A female grey seal on Islay. Just her, me and Jaanus.
It’s about 10 years since I made my only visit to Donna Nook on the Lincolnshire coast. What a spectacle it was: many hundreds of young and old grey seals doing everything that seals do on a huge expanse of open sandy beach – and approachable to boot. The popularity of the site with photographers – from home and abroad – has continued to grow over the years peaking around 1500 during the pupping season of 2009.
At that point the site managers, the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust, felt it necessary to ask people not to venture on to the beach. They did this in response to a rapid, unexplained rise in pup mortality in the preceding breeding seasons. While their evidence was largely circumstantial, increased pup deaths and more people on the beach seemed closely correlated. In 2010 there was a drop in mortality of 50% over the immediately preceding years – and a decrease in visitors to the beach by 80%.
Only 80%? This request for voluntary restraint was, after all, to protect a sensitive breeding colony. Yet 314 people according to LWT statement “refused to cooperate.” The statement, worringly, continues, “All but two of these people went on to the beach with the sole purpose of photographing the seals. Of those, the majority were with organised commercial groups, member of photographic clubs or professional photographers from overseas.”
I am considerably more naive about the conduct of other “nature photographers” than I realised. Whatever happened to “putting the subject first”? Even more worrying is the fact that commercial operators are amongst the main culprits. Even if motivated only by self interest, they must realise that the mould from one rotten apple quickly spreads to others – and that they too may be excluded from good sites in future.
Let’s be devil’s advocate here and recognise that once you’ve taken the booking and entered into a contract with the client you have to stick to it. And let’s assume the request to keep clear of the beach came after you’d taken the booking: that’s tricky from a commercial (although not an ethical) point of view in 2010. Yet in 2011 several operators, ignoring the statistics and claiming that these wild seals are somehow “habituated” were still advertising tours. Coincident with the publication of this post, these operators have now stopped.
Niall
Whilst I would suggest that there may be grounds for questioning the scientific basis for suggesting that photographers are responsible for an increase in seal pup mortality at Donna Nook, the facts (albeit based on a very short period of time) do strongly support this hypothesis. Irrespective of whether there is irrefutable proof, given that it is highly likely that disturbance from photographers is [part] of the cause of the increase in mortality, we all clearly owe a moral duty to stay away.
What I personally find most disappointing about the behaviour of one of the photographers, Chris Weston, who is still offering commercial workshops, is that he portrays himself as a conservationist. Mr Weston has even gone as far as setting up a charity, Animals on the Edge, to further the protection of endangered animals. Surely any conservationist would put the welfare of any animal before their own commercial gain?
In referring to the reasons why animals are endangered, The Animals on the Edge website refers to the fact that, “there exists a more fundamental problem – that of the on-going conflict between animals and people sharing the same pieces of land.”. Perhaps Mr Weston should consider this statement made by his own charity before running any further commercial workshops to Donna Nook.
On Mr Weston’s own website, amongst the information about the “Masters’ Series – Wildlife: Seals of Donna Nook Workshop”, there is a statement that, “This is the ideal time to capture the seals and we’ll provide you with all the necessary knowledge, advice and expert tuition to ensure you capture competition-level images, without causing unnecessary disturbance.” I must admit that I am unsure about what is meant by causing “unnecessary disturbance”? Is this a suggestion that there is some level of disturbance, that falls short of unnecessary, which is acceptable in pursuing the photographic aims of the workshop? Surely, in light of the concerns raised about increased mortality, no disturbance is acceptable and no workshops should be run, even if it is a “competition-level” image that a participant is after?
Andrew
Niall,
I think it is very good that you mention something like this on this wonderful blog, although I am afraid that the amount of people reading this is too low to have an impact (but a low impact is an impact nonetheless). I noticed you mentioned photography workshops from abroad, so I went looking online and saw that there are also Dutch photographers that still organize workshops to Donna Nook to photograph the seals on the beach, so I am afraid that Dutch participants are part of that 314 people who ‘refuge to participate’.
