What are some practical advice for being ethical with your Nature Photography?

<p>As someone who is getting more and more into nature and wildlife photography, I find myself in situations where I am interacting a lot with nature and animals. I was reading this <a href="https://www.photoblog.com/learn/11-wildlife-photography-tips/">article on wildlife photography</a> tips and one of the sections is dedicated to Ethics in Nature Photography.</p>

<p><br /> I have heard of all sorts of things that some photographers do to get a stunning shot (taking the animals out of their nest or drugging them!). These are obviously wrong, but I wonder if most of us are unknowingly being unethical while perusing our passions.</p>

<p><br /> What are some practical advice you give to nature or wildlife photographer?</p>

<p>I disagree with the premise that <em>".....most of us are unknowingly being unethical while perusing our passions." </em>I've never been acquainted with a nature photographer who was not acutely aware of the environment and their responsibility in it. That responsibility doesn't start and stop with a camera: it is a way of life and a world view. </p>

<p>Respect nature. It's not there FOR people, and it's not there because of people. We didn't create it but we have the means to destroy it. Be responsible for yourself out there. Don't trash it, don't hurt it.</p>

<p>Learn and understand the "nature" you want to photograph. If it's wildlife, learn about the animals. Learn about their behavior, habits, and way of life. The more you know about your subject, the better photographer you will be. You will learn to position yourself in places where you will most likely come away with good photographs. If you want to photograph subjects in the landscape, like trees, then spend a lot of time in that landscape and learn how it changes across the seasons. </p>

<p>Learn to be still and quiet. Learn how to be observant. Sometimes, frequently, the best shots are taken from inside the car. Never, never ever harass an animal. It can end with tragic results for the animal. You can get hurt also. A blind can be a very good thing, but not always practical. </p>

<p>Personally, I don't agree with the statements in the linked article about making eye contact. Doing so can put humans at the center of interest instead of nature. If you wait for an animal to look right at you for a good photograph, you may miss other far more interesting behavior. That's not to say that eye contact is bad, I just don't think it should be the only goal. </p>

<p>Learn about the gear that you will need in order to photograph the nature you're interested in. Learn how to use that gear for the best results. </p>

<p>Be silent, walk softly, and carry a sharp lens.</p>

<p>A wonderful statement from Laura. The only thing I can add is that learning about your subject, as she suggests, is invaluable in knowing when your actions might be causing stress, whether that stress is fear in an animal or destruction of delicate vegetation.</p>

<p>+1 for Laura's comment. Well said.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have heard of all sorts of things that some photographers do to get a stunning shot (taking the animals out of their nest or drugging them!). These are obviously wrong, but I wonder if most of us are unknowingly being unethical while perusing our passions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I run into and photograph with other nature photographers very often. My experience is that very very few are unethical.</p>

<p>First, I want to say that I don't think Mark was suggesting that most nature photographers were unethical as much as being introspective about the possibility that our goal for a good image might cloud our objective judgments.<br>

Second, I think Laura said it pretty much perfectly.<br>

Third, I'd just argue for common sense and listening to your ethical brain. Some of the stuff you mention is just beyond the pale and obviously wrong. Other things are subtle. For instance, if I'm photographing wildlife and experience behavior that even remotely suggests anxiety, nervousness, aggressiveness, etc. I back off immediately "for the sake of the animal." I know I have missed getting some great images that way, but I am very comfortable that is the right decision. Others would argue with me on that, but I think they are wrong.<br>

In summary, if you start feeling the slightest sense that you might be doing something bad for nature, assume that you are and stop.</p>

<p>How about ethics toward other nature photographers? I see abuses all the time. The field is exploding and there are tons of noob wildlife photographers with no clue how to act. i'm glad to see the OP asking the question. Where I shoot, it can be a problem.</p>

