PS. Andy A – thanks for the C & C on this image – you’ve been right on many occasions – but this time I like it just as it is. Cheers.
firstly, I really quite like the image, gives an idea of the environment the seals are in given the light and wind in the shot.
You all probably know about my stance of wildlfe photography (conservation comes first). I don't think things will ever really change much because there are so many people out there with more money than sense. By this I mean people who have the money to buy all the equipment to shoot whatever they want and have an interest in wildlife but don't appreciate it. There are no so many 'photographers' around anyone with a camera will want to get a similar image to those around them, chances are all ethics will be thrown out of the window. Unless we can promote the idea of ethics to those taking snaps etc then this may be quite an ongoing theme for years to come.
nice image tho
Drew
Posted by Gavin Law on December 7, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Interesting discussion.
I'm really not sure the path of education will work. As there are always muppets who don't listen. When visiting last year, on the day the beach was closed off due to the chance of unexploded ordnance, I remember being stood down the far end of the walkway with other UKNP'ers. There were clear sign's asking people to stay behind the fence, yet one guy was 10ft the other side with his DSLR photographing a seal pup.
The guy showed a small amount of common sense by keeping low and shuffling back out, however do we have first have to teach these people to read before educating them on topics such as an animals 'circle of fear'?!
Close it off is my view, the wildlife must come first. If one pup has died or even come close to dying because of the actions of human actions then steps must be taken to prevent this. Unfortunately it may well mean that the 'educated' suffer as a result but so be it.
BTW, like the photo!
Posted by Brett Lewis on December 7, 2008 at 8:41 PM
Just a quick note to mention that the seals are NOT protected against the actions described here or any other part of the 'DN forum' under current legislation including The W&C Act 1981, Seals Act 1970, CRoW Act etc.. It is also the responsibility of Natural England under their 'promise' agreement to welcome people to all National Nature Reserves that are open to the public, and will not charge for entry.. Therefore a fee for entry will never be applied under this agreement. You will also note that seals are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act as they are 'living in a wild state'...
I would propose that the members take time to petition or write to the appropriate authorities and NGOs and ask them to sanction the local wildlife trust into promoting education via their Coastal Warden (Rob Lidstone-Scott in Lincs WT) and ask them to come up with methods and guidelines that will help protect the animals from harm during these vulnerable times and maybe look to seek a local by-law that will enable a non-tolerance approach to this kind of behavior at sensitive breeding times i.e. 1st Sept-31st December. It is possible, via the military agreement to assign 'no-go areas' during these times but it would be up to the site managers to interpret this i.e. the Lincs WT since they have the management agreement with the military.
You could also ask the Lincs WT to produce some guidelines on 'reasonable behavior and conduct' when visiting these breeding colonies. This will have to take place via public consultation and stakeholder participation. This again would be very easy to achieve but would only be a voluntary code of conduct and could not be legally enforced. However, if the public backs this kind of agreement together with other stakeholders, it is likely that it will eventually become self policing.
Just some thoughts I thought I would share with you to help shed some light and look for possible ways forward for those concerned.
Discussion
18 repliesTook this shot on a recent trip to Donna Nook using a long lens as to not encroach within the animal's 'circle of fear'.
The day I went, there were approximately 60 - 70 photographers - the whether was rough so I'm guessing that usually there would have been more.
Seeing so many togs set me off thinking about the impact that we must surely be having on the seals. With that in mind I've been trawling the net to see if there are any 'impact assessment studies' being conducted that factors in us photographers.
Guess what? We're being monitored!
PLEASE read
THIS
C&C welcomed.
Cheers,
Chris
1Ds3
500 mm
ISO 400
1/250@f4
Tripod
Second, are 'we' having an impact on the seals? Yes, of course we are.
Same as we impact all wildlife either as photographers or not.
They are impacted at sea with the crap we chuck out there, they are impacted by climate change (which some argue is man made), they are impacted by shipping, they are impacted by food source issues linked to man, and yes, they are sometimes disturbed by photographers and other well meaning folk.
I've seen the post you linked to before on another forum I frequent, which suggests that's about all there is. The poster in question is working for 5 weeks doing a 'study', of exactly what I'm not sure. I also don't see how the death of one pup, however tragic, can be attributed directly to photographic activity either, except by anecdotal 'evidence' put forward by people whose motives are unknown. Pups die all the time, mostly without any 'help' from human contact.