I think in the Netherlands, the owner of the beach would make the beach a forbidden area for part of the year, to give the seals the opportunity to wean their offspring undisturbed, fining any ‘trespassers’. But of course I don’t know the situation in Donna Nook, although I assume that the wildlife trust is not the land owner and therefore they did not do something like that already. Especially as there will always be people that do not cooperate as long as there isn’t a fine attached if they don’t (photographers and none photographers alike).
I hope they will come up with a solution soon as rapidly loosing such a big breeding colony can’t be good for the species.
I am looking forward to the next blog, always reading it with much join. We should have more photographer/writers like you in the Netherlands! At least that would spice things up a bit.
Cheers,
Tim
Let me say at the outset that I am not against commercialism when interests financial and conservationist can work symbiotically. However, that stops abruptly when I find wildlife regarded as an exploitable resource and, in the case of the Donna Nook seals, an apparently expendable one.
A related concern is the way some individuals (and organisations) trumpet their conservation credentials to legitimise what are purely business ventures. I might be naïve but we need to have clarity in order to decide what tours we pay for, competitions we enter, charities we support and so on.
Niall, I am very glad that both you and Peter have taken such a strong stand and named names. Back in December 2009 I wrote a series on ‘wide-angle macro’ as it is called here at http://imagesfromtheedge.com/blog/?p=3224 and I made this comment relating to the tendency for some so-called wildife photographers to get very near to animals and thrust an ultra wide in their faces.
“…Education of photographers may well be an answer, but what hope when one advertisement for photographic trips claims that: “Doe-eyed pups will gaze at you in wonder before suckling…” ? What message does such emetic prose convey apart, that is, from a profound ignorance of animal behaviour in ascribing an emotion such as ‘wonder’ in anthropomorphic manner?
Anyone who took that text and Googled its origin would have discovered immediately that it was taken from the Chris Weston website (now removed): when I quoted it I had not forgotten the horrified reaction of a friend of mine, a staunch conservationist who had watched one of these gaggles of photographers on the beach at Donna Nook, oblivious to any consideration but the procurement of an image –receiving, as advertised “Guidance and advice in the field from a leading pro’….”(sic)
I then found that CW had also been determinedly rejecting (rubbishing) the findings of the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust. For those who have never seen this it is worth reading but do so bearing in mind the following – to my certain knowledge, Weston’s ‘academic’ training is in marketing he is not a biologist, statistician or scientist of ANY description.
His high-handed missive is written in tones that might delude the reader into believing that it was written with considerable authority. In fact, it begins with the following statement of underwhelming modesty: “As a professional wildlife photographer, held in high esteem within my industry and the connected industries of conservation and biology….”
First note the telling use of the word “industry”. There then follows one of the most fatuous pieces of quasi-analysis and abuse of statistics that I have ever countenanced to support what are purely commercial activities at Donna Nook…
The diatribe ends with the following gem:
“… Statistically, therefore, one could draw the conclusion that the reported increase in seal numbers is a direct consequence of the increase in photographers – post hoc ergo proctor hoc.
It is always a good idea when using Latin phrases with the intention of adding gravitas (presumably) to do so with a knowledge of their meaning, source and realm of applicability. For example, in loc parentis does not mean “my daddy was an engine driver.”
Whenever I see pompous BS I feel an irrepressible urge to deflate those who peddle it so let’s just say that this is what we call a ‘logical fallacy’. In translation it means: “Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one.” It is a process where all one considers is the order of events and leaves aside other factors in drawing a conclusion. Perhaps the writer was attempting irony – if so, it might have been better to stick to marketing.
Yes, I was saddened to see the resurrection of the disgrace of Donna Nook again this year but certainly not surprised.
Maybe now we all need to get the metaphorical shovels and clear the ordure from those Augean Stables of our chosen profession.
