Responsibility in Wildlife Photography - a plea (long post)

[d70mpv]

This is just a simple plea to all photographers out there who love the natural world that they are trying to represent through their photography. Please ensure that if you see anyone acting irresponsibly in and around the animals that they are trying to photograph, make them aware of their wrong-doing in a polite and calm manner. I read this thread with great interest, then dismay, at another forum (I hope that the moderators of WAB will appreciate that although this links to another forum, the theme is important enough to be read by all) Anyone interest for Red Deer Watch in October - Rutting Season

I've only been taking photos seriously for about a year and even during that time I've had my own dilemmas, for those with longer memories, on this forum as to whether to venture out 'beyond the fence' at Donna Nook (Lincolnshire) to photograph seals. This meant a venture into an area of beach where the seals are not behind fencing and are at the mercy of photographers encroaching too close. I did venture out there and despite being well beyond 400mm range I still encountered several parents of pups that were only too vocal when I went what I considered to be even quite a distance from their young. Quite how many photographers it will take to eventually have a truly negative impact on seasonal breeding behaviour it awaits to be seen - but I spoke afterwards to more of the local conservation volunteers than not who wished that photographers simply didn't go anywhere near the seals that are away from the main viewing area.

The worst incident of 'at-all-costs' photography was at Skomer this summer. Those who've been will know that the main area to see the gorgeous resident puffins is the Wick. A path that runs along the cliff edge cuts the puffin burrows into two areas and some of the puffins have to cross the path once they've landed to return to their burrows. At the end of the day one chap clearly thought that he'd not got the shot that he came for and chose to repeatedly ignore a warden's attempts to get him to move away from a puffin that wanted to cross the path (they won't if humans are too close to them so I was told). An incredulous warden had a few increasingly harsh words with the (rather stocky) chap but to no avail - he was more concerned with poking his expensive lens up the puffin's nose than considering the welfare of the very animal whose beauty he was presumably trying to capture. The poor warden couldn't do anything other than say to me "many more photographers doing this and we'll have no choice but to close the area completely in a few years". I'm sure that many of you have stories to tell to and it'd be interesting to hear them just to hammer the message home.

Now I'm no angel and we've all been there in terms of picturing how that 'perfect' shot would look and the compliments we'll get should we get it. How lovely that would be. But first and foremost we should consider the wildlife, and secondly that it will only take a few idiots to ruin the fun of wildlife photography for all of us. I've no scientific evidence to prove it but it seems to me that more people are getting 'into' photography because of the digital revolution and the associated new-found accessibility of the medium. So all of us have to be increasingly vigilant to look out for those few inconsiderate individuals; just a polite reminder and at least if it doesn't work you can say you tried!

[wildlifesnapper]

Hi

one problem of todays society is that even a polite reminder may get a torrent of verbal abuse or even worse from some numb-nuts , so you've also got to consider your own safety too.

neil

[DuncanE]

I usually just sit and wait and make the best of what I get in front of me even if its far off. Although I did try to get closer with a group of Turnstones a couple of weeks ago, but then I stopped when I got to 10-20m. They didn't seem to care that I was there either.

But I have often wondered what is acceptable with the likes of places like Richmond Park where the animals are slightly more used to human activety.

[Oscar2006]

Bit surprised that the warden did not eject the photographer as it is an offence to "disturb any nesting birds" (with a couple of exceptions) under the wildlife and countryside act!

Most of us are prone to pushing animals at times, but the Pork Pie Posse will back off after a short period of time to allow them to get on with their lives.

[shirl]

I survey for Water Voles in the Derbyshire Dales and I am so careful not to damage habitat or disturb any wildlife. However by the canal we also have loads of little grebes and they have had a good breeding year. I was shocked to see how much vegetation had been damaged so that the photographers could get as close to the canal edge as possible. Three areas of vegetation on the canal bank were fragmented for weeks and it really annoys me. I am afraid if I see it I just have to say something - politely of course

Shirl

[derelict]

Originally Posted by shirl

it really annoys me. I am afraid if I see it I just have to say something - politely of course

Shirl

I'm not a photographer (though I do tend to carry a little digital point & shoot camera) but I agree with pretty much everything in this thread although in my case it applies to dogs chasing deer rather than photographers. (One on Saturday afternoon involved 3 dogs and came perilously close to getting someone seriously hurt when they chased 20-odd Red Deer stags towards them as they were lying on the ground - a very close call). And the attitude/manners of the owners do generally leave much to be desired. The trouble is of course that by the time anything is said the damage has been done.

