I'm looking for ideas on how to handle a problem. I am fortunate to be able to photograph local wildlife with some of the top scientists and avian researchers in the San Diego area. We meet once a month for a glass of wine and a slide show. We share what birds we've found locally and talk camera gear. Most of these folks have been doing bird photography for longer than I've been alive, and have a vast knowledge of birds from around the world.
A few of these folks are into nest photography. They are mainly the "older" (over 70) part of the group. Their mission is to find nesting birds in the field and get shots of mom feeding the babies. They don't mind trimming a few branches that are in the way. I called one of these folks the other day and he and a few friends were out poking around a LeConte's Thrasher nest (see my post of a few days ago). "I found only one egg, so I need to go back next week when it hatches" he told me. These birds are rare, and this nest is well inside the state park. Their nests are very well hidden. I told him to stay out of there. His response was, "Well, that's the way I gotta do it if I'm gonna get the shot."
What I want is to have a result that ends in them leaving these nests alone. I can get angry and tell them I think they're a bunch of jerks, but that will just result in me going off on my own and them doing what they do. I can call the ranger and get them fined and maybe some gear confiscated. That's not the path that I want to take. I can console myself in the fact that these guys are "old school" and won't be here forever. Not good enough. Remember that these guys consider themselves researchers and scientists, and seem to have an attitude that the sacrifice of a few animals in the name of science is okay. I just don't know how to reeducate them at this point.
One of them told me yesterday that three different nests with eggs that they were watching have been predated, so the eggs are destroyed. I have to wonder why this happened.
I'll tolerate a certain amount of intrusive/damaging conduct in support of genuine research. "Squeezing" - killing - birds for skins grates on me, because there are enough skins already for the overwhelming majority of species. But what you describe isn't research; it's recreational photography. And any activity that disrupts, let alone kills, birds for recreational photography is wrong. In the case of endangered and threatened species, it's also a crime.
LeConte's Thrashers are famously easy to disturb. Swainson's Hawks, ditto.
I'm not much for politeness in these kinds of circumstances. I'd say something like, "Is your photo more important than nesting success? Are you sure it's okay to kill birds to get better photos?"
By the way: hawks, corvids and larids have been documented to watch nest finders, and predate eggs and nestlings when the nest finders locate the nests. A few years ago, there was a concerted effort to finds Rusty Blackbird nests as a part of the effort to find out why their populations have declined by 90%. More then 75% of the located nests were predated by Mew Gulls, which forage in the same habitat. So that's another risk you create by visiting nesting birds.
Well, I did just write a cordial but firm letter to the main offender. He's a friend, so I hope he doesn't take it personally.... but we'll see. Thanks, Jim. I know how nests can be predated and so my blood was boiling a bit. Believe me, I can be as impolite as needed.... , but I want them to stop.
Sounds like a very difficult dilemma Charlie and I have no easy solution based on what you've said. Somehow though, I sure hope these guys are very quickly stopped - one way or another.
Posted by Brian Gatlin on March 23, 2011 at 8:07 PM
Charlie,
A couple of ideas:
First of all, the art of a good critique applies here. Don't start off with the negative, or people will naturally become defensive and resist. Instead, find something positive in the things they do and use it as a bridge to the negative that you want to correct. "You really captured a beautiful photo here, but did you know that..." Or, "I know you are really into these birds, so I know you wouldn't want to negatively impact..." Something along those lines.
The other thing is to be provisional. That is, instead of "don't do that" try "you might want to" or "have you thought of trying..." or "maybe you could still get the shot without disturbing the birds by..."
Those approaches are often more successful than a direct confrontation. Think hard about good ways to phrase things and strong bridges from something honestly positive to the negative behavior. Give it a try, but of course no guarantees it works..
If these guys are science-types, then they are likely receptive to studies that demonstrate negative impacts on nesting birds. Find a couple articles about how predators find nests from watching humans, or from reduced cover around nests and pass them on with a quick note, something like, "Hey, just found this article--really interesting and makes me rethink what it is ok to do around nesting birds."