Let’s stop pussy-footing around and suggest those who see the natural world primarily as a cash generating resource stand up and take a bow – they will have their followers, fair enough, most of us can do without their company. Inevitably, these people trumpet their conservation credentials loudly and, as the man said, you can fool some of the people all of the time.
Both companies mentioned by Niall are, first and foremost, commercial ventures and, from the destinations of some trips I, for one, find it difficult to take at face value any stated conservation objectives. Involved are game farms in the US that have been featured in the press (and on this blog) because of their questionable ethos – check out Those Big Cats from Montana http://imagesfromtheedge.com/blog/?p=5249 and the follow-up correspondence.
The danger for those of us who care about the natural world and use our photography in connection with it is that we can so easily be tainted by the activities of a few.
That is serious, so let us not be gutless and just turn away… again and again. Well done Peter for naming names….and, let me just say that, with a strong mathematical background, I find a strong correlation in the reduction of pup fatalities and the drop in visitors whatever those ‘tour organisers’ might say to justify their avarice.
We have not fought shy on this blog about facing issues that others pretend are not there and long may that continue
As nature photographers do we all hide our faces too much, peep through the gaps in our fingers and just ‘get on with it’. If we care we must speak out. Peter, Niall…I take my hat off to you both: may others find the courage, too.
Decency, integrity, honesty – they matter. Without them we are lessened
NB. CW was named as one of the 40 most influential conservation photographers in OP (where the Donna Nook problems had been aired) I wrote to OP editor Steve Watkins questioning the perceived inconsistency … no response.
Amen brother Paul.
Excellent post. It may be worth adding that the dune colony of seals at Donna Nook (right next to the car park) still offers an excellent opportunity to watch and photograph seals under the watchful eye of wardens (in a designated viewing area), and several responsible photographers have demonstrated that excellent images can be taken from this site without venturing down onto the beach.
Nevertheless, I notice that the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust website asks visitors to stay within this viewing area to ‘reduce’ (i.e. rather than to ‘prevent’) disturbance to seals, so I wonder if there may be some ethical issues with visiting even the dunes.
Niall, thank you once again for highlighting this issue. As you know, it is one I am passionate about and it is great to see balanced, well-researched articles freely available online as well as Chris Weston’s – and others’ – highly misleading posts. More on this later.
Andrew, your summary hits the colloquial nail on its metaphorical head. Although the evidence is – as Niall says – largely circumstantial, we all have a moral duty to stay away in case we are having negative effects on seal welfare. To ignore this advice is to gamble where only the seals can lose and to believe oneself above this advice is either highly cynical or grossly egotistical.
Tim, I have done a quick web search and found the Dutch photographers you mention. I am in email conversation with them and, unlike Photographers on Safari or Chris Weston (who have not responded to my emails), they are all proving highly responsive. I shall post on my blog regarding this tomorrow. In the meantime, I will not name their names as I do not want to start a witch hunt against reasonable people.
You are also correct in stating that similar beaches in the Netherlands are out-of-bounds to photographers (and other beach users) during the critical part of the seal breeding season. The same is true in Germany. Unfortunately, Donna Nook is under the control of the RAF, who in turn answer to a site-specific bylaw. Nobody, neither the RAF nor the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust, can prevent anybody from visiting the beach when the RAF are using the site. Until the law is changed, which is not likely to happen in a hurry, the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust’s strong requests to stay away are the best solution.
Paul, your Magnus Opus (sorry, I had to squeeze some Latin in somewhere!) is right on the money, (as were your posts on “wide-angle macro” photography and the Cats in Montana). It is rarely more than a PR stunt to call oneself a conservation photographer. Personally, I would never do so. It is not something one should bestow upon oneself and, if called one by others, you should be deeply flattered.