I'm not a golfer either but it seems to me that ideally wildlife photography is like golf - it's a question of personal integrity; you play by the rules against yourself. If you don't play by the rules then your results are inherently devalued. When you take a picture think about what a photo of yourself taking the picture would look like.



(the sign in the background is the warning not to approach too closely to the deer!)

Originally Posted by DuncanE

I have often wondered what is acceptable with the likes of places like Richmond Park where the animals are slightly more used to human activety.

In RP the serious wildlife photographers cause little problem. They have lenses which are akin to binoculars (or telescopes in the case of one Polish man on Saturday evening - I met him at 6 and he had been lugging his enormous kit round the park since 4am!) Their problem is generally that they're not used to being a mere 30 yards distant! It's the out-for-the-day brigade of wannabe Attenboroughs who try to get a full-screen TV-quality picture of a deer who are beyond the pale: they don't know when to stop until the deer move off and some of them don't stop then.

To the person who asked about distance - set 30 yards initially in the open areas if it feels safe to do so. If the deer then move towards you, you're in clover unless of course it's the Red Deer rut. And of course you can get much much closer if you stick to the paths (see above). The deer have a clear mental map of where people should be...

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Oscar2006

Most of us are prone to pushing animals at times, but the Pork Pie Posse will back off after a short period of time to allow them to get on with their lives.

what you lot do in pubs (particularly with boddie in tow) is obviously your own buisness but.....

[Paul Miguel]

I think this is a definite issue, and there do seem to be an increasing number of photographers who seem more intent on 'looking the part' with their massive telephotos and camou gear, than actually creating an image and truly appreciating the wildlife. Some places are becoming photo 'hotspots' such as Donna Nook mentioned... and not only can it create more pressure for the wildlife, but it does nothing to create fresh images of one's own - your picture simply ends up looking like everyone elses... Much better to find your own site to work from..

A good wildlife photographer will have at least some instinct as to when they are "just too close", but it's a subjective issue that relies on the person's integrity and also knowledge to some degree..

Wildlife photography can be incredibly frustrating, but if you're close enough to photograph, then you're certainly close enough to enjoy watching the wildlife - and that's got to make up for any 'missed shots'. There have been times where I know I'm not going to get the perfect picture, and just put the camera down to enjoy...

[Keith Talbot]

Originally Posted by Paul Miguel

Wildlife photography can be incredibly frustrating, but if you're close enough to photograph, then you're certainly close enough to enjoy watching the wildlife - and that's got to make up for any 'missed shots'. There have been times where I know I'm not going to get the perfect picture, and just put the camera down to enjoy...

i totally agree paul,

one moment springs to mind,i was deep in the new forest last year,in the distancs i could see a mother fallow and her young heading my way so i just crouched behind a tree and watched as they came closer and closer till they were on the otherside of the tree only feet away! completely oblivious i was there! instead of leaning round to try and get the pic i just sat there watching and enjoying being part of their world for a little while,

that sort of memory last longer than many pics i have taken

keith

[Ukwildlifeo]

This is something thats often on my mind, as having a limited camera, its often tempting to get a bit to close. A lot of the places I go in London I dont really ahve to worry as the wildlife is so used to humans you can walk right up to it and it just stands there and looks back as if to say "what?"
My local park is slightly different. I tend to stick to the paths there and although Im careful to avoid spooking the wildlife, I sometimes do go to close. However this park is full of dog walkers (even before 6am in summer!) so any wildlife that I have spooked would have been scared of by a dog (or screaming child, or teenager on a motor bike or jogger or....).
Of course on my recent visit to the New forest or reserves I obviously far more careful. They only time I wouldnt do everything to avoid spooking the animal would be when its on or near the path and going to get spooked by me or someone else as they have to go past anyway

[KeenTeen17]

I agree its wrong to get really close to some animals but thats sometimes what has to be done. If a person can't afford a fancy giant camera with a lens as long as my arm ,getting closer is the only thing they can do. But what is annoying is when a person HAS a big fat long lens then he still goes up really really close and photographs it with a long lens. Whats the point in the long lens when hes getting really close anyway? The point of a long lens is to bring far away things closer - not the other way round.

