Wildlife Photography Ethics Poll

[raptor photo]

David Yarrow is a fine art photographer who sells prints for big money. One of his popular images is a giraffe running away on barren plains with a dramatic sunburst through the clouds. In a YouTube video he shows how he laid down in the back of a truck while the driver chased the giraffe so he could get the shot.

"I don’t like photographing an animal from 100 yards away, because you would never photograph a human from 100 yards away"
This quote from him says a lot. Could you link the video? Pretty sure I found the photo, but it doesn't include that explanation

@1:20

 

[simonsi]

David Yarrow is a fine art photographer who sells prints for big money. One of his popular images is a giraffe running away on barren plains with a dramatic sunburst through the clouds. In a YouTube video he shows how he laid down in the back of a truck while the driver chased the giraffe so he could get the shot.

Doesnt matter who he is, thats grossly unethical in my book.

 

[raptor photo]

David Yarrow Is Running Afoul of the Ethics of Wildlife Photography, Again

There's been a bit of an uproar in the wildlife photography community this week. One of the genre's most popular and successful photographers has been called out for turning wildlife into an accessory. What do you make of all this? Love or hate his style, David Yarrow is considered by the public...

fstoppers.com

When Wildlife Photographers Will Do Anything for the Shot

A recent incident involving a renowned wildlife photographer allegedly baiting foxes at Grand Teton sheds light on a larger issue

www.outsideonline.com

These articles show some other examples of terrible wildlife photography ethics by him.

 

[David Berry]

I’ve chosen to “Ignore” this thread. That way I neither see what is written nor become agitated by it.

 

[simonsi]

David Yarrow Is Running Afoul of the Ethics of Wildlife Photography, Again

There's been a bit of an uproar in the wildlife photography community this week. One of the genre's most popular and successful photographers has been called out for turning wildlife into an accessory. What do you make of all this? Love or hate his style, David Yarrow is considered by the public...

fstoppers.com

When Wildlife Photographers Will Do Anything for the Shot

A recent incident involving a renowned wildlife photographer allegedly baiting foxes at Grand Teton sheds light on a larger issue

www.outsideonline.com

These articles show some other examples of terrible wildlife photography ethics by him.

“There will be no gray areas” - hmmm right.

 

[Steve W]

David Yarrow is a fine art photographer who sells prints for big money. One of his popular images is a giraffe running away on barren plains with a dramatic sunburst through the clouds. In a YouTube video he shows how he laid down in the back of a truck while the driver chased the giraffe so he could get the shot.

COMMENT REMOVED BY ME...............

 

[raptor photo]

Yeah, well we know who should be shot.....

This is the comment that's gonna get this thread shut down.

 

[Wes Peterson]

People seem to think the madder you act about perceived "harm" to wildlife... the more people will believe you are righteous.

Reminds me of the scene in Anchorman when Brick Tannen screams "LOUD NOISES" to make the others think hes just as upset as them.

 

[Woody Meristem]

Although I'll never bait a raptor with a live mouse, I really can't see the ethical difference between using bird seed, peanut butter, meal worms or suet as an aid in photographing songbirds and using a road-killed squirrel to get a raptor or owl within photographic range. Those who can see an ethical difference are trying to make chicken salad out of chicken manure.

 

[raptor photo]

Although I'll never bait a raptor with a live mouse, I really can't see the ethical difference between using bird seed, peanut butter, meal worms or suet as an aid in photographing songbirds and using a road-killed squirrel to get a raptor or owl within photographic range. Those who can see an ethical difference are trying to make chicken salad out of chicken manure.

I think it's just that people think predators should work for their food. Also, people have more ethical limits on (raptors/wild dogs/cats) than songbirds in general. You can see this in the "songbird audio call" vs "predator call" part of the poll too.

 

[EricKlees]

There is no option for none of the above. If you have to bait in anyway or call to attract animals/birds... you need serious work on your field craft and all listed above activities are unethical. People that do the listed above activities are just weekend warrior photographers (photog term used loosely) that just does anything to get a shot and doesn't want to work for the shot.

Just my opinion.

 

[simonsi]

Although I'll never bait a raptor with a live mouse, I really can't see the ethical difference between using bird seed, peanut butter, meal worms or suet as an aid in photographing songbirds and using a road-killed squirrel to get a raptor or owl within photographic range. Those who can see an ethical difference are trying to make chicken salad out of chicken manure.

Thats an interesting one, here in NZ we have a lot of winding roads, moving road kill off the road is beneficial to the local raptors as when on road kill they often get hit by vehicles before they can fly out of the way. So in my book, as long as moving the road kill lures them to a safer place than the road, its beneficial, whether any photographs are taken or not.

 

[raptor photo]

Thats an interesting one, here in NZ we have a lot of winding roads, moving road kill off the road is beneficial to the local raptors as when on road kill they often get hit by vehicles before they can fly out of the way. So in my book, as long as moving the road kill lures them to a safer place than the road, its beneficial, whether any photographs are taken or not.

