Common Excuses for Unethical Behaviour by Bird Photographers
- Georgina Steytler
- Oct 2, 2021
- 15 min read
Updated: Feb 26
and why They are Wrong.
If you have ever tried to raise the issue of ethics in respect of photographers' behaviour, you will almost certainly have come across one or more of the responses below, either directly or indirectly. I, personally, have come across all of them over the course of my photographic career. Sometimes, people do things because they are genuinely unaware that it could have an impact, and that is understandable. We all do things when we first start, often because we are just so excited about this new world of birds we've 'discovered'.
However, many of the photographers who continue to practice questionable behaviour, even after being told of its potential to harm birds, do so for reasons which don't stand up to science, rational, dispassionate analysis, the law, or plain common sense. Sadly, the 'need' for great bird images often clouds their ability to see the issue from an objective point of view.
It's worth bearing in mind that reputation is everything.
“One of the things I tell young photographers at the end of the day is, never forget that your reputation is everything. If you want to take shortcuts, if you’re exposed, you will set everything back decades,” [Brian] Skerry [long time National Geographic photographer] says. “You have to be above reproach. You have to do it right”: How to photograph wildlife ethically, by Melissa Groo.
Additionally, some behaviors, like using call playback to lure birds to perches, are so prevalent that they have become 'normalized'. NORMALIZATION refers to the negative concept when certain behaviors or outcomes are observed or exhibited by role models so frequently that they are considered normal without taking context or ethical justification into account.
I hope that by outlining the following, it will assist many people in recognizing where their logic might be flawed and offer others a response to the most common excuses given when ethical issues are brought up.
“Having heard all of this you may choose to look the other way but you can never again say you did not know”
Lord Wilberforce
I love birds.
Nearly everyone I've confronted about ethical issues has replied with, 'but I love birds.' I'm sure they truly believe they love birds. The issue is that they can't distinguish the warm, fuzzy feelings tied to their bird photography, which are closely linked to the praise received for capturing a great image, from a genuine, unbiased respect and concern for the bird itself.
Truly loving 'birds' means respecting the right of the living creature in front of you to exist without deliberate (and unnecessary) interference or harassment.
If they could no longer photograph the bird or another animal (or share it with others), would they still pursue them with the same passion just to observe them?
Regarding the worst ethical violators, one only needs to examine the content of their social media accounts or website to see that they are fixated on their photography, rather than the welfare of the subject or its conservation.
South African wildlife photographer and safari guide Isak Pretorius attributes a false sense of accomplishment from social media posts and “the idea of instant fame without putting in the hard work,” as contributing factors to unethical behaviors in photographing wildlife. “Instagram and Facebook are great tools for bragging about your photos, building a portfolio to get your name out there, and enjoying the attention that spectacular photos bring,” he says: Ethics of Wildlife Photography.
I am spreading the love of birds.
The simple answer to this is that you can spread the love equally well without doing high impact photography. Indeed, social media is littered with countless beautiful animal images taken ethically.
I could see that the bird was not stressed.
We need to distinguish between two kinds of stress reaction.
The first is the visible changes to behaviour. This may manifest itself in the bird appearing agitated. For instance, it's easy to spot images of birds that have been called in using call playback as they will often have their tail and crest erect and/or be aggressively calling.
A friend told me he was out with a photographer who used call playback to call in a bird. The bird was visibly agitated. He said to the other photographer that he should stop as the bird appeared to be upset, to which the photographer replied, "yes, but look at the great images I'm getting."
Even if the bird doesn't appear agitated, it will likely be having a physiological response, with studies showing that even short playback session can have long lasting and far-reaching effects on individual fitness (study led by Daniel J. Mennill of the University of Illinois into 'Female eavesdropping on male song contests in songbirds' using call playback: Science. 2002 May 3; 296(5569)).
Further, a lack of response doesn't mean a bird hasn't reacted or has become inured to the stressor.
“Without a doubt, playing a call will alter behavior to some degree,” says Isak Pretorius. “Some calls that appear to have no positive reaction might be an intimidation call, scaring the animal away.”
A tour guide asserted that he had employed call playback for many years in a particular area without any noticeable effect on the local bird species. However, this assertion is based on the incorrect assumption that he would be able to see the impact. Without a detailed study of each bird in the area, its lifespan, and its relationships within and between species, such self-serving statements have limited evidential value.
