What started the discussion, was something Vincent said (it's all your fault! ):
A dream image indeed Marsel! Looking at this I cannot help but wonder though why these animals were running, something which desert animals that need to be so wise with their limited water and energy sources will only revert to when in panic or real danger.
My response to this was:
Vincent - they were no doubt running because they saw and heard our little plane; it's not something they see every day. Most animals start running when they see or hear something they don't know - whether it's a microlight, a hot air balloon, a helicopter, a car, or a photographer with a tripod over his shoulder. As a matter of fact, most wild animals start running when they see a human being, no matter what it's doing. It all depends on whether the animals are used to human activity. There a very few animals in the Masai Mara that get spooked by hot air balloons or 4x4's.
We all share the same planet and it's unevitable that we run into each other from time to time. No matter how much care I take to not spook an animal, there is no way I can prevent that from happening. Me walking in the dunes would have had the exact same effect on this small herd. The oryx that live this far into the dunes don't get into contact with humans, so any human activity makes them run. And you've seen the oryx in Etosha - they couldn't care less about people.
The reason I spend some words on this, is that I got an email the other day from someone who was concerned about the lion in my charging lion shot - it obviously got spooked by my camera, so I had disturbed the animal in its natural behavior, and therefore the sender did not approve of my methods.
I replied with more or less the same words; it was not my intention to disturb the animal, it simply happened. Nothing more, nothing less. I did something that was different from what this particular lion was used to, it probably also had a bad day, and that's it. If you spend a lot of time among wild animals, you will disturb them all the time. Birds flying away, antelopes running in all directions, elephants flapping their ears because you're on the same road, etc. Probably the only place where your presence won't scare any animals, is in the zoo, because they have learned to ignore you.
In january I was in Libya (no, I didn't start the revolution) and during one of my hikes in a very remote part of the desert I ran into a mountain goat, an incredibly beautiful mountain goat. I probably gave it the biggest fright of its life as it kept running for ever, until I couldn't even see it anymore. Should I feel guilty? Of course not. On my way back to the camp I walked into another one, same result. There is no way to prevent this sort of thing from happening, especially not when you go off the beaten track or behave differently from the herd.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that although I always try not to spook an animal, I'm realistic enough to realize that it's impossible to prevent it from happening, and, that the next time a baboon tries to break into my tent I will do my best to give it the scare of a lifetime.
Sorry about the rant.
Brad contributed to the discussion with:
First off - I must say that this is an absolutely beautiful image - real eye candy. There's virtually nothing in it I would suggest changing. Well done.
Very coincidentally, just this week I was asked to review a proposed set of bear-viewing (and bear photography) guidelines (and laws) to a place I regularly visit. One of the guidelines was tight regulation of the use of both fixed-wing and helicopters to view and/or photograph bears. The guideline pushed the lowest allowable elevation to 4,000 feet, and only allowed a single pass while traversing the area. The reason I mention this is that it is well known that low-flying planes disturb and stress wildlife. I have on numerous occasions been floating in a Zodiac near sleeping bears and, on one occasion, near a female who was nursing a cub right in front of it when a bear-viewing fixed-wing plane flew over at elevations of approximately 1,000 feet. The chaos among the bears on the ground was unbelievable. The point here is that while it's true everything we do has SOME impact or disturbance on an animal, there are many things that are much more likely than others to cause major stress and/or alarm with most wildlife. In fact the "everything we do causes some alarm or stress" argument can be used to justify virtually ANY behaviour of a photographer (taken to its extreme one could argue that the animal is likely to die sometime anyway, so why not....).
It is with this context (two days of pouring over guidelines designed to minimize disturbance to wildlife) that I looked at this image and must admit I had the same question as Vincent. To me it's pretty easy to avoid engaging in acts that are so well known to disturb animals that there are laws against them in many places.
That all said (MY rant! ), the image is spectacular and does not directly violate any of the currently existing posting guidelines for the Wildlife Gallery. While it could be argued that the image pushes one of the points in the NPN Code of Conduct ("Never let your presence cause the animal any stress. If there is a sign of stress, pull back."), this is perhaps debatable.
I suggest that if we wish to take this discussion further we move it either to the newly created Wildlife Forum OR the Hot Topics Forum.
Finally - I want to reiterate there is one thing there is NO debate on - this is a fantastic image and in PURELY photographic terms one of my favourite images of any of your's I have seen posted on NPN.
First - thanks for the compliments, much appreciated. :-)
What it all comes down to, is that the world is not black and white. I'm not surprised that low-flying planes disturb the wildlife. If I were an oryx, unfamiliar with human activity, I would be running like hell if I saw a low flying plane. But I would be running just as fast if I saw a 4x4 coming down those dunes.
Animals are not different from people: we are both scared of things we don't know or don't understand.
I have photographed brown bears at McNeil River. The only way to get there, is with a float plane. The bear density there is insane - they're everywhere. But the bears are not spooked by the planes at all. Even when it lands on the water, the bears digging for clams on the beach or the ones chasing salmon in the lagoon show little or no reaction; they're used to them. They know that the planes are no threat.
The same animal will show different behavior in different places. The birds of prey that live in a nature reserve in The Netherlands fly off the moment you stop your car, but the same birds that live near Schiphol Airport don't even get spooked by a low flying Airbus. It's all a matter of what they're used to.
The oryx that started running when they saw and heard our little plane are the exact same species as the ones that stand motionless next to the airstrip of Etosha National Park.
We are scared of things we don't know.
It is true that some things are more likely to cause alarm or stress than others, but you simply cannot prevent it from happening. As a nature photographer I try not to spook my subjects, not only because I don't want to spook them, also because there is no point doing so. I've spent weeks in hides, only to see the wildlife run of and break the sound barrier after hearing the first click of my shutter. Sure, a plane would have made it run even faster, but the result is the same.
When I was flying over the dunes, I was photographing landscapes - star shaped dunes, patterns, textures, dry rivers, beautiful abstracts and wide vistas. And suddenly there was a herd of oryx. What is one supposed to do? Evaporate? Hide behind a cloud? Seriously, there is no way to prevent something like this from happening other than to stay away entirely from wild places. I've seen oryx run away just as fast when I was just walking in the dunes, the method of transportation really isn't the issue here.
There is a crucial difference between engaging in acts that are known to disturb animals in an area where you can almost be certain that you will, and engaging in acts that are known to disturb animals without - within reason - knowing that it actually will. If I hop on my mountain bike and spend two hours in the forest, I will scare dozens of animals and probably even hundreds. The NPN Code of Conduct ("Never let your presence cause the animal any stress. If there is a sign of stress, pull back.") is important and I fully support it, but one has to remain realistic. The moment that deer looks up and runs away because it hears the sound of my shutter coming from my hide, it is clear that my presence has caused the animal stress. Should I pack and leave? I've taken many shots of wildlife using a radio controlled remote; the camera was next to a waterhole, I was far away - I didn't want to cause the animals any stress with my presence. The camera is always hidden, well camouflaged, the animals don't know it's there (except the elephants). Everything is fine until I take the first shot: all the animals run away - the sound of my shutter has spooked them. After a while they gather enough courage to return, I take a shot, and there they go again. But not all of them. Some stay, because they realize it is probably nothing to be worried about. An hour later the animals are all drinking in front of my camera, completely ignoring the rattling camera. Point in case: something that initially scared the living hell out of them - something they didn't know - eventually didn't even remotely (no pun intended) bother them. Should I have packed my gear after that first click? I don't think so.
Rules are good. I'm all for rules. But always within reason.
Hope that explains my view on this. And thank you for your comments and feedback - there should be more discussions like this.
Thanks for starting this thread and summarizing it fully. No one is going to argue that the same stimulus will have a different affect on wildlife in one place than it does in another - we know wildlife can become habituated and adapt. It's also pretty well understood that almost anything CAN disturb wildlife and it's impossible to absolutely avoid disturbance in all instances. And, no one CAN argue what your intent was when you were up in the plane/microlight - only you know that.