The mortality rate amongst pups is massive, but I'm sure you already know that, and if it were not the case, then you wouldn't be able to move at DN for seals! I don't think anybody is keeping tabs on the actual numbers all that accurately, but recent evidence suggests their numbers are increasing.
I'm not defending the ill mannered, ill informed, and frankly moronic behaviour of some photographers that has been talked about recently, if indeed it is happening (but lets not go there again!), but we should get it into perspective.
You've posted a couple of times at least on this subject in even my short tenure here on UKNP, so what do you want to see happen?
If a proper study concluded that people would be better off not going out to the seals, and the numbers backed it up, then I'd support a ban. But, that isn't happening to my knowledge, and the seals live on a bombing range, so if it were a serious issue, then surely they'd stop that too?
Don't they like seals ?
JohnR
Sorry just got the answer. If they charge everyone £1 a time then according to the numbers of visitors projected or sugeested then that would pay for a warden.
It seems to me that mandatory rules for the site need to be enforced by someone, or some organisation, or else this problem goes on and on and on...
I have just googled "Seals Donna Nook" and it is frightening ! I SUGGEST EVERYONE DOES IT.They are being exploited as an attraction where these animals can be "photographed by anyone with a simple camera " I could not believe what I have just read and then have the stupidity to wonder why the colony is being so exploited.
It all makes sense now.
It seems to me that most of the complaints about the problems that photographers are causing are coming from - guess what ?
-photographers.! Is it not the old story ?
I would suggest that, whether you beleive the highlighted post or not, unless we are a lot more diligent in our behaviour there will be problems ahead.
To me one of the answers is education about what an animals circle of fear actually is and how you recognize it; it is a complex piece of edication for it differs per individual animal and species.
Generically, for a seal, I would suggest it is about 8m minimum ( for a big bull less, for a nursing cow more) but it also depends if they have detected you. If you shoot upwind and upright ( not on belly) and the above distances are accurate, if not slightly short.
Get low, down wind, blending with the natural colour, edging closer with minimum, short, movements and these distances can be shortened, unless you are detected when you have to stop and shuffle back well back; still low and in reverse.
Look at this from the perspective of the type of person we're criticising (EDIT: just to be clear - what I mean is the odd bad apple, not all togs who go to DN). While we all agree that the animal's welfare is paramount, the consequences to you of not following that rule is absolutely zero. The benefit of not following the rule is that you potentially get a great shot. I don't believe for a moment that education will work - on a daily basis we see examples of people taking their own self-interest over the greater good, simply because they can (everything from over-fishing to fly-tipping). Therefore this isn't ignorance, but a rational choice from their perspective. Most people are not stupid, but many are selfish.
I know from conservation biologists that I work with that people responsible for DN are very concerned about photographers behaviour and numbers, and at some point they'll have to regulate access, especially if numbers of people going continues to rise. That will ruin DN from a togs point of view (I saw a similar thing happen at Boulders in South Africa), but when a resource is free the only way to limit consumption is to control availability of that resource - what else can you do?
In response to Iain - there are two issues raised (and I agree that one dead seal pup is not going to tell us anything). First, are seal population dynamics affected by photographers on DN? Probably not, but since we don't know how well they'd do in the absence of photographers we simply can't tell and any study is therefore scientifically dubious. What is clear though is that non-photographers are pretty offended by the behaviour of some photographers, and that perception matters. Second, other factors (often viral epidemics) may be more important in determining the population size of seals, but that's no reason not to get our own house in order. This isn't a conservation issue, but a welfare issue, and that's where some people have been going wrong.
Finally, we don't actually 'know' how the seals feel about this, and AFAIK we don't know the consequences for their pups' survival and so on. If there is, then clearly we must respond, but to be honest, I don't care if there ISN'T an effect - I just feel very uncomfortable seeing people behave in that way, which is why I decided not to go back.
Mark
Rene de Heer
I have to try and help deal with fishery seal conflicts in the north east of scotland and it is not simple, especially when they are travelling as far upstream as dunkeld to catch salmon that are said to be worth £1000 each to the scottish economy, sites like DN are very good for getting people close to nature although we must be careful and respectful.
