Ethics in Nature Photography

Should we, as a community of nature photographers, take a little more interest and responsibility for the ethics of obtaining our images.

From time to time there will appear an image, be it in wildlife, avian or landscape, where the more experienced photographers may suspect that the only way such a photograph could be obtained would be by pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable. Should we be allowed to question, as part of our c&c of the image, the means by which the image was taken.

It seems that it is frowned upon, however, I maintain that it is part of the presentation of the image. We seem to encourage certain points of view, such as low shooting angles in wildlife and we get collectively excited by a nice image of very young cubs when the reality is that it can be detrimental to the well being of those cubs. We hear stories of dens being destroyed by vehicles getting too close to the action as the photographers try to get the best close up. We know that there is a lot of debate on whether spotlighting and night flash of wildlife is detrimental, we should be concerned by these things.

When do we stand up and say that the welfare of the animal and environment must come first?

If a photographer should present an image which looks as if certain liberties have been taken with the capture, and we question the circumstances surrounding that capture the photographer has an excellent chance to explain one way or another.

I just think that if we are prepared to praise a low point of view (for example), we should be allowed to query the methods involved. Many times it is quite acceptable to leave a vehicle and often the animal is on a bank so the pov is obtained this way. I also think that if we are encouraging certain styles of photos, we should also encourage the photographers to keep the welfare of animals at the forefront of their work and the only way we can do that is by commenting on the image thread itself, in a non aggressive polite manner.

One of the main reasons that we take (hopefully) beautiful photos of nature is to promote the conservation of our world, it seems then, to be counterproductive if we destroy some of that beauty to get our images.

Often I think that we unwittingly threaten animals by our actions, because of the excitement of the moment or ignorance of the particular habits of a species. I doubt that it is ever intentional and I am not targeting any particular image or photographer here. It just is something that is raised occasionally but the comments surrounding ethics are not encouraged or seen to be appropriate as part of a critiquing thread.

I would welcome hearing the opinions of others on this rather difficult subject.

There are some good points here and I know for sure I have been over excited trying to get a photo at times and later thought, "was that good? Maybe I won't do that again"

Examples:
Following a bird that flew 50m away from me as I approached. Approaching again caused it to fly off.
Using a torch to light a Scops Owl at night. It came back so I guess no harm done.
Our guide using an Owlet's call to agitate birds so they come into view.
Our guide using a bird call to lure a bird, which was probably then confused when it didn't find the flock it expected.
Placing worms.

Many of questionable behaviours are problem of no real concern if an individual does it, but could be detrimental to a habitat if many people did it.

As to your original point, I think that occasional discussions like this are good, but questioning people's ethics every time they get a good shots I think would drive away the wrong people. There must be a strong basis for the questioning.
However, people should be encouraged to give details. I posted about the Owl photo and how I got it and if someone thought my shot was unethical then I would be interested to hear their views.

Hilary,

The real question is the method used acceptable and is the resultant image the only important thing.

You have a lot of points here but the main one must be for me is the way some pictures of animals are obtained, and the apparent acceptance of these practices.

For instance I am firmly against baiting and the use of lures, although I have seen these practices used by highly reputed photographers, even the throwing of sticks or stones to make animals look in the "right" direction:2eyes2:

The penchant for using flash is also disturbing, a few years ago in the Mara we were unfortunate enough to have a daylight sighting of Serval Kittens almost destroyed by the ridiculous use of Better Beamers which was encouraged by the professional photographer conducting the party involved.

The advantage of a low point of view is often used as a reason for getting out of a vehicle, whilst it may be acceptable in the right circumstances, generally it is not and complaints made about "look down" images are in my view not acceptable criticism.

I have "walked" with many animals but only under the correct circumstances where I and my guide can assess the situation, although I am not really a fan.

Most animals are not disturbed by human presence, unless as is increasingly common nowadays the passengers in the vehicle talk loudly, stand up or just generally refuse to sit quietly. In fact most animals are curious about vehicles and many will come very close, unfortunately enhancing the "look down" perspective.

As photographers we should consider the welfare of the animals rather than obtaining that perfect shot, but I think that the likelyhood of this occurring is highly unlikely.

Graeme, I wouldn't advocate a constant stream of ethical questioning either and certainly there will be diverse opinions about what constitutes acceptable practise and what doesn't. Usually 'good practise' would be defined by some of the more highly trained naturalists and guides. I can't see why we shouldn't be allowed to ask on occasion, whether a photo was obtained with the best interests of the animal or bird in mind, and certainly if photographing under the auspices of a professional photographic tour leader, or even better a trained guide, we should question them about what is disturbing or otherwise.

Ken, certainly questioning ourselves and others about whether the resultant image is the only important thing is valid, however I think that you may get a wide variation on the answers depending on whether the photographer is depending on the 'shot of the century' to build a reputation and thus an income compared to people who are not so income dependent. I don't think walking with animals, per se, is a problem if you are with a really good guide (talking of Africa here) as they should prevent an incident where animals or walkers are put at risk. Some photographers might see certain behaviour by experienced and trained people as being safe and acceptable and copy it, when in fact the behaviour is highly dangerous. I, for example, would never be caught on foot around polar bears (or grizzlies), whereas some photographers under guidance find it an acceptable risk. I just don't feel equipped with enough knowledge and experience about their behaviour to do that but don't think that it is unacceptable behaviour with the correct precautions taken.

