The ethics of Wildlife Photography - a declaration

[Ukwildlifeo]

Ive signed but there are some interesting results in the poll.

The live bait issue. Most, I imagine, would be ok feeding live mealworms, some with using live fish for kingfisher shots (I have my concerns about this personally) but 20% think its ok to use a live mouse just to get a photo of an owl!

Also the fact that only 30% of people would declare that they have heavily photoshopped an image is worrying. Im hoping a lot of those that voted no did so because they don't photoshop at all..

[JaySteel]

An interesting discussion. I use Photoshop to 'tidy-up' all my photos. Often the extent of the editing is quite severe and it is for this reason alone that I haven't entered them into any competitions. I have no problem with digital manipulation of an image as long as it isn't done to deceive people. I'm trying to create an art piece with my photos and not faithfully reproduce or capture a scene exactly as I saw it.

Best regards,
Jason

[PMG]

Originally Posted by pressld2

I know you wouldn't Gill.

I'm still thinking of the water life in a tank scenario. It doesn't matter if it's for just a few minutes or, like my toadpoles, a few weeks: While they're in the tank the animals are captive and the photographer has to be responsible for their welfare. As you say though, neglect can be quite difficult to prove. You've only got my word for it that all my little toads were released unharmed.

Dave P.

There is another way to view this (apologies if I haven't read far enough this morning - I'm dipping in at speed and may have the wrong end of the stick) but the other side of the coin is - while that spawn, toad/tadpoles and small fish are in your tank Dave they are not being eaten by anything else ..... We need to remember that life is a food chain - I reckon we forget or even do not quite accept this fact as humans don't generally get eaten (except by the odd lion or tiger and then there is an outcry!) but every other critter on earth finds itself on someone else's menu! Removing things from the environment is interference but it might just ensure that what you have removed grows big enough and lasts long enough to breed - and that is 'job done' in this worlds current set up ......... So 'interference' is not all bad - and also the idea that all is well cos we are not interfering is a wrong notion too - it just means we cannot see what is actually happening - which is life things are dying or being eaten all the time - every minute - not that things are living happily ever after without human interference ............

[KentYeti]

A very, very interesting debate for me, someone who started bird photography two weeks ago!

If I allow that photography to follow the lines, (sorry!), of my life long steam locomotive photography I will not be satisfied until I am taking images up with the best. At present I am making myself take slow steps: ie especially with equipment!

But, even before this debate I had already started thinking about the ethics of using bait, (not live), to attract bird species I want to get closer to.

Indeed I've done it once already, as follows.

Like so many of us I've fed my garden birds all my life, as did my late wife with me. That has formed part of our, now sadly just my, recycling stategy. I.e never throw away any food leftovers that could be sensibly eaten by the garden birds, (or our local urban fox).

So putting out fat trimmed from meat is a very well established practice here.

Except that ten days ago, instead of putting it on the grass, I put it on a fence post near the kitchen window so I could, (and did), photograph the magpies flying down for it.

My first instance of using bait to attract a bird to photograph it.

Does that cross any lines here?

I think not. I followed a practice of more than 25 years since I've lived here. Just changed the location of where I put the fat by about ten feet.

But how far do I need to change the location where I put such meat trimmings to cross the line?

It would suit me very nicely to move the location by 20 miles and see what impact meat trimmings, or even fresh meat had on attracting the raptors I have just started photographing on the Isle of Sheppey. I even mentioned it to a couple of other photographers in Sheppey a few days ago. i.e, what are the ethics of doing this? Assuming of course it is safe for the birds to do it in the first place.

But I'm pausing on doing that. I need more time in the hobby, and more time to understand the birds I am photographing. And their safety etc. And the ethics of doing it.

Hence the usefulness of this debate to me, which I hope will continue.

I won't sign up yeti. Not until I am certain I am to progress my bird photography beyond it's embryo stage.

[Gill Catton]

Bear in mind the more birds of prey get used to taking meat provided by man the more likely they are to get poisoned by poison laced meat put out by game keepers. I'd therefore avoid it if at all possible.

I know places like gigrin farm do this for red kites but this is a lot of meat regularly put out in the same place - enough for lots and lots of birds that then probably learn to associate the food with the place and the people that put it out rather than just with people in general.

Many places with captive British birds (and animals) provide opportunities for photographers. Then you'd be able to get your perfect shots without disturbing anything.


Also I'd suggest taking a slowly gently approach with regard to learning the ecology, behaviour and legislative protection of likely subjects (as well as your equipment) then making sure you do no harm to them through accidental disturbance etc. when you go to try for your photos.

[KentYeti]

Gill, your suggestions are helpful. And, with the exception of captive birds, in line with the approach I have already decided to take. My garden magpies excepted.........LOL!

I'm not sure about photographing captive birds yet.

My steam loco photographing developed by capturing them in their "wild" state. And not in museums that I very rarely visit. Never been to the main one in the UK.

You can't beat spending from dawn to dusk out in the country in driving rain and cold and seeing nothing worth taking a picture of all day! (The story of the end of main line steam operations in Europe. And sometimes of modern day steam loco photography as well on some days. And of bird photography as well no doubt). But when you do go out and get something good it makes the chase and all those futile days all the more worthwhile.

Just to walk into a location where the birds are captive will never be the same. Not to me anyway. Might just as well buy a postcard with a bird photo on it.

[tom w w]

So is putting ground bait down for fish in a hope of attracting kingfishers using live bait?

Lots of shades of grey areas on this subject me thinks.

[Red Robin]

Originally Posted by pressld2

The bottom line for me is can I look at myself in the mirror and honestly say "I acted responsibly. I did no harm." As long as I can do that I am comfortable signing up to the ethics declaration.

Dave P.

....That says it all for me

I consider that sometimes providing extra food for a species can be doing them a favour. If they are happy to pose for a photo then that's fair exchange and a win-win.

You wanna take a picture of me? Give us a dollar please

I feel more strongly about over manipulation in Photoshop rather than just cleaning it up. And am certainly against misrepresentation.