Just for interest one study of seal haul out sites showed two things: in rocky sites once a seal has been disturbed and has gone into the water it will not return until the next tide' secondly big boats are much less of a problem than a sea kayak which to a seal looks like an orca.
A couple of points about DN - are their any signs telling people how to behave around the seals.
Also does the site have a management group, if so are any of the local photographers able to attend, your knowledge may be of use to deal with the issue and in the long term may help stop draconian measure being put in place whilst still protecting the seals.
Louper
Some of the actions I witnessed the other week made my blood boil. In itself, permit issue might not go very far towards curtailing all lunatic behaviour, but I'm certain it would go some way to curbing numbers at least.
Nice shot Chris - I'd lose some off the top and try getting rid of the blue cast, judging by the colour of the sand.
I genuinely don't think that your last point is a fair one - even the big glass guys had to start somewhere, and I don't recall seeing many people with 70-300s or P&S cameras when I was there! On the other hand there was lots of 70-200 and 300 F2.8s. My experience involved someone with a high-end DSLR and a wide angle lens who just walked up to their target, machine-gunned it from close range and then went to the next one, leaving behind a line of very stressed seals.
I think that the concern is simply about the poor behaviour of a small minority who seem to put their own results ahead of the welfare of their subject. Normally we don't get to see this, but it's pretty obvious at DN, just because there's lots of witnesses to it when it occurs. I think that your points about signs and management are right, because otherwise I fear that the decision to control access will be taken by others.
Rene: I really hope not, I think that the solution is proper management.
Fundamentally, I think in part it comes down to where people put the emphasis when they say that they're a wildlife photographer. Which comes first, the wildlife or the photography, welfare of the subject or the resulting image?
Right - I'm meant to be working, not getting worked up! I will stop looking at UKNP and get on with it!
All the best
Mark
Lovely image!
As with anything a balance needs to be sort. Closing it down would solve nothing. I agree with Tom that education is the key. Also having a warden would help to achieve that along with various signs poniting out various codes of conduct in bite sizes.
I've never been to Donna Nook but I have witnessed some awful human behavior around animals in the past that even heavy access prices (for example flying to India, travelling to relatively isolated reserves and hiring drivers, then paying park entry fees) hasn't stopped, so clearly just charging isn't the solution. I think Tom is spot on in saying this is about education but that John also has a very good point and that even a voluntary access fee would generate funds that could fund some kind of warden or ranger service for the limited periods when this is a big issue. Who knows, how far would a fiver from every UKNP subscriber go? Arguably pretty far in terms of goodwill and demonstration of collective responsibility even if not in terms of physical presence.
Even if it could just fund a access control gate that funnels every visitor past a specific point where a large sign describing appropriate behaviour around the seals could be placed - as Ian Hay asks, I also wonder whether there is actually any information to guide those whose wildlife encounters are based on a zoo model where they can get very close, be noisy etc.
Lastly I think the valuable point made by the item linked to is that we have a responsibility to police ourselves if we want to retain access to places like Donna Nook.
I agree it was meant to be a joke with a smilee but I am posting on a blackberry so it did not work, hence I deleted the comment some time ago.
Sorry
Looking at the lwt website it says a warden is present, is this true?
One last comment, the behaviour you are describing could be seen as harassment, if so I would call the police and ask to be put through to the wildlife crime officer. It would be better if this was done by fellow photographer than a member of the public. If the police do show up and have. Quite work in the busy car park this would I am sure have the desired effect.
Ok another last point could this forum come up with a site specific code of conduct based on good feildcraft and send it to lwt as a suggestion, it could have what the signs of distress are and the number of the warden and wildlife crime officer, that way photographers could report the bad behaviour of the public as well.
Louper
No need to apologise - I didn't think what you said was offensive in the slightest
To be honest, I kicked myself afterwards for not having the bottle to say something, and I take it as a lesson learned, and is probably why I don't want to go back.
When I was there the wardens patrolled the board-walk (which I actually though was the place to be to get the pup shots - as a tog you can't be accused of harassing the seals when there's a fence in front of you and half of Lincolnshire behind you!). I think that simply having a warden out on the sands having a quiet word would do the trick.
All the best
Mark
I know a couple of other places to go where there are far less seals, but most importantly, very few people, so I will be going there instead.
Nice photo by the way.....