Your summation of Chris Weston’s rejection of the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust’s evidence is also correct. I hate to add to such a beautifully-constructed argument but you may like to know that there are more problems with Chris’ post than statistical incompetency. The very “facts” Chris bases his arguments on are misleading to the trusting and lies to the realistic. I have just published this post on the matter: http://moonlightimaging.blogspot.com/2011/10/donna-nook-again.html
I summarise as follows [sic]:
“Chris Weston is willing to fabricate evidence and misuse statistics at the expense of seal welfare for nothing more than his own self-interest and commercial gain. Equally, he is willing to mislead others, spreading lies which probably do as much harm as Chris’ own actions. This is, as Niall Benvie states, ‘a bad advert for the profession and isn’t going to allay the suspicions of scientists who have never had a lot of time for photographers’.”
Kris, well said. It is not my aim (nor Niall’s) to prevent visitors or photographers going to Donna Nook. The site is a natural wonder. I felt similar feelings to those Niall describes in his opening paragraph when I first visited. This was not just confined to the beach but also the brilliantly managed and equally stunning dunes colony, where humans have no damaging effects. If you want to experience the sights, sounds, and (slightly off-putting) smells of a seal colony at close quarters, Donna Nook’s dunes colony is the place for you.
Peter,
What you have been doing with your work to alert people to the problems at Donna Nook is tremendous. Inevitably there will be abusive comments from those platyhelminths that inhabit the detritus of the web but there is a great weight of opinion behind you
We have to find compromises in this crowded planet of ours but the mentality of those who see nature as a cash creator is like that of hunters here in Italy who demand to be allowed uncontrolled rights to kill. By their actions they kill the golden goose and, in the case of hunters, every other mammalian or avian life-form.
The Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust have a position statement with a graph showing pup mortality that islity that is irrefutable. I commented on the abuse of the statistics from a mechanistic point of view – I did not realise that the figures used were ‘fanciful’. That is much worse and judging from traffic on this item it is being widely read. People can make their own judgements. I am afraid that I did seven years ago. I helped Weston a great deal in his earlier days – let him use my pictures and text at no cost. I am a ‘simple soul’ in that I value trust and friendship: suffice it say that, when both those were broken spectacularly over what was agreed to be a joint publishing venture, I ceased all contact.
By the way, on a point of information when you mentioned Weston’s ‘charity’ “Animals on the Edge” it is a Charity only under US laws. In the UK it is a Companies House registered not-for-profit Company Limited by Guarantee (reg. no. 06994155). UK and US Charity laws are very different.
Niall
Highlighting the inconsistancy in approach that we wildlife photographers take is a dangerous thing – I can only assume you’ve thought this through carefully?
The two operators you’ve named are not the only ones to have ignored the call for restraint – at least one other tour operator has offered this trip this year. Does this blog post not reference them because one of the tour guides is allied to the 2020 Vision project, or are you just unaware that your ‘associate’ is participating in the same activity as those you’ve namted?
I include the above comment to illustrate that if we are serious about cleaning up our act as an interest group, we need to be consistent. For instance, there is a good deal more scientific evidence relating to the detrimental effects of air travel than there is about seal mortality, yet numerous ‘conservation’ photographers activity engage punters to fly thousands of miles year on year to participate in money-making trips. It appears that the fact of the matter is that business is business and talk is cheap.
Anyone taking paid groups out to photograph the seals at Donna Nook is not breaking the law has far as I’m aware? But anyone who as been out on the sands at the peak of photographer activity will know that ethically, under the terms of the idea that the animal comes first, this activity falls well short of that ideal. I was there in 2009 and left within 45 minutes of arrival because I was appalled by some of the behaviour on display and dispirited that ‘wildlife photography’, in some instances, is in such a poor state of self regulation.
Cheers,
Chris
Chris
Forgive my uncustomary directness spurred, in this instance, by yours!
Please read what I’ve written with the same care as I wrote it. Nowhere do I claim to make an exhaustive list of operators ignoring the LWT request: I’ve reported merely on Peter Moonlight’s blog post. On what grounds do you base your accusation that I might be protecting anyone? I resent it. Why are you not naming these other operators?: you’ve actually been there and witnessed bad behaviour. Does that not put some responsibility on you to report this?