These claims are also easily contradicted by others. Dr. Bruce W. Miller, Associate Conservation Zoologist at the Wildlife Conservation Society, Gallon, Belize (NEOORN post[6], 22 March 2005), observed over 14 years that “.... many bird species formerly common are no longer to be found in the same locations where some guides ...... play tapes for 15–20 min without stop”. The birds, however, continue to be found in similar undisturbed habitats.
Additionally, I recently volunteered on an endangered bird program where the lead scientist mentioned that they had used call playback to see if it would encourage the birds to remain in a translocated area. However, they discovered that the call playback actually caused the birds to MOVE to a different location (i.e., it was detrimental). She stressed to volunteers that they MUST NOT disclose the location to anyone because one of the biggest threats to the vulnerable population was birders and bird photographers. She said, "We don't want birders and bird photographers trampling the vegetation and using call playback".
Nesting birds
I have heard photographers state that they didn't disturb the bird as the parent returned to the nest.
Just because a bird continues to visit a nest doesn't mean it isn't stressed by your presence. It is snookered. It can't move the nest to another location so, unless it abandons the nest (which has been known to happen, especially with raptors), it has no choice but to continue to visit and feed the chicks. Stress during nesting time can result in consequences unseen by the photographer - such as higher mortality rate of chicks etc.
I only did it once.
Once can be enough to cause detrimental harm. Studies have shown that predation of birds responding to a conspecific call playback is a real risk.
A friend was on a bird walk and one of the group used call playback to attract a bird into the open. Almost immediately a raptor flew down and took the bird. The birder responsible for the call playback quipped 'that's one bird that won't be calling again'.
Further, every action must be considered in terms of its cumulative impact. Times have changed, significantly. In this era, we must ask the question what would happen if 100 people did the same thing as you to the same bird or in the same location?
It is an important question to ask yourself given that:
The number of bird photographers has increased exponentially in recent years. One state based Australian Facebook group for birders increased from 200 to over 14,000 members in just 2 years. Another currently boasts over 45,000 members. The 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation report stated that in the United States there were 45 million birders, which equated to 18% of all Americans.
the rise of social media (and its algorithm which rewards high impact and regular content) is driving photographers to constantly get newer and closer bird images to post to their accounts;
there is a proliferation of birding apps with bird calls readily available on mobile phones;
there is an ever increasing number of websites, books and bird data sites (such as ebird) that give detailed locations of birds (sometimes even GPS co-ordinates), including of rare and remote species.
the number of birds has decreased substantially (A 2019 survey of 529 bird species in North America that found that the bird populations have fallen by 29 per cent since 1970, a loss of nearly three billion birds, with the decline across the board, affecting common birds that are ‘vital to ecosystems, controlling pests, pollinating flowers, spreading seeds and regenerating forests’. Similarly, in Australia, the 2015 State of Australian Birds report found that 144 (12%) of the 1241 species and subspecies regularly occurring in Australia were considered threatened in accordance with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. As in North America, many common terrestrial birds, such as the southern boobook and tawny frogmouth, had also shown significant overall declines); and the
The habitat of birds is shrinking rapidly and dramatically, resulting in fewer and more concentrated 'birding' locations (For instance, in Queensland, the home of some of Australia's most popular birding locations, about 395,000 hectares of native vegetation were cleared in 2015-2016, the equivalent of 1,500 football fields per day).
The bird was fine when I left it.
As noted above, not all the impacts of stress are visible or immediate.
Further, any predator that you have alerted to the presence of the bird may wait until you have disappeared before predating the bird.
There is no proof it's harmful.
In most cases there is ample scientific evidence that certain behaviours (eg call playback) are harmful. When photographers use this excuse, they usually exclude any evidence on the basis that it relates to a different species than the one they are photographing and the activity, such as call playback, is not proven to be harmful to all species.
However, even setting aside the fact that there is evidence that call playback can be harmful to birds, it has been long established in the field of environmental law the evidential onus to prove a potentially harmful activity is safe is on those seeking to do the activity, not on those wanting to prevent it. It's known as the precautionary principle and it is so widely accepted that it has become international customary law.
In other words, if you claim it is safe to use call playback then the universally accepted principle of environmental law is that the onus is on you to prove it is so before taking out the tape recorder and blasting away.
Most countries incorporate customary international law into domestic legal order in some way, so that in Australia the precautionary principle is embodied in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity. Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Where it hasn't been explicitly incorporated into, or excluded from, domestic law it is implied into the law.