Interesting range of views but there have been 422 views of this thread and only 14 replies! This sort of stuff needs discussing . . .
Iain T - thanks for a more considered reply this time round, it is appreciated.
In answer to your question (“so what do you want to see happen?”): I have no authority to ‘police’ anyone at Donna Nook (or elsewhere) and I certainly have no desire to become the Mary Whitehouse of wildlife photography! Instead I’ve tried to stimulate debate amongst us photographers via this forum. As for my personal view, it is based around the concept of FREEDOM (no, I'm not a tree hunger or hippie):
To visit wild animals in their own environment is a privileged freedom, one that comes with responsibility. I hold down a day job, ‘jumping through hoops’ to make a living - when I visit places like DN I do so to escape all that for a while and indulge a passion (I'll make an assumption that many others reading this are in a similar position). So, as an interest group we have a choice - regulate ourselves or get regulated. Personally, I don't wish to give up my freedom.
I want more people to see wildlife spectacles like Donna Nook . . . not less! We need the natural world to be valued - its importance should register higher in our general society. The obvious contradiction to my FREEDOM concept is that more visitors, equals more control. So maybe DN should be managed for 'nature tourists' - a 'tool’ for promoting wildlife. After all isn’t that the function of the Farnes and Smoker?
A general comment: I take natural history photographs, not because I've got a pumped up ego and I want to be the 'next big name', but because it gives me an excuse to get back to nature - like a great many other togs, I was a naturalist first. I’m not saying I haven’t made mistakes when approaching subjects – of course I have! But because my start point is as a naturalist I‘ve learned to curb the need to secure an image at all costs.
Ok, I’m going to shut up shortly but before I do; I’d just like to say thanks for all the feedback to my posts on the UKNP forum, I’ve learned things along the way and I’ve also seen some really exceptional images.
This is my last post on the forum as I need to concentrate my thoughts elsewhere.
Cheers,
Chris
PS. Andy A – thanks for the C & C on this image – you’ve been right on many occasions – but this time I like it just as it is.
You all probably know about my stance of wildlfe photography (conservation comes first). I don't think things will ever really change much because there are so many people out there with more money than sense. By this I mean people who have the money to buy all the equipment to shoot whatever they want and have an interest in wildlife but don't appreciate it. There are no so many 'photographers' around anyone with a camera will want to get a similar image to those around them, chances are all ethics will be thrown out of the window. Unless we can promote the idea of ethics to those taking snaps etc then this may be quite an ongoing theme for years to come.
nice image tho
Drew
I'm really not sure the path of education will work. As there are always muppets who don't listen. When visiting last year, on the day the beach was closed off due to the chance of unexploded ordnance, I remember being stood down the far end of the walkway with other UKNP'ers. There were clear sign's asking people to stay behind the fence, yet one guy was 10ft the other side with his DSLR photographing a seal pup.
The guy showed a small amount of common sense by keeping low and shuffling back out, however do we have first have to teach these people to read before educating them on topics such as an animals 'circle of fear'?!
Close it off is my view, the wildlife must come first. If one pup has died or even come close to dying because of the actions of human actions then steps must be taken to prevent this. Unfortunately it may well mean that the 'educated' suffer as a result but so be it.
BTW, like the photo!
I would propose that the members take time to petition or write to the appropriate authorities and NGOs and ask them to sanction the local wildlife trust into promoting education via their Coastal Warden (Rob Lidstone-Scott in Lincs WT) and ask them to come up with methods and guidelines that will help protect the animals from harm during these vulnerable times and maybe look to seek a local by-law that will enable a non-tolerance approach to this kind of behavior at sensitive breeding times i.e. 1st Sept-31st December. It is possible, via the military agreement to assign 'no-go areas' during these times but it would be up to the site managers to interpret this i.e. the Lincs WT since they have the management agreement with the military.
You could also ask the Lincs WT to produce some guidelines on 'reasonable behavior and conduct' when visiting these breeding colonies. This will have to take place via public consultation and stakeholder participation. This again would be very easy to achieve but would only be a voluntary code of conduct and could not be legally enforced. However, if the public backs this kind of agreement together with other stakeholders, it is likely that it will eventually become self policing.
Just some thoughts I thought I would share with you to help shed some light and look for possible ways forward for those concerned.
Kind regards,
Brett.