Causing the parent birds to leave the nest removes the protectors of the eggs and nestlings. Ravens, crows, and gulls are quick to take advantage of an unguarded nest to grab eggs and young birds. Sustained by feeding on garbage when other food is scarce, these predators are now unnaturally abundant and have become an increased threat to populations of other birds. If the people you describe really are "top scientists and avian researchers in the San Diego area" they should already know this well. Bona fide scientists with basic scientific ethics should have no problem grasping the destructiveness of their actions and changing their behavior to protect vulnerable species of birds.
---John
Thanks, Brian... I like your approach. I would think a civilized conversation with these people is appropriate for starters. John, I agree. I don't get it either. I'm gonna apply a little pressure and see what happens.
Good luck - sure hope they are open to learning and improving their point of view.
At the Recent NANPA convention, I went to a public, large lecture by one of the very well-known excellent wildlife photographers and was pretty stunned.
(Sorry if this is not the appropriate place to share this, but I'm still incredulous. )
In getting a "perfect" shot of a frog in mid-air jumping over the perfect flowers, this is the technique he used:
1. His helpers found a frog in the swamp and kept it overnight in a bucket for him.
2. He put down ramps and wood pieces to allow the frog to jump in only one very limited direction.
3. He positioned all the flowers, but it does not appear that he cut them or moved them much
4. set up camera at perfect angle
5. Helper poked the ground behind the frog to startle the frog into jumping. God knows how many times they made him jump.
This is little more than a studio shot, but sure won a lot of acclaim and $. His nice shot of a rattler was achieved by similar stunts.
Argh.
Sandy
Posted by David Graham on March 24, 2011 at 1:33 PM
As a retired wildlife biologist "of a certain age"... ( and an avid photographer for 64 years) I take more than a little umbrage at Mr. vanTassel's broad-brush characterization of older field biologists. I have long been aware of the problem he describes, but in all but two of the many instances of such thoughtless behavior I've observed or become aware they have been committed by the avid "birder" or so-called "naturalist / photographer" than by professional field biologists (active OR retired). And in his deploring the killing of birds for "study skin" collections, he's several generations late in his distress , although I agree that federal and state licensure requirements for "scientific collecting permits", although tightened in the past four decades, could still be more stringent than they are.
The field biologist is, of the general population, the most aware of the hazards imposed upon breeding populations, individual breeding pair success, and the risks imposed to nestlings by nest disturbance at times of the nesting cycle when such disturbance is guaranteed, likely, or even possible to cause abandonment.
A classic example of causation of nestling predation of which I was personally aware was when a "serious nature photographer" - a professor of engineering physics, not a wildife biologist by the way - climbed to a goshawk nest for shots of the nestlings. Before leaving the site he removed the sheet metal wrapped around the tree trunk (that had been placed there as a raccoon barrier) and the mesh bags of mothballs likewise surrounding the trunk to mask human odors that raccoons can follow to bird's nests. Why? Because they "looked un-natural". A raccoon predated the nest that night, killing the three nestlings as well as the protective adult on night duty. Her partly consumed carcass with abundant raccoon fur adhering to blood-crusted talons and toes was found beneath the nest.
Indeed, cautions re: the ethics concerning photographing nest sites are observed far more often in the breach than in practice by so-called "nature photographers" than by professional wildlife biologists.
And I know this is not just one biologist's experience and opinion.
