The Rule Of Not Interfering

I have recently watched several documentary movies where The Rule Of Not Interfering played a role. I'll give two examples:

 

<p>

 

The first one was a Discovery Channel documentary about "everyday life" of a family of meerkats in the Kalahari desert. One evening, a young female meerkat got stranded by a jackal. The film crew left the site, and the narrative went like "This is a bad situation. We will see in the morning." And see they did. The meerkat was back with her family, but sufferend from an internal wound. She tried to chew some insects, but gave up - apparently because of pain. The other family members tried to comfort her, licked her blood-stained fur, curled up at her. Finally, the meerkat crawled away and died, slowly, in pains. (The film crew was sympathetic, but this probably didn't ease the animal's suffering.)

 

<p>

 

Another example was a BBC documentary about lions. A female lion died of starvation and wounds. Her three little cubs tried to wake her up, but found it impossible and crawled away. The narrative went "They have no chance to survive. We [the crew] would like to help, but we can not interfere - we are here to make a documentary." (Perhaps, if somebody else had been there besides the crew, he/she could have taken the cubs to a wildlife refuge.)

 

<p>

 

These (and other) documentaries left me puzzled over the rule of not interfering.

 

<p>

 

Where does the rule come from?

Is it considered natural not to help? (When helping is what you, naturally, want to do?)

How about endangered species? Does this rule apply, too?

For that matter, how about human? (Imagine somebody shooting a documentary on traffic accidents. And never interfering.)

(So, where is the line?)

 

<p>

 

Thank you for any comments, opinions and enlightment on the rule.

I believe the rule of non-interference is rooted in the "hand of man" ethos, that as humans (photographers, videographers, researchers, etc.), we are observing a natural environment that we are alien to. To participate in any way, shape or form in the environment or ecosystem is to subvert the natural process. In the case of the meerkat and jackal, the incident would occur whether the film team was there, or not. For the film team to attempt to prevent the incident, or help the meerkat afterwards, is to insert themselves as members of the ecosystem, providing unnatural assistance.

 

<p>

 

What about the rodents the meerkats hunted? Should the film team have stopped that predation to save the horror of a rodent family member coming back to the den missing a leg? In the natural environment, every species is both predator and prey, including humans.

 

<p>

 

It doesn't matter whether you're talking about endangered or abundant species. Human intervention in a natural environment creates an unnatural environment.

 

<p>

 

Just as the meerkat family attempted to help the wounded meerkat to any extent possible, we, as humans provide the same assistance to wounded members of the human race, in our ecosystem.

In fairness to the documentary producers, there may not have been any reasonable chance of saving the young lions. Wildlife rehabers exist in Africa, but if you are a two day drive from the nearest road much less city, and do not have a supply of milk... Are you in a park, is it even legal to intervene? Do you drop everything, or do you make your movie. Do you make an up front and sometimes wrenching choice to be an observer of the natural world, or do you intervene and once you start intervening where do you stop? Do you worm your subjects? Do you shoot them with tranquilizers and drag them to a vet when they get injured? Do the tranquilizers kill them after two days, or are they accepted back into their social group covered with human scent? Probably so on either count, but these are not always easy questions and the answers are probably not flippantly arrived at.

 

<p>

 

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is something you have to think about also, the mere fact of observation changes the observed phenomenon. With wildlife, I have observed that it quite often does. Did the jacal come because of the meerkats or was it drawn by the camera crew? Or for that matter, were four other jackals repelled by the presence of the crew?

 

<p>

 

Nature clearly does not care about the individual, nor for that matter the species. I'll bet you the film makers care very deeply about the animals they are working with on a daily basis for months at a time and that it is a hell of a lot less easy for them to watch nature take its course than it is for us with a full hour invested. If you do save the lion cubs, do you consign them to a life of captivity? Are there zoos that want them? With endangered species do you have clearance from the wildlife agencies involved to handle them?

Personally, I shoot stills and when I can, I do intervene by taking wounded birds in for treatment. But, I would not intervene in most predator prey situations. I feel they are nature taking its course which is what I am there to experience and if I stop the predator from killing, have I hurt it? My personal answer is yes. But, I hesitate to judge others since I do not know their situations.