<p>Here's an example where I screwed up a few weeks ago. A friend and I were shooting white-tail bucks at pre-dawn, Unknowingly, we cut-off a photographer that had set up his tripod on the expected path of the bucks, hiding behind a Russian olive tree. I only saw him after my friend and I got several nice shots. I should have looked for other photographers, but it hadn't crossed my mind before dawn. We went over and apologized profusely and he seemed to genuinely accept our apology. </p>

<p>When you see a photographer working a buck or a great blue heron, DO CUT IN! If I see you, I'll normally invite you to join, if you haven't shown yourself to be a dumb-ass in the past, but wait until I acknowledge you and motion to invite you. If I'm blazing away at 10-fps, don't run up beside me or even in front of me. People, do that kind of stuff.</p>

<p>If I'm shooting from my car-blind, in a superior position, don't pull your car-blind in front of me! As my subject moves, I want to move, unimpeded. </p>

<p>Would you believe birders seeing me under my throw-over hide walking up and asking me what I'm shooting? It's happened.</p>

<p>I think there's a fine line between tracking or following wildlife and pressuring. With bucks, I'll try to out-flank them and wait. Don't follow them on the deer trail. If they trot, tail-up, you've spooked them Wait and they may calm down, but don't press ahead.</p>

<p>How about a great horned owl flying from tree-to-tree? The first spooking is usually an accident because you often don't see a GHO until it flies. Try to get into shooting position by not looking at the owl and moving to a spot where you hope to have a clear shot. Flank, don't go direct. If you spook it again, lay off. If it looks straight at you and its posture is relaxed, you're okay. It actually probably thinks that you don't see it. If it stretches itself up tall, it's concerned that you've seen it, so don't get closer and actually back off to see if it'll relax again. If I, leave it.</p>

<p>Baiting, seeding are absolute no, nos . Even deer shouldn't be baited in my view, although many hunters do that. I think that it can create a dependency and lead to unnatural behavior. I'm on the fence about bird feeders, for the same reasons. I don't shoot birds on feeders, although if it were something really rare for the region, I'd probably document it. Generally, ALL wild animals are well equipped to feed themselves. If they starve, that's part of the cycle of life. Their deaths will lead to the feeding of other struggling species.</p>

<p>When areas are closed, honor the signage. Usually the sign will explain the reasoning, like an eagle nesting, etc.</p>

<p>That's just a few things. The OP can search around and find some good articles, but I'd hope that we can get more contributions here. There a so many noob nature and wildlife photographers that I think that this is a real problem, that we need to talk about openly.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>So well expressed, Laura.<br /> I will add my mantra while traveling anywhere off the beaten track, whether to photograph or not, is 'leave only your footprints'. I know the OP is asking about animal etiquette specifically but to seek out these elusive creatures we must also enter their realm. Always leave it as you found it, or better, if you can carry out someone else's indiscretion. <br /> I have no experience at all with sharing my space as David Stephens writes as I have never encountered another photographer while canoeing and camping inland but I do have lots of experience with people getting into my shot at popular tourist attractions or trying to imitate what I'm doing once they study me for a bit. That's human nature, for better or worse. Very recently I waited patiently for the sun to sink for about an hour, tripod aimed at a rock formation in Utah's Monument Valley, only to then have a young family run out and climb a boulder directly in my path about 15' away for a series of selfies and family combinations featuring the distant formation I'd scouted. I was stunned at first but then just moved my rig to miss them. Once I would have confronted them and they would probably have been very apologetic, not realizing what they'd done, but now I have acquired a new wisdom and patience and belief in karma - if I allow these incidents to wash over me maybe I won't misplace my keys or forget my email passwords as often? It's still in the trial stage.<br /> In this wildlife shot I lowered the window and carefully matched the walking speed of the beast with the pressure on my brake pedal as I masterfully one-handed a 3 1/2 lb rig at full arm's length with one eye on the road and one eye on the subject.<br>

Of course, I have 50 years of experience to rely on.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Simplified, respect the natural world and practice common courtesy.</p>