David, I don't see where I gave a "broad brush" characterization, and I may very well be many generations late in my distress. To me the only point is that this is occuring and today it is both unethical and illegal. Times change. Laws are now enacted to stop this sort of thing. What was acceptable in 1940 doesn't apply today. I know that Audubon studied birds by basically shooting them first and then working on his drawings. I'm just pointing out the facts of the situation. I bring up the age and the experience of the people involved because I myself am a hobbyist and I'm looking for an approach to reason with them. Part of my problem is that I do respect these people for their knowledge and experience. These nest photos are not being used for any kind of research. There are no permits issued. I understand that there is an acceptable take to study wildlife and I have no problem with that when it results in meaningful data. The action I am describing can result in the loss of the offspring for nothing more than a photo in someone's nest photo collection. I understand what you have seen in the field with regards to photographers. I see that too, but these particular people should know better. I suspect that you are a person that does. I'm really not looking for a battle on biologist vs. photographer. I'm looking for a solution to this situation, that's all. Thanks for taking the time to reply.
I see no "broad brush characterization of older field biologists" in anything Charlie said in this thread. Nor do I see where he said, or even implied, that these kinds of unethical acts are more commonly committed by wildlife biologists than by bird photographers. And it wasn't Charlie that "deplored the killing of birds for study skin collections", but another member in this thread.
As a retired wildlife biologist "of a certain age"... ( and an avid photographer for 64 years) I take more than a little umbrage at Mr. vanTassel's broad-brush characterization of older field biologists. I have long been aware of the problem he describes, but in all but two of the many instances of such thoughtless behavior I've observed or become aware they have been committed by the avid "birder" or so-called "naturalist / photographer" than by professional field biologists (active OR retired).
I did not interpret Charlie's comments or anyone else's as a "broad brush characterization." The specific people Charlie was dealing with, yes. Nothing beyond that. I hang out with a lot of retired Alaska Department of Fish & Game biologists. I've spent a lot of hours shooting photos with them. The mix of personal levels of care are no different than in the nature photographer population at large.
And in his deploring the killing of birds for "study skin" collections, he's several generations late in his distress , although I agree that federal and state licensure requirements for "scientific collecting permits", although tightened in the past four decades, could still be more stringent than they are.
That was me that said that, not Charlie. I won't presume to speak for South Dakota, but in Alaska, it still happens all too often. Email me privately if you want names, dates and species. Sometimes, rarities have been squeezed while birders were still trying to see it.
The field biologist is, of the general population, the most aware of the hazards imposed upon breeding populations, individual breeding pair success, and the risks imposed to nestlings by nest disturbance at times of the nesting cycle when such disturbance is guaranteed, likely, or even possible to cause abandonment.
That's kind of a generalization, isn't it? A moose biologist may be ignorant as an apple about the risks to birds. And vice versa. Certainly ornithologists know better; I have suggested, based on my personal experience, that they don't always act appropriately on that knowledge. Several times I have been told by a biologist/photographer, "Don't worry, I'm a biologist, I know what I'm doing." One time, as the biologist/photographer was saying that, he stepped on a Semi-palmated Plover nest, crushing the eggs.
A classic example of causation of nestling predation of which I was personally aware was when a "serious nature photographer" - a professor of engineering physics, not a wildife biologist by the way - climbed to a goshawk nest for shots of the nestlings. Before leaving the site he removed the sheet metal wrapped around the tree trunk (that had been placed there as a raccoon barrier) and the mesh bags of mothballs likewise surrounding the trunk to mask human odors that raccoons can follow to bird's nests. Why? Because they "looked un-natural". A raccoon predated the nest that night, killing the three nestlings as well as the protective adult on night duty. Her partly consumed carcass with abundant raccoon fur adhering to blood-crusted talons and toes was found beneath the nest.
A sad example, indeed. But Northern Goshawks are either endangered not threatened. In the summer of 2009, biologist nest-monitoring of threatened Rusty Blackbirds in Interior Alaska resulted in nest predation at 75% of the nests.
Indeed, cautions re: the ethics concerning photographing nest sites are observed far more often in the breach than in practice by so-called "nature photographers" than by professional wildlife biologists.
Not in my experience; at best, biologists are no worse than nature photographers generally (all being much better than the general public). Unhappily, I have encountered a few biologists who acted as if they had special privileges, or weren't bound by the rules. My comments were to those persons.