Everybody does it.
Normalisation is the negative concept when certain behaviours or outcomes are seen, or demonstrated by role models, so often that they become regarded as normal without consideration of context or ethical justification.
"The tour guides do it," was what one young birder told my friend recently when she advised against using call playback.
In Australia, any tour or photographic guide using call playback to lure birds closer, without a license, is almost certainly committing an offence and is liable to having their tour license revoked.
I did not disturb the nesting bird, so it's okay for me to post this photo to social media.
The issue is not only what you did to get the photo, but also what someone else will do who sees your image on social media and tries to copy it. Monkey see, monkey do.
Blanket ban
The simplest and most effective way of preventing people from disturbing nesting birds (the most critical time in a bird's life) is to discourage the posting of nesting bird images on social media, regardless of how the image was taken.
Many photo competitions and responsible bird photography forums specifically prohibit all birds-in-nest images for this reason.
While it may be tempting, and arguable, to have exceptions for nesting bird images that aren't readily copied, such as colonial nesting birds in Antarctica or nests at the top of tall trees, the problem is that, once you make one exception, it raises the question of where to draw the line.
Remote, live cam feeds of nesting birds by birding authorities are one way of promoting our understanding of, and empathy for, the lives of birds with minimal risk to the birds themselves through either direct disturbance or indirectly encouraging badly behaved copycats.
The bird was nesting in a public area
This is the most frequent justification photographers use when sharing images of nesting birds. However, there are several reasons why this practice is problematic.
Firstly, even if a bird nests in a public location, it is accustomed to humans behaving in specific ways, such as walking or running along paths, entering and exiting homes, or generally ignoring the birds around them. Anyone who has had a bird nesting in their garden knows that the birds are extremely cautious about approaching or leaving the nest when observed. It's clear that if you openly watch the bird, it becomes uneasy.
Similarly, a bird in a public park might be used to people passing by, but as soon as someone stops and stares at it, especially with a large camera lens, it becomes distressed. I once had to capture an image of a common Australian magpie in flight. I assumed it would be simple since they are everywhere. However, I quickly realized that while they are comfortable around humans, they become very nervous if you focus too much attention on them and quickly leave the area.
Secondly, even if you didn't disturb the bird while taking the photo, by sharing an image of a bird nesting in a public space, you are encouraging others to do the same, and not everyone will exercise the same caution. Consider if dozens of people stopped to photograph the willie wagtail nesting by the path. Can you still claim there would be no effect?
In fact, sharing images of nesting birds in public areas is the WORST type of nest photography to post on social media, because these birds are highly visible and vulnerable to disturbance. Few people can replicate a photo of a bird nesting atop an Andean mountain or in a 30-meter-high gum tree, but potentially hundreds can easily access a bird nesting in a local park, making it more susceptible, not less.
Finally, a study suggests that birds in high-stress environments, like public parks, are prone to catastrophic collapse with even minor additional stresses. In simple terms, the added stress of humans 'watching' the nest may be the mouse that sank the boat.
I am a professional/high profile photographer so it's ok for me to do it but you shouldn't try to copy me.
A person once told me that when she questioned the wisdom of a particular high profile photographer posting an image of nesting birds, she was told by other users that she had no right to ask the question of that person because they were a 'big photographer'. One even asked, "Do you know whose account this is?" as if the popularity of that photographer gave them the right to do whatever they liked, unquestioned.
Being a good photographer, having a high profile or having a large social media account doesn't mean you can get away with doing things other 'lesser photographers' aren't allowed to do. On the contrary, with a greater profile comes a greater responsibility to do the right thing.
Part of the problem is a reluctance by high profile photographers to be public advocates for ethical photography. Enabling or facilitating is the concept that by action, or lack of action, people (such as photographic peers) are potentially causing undesirable behaviours and outcomes, or allowing them to happen.
I use a big lens.
The issue is not also what lens you have used, but also what lens someone else will use who tries to replicate your image.
Professional photographers often caveat their images by saying "I have a big lens and took this image XYZ metres away from the nesting bird so it wasn't disturbed. You shouldn't try to copy me if you don't also have a big lens."
The problem with this argument is that, firstly, people never read the fine print. Anyone who regularly uses social media will know that only a handful of people actually read the caption that comes with the photo. Most simply 'like' or 'comment' quickly and scroll on.
