Photographers endangering Donna Nook Seals

[slimrbp]

This may have been raised before but couldn;t find it so thought I would post here.

I have just got my October issue of Outdoor Photography Magazine and there is an article about the seals at Donna Nook.
The pup motality rate has been increasing and the beach colony pups are 6 times more likely to die than the dune pups.
It is felt the large numbers of photographers visiting the site and going onto the beach to photograph the seals (I have never been but apparently there warning signs which are being ignored) are causing a disturbance which contributes to this.
Apparently the by laws means they cannot stop people going onto the beach but the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust are actively encouraging people not to do so and stick to the dunes.
(Apparently OP magazine no longer publish photos of seals taken at Donna Nook).

I found this blog entry which gives a bit more info:
http://terrywhittakerphoto.blogspot....ook-seals.html

[DrNickBurton]

Thanks for posting this - it makes depressing reading though. I've been to Donna nook a couple of times in the last few years, and always stayed behind the fence. I had been planning to visit again this year, and walk out onto the beach, keeping a respectful distance, of course. It's not really possible to do photography properly from behind the fence - as we all know, you need to get down low, and the fence precludes this.

What this link shows though, is that mere presence on the beach can cause problems - especially if you are but one of many people/photographers there. Because of this, I've decided not to go at all.

On our last visit in 2009, we were saddened to see how the place has become the victim of its own popularity. The fact that the car park there is overflowing, and that opportunistic local land owners are opening up their neighbouring fields as alternative car parks (£3 a car) says it all. The site is simply overflowing with visitors - barking dogs, screaming children, hot dog vans, the works.

It seems to me the site needs some investment, given the huge numbers of people who now visit. How about: paid entry only (at the moment it is free - I really can't understand this), a permanent fence (perhaps even with sections that extend out onto the beach a little way), a proper car park, a cap on the number of daily visitors, and by-law preventing the public from walking out onto the beach during breeding season.

[Ukwildlifeo]

I visited last year with Dave and it is very popular there. Sadly lots of people inevitably means some will be idiots. We saw one chap try to take his dog up onto the dunes (thankfully he was stopped) and another trying to get a close up with his compact after being told to keep his distance by a WT volunteer and while me a Dave were keeping a respectful distance from it.

[Richard G.]

Just catching up on the article myself, a very worrying read

I visited for the first time last year and did go out to the beach; I think I commented at the time that the better photography opportunities are out there, which I'm sure is why togs head out that way. To be fair I didn't see anything other than impeccable behaviour from photographers, the only incongruous thing being a couple of motorbikes hurtling across the beach

Perhaps one or two people are under the misapprehension that since the seals approach the fence at the dunes absurdly closely, the beach colony will be equally confiding.

I hope it doesn't discourage people from visiting Donna Nook, it's an amazing place and a very special experience, clearly the fenced area at the dunes colony causes the seals no issues at all. Hopefully I'll be back again this year, but will stick to the dunes this time.

[pressld2]

I haven't read the article yet - been to two different branches of Smiths and neither had the magazine! But...

Originally Posted by Richard G.

To be fair I didn't see anything other than impeccable behaviour from photographers, the only incongruous thing being a couple of motorbikes hurtling across the beach

...makes me wonder just how much of the problem is really down to photographers and how much is down to other beach users, of which there are many. Last year when I was there with Neil, a lot of the people that walked out onto the beach were not carrying cameras.

I've been twice before and both times stayed behind the fence. Like Dr Nick I was planning a return visit this year and was intending to go out onto the sand just to see what shots are available out there. I will obviously reconsider this and may have further views once I've read the article.

But if I get there and find people racing motor bikes or dune buggies, or even just flying kites or playing beach football I'm going to struggle to take seriously the notion that my photography is the problem.

Dave P.

[slimrbp]

The article indicates that this is something that has been of increased concern in the last year or so with a marked increase in the number of photographers on the beach. One issue they mentioned was some photgraphers finding a pup in a god position and then lying next to it for a long time preventing the mother from returning.

I agree it's likely a much wider problem than just the photogrpahers endangering the seals if other people are going down to the beach as well, the article is in a photography magazine so I guess that's where they put the emphasis as we are easier to 'target' than other beach users.
The article explains that current legislation prevents them from stopping people using the beach so they are trying to encourage people not to do so.

