The rise of digital camera had made it more possible than ever for all us of to take high quality photographs of wildlife. In some cases you can probably draw an analogy with tourists all taking the same photo of a famous landmark or monument. The difference with wildlife is that there is often some direct impact on the wildlife itself or more usually the habitat that it is found in.
One example is the glanville fritillary butterfly which is just about clinging on to the south coast. The location of a new colony, in a small area of grassland, was publicised online last year and many people (including me) went to look and photograph them. When it comes to invertebrates you have to get pretty close and that means walking on their habitat (and possibly them, their eggs and larvae).
Only one person needed to go and take photos but everyone wanted to. It may have had little or no impact but it has made me think twice about going out specifically to photograph something.
It creates an age old dilemma, where it is so positive that people are recording, enjoying and sharing wildlife but while so doing, may be unwittingly causing some damage.
I think part of the problem may be that the majority of people don't have more specialised equipment e.g. digi scopes or even long lenses and therefore have to get closer to the subject.
In another thread Wild Canon made a comment that when he takes flower photos how he is careful not to "garden" (e.g. snap off other vegetation in the way of the shot) so that the microhabitat around a plant can recover as quickly as possible.
I think it would be good if we could pull together some other useful tips for taking wildlife photography with minimal impacts.
Great idea for a thread. I think the most important is not to try and manipulate wildlife to get the perfect shot. For example with the butterflies, if they are not in a very good "pose" they should be left and not disturbed in the hope that they will move to a better position.
it can be quite fun getting yourself into a pose to make the most of the shot (this is always linked to getting dog poo somewhere on your body)
When using my tripod, i am always aware where i am placing the legs, and not just consentrating on the subject being photographed.
I remember that there was one particular orchid down south (i think monkey), that was unable to grow suitably because there were so many people coming to photograph it, the ground become too hard for any growth/spread of the plant.
That just goes to show that you need to be careful when out photographing; making sure not to disturb any wildlife, but getting that winning shot at the same time! It is very difficult to do that I think.
It's definitely a difficult skill, but very rewarding if you can get that perfect shot of a wild animal.
Andy, that's a good example of the problems with wildlife being over photographed, it's such a shame when that does happen.
This is a good one, analogous to the twitching question.
For myself, I avoid crowds and always consider the welfare of the subject above all else, but playing the Devil's Advocate, what is the point of preserving rare wildlife if we can't go and look at it.
There's a dichotomy here between those who are knowledgeable about the wildlife they photograph or watch and are careful to keep disturbance to a minimum, while there are others to whom the "tick" is everything and nothing must stand in the way.
If I'm visiting a new area, I do a lot of research on the wildlife to be found there, particularly the plants in the relevant season, but if I went to a particular site to photograph a plant, I would give it a miss if there were a lot of other folk already there and especially, I would not draw attention to a rare plant by photographing it when there are crowds around.
One lesson I learned very early in my wildlife watching days was that if I sat still and waited patiently, the wildlife would often come to me (not plants, of course, except triffids!). I find this especially when birding. It always amuses me how people come into a hide, look out of the window for a couple of minutes, then go away muttering that there's nothing to see. If they had stayed an hour or so like me, they would have seen a lot of interesting birds.
Patience seems to be a lost facility these days.
Richard
I'm glad you have contributed. You take photographs professionally which put you in a different category from most of the users of the forums. In many ways you are best placed to share your experiences and likely to have the best fieldcraft too.
What is the point of preserving rare wildlife if we can't go and look at it.
I am in a privileged position where I have access to rare wildlife and I do have to be careful that I don't abuse that position even if I can justify the access. It's a kind of "do what I say not what I do" position and I can see how that is open to criticism.
Obviously, the rarest wildlife is likely to be the most vulnerable to disturbance but it may be better to ask how can we expect people to care about wildlife if we prevent them from getting anywhere near it?
There's a dichotomy here between those who are knowledgeable about the wildlife they photograph or watch and are careful to keep disturbance to a minimum, while there are others to whom the "tick" is everything and nothing must stand in the way.