My point earlier and here is that any nature photographer needs to bring the appropriate level of care to nature photography. And if you are not certain what the appropriate level of care is, then you simply must not take the chance of disturbing the critters. Even if it means missing the photo. As nature photographers, we have no special rights or privileges. I'd argue we have a higher duty of care.
Posted by David Graham on March 24, 2011 at 5:38 PM
Charlie,
As a retired wildlife biologist and researcher and in the age-group that you saw some reason to mention and tie to their putative realms of knowledge and tendency toward less-than ethical behavior in pursuit of their photographic passions my reaction was to think of a life-times-worth of experience with people of the sorts you mention with knowledge certain that the population you describe is well outside the norm with regard to such actions and behaviors. Maybe it has something to do do with the water in San Diego.? ....although I'm acquainted with a number of older wildlife biologists in southern "Hot Oven" who would never consider such acts.
I certainly am well aware that your primary intent is to find a civil means of changing the behavior of the miscreant, thoughtless perpetrators, assuming their basic decency, good will, and to be hoped, corrigibility.
And no, I don't think that I could fairly be characterized just an unduly cranky old f--t.... In case that had entered anyone's mind....as it admittedly has the minds of a few in my neck of the woods. Harrumph!
Best regards,
Dave Graham
Posted by David Graham on March 24, 2011 at 5:56 PM
Thank you, Jim, for your substantive and point-by-point thoughtful responses. Actually, I'd have been glad to respond to Charlie, and will, as I've a few more points of discussion... But how do I find his, or your, email address?
Dave Graham
Dave,
I agree with you. This behavior is outside the norm for anyone, photographer or biologist. I think that I can enlist the help of a few peers to discourage this behavior. I'm already working on it.
I happen to like old f%#rts. That's why I pal around with them. I hope to be one someday. Thanks for the feedback.
Posted by Brian Gatlin on March 25, 2011 at 8:28 AM
Let us know how things go, Charlie--either way it is valuable to know what approaches do or don't work.
Brian
Posted by David Graham on March 25, 2011 at 3:35 PM
Charlie,
Whatever other tactics you may try, one that should definitely be included is inviting the entire group with whom you associate to join your local Audubon Society, AND encourage the group to schedule an occasional program presented by a knowledgeable State Non-Game Biologist or an experienced academic ornithologist au fait with avian reproductive biology and behavior to discuss this particular topic...and make sure that the miscreants of your association attend!
Dave Graham
(who, in the late 50s,and through the 60s and 70s was among the legion of those (now "old f...ts) who were active in laying the basis and foundations and lobbying for the Environmental Protection Act, the International Migratory Bird Treaty (between Canada, the United States, and Mexico), and the Endangered Species Act. and to tighten restrictions on the international trade in wild and exotic species. We may now be old f...ts, but are not without pride of accomplishment nor without resentment at dismissive, ageist, attitudes, however "innocently" they may be held and expressed.)
David, Thank you for your thoughtful reply. In fact you hit on the exact solution that I have in the works. Great minds think alike. Like I said, I like old folk and I appreciate the groundwork that people like yourself laid so many years ago. A bit of vigilance is in order as we see so many avian species in decline around the world. The bottom line is that we are all interested in keeping all wildlife around for years to come. I think that you can agree that the future may not be so optimistic. That's why I can't let this go. I'll add a new post at some later date whatever the outcome.
Posted by Dan Roberts on March 25, 2011 at 8:53 PM
This issue isn't confined to behavior of photographers around nests. A personal pet peeve of mine is photographers who flush migratory species in order to get in-flight shots. Particularly species that "walk on water" as they take off. Swans are particularly targeted in this manner. With their body mass it takes a huge amount of energy to haul themselves into the air. I've watched people walk into the middle of a field to flush flocks of tens of thousands of snow geese so the could get shots of the flock as it circled the field. These migratory species fly thousands of miles and need every ounce of energy to keep up with the flock on order to make the journey. If they can't keep up, their chances of survival are very slim.