My biggest question here is that I think that it should be acceptable within the rules of c&c on the forums to question a photographer if enough doubt about the methods of obtaining the photograph are raised. I remember a long time ago an image of a rather aggressive tiger and when questioned it became apparent from what the photographer said that the tiger had been aggravated into this aggressive pose. I find that unacceptable. I think that if other photographers find that post months, even years later, that it should be apparent that we as a photographic community also found it unacceptable by our comments at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hilary Hann

My biggest question here is that I think that it should be acceptable within the rules of c&c on the forums to question a photographer if enough doubt about the methods of obtaining the photograph are raised.

---

This implies that you think it is currently unacceptable or against forum rules. I am not aware of any such restriction and I don't see anything of the sort in the "Guidelines". I have also seen such questioning/criticism done politely on this and other forums with no objections. Am I missing something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Milicia

This implies that you think it is currently unacceptable or against forum rules. I am not aware of any such restriction and I don't see anything of the sort in the "Guidelines". I have also seen such questioning/criticism done politely on this and other forums with no objections. Am I missing something?

---

Mike, I have noticed on occasion that a discussion may start around photography which moves outside the direct observations of the image presented and that it has been frowned upon. Where it involves the actual details around 'getting the shot' I think that it should be allowed but my impressions have been that it is not something which is encouraged. Perhaps it is only because these discussions can get heated. But if it is ok, then that is good.

Have only ever seen a handful of threads where I might have asked questions, but have always felt that it was too 'off topic' to be acceptable.

Perhaps a perception thing? :S3:

Questioning the ethics of the photographer will always be frowned upon, I think, up until the point where the questioning proves valid and the photographer skulks off.

I think it is fine to question, but be prepared to be unpopular if you get it wrong, just like in real life!

In other words, don't expect to have open and friendly chats with someone you are accusing of an offence against nature.

I perhaps should have also added that it can get personal very, very quickly, particularly as people have different thresholds for damaging the environment.

Personally, I've stopped killing the leeches that attack me in the jungle, but I've few qualms using the tarmac road cut into it that gives me access (I'd feel differently if they proposed a new road, though...). Ethics are a mess of contradictions, for me at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graeme Sheppard

I perhaps should have also added that it can get personal very, very quickly, particularly as people have different thresholds for damaging the environment.

Personally, I've stopped killing the leeches that attack me in the jungle, but I've few qualms using the tarmac road cut into it that gives me access (I'd feel differently if they proposed a new road, though...). Ethics are a mess of contradictions, for me at least.

---

Yes, it is hard to keep the personal out of a discussion like this however, it is worth thinking about the way we do things. I am sure that we can all find examples where, in retrospect, we might do things differently and there are scales of effect on the environment. I don't think we can object to roads as a means to getting to an area.

It would be great to have a discussion on what we feel is acceptable or not, without offending anyone but that is probably naive. Probably not helpful to itemize my own self prohibited behaviors either, as I've also done things in the past which I wouldn't do now. It's a learning curve.

Hi Hilary- The questioning to which you refer has been done before here and is perfectly acceptable. I remember one notable occasion when a photographer from South America posted an image of a bird on a nest made with a relatively short focal length lens- a wide angle if I remember! Much discussion ensued!

Stepping back to the topic itself- this one has come up many times in the 4.5 years I have been involved with BPN, but I don't want to dismiss it for this reason. The question of our ethics as photographers is an important one and worth discussing from time to time. By the way, if you do a Google search as follows- ethics site:birdphotographers.net- you get 2,300 hits! Not all of them will be about the specific topic but you get my point. It might be worthwhile having a look at some of the threads.

I agree there is no black and white. IMO flash photography is fine if you pick your moments and stop using it in certain conditions. Using playback to attract birds is fine so long as you pick your moments and don't over-do it. It takes time to develop the field-craft necessary to do these things in a sensitive way. You will make mistakes early on but you will get better and better. Also, I think it is important to inform and educate others once you have developed the skills yourself.

One thing we have little control over is the cumulative effect of several people doing the same thing at the same place and this is one of human population size and density, and the growing popularity of wildlife photography. Using flash in a certain situation may have no measurable effect. Ten people using flash in the same place, or repeatedly over several days may have an effect. One person making a mistake and getting a bit too close causing a bird to flush may have no effect whatsoever, but several flushes per day over several days may do some damage. Situations like this are tough to deal with. One answer is to just leave or if you know a spot is too disturbed, don't go to begin with. However, this will not likely solve the underlying problem.

Many wildlife groups have Codes of Ethics and we have discussed developing one for BPN in the past. However, with our busy schedules, it has never come to fruition. Perhaps we should revisit this.

I hear you Hillary and see your point. However, when an image of a grebe on the nest taken with a wide angle lens gets Image of the Week in a very similar forum http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/v...?f=12&t=218180
and no one says anything but praise - I realise there is very little hope...

As John points out, this is not a new subject here. And it isn't discouraged, directly. But, it seems to me that every time the ethics of a particular shot are questioned, the discussion becomes personal at some point in the thread (even here!) people seem to get upset and then others step in to cool the "FLAMING" thread, which may be seen a discouragement. The whole thing becomes "not fun or gentle" and is uncomfortable. So, I think that the evolution of the reaction to ethics questions is to try to avoid the whole thing. This might be wrong, but I think that is what has happened. This is supposed to be fun and when it isn't people back off. IMHO.