But, when I see an image of startled animals trying to flee a low-flying aircraft I have to ask the following questions:
1. If there was a decent possibility of encountering the oryx when you were up there, should you have gone up in the first place? I wasn't there so I can't answer this question - only you can.
2. Based on the angle of the photo, it's very likely you and/or the pilot weren't immediately leaving the area after you spooked the animals. I don't know if you went in for a shot "anyway" (i.e., given they were already spooked) and have no way of refuting anything you say about that. If you DID pursue the oryx for the shot, I question the ethics of doing that. If you COULD have turned the plane and minimized the disturbance to the oryx, even if it meant not getting the shot, I think you should have done that. Again - hypothetical - I wasn't there and can't judge what only you know.
3. Most importantly, I wonder about the message an image like this sends to impressionable neophyte wildlife photographers about the ethics of (in this case) shooting wildlife from a low-flying aircraft. In a way commenting on the image without a challenge (or at least a QUESTION about the ethics, which is all Vincent did) is like implicitly condoning the action. Like with baiting with food, there are likely instances where shooting from a low-flying airplane can be done without harm to the subject. But, on NPN one has to look at the bigger picture and consider the context the image is shown, and then impact the action in debate can have if it is condoned and then practiced more frequently because of the image. In this case an increase in the frequency of buzzing of the oryx is a possibility because you posted the image. I think questioning the ethics of it is the responsible thing to do, if for no other reason than to make viewers of the image aware of the potential ethical issue and the potential harm to the wildlife that MAY occur when shooting in such situations.
You repeatedly go back to the argument of comparing one disturbance to another (above you say " But I would be running just as fast if I saw a 4x4 coming down those dunes") as though that justifies another act of disturbance. I simply don't buy that argument - many actions that are known to disturb and stress wildlife CAN be avoided. And that argument can be used to rationalize almost any unethical action by a photographer. At the end of the day I don't think the slope is nearly as slippery as some would like to suggest.
I'm not going to apologize for questioning the ethics behind this shot - I think it was the right thing to do. I'm fine with anyone doing the same with my work.
I find the image to simply mesmerizing . It is stunning. All seem to agree on that point.
I believe that questioning the ethics of the shot is an over reaction. Marsel stated very clearly his intent in using the small plane was to capture landscape images, patterns, etc. Since he said so, I believe him, and that was his intent.
In nature things happen and in this instance, the path of the micro-lite plane and the path of the oryx crossed. There was no intent of that happening, it just happened. It would be a completely different story if the intent was to go up in the plane, fly around looking for wildlife to spook to get them running and photograph them.
I'm going to assert that any of us who spend time out in nature have spooked wildlife. Sometimes we're aware that it happened and many times we are not. The wildlife saw us, we didn't seem them, and they retreated. There was no intent on our part to do so, but we still spooked them.
So if I'm out in the wild somewhere walking on a path, driving on a 4x4 road, flying in an ultra-light, etc. and my path crosses the path of an animal, it spooks, and I take a picture of it, and that act constitutes an ethical breach in wildlife photography, then the only way I can think of to prevent that is to never venture out where there is even the slightest possibility that my path will cross that of any wildlife.
In the case of THIS image and the explanation provided by Marsel, I simply see no issue.
I'd state it this way: we should try not to disturb the animals we photograph, but if through no improper conduct on our part they are disturbed, we shouldn’t thrash ourselves about it.
A few years ago, a grizzly bear crossed the Denali Highway right in front of my truck. I stopped to try to photograph the bear. Before I had the pickup door open, the bear was 200 yards across the tundra. As I watched, it clear the 1500 foot ridge on the south side of the road and disappeared. An impressive feat under any circumstances. I undoubtedly disturbed the bear, but does anyone think I should have kept driving?
At the opposite end would be the woman in Anchorage who tried to pet a wild moose. She got stomped for her trouble - not seriously injured, fortunately - but I don't think anyone would disagree that conduct was reprehensible.
What's appropriate depends on the circumstances. The nursing sow bear that Brad described might be entitled to greater deference on our part than a fat boar salmon-fishing.
And most of the time, we never see the animals we disturb.
Brad - you're most welcome. Discussions force us to think, and thinking is good.
1. Africa is not like most other places on the planet - there is wildlife everywhere. Actually, there is so much wildlife, it is often impossible to not encounter animals. But some areas have a higher density than others. The Namib-Naukluft park is not famous for running herds of oryx, but for having the highest red sand dunes in the world. People from all over the planet visit this park to witness with their own eyes that the sand really is this red. Most people won't see a single mammal during their visit, and if they do it's usually a springbok in the distance. When we fly over the dunes in the microlights, we do so to photograph the dunes. When we see wildlife, we see wildlife. And where do you draw the line? Is it ok to scare rodents? Birds? Or is it only the large mammals that we should think about?
2. We were flying in a straight line, back towards the camp. The whole event lasted seconds, I got one burst of images and then we had already passed the dune they were running on. It is NOT allowed to follow wildlife with a microlight, the pilot will lose his license (and his job) if he does.
3. You can basically ask the same question every time you see an animal running, jumping or flying; why is it doing that? Often the answer is that it got spooked by something or someone. A sound, an other animal, or a human.
When people saw the first footage of the migration from a hot air balloon, everyone wanted to see that. The result: every morning dozens of hot air balloons fly low over the thousands of wildebeest and other animals. Is it unethical? The animals don't seem to mind at all - they see the same show every day. But what about that first hot air balloon? Animals had never seen one before and I'm sure they were pretty scared. Is it ethical to do it again after you've seen them run away? Is it ethical now, now that they're no longer scared? Was the first locomotive ethical, considering it scared the hell out of all the lifestock?
There are so many places on earth where the animals are used to human activity, but this wasn't always the case. Animals are not stupid. After the third click of my shutter most of them realized that there was nothing to worry about - the clicking sound did not pose any threat. But was that first click unethical? Should I have stopped immediately after I saw that the click alarmed the animals?
I don't have all the answers, but no one does. I am not rationalizing unethical behavior, I am simply asking questions, looking at comparable situations elsewhere. This is nothing new, it has happened before. Bears in McNeil: totally cool with airplanes. Your bears: scared shitless. The difference: exposure. Are the bear biologists at McNeil unethical for having scared those first bears a long time ago with their low-flying float planes, or for having habituated the bears to them later?
You don't have to apologize for questioning the ethics behind this shot - you're free to think whatever you want. But I'm telling you there is no reason to question the ethics. No animals were harmed during this shoot. A slightly elevated pulse perhaps, but nothing serious.
I guess this brings us to the next question: what about animals that spook me?
Of course you don't have all the answers, but who does! I probably don't have all the questions either! But there are a few more that come to mind and that I didn't ask before. Note that these are "big picture" questions that while they apply to the matter at hand, really go beyond this image (and thus I don't really expect your to answer them):
1. Should we knowingly engage in behaviour that is "acceptable" in terms of stress on the subject only if the animals are habituated [i]even if we don't know that the animals we're likely to encounter are habituated or not?[/i}. In other words, is it worth the gamble that they are? It would appear that the ones in your photo weren't.
2. Should we refrain from behaviour that initiates the habituation process? Very hard to even identify this (admittedly), but given the harm that often comes from habituation (even inadvertent harm - like accidentally becoming roadkill) it's something worth considering.
In the last year we have - if I'm being honest and not too dramatic - locked horns on two debatable issues - the bear baiting and this image. Others have questioned the lion photo with the remote camera you placed on NPN. The question I have for each of these cases is this: What would happen if bear baiting, placing remote cameras that bothered animals, and buzzing wildlife with a low-flying aircraft all became commonplace? You may be comfortable with all of your own ethical decisions on these and think that "there is no reason to question the ethics", but when I think of the possible cumulative effect if all photographers engaged in these practices, I simply disagree.
Near the end of your response above you state: "No animals were harmed during this shoot. A slightly elevated pulse perhaps, but nothing serious."