<p>Nice one, Gup.</p>

<p>Here's my technique: stop the car, hold camera to eye, adjust zoom to fill frame, then shoot:</p>

<p><a title="Big Bison Bull" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5297/29472559024_9c88b7a85c_b.jpg" alt="Big Bison Bull" width="1024" height="683" /></a></p>

<p>Since that article includes several squirrel shots that are considered Nature Photography subjects I don't know how anyone can avoid having the critters not appear "baited" for the shot. The only time they stop to be photographed (seeing they don't eat on the run) is when they've got something in their paws either examining it or eating it. So if I happen to take a shot of a squirrel who found a peanut I'm disbarred from the society of nature photographers as unethical even though I didn't give the squirrel the peanut. How does one even tell in a nature photo if a subject has been baited? Is there some kind of forensic nature photographer ethics investigator? Get the shot and leave nothing but footprints behind. That's the only rule you need.</p>

<p>You want people to see your nature photos, right? Not win some kind respect for nature ethics award. There are far more hits on YouTube of people engaging in various ways with animals that clearly don't follow any ethical rules for photographing nature.</p>

<p>So it begs the question what audience are nature photographers aiming for that would appreciate the ethics used to show their passion for nature? I can assure you it's going to be a very small group and even then they wouldn't be able to prove whether ethical standards were used to get the shot. The very act of photographing animals in the wild is an intrusion on wildlife's territory so I see all this rule making as an unintentional setup for making photographers hypocrites.</p>

<p>Oh, and it's funny this thread would pop up after I was attacked by what I'ld have to call a mentally ill male Chinese Goose he and I like to get into fights as I move into his territory of young female ducks. One of them came up to my feet as if seeking protection from this crazy bird as he kept biting me over and over on my legs to where I just gave him my arm so he could get his frustrations out as I reached down to see why a normally skittish duck would come up to my feet voluntarily as I was being attacked by the goose.</p>

<p>In this case I'm the bait, but I wasn't going to photograph him. See the bruises below which were much worse yesterday when I was at my local park.</p><div></div>

<p>I try hard to behave ethically towards nature photographers. When they block the road in Rocky Mountain NP to photograph elk, often moving onto the grass to get as close to the elk as possible (two violations of Park rules), I do not shoot them or run them over with my car. I mean the photographers, not the elk.<br>

I think shooting them or running them down is ethical, but only after a trial. I'm a big believer in our criminal justice system.</p>

<p>I don't care about any Nature Photography ethics if it prevents me from engaging in and shooting animals. Life is too short for having to maintain those kind of rules as a photographer.</p><div></div>

<p>Ethics and morale behavior is not to protect the practitioner, but to help those that interface with them. That can be other people/photographers and that can be our furry, feathered and scaled subjects.</p>

<p>Would I take a picture of a squirrel with a peanut? Probably not. Not because I'd think it's unethical to take the picture, but because I want pictures of squirrels doing wild things, not eating peanuts. Is baiting a squirrel unethical? In Boston Commons, I'd say no, because the squirrel expect it after generations of living that way. I'd say yes in a national wildlife refuge, because the squirrels there know how to live off the land and shouldn't be given a taste of our peanuts.</p>

<p>Marc, that's interesting about RMNP, because pulling off is indeed against the rules, but the rangers actually support it in most places and sometimes provide traffic control. Colorado's state park and wildlife department has rules against approaching a bald ealge closer than 500-yards. Do they have any idea how far that is? Most of us can't see an eagle that far away. Anyway, the rangers in the state parks are realistic and reasonable. Such a wide berth is only needed for nesting eagles, which is reasonable. Still, that's an ethical dilemma. I've spoken to rangers about it and they tend to be understanding, but they are all individuals and may interpret their role differently,</p>