I think ethics are a personal decision. When people discuss ethics, its sort of like discussing religion or politics, the conversation tends to become an effort to convert others. I know it bothers me when others try to tell me what I should or shouldn't do. I've yet to see an online discussion of ethics that didn't end up this way.

I think one problem with ethics discussion is that there are a lot of unknowns as far as what is good or bad for wildlife.
Flash use, for instance, It is encouraged on a lot of threads to use flash fill. I don't know if flash bothers birds or not.
I have stopped using it, I think it does but I could not say for sure that is does.
I have never used calls, again, I think it might be harmful, but I can't say that I really know.
I think a person must decide some things for themselves, what they think is the right thing to do.
Hard to know where to draw a line. Is baiting bad? Backyard setups use food or water to attract birds, I doubt that
is harmful at all. Is baiting and feeding raptors harmful? I don't know but doubt it.

Certain things are obviously out of bounds, chasing and harassing is just common sense.
I think the example Ofer showed is way over the line, yet the moderators at that website praised
the photo and the "strategy".

Interesting discussion.

While the example Ofer showed does initally appear questionable based on lens focal length alone, but a careful reading Hillary's account: 1) She placed and removed the camera while the birds were away from the nest, and 2) she used a remote to trigger while she is distant from the nest. Birds are pretty tolerant of inanimate objects placed close to them -- perceiving no threat I guess. She does not mention trimming any offending vegetation away from the nest, and most grebe nests are visible so unlikely (trimming vegetation off any nest would be a clear violation).

Hummingbirds at setups suffer NO issues with flashes used --- returning over and over again to feed at a flashed setup. One would think that if they were the least bit irritated, they'd just go to some flowers instead.

Another example of the angst by people concerning photography of wild animals and spending a lot of mindless energy trying to convince others they were somehow bad:
Out west we had a huge invasion of Snowy Owls last winter. The local birders lists were lit up with all sorts of hypothetical problems caused by long-lens photographers -- including their reasoning that the Owls were somehow on the last legs with starvation imminent. Lots of angst and heated reasoning about flushing, getting too close, flashing, etc. Yet they seemed unconcerned about the flushing by people walking with loose dogs, and su[pportive of other birders that flushed them repeatly trying to make close photos with their little point and shoots. My experience (not as a flash user) was that the owls were content to have people surrounding them with long lenses, and in several cases we had Owls fly in for a closer look at what we were doing -even flying in to perch on a close log. One avian biologist pointed to studies showing that fat contents of the birds killed by cars were high (obviously none near starvation). There were no reports of any owls dropping dead as a result of birders and photographers mobbing them in Vancourver and the coast of Washington/Oregon -- this in spite of all the Angst and hand wringing by the unknowledgable on the birding lists. Further, we should consider that these birds have wings: they're not tied by nest or young to a certain location, so if they were threatened continuously by birders/photographers/dog walkers/etc, why would they not just fly away (and return to hunt late in the day/early night???

... And these Owls weren't baited like those that we see photographs of from the workshops held in Ontario.... (not all photos of flight made in Ontario are this case, however.).... yet those baited owls kept coming back. I'll bet those birds felt like they were going through the dirve-through at a fast food place (BTW I don't advocate baiting, just pointing out that they didn't seem to suffer).

I agree with Jim -- this is something each of us has to deal with for our own photography. I am not sure policing it as a policy makes sense. Its ok to question if you feel up to it, but there is no requirement that a photographer post a response to such questions. They're under no obligation. Failure to respond does not mean they are a "bad person".

As someone who is a relative newcomer to photography, I'm finding this discussion interesting and educational. (I don't have much to add to the discussion, but know common sense and a respectful approach to most things in life is helpful.)

It is difficult to know where to insert this reply as many good, provocative and strong opinions have been put on the table. However we all have to always keep in mind that humans are guests and observers of wildlife of all kinds both in protected and natural settings. A bit of historical background is appropriate. Unfortunately human behavior, which is among the most nihilistic and destructive in the animal kingdom, has had devastating consequences on those who cannot defend themselves against AK 47's and elephant guns. See "Spoor of Blood" by Alan Cattrik (1959) that chronicles the systematic destruction of countless thousands of animals in South Africa in ~19th Century. Similar events apparently happened in N America in about the same era. So game reserves (preserves), parks, sanctuaries and breeding programs had to be put in place to prevent the mass extinction of wild life. I am not advocating that intrusions alluded to in the above discussions will have a similar effect but human behavior in sites put aside for animals needs to take into account that these areas were created for a specific purpose, and that is to limit human intervention and protect animals. In many parks there are strict rules or guidelines that govern human activity and these need to be observed at all times. Keeping these general principles in mind and resisting the temptation to get that shot of a lifetime that will win an award or sell well will go a long way to preserve the reasons that conservation areas were created. Supervised and sensible use of one's freedom of activity in the reserves is OK provided we stay within the bounds of the rules and do no harm. By invoking ethics we venture into difficult territory as we as humans have decided we have the right to determine the destruction of animal life. However by applying simple common sense, and obeying rules (written and unwritten) we can get all the shots we need.
Regards

Andre

Andre, I like what you've written, but i cannot personally separate ethics from rules since rules are not hard-wired, they have grown through ethical considerations and culture.