That's a definitive statement that exceeds your knowledge - you simply don't know this. Did one of them die a week later from dehydration triggered from this event? Or, did a male in the group experience a reduction in fitness (reproductive potential) due to the energy lost here? Did a female abort? Was one weakened enough so that it became more vulnerable to a predator for a period of time and was consequently picked off? I could list other harmful affects that may have occurred from this event, but I think you see the point. I totally believe that when you left the scene all the animals looked fine, but that's very different from saying they experienced no harm.
And about those animals that spook you? Well, maybe just slowly back off!
Thanks for the exchange...useful stuff to discuss...
1. Should we knowingly engage in behaviour that is "acceptable" in terms of stress on the subject only if the animals are habituated even if we don't know that the animals we're likely to encounter are habituated or not?. In other words, is it worth the gamble that they are? It would appear that the ones in your photo weren't.
As I stated before, there is a big (really big) difference between accidentally running into an animal and that animal gets spooked by my presence, and willingly and knowingly spook animals to get a photograph. No one can possibly condemn me for flying over an insanely large area of dunes because there is a very small chance that I might run into some animals that will get spooked by my presence. That would be pretty silly. If, however, I would set out specifically to chase animals in the dunes to get shots of them running, that would be a whole different ball game.
Also, in all areas where wildlife is not habituated to human presence or activities, any human behavior will cause stress to the animals. The issue here is not about me flying in a microlight, it is about my presence, period. Like I said, me walking in those same dunes would have exactly the same result on these animals - they would run like hell. Whether I use my feet, a motor cycle, a pogo-stick or a microlight, the end result is the same.
The only way to be absolutely certain that my behavior will not scare any animals (including rodents, snakes and other little critters) is to not go into the dunes.
2. Should we refrain from behaviour that initiates the habituation process? Very hard to even identify this (admittedly), but given the harm that often comes from habituation (even inadvertent harm - like accidentally becoming roadkill) it's something worth considering.
Habituation is a rather broad phenomenon. There are many degrees of habituation. Whether it is good or bad often depends on the species and the circumstances. I'm tempted to think that habituated oryx would be better off in the dunes, because they would never get spooked again by people and whatever form of transportation they use. I'm aware of the problems that habituation can cause, but again: the world is not black and white. I know for a fact that there is a lot less roadkill inside African national parks than outside. The animals inside the parks are used to the vehicles and don't suddenly run from one side of the road to the other, contrary to their unhabituated brothers outside the parks. Also, inside the parks is a speed limit - even if you wanted to kill an oryx with your 4x4, it would be pretty hard driving 15km an hour.
In the last year we have - if I'm being honest and not too dramatic - locked horns on two debatable issues - the bear baiting and this image.
No problems there Brad, we're all entitled to our opinions, and even if we don't agree, at least we give each other - and others I'm sure - food for thought.
Others have questioned the lion photo with the remote camera you placed on NPN.
No one has questioned my lion photo on NPN, I got one email from someone who was concerned about the lion - all others were more concerned about my own health.
The question I have for each of these cases is this: What would happen if bear baiting, placing remote cameras that bothered animals, and buzzing wildlife with a low-flying aircraft all became commonplace?
That is a complex question. I will ignore the bear baiting part, as we already discussed this at length and you know my views on it.
Placing remote cameras does not necessarily bother animals. I've spent some time with a leopard researcher in Botswana who used dozens of remote cameras for his research. The images that were taken with those cameras were hilarious - closeups of giraffe heads, hyenas urinating on them, baboons spending a whole afternoon in front of them, elephants pulling them out of the ground or stepping on them, etc. I've had warthogs using my camera as a scratching post, continuing even when I tripped the shutter multiple times. There is no such thing as 'remote cameras that bother animals'. Some will get spooked, most if them won't. And as with the microlight, it is not about the remote camera, it's about the fact that they hear something they're not familiar with or that they didn't expect. Most wild animals get spooked by things they don't know, things that surprise them, or things that they have had a bad experience with. That is not an excuse to spook animals, it is just a fact. If more people would place remote cameras at water holes, pretty soon remote cameras would be just like trees and rocks - nothing to worry about. In areas where low-flying aircrafts are commonplace, the animals don't seem to mind. Is that a reason to try to habituate them to low-flying aircrafts? Of course not.
You may be comfortable with all of your own ethical decisions on these and think that "there is no reason to question the ethics", but when I think of the possible cumulative effect if all photographers engaged in these practices, I simply disagree.
I have yet to see the research that shows that the bears at McNeil are less healthy than bears elsewhere as the result of low-flying floatplanes. Or that clicking sounds at a waterhole will have a fatal effect on the animals visiting.
Near the end of your response above you state: "No animals were harmed during this shoot. A slightly elevated pulse perhaps, but nothing serious."
That's a definitive statement that exceeds your knowledge - you simply don't know this. Did one of them die a week later from dehydration triggered from this event? Or, did a male in the group experience a reduction in fitness (reproductive potential) due to the energy lost here? Did a female abort? Was one weakened enough so that it became more vulnerable to a predator for a period of time and was consequently picked off? I could list other harmful affects that may have occurred from this event, but I think you see the point. I totally believe that when you left the scene all the animals looked fine, but that's very different from saying they experienced no harm.
You're right, I don't know this. And neither do you. I honestly don't think a 6 second sprint will have had much of an effect on the animals, but who knows? The fact remains that it doesn't matter. Going for a walk in the dunes would have had the same result.
I'm sure you can list a long list of harmful effects that may have occurred from this event, but that is primarily the result of your negative approach. What if this event moved them away from a predator that was about to discover them, what if this event brought them closer to water that they would otherwise have missed, what if this event returned them to a little one that was left behind - you catch my drift; what if doesn't really work. We don't know.
It's like raising children - so many different opinions, so many different children, so many different stories. Parents can have completely different opions on what is good for their children and what is not, but they all love their children.
Thanks for the exchange...useful stuff to discuss...
There's no point in carrying this discussion any further. It's clear you'll continue to do what you need to do to get your photos. It's equally clear that I will continue to raise ethical questions if I have concerns about the images posted in the Wildlife Gallery. In both cases, it's part of our jobs and we simply have to agree to disagree and coexist.
Brad
PS: You are beginning to make this personal by saying "...that this is the result of your negative approach." I think that makes it time to cease this exchange. But I think you found the exact dividing line between us when you just said:
The fact remains it doesn't matter.
in reference to whether or not the animals were harmed. Why? By your reasoning simply because they could be harmed by other events too. I guess then absolutely anything goes - no rules, no ethics - nothing matters, because if we don't hurt 'em someone else is bound to. Well, I live by different rules.
How about we all try to err on the side of caution and put our photographic instincts behind our responsibilities as the animals who sit high and above every other member of the food chain?
Full disclosure of technique and a backstory is always welcome on images of this nature.
I think there are some analogies to this conversation and discussions of zoos. Some people believe zoos are abusive to animals. Another perspective is that zoos help people connect with the animals and lead to wider support of conservation efforts. The zoo animals are unwilling martyrs, with wildlife populations as a whole being the beneficiaries. I know I saw this with my son, who sold lemonade to raise donations for the World Wildlife Fund after visiting the Denver Zoo.
As a body of work, Marsel's photographs are exceptional. They allow people who do not have the means to travel to Africa an opportunity to appreciate the splendor. This raises their appreciation of nature's beauty and probably inspires them to support conservation efforts.
We could argue forever about whether the animals in this photo were harmed. We really don't know, so the argument can never reach a conclusion.
I think we can say with certainty, however, that many people will be positively inspired by this image. And this could lead to greater support for protection of Africa's wild places.
Thanks for the feedback and I find your assessment of the exchange very interesting (really!). All I meant by the "going personal" was Marsel's comment that my approach was negative - that's all - nothing more...
Cheers...
Brad
Posted by David Bostedo on March 9, 2011 at 10:45 PM
No one can possibly condemn me for flying over an insanely large area of dunes because there is a very small chance that I might run into some animals that will get spooked by my presence.
The only way to be absolutely certain that my behavior will not scare any animals (including rodents, snakes and other little critters) is to not go into the dunes.
This is probably something of a tangent, but you're right, Marsel, that taking this to a far extent, we would simply have more areas where humans were not allowed - at all, be it in the air or on the ground. It is a possibility, although I think an extreme one.