This blog post was about the issue of disturbance to seals by photographers and a lack of restraint in spite of a reasonable request from the site managers. It was not about flying or our use of rare metals in the mobile phones and computers we use every day, or the fact that we like to eat meat or any other arena of moral conflict which may undermine our work as “conservation” photographers. Let’s drown one kitten at a time.
For the record, I was invited to be a “conservation” photographer by the ILCP at its foundation in October 2005: it was not a title that I had applied to myself and am not sure if I have done so since. But I’m proud to be part of an organisation containing individuals who have helped to secure protection of certain places – even if they had to fly to get there.
Best
Niall
Under the current legal situation there is little that can be done, other than what is being done by LWT, to solve the situation at DN; save a reserved word in peers ears about the disquiet they are creating.
T
Chris,
As Niall has pointed out, he was merely referring to my blog post. Neither this post, nor Niall’s, claim to be exhaustive lists. I state, “here are the names of the main Donna Nook photography workshop leaders I know of.” Niall simply references this.
Since my post, I have discovered the names of a number of other operators who I believe are running tours to Donna Nook. This includes the Dutch photographers named by Tim above. I am currently verifying this and will not publish their names until I am satisfied. If you (or anybody else) have the names of further tour operators, I would appreciate your sharing that information with me. However if you are sure of the facts, as Niall says, it is your responsibility to publish them.
Regards
Peter
For info, I did an internet search and found ‘a photographer’ to whom you might have alluded in your comment, Chris, who is also a member of the 20:20 Vision team.
The concern seems to be for those ‘leaders’ who arrive at Donna Nook at peak pupping time and offer a metaphorical (and actual) two-fingers to the wardens’ concerns.
Consider a length season of sensitivity with generous margins…say from early October into the latter part of December. With commendable responsibility the photographer concerned organises his visits in early February. From my own work on seals in west Wales – admittedly some time ago (albeit short in an evolutionary sense), I would say this was in no way comparable with descending en masse shortly following parturition. Perhaps the name was not flagged up by anyone simply because of timing and not for any reasons of ‘masonic protection’…ie. boys in the club are immune from the rules! The behaviour is responsible and NOT reprehensible
This way there is a modus vivendi between photographic and conservation concerns – though there should be no dichotomy as far as any nature photographer is concerned.
My colleague, Chris Gomersall, who is a member of the 2020VISION team is anxious for it to be known that he is NOT one of the photographers who take groups to Donna Nook during the pupping season. Just for the record.
Niall
Hi again Niall
Apologies if (once again) my “directness” upsets you – I’m a little surprised if this is the case given that the subject you’ve drawn attention to requires a frank and honest exchange of views! In fairness to me, perhaps we could agree that if one courts controversy by pointing a finger at the conduct of others then one’s own practice is likely to come under scrutiny?
The overarching subject of this post is the questionable practice of wildlife photo-tour operators. With this in mind I’ve raised a fair point about the impact of air travel related to eco-tourism and its parallels to other issues within wildlife tour business.
For the purpose of clarity I accused you of nothing; instead I posed the question: “Does this blog post not reference them because one of the tour guides is allied to the 2020 Vision project, or are you just unaware that your ‘associate’ is participating in the same activity as those you’ve named?” As you’ve chosen to divert from providing a clear answer, for me the ambiguity remains.
If my honesty is unwelcome on your blog, Niall, you reserve the right to ask me not to contribute. If this is a course of action you’d like to take I will, of course, courteously oblige.
Peter M:
Forgive me but I am unaware of any authority you have in conducting this . . . . ‘? investigation’. My understanding is that you’re merely reacting to information that you and a number of photographers received from Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust? If I’ve misunderstood and you do indeed have some official authority, then please reveal in what capacity you operate?
I will not be forwarding any information to you, as per your request – let’s be clear: my “responsibility” is to myself and my own conduct and I’d appreciate it if you’d desist in telling me where my responsibilities lie. Thanks!