[PMG]

Originally Posted by KeenTeen17

I agree its wrong to get really close to some animals but thats sometimes what has to be done. If a person can't afford a fancy giant camera with a lens as long as my arm ,getting closer is the only thing they can do. But what is annoying is when a person HAS a big fat long lens then he still goes up really really close and photographs it with a long lens. Whats the point in the long lens when hes getting really close anyway? The point of a long lens is to bring far away things closer - not the other way round.

As the new owner of a BIG fat long lens I just have to let a bit of daylight in for those who maybe haven't got one or even looked thro one

It doesn't surprise me when folks are out and about and are obviously not photographers and who then comment at the size of mine and assume I'm getting a huge close pic just cos they've clocked the BIG lens............ Folks who don't either use a scope or a camera will not neccessarily know the range and quite easily assume that the fantastic close ups they see in mags and exhibitions have been taken with a BIG lens from half mile away!! They always laugh when my return comment is 'It isn't the Hubble Telescope'! I wish it was!! Folks might be very surprised at how close you still need to be - dependant on the size of the subject of course - you need to be nearer to a warbler to get it than you do to a Red Deer stag!

I've found that a combination of stalking and sitting in a bag hide can bring things into range - waiting for stuff to forget you're there and get too close to you works on a lot of occasions and is very satisfying - cos while you've sat there you have heard and seen and watched other wildlife happenings too. If you notice on a lot of the pics I post I will tell you how long its taken me to get that pic - and occasionally some of the pics show a relaxed critter looking back at me but not unduly fearful or worried looking cos its had time to get used to me!

One of the reasons we like the Western Isles so much (and the reason why some of the big names are heading off to Scandanavia, Poland and Russia) is the birds are less fearful and more likely to pose - or as in the case of the short eared owls - absolutely used to cars screeching to a halt opposite them on their posts and sticking a lens out - nine times out of ten they will pause before flying or even just plain pose and stare back at you and wait for you to go.

And finally the main reason for having a BIG lens isn't so you can get stuff from further away - its cos the image reproduction is hugely superior to a zoom

And finally finally! I get irritated slightly by the presumption that all folks in camo with big lenses are idiots by definition......... it would be nice if the perceptions changed and I got to hear this description instead..... 'Pauline looks a bit of fool dressed like that but she's doing her best to blend in - cause as little disruption to wildlife as poss and will take endless time and care to get her photographs - cos the getting of them matters just as much as the finished pic.............'

And Pauline will take a lot of time and attention to detail to put the finishing touches to her pics in Paint Shop Pro, cropping, cloning out stray bits of rubbish and water marks, dumbing down or beefing up colour, sharpening some things, blurring others - every craft available to give the finished pic its Wow factor - simply because that facility now exists with digital. Having spent 30+ years on slide film - having to accept that what I got was what I got - no more - no less then the creativity allowed with digital was made just for me - well thats how I feel!

[DuncanE]

Originally Posted by PMG

As the new owner of a BIG fat long lens I just have to let a bit of daylight in for those who maybe haven't got one or even looked thro one

It doesn't surprise me when folks are out and about and are obviously not photographers and who then comment at the size of mine and assume I'm getting a huge close pic just cos they've clocked the BIG lens............

One advantage of having a big lens, is that you can still use it to view you subject - you dont have to take the photo. Ideal when the shot is not right... and saves carrying big bins too.