From my point of view just because other people do it doesn't make it right, it only takes one person to ignore the signs and go down on the beach before others will follow. If photographers are being asked to steer clear of the beach it seems only right we should do so.

I was planning a trip myself (with one of the photography workshops) but will not do so now. However if I am ever in the area I would like to visit even if I stick to the dunes.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by slimrbp

One issue they mentioned was some photgraphers finding a pup in a god position and then lying next to it for a long time preventing the mother from returning.

That's completely unacceptable - no question! The welfare of the wildlife has to take precedence over a photagraph - always.

I hope I didn't give the impression in my previous post that because some people are disturbing the animals it's okay for others to do it too. That's certainly not what I meant. I was just trying to question whether photographers really are the problem or if it's something else. But I still haven't read the article (shakes fist in general direction of W H Smiths) so I shall shut up about that until I have.

Originally Posted by slimrbp

I was planning a trip myself (with one of the photography workshops) but will not do so now. However if I am ever in the area I would like to visit even if I stick to the dunes.

It's well worth it Richard. I got some shots that I'm very pleased with on my two visits, including some low level ones. And this is in spite of the fact that my camera developed a shutter fault last time I went meaning I could only use the lower three fifths of the sensor and had to shoot panoramics. So I'm not convinced that going out onto the beach is necessary but was thinking of doing so just to see what the difference is.

If you know you definitely won't be going onto the beach then the best bet is to take a day off work and go during the week. It's considerably quieter in terms of visitor numbers but quite a bit noisier in terms of aircraft making bombing runs!

Dave P.

[slimrbp]

Originally Posted by pressld2

I hope I didn't give the impression in my previous post that because some people are disturbing the animals it's okay for others to do it too. That's certainly not what I meant. I was just trying to question whether photographers really are the problem or if it's something else. But I still haven't read the article (shakes fist in general direction of W H Smiths) so I shall shut up about that until I have.

Sorry Dave re-reading my response that's what I made it sound like I thought I assure you it wasn't. I took it to mean that there is a bigger picture and togs shouldn't be singled out.

The blog I linked to is a pretty good summary and makes quite interesting reading as it looks at legislation in other countries.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by slimrbp

Sorry Dave re-reading my response that's what I made it sound like I thought I assure you it wasn't. I took it to mean that there is a bigger picture and togs shouldn't be singled out.

No worries Richard - when I reread my original post I realised it could be taken the wrong way which was why I clarified. No harm done and no offence taken.

Originally Posted by slimrbp

The blog I linked to is a pretty good summary and makes quite interesting reading as it looks at legislation in other countries.

Agreed. It makes for very sobering reading. I particularly liked the quote from Rob Lidstone-Scott:

He said he felt that anyone going out to photograph the outer colony has a moral obligation to have at least a basic understanding of seal behaviour, particularly indications of disturbance, but from what he has observed on many occasions this is often not the case. And that includes some group leaders.

Very well said!

I am, though, slightly bothered by the final image in the blog, the one of a seal silhouetted against the setting (or possibly rising) sun. During the main pupping season at Donna Nook - November into December - the sun rises and sets behind the dunes. This means that if you are shooting from behind the fence the sun is always behind you and never behind the seals. So that last shot was either

1. Not taken at Donna Nook,
2. Not taken during the pupping season (very unlikely as the seals don't come in to the fence outside of this period) or
3. Taken from out on the beach where he's telling other photographers not to go!

This does not invalidate any of the points made in the blog but it does make him look, in my eyes at least, just a wee bit hypocritical.

Dave P.

[Durrell]

Interesting thread and one that's making me think whether I should visit or not this winter. I haven't read the article in Outdoor Photography Magazine yet but would be interested to see the actual mortality figures for the beach area over the last few years.

Comparing outer beach with inner dune doesn't actually tell us what is happening out on the beach. The mortality rate may have stayed steady on the beach but dropped massively in the inner dunes which would account for the increasing difference. This of course may not be the case at all and if it is would bring up a a whole load of other questions.

As the blogger mentions there doesn't seem to be much science around about what disturbance people are causing to the seals. It's very hard to get any really accurate figures as the article in this link mentions.
North Somercotes Parish Council

My own opinion is that no seal should be approached at all, the problem area for me is whether being present on the beach causes any kind of disturbance.