Paul H D:
The tour being offered is within the sensitive birthing period not February 2012 – the information it is freely available in the public domain.
For the record I have no authority to take anyone to task for their behaviour at Donna Nook or at any other site. As much as I’d dearly love to bang a few heads together alas all I can do is conduct myself in line with recognized codes of practice. http://www.rpsnaturegroup.com/page7.htm
For those who wish to be self-appointed guardians in this issue, your time may be better spent offering any information/evidence to the RSPCA. They may be the only authority capable of bringing a prosecution against those found to be causing distress to the seals. Please may I make an appeal that we concentrate on making a positive contributions to resolving issues instead of creating situations that could be perceived as personal vendettas, witch-hunts or self-serving ‘promotion’ that keeps traffic flowing to our blogs!
Cheers,
Chris
I rarely participate in forums but given the level of interest in Donna Nook and my recent decision to cease further workshops at the site, I wanted to explain my stance and my decision and thank Niall for the right to reply.
Firstly, and to put things into perspective, I should make it clear that, despite being named as one of the “commercial operators” visiting Donna Nook and largely implicated as the principal protagonist, in the past two years I have taken to the sand dunes at Donna Nook a total of 39 people spread over the course of four separate mornings. I am hardly the Thomas Cook of the photo workshop industry and therefore any decision I make will have little, albeit not insignificant, direct impact on visitor numbers.
For the record, I have no quarrel with Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust or Peter Moonlight. Nor do I single-mindedly refute their suggestion that the increase in visitors, particularly photographers, to Donna Nook has had an impact on pup mortality.
In his recent Blog, Peter Moonlight accused me of at best misleading and at worst lying to the reader. He quoted Disraeli’s “lies, damned lies and statistics” to devalue the scientific research I quoted and reiterated Paul Harcourt Davies’ put down of my use of the Latin phrase post hoc ergo proctor hoc (after the event therefore because of the event) saying that “the sun did not rise today because I stubbed my toe yesterday.”
And yet, the call to ban visitors to the sand banks at Donna Nook is based entirely on statistics (and not scientific ones at that) and on the premise that pup mortality increased following an increase in photographer numbers – post hoc ergo proctor hoc (yes, Paul, it was supposed to be ironical). To criticize the use of statistics by one party and then use statistics to further your argument; and to denigrate one premise only to use the exact same premise yourself is hypocrisy.
In my initial response to the Trust’s public call in 2010 for a blanket ban on photographers I suggested that the information on which they were basing their stance was unsubstantiated and requested greater clarification.
On bothering to question the Trust more deeply, in an initial telephone conversation with a senior Warden and spokesperson of the Trust I was told that:
1. There was absolutely no scientific evidence on which they were basing their stance
2. The data they had was collected by a single individual and covered three counts taken over the course of a minimum of six years
3. The relationship between photographer visitors and pup mortality was based on a “hunch”
4. The spokesperson had never actually visited the sand banks to study the actions of photographers
In a subsequent, equally comprehensive conversation with another senior Warden, prior to my visit with two small groups in 2010, I was eventually told that the Trust’s call for a ban on visitors to the sand banks was due more to the Trust’s difficulty in managing the huge number of overall visitors to the site than it had to do with pup mortality and that, while this Warden would publicly request that we stay behind the barrier, he saw no harm in our group continuing to the sand banks.
My objection to a blanket ban is based on my experience that such a ban is inappropriate and unnecessary, in that it penalizes the legitimate photographer due to the reckless behavior of a minority, in much the same way that I am no longer allowed to photograph my son in his school play due to the relatively small number of pedophiles seemingly roaming our school corridors.
Eventually we must accept that interaction between people and wildlife is inevitable, not just at Donna Nook but everywhere, locally and globally. And where do we draw the line? For example, do we ban all tourism in the Maasai Mara, where excessive vehicles disturb the hunting activity of cheetahs, reducing their numbers? Or how about the tiger reserves in India, where in 2009, at least three tigers were killed by tourist vehicles. Or, alternatively, do we resolve the problem more effectively, by better management, better policing and more education?