I think you are planning the right approach on this issue. I'm sure that most people who put forth the time an effort to get into the field care deeply about the wildlife they are photographing and only do these things out of ignorance. Once educated the lesson will stick with them and likely be passed on to the next "violators" that they run across.
Posted by Peter Cross on March 26, 2011 at 12:13 AM
I just got caught up on this discussion and found that it had generated quite a bit of meaningful discussion since I left it a few days ago. I had a few points I was going to make but they have already been well covered and while I have a few minor things I could point out, I will refrain and just mention that the Code of Conduct for NPN covers a lot of what was discussed. Any time we, as humans, enter into wildlife habitats there will be interactions. Each of us should honestly consider (not rationalize) what our presence might mean to nearby wildlife and act accordingly.
Peter
Posted by Greg Frazier on March 26, 2011 at 7:17 PM
As a professional ethicist, I have found portions of this exchange incredibly disturbing. In the original post, we were introduced to Charlie, an avid photographer caught in the middle of an ethical dilemma, which was compounded by the fact that the persons who had created the dilemma are friends. Advice started flying, followed closely by accusations. The ethicist would stop the conversation and bring us back to point. It matters not who has done what historically to whom, the ethical question posed by Charlie is "what can I do." As a community of ethical nature photographers, we are enjoined to provide Charlie with the HELP he requested in doing the right thing in such a manner that he can maintain a friendship while addressing unethical behavior. Some times that can best be done tangentially and sometimes a more direct approach needs to be taken.
While many wanted to offer assistance, others preferred to avoid the question by finger pointing and judgmentalism. The ethical question remains, but now has been complicated by Charlie having to defend himself. What can we offer to him that has more depth than this?
Perhaps a kind approach that will help Charlie preserve his friendship while pointing others to the ethical behavior required of those in the field. One possible approach would be to tell the friend how difficult it is for him to see what is happening; to explain the ethical standards under which he, Charlie, has chosen to operate; and to then invite his friends to join him in that. Ethical standards are not universal. They bind those who choose to be bound, and that oftentimes comes from education and invitation.
Thank you, Greg. Well said. While the path may have strayed a bit, it eventually led me to a plan that may (or may not) produce the desired result. In the the end that reaffirms my idea that this was the place to bring this question to begin with.
Discussion
23 repliesA few of these folks are into nest photography. They are mainly the "older" (over 70) part of the group. Their mission is to find nesting birds in the field and get shots of mom feeding the babies. They don't mind trimming a few branches that are in the way. I called one of these folks the other day and he and a few friends were out poking around a LeConte's Thrasher nest (see my post of a few days ago). "I found only one egg, so I need to go back next week when it hatches" he told me. These birds are rare, and this nest is well inside the state park. Their nests are very well hidden. I told him to stay out of there. His response was, "Well, that's the way I gotta do it if I'm gonna get the shot."
What I want is to have a result that ends in them leaving these nests alone. I can get angry and tell them I think they're a bunch of jerks, but that will just result in me going off on my own and them doing what they do. I can call the ranger and get them fined and maybe some gear confiscated. That's not the path that I want to take. I can console myself in the fact that these guys are "old school" and won't be here forever. Not good enough. Remember that these guys consider themselves researchers and scientists, and seem to have an attitude that the sacrifice of a few animals in the name of science is okay. I just don't know how to reeducate them at this point.
One of them told me yesterday that three different nests with eggs that they were watching have been predated, so the eggs are destroyed. I have to wonder why this happened.
Any ideas are appreciated, and thanks in advance.
LeConte's Thrashers are famously easy to disturb. Swainson's Hawks, ditto.
I'm not much for politeness in these kinds of circumstances. I'd say something like, "Is your photo more important than nesting success? Are you sure it's okay to kill birds to get better photos?"