If I'm visiting a new area, I do a lot of research on the wildlife to be found there, particularly the plants in the relevant season, but if I went to a particular site to photograph a plant, I would give it a miss if there were a lot of other folk already there and especially, I would not draw attention to a rare plant by photographing it when there are crowds around.
there are two schools of thought:
1) keep quiet about rare wildlife, because if you tell people they will deliberately or accidentally destroy or remove the widlife
2) openly tell people because they are more likely to keep an eye out for the wildlife and gain an understanding of its importance
The problem with 1 is that if you don't tell people they may not care about the wildlife and may accidentally destroy it anyway.
Probably it is best to consider things on a case by case basis but I tend to lean towards the second school of thought. Ultimately, once you have educated people you have to trust them to act responsibly because everyone is a stakeholder in the natural world.
Patience seems to be a lost facility these days.
I agree wholehearted with this. I am not a patient person except ironically in these situations - because the wait is always worth it! Perhaps schools should have a patience hour - where children sit in silence before being rewarded.
I've always found that anticipation of seeing something always adds to the experience.
What a wonderful thread--I like musing about this subject, especially since here at home (Washington State) I have just come across a large colony (over 100 plants) of Rattlesnake Plantain, which just happens to be right next to a colony of Avalanche Lilies!
Both of these species are protected, and I have been in contact with a friend (met via my other favourite forum, BikeForums, who is a member of a rare plant conservation society in the area where I came across these plants. I furnished her group with the coordinates for the find, and it turns out that I have located previously unknown locations for these plants!
Kingfisher
What a wonderful thread--I like musing about this subject, especially since here at home (Washington State) I have just come across a large colony (over 100 plants) of Rattlesnake Plantain, which just happens to be right next to a colony of Avalanche Lilies!
Kingfisher
What, no Grizzly Orchids?
What, no Grizzly Orchids?
Oddly enough, there is not a single plant named after the Grizzly! A lot of 'bear' plants, but no Grizzlies.
I shall have to discover a new plant so I can name it, eh?
Kingfisher
Interesting thread, and especially relevant at this time of year when birds are nesting. I think the rule has to be that you do nothing to disturb the wildlife (and that includes habitat). I discussed this briefly on my
blog last night and gave a link to an RSPB leaflet on photography and birds (some can only be photographed under licence).
Mostly I photograph in a few known spots (often my garden) or areas where walkers tend to go. Inevitably I have startled birds, but I'm getting better at keeping my distance or finding a place with good cover so that the birds will come into view. Same with dragonflies. I used to try and chase them with the camera, but found that keeping still was much more productive in the long run.
For insects and butterflies I keep a close eye on where the sun is and take care not to cast a shadow across the subject. With care you can get
very close without disturbing them.
We, as Photographers, or watchers of wildlife can go to all lengths to prevent disturbance to our subject and its habitat. The trouble is the general public dont have that knowledge. Motorcyclists, dogwalkers, kids on bikes, hiker, joggers need i go on. They all do much more damage, albeit unknown to them, than Photographers (or twitchers!) do.
That maybe so* (I wouldn't be confident saying that all those groups do more damage and quite often there is an overlap - I'm also not sure that it is always unknown to them either!), and ignorance is not an excuse but if people in the know don't act responsibly then how can we expect the general public to? I don't believe it is an idealistic view either and surely we are talking about additional disturbance that could be avoided whereas most of us have little control over the unintentional kind.
I have had lots of "heated discussions" with walkers, dog walkers etc on my reserves who disturb wildlife because they have seen a photographer or nature watcher where they shouldn't be and have followed them. The nature watcher may not be causing a disturbance per se but their behaviour can set a bad example.
This thread is all about making people think about their actions and sharing good advice on minimising their impacts.
*Over the last 12 months we have been carrying out a wildlife disturbance survey in an area inportant for wading birds on one of my sites. In the summer about 50% of disturbances were waterborne (mainly canoes). From memory birdwatchers and dog walkers were about equal.