Harrassed wildlife

[rona]

I've been walking in this wood for several years now, nice quiet wood that is just used by locals.
Well, now it has been invaded by people from far and wide due to the siting of Purple Emperor Butterflies.
I saw a Roe Doe with twin fawns in a terrible state being harried here and there by this constant movement of people with cameras. I'm sure the local dogs don't cause half the distress that these enthusiastic photographers were causing.
Do you think the websites that allow people to give out locations of unusual wildlife are doing more harm than good?
Would you give out a location if you had seen something unusual?
I wouldn't

[Gill Catton]

I don't think they do much harm, photographers - especially those after butterflies will generally keep to the paths because that is where the light is and you don't get a good photograph without light. Any self-respecting wildlife I would think could easily shrink away into the shadows.

The fact that you saw a roe deer with two young would suggest two things to me one that she's quite used to people or she'd be long gone - or that there are lots and lots of deer in the woodland and she's stuck with 'edge' habitat because the best spot are gone.

Incidentally one of the biggest threats to our ancient woodland is in fact deer because they have no natural predators and munch out the ground flora and regenerating trees.

Although the legions of photographers may seem scary and overwhelming its for a very short time and even the butterflies they are actively pursueing can escape with ease to the tops of the trees if they want to. I'd imagine there may be a risk to flora at the ride edges getting crushed at the best places for butterflies, but I'm not sure how much of a problem this might be. Massively dependant on the woodland features I expect.

In a way I think the more people see and fall in love with these beautiful butterflies they better because the more strongly they'd fight to protect them.

[rona]

I just can't understand why these "enthusiasts" go around in large noisy groups with no regard for or interest in the other wildlife around.
It's the sheer numbers of loud moving groups that are the problem.

[RoyW]

In some cırcumstances ıncreased numbers of people vısıtıng a sıte can cause dısturbance to the wıldlıfe present. In thıs case though I agree wıth Gıll - there ıs unlıkely to be much more dısturbance caused by the vısıtıng groups than ıs already caused by dog walkers (apart from to the fog walkers).
When 'noısy' groups are vısıtıng an area to look for wıldlıfe you wıll often fınd that these are groups of people wıth some ınterest, but little experience, beıng shown the wıldlıfe, and as Gıll says ıt ıs ımportant to try and develop peoples ınterests because they wıll then hopefully care enough to protect the wıldlıfe, and the sıtes where ıt occurs. Typıcally groups lookıng at one type of wıldlıfe wıll be ınterested ın other wıldlıfe around them, they may just need ıt to be poınted out. On the other hand some dog walkers show absolutely no regard for wıldlıfe or other people usıng an area (allowıng, even encouragıng, dogs to chase wıldlıfe, not cleanıng up 'mess' etc.) - there ıs good and bad ın all.

[Deb London]

I do sympathize rona. I'm waiting for the day that people start caring properly about their environment. When people don't have to be told to respect their fellow creatures and wild places. But I think it'll be a long time coming. And this case sounds like there was a bit of "herd mentality" thrown in for good measure. It doesn't sound good

When I locate things of interest I only tell people I trust. I don't want to belong to any exclusive groups/cliques, and I'm uncomfortable with not sharing. But I think the wildlife should come first. I think that puts me in the minority. Although many people on WAB probably think along similar lines, I know for a fact that many, many people do not. Very sad.

[rona]

There was one chap who set his camera up and settled down to wait. There could have been 100 like him and there would have been no problem.
The wood is crisscrossed with paths and so many of them had groups of people, separating one fawn from it's mother
I just think in this internet age, far too many people are descending on a single site

[BillyPilgrim]

Originally Posted by rona

Would you give out a location if you had seen something unusual?

I wouldn't

Me neither - partly out of concern for the wildlife and partly out of selfishness. I enjoy the solitude just as much as the wildlife so I don't want loads of other people around to spoil the enjoyment.

[stevecurtis]

If the dogs are allowed of leads then people will be the last thing the Roe Doe with twin fawns needs to worry about.

Steve

[Ukwildlifeo]

Personally I think these websites are important in that they allow people to enjoy the wildlife. If these butterflies are kept with in a small click what happens when the pass away and their knowledge with them? Then the woods come under threat from development or unsympathetic management and the species disappears because no one knows it is there - especially if the species is one that flies high in trees with a short flight period.

Originally Posted by rona

I'm sure the local dogs don't cause half the distress that these enthusiastic photographers were causing.

Unless the photographers were trampling through the undergrowth, digging up areas, leaving their mess everywhere, running through ponds stirring them up and chasing the deer around I believe this is a little bit incorrect.

Dogs and their 'walkers' are the biggest cause of disturbance in parks (and sadly nature reserves where they are allowed). At least in all the ones I've worked and been too.

[rona]

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

Personally I think these websites are important in that they allow people to enjoy the wildlife. If these butterflies are kept with in a small click what happens when the pass away and their knowledge with them? Then the woods come under threat from development or unsympathetic management and the species disappears because no one knows it is there - especially if the species is one that flies high in trees with a short flight period.



Unless the photographers were trampling through the undergrowth, digging up areas, leaving their mess everywhere, running through ponds stirring them up and chasing the deer around I believe this is a little bit incorrect.

Dogs and their 'walkers' are the biggest cause of disturbance in parks (and sadly nature reserves where they are allowed). At least in all the ones I've worked and been too.

Mmm odd that. When the farm I used to work on was just used by locals for dog walking and recreatin it was alive with wildlife. The National Trust have now opened it up to campers and "conservation" groups. The place is like a disney version of countryside and sustains very little in the way of wildlife now, just too many footfalls, noise and disturbance.
I think it just reflects the me society I'm afraid. You can make the appropriate bodies aware of specific wildlife without all and sundry descending upon them.