As far as being negative, Brad, I think all that means is that you're assuming something that might happen, as opposed to objecting to something that did happen. So it's sort of "assuming the worst". That could also called erring on the side of caution. I don't think anything more was meant. And really, it's a terrific debate.
I am curious, Brad - are you in favor of areas set aside for animals to have zero human interaction? Or are you searching for a line between quietly paddling a boat past an animal and buzzing it with an airplane?
Posted by Brian Gatlin on March 9, 2011 at 10:50 PM
I think the points here on both sides are well expressed, and I am grateful for the tone of the discussion.
I'd argue very strongly though, that considering all the possible harm one might do to a subject, and weighing that before proceeding is far from a "negative approach."
Posted by Jim Erhardt on March 10, 2011 at 4:48 AM
This discussion has been extraordinarily educational, one that I think every NPN member should read. In this case, it is not who is right or who is wrong, but rather about the nuances of logic in ascertaining our impact on the natural world, specifically in regards to nature photography.
There will never be a definitive line that separates right from wrong. But through discussions like this one, we can become better educated and hone our judgement skills to make better decisions when we are in the field.
My sincere thanks to both Marsel and Brad for conducting this discussion in a very professional manner and for serving the roles of point/counter-point for what has been an extremely useful discussion.
I am curious, Brad - are you in favor of areas set aside for animals to have zero human interaction?
Yes. I have worked to establish some such areas. And you asked:
Or are you searching for a line between quietly paddling a boat past an animal and buzzing it with an airplane?
I'm really not sure how the two questions are logical alternatives (they seemed to be posed in a "this or that?" fashion), but in answer to the second question, I'm not looking for a definitive line in the sand - simply to discuss the ethics of engaging in acts that have a high probability of causing major stress on an animal for the sake of a photo. It's fashionable to argue (or conjure up) all sorts of hypothetical examples of "slippery slope" scenarios that make any line seem arbitrary, but when you actually get in the field it's usually pretty darned apparent when wildlife is stressed by the acts of a photographer. You simply have to be a keen observer of wildlife behaviour and notice subtle and nuanced little things - like, for instance, when the animal is running like hell away from you!
Cheers...
Brad
PS: For clarity, that last sentence was a joke.
Posted by David Bostedo on March 10, 2011 at 8:49 AM
...it's usually pretty darned apparent when wildlife is stressed by the acts of a photographer.
But per some of the discussion up above, if they aren't spooked, it's :
1) likely that they've been somewhat habituated
2) in which case they've been spooked at some time
3) which shouldn't ever have happened if people weren't there
The bear/plane example is a good case if you favor never causing any stress to an animal. If the first bears at McNeil to see the first planes were completely freaked out by them (as seems likely), then the planes never should have been there, and people wouldn't be going there now.
And if you can manage to be a photographer and keep your subject completely unaware of your presence, that's terrific, but there are all kinds of other smaller animals you're disturbing.
As far as the either or, I was thinking of it this way : Either you favor humans not going into the animals areas at all, or you are OK with some amount of "stress" even if it's just basic encounters with humans. If it's the latter, then I was asking if you're looking for the line between very benign things, like paddling a kayak down a river near an animal, versus more disruptive things like going by in a low flying plane. Sorry that wasn't clearer, and thanks for the explanation.
I think you're running the risk of polarizing things even more. I have never said or implied that photographers (or humans in their day-to-day life) can avoid causing any stress to wildlife. We'd have to turn the clock back hundreds (or even thousands) of years to do that. We're talking about a more extreme event here - buzzing wildlife with a low-flying airplane to get photos. The "slippery slope" argument was introduced by Marsel and has taken the issue far away from what is a pretty clear cut case of stressing wildlife (and note that I am not saying or implying it was intentional). We can ALL make occasional mistakes that cause stress to animals. Habitually engaging in such acts is a different situation.
Because I said I was involved with helping establish some areas where humans should not be permitted to go does not mean I advocate this for ALL areas. It's obvious that I want to try to minimize the stress on animals, but I'm reasonable enough to know that to remove ALL stress is simply not possible. However, it IS often possible to avoid behaviours that are known to cause major stress on animals and it behooves us as wildlife photographers to try to do so. If we all habitually pushed the ethical boundaries of wildlife photography I think we'd soon find ourselves in a situation where far more areas we like to shoot in would be (quite rightfully) closed to us.
It's obvious NO absolute line can be "drawn in the sand" that would govern all situations that may involve stress to animals and that individual judgment IS required (often on a minute-by-minute basis in the field) to judge when an animal's stress level is increasing and we should withdraw. Wildlife photographers differ in their knowledge and training about wildlife behaviour, AND in the lengths they will go to capture an image. Thus, different photographers will differ in what they do to capture an image. This whole debate started because a moderator in the Wildlife Gallery asked a fair question about what triggered the "stampede" that was captured in the photograph in question. I will continue to ask such questions, and will encourage the other moderators in the Wildlife Gallery to do the same.
Cheers...
Brad
Posted by David Bostedo on March 10, 2011 at 10:42 AM
Thanks Brad....well stated. I wasn't trying to imply that the question shouldn't be asked.
I actually agree with you, for what it's worth. Actually, I'm guessing that most folks agree; That it's about trying to minimize stress, and it's all about where you do choose to draw that line.
Sofar your focus has been on me and my supposed lack of ethics on numerous occasions. I've been struggling to get my point across, but I think this might help to get some perspective.
On the 3rd of May last year you posted this picture of a cougar up a tree.
-You went for a walk with your dogs in Findlay Creek where 'the probability of encountering wildlife of SOME form (at least deer or elk, but also possibly coyotes, wolves, bears, or cougars) during these walks is very high'.
-You are aware that dogs scare the hell out of wildlife, but that didn't stop you from bringing them on your walk.
-You brought a camera with you.
-You ran into a cougar.
-You and your dogs spooked it.
-The cougar fled up a tree.
-The cougar was seriously outnumbered (3 to 1).
-There is no doubt the cougar was extremely stressed by this event.
-You had all the time in the world to practice what you preach and back off slowly to not further increase the stress for the animal and leave it in peace.
-You decided to stay.
-You said: 'I was lucky that the tree it went up was beside a cliff face with ledges, so I was easily able to climb up some ledges and get even with the eye-level of the cat.'
-So you took your time to climb a few ledges in order to get into a better position for your shot.
-Your dogs were still there, adding to the stress.
-You were very pleased to be able to get so close to this stressed animal: 'I was able to get quite close to my subject. Fortunately the kitty was quite cooperative and it allowed me the privilege of shooting this image!'
-The cougar had no choice; you and your dogs were still there.
-You felt lucky that the cougar had nowhere to go: I was extremely lucky to have a more-or-less captive subject (or at least a treed subject!) to work with.
-You took your time for the 25 shots, because you had trouble focusing and the exposure was tricky.
-This whole ordeal lasted several minutes.
There are a few crucial differences between the cougar event and what happened during my microlight flight. I did not expect to encounter any wildlife, you did. I had only a few seconds to respond to the situation, you took several minutes to take your photographs. I did not stay with the animals and we continued our course, you decided to stick around, get close and take advantage of the fact that the stressed animal had nowhere to go.
I can come up with a whole list of 'what ifs' regarding the negative effects this event could have had on this cougar, but I won't. I would be guessing.
As wildlife photographers it does us no good to spook and stress our subjects, as their health and well being is what provides us with good images. In the end, and I'd like to quote David here, it's about trying to minimize stress, and it's all about where you choose to draw that line.
Thanks to everyone for your contributions, much appreciated!
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this - although I'm quite surprised you have gone to such lengths to dig up dirt. As you'll note in my previous comment to David I stated unequivocally:
We can ALL make occasional mistakes that cause stress to animals. Habitually engaging in such acts is a different situation.
In the situation you bring up, I encountered a cougar unexpectedly and it was spooked up a tree by my dog. I immediately pulled my dog off and exited the area using the fastest route (which was up the cliff and ledges you describe above). As I left I pulled my point & shoot off my hip and snapped the shots in question when I was at a distance from the cougar. The close-up portion of the encounter was less than one minute.
