Ethics question: elements artificially placed in scene

[Abinoone]

Maybe not "bullying" per se, but labeling people as "hypersensitive" or lacking perspective, just because they hold a different opinion to you, is not really the way to hold a fair and balanced discussion.

I’m very sorry that you see it this way, but who are you to reprimand me or anyone else? This is a public forum where disparate opinions are freely expressed, as long as they aren’t rude, profane, racially or culturally insensitive, or illegal. My comment was intended as a general statement, not a criticism of anyone in particular (i.e. not a “label”).

 

[Nanakamado]

As a disclaimer I'm a hardline in terms of wildlife photography ethics.
And for my 2 cents
- You were not one making ethical infringement.
- For personal use, do what You want with this photos
- This could be great to post with social media (or blog or something, if You use them for Your photos) with story about this second photographer doing this.

And then to the point of ethics.
I strongly belive that our role and duty as wildlife photographers is to depict the nature and wildlife as it is. Without changing anything, trying to be as neutral for wildlife as possible. What that photographer did was wrong. It was very small thing, but it was wrong nevertheless. It was unnecessary interaction with wildlife. And as many others said we should probably concentrate on eradicating things that some photographers do, that are endangering animals.

@Abinoone I think it is not about being hypersensitive about etiquette, it's common sense that when in field, we are guest who are supposed to leave no trace, same as with trekking, camping and so on, and so on...

I live in a heavily wooded, rural area and the wildlife in this area are totally adapted to our presence...far too much so in some cases.

And this is for me quite different thing. Let look at urban wildlife for example. Wild animals leave in urban areas, that fact I see photo of Hooded Crow searching for food in public trash can eating kebab or trying to open plastic food container with rest of cake as wildlife photography. Very specyfic subgenre, but still wildlife. But putting this kebab or container there so one can make exactly photo one wants is unethical. It's creating reality instead of depicting it.

To add more - most forest areas in my country are industrial forests, some of them are old, some of them are less "grown" and more wild, but they are artificially created. But than again the wildlife thrive in many of them. For me it's important to separate effect of people and animals living together and artificially influencing wildlife by photographer.

@RichF, @jeffnles1 I think (but once again I'm hardline) that when You photograph birds near the feeder and feeder is not visible You should disclaim that it was take near feeder. Using leave pet mice is outrageous, but then again maybe I'm just triggered as pet mic owner who can spend more than 200$ to treat pneumonia in older pet mouse.

One thing that I will never agree to as "to each his own" is baiting, especially predator baiting. It's illegal in my country, but it happens nevertheless and the biggest problem with it - it endangers animals. Poland is small country, quite densely populated with very few really wild areas. Baiting wolves and bears means that those animals will associate food with humans and can beacome dangerous. Then they have to be killed (or kept in ZOOs or asylums, but for animal born in wild, it's sometimes better to be killed than kept captive).
We have less than 200 bears and less than 2000 wolves (the last reliable census made by scientist said less than 600 wolves in 2019). It is 4-15animals/mi2. Every killed animal is problem as from the fall of communism we are protecting those animals and fighting to restore their population to more natural levels. So baiting is endangering the whole rewilding process.

And seeing that conversation is already heated I hope I don't sound to agresively (I'm quite a fanatic in those cases, I know) and don't hesitate to tell me if it so, I will try to write it in more polite way then. And peace

 

[Robert S]

I couldn't agree more Anjin San. I find the slide from ethics into morality and back again annoying. Ethics is generally taken as being the study of "living well as a human being". Where does this leave the poor disenfranchised Puffin?

 

[Nanakamado]

I couldn't agree more Anjin San. I find the slide from ethics into morality and back again annoying. Ethics is generally taken as being the study of "living well as a human being". Where does this leave the poor disenfranchised Puffin?

Maybe it's more wording questions, maybe it's more about responsibilities we have or rules we should adhere to. But most wildlife photography associations refer to things we are speaking about in sections named "ethical code" or "code of conduct".

But I feel we shouldn't go to deep into philosophy in here, else we will and in some kind of "Is it unethical if one does know that what he does is hurting someone/something" and that will leave us stranded

 

[Robert S]

I agree Nanakamado. I would hate to see us stranded.

 

[Nanakamado]

I agree Nanakamado. I would hate to see us stranded.

But nevertheless I like such conversation as we have here in one of erlier threads I learnd thanks to one of users about diferences in thinking about conservation between US and Europe. I think there is always something to learn or broader image to see from different views on things. In particular here where we all are some kind of nature lovers more or less.

For example You are abit of enigma for me always a bit laconic, sarcastic even. In this thread from Your posts I see something between "live and let live" and "this whole thread is a bit silly" yet You are here reading and posting, that feels like from the other side You care about what is talked about. Or I am just seeig what's not there and I just imagine what You are not thinking and writing?

 

[dabhand16]

I think baiting only applies to using live animals. Bird seed is okay. road kill is okay.

I think it varies depending on where you are. AFAIK bird seed or any other baiting is a nono in the UK for wildlife photography competitions.

 

[Robert S]

But nevertheless I like such conversation as we have here in one of erlier threads I learnd thanks to one of users about diferences in thinking about conservation between US and Europe. I think there is always something to learn or broader image to see from different views on things. In particular here where we all are some kind of nature lovers more or less.