Perhaps rules should not be necessary, since good rules simply reflect common sense. But of course, there is no commonality in common sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Nelson

While the example Ofer showed does initally appear questionable based on lens focal length alone, but a careful reading Hillary's account: 1) She placed and removed the camera while the birds were away from the nest, and 2) she used a remote to trigger while she is distant from the nest. Birds are pretty tolerant of inanimate objects placed close to them -- perceiving no threat I guess. She does not mention trimming any offending vegetation away from the nest, and most grebe nests are visible so unlikely (trimming vegetation off any nest would be a clear violation).

---

Don, you seem to have confused something here. The account of the image of the Red-neck Grebe was from the photographer - Connor Stefanison. By wrongly attributing the comments to "Hillary", you are perhaps accidentally taking the discussion onto a tangent that nobody here ever intended. I don't think Hilary, who started this thread, had anything to do with the Red-neck Grebe image.

Gerald

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graeme Sheppard

Andre, I like what you've written, but i cannot personally separate ethics from rules since rules are not hard-wired, they have grown through ethical considerations and culture.

Perhaps rules should not be necessary, since good rules simply reflect common sense. But of course, there is no commonality in common sense.

---

I agree with Graeme, Andre's response is a perfect precis of my views.

Hi Graeme
You are correct in your comment. Ethics being defined as; "A theory or system of moral values" and "The principles of conduct governing an individual or a group" - implies that there should be rules supporting the value system. Moses discovered this millenia ago hence the Ten Commandments.

Regards

Andre

This is a fascinating and productive discussion.

Personally, I believe the genesis of ethical behavior is a very personal one; with behavior guided by our individual moral compasses.

While that makes it tough to apply 'rules' that apply across the board, I think we all know when we're doing something that isn't 'right.' Then we must weigh whether getting the prize photo is worth bending the 'rules.'

The explosion of interest in nature photography since the technology went digital has resulted in literal armies of photographers converging on 'hot' sites -- such as the snowy owl locations in the U.S. Northwest last winter.

Photographer behavior not too many years ago that might have tested the ethical limits when one shooter was involved, may reach that critical mass of harm to the species these days, when engaged in by vast numbers of people all in pursuit of the same shot.

A whimsical (or not) proposition: What if evolution had taken a different turn, and all nature's creatures were the ones with the cameras, and we humans were the ones subjected to intrusive curiosity into all aspects of our lives?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gerald Kelberg

Don, you seem to have confused something here. The account of the image of the Red-neck Grebe was from the photographer - Connor Stefanison. By wrongly attributing the comments to "Hillary", you are perhaps accidentally taking the discussion onto a tangent that nobody here ever intended. I don't think Hilary, who started this thread, had anything to do with the Red-neck Grebe image.

Gerald

---

NOTED.
HOWEVER, the message remains the same -- the cited image was taken with methods that showed great care for the subject and did not violate standards of nature photography.

I want to jump in again with another point, this time about putting what we do as photographers in perspective. We are close to wildlife photography because it is our passion and it is easy to lose the "big picture" view of wildlife conservation. For the most part photographers conduct themselves in a responsible manner but occasionally things are pushed too far. This may temporarily change the behaviour of the bird, cause extra stress, or at worst perhaps lead to loss of eggs or chicks. Direct mortality of adults is a very unlikely outcome of our activities. Now contrast this with the multiple billions of birds and mammals directly killed every year by collisions with buildings, communication towers and cars, predation by feral and pet cats, hunting, bycatch in fishing gear, oil pollution, introduced species, and toxic chemicals (I could go on). Then add the indirect mortality and loss of breeding output caused by habitat destruction and loss (some direct mortality here too), fishing, climate change, and disturbance (I could also go on!). Combined, you have a colossus of human-induced negative effects on wildlife populations which makes what we do quite inconsequential in the big picture.

This is not to say that we do not need to continue to strive to be as responsible and caring as possible but it is an important and sobering reminder of what else is going on out there.

Good point John. As a volunteer at a local rehab center, I noted that every raptor that came in was directly or indirectly injured by humans—every single one.

For those of you that let your pet cat roam free outside....a bigger difference than a few photographers impacting wildlife....


http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandrepor...es/120806.html

John puts the BPN members activity in perspective with the bigger picture that surrounds us. Because of the expansion of humans and consequently industry and agriculture more and more pressure is being put on wild life. This is one of the main reasons that we have to work at preserving what we have. However lets not risk losing sight of what Hilary set out to do when she started this threat - namely make us aware that we have a responsibility (moral, legal, ethical or call it what you will) that BPN as an organization has to play a part in stewarding wildlife. She very aptly stated in her opening comments "When do we stand up and say that the welfare of the animal and environment must come first?"

Andre

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dankearl

I think one problem with ethics discussion is that there are a lot of unknowns as far as what is good or bad for wildlife.
Flash use, for instance, It is encouraged on a lot of threads to use flash fill. I don't know if flash bothers birds or not.
I have stopped using it, I think it does but I could not say for sure that is does.
I have never used calls, again, I think it might be harmful, but I can't say that I really know.
I think a person must decide some things for themselves, what they think is the right thing to do.
Hard to know where to draw a line. Is baiting bad? Backyard setups use food or water to attract birds, I doubt that
is harmful at all. Is baiting and feeding raptors harmful? I don't know but doubt it.

Certain things are obviously out of bounds, chasing and harassing is just common sense.
I think the example Ofer showed is way over the line, yet the moderators at that website praised
the photo and the "strategy".

Interesting discussion.

