The "Pro-Tour of Nature Photography"?

So I got this pamphlet in the mail from Images for Conservation,

a new group that's sponsoring what they call the "Pro-Tour of

Nature Photography". Their website is here: <a

href="http://www.imagesforconservation.org/">ICF Site</a>

 

 

It's a partnership with the Nature Conservancy and seems to be

pretty legitimate. I guess they're trying to set up a system where

private landowners (big ranches etc.) will open up their land for

use by nature photographers--for a fee, of course. ICF would

promote it, making it affordable, and would include long-term

competitions, gallery shows etc. They want it to be like the Pro

Tour in golf, although I'm not sure the analogy really holds up.

 

 

I'm curious what everyone's reactions are to this idea. My own

reaction was mixed; something that promotes conservation on

private land seems like a good thing. OTOH, I'm not a fan of the

competetive aspect, like I need to kick someone's ass to be

fulfilled in nature photography. Their cover letter even called it

"the exciting start of a permanent sporting institution". Yikes...

My sentiments are the same as yous with regards to the competition part. As for conservation, the general theme I always get from activists is you do what you have to do because the other side plays dirty too.<br>

Will I pay for something like this? Probably not. Conservation-wise I can probably get more bang gor my buck with dedicated organizations like SUWA or the Nature Conservancy. As for photography - there's several lifetimes's worth of opportunity on public lands in my home state (Utah) alone. I think keeping public land protected is a far more worthy goal than driving up real estate values for land owners.

<br><br>

Guy

The conservation on private land part is obviously for the good and increasingly a necessary part of overall habitat preservation. Plus an enlightened landowner can elect to maintain higher standards than the 'multiple use' laws/interpretations in place for public lands.

 

A "Pro-Tour of Nature Photography" seems like a stretch. Hopefully landowners in the future will increasingly elect to follow ecologically intact guidelines not so much for Pro-Tour possibilities, but rather for the inherent benefits both for nature and owner alike.

 

Ultimately though, if it works, then all the power to them. I wish them luck!

I think its a wonderful idea but I have immediate concerns about the welfare of the wildlife. I don't see how subjecting animals to more people will help them in any way. Aside from wildlife refuges and national parks, an animal's only other refuge from people is private property. Now that security and sanctuary will be gone for many animals. Not good at all....

 

Competitions can be a fun and healthy activity, but I fear that the dollar signs will bring out the unethical and not-so-bright. For example, at a favorite birding spot two years ago, a man broke a limb from the front of a green heron nest so he could get a better shot. It was a small limb - nobody noticed right away. But the nest was promptly abandoned because the limb he removed shades the nest from the *afternoon* sun. Her babies would have fried out in the open. Of course he couldn't see that because he assaulted the tree in the morning and couldn't think past his nose.

 

Other than that I think it's great! People get to meet people, they strive to do their best, hopefully make some money, and educate the public about wildlife.

" ... and educate the public about wildlife AND LAND." Sorry :) Animals rule my world ......

<<I don't see how subjecting animals to more people will help them in any way.>> Based on what the ICF material talks about, I think it could. It seems like one of the conditions for landowners participating is that they need to follow guidelines set out by the Nature Conservancy and others involved. I'm sure they would set ethical rules for any photogs who participated too, though that doesn't guarantee they would follow them, i.e. your heron nest guy. Definitely a pet peeve of mine, nature photographers who damage the very thing they're trying to capture and preserve.

 

Then again, there are lots of ranches that are opened up for big-game hunting, so this ICF idea is a notch above that...

These days I'd take nearly any way to preserve and promote wildlife. The competition aspect is less important, but it may help to raise the profile.

 

Out of curiosity, How do they get around the insurance aspect??

 

I know a lovely elderly couple in Ireland who have turned their old dairy farm into a wildlife reserve. They wanted to be able to have people come and appreciate the local wildlife, but couldn't get around the public liability insurance which was potentially crippling for them as they are retired?

 

Doesn't really encourage others to do likewise with their land.

Thanks for your post Andrew. You made some good points about the guidelines. My "nest guy" was simply clueless, not unethical. Most places don't post "ethical guidelines" for photography, but I took it upon myself to do so after the nest incident. I posted it right on the billboard at the entrance where you couldn't escape seeing it. Management let it stay up there all through breeding season, too!

The idea is not a new one. Check out what two Texas groups have done to promote land and animal conservation through nature photography: www.valleylandfund.com and www.coastalbendlandtrust.org. I have participated in wildlife photo contests sponsored by both of these excellent organizations. The VLF contest pays out about $135,000 in prize money. Its 2004 contest starts on February 1, 2004. If you are intereted in participating, check out the web site. Registration ends Dec 31, 2003. Ask for Ruth Hoyt if you call. Joe Smith

I just chedked out the ICF web site. John Martin is also very active in the Valley Land Fund. I first met him in 2001. He is absolutely first rate in everything he does. Joe Smith

Gloria,

 

It's clear from your description that the Green Heron nest was disturbed at a public site (Wako?) with a billboard at the entrance. In contests like the ICF is sponsering, and the Valley Land Fund before it, there are one or two photographers shooting parcels that can be huge (15,000 acres or more). I'd say the impact on wildlife is minimal. For example, when I won the 1998 VLF contest, many of my winning photos were made from a blind at a small waterhole. My presence was no more disruptive than when I shoot at the feeders in my own backyard. The ICF contest will also be tiny--20 or 30 photographers spread over an equal number of properties for only a month.

 

On some public lands, on the other hand, especially national parks but even some national wildlife refuges, huge traffic jams can be a daily occurrence. Increased regulation to control the big crowds (and for other purposes, like opening Ding Darling well after sunrise) can hugely limit the photographic potential without doing a thing for the wildlife.

 

Anyone with the small price of admission (i.e., with little interest or knowledge) gets into a national park or wildlife refuge, whereas to get into a VLF contest (and presumably ICF), you pay a sizeable fee and pass muster with the landowner, who can boot you off the property anytime.

 

Moreover, the money raised from the Valley Land Fund contest has been used to protect important parcels of land--for example, some of the few remaining lots on South Padre Island, an important rest area for migrating songbirds in the Spring, and the famous birding hotspot of Salineno on the Rio Grande River. Landowners who have participated in the VLF contest have set aside land in conservation easements, such as for the wildlife corridor project now underway in the lower Rio Grande Valley, to make sure, for example, that ocelots and mountain lions aren't stuck on small parcels enveloped by cropland. Area businesses and individuals have contributed huge amounts of money to make this all happen.

 

I don't see wildlife photography ever rivaling golf, but I do know there was a time not many decades ago when there was no big money in golf. The popularity of the PGA and LPGA have definitely resulted in far more resources being devoted to golf, and the same could be true, on a smaller scale, for wildlife and wildlife photography. I know too that when the Martins and others started the VLF contest, few of us would have bet a dime on the project succeeding as it did.