Human-animal interation: a crime or a right?

[hans_buchholdt]

Very interesting discussion, and I very much agree with Bob's last remark here. The countryside that surrounds me here has a natural carrying capacity population of wildlife. In the spring I can see Mtn Goats from my office window, its very much a crime to leave unsecured garbage out (garbage kills bears), Loons winter in the surf off shore in front my house. Eagles in the trees.

 

<p>

 

I made remark earlier about using common sense about appoaching wildlife, and I really think that's all one has to do. Let the interaction that happens (the animal knows your there) when your photographing them be your guide. No reason to be intrusive...the difference between nature photography and hunting. Brown bears (in my expericance) are appoachable to the distance of across a narrow stream, maybe 25 ft, but only if your passing eachother...giving eachother space where there isn't alot of space. Marine mammals are naturally curious...they will swim right up to your boat, especially kayaks. I've seen tourists do remarkable things though...like walk right up to a moose...I seriously doubt if these same people would walk up to a cow at a farm; for some people drasticlly misunderstand the natural world.

 

<p>

 

I've only had one run-in with Park authorities...that was at Denali, and all wanted to know was what my VW was doing at the end of the road (I had a permit). They can get nasty...I've learned though this discussion what some of the wider issues are.

[djuna_ivereigh]

Yes, what an interesting can of worms this is! It's mananging to keep us all indoors and away from corrupting the wildlife for a little while, anyway.

 

<p>

 

In response to Lyn, "It's so easy to be extremist, to encourage complete human isolation from certain areas and species..." This is my point exactly. I'm not suggesting we put wild critters under constant surveillance, chase them down, terrorize them, etc. Not by a long shot. But I am also concerned that the photographic community might totally recoil in the face of "extremist" criticism of our field by the likes of Bill McKibben. Yes, the least dangerous path through these thorny brambles would be to say, "I never approach wild animals. I never influence their activities at all." Which could only be true if the animals we photograph are never at all aware of our presence--a very unlikely scenario given the far keen senses of most animals.

 

<p>

 

Regarding Mark's comment about us all singing 'Kumbaya', well, I for one, don't know the words, but many cultures and individuals are very confident in their abilities to communicate with animals. Medicine men of the Black Elk Nation, when asked how they came to know about plant remedies, insist "Deer taught us." (See 'The Human/Animal Connection', ed. Randall Eaton). 'Kinship with All Life', written by J. Allen Boone in 1954 (long before meditation was 'hip') is all about how the author learned to see beyond the physical self--from a dog. From there, Boone goes on to commune with earthworms, converse with house flies, etc. etc.

 

<p>

 

I think Mark from Grafphoto put it well when he claimed the trouble starts when "we try to set 'boundaries' on our interaction with the natural world." I would say 'fixed boundaries' which I believe is what Mark is getting at. These boundaries are as changeable as the natural world, itself, dependent on species, individuals, mood swings, recent predator activity, recent human activity, and so forth. I believe we must all take full responsibility for being acutely sensitive to these boundaries and acting accordingly. This sort of thing is really impossible to write into legislature. Each instance is a case unto itself.

 

<p>

 

I understand Carlyn's disgust at changes we have witnessed in the last 25 years. I don't even go to Yellowstone anymore because it's to depressing. Believe it or not, I'm the one constantly haranguing people for hopping out of their cars, pushing little Johnny out to pose in front of a rutting bull elk. You'd think people would at least understand when it is their own safety, or worse yet, the safety of their children, that is at stake! But then again, I have to wonder if this ignorance doesn't in part stem from humanity's total isolation from animals. I get the feeling Americans think of national parks not unlike they think of Disneyworld: "Sanitized--for your safety."

 

<p>

 

Then again, I could also argue we've made great headway in recent times, too. It wasn't so long ago that national parks left garbage out to attract bears for the viewing pleasure of visitors.

 

<p>

 

I'm also seeing some internal inconsistency to Carlyn's arguments. One the one hand, she seems to speak out against human/animal interactions. Then again, she cherishes these experiences herself. Does she simply sit in one place, waiting for wildlife to come to her?

 

<p>

 

What if I swim alongside a green turtle, which is very capable of evading my company, but doesn't? Should I stop my "pursuit"? OK, maybe this green turtle lives in an area where divers are not uncommon. Maybe the turtle doesn't evade me because he is somewhat habituated. Does this diminish my experience with the turtle? No. Viewing a lion pacing an enclosure, is, however, a disturbing experience. This is a totally different situation, and not really within the realm of this discussion.

 

<p>

 

OK, now what if I belly crawl up to a bull seal, right next to the surf zone, where seals frequently evade one another, and this bull doesn't evade me? I'm sure I could have approached close enough so that it would have evaded me, or attacked, but I didn't. I recognized his boundary for personal space. I spent perhaps ten minutes there (though it's actually hard for me to tell--experiences like this suck my full attention into the moment, perhaps into 'seal time'). Then I turned to leave. End of story (I wish!).

