Damselfly Attack Image & Question

I saw this from beginning to end (death). It was sad, because the one being attacked tried to get up after the initial attack was over, and then the attacker came back for one final blow or bite and that was the end. I guess this is a male attacking another male?

But it made me think -- as I have before in NOT watching a lot of stuff on nature channels where the photographers don't intervene in anything -- are we not to ever intervene? I know that once an attack has started damage has already been done and it would probably only make things worse to intervene at that point. But I wanted to ask you all, is the accepted consensus not to intervene no matter what is happening, or are there exceptions?

Tough question Barbara. For me personally, I guess it would depend on the circumstances. The only time I can ever remember intervening was stopping a small gator from attacking a duck while I was out canoeing. As it was, the duck died anyway, and the gator (or some other gator) probably ended up eating the duck anyway, but afterwards, I felt bad I had intervened and stopped a natural process.

I'm with Bill on this. I never intervene in natural processes, only those invloving a human impact or behavior. The natural world is sometimes a harsh place and it is inappropriate - and sometimes even harmful - to apply human morality to natural events.

To use Bill's example: Even if the duck had lived, the gator was deprived of a meal. Who is the more valuable or deserving - the duck or the gator? Humans will tend to find the duck 'cuter' and will tend to favor the cute animal over the 'less pleasant/atractive' reptile, but that is a very human perspective being projected on an event that doesn't involve human morals.

We can (and probably will) still feel bad for the duck, however.

As hard as it is, I don't intervene. Jim explained it especially well, and I agree.
Sandy

Barbara: I don't intervene in nature. Mother nature seems to be doing just fine if the humans would just leave well enough alone. There are millions of situations every day that humans don't witness. Just because we're there and see something happening in nature does not give us permission to intervene.

Most everything above the level of phytoplankton exists and replicates because it has eaten something else. Us included. How can we claim to be wise enough to intervene?

Nature will take care of its' own but I have to give you credit for the emotion when so many people won't even intervene when a human life is involved (muggings, child abuse, spousal battering, ect.) It's refreshing to know that violence can still trigger a protective instinct in your heart.

Holy cow! Do you ever get interesting shots. This is troubling to see, but Nature has that side it, after all. We have separated ourselves from nastiness on many levels, to the point that it is so very difficult to cope with death. It is uncomfortable, and we are blessed with emotions and, for some, philosophical or spiritual ways, to help us.

No, I would not intervene in Nature, even though it does make me feel really sad sometimes. I have intervened in our (photogs) interventions in Nature a couple of times. When watching and photographing wild horses and orcas on separate occasions, it is so tempting in the excitement to want to continue to follow them, get in close, etc., past the time when the animals are indicating discomfort or distress. I felt compelled to ask the workshop leaders to withdraw and let the animals go on their own way. I do recommend those kind of interventions.

You would never intervene if a blackbird was pulling a worm out of the ground, or if a blue tit was eating a caerpillar, so what is the difference between that and, say, a gator going for a duck? As Nancy says, it triggers an instinct in your heart - you do not like to see other things in distress.

The gator was deprived of his meal, if the duck had not died, a human hunter might have come along and killed him for his meal, but knowing me, I would probably tried to save the duck's life too.