What you don't know is that this encounter was entirely legal and occurred during the "Pursuit Only" season for Mountain Lions in the region. I do not know the full logic behind the season, but individuals are actually ENCOURAGED to tree the lions with dogs during this season, presumably to keep them wary of humans (but this is speculation on my part). But this is OFFICIAL policy as determined by the wildlife experts and authorities in the region. If you would like I will email you the government-produced "Synopsis" of the rules and regulations for wildlife for the region in which I reside. I readily admit I was NOT officially engaged in "Pursuit Only" activities (and nor would I, for personal reasons) - it was an accidental encounter. I could be totally wrong here as I'm not familiar with the laws of the region you captured the oryx image, but was it during official "Aerial Harassment" season?? No need to answer and keep this going - I think we all know the answer!
Over the past year (or so) you have posted images of a baited bear (which I believe you described as "responsible little morsels of food" - as if that existed), a lion thoroughly pissed off at your remote camera, and now oryx being buzzed by a low-flying aircraft. I am admittedly quite slow, but I'm beginning to see a pattern here.
It's my opinion (no claim of fact) that if the types of actions described in the paragraph above became commonplace among wildlife photographers we would contribute significantly to the stress level of our subjects. And, if these same actions became widely known to the public (and the respective authorities) I suspect we might find ourselves with far fewer places to ply our trade (as the result of being rightfully banned from many areas). Just my opinion.
As I said to David, as moderator of the Wildlife Gallery I will continue to ask questions about the ethics of the capture of wildlife images when there appears to be reason to do so. And I will encourage the other moderators to do the same - whether or not they choose to is up to them.
A couple of years ago I was winter hiking in Wind Cave National Park, actively looking for bull elk. To my delight, I found a group of 20+ mature bulls, lounging in a tiny pocket of a south facing, undulating ridge overlooking a wide, wide grassy basin. They were tightly grouped and I knew that many big bulls in such a close knit wad could make for a dramatic image. I planned my stalk, and when I was almost in position for an image I peeked for orientation and a single bull saw me...
Rather than stare or stomp nervously or whatever, he chose to turn inside out in a panic reaction, which in the space of a second became a mad chain reaction and all 20+ bulls exploded in a frantic exit race, their hooves spraying snow as they ran. To my surprise, these bulls did not soon quit running and shortly I could see them still going full pace at a distance of almost a mile, heading across the prairie basin toward a distant, pine covered range of hills.
It was at that point I began to consider the impacts of my surprise visit on mid-winter elk, holed up in a pocket of favorable thermal cover, following nature's dictates to preserve precious calories to make it through the possible brutal storms still to come. I had meant no harm, nor would I have anticipated the extent of their flight. Still, I had dealt them a heavy dose of winter stress they did not need and I felt slightly sick to my stomach.
Would I again sneak close to a band of winter elk seeking a photo? Maybe or maybe not, but for certain I would THINK first and carefully consider. This winter in South Dakota has been unusually cold with an equally unusual level of snow cover. Within a half hour of my house I can find National Park elk. I love the grandeur of elk. But this winter I have limited my shooting to what can be encountered from the roads and have mostly decided to await the change in seasons and to forgo stalking big game in the snow.
I once met a man with a motto for living that struck me as sublime, and I have tried to adopt it. He was fond of saying in challenging circumstances, "We learn as we go..."
Posted by Jim Erhardt on March 10, 2011 at 12:34 PM
I once met a man with a motto for living that struck me as sublime, and I have tried to adopt it. He was fond of saying in challenging circumstances, "We learn as we go..."
I think that is a good final remark to close this discussion. Thanks to all who participated.
Posted by Peter Cross on March 10, 2011 at 12:54 PM
This has been an extremely stimulating discussion and I thank all the participants for maintaining a very civil demeanor in what is something very personal to them. I know it's made me rethink how I do wildlife photography and if there is any practice I should change. I'd, also, like to point out that wildlife live in a very stressful environment. Whether in a wildeness area or a suburban setting. Survival beharvior occurs no matter where an animal lives. IMO man has altered animal environments both physically and behaviorally. In many cases we've eliminated or severely reduced predator populations. Does that then equate to a less stressful environment for the prey species? Doubt it. Other things (i.e. cars, hunters, have taken their place. In numerous situations the reduced predator populations have allowed the prey to exceed the carrying capacity of the land. So they die, or perhaps live, in a state of malnutrition or chronic diesease and competition for food, shelter, mates, etc That must be very stressful. Disease or malnutrition caused death probably isn't a nice way to die. I'm not trying to use this argument as a way to justify stress caused by a photographer's pursuit of the ultimate photo, but just to point out that stress is a part of any animal's existence, including ours. Birder's have similar debates regarding pursuit of species to add to life lists or chasing rarities. It's very complex and there is no easy answer(s). But it does make us think. And that's a good thing.
Discussion
27 repliesWhat started the discussion, was something Vincent said (it's all your fault!
My response to this was:
Brad contributed to the discussion with:
What it all comes down to, is that the world is not black and white. I'm not surprised that low-flying planes disturb the wildlife. If I were an oryx, unfamiliar with human activity, I would be running like hell if I saw a low flying plane. But I would be running just as fast if I saw a 4x4 coming down those dunes.
Animals are not different from people: we are both scared of things we don't know or don't understand.
I have photographed brown bears at McNeil River. The only way to get there, is with a float plane. The bear density there is insane - they're everywhere. But the bears are not spooked by the planes at all. Even when it lands on the water, the bears digging for clams on the beach or the ones chasing salmon in the lagoon show little or no reaction; they're used to them. They know that the planes are no threat.
The same animal will show different behavior in different places. The birds of prey that live in a nature reserve in The Netherlands fly off the moment you stop your car, but the same birds that live near Schiphol Airport don't even get spooked by a low flying Airbus. It's all a matter of what they're used to.
The oryx that started running when they saw and heard our little plane are the exact same species as the ones that stand motionless next to the airstrip of Etosha National Park.
We are scared of things we don't know.
It is true that some things are more likely to cause alarm or stress than others, but you simply cannot prevent it from happening. As a nature photographer I try not to spook my subjects, not only because I don't want to spook them, also because there is no point doing so. I've spent weeks in hides, only to see the wildlife run of and break the sound barrier after hearing the first click of my shutter. Sure, a plane would have made it run even faster, but the result is the same.
When I was flying over the dunes, I was photographing landscapes - star shaped dunes, patterns, textures, dry rivers, beautiful abstracts and wide vistas. And suddenly there was a herd of oryx. What is one supposed to do? Evaporate? Hide behind a cloud? Seriously, there is no way to prevent something like this from happening other than to stay away entirely from wild places. I've seen oryx run away just as fast when I was just walking in the dunes, the method of transportation really isn't the issue here.
There is a crucial difference between engaging in acts that are known to disturb animals in an area where you can almost be certain that you will, and engaging in acts that are known to disturb animals without - within reason - knowing that it actually will. If I hop on my mountain bike and spend two hours in the forest, I will scare dozens of animals and probably even hundreds. The NPN Code of Conduct ("Never let your presence cause the animal any stress. If there is a sign of stress, pull back.") is important and I fully support it, but one has to remain realistic. The moment that deer looks up and runs away because it hears the sound of my shutter coming from my hide, it is clear that my presence has caused the animal stress. Should I pack and leave? I've taken many shots of wildlife using a radio controlled remote; the camera was next to a waterhole, I was far away - I didn't want to cause the animals any stress with my presence. The camera is always hidden, well camouflaged, the animals don't know it's there (except the elephants). Everything is fine until I take the first shot: all the animals run away - the sound of my shutter has spooked them. After a while they gather enough courage to return, I take a shot, and there they go again. But not all of them. Some stay, because they realize it is probably nothing to be worried about. An hour later the animals are all drinking in front of my camera, completely ignoring the rattling camera. Point in case: something that initially scared the living hell out of them - something they didn't know - eventually didn't even remotely (no pun intended) bother them. Should I have packed my gear after that first click? I don't think so.