Joe:

 

<p>

 

We humans change our world by our mere existence, our knowledge, technology, industry, etc. (E.g,, some pollution travels worldwide.) Considering this, I can't help seeing the rule of not interfering as - at least - outdated. And a film crew's attitude appears in media, i.e. it is promoted. (Admittedly, in both cases the narratives clearly indicated that the crew indeed did not enjoy the animal's suffering and were rather distressed by it.)

 

<p>

 

I am not sure that we humans are essentially alien to nature.

 

<p>

 

Steve:

 

<p>

 

You are right with the practical questions. (Some are being solved by wildlife conservationists, e.g. transporting animals without actually touching them, etc.) It's interesting that you don't mind taking birds for treatment, but not predators. Breaking the rule of not interfering seems to be a common practice, so again, isn't it outdated...?

 

<p>

 

Thank you both for your answers.

I look at it from an evolutionary standpoint. If you interfere with a starving lion, and feed and nurse her back to strength, then you are theoretically interfering with the evolutionary process of <b>Natural Selection</b>. In theory, only hardy lions will survive a drought. Consequently, the lion gene pool will become more resistant to drought over the millenia.

<p>

When you save a lion that should have otherwise died, you are actually harming lions <i>as a whole</i>. In theory, of course.

I think it's more of a practical issue than an ethical one. Most of

the time there just isn't anything you can do to "save" the animal.

Certainly most wildlife photographers aren't vets, nor are they

experienced in catching wild animals, nevermind injured wild

animals. If they did catch it, what would they do with it? Out

in Africa, the nearest vet might be hundreds of miles away.

 

<p>

 

Of course there is also an ethical issue of letting "nature take

it's course", but I know of plenty of examples of wildlife

photographers and film makers assisting an animal when it was

possible to do so safely and when there was a reasonable

possibility that the actions would actually help the animal.

 

<p>

 

There is no "rule". It's up to each individual to decide in each

case whether an action is likely to do more harm than good, or

in some cases, if the action is legal as well as ethical. Most of

the time a "hands off" policy is probably the right way to go, but

sometimes it might not be.

i can feel the hate mail coming already...

 

<p>

 

why do we stop the "let them die becasue of natural selection" mantra at humans? we take special care of humans that are born "different", weather it be a physical or mental handicap. do lions to that? no. we take special care of humans that can't (or won't) take care of themselves, even ones with no hadicap. (welfare, at least in the US) do lions to that? no.

 

<p>

 

wouldn't humans <i>as a whole</i> be better if those humans died, leaving only the 'strong' ones? (in theory)

 

<p>

 

--------------

 

<p>

 

if saving a wounded animal messes up the ecosystem, then saving a wounded (or otherwise unable to care for themself) human does as well.

No hate mail from me, Sean. I often wonder the same thing. I think population control is even more important than expending a lot of resources to preserve seriously disfunctional humans. 5 billion people and counting...

 

<p>

 

Look at wolf packs -- only the alpha male & female are *allowed* to breed. Wolf packs, as I understand, don't experience overcrowding, self-inflicted habitat devastation, AFDC, <g>.

I thought Social Darwinism had died out with the Nazis!? Humans interfere with Nature in so many bad ways, I can't see any harm in trying to interfere in some beneficial way like saving a wounded lion.

It should be remembered that in death there is life. The death of the mother lion and her cubs means food for some scavanger and its young. Presumably it also means less hunting pressure for the prey of the lion and also less competition for other predators.

 

<p>

 

Yes, it is hard to see death in this way, however, it is natural.

To disturb a nesting bird for the purpose of a photograph would be "unethical". That's where a "rule of not interfering" would come into play. There's quite a difference between that and what you ask.

 

In the case of the meer-cats, I'm reasonably sure if a wildlife clinic or vet had been close at hand they may have tried to help, but only after the jackal unsuccessfully attempted the catch. But in the middle of the Kalahari, there's probably not many clinics close at hand.

