Even more on Ethics: What went wrong?

Thanks for your replies to my previous post. I actually agree with the sentiments expressed there. The example I gave is factual but is obviously at one end of the scale. However, not all situations are so easy to resolve. This one requires a little explanation and sheds some light on just what kind of effect our observations can have. Algonquin Provincial Park is home to, on average, about 250 wolves in about 35 packs. The Algonquin sub-species is quite unique in that they are rather small (this is due to human manipulation of their environment over the last 200 years or so). Because of their small size, they have difficulty feeding themselves during the winter months as they are no match in deep snow for healthy moose and the beaver are not accessible. Many of the packs that live near the boundaries leave the park and enter deer yards to supplement their winter diets. This angers the local hunters who, happy in their ignorance, believe that the wolves are responsible for their poor deer hunting success. To protect the wolves from these rosy necked vigilantes the government has passed laws that makes it illegal to hunt wolves in certain deer yards close to the park. Well, a few years back, a couple were out cross country skiing when they came across a small pack of five wolves a few kilometers from one of these dear yards. One of the couple was quite an accomplished nature photographer of some local fame and came back with some pretty good shots of wild wolves. One of these was published on the front page of the local weekend tabloid along with a caption that gave the location at which the pictures were taken. Three days after the picture was published another group of skiers found a partially eaten deer and all five wolves dead from bullet wounds just outside the protected area and only a few hundred meters from where they had been photographed. The curious thing is that the deer had also died of a bullet wound. Government investigators from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources surmised that the wolves had been intentionally baited out of the protected area and slaughtered. My question is this, since the killings had been prompted by the photograph and abetted by the location being given, was there any breech of ethics, either on the part of the photographer or the publication? Further, do any others believe there would be merit in developing a code of ethics for nature photography? Possibly even having such a code endorsed by leaders in the field and sponsored by organizations such a NANPA? I for one believe that we, as nature photographers, owe a debt of responsibility to the natural world from which get our subject matter.

Ever see BlowUp, the movie? Don't go crazy with the ethics issue. The photog isn't responsible for what someone else does. But, if you have special areas & image locations it is wise to keep them to yourself. I have a number of areas I use regularly & am often asked where they are 'exactly'. These jokers I won't tell. I don't know them & a general 'go south for an hour of so from General Arch in So. Utah' is sufficient. I don't like good areas trashed & most folks will do so even if unknowingly. Also, if the government jokers think someone is on to a good thing, they will try to regulate it, fence it, interpret it or charge a fee. If you want to get NANPA &/or others involved-go for it. But don't expect much to happen. Ethics is a personal thing that everyone will interpret differently.

The photographer and newspaper aren't at fault, but they were careless. The incident had nothing to do with the fact that the photographer got a good photo. It had to do with the fact that the newspaper printed details as to the location.

 

<p>

 

It's similar with spotted owls here in the PNW. When The Oregonian would trot out shots of them for in-depth articles, they'd maybe say something like "along the North Santiam" or something, in other words, an indicator as to where to satisfy the journalistic urge to pin everything down, but vague enough to prevent irate loggers from pinpointing the territory.

 

<p>

 

If the paper had simply said "cool wolf picture taken within the Park", no harm would've been done, right?

 

<p>

 

These wolves may've been doomed regardless, as it sounds as though they were quite acclimated to people, after all the photographer apparently skiied up to them close enough for a good photo. I presume the skier wasn't packing a 600/4 just in case a wolf was seen...

Nature photographers aren't responsible for all the ills of the

world (not even most of them in fact). Codes of ethics are just

fine, but those who would follow them would probably be those who

would behave ethically anyway.

 

<p>

 

Personally I would not (and don't) publicize

any sensitive wild animal locations. I would tell other nature

photographers who I trusted to behave properly, but I'd never

put it (or allow it to be put) in a newspaper - or even on

a web site come to that! Even ignoring the fraction of the public

who shoot at anything that moves, the majority of the public

simply have no idea how to behave - through ignorance, not malice.

Just look at the public's behavior in Yellowstone if you want

examples.

 

<p>

 

The only rule to follow is "Do No Harm" either by direct or by

indirect action. It's the indirect action that needs thinking

about, the direct action should be obvious.

I have learned some valuable lessons from how the local dog owners behave at the local wetlands park. About 50% of them are scoflaws who don't obey the leash law (Sorry, if I offend fellow photonetians who are dog owners.) On many occasions I have seen these folks and their dogs scare and frighten the wetland wildlife. Now, when these people approach me and I have a subject in my viewfinder, I point the camera away and act as though I am bored by the lack of action. Yes, I miss some shots but at least the animals aren't harrased due to any action or inaction on my part. I don't like doing this but dogs are not on the endangered species list in my area.

I had spoken to the photographer about this incident some time ago. She was absolutely crushed by what had happened. She was a little reluctant to give the paper the exact location, but was told by the paper that it would not make a front cover story otherwise. $100 and 15 minutes of fame bought the lives of the wolves. This is exactly how she feels about it to this day. Perhaps "Code of Ethics" is the wrong term for what I'm getting at. What is needed, though, is some simple set of rules that can be followed in cases where the photographer does not have the experience or scientific knowledge to guide them through.

 

<p>

 

You are absolutely right Bob, the unethical would ignore these guides anyway. There is nothing that can reasonably be done about that. However, if there was some sort of guide that stated something like; "In cases where the subject matter is biologically, characteristically, or politically sensitive it is suggested that the exact circumstances of the image not be made public." or something of that nature, perhaps errors of this type (and others) could be avoided. This person is not the unethical, get-the-image-no-matter-what type. She, like most of us at one time or another, believed that taking a picture in an appropriate manner could do no harm. I have read other discussions on this forum that lead me to the conclusion that something like this might be helpful.

 

<p>

 

Don, the picture was more a nice scenic than anything else. Blown up on the cover of the tabloid the wolves looked like raisins in rice pudding. According to the photographer it was shot hand- held with and 80-200 and the wolves only stayed for a few seconds. As far as I know, none of the wolf packs in Algonquin could be considered habituated.

Well, I'll have to say this was very irresponsible of the paper. I would guess it was not only the $100, but a reliance on the paper's experience and expertise that led her to agree to disclosing the location.

 

<p>

 

As I said earlier, our daily, The Oregonian, has been very careful about revealing details about spotted owl locations in the occasional stories they run. They've run them on the front page, too...

 

<p>

 

Was the wolf-kill story then published in the same paper?

Nothing good can come from sharing locations with the public. Fishermen have always known this.