Rules are good. I'm all for rules. But always within reason.
Hope that explains my view on this. And thank you for your comments and feedback - there should be more discussions like this.
Thanks for starting this thread and summarizing it fully. No one is going to argue that the same stimulus will have a different affect on wildlife in one place than it does in another - we know wildlife can become habituated and adapt. It's also pretty well understood that almost anything CAN disturb wildlife and it's impossible to absolutely avoid disturbance in all instances. And, no one CAN argue what your intent was when you were up in the plane/microlight - only you know that.
But, when I see an image of startled animals trying to flee a low-flying aircraft I have to ask the following questions:
1. If there was a decent possibility of encountering the oryx when you were up there, should you have gone up in the first place? I wasn't there so I can't answer this question - only you can.
2. Based on the angle of the photo, it's very likely you and/or the pilot weren't immediately leaving the area after you spooked the animals. I don't know if you went in for a shot "anyway" (i.e., given they were already spooked) and have no way of refuting anything you say about that. If you DID pursue the oryx for the shot, I question the ethics of doing that. If you COULD have turned the plane and minimized the disturbance to the oryx, even if it meant not getting the shot, I think you should have done that. Again - hypothetical - I wasn't there and can't judge what only you know.
3. Most importantly, I wonder about the message an image like this sends to impressionable neophyte wildlife photographers about the ethics of (in this case) shooting wildlife from a low-flying aircraft. In a way commenting on the image without a challenge (or at least a QUESTION about the ethics, which is all Vincent did) is like implicitly condoning the action. Like with baiting with food, there are likely instances where shooting from a low-flying airplane can be done without harm to the subject. But, on NPN one has to look at the bigger picture and consider the context the image is shown, and then impact the action in debate can have if it is condoned and then practiced more frequently because of the image. In this case an increase in the frequency of buzzing of the oryx is a possibility because you posted the image. I think questioning the ethics of it is the responsible thing to do, if for no other reason than to make viewers of the image aware of the potential ethical issue and the potential harm to the wildlife that MAY occur when shooting in such situations.
You repeatedly go back to the argument of comparing one disturbance to another (above you say " But I would be running just as fast if I saw a 4x4 coming down those dunes") as though that justifies another act of disturbance. I simply don't buy that argument - many actions that are known to disturb and stress wildlife CAN be avoided. And that argument can be used to rationalize almost any unethical action by a photographer. At the end of the day I don't think the slope is nearly as slippery as some would like to suggest.
I'm not going to apologize for questioning the ethics behind this shot - I think it was the right thing to do. I'm fine with anyone doing the same with my work.
Cheers...
Brad
I believe that questioning the ethics of the shot is an over reaction. Marsel stated very clearly his intent in using the small plane was to capture landscape images, patterns, etc. Since he said so, I believe him, and that was his intent.
In nature things happen and in this instance, the path of the micro-lite plane and the path of the oryx crossed. There was no intent of that happening, it just happened. It would be a completely different story if the intent was to go up in the plane, fly around looking for wildlife to spook to get them running and photograph them.
I'm going to assert that any of us who spend time out in nature have spooked wildlife. Sometimes we're aware that it happened and many times we are not. The wildlife saw us, we didn't seem them, and they retreated. There was no intent on our part to do so, but we still spooked them.
So if I'm out in the wild somewhere walking on a path, driving on a 4x4 road, flying in an ultra-light, etc. and my path crosses the path of an animal, it spooks, and I take a picture of it, and that act constitutes an ethical breach in wildlife photography, then the only way I can think of to prevent that is to never venture out where there is even the slightest possibility that my path will cross that of any wildlife.
In the case of THIS image and the explanation provided by Marsel, I simply see no issue.
Amen.
A few years ago, a grizzly bear crossed the Denali Highway right in front of my truck. I stopped to try to photograph the bear. Before I had the pickup door open, the bear was 200 yards across the tundra. As I watched, it clear the 1500 foot ridge on the south side of the road and disappeared. An impressive feat under any circumstances. I undoubtedly disturbed the bear, but does anyone think I should have kept driving?
At the opposite end would be the woman in Anchorage who tried to pet a wild moose. She got stomped for her trouble - not seriously injured, fortunately - but I don't think anyone would disagree that conduct was reprehensible.
What's appropriate depends on the circumstances. The nursing sow bear that Brad described might be entitled to greater deference on our part than a fat boar salmon-fishing.
And most of the time, we never see the animals we disturb.
1. Africa is not like most other places on the planet - there is wildlife everywhere. Actually, there is so much wildlife, it is often impossible to not encounter animals. But some areas have a higher density than others. The Namib-Naukluft park is not famous for running herds of oryx, but for having the highest red sand dunes in the world. People from all over the planet visit this park to witness with their own eyes that the sand really is this red. Most people won't see a single mammal during their visit, and if they do it's usually a springbok in the distance. When we fly over the dunes in the microlights, we do so to photograph the dunes. When we see wildlife, we see wildlife. And where do you draw the line? Is it ok to scare rodents? Birds? Or is it only the large mammals that we should think about?
2. We were flying in a straight line, back towards the camp. The whole event lasted seconds, I got one burst of images and then we had already passed the dune they were running on. It is NOT allowed to follow wildlife with a microlight, the pilot will lose his license (and his job) if he does.
3. You can basically ask the same question every time you see an animal running, jumping or flying; why is it doing that? Often the answer is that it got spooked by something or someone. A sound, an other animal, or a human.
When people saw the first footage of the migration from a hot air balloon, everyone wanted to see that. The result: every morning dozens of hot air balloons fly low over the thousands of wildebeest and other animals. Is it unethical? The animals don't seem to mind at all - they see the same show every day. But what about that first hot air balloon? Animals had never seen one before and I'm sure they were pretty scared. Is it ethical to do it again after you've seen them run away? Is it ethical now, now that they're no longer scared? Was the first locomotive ethical, considering it scared the hell out of all the lifestock?
There are so many places on earth where the animals are used to human activity, but this wasn't always the case. Animals are not stupid. After the third click of my shutter most of them realized that there was nothing to worry about - the clicking sound did not pose any threat. But was that first click unethical? Should I have stopped immediately after I saw that the click alarmed the animals?
I don't have all the answers, but no one does. I am not rationalizing unethical behavior, I am simply asking questions, looking at comparable situations elsewhere. This is nothing new, it has happened before. Bears in McNeil: totally cool with airplanes. Your bears: scared shitless. The difference: exposure. Are the bear biologists at McNeil unethical for having scared those first bears a long time ago with their low-flying float planes, or for having habituated the bears to them later?
You don't have to apologize for questioning the ethics behind this shot - you're free to think whatever you want. But I'm telling you there is no reason to question the ethics. No animals were harmed during this shoot. A slightly elevated pulse perhaps, but nothing serious.
I guess this brings us to the next question: what about animals that spook me?
Well...
Of course you don't have all the answers, but who does! I probably don't have all the questions either! But there are a few more that come to mind and that I didn't ask before. Note that these are "big picture" questions that while they apply to the matter at hand, really go beyond this image (and thus I don't really expect your to answer them):
1. Should we knowingly engage in behaviour that is "acceptable" in terms of stress on the subject only if the animals are habituated [i]even if we don't know that the animals we're likely to encounter are habituated or not?[/i}. In other words, is it worth the gamble that they are? It would appear that the ones in your photo weren't.
2. Should we refrain from behaviour that initiates the habituation process? Very hard to even identify this (admittedly), but given the harm that often comes from habituation (even inadvertent harm - like accidentally becoming roadkill) it's something worth considering.
In the last year we have - if I'm being honest and not too dramatic - locked horns on two debatable issues - the bear baiting and this image. Others have questioned the lion photo with the remote camera you placed on NPN. The question I have for each of these cases is this: What would happen if bear baiting, placing remote cameras that bothered animals, and buzzing wildlife with a low-flying aircraft all became commonplace? You may be comfortable with all of your own ethical decisions on these and think that "there is no reason to question the ethics", but when I think of the possible cumulative effect if all photographers engaged in these practices, I simply disagree.