 

<p>

 

And lions? Catching two or three wild lion cubs without being experienced at handling them would be akin to jumping in a blender. If two had tried, that would leave one to drive his/her partners to the hospital, which probably would have been far off also. Ever try to catch a little kitten that was half wild? Imagine the kitten the size of a lion cub!

 

<p>

 

Jana, Steve didn't say he wouldn't try and help the predator if it were injured, only that he wouldn't interfere in a predator/prey situation.

 

<p>

 

I personally see nothing "unethical" about helping a wounded animal. Wounded animals are helped all the time, even by photographers. You of course would need to exercise a lot of common sense. To interfere in a predator/prey situation could be detrimental to the predator. Interfering in a predator/prey situation, or helping a wounded predator could be detrimental to the rescuer.

Once while in the Mountains of the Gila National forest I came across

an owl lying along the road. Thinking that he was dead I stopped to

look at him. I reached down to pick him up and as I did so he turned his head and looked right in my eyes. He did not just seem unaffraid

of me, but he seemed to know that it was in my power to help him.

 

<p>

 

I put him in a box, and took him to the nearest phone. After several calls I located a place about 200 miles away where he would have been well taken care of and returned to the wild if possible. The only problem was that as a "protected" species it was unlawfull for me to

even pick him up let alone transport him. I called the State Police

to get special permission to transport him and was denied. They told me that if I was caught I would loose my car, be jailed, fined, etc.

 

<p>

 

As I took him back to a location close to where I found him, I felt that

I was being denied my God given responsibility to help.

He had been hit by a car, [ not a natural occurance ], he was not very badly injured, and he was very willing for me to help.

 

<p>

 

Humans are for all intents and purposes " Gods" to all other living creatures. We are however not able to admit this power to ourselves.

The responsibility of it scares us so much we make up weird laws and

rules to abdicate our power. We get into long discussions about whether we should pick a leaf so we can make a better picture,

while insects and animals by the thousands are being smashed by

our unfeeling misguided automobiles. We decide that hunting is

inhumane because it is convenient and easy. At the same time we turn a blind eye to the carcasses littering our highways because it is inconvienient to look.

 

<p>

 

I believe that God has put us here in part to be stewards to this earth

and it's creatures. My heart tells me what I should do.

Doesn't yours?

It's best not to ask. I have illegally taken animals to rehab centers and I have also illegally rehabed a couple of animals myself. Asking for permission gets you wrapped in so much red tape it will do nobody

any good. Most rehab centers won't ask questions. They will be glad

to accept injured animals. They will also be glad to give advice, again without asking questions. The state authorities are the LAST people to contact in these circumstances.

Help where you can and accept the rest.

I believe this "rule of not interfering" comes strongly from the journalist/photojournalist view of reporting the world. The goal is to report and not influence or alter what happens, supposedly making the photojournalist and reporter more objective and accurate by not getting caught up in what is happening. In nature photography we try to capture on film what happens as natural history, not as manipulated images. But, just as in news work, the act of being there has an effect on the subjects. Just as demonstrators sit & wait until newscrews show up to get going and then posture for the cameras way too often, so do various animals alter their normal behavior in ways subtle to very obvious when the unfamiliar man & camera are in the area. We try to keep from interfering but our very presence betrays us.

Generally I try to keep from altering anything if possible. But just as it is nearly impossible to keep from running to the aid of an injured child at the expense of the image it is almost impossible to sit back and impassionately record suffering in the animal world as well. But, sometimes the "help" does more harm and lack of knowledge of the subject only makes it worse. Here at Bear River Refuge we have well meaning people picking up 'injured' ducks and trying to put them in the water and help them. Trouble is, avian botulism is killing them and the helping efforts only serve to spread the disease by reintroducing the infected ducks into more areas. Knowing when doing nothing is the best help is difficult. We learn and occasionally make mistakes that haunt us,but we keep trying. To do less is to deny the feelings that attract many of us to wildlife photography and observation in the first place.

Wow.. I hadn't expected so many, and so inspiring, answers.