<p>As they say, “take only pictures, leave only footprints” should be the motto.<br /> <br /> With wild animals, the "eye-contact" better be through the long telephoto lens. Very often the animal is intrigued by the clicking sound, hence an opportunity to catch it "looking at you". More importantly for wildlife photography, the light should be right so there is a catch light in the eye(s). <br /> <br /> Baiting is not recommended for a variety of reasons.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I want pictures of squirrels doing wild things...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Like what? Lounging flat on their belly on a tree or ground? 100's of shots of that already. Hanging on the side of tree? Too many to count for that.</p>

<p>To get to the point what other ways are there to make an original nature shot of an animal than from far away using a long lens so you don't scare them off. And no one in their right mind will go up close to a bear or buffalo to get close and personal which will again create a contrived, unoriginal shot at best. </p>

<p>The more the process used to make something is restricted with rules, the less distinction is made from the rest applying the same rules and process. It's a perfect recipe for mediocrity. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Baiting is not recommended for a variety of reasons.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Still no one has answered my question concerning how one would tell by examining a photo of a wild animal whether it was baited especially considering how many versions can be rattled off with one shot chosen that conceals this fact.</p>

<p>What are these rules for if you can't tell if anyone is following them and/or concealing their infraction through post processing? </p>

<p>Tim, the point is that we shouldn't bait, it's not, how do we identify baiting after the fact.</p>

<p>Still, if you see corn on the ground in an oak forest, you might deduce that it's bait. Ten peanuts under a hickory tree are probably bait. One might ask, "is it unethical to shoot a subject that someone else has bait?" I think not. I wouldn't show the bait in the image. It's not that different than shooting a deer in a corn field. If there are deer and a corn field, the deer will try to enjoy the corn. Still, some might chose might chose not to shoot at a baited site, in fact, some might clean up the bait. I guess it's an individual choice.</p>

<p>You've already said that your life is too short for you to be follow ethical "rules". Just know, I'm not going to cut you any slack the next time you walk up underneath an eagle's hunting perch and shoot up his butt, driving it off, while the rest of us arewaiting along the waterside, at an appropriate distance, trying to get the shot as it sinks it's talons into a pike. I'll be calling the rangers. </p>

<p>I guess that brings up another question, how far do we go when we see someone stressing an animal inappropriately, or disrespecting fellow photographers. I think that the equipment in use is a useful indicator. Someone with a compact superzoom is likely a noob. At most, I point out to them what they were doing wrong. i might grumble to myself and say nothing. Advice can usually be given if you engage in conversation before jumping into the offense. OTOH, someone with a super-telephoto on a Gitzo tripod, should probably know better. I will definitely talk to them. If it's a second offense, I'll call the rangers.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What are these rules for if you can't tell if anyone is following them and/or concealing their infraction through post processing?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You probably can't. Hwvr, you also CAN because there is usually a pattern of behavior. A baiter usually baits not once, but always. Hence has a reputation. <br /><br />Also, experienced wildlife photographers know how certain situations are in the wild. Unless one is really lucky, there are certain [excellent] photos that are not likely to be possible.</p>

<p>Another ethical situation is adding or removing elements in an image for artistic reasons. One example, that I occasionally do, is cloning out twigs and branches that distract in a perched bird image. I think that's perfectly fine, so long as I'm not entering it in a contest that doesn't allow that. If I'm selling the image, I have no qualms about modifying it, but if I'm competing with other photographers, then we all need a level playing field.</p>

<p>I recently saw an ad about how to take better pictures with you iPhone. It had a dusk shot with a rising moon all blown out of proportion to the foreground and couldn't possibly have been taken at one focal length in one shot. If someone were selling it, I wouldn't buy it, but I know that lots of potential buyers would love it enough to buy. I think that most buyers expect artistic license. The iPhone advertisement would only be possible with multiple images, but maybe part of the course would show people how to do that.</p>