Near the end of your response above you state: "No animals were harmed during this shoot. A slightly elevated pulse perhaps, but nothing serious."
That's a definitive statement that exceeds your knowledge - you simply don't know this. Did one of them die a week later from dehydration triggered from this event? Or, did a male in the group experience a reduction in fitness (reproductive potential) due to the energy lost here? Did a female abort? Was one weakened enough so that it became more vulnerable to a predator for a period of time and was consequently picked off? I could list other harmful affects that may have occurred from this event, but I think you see the point. I totally believe that when you left the scene all the animals looked fine, but that's very different from saying they experienced no harm.
And about those animals that spook you? Well, maybe just slowly back off!
Thanks for the exchange...useful stuff to discuss...
Cheers...
Brad
As I stated before, there is a big (really big) difference between accidentally running into an animal and that animal gets spooked by my presence, and willingly and knowingly spook animals to get a photograph. No one can possibly condemn me for flying over an insanely large area of dunes because there is a very small chance that I might run into some animals that will get spooked by my presence. That would be pretty silly. If, however, I would set out specifically to chase animals in the dunes to get shots of them running, that would be a whole different ball game.
Also, in all areas where wildlife is not habituated to human presence or activities, any human behavior will cause stress to the animals. The issue here is not about me flying in a microlight, it is about my presence, period. Like I said, me walking in those same dunes would have exactly the same result on these animals - they would run like hell. Whether I use my feet, a motor cycle, a pogo-stick or a microlight, the end result is the same.
The only way to be absolutely certain that my behavior will not scare any animals (including rodents, snakes and other little critters) is to not go into the dunes.
Habituation is a rather broad phenomenon. There are many degrees of habituation. Whether it is good or bad often depends on the species and the circumstances. I'm tempted to think that habituated oryx would be better off in the dunes, because they would never get spooked again by people and whatever form of transportation they use. I'm aware of the problems that habituation can cause, but again: the world is not black and white. I know for a fact that there is a lot less roadkill inside African national parks than outside. The animals inside the parks are used to the vehicles and don't suddenly run from one side of the road to the other, contrary to their unhabituated brothers outside the parks. Also, inside the parks is a speed limit - even if you wanted to kill an oryx with your 4x4, it would be pretty hard driving 15km an hour.
No problems there Brad, we're all entitled to our opinions, and even if we don't agree, at least we give each other - and others I'm sure - food for thought.
No one has questioned my lion photo on NPN, I got one email from someone who was concerned about the lion - all others were more concerned about my own health.
That is a complex question. I will ignore the bear baiting part, as we already discussed this at length and you know my views on it.
Placing remote cameras does not necessarily bother animals. I've spent some time with a leopard researcher in Botswana who used dozens of remote cameras for his research. The images that were taken with those cameras were hilarious - closeups of giraffe heads, hyenas urinating on them, baboons spending a whole afternoon in front of them, elephants pulling them out of the ground or stepping on them, etc. I've had warthogs using my camera as a scratching post, continuing even when I tripped the shutter multiple times. There is no such thing as 'remote cameras that bother animals'. Some will get spooked, most if them won't. And as with the microlight, it is not about the remote camera, it's about the fact that they hear something they're not familiar with or that they didn't expect. Most wild animals get spooked by things they don't know, things that surprise them, or things that they have had a bad experience with. That is not an excuse to spook animals, it is just a fact. If more people would place remote cameras at water holes, pretty soon remote cameras would be just like trees and rocks - nothing to worry about. In areas where low-flying aircrafts are commonplace, the animals don't seem to mind. Is that a reason to try to habituate them to low-flying aircrafts? Of course not.
I have yet to see the research that shows that the bears at McNeil are less healthy than bears elsewhere as the result of low-flying floatplanes. Or that clicking sounds at a waterhole will have a fatal effect on the animals visiting.
You're right, I don't know this. And neither do you. I honestly don't think a 6 second sprint will have had much of an effect on the animals, but who knows? The fact remains that it doesn't matter. Going for a walk in the dunes would have had the same result.
I'm sure you can list a long list of harmful effects that may have occurred from this event, but that is primarily the result of your negative approach. What if this event moved them away from a predator that was about to discover them, what if this event brought them closer to water that they would otherwise have missed, what if this event returned them to a little one that was left behind - you catch my drift; what if doesn't really work. We don't know.
It's like raising children - so many different opinions, so many different children, so many different stories. Parents can have completely different opions on what is good for their children and what is not, but they all love their children.
Indeed it is.
There's no point in carrying this discussion any further. It's clear you'll continue to do what you need to do to get your photos. It's equally clear that I will continue to raise ethical questions if I have concerns about the images posted in the Wildlife Gallery. In both cases, it's part of our jobs and we simply have to agree to disagree and coexist.
Brad
PS: You are beginning to make this personal by saying "...that this is the result of your negative approach." I think that makes it time to cease this exchange. But I think you found the exact dividing line between us when you just said:
in reference to whether or not the animals were harmed. Why? By your reasoning simply because they could be harmed by other events too. I guess then absolutely anything goes - no rules, no ethics - nothing matters, because if we don't hurt 'em someone else is bound to. Well, I live by different rules.
Full disclosure of technique and a backstory is always welcome on images of this nature.
Thanks for the feedback.
Brad
As a body of work, Marsel's photographs are exceptional. They allow people who do not have the means to travel to Africa an opportunity to appreciate the splendor. This raises their appreciation of nature's beauty and probably inspires them to support conservation efforts.
We could argue forever about whether the animals in this photo were harmed. We really don't know, so the argument can never reach a conclusion.
I think we can say with certainty, however, that many people will be positively inspired by this image. And this could lead to greater support for protection of Africa's wild places.
Thanks for the feedback and I find your assessment of the exchange very interesting (really!). All I meant by the "going personal" was Marsel's comment that my approach was negative - that's all - nothing more...
Cheers...
Brad
This is probably something of a tangent, but you're right, Marsel, that taking this to a far extent, we would simply have more areas where humans were not allowed - at all, be it in the air or on the ground. It is a possibility, although I think an extreme one.
As far as being negative, Brad, I think all that means is that you're assuming something that might happen, as opposed to objecting to something that did happen. So it's sort of "assuming the worst". That could also called erring on the side of caution. I don't think anything more was meant. And really, it's a terrific debate.
I am curious, Brad - are you in favor of areas set aside for animals to have zero human interaction? Or are you searching for a line between quietly paddling a boat past an animal and buzzing it with an airplane?
I'd argue very strongly though, that considering all the possible harm one might do to a subject, and weighing that before proceeding is far from a "negative approach."
There will never be a definitive line that separates right from wrong. But through discussions like this one, we can become better educated and hone our judgement skills to make better decisions when we are in the field.
My sincere thanks to both Marsel and Brad for conducting this discussion in a very professional manner and for serving the roles of point/counter-point for what has been an extremely useful discussion.
You ask:
Yes. I have worked to establish some such areas. And you asked:
I'm really not sure how the two questions are logical alternatives (they seemed to be posed in a "this or that?" fashion), but in answer to the second question, I'm not looking for a definitive line in the sand - simply to discuss the ethics of engaging in acts that have a high probability of causing major stress on an animal for the sake of a photo. It's fashionable to argue (or conjure up) all sorts of hypothetical examples of "slippery slope" scenarios that make any line seem arbitrary, but when you actually get in the field it's usually pretty darned apparent when wildlife is stressed by the acts of a photographer. You simply have to be a keen observer of wildlife behaviour and notice subtle and nuanced little things - like, for instance, when the animal is running like hell away from you!
Cheers...
Brad
PS: For clarity, that last sentence was a joke.
But per some of the discussion up above, if they aren't spooked, it's :
1) likely that they've been somewhat habituated
2) in which case they've been spooked at some time
3) which shouldn't ever have happened if people weren't there
The bear/plane example is a good case if you favor never causing any stress to an animal. If the first bears at McNeil to see the first planes were completely freaked out by them (as seems likely), then the planes never should have been there, and people wouldn't be going there now.