Also as Paul said some of the best wildlife moments are without the camera. And there's Keith's experience, knowing when and when not to push the button can make all the difference to wildlife watching/photography too. I seem to take more in when not photoing that when doing so.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by KeenTeen17

I agree its wrong to get really close to some animals but thats sometimes what has to be done. If a person can't afford a fancy giant camera with a lens as long as my arm ,getting closer is the only thing they can do. But what is annoying is when a person HAS a big fat long lens then he still goes up really really close and photographs it with a long lens. Whats the point in the long lens when hes getting really close anyway? The point of a long lens is to bring far away things closer - not the other way round.

it is worth noting that even long lenses (like 500mm ) only equate to about 10x magnification which isnt that much - the real trick for the wildlife photographer is to get tollerably close without disturbing the subject - which means a) researching the subject thoroughly so you recognise its behaviours and can tell if you are causing disturbance b) investing time (and money) in developing your feild craft and camoflage, and c) having the right kit for the job at hand.

Not having the kit and the feildcraft to get your shots without disturbing the subject is no excuse for going too close - theres no "has to" about it - if you dont have the kit to take photos without getting close enough to disturb the species , then dont photograph that species - there are plenty of other photographic opportunities for those with modest kit, and the welfare of the subject species should always come first

[KeenTeen17]

Originally Posted by PMG

And finally finally! I get irritated slightly by the presumption that all folks in camo with big lenses are idiots by definitionD

I don't think its the fact they think your an "idiot" I think its the fact they are jealous.

I get annoyed when people stare at me when I am bent down photographing a plant/mushroom in my local park. I have as much right to be there as anyone else. I have the right to photograph the wonderful flora of my area . just as they have the right to walk their dogs.!

[KeenTeen17]

Originally Posted by eeyore

it is worth noting that even long lenses (like 500mm ) only equate to about 10x magnification which isnt that much - the real trick for the wildlife photographer is to get tollerably close without disturbing the subject - which means a) researching the subject thoroughly so you recognise its behaviours and can tell if you are causing disturbance b) investing time (and money) in developing your feild craft and camoflage, and c) having the right kit for the job at hand.

Not having the kit and the feildcraft to get your shots without disturbing the subject is no excuse for going too close - theres no "has to" about it - if you dont have the kit to take photos without getting close enough to disturb the species , then dont photograph that species - there are plenty of other photographic opportunities for those with modest kit, and the welfare of the subject species should always come first

I am not saying that they should be disturbed. I am only saying that theres nothing wrong with getting close within a necessary distance. I wasn't implying that I want to go up to a nesting plover and ram a lens down its throat. Thats why I stick to photographing flora rather than birds.


flowers and fungi stay in one spot and theres no real disturbing it unless its picked or trampled. eg frog orchids and ladys slipper

[PMG]

Originally Posted by KeenTeen17

I don't think its the fact they think your an "idiot" I think its the fact they are jealous.

I get annoyed when people stare at me when I am bent down photographing a plant/mushroom in my local park. I have as much right to be there as anyone else. I have the right to photograph the wonderful flora of my area . just as they have the right to walk their dogs.!

Ha!ha! You might be right about the jealousy too - I hadn't thought of that and yes you do have the right to be going about your hobbies. I've always looked at big lenses and promised myself that one day there would be enough cash to afford to do it without bankrupting myself. Its taken 55 years to get to that stage! (and only just as it is) but I'm wondering now whether I shouldn't have pushed the boat out sooner as they say. I've been to a fair few funerals recently (and one today I was going to until I started a migraine as I should have been setting off). It makes you wonder how many more years I've got - there are no gaurantees - and I've always said I would not work like an idiot and put everything off till retirement - then curl me toes up and die - cos its keeps happening to others........... Maybe I should have been buying and using better equipment a bit sooner than I have

Pauline

[KeenTeen17]

dont think like that - thats being pessimistic! Think about how plan to be around for AT LEAST another decade

[Keith Talbot]

steady pauline,sounds if youve got one foot in the grave already!

(make sure they bury you with your camera!)

keith

[PMG]

Originally Posted by KeenTeen17

dont think like that - thats being pessimistic! Think about how plan to be around for AT LEAST another decade

......only one decade?? I was rather hoping for at least two and then perhaps another 5 on top

Originally Posted by Keith Talbot