It can beneficial to the raptors. I wouldn't do it but I'm fine with others doing it AS LONG AS THEY DISCLOSE IT. If they don't, they have gotten an image using unfair circumstances and create a precedent for consistently getting images that normally aren't possible without baiting.

 

[seh]

I didn't vote as I don't make a living with photography. As a hobbyist I would have voted "none of the above" had that been a choice.

 

[simonsi]

I didn't vote as I don't make a living with photography. As a hobbyist I would have voted "none of the above" had that been a choice.

Ethics arent limited to professionals…I think OP welcomes everyone’s views with the caveat about not being able to add a “none of the above” after the fact.

 

[WilliamFinlay]

From Audubon.org -
https://www.audubon.org/get-outside/audubons-guide-ethical-bird-photography
The first essential element in bird photography is a sincere respect for the birds and their environment. In any conflict of interest, the well-being of the birds and their habitats must come before the ambitions of the photographer.

My views on ethical nature photography - As nature photographers, we must remember that we are guests in the wildlife's environment. It is their home not ours. The quest for a photo must never put the animal in stress or danger. If one causes the subject of the photograph to run or fly away, you are too close which puts the animal or bird under stress and at an increased risk of injury while fleeing the photographer. The quest for a photo should be secondary to the well-being of the creature being photographed. We should therefore act with the same respect as when visiting a friend at their home. I choose to be an ethical photographer.

 

[Wes Peterson]

If you have an issue with or get infuriated by ANY of the above options then you should immediately boycott and chastise the Audubon society.

Bird "researchers" Net, handle, band and generally scare the **** out of every bird they can get their hands on in a manner far worse for the birds than ANY wildlife photog that I've ever heard of. If spooking a migratory bird once or twice has adverse effects what do you think banding and or collaring migratory birds who fly 1000 miles does?

 

[StefanSC]

A society named after Audubon teaching anybody anything on ethics... the irony is strong with that one...

 

[Terry]

It's interesting seeing the wide range of responses. I'm moving toward wildlife photography to get away from what I shoot for a living, lots of bad stuff.

I'm a photojournalist. When I go to a scene I do my best to blend in. Sometimes just being there has an impact and there's not much I can do about it. What I'll not do is use a photo/video that's a direct reaction to me. I'll also not stage or modify the scene for a better image. It's not ethical.

I see wildlife photography much the same. The fact is we cannot enter the woods without impacting the critters. However if you're doing it right, in my opinion, you should cause minimal impact. You should also back out if it appears you are negatively impact the animal.

Changing the way the animals normally act by any means is wrong. Certainly using high intensity lighting etc also is wrong. To capture a great image you'll have to work long and hard. To use other methods to make it easier, especially at the animal's expense isn't right.

 

[Abinoone]

You left one option off the list: not posting things about wildlife ethics!

Seriously, I’m not sure what the point of this post is. Everytime the discussion gets into wildlife “ethics”, it quickly devolves into name calling and mud slinging. Like discussing religion and politics at family gatherings, it’s better to stick to neutral subjects to keep the piece (not that that would ever happen at my family gatherings ).

 

[joe43]

Regarding bird calls, I think they are OK to use if you know the bird is already in your area. That means you have already heard it and the bird call is used to just get it closer to you.

 

[mdirvin]

If you have an issue with or get infuriated by ANY of the above options then you should immediately boycott and chastise the Audubon society.

Bird "researchers" Net, handle, band and generally scare the **** out of every bird they can get their hands on in a manner far worse for the birds than ANY wildlife photog that I've ever heard of. If spooking a migratory bird once or twice has adverse effects what do you think banding and or collaring migratory birds who fly 1000 miles does?

Not to mention the fear instilled in birds each time you step out your back door, mow your yard, fill your bird feeders, take a walk through the park. They are flying off in fear in every direction..

 

[Doug Herr]

If you have an issue with or get infuriated by ANY of the above options then you should immediately boycott and chastise the Audubon society.

Bird "researchers" Net, handle, band and generally scare the **** out of every bird they can get their hands on in a manner far worse for the birds than ANY wildlife photog that I've ever heard of. If spooking a migratory bird once or twice has adverse effects what do you think banding and or collaring migratory birds who fly 1000 miles does?

There's a difference between a limited number of researchers with a well-defined purpose of studying the animal with the goal of mitigating habitat loss or other detrimental effects on the population, and hoardes of photographers (as we have become) whose goal is personal satisfaction or enrichment. The regulatory and legal barriers to doing legitimate research are many, the detrimental effects on the population are minimized by the few number of researchers and the rules they must follow, while the barriers to photographing animals in the wild are mostly limited to deep pockets and there are many more of us than there are researchers.

IDK about anyone else on this forum but I am under no illusions that my pretty pictures will contribute in any significant way to the conservation of any wildlife population so I'll keep my disturbance/disruption to a minimum. YMMV.

 

[ButlerKid]

Responses seem to be getting more emotional and disrespectful. I'm closing the thread.