---

There will never be a right or wrong answer and this topic can round and round forever...but the quote above from Dan about sums up my thoughts.

I live my life and believe everything in moderation, and I dont think I step over the line imo on perhaps using a worm to attract a bird or the like....but I have seen some outrageous things done by others like sawing off a tree branch to get a clean shot of a nest ....and met and observed a lot of hypocrites with double standards in photography who dont practice what they preach

Definition of chasing and harrassing are open to different interpretations as well...basically if you walk into the forest and see a bird and follow it trying to get a shot is that chasing/harrassing, as soon as you go into that creatures territory and it sees you then you have interfered in it's day to day life { rarely do they sit in one spot are my findings and following is the norm 99% of the time}. Many of the most famous wildlife photographers and documentary presenters use props, baits and spy cams at close range in their pursuit of great images/films and one has to wonder how much stress that may cause, long term or short term.

There was a discussion here years ago in regards to preserving one of Australia's last remaining rainforests. The Daintree in far north Queensland by not allowing a sealed road through the almost pristine forest { pristine except almost for the conservationist who already lived in it }. The argument goes something like this............if we allow more people into the region via a better road we may introduce more damage and feral weed dispersal............if we don't allow more public access into the forest not many people will know how beautiful it is and not enough people will appreciate it's wonders and care enough about it's preservation = dammed if you do and dammed if you don't ?

In some ways this can apply to nature photography...ie; watching documentaries with the most amazing shots at close range, some shots are obviously done by baiting and/or putting cameras very close using remote devices and special design cameras. If they didn't achieve those amazing images and vision by whatever methods work { within reason }would as many people watch the shows and in turn feel strongly enough about what an amazing planet we live on and wish to preserve it....if the images/vision are a bit ho hum few will bother to view and fewer would be inclined to preserve it.

The example Ofer presented is food for thought, but I wonder if placing a camera near the nest for such a great shot had any adverse effect on the nesting Grebe...I doubt it....maybe no more so than another bird, frog, floating log etc etc etc would have had.

I just put up this image http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ead.php/101688 and I got quite close by using stealth to get nearer, this bird and it's mate were catching and eating small Honeyeater birds they just caught....they stopped eating when they saw me and flew off to another tree to eat, obviously disturbed .....so was I harrassing the bird, and should I of not taken the shot because it had a short term effect ?

I think Phil has made a good point when he considers short-term vs long-term effects.

Long-term effects should be discouraged, even if only for human reasons (eg the birds won't come back for future photo opportunities).
Short-term effects are often acceptable, imo, unless the short-term effect is cruel (remembering it's not just the effect on the bird to consider, but the local fauna and flora).

So for me, for example, using a species' bird calls is probably ok (short term).
Using a Collared Owlet's call to flush out small birds is possibly not (short term, but arguably cruel).
Trashing a site after getting photos so no one else can get competing pics is a real no-no (I've heard it happens).

Thank you for all the thoughtful responses which are very interesting.


I would like to make some points if I may, which I hope won’t be too controversial or offend anyone.


I don’t accept that ethics should be a personal choice. That is why we have ethics committees at hospitals and such like. There is, or should be, an acceptable way of behaving and not everyone will be in favour of following what is considered ‘ethical’ at a particular point in history. By that, I mean that what our community as a whole considers ethical today, would have been different 50 years ago.


I try to teach my children that making a difference on a world wide scale may not be possible, but they can be responsible for their own decisions and can influence others in their small pond. So I don’t accept the argument that because humans cause the deaths of wildlife by the very nature of our way of living should have any influence on the way we conduct ourselves as nature photographers. We can and should put ourselves at the pinnacle of the group of people frequenting nature reserves in the way we conduct ourselves. If we aren’t sure whether our behaviour could cause distress for a particular animal, then we should be doing our homework more on the the species and environment we are working with and in.


I realise that the majority of members here are avian photographers and I am not one of them, so my contextual parameters are around mammals which perhaps alters my perceptions somewhat. For instance, if we are talking about photographing orange bellied parrots in the SE of South Australia, then we need to be aware that the remaining wild birds are less than 100. Some say as few as 30 odd. So any behaviour which might threaten a nest, or chicks is unconscionable but if a nature photographer hasn’t done his/her research then would they know? With so many bird species out there, I would have no idea which are highly endangered, which are particular sensitive to disturbance and which are approachable with no great chance of adverse outcomes. Therefore, it makes sense to me that as an unknowledgeable birder, I either take a guide or I treat all birds as needing the utmost care and respect.


Many of us here have photographed in the Masai Mara, being one of the premier places to capture great cheetah images. I wonder how many realise that not one cheetah cub has been reared to adulthood in the Mara Triangle (as opposed to the Narok side of the Reserve) in the past few years. Now many of us have photographed cubs there, myself included, but they’ve not made to adulthood according to reports posted by the Mara Conservancy. Of the ones who’ve survived to adulthood on the other side of the river, many more have died which is quite usual for cheetah and the population is declining rapidly. So reports of cheetah cubs being run over by enthusiastic but careless guides trying to get closer to the action for their clients should send shivers down our spines. Birds may or may not have a direct mortality related to the actions of enthusiastic photographers, but mammals may be more susceptible as vehicles crowd around predators with their kills, alter hunting behaviour, drive over dens crushing cubs and pups, block river crossing points, harass predators with their tiny cubs.