 

<p>

 

James Tarquin:

 

<p>

 

Not spoiling the gene pool is a pretty satisfying reason from both the rational and the emotional point of view ... I mean, it's pretty cool;)... I wonder if it comes to peoples minds in practice. One objection could be that natural selection is off trail anyway, as human activities have changed the global environment.

 

<p>

 

Bob Atkins:

 

<p>

 

Thanks for pointing out the practical issues, perhaps a more common reason for not interfering than ethics/ideology. That's OK - when you can't help, well you can't. (What upset me was that - certainly in the BBC movie - the explanation why the crew would not help sounded quite ideological.)

 

<p>

 

Sean Hester:

 

<p>

 

When a baby born heavily disabled is *maintained* alive, never achieving human consciousness, there is no hope and it's often just for the sake of doctors' vanity. But when a human being or an animal can regain a life of quality, or be prevented from losing such a life, then helping is not immoral.

 

<p>

 

Robert Henriksen:

 

<p>

 

Just in case you need a supporting voice... It is known and officially acknowledged that human overpopulation is *the* problem on our Earth, with a long list of acknowledged consequencies ranging from hunger and poverty to increasing waste production and land degradation. (I wonder how about increase of violence, nationalism, etc., as another consequence - like too many rats in a lab cage?) However, overpopulation is also *the* touchy political and social issue.

 

<p>

 

David Parrish:

 

<p>

 

Another sad example of the gap between authorities and common sense. Nothing wrong if you act as a guerilla warrior then. (And you get a story to impress girls with;)

 

<p>

 

Thank you everybody for your answers.

I think we're just as much part of nature as any animal. If a lion happens to have genes that make it attractive enough for a human observer to save it from starvation, then it has an asset and should survive. Who is to say which way evolution is going, and on what time scale. The people that have the most children, for example, are usually not the most successful ones in a modern human society.

 

<p>

 

Ilkka

My personal worthless opinion is that the "interfering with natural selection" argument is kind of naive. It assumes that essentially every act of predation is an example of culling - that the prey individual was caught because of some inferior qualities (which must have a genetic basis in order for selection to work). In fact, there is a huge stochastic element to most interactions in nature. Quite often, healthy, genetically superior individuals get caught by predators - they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Natural selection just says that, on average, individuals that die without reproducing will be of poorer genetic quality than those individuals that live longer and reproduce more. Second, for most species, the number of predator/prey interactions that humans could actually exert some effect on is probably tiny compared to the total number of such interactions actually occurring, so the overall effect of interfering with one is insignificant. Finally, applying the same selection argument to humans (social Darwinism) is even a little more naive. Should individuals be denied eyeglasses, vaccinations, or any of thousands of other medical interventions that alter the end effect of having faulty genes? There's a huge continuum here between individuals with massive genetic defects and those with minimal ones - who's going to draw the line? My purely pragmatic take on the issue of intervening in nature is that if you wish to act to save the life of one individual animal, and can do so legally and practically, you haven't harmed NATURE or her processes (selection) in the least. But as Dan suggests, doing the right thing is not always obvious. Here in Florida, its not uncommon to see well-meaning but naive people throwing gopher tortoises into ponds and wetlands after they have found them crossing a road somewhere!!

In response to a couple private e-mails on this one where you aren't brave enough to leave your correct address. Yes, sometimes interfering with nature is called for and yes, sometimes your attempts screw stuff up in ignorance. But no, slapping mosquitoes doesn't seem to have any effect at all that I can tell as the damn things seem to be getting bigger and more bloodthirsty all the time no matter how we try to keep them at bay.

about "...natural selection is off trail anyway, as human activities have changed the global environment."

 

<p>

 

who says human activities are unnatural? most stories of natural selection ("aardvark's long/thin tounge so he can get at ants", girraffe's long leck so he can get leaves from taller trees", etc...) are about animals that adapt to changing environments. so... if humans are cutting down trees then animals that can adapt to that change (less trees) will be "naturally selected".