By the way: hawks, corvids and larids have been documented to watch nest finders, and predate eggs and nestlings when the nest finders locate the nests. A few years ago, there was a concerted effort to finds Rusty Blackbird nests as a part of the effort to find out why their populations have declined by 90%. More then 75% of the located nests were predated by Mew Gulls, which forage in the same habitat. So that's another risk you create by visiting nesting birds.
My bottom line: don't go there.
A couple of ideas:
First of all, the art of a good critique applies here. Don't start off with the negative, or people will naturally become defensive and resist. Instead, find something positive in the things they do and use it as a bridge to the negative that you want to correct. "You really captured a beautiful photo here, but did you know that..." Or, "I know you are really into these birds, so I know you wouldn't want to negatively impact..." Something along those lines.
The other thing is to be provisional. That is, instead of "don't do that" try "you might want to" or "have you thought of trying..." or "maybe you could still get the shot without disturbing the birds by..."
Those approaches are often more successful than a direct confrontation. Think hard about good ways to phrase things and strong bridges from something honestly positive to the negative behavior. Give it a try, but of course no guarantees it works..
If these guys are science-types, then they are likely receptive to studies that demonstrate negative impacts on nesting birds. Find a couple articles about how predators find nests from watching humans, or from reduced cover around nests and pass them on with a quick note, something like, "Hey, just found this article--really interesting and makes me rethink what it is ok to do around nesting birds."
Hope these might be helpful.
Brian
---John
At the Recent NANPA convention, I went to a public, large lecture by one of the very well-known excellent wildlife photographers and was pretty stunned.
(Sorry if this is not the appropriate place to share this, but I'm still incredulous. )
In getting a "perfect" shot of a frog in mid-air jumping over the perfect flowers, this is the technique he used:
1. His helpers found a frog in the swamp and kept it overnight in a bucket for him.
2. He put down ramps and wood pieces to allow the frog to jump in only one very limited direction.
3. He positioned all the flowers, but it does not appear that he cut them or moved them much
4. set up camera at perfect angle
5. Helper poked the ground behind the frog to startle the frog into jumping. God knows how many times they made him jump.
This is little more than a studio shot, but sure won a lot of acclaim and $. His nice shot of a rattler was achieved by similar stunts.
Argh.
Sandy
The field biologist is, of the general population, the most aware of the hazards imposed upon breeding populations, individual breeding pair success, and the risks imposed to nestlings by nest disturbance at times of the nesting cycle when such disturbance is guaranteed, likely, or even possible to cause abandonment.
A classic example of causation of nestling predation of which I was personally aware was when a "serious nature photographer" - a professor of engineering physics, not a wildife biologist by the way - climbed to a goshawk nest for shots of the nestlings. Before leaving the site he removed the sheet metal wrapped around the tree trunk (that had been placed there as a raccoon barrier) and the mesh bags of mothballs likewise surrounding the trunk to mask human odors that raccoons can follow to bird's nests. Why? Because they "looked un-natural". A raccoon predated the nest that night, killing the three nestlings as well as the protective adult on night duty. Her partly consumed carcass with abundant raccoon fur adhering to blood-crusted talons and toes was found beneath the nest.
Indeed, cautions re: the ethics concerning photographing nest sites are observed far more often in the breach than in practice by so-called "nature photographers" than by professional wildlife biologists.
And I know this is not just one biologist's experience and opinion.
David Graham
Estelline, SD
"Umbrage" misdirected IMO.
I did not interpret Charlie's comments or anyone else's as a "broad brush characterization." The specific people Charlie was dealing with, yes. Nothing beyond that. I hang out with a lot of retired Alaska Department of Fish & Game biologists. I've spent a lot of hours shooting photos with them. The mix of personal levels of care are no different than in the nature photographer population at large.
That was me that said that, not Charlie. I won't presume to speak for South Dakota, but in Alaska, it still happens all too often. Email me privately if you want names, dates and species. Sometimes, rarities have been squeezed while birders were still trying to see it.