What we do is never inconsequential as we are the ones presenting a professional (maybe not through income, but intent and dedication) front to the world. If we care enough about wildlife and the environment to want to sit out there in all kinds of weather, we should care enough to put our desires for the great shots below the welfare of the animals and birds, even common ones. The enormous weight of humanity’s influence on other species should never be an excuse for us to threaten another animal for the sake of a picture.

The argument regarding documentaries and their amazing close ups providing the conduit for making the world care has been used as an excuse for us all to behave in a similar manner for as long as I can remember. However, I think most of us can differentiate between the professional cinematographer spending 6 months in the field to get footage for a doco and the many serious amateur photographers who head out on the weekend to get their images to hopefully sell to a magazine or stock library. At least I see the difference and am quite happy to accept that there are a lucky few out there who will always have a better opportunity to get the shot for the benefit of the rest of us.

There are so many good and valid points raised and I know that consensus is a dream but I just wish we could spend some time, as part of our c&c, to think about the cause and effect of the image as presented.

In fact, if anyone knows of a society of nature photographers who follow and adhere to a set of agreed ethical guidelines, as prescribed by a knowledgeable group of scientists and professional photographers, I for one would be very interested in hearing about it.

Again, thanks for contributing to this thread. :S3:

Hillary
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
You might look at the NANPA ethics guidelines. (North American Nature Photographers Association)
http://www.nanpa.org/docs/NANPA-Ethical-Practices.pdf

Hilary, ethics MUST BE a personal choice, it's unavoidable; otherwise, why would hospitals all have ethics committees or ethics review boards. There's no one standard that we can all agree on. The whole point of this discussion is that there's usually not a bright, straight line that divides ethical and unethical.

I actually studied business ethics in college, as part of my preparation to become a Certified Public Accountant. As a CPA, I had to periodically take a refresher course and pass a test with examples of ethics questions taken from real life. Much was "easy", but many of the questions were very challenging. In the vein of "teach your children well", I'm amazed of the lack of general ethics training in our schools and universities. I believe that a big part of the latest USA "mortgage meltdown" stems from lack of ethics study by most of the US population. It's not just business people, but people from all walks of life.

The healthy thing that I see is that we're talking about it here. The discussion brings out the unclear lines, but at least we're talking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ofer Levy

I hear you Hillary and see your point. However, when an image of a grebe on the nest taken with a wide angle lens gets Image of the Week in a very similar forum http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/v...?f=12&t=218180
and no one says anything but praise - I realise there is very little hope...

---

Ofer, I find the methods to take this image disgusting and offensively done. You are right, so many will do whatever it takes to get the shot of the lifetime. This image and its narative should be removed and the poster held up as a poster child for the wrong way to get it done! Where are we headed? It is time to wake up and be responseable in what we do. Those who will come behind us will imitate what we do. If we do not police ourselves, we will pay for it later. Many areas will be closed here in Maine, if not already, for just such reasons as the grebe posted.

Every day land is posted off limits to hunters, recreational use, photographers etc. I just came back from Rangeley Lakes in North Maine. I was photographing Moose. We were able to photograph moms with calves just 20 feet from the road, some were 100 feet. It just depended where you saw them on Moose Alley, Route 16 from Rangeley to Stratton. Anywhere we stopped, within minutes up to 6 or so cars might do so, to see what I was imaging. The calves got nervous and went back into the woods. So we would leave and find another. I talked to a Game Warden about it. He said the moose were depleteng from stress, from hunting, poaching, parasites etc. So ANY stress was frowned upon as detramental. It is a shame so many creatures are being loved to death.

This thread has struck a chord with me. I find it sad so many think it is worth any effort to get up so close for a picture! I will leave my soap box now.

David, re ethics, I think I expressed myself badly. Of course it is personal choice however, because so many people seem unable to determine what is in the best interests of the animal then an ethics code almost needs to be imposed. If not then it will be more as Grady describes with more and more areas out of bounds.

Such a difficult thing to get right but I know, for myself, what I'm prepared to condone now is far different to what I accepted a few years ago.

I honestly believe it's only a very small minority that cross the boundaries, most know just how far they can safely push the limit, these have been my observations, but it is hard to set down rules with so many variables. Different wildlife react differently to different situations, many are quite unfazed about human presence, certainly less fazed than being harassed by something that just want to eat it's babies.

the example given about the Grebe......I would like to know if the Grebe in question suffered any adverse effects for the closeup image encounter....to be honest, I very much doubt it. Did it suffer for long periods, did it abandon the nest, I very much doubt it. It may be no more disturbing than the many other encounters it likely had in that one day. Without doubt the Grebe would of encountered many other marauding predatory birds and creatures like snakes, rats, eels etc investigating the nest, even other ducks swimming very close....many with the intent of stealing the eggs...at least the photographer probably set the camera while the parent was away got the shot and left without eating the precious eggs.


I could go on and on about many situations and techniques some of my heroes in wildlife photography in Australia practice, none of which has had any long term effects, but many commenting on this topic would react to with with distaste. A couple of example if I may...........

My friend and amazing photographer travels around quite a bit seeking new subjects and adventures, some of his best are of a Nankeen Kestrel nest he has been observing for several years, they nest in the same hollow year after year. 2 years ago he erected a 30 foot high scaffold and viewing platform so he could get within 15 feet of the nesting hollow up in the tree...he captured over a period of a week the very best images of Nankeens I have ever seen. None of the 4 chicks died, the parents flew in and out and fed them as usual, no harm done whatsoever and they still nest in the same hollow in following years....was that wrong ?