 

<p>

 

i'm not saying that chopping down lots of trees is "good". but that doesn't make chopping down trees "unnatural" does it? (at least in my mind) trying to pair good=natural, bad=unnatural seems non-sequiter to me.

 

<p>

 

i usually define "natural" as something that happens more or less by it's own arccord, without interference. but it seems lots of people define "natural" as something that happens without HUMAN involvement or interference. these seem to be close definitions, but they lead to wildly different assements in many things. for example. humans want to get places fast. so they build a road to get there. so the building of the road seems "natural" to me. but according to the 2nd definition that would be the height of "unnatural". maybe i need to adopt the "newer better" definition. what word would i then use for "something that happens more or less by it's own arccord, without interference."?

Peter May writes:

>Here in Florida, its not uncommon

>to see well-meaning but naive people throwing gopher tortoises into >ponds and

>wetlands after they have found them crossing a road somewhere!!

 

<p>

 

er . . . what's wrong with that? Are these particular tortoises

"hydrophobic"?

Terry, I hope you are joking (but fear you are not). Tortoises are strictly

terrestrial reptiles. Throwing one into the water is about the same

as throwing a lizard into the water, except I think most lizards

can swim whereas I'm not at all sure any tortoises can! Turtles (which resemble tortoises) are aquatic reptiles and like the water just fine.

 

<p>

 

Let's hope you haven't "rescued" any tortoises recently...

Bob:

Thanks. Obviously my knowledge of tortoises is

well, non existent. Fortunately you got to me before

I attempted to rescue any! Now, I am not at all sure

I can tell a turtle from a tortoise . . .

(Hey, I DID rescue a little snake just yesterday. . .

meaning I herded him/her off the road. No, I did not

dump him in the nearby ocean!)

I'm not sure exactly what the defining differences are between tortoises and turtles. Turtles tend to have flatter shells and tortoises tend to have dome-shaped shells, but that's maybe

just a matter of degree in some cases. Turtles also have webbed hind feet in most cases, whereas tortoises don't, and their hind feet tend to be elongated (helps them to swim), rather than "stumpy". Tortoises are also herbivors, but that won't be much use unless the critter you

pick up to rescue takes a bite out of you (if it does, it's probably a turtle!).

I think Bob Atkins hit this one on the head in his first reply when he said it's largely a practical issue. While I think many of the idealistic rationales put forth are worthy of discussion, we may not even need to go there. If you're filming a herd of thousands of hoofed mammals crossing a plain, there may be hundreds or thousands of individuals in that herd who are at that moment in some distress. Can you put down your camera and run madly through the herd administering aid to hundreds of raindeer to insure their survival? If you can't, does that mean you can't in good conscience stop and observe the herd to photograph them?

 

<p>

 

As a biologist I am often disappointed to observe audiences of highly educated, well-meaning lay-people observing talks about wildlife biology and responding emotionally to the talk in ways that are inappropriate. The anecdote about throwing tortises into ponds is a beautiful illustration of the point. On my recent volunteer shift at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, I was talking with a visitor about various and sundry whale happenings in the area when the subject of a recent publized Orca attack on a group of Gray Whales came up. She made a sour face and said something about not wanting to see that, while I was thinking just the opposite, how badly I wished to witness such a rare spectacle of nature. While I understand her sentiment, I couldn't suppress the thought I've had from time to time that appreciation of nature among even the upper middle class of educated Americans is in some ways dangerously sugar-coated. I don't want to rub people's faces in the harshness of natural life, but it's not wonderful to pick sides in nature, choosing to love and protect the cute Gray Whales while choosing to allow the evil Great White Shark (another frequent visitor to our coast) to be hunted.

 

<p>

 

This particularly affects us nature photographers, as people like Galen Rowell and John Gerlach have written articles protesting the fact that most of their really good nature shots depict battered, bloodied, and otherwise imperfect animals, and they cannot sell these shots. I too find these shots the most interesting, but I guess it'll be a while before the public is ready for them. Overall, then, I'm glad to see that these documentaries the original writer was questioning are refusing to sugar coat nature by making sure all the "animal dramas" they show have a happy ending.