And if you can manage to be a photographer and keep your subject completely unaware of your presence, that's terrific, but there are all kinds of other smaller animals you're disturbing.
As far as the either or, I was thinking of it this way : Either you favor humans not going into the animals areas at all, or you are OK with some amount of "stress" even if it's just basic encounters with humans. If it's the latter, then I was asking if you're looking for the line between very benign things, like paddling a kayak down a river near an animal, versus more disruptive things like going by in a low flying plane. Sorry that wasn't clearer, and thanks for the explanation.
I think you're running the risk of polarizing things even more. I have never said or implied that photographers (or humans in their day-to-day life) can avoid causing any stress to wildlife. We'd have to turn the clock back hundreds (or even thousands) of years to do that. We're talking about a more extreme event here - buzzing wildlife with a low-flying airplane to get photos. The "slippery slope" argument was introduced by Marsel and has taken the issue far away from what is a pretty clear cut case of stressing wildlife (and note that I am not saying or implying it was intentional). We can ALL make occasional mistakes that cause stress to animals. Habitually engaging in such acts is a different situation.
Because I said I was involved with helping establish some areas where humans should not be permitted to go does not mean I advocate this for ALL areas. It's obvious that I want to try to minimize the stress on animals, but I'm reasonable enough to know that to remove ALL stress is simply not possible. However, it IS often possible to avoid behaviours that are known to cause major stress on animals and it behooves us as wildlife photographers to try to do so. If we all habitually pushed the ethical boundaries of wildlife photography I think we'd soon find ourselves in a situation where far more areas we like to shoot in would be (quite rightfully) closed to us.
It's obvious NO absolute line can be "drawn in the sand" that would govern all situations that may involve stress to animals and that individual judgment IS required (often on a minute-by-minute basis in the field) to judge when an animal's stress level is increasing and we should withdraw. Wildlife photographers differ in their knowledge and training about wildlife behaviour, AND in the lengths they will go to capture an image. Thus, different photographers will differ in what they do to capture an image. This whole debate started because a moderator in the Wildlife Gallery asked a fair question about what triggered the "stampede" that was captured in the photograph in question. I will continue to ask such questions, and will encourage the other moderators in the Wildlife Gallery to do the same.
Cheers...
Brad
I actually agree with you, for what it's worth. Actually, I'm guessing that most folks agree; That it's about trying to minimize stress, and it's all about where you do choose to draw that line.
Sofar your focus has been on me and my supposed lack of ethics on numerous occasions. I've been struggling to get my point across, but I think this might help to get some perspective.
On the 3rd of May last year you posted this picture of a cougar up a tree.
The facts, based on your own description of the events:
-You went for a walk with your dogs in Findlay Creek where 'the probability of encountering wildlife of SOME form (at least deer or elk, but also possibly coyotes, wolves, bears, or cougars) during these walks is very high'.
-You are aware that dogs scare the hell out of wildlife, but that didn't stop you from bringing them on your walk.
-You brought a camera with you.
-You ran into a cougar.
-You and your dogs spooked it.
-The cougar fled up a tree.
-The cougar was seriously outnumbered (3 to 1).
-There is no doubt the cougar was extremely stressed by this event.
-You had all the time in the world to practice what you preach and back off slowly to not further increase the stress for the animal and leave it in peace.
-You decided to stay.
-You said: 'I was lucky that the tree it went up was beside a cliff face with ledges, so I was easily able to climb up some ledges and get even with the eye-level of the cat.'
-So you took your time to climb a few ledges in order to get into a better position for your shot.
-Your dogs were still there, adding to the stress.
-You were very pleased to be able to get so close to this stressed animal: 'I was able to get quite close to my subject. Fortunately the kitty was quite cooperative and it allowed me the privilege of shooting this image!'
-The cougar had no choice; you and your dogs were still there.
-You felt lucky that the cougar had nowhere to go: I was extremely lucky to have a more-or-less captive subject (or at least a treed subject!) to work with.
-You took your time for the 25 shots, because you had trouble focusing and the exposure was tricky.
-This whole ordeal lasted several minutes.
There are a few crucial differences between the cougar event and what happened during my microlight flight. I did not expect to encounter any wildlife, you did. I had only a few seconds to respond to the situation, you took several minutes to take your photographs. I did not stay with the animals and we continued our course, you decided to stick around, get close and take advantage of the fact that the stressed animal had nowhere to go.
I can come up with a whole list of 'what ifs' regarding the negative effects this event could have had on this cougar, but I won't. I would be guessing.
As wildlife photographers it does us no good to spook and stress our subjects, as their health and well being is what provides us with good images. In the end, and I'd like to quote David here, it's about trying to minimize stress, and it's all about where you choose to draw that line.
Thanks to everyone for your contributions, much appreciated!
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this - although I'm quite surprised you have gone to such lengths to dig up dirt. As you'll note in my previous comment to David I stated unequivocally:
In the situation you bring up, I encountered a cougar unexpectedly and it was spooked up a tree by my dog. I immediately pulled my dog off and exited the area using the fastest route (which was up the cliff and ledges you describe above). As I left I pulled my point & shoot off my hip and snapped the shots in question when I was at a distance from the cougar. The close-up portion of the encounter was less than one minute.
What you don't know is that this encounter was entirely legal and occurred during the "Pursuit Only" season for Mountain Lions in the region. I do not know the full logic behind the season, but individuals are actually ENCOURAGED to tree the lions with dogs during this season, presumably to keep them wary of humans (but this is speculation on my part). But this is OFFICIAL policy as determined by the wildlife experts and authorities in the region. If you would like I will email you the government-produced "Synopsis" of the rules and regulations for wildlife for the region in which I reside. I readily admit I was NOT officially engaged in "Pursuit Only" activities (and nor would I, for personal reasons) - it was an accidental encounter. I could be totally wrong here as I'm not familiar with the laws of the region you captured the oryx image, but was it during official "Aerial Harassment" season?? No need to answer and keep this going - I think we all know the answer!
Over the past year (or so) you have posted images of a baited bear (which I believe you described as "responsible little morsels of food" - as if that existed), a lion thoroughly pissed off at your remote camera, and now oryx being buzzed by a low-flying aircraft. I am admittedly quite slow, but I'm beginning to see a pattern here.
It's my opinion (no claim of fact) that if the types of actions described in the paragraph above became commonplace among wildlife photographers we would contribute significantly to the stress level of our subjects. And, if these same actions became widely known to the public (and the respective authorities) I suspect we might find ourselves with far fewer places to ply our trade (as the result of being rightfully banned from many areas). Just my opinion.
As I said to David, as moderator of the Wildlife Gallery I will continue to ask questions about the ethics of the capture of wildlife images when there appears to be reason to do so. And I will encourage the other moderators to do the same - whether or not they choose to is up to them.
That's it.
Brad
Rather than stare or stomp nervously or whatever, he chose to turn inside out in a panic reaction, which in the space of a second became a mad chain reaction and all 20+ bulls exploded in a frantic exit race, their hooves spraying snow as they ran. To my surprise, these bulls did not soon quit running and shortly I could see them still going full pace at a distance of almost a mile, heading across the prairie basin toward a distant, pine covered range of hills.
It was at that point I began to consider the impacts of my surprise visit on mid-winter elk, holed up in a pocket of favorable thermal cover, following nature's dictates to preserve precious calories to make it through the possible brutal storms still to come. I had meant no harm, nor would I have anticipated the extent of their flight. Still, I had dealt them a heavy dose of winter stress they did not need and I felt slightly sick to my stomach.
Would I again sneak close to a band of winter elk seeking a photo? Maybe or maybe not, but for certain I would THINK first and carefully consider. This winter in South Dakota has been unusually cold with an equally unusual level of snow cover. Within a half hour of my house I can find National Park elk. I love the grandeur of elk. But this winter I have limited my shooting to what can be encountered from the roads and have mostly decided to await the change in seasons and to forgo stalking big game in the snow.
I once met a man with a motto for living that struck me as sublime, and I have tried to adopt it. He was fond of saying in challenging circumstances, "We learn as we go..."
Peter