Another friend of mine has the most beautiful images of Squirrel Gliders and Sugar Gliders by erecting a platform hide on the roof racks of his car 6 feet from a tree branch he suspected them to traverse in the night. He simply smears a little bit of honey and peanut paste on the bark of the tree branch and waits....the images he has achieved are breath taking, enviable, and the creatures still live there with no apparent discomfort, he goes back from time to time and they still live as they always have done...was that wrong ?

Again I wonder if the Grebe in question suffered any adverse effects from it's brief encounter with an unusual plastic thing on the edge of it's nest, that went click click click and then went away without eating it's eggs ?

I don't believe rules should be, or can be set in concrete. I'm sure there will always some one somewhere will do something extra disruptive like remove a nest or the like, I believe we cant account for the all the brain dead idiots in the world, but thankfully they are well and truly the minority. I'm certain most avid photographers know just how far things can be pushed, after all most nature photographers have a love and respect for the things they photograph.

Hillary, I am with you 100%. I have often gotten in trouble by questioning various photographic situations. And I encourage you to do the same. And I have long been a champion of truth in posting, i.e., letting folks know exactly what was going on when an image is created. I have not read the whole thread--too busy packing for my trip to NY and Nickerson Beach tomorrow, but I will chime in as follows:

#1: (And please do not take this personally), in my now 29 years of doing this, the folks who scream the loudest about the ethics of others are most likely the ones who will step way over the line when it comes to disturbing wildlife or entering closed areas when nobody is looking.

#2: Be absolutely sure that you have your facts straight; in my 29 years I have often been accused of unethical field behavior, always by folks who "heard it from a friend who was there" (but was not).

#3: The lines are indeed grey.

Arthur, Point #2 is well taken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grady Weed

Arthur, Point #2 is well taken.

---

Thanks Grady. I have seen it too, too many times :).

The discussion will undoubtedly continue because of the variable nuances of photographer's behaviors in the field. Having drawn attention to an issue which offends many of us, how are we going to deal with it, and what is the remedy? As it appears that we are unable to legislate or control the actions and decisions of individuals one of the ways to manage behavior is to let the poster be judged by peers who can recognize when boundaries are breached. Critical feedback is one of the most effective mechanisms to modify behavior in a structure where strict rules cannot be applied. The potential offender always has the recourse of explaining and defending the decisions that led to the image. Repeated offenders who clearly violate accepted practice (Don Nelson provided a link to guidelines - http://www.nanpa.org/docs/NANPA-Ethical-Practices.pdf) could theoretically be penalized in some way? This approach then brings into focus the various statements that ethics are an individual choice. Sure, they are a choice, but there are always consequences to making any choice in life. In the legal system penalties can be severe for the wrong choices. In a society such as BPN the penalty could be critical feedback by colleagues. I am not sure that BPN has the mandate to be a behavioral review body but that is for the members to decide.

The piece published recently, http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...hy-a-look-back - has the potential to raise comment from some of our discussants in this thread. In comparison it seems that the author of the nesting Grebe image took reasonable precautions not to unduly disturb the nesting site. I would have preferred to see the use of a a hide moved closer over a few days to minimize the effect on the birds as the photographer seemed to have been there for several days. The problem is what kind of subsequent behavior does this incite in others to get similar or more spectacular pictures? I have been in situations where birds and other animals in reserves quite freely interact with humans without deleterious consequences to the animals - although I have seen monkeys bite children and elephants crush cars. So yes - your choices have consequences.

Please note that I am not advocating actions but asking if the community, having discussed the issues at some length, is going to consider how to take on this issue?
Regards

Andre

All good points Andre. Do understand that there will never--for many reasons--be a formal court or board to deal with alleged unethical field infractions.

Here is what I do: if I see someone doing something obviously wrong I first photograph them doing the ill deed and then, if possible, photograph their license plate number. Then I--if I feel safe doing so--approach and mention to them as politely as possible that they are doing something wrong, that that their behavior puts all nature photographers in bad light, and suggest that they need to stop.

In some cases folks are just ignorant. In other cases, they become belligerent. In most cases I send the photographs to local authorities, usually the refuge staff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre van As

The discussion will undoubtedly continue because of the variable nuances of photographer's behaviors in the field. Having drawn attention to an issue which offends many of us, how are we going to deal with it, and what is the remedy? As it appears that we are unable to legislate or control the actions and decisions of individuals one of the ways to manage behavior is to let the poster be judged by peers who can recognize when boundaries are breached. Critical feedback is one of the most effective mechanisms to modify behavior in a structure where strict rules cannot be applied. The potential offender always has the recourse of explaining and defending the decisions that led to the image. Repeated offenders who clearly violate accepted practice (Don Nelson provided a link to guidelines - http://www.nanpa.org/docs/NANPA-Ethical-Practices.pdf) could theoretically be penalized in some way? This approach then brings into focus the various statements that ethics are an individual choice. Sure, they are a choice, but there are always consequences to making any choice in life. In the legal system penalties can be severe for the wrong choices. In a society such as BPN the penalty could be critical feedback by colleagues. I am not sure that BPN has the mandate to be a behavioral review body but that is for the members to decide.