That's kind of a generalization, isn't it? A moose biologist may be ignorant as an apple about the risks to birds. And vice versa. Certainly ornithologists know better; I have suggested, based on my personal experience, that they don't always act appropriately on that knowledge. Several times I have been told by a biologist/photographer, "Don't worry, I'm a biologist, I know what I'm doing." One time, as the biologist/photographer was saying that, he stepped on a Semi-palmated Plover nest, crushing the eggs.
A sad example, indeed. But Northern Goshawks are either endangered not threatened. In the summer of 2009, biologist nest-monitoring of threatened Rusty Blackbirds in Interior Alaska resulted in nest predation at 75% of the nests.
Not in my experience; at best, biologists are no worse than nature photographers generally (all being much better than the general public). Unhappily, I have encountered a few biologists who acted as if they had special privileges, or weren't bound by the rules. My comments were to those persons.
My point earlier and here is that any nature photographer needs to bring the appropriate level of care to nature photography. And if you are not certain what the appropriate level of care is, then you simply must not take the chance of disturbing the critters. Even if it means missing the photo. As nature photographers, we have no special rights or privileges. I'd argue we have a higher duty of care.
As a retired wildlife biologist and researcher and in the age-group that you saw some reason to mention and tie to their putative realms of knowledge and tendency toward less-than ethical behavior in pursuit of their photographic passions my reaction was to think of a life-times-worth of experience with people of the sorts you mention with knowledge certain that the population you describe is well outside the norm with regard to such actions and behaviors. Maybe it has something to do do with the water in San Diego.? ....although I'm acquainted with a number of older wildlife biologists in southern "Hot Oven" who would never consider such acts.
I certainly am well aware that your primary intent is to find a civil means of changing the behavior of the miscreant, thoughtless perpetrators, assuming their basic decency, good will, and to be hoped, corrigibility.
And no, I don't think that I could fairly be characterized just an unduly cranky old f--t.... In case that had entered anyone's mind....as it admittedly has the minds of a few in my neck of the woods. Harrumph!
Best regards,
Dave Graham
Dave Graham
I agree with you. This behavior is outside the norm for anyone, photographer or biologist. I think that I can enlist the help of a few peers to discourage this behavior. I'm already working on it.
I happen to like old f%#rts. That's why I pal around with them. I hope to be one someday. Thanks for the feedback.
Brian
Whatever other tactics you may try, one that should definitely be included is inviting the entire group with whom you associate to join your local Audubon Society, AND encourage the group to schedule an occasional program presented by a knowledgeable State Non-Game Biologist or an experienced academic ornithologist au fait with avian reproductive biology and behavior to discuss this particular topic...and make sure that the miscreants of your association attend!
Dave Graham
(who, in the late 50s,and through the 60s and 70s was among the legion of those (now "old f...ts) who were active in laying the basis and foundations and lobbying for the Environmental Protection Act, the International Migratory Bird Treaty (between Canada, the United States, and Mexico), and the Endangered Species Act. and to tighten restrictions on the international trade in wild and exotic species. We may now be old f...ts, but are not without pride of accomplishment nor without resentment at dismissive, ageist, attitudes, however "innocently" they may be held and expressed.)
I think you are planning the right approach on this issue. I'm sure that most people who put forth the time an effort to get into the field care deeply about the wildlife they are photographing and only do these things out of ignorance. Once educated the lesson will stick with them and likely be passed on to the next "violators" that they run across.
Peter
While many wanted to offer assistance, others preferred to avoid the question by finger pointing and judgmentalism. The ethical question remains, but now has been complicated by Charlie having to defend himself. What can we offer to him that has more depth than this?
Perhaps a kind approach that will help Charlie preserve his friendship while pointing others to the ethical behavior required of those in the field. One possible approach would be to tell the friend how difficult it is for him to see what is happening; to explain the ethical standards under which he, Charlie, has chosen to operate; and to then invite his friends to join him in that. Ethical standards are not universal. They bind those who choose to be bound, and that oftentimes comes from education and invitation.