<p>Anyway, I think that artistic license is part of photography. Some of us have almost not tolerance for anything that veers from what we saw. OTOH, some do an incredible job of digitally painting their images, some of which are truly stunning. I'm in the middle of the continuum, nearer to printing what I saw, but with a tiny bit of extra pop, knowing that's what sells.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You've already said that your life is too short for you to be follow ethical "rules"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I did say that. Rules decided by other people who have no basis or authority on establishing what is and isn't ethical in photography.</p>

<p>And rules that can't be verified whether they're followed or not so it is without purpose or teeth to enforce. This is really about a small group of individuals deciding for others what is considered ethical nature photography when they have no authority on what ethical should encompass in capturing the "defining moment" since as I'll say again, no one is going to know the difference looking for it in a still image very few people are going to see.</p>

<p>It just smacks of self importance and a bit high and mighty applying rules that can unnecessarily and needlessly shame a photographer without any way of proving whether rules were broken. It almost sounds like some religious cult or Spanish Inquisition type self appointed steering committee no one voted in getting to define what is considered creative photography for capturing nature.</p>

<p>There are no rules in photography. If it looks good and it hasn't been seen before, that's all that matters. No one is going to know what was done to get those kind of results.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A baiter usually baits not once, but always. Hence has a reputation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You have no facts or evidence to prove that, so I don't know where you're getting your information from.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I'm selling the image, I have no qualms about modifying it, but if I'm competing with other photographers, then we all need a level playing field.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The results should be the leveler and that's determined by sales or the subjective judgement of an appraiser not one photographer has control over so there's no field to level because it doesn't exist.</p>

<p>Even if you didn't win in a competition by following some made up rules, you'ld still blame the judges. That has nothing to do with following rules.</p>

<p>We're back to square one coming up with excuses to have rules in photography. Rules are for contests. So now the focus is not on creating compelling photos but for winning contests decided by self appointed people no photographer has a clue about.</p>

<p>In a photo contest, you need a consistent set of rules. If those rules include no adding or removing of objects from the image, then I feel that we should abide by the rules. There may be a dollar prize, so that will be the "sales". Sales on the open market is a totally different mater, where it's up to the artist to "interpret" the image. If I cloned out some limbs and the buyer asks, then I'll say, "Oh yeah, I cloned out a few limbs." I don't feel a need to say anything if not asked and let the work speak, but I wouldn't lie. Some may feel uneasy in not disclosing cloning or adding elements, but that doesn't bother me personally.</p>

<p>Ethics are "rules" in life about how we treat others, including animals and sites. Many, many people are not ethical, but most are, or try to be. That's what we're talking about here. Do we stress animals to get a shot? Do we step in front of other photographers because we arrived late? Do we take a picture of a balanced rock and push it over so no one else will ever see it? Do we handle a week old fawn? Do we chase owls all over the woods? Do we right-click someone else's image off Flickr and post it to GooglePlus as our own? Do we throw fish out into the water in hopes that an eagle will come grab it? I've seen or heard of others crossing all of these "boundaries" and I wouldn't do anything that I've listed. I'm afraid that we'll never totally agree about all of these things, but it is a good subject for discussion.</p>

<p>Excellent answer, Laura!</p>

<p>This is a somewhat different issue, but relates in a way. I was setting up to photograph some elk (in the North American sense) that were over 200 meters away. From past experience I knew that this elk herd was easily spooked.</p>

<p>I was being quiet and moving slowly to avoid spooking the animals, and now I had the 500mm lens and camera on the tripod and was about to start shooting . Of course a car pulled up and several people piled out, slamming their doors as they got out to see whatever I was photographing (which must have been interesting if I was using such a long lens).</p>

<p>The elk were <em>gone</em> and the people seemed to have no idea of what they had just done. I packed up and left as those elk were not going to be back for hours.</p>

<p>What would you have done? Is there any way to reasonably prevent such an occurrence or is this just unavoidable bad luck? Of course a wildlife photographer should know better, but most folks have no idea. The elk habitat in question is all private land so shooting from a public road is the only option.</p>