The piece published recently, http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...hy-a-look-back - has the potential to raise comment from some of our discussants in this thread. In comparison it seems that the author of the nesting Grebe image took reasonable precautions not to unduly disturb the nesting site. I would have preferred to see the use of a a hide moved closer over a few days to minimize the effect on the birds as the photographer seemed to have been there for several days. The problem is what kind of subsequent behavior does this incite in others to get similar or more spectacular pictures? I have been in situations where birds and other animals in reserves quite freely interact with humans without deleterious consequences to the animals - although I have seen monkeys bite children and elephants crush cars. So yes - your choices have consequences.

Please note that I am not advocating actions but asking if the community, having discussed the issues at some length, is going to consider how to take on this issue?
Regards

Andre

---

Trying to police nature photographers actions in the field would be very difficult to do. Every situation is different, and I think you would have to be there and have a very good understanding of each situation in order to judge whether or not the actions were ethical or unethical. Even then, the "judgement" would be very subjective. If the goal is to protect the wildlife we all love, then I think our time and efforts could be used to much better purpose than something like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

#1: (And please do not take this personally), in my now 29 years of doing this, the folks who scream the loudest about the ethics of others are most likely the ones who will step way over the line when it comes to disturbing wildlife or entering closed areas when nobody is looking.
.

---

You are so right on this one. And when you look closely about what they are screaming about, its not the effect on wildlife but the fact that they've lost access or fear losing access to a location because "others" have overstepped the bounds and gotten the access closed down.

So next time you see a scream,, take a moment to assess how much the story revolves around (their) access rights rather than effect on wildlife.

On the plus side (e.g. they finally get their due): Here in the Pacific NW, I have seen two of such screamers get tickets for exiting their vehicles "to get in better position to make their shot" on winter refuge auto routes that are signed for "stay in the vehicle only". Somehow they think they are special.

Hi Art and Jim
Thanks for the responses You are quite right that we cannot, and it is not our remit to police nature photographers. In that realm Art has a working method that addresses some of the remedies.But as he points out intervention has its own consequences. My impression from the thread that Hilary started was that we should be making our members aware that there may be issues in capturing images of wildlife. What the thread has done is perhaps provide some education. I certainly have learned a lot from this discussion.

With that I will be signing off from this thread

Kind regards

Andre

What excellent and insightful responses, thank you everyone for making me feel reassured that most of us feel the same way.

Artie makes good points and I agree wholeheartedly with them.

Andre, for many I am sure that it is an awareness thing and if we as a community here were a little more questioning of the images presented (in a non aggressive manner) when circumstance would lead us to think liberties have been taken, then that is a good start.

And in truth, on occasion it may be something I've done which another member rightly points out is not in the best interests of the animal. It would be a good way to learn I think and I for one am more than happy to modify my behaviour in the field as I learn from more expert photographers with better field craft.

Hilary, thanks for bringing this thread up. Even though it may have been discussed previously, I think it's good to keep the issue in front of us.

Arthur made some good points, especially about getting the whole story before going public on an accusation and about disclosure. Like all of us, I respect my subjects, and the rationale that guides me in the field is this: "Would I be happy to share all of the details of how I made this image? If not, I won't take it." I've found this to be a pretty good guideline. The only problem, of course, is the conundrum that's been expressed here -- what I consider OK, others may consider out of bounds.

Hilary, your last point about learning as we go is also a good one in my opinion. If evidence comes out that something I do (say multi-flash hummingbirds) harms the birds, I would stop doing it. Most of us, however, can rely only on our experience, and that is tough since what spooks one bird in one situation may not spook another bird in the exact same situation.

In the end, I think it's important that as photographers we all bear in mind the importance of considering our subjects' well-being and that image consumers and non-photographers weigh the evidence before passing judgement on a particular photo or photographer.


Cheers,
Greg

It's true that this is a touchy subject, and I am of the "ethics is a personal choice" camp. You can point out something that someone does that is unethical to your standards, but then someone else with "higher" standards may point out something you do yourself that they consider unethical.. Some things are obvious...I'd be shocked if anyone would think destroying a nest or trashing an area are ethical, but many other areas fall in a grey zone IMO. I use calls, many do, but an equal amount (or more) of others don't and others still frown upon it or consider it outright wrong. Some of these may use pishing though! Some may refuse baiting with live mice, but are OK with mealworms. Some may stay on the path in a nature trail, but then in a field "only" venture a few feet even if private property. Everyone has their own "line" they won't cross. I do agree that talking about it could and should influence some in rethinking their ways, but again...would it be up to your personal ethics or theirs? Thanks all for a great discussion.

On the topic of baiting (such as throwing live mice to owls) baiting in "taking" a "migratory bird" can result in:

The criminal charge of illegal baiting carries a maximum penalty of one year and/or a $100,000 fine;

Read more: http://www.wapt.com/news/central-mississippi/Belzoni-man-pleads-guilty-to-illegal-baiting/-/9156946/14067376/-/h9frp6z/-/index.html#ixzz23BIOZVNu

"Taking" as defined by the Migratory Bird Act includes pursuing birds. The definition of "migratory birds" apparently is so broad that includes most raptors. (I couldn't find any clarification on this point).

That suggests to me that the courts consider baiting of resident birds OK, but drawing migratory birds out of their intended path is wrong. In other words, they're more interested in the bird than the bait.

To me, baiting with live mice just feels wrong. Baiting with live worms doesn't quite feel right, either, but I've done it once now and would probably do it again. I'm still developing my own line I won't cross, it seems.