For example You are abit of enigma for me always a bit laconic, sarcastic even. In this thread from Your posts I see something between "live and let live" and "this whole thread is a bit silly" yet You are here reading and posting, that feels like from the other side You care about what is talked about. Or I am just seeig what's not there and I just imagine what You are not thinking and writing?

I find ethics a lost cause. I was going to post the url of a famous chef cooking Puffin breasts in Iceland but thought better of it. I am often in the unfortunate situation of knowing just enough to know I know next to nothing. I wish I could be more confident and self opinionated but I can't. As for US vs Europe my being of Zulu Inuit stock I wouldn't know, other than my gt gt grandfather had real problems building igloos in the Serengeti.
There are some interesting questions of an ethical nature; I don't find flowers presented to Puffins one of them. Maybe I should know my place and keep quiet, but I fail at that too.
I like laconic. I'm not quite as laconic as this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_McAuliffe
Sarcastic: sorry if you read sarcasm in my posts.
I'm here reading posts because I'm too much of a geriatric to be crossing the Andes by frog. What you imagine is way beyond my ken.

 

[Doomrider74]

I’m very sorry that you see it this way, but who are you to reprimand me or anyone else? This is a public forum where disparate opinions are freely expressed, as long as they aren’t rude, profane, racially or culturally insensitive, or illegal. My comment was intended as a general statement, not a criticism of anyone in particular (i.e. not a “label”).

I'm not "reprimanding" anyone, just stating a fact. It's ironic that you talk about freely expressing opinions and yet dismiss other's opinions when they are different to yours.

 

[Abinoone]

I'm not "reprimanding" anyone, just stating a fact. It's ironic that you talk about freely expressing opinions and yet dismiss other's opinions when they are different to yours.

I'm not "reprimanding" anyone, just stating a fact. It's ironic that you talk about freely expressing opinions and yet dismiss other's opinions when they are different to yours.

Nothing could be further from the truth, but I wish you the very best in all things anyway. Peace be with you.

 

[Butlerkid]

Each of you is entitled to your opinion and should feel to express it, without making judgements about others. You are entitled to disagree with others. But you are also expected to respect others who have differing viewpoints.

However, the TONE of your response and the words you choose have a LOT to do with how others will react to what you post.

 

[Chris K]

My personal policy is to shoot nature as I see it. I don't bait or contrive scenes in any way. If I can't observe it, I don't create it... with the exception of flash for macro. I further try to limit how I affect wildlife behavior. I'll suffer a long photo to give a wide berth, and I don't approach animals that are aware of me.

My reasoning to be "passive" in my nature photography is twofold:

• I'm out to observe nature and enjoy the outdoors; photography for me is just something to make it more fun, and maybe to show someone the interesting things I saw. I'm not too bothered if I came home with no photos.
• If I decided to contrive my scenes, I would have difficulties not taking it to its logical extremes:
  • Trail cameras, studying migration patterns, scouting, and using blinds would keep me from enjoying my time outdoors.
  • At the PC, creating photo composites, erasing offending elements (ie: power lines), and using new tools like sky replacement would take the "nature" out of the photo, for me.

That's just my own reasoning. I also know people who love wildlife so much that they go hunt it and kill it. I don't break branches, let alone kill animals, and I still can't understand that logical leap. But I'm not going to tell everyone that they have to be like me.

 

[jeffnles1]

@RichF, @jeffnles1 I think (but once again I'm hardline) that when You photograph birds near the feeder and feeder is not visible You should disclaim that it was take near feeder. Using leave pet mice is outrageous, but then again maybe I'm just triggered as pet mic owner who can spend more than 200$ to treat pneumonia in older pet mouse.

One thing that I will never agree to as "to each his own" is baiting, especially predator baiting. It's illegal in my country, but it happens nevertheless and the biggest problem with it - it endangers animals. Poland is small country, quite densely populated with very few really wild areas. Baiting wolves and bears means that those animals will associate food with humans and can beacome dangerous. Then they have to be killed (or kept in ZOOs or asylums, but for animal born in wild, it's sometimes better to be killed than kept captive).
We have less than 200 bears and less than 2000 wolves (the last reliable census made by scientist said less than 600 wolves in 2019). It is 4-15animals/mi2. Every killed animal is problem as from the fall of communism we are protecting those animals and fighting to restore their population to more natural levels. So baiting is endangering the whole rewilding process.

And seeing that conversation is already heated I hope I don't sound to agresively (I'm quite a fanatic in those cases, I know) and don't hesitate to tell me if it so, I will try to write it in more polite way then. And peace

NanaKamado -
I cannot disagree with you. I have seen egregious behavior out there not just from photographers but "birders", "hikers / trail runners" and "scientists". What I see as truth is we all tend to overlook our own transgressions while point fingers at transgressions of others.

I have my limits and those limits may be quite liberal to some and quite Puratinistic to others. There really is no absolute right or wrong here unless we're talking causing harm to wildlife, introducing invasive species or destroying landscapes or stands of wildflowers. Sometimes what is acceptable to one may be a travesty for others.

Jeff

 

[RichF]

I find it bad mannered not to ask permission of a bird prior to taking its photograph. The least you could do is offer it a meal or a bouquet of flowers.

of a handful of seeds. like offer a person food or cash to pose

 

[RichF]

Is that a person picture on the street (wthout permission or knowledge) okay? What about if you ask them and pay them? Is that ethical? Isn't that equivalent to to baiting animals? ...

 

[Butlerkid]

Posts are off topic. I am closing the thread.