 

<p>

 

With respect to Bob's comment that animal interaction is selfish, on the part of humans--I cannot speak on this with any authority. Ask an animal! I have witnessed what I interpret to be genuine curiosity on the part of some animals. Alaskan brown bears have been known to track and stake out the wildlife biologists that are supposedly tracking them. Well, maybe those bears are hungry, but I I haven't heard of any biologists being eaten (yet!).

 

<p>

 

But, as I've stated before, we have much to learn from animals. If we can benefit from them by hunting them, domesticating them, stealing their habitat to build condos, etc., what's wrong with benefitting from them in a far less intrusive way?

 

<p>

 

Granted, I'm not condoning pursuit of animals beyond their comfort zone, or when they are protecting nests, etc.. I'm really just seeking out a resonable middle ground. This might involve sticking my head out to play devil's advocate toward some of Bill McKibben's statements. As Hans remarked, it all boils down to "common sense".

[dan_smith]

Most of the animal/man interaction mentioned are the larger or "show" species. Every time any of us go anywhere to photograph there are hundreds of smaller and less popular animals we don't see but still have an effect on. Many wait til we pass and then resume their activities, just as they do when a fox, badger or coyote passes by. Others die as we trample their eggs, homes and young. Not all animals belong to the show species yet are even more complex and specialized so footprints can decimate a habitat. Where thousands visit Yellowstone they have done less damage than the Park Service in allowing the Elk population to skyrocket so all the trees are highlined. Yet we let the thousands in to see the animals that are managed so as to draw in those very thousands. Yes, we have an effect no matter what we do. But those who profess to care generally take the time to learn so we don't kill what we want to photograph. That works for the larger species as we see them. But do we see the damselfly or subspecies of worm or salamander we kill as we roll over a log. We can't stop having an effect, just hold it down. One real problem is that few editors will by a salamander or caddisfly photo while BHM(big hairy mammal) images are sold much more often.

A major problem is the Disneyfication of the animals. Too many tourists think the cute fawn is Bambi and push little Johnny to it to pet the deer. Then if Bambi's mom comes up & crushed little Johnny the park people would kill the deer for it. We have all been in the field and seen stupidity in action with photographers as well as tourists. The solution? I don't know, I wish I did. I just try to learn as much as possible and change what I do as I get more educated as to where I screw up. I don't want to kill what I like to photograph and watch. But I certainly would take a series of photos ofthe deer nailing little Johnny. After all, Death and injury are just another aspect of our wilderness experience.

[dan_smith]

One comment on why you might not like getting too close to elephant seals other than the fear of getting a ticket or getting squashed. This is from experience. Have you ever been close enough for one to breathe & slobber on you? They have the worst case of bad breath you have ever smelled. All the fish I guess.

[susan_pearson]

Everybody here seems knowledgeable and concerned with the environment.Now when was the last time you wrote your concerns about our diminishing environment to your senator and house rep?That'll have a real impact.Addresses;

hon. senator X,US Senate,Washington,DC 20510 and Rep.X,US house of Representatives,Washington,DC 20515

[hans_buchholdt]

For me that would be the Honorables Ted Stevens (chair, senate approprations), Frank Murkowski (chair, senate natural resources), Don Young (chair, house natural resources) :-o

[stanley_mcmanus]

While we photographers may at times threaten the animals we shoot I think our harm is very small compared to many other hobbies. The hobby/activity that I see as much more harmful is the keeping of pets. The local cats are decimating the wild bird population in our neighborhood. The scofflaw dog owners let their dogs run around in nesting areas in complete disregard for the leash laws and common sense. I have seen these stupid, morally challenged, yuppies actually call their dog's attention to a beaver or nesting KillDeer and root for the animal as it chances the poor wild animal off. If the dog doesn't catch the animal, they get all teary eyed about the mental damage done to the poor dog's ego.

[ray_ng]

What kind of interaction are we talking about?If it's the natural predator-prey , then there is nothing wrong . Human are not made to harm ,kill ,injure or keep any animal.I dont think its natural . Who are we to to call ourselves higher beings compared to them .We call ourselves better 'cos we use tools like no other animal. Have we ever thought that maybe some animals are far more advance that they dont need tools and they could survive very well on their own (WITHOUT HUMAN INTERFERENCE OF COURSE)

The human population is too high . When we breed animals for food ,in a way , we are changing the animal biologically and physically .These animals will hardly be able to survive like their ancesters used to.I have got pets myself but i feel bad keeping them , but if i let them go free , they arent going to survive very long.To me , if I were to keep a chicken or some edible fish , i would never kill it or even eat it . I don't feel comfortable eating an animal which i have raise and fed.

What i really like to say is that the way we are interacting with the animals right is totally unnatural . And the human population is pretty high and we better be careful before mother nature does her work .