In general, it is the principal I disagree with and I firmly believe that education is the answer. However, given that it is impossible to achieve this ideal solution without the support of LWT, the media and other photographers, I have taken the decision to support LWT in its request that photographers avoid the sand banks, and, with the exception of the one small group that I am committed to take in November, shall no longer operate workshops at Donna Nook.
Thank you Chris W for clarifying your position – I for one think that now we’ve got both sides of the story this blog post has a bit more value to it.
Chris o’R – honesty is, of course, welcome on the blog. But cynicsm isn’t when it is without foundation. You raise an interesting point when you say, “I have no authority to take anyone to task for their behaviour…” . So, you see something is wrong, you know it’s wrong but you wouldn’t do or say anything? Is this what you’re saying? Sorry, if it is, that sounds like an excuse for not getting involved . What about the authority of trying – even if we fail – to do the right thing?
Best and thank you to all for your contributions to this thread.
Niall
Pingback: The Line – Wild Sight
As a follow up to this, Ben Hall no longer offers workshops at Donna Nook in response to the LWT request.
Niall
I very nearly managed not to comment on this – very nearly, but not quite!
Knowing all of the contributors to this thread to a lesser or greater degree, I’m confident in suggesting that we all share a common concern for wildlife welfare issues as well as wider environmental challenges. And let’s face it, we’re a tiny minority.
Might I also suggest that to a lesser or greater degree, we’re all hypocritical. We live in a capitalist society driven by material wealth, so we’re all ‘guilty’ of over-consumption, exploitation etc etc.
Against such a backdrop, our weak voices are even weaker by nit-picking and petty accusations…and before anyone shouts at me, I’m not referring to anyone in particular.
Come on guys, acknowledge we’re all different, working in a challenging market but generally speaking, all striving for the same thing. Quite frankly we have bigger fish to fry than the conduct of photographers and the alleged impact on one seal colony. Let’s use our collective ability and passion more productively.
Far from perfect Pete
Sorry Pete
But if we want to woo conservation organisations we need to be squeaky clean in their eyes – and dismissing the conduct of photographers doesn’t send out the right message.
Best
Niall
Hello all,
When discussing an issue such as Donna Nook, it is important to have a strong grasp of the facts. Opinions are important, of course, but they are irrelevant without foundation.
Important facts in this case have included the names of people who lead workshops to Donna Nook and the articles they have published, not just the LWT’s figures on photographer numbers and seal mortality. Without these facts, it would have been difficult to get a full picture.
I do not think it is wrong to name names and I would welcome anyone naming or quoting me in a discussion regarding one of my many faults, although I may not take this stance at the time!
To return to the facts, five photographers ran workshops to Donna Nook in 2010′s pupping season. At least four of these will not do so next year, hopefully to the benefit of pup survival. I hope this shows this discussion has achieved more than promote witch-hunts, in-fighting, and blog readership.
Lastly, some opinion. I think the overarching theme of the thread is seal welfare rather than the general practice of wildlife photographers. I am happy to discuss issues such as flying for conservation – for example, this year I flew to start and end a sponsored walk for a conservation charity – but I think this is best left for another thread.
Best wishes,
Peter
Guys,
The mortality of published comments on this thread is getting excessive; may be photographers should hold a voluntary ban on visiting this site?…
…Said tongue in cheek with a serious undertone
How any wildlife photographer could even entertain the idea of going to Donna Nook, given the request from LWT and the overwhelming obviousness of the stats, is utterly beyond me!
The pedants that would argue against the blindingly obvious, just for the sake of it, would be better off waiting for a sunny day so that they can stand outside and argue with their own shadows!
Peter Moonlight, congratulations my friend on achieving what we all would strive to achieve, you have made a genuine difference my friend, and I salute you for it.
Andy
Pingback: Donna Nook – Pro’s back down! » Robert Canis Photography Blog