Secondly, even if they have read the 'fine print', humans being what they are, and the lure of popularity on social media becoming all-consuming, many will still try to copy the image.
Thirdly, it is a misconception that bird photographers with big lenses don't get as close to the bird as those without the same focal length. In my experience, most bird photographers will try to get as close to the bird as possible regardless of the focal length they are using.
I haven't been birding very long. But I had a very bad local experience with birders overwhelming an area(for weeks if not longer) where Long-Eared Owls were hanging out. People who claimed to be birders came in droves with HUGE lenses and STILL encroached on the small thickets where they were spending the days in. Even stomping well into the blackberries to get closer. I had a much smaller camera and stayed way further back. When I mentioned respecting the wildlife it was not received well. I stopped birding there period because it was upsetting and all I could do to help was be one less person out there.
See above re Blanket Ban on nesting images.
Call playback has less impact than trampling through the reserve chasing birds, pishing or being in the presence of birds for a long period.
Trampling vegetation versus call playback
Firstly, being a responsible nature photographer means respecting the animals and the habitat in which they live. If getting an image or seeing the bird means you have to trample through undisturbed vegetation in hot pursuit, you shouldn't be doing that anyway.
Birders and photographers (and any person looking for a wild animal) need to change the way they approach the issue.
Being able to see or photograph any wild animal is a privilege, not a right.
Presence of human as a stressor (as opposed to call playback)
Secondly, as to the stress you cause a bird through being in its presence, this stress isn't likely to be more than that caused by call playback. Birds are used to humans behaving as humans. Most birds may not like our presence, but they are not perceiving us as a serious threat in the same way as a real predator, such as a goshawk, or a territorial intruder that could usurp the dominant males status.
Pishing
A pish is an imitated bird call (usually a scold or alarm call) used by birders and ornithologists to attract birds (generally passerines): Wikipedia.
Any reaction to pishing is likely to be through curiosity, or heightened caution, rather than to a known threat. Birds are likely to know when a noise is made by its own species or a different species, such as a human. As such it isn't likely to elevate stress levels in birds to the same extent as call playback which is a recording of a bird's actual call.
Call Playback is Natural
No. It isn't. One bird calling another is natural. A human pretending to be a bird calling another bird is not.
Everybody has a right to see a new or rare bird.
No. They don't. Seeing and photographing a bird is a privilege, not a right. A better way of looking at it is to say that every bird has a right to exist without deliberate interference from birders/bird photographers.
We have an ethics policy.
But is it strong enough and do you enforce it? There is no point having an ethics policy if, in practice, you never enforce or refer to it.
When I confronted a moderator of a popular forum several years ago about why they didn't call out a photographer who openly used unethical practices they responded by saying the 'photographer in question is very popular with the other members and we don't want to upset anyone.'
When did you last update it? Have you taken into account how much the birding environment has changed in the last 20 years (as to which see I Only Did it Once)? Do you call out or penalise members for unethical conduct? Do you refuse to accept images taken using unethical means?
'So and So' is a much bigger issue. You should be concentrating on stopping that.
One repeat offender in an estuarine environment said to me, in response to a discussion about ethical bird photography, that 'speeding boats was a bigger problem'.
There is no either/or in this scenario. If you think something else is having a bigger impact on birds, the simple answer is that you can be an ethical photographer and do something about other issues confronting birds. If you really do care about birds, then it is incumbent on all of us to do more.
You can't police it.
We have laws against speeding. It's impossible to police everywhere, all the time. It still happens. But we STILL have a law for it.
Everything we do disturbs the birds anyway so if you are worried, you should not take any photos at all.
This is a valid point. However, we will never stop bird photography. Therefore, it's better to adopt a realistic approach to what is and is not possible and lead by example. It isn't possible to stop people being birders or bird photographers, but it is possible to demonstrate that those activities can be successfully conducted in a way that has the lowest impact on our birdlife.
Birding brings in income needed to protect birds.
There is no doubt that in some countries the only thing saving vast tracts of forest is bird-related tourism. In this situation, the solution may be to only allow licensed and trained tour guides and operators to use high-impact techniques, such as call playback and feeding, to lure particular species in particular locations.
In this way, bird-related tourism is not impacted (in fact, licensed tour operators would get more business) and any negative impacts on bird populations can be monitored in a controlled way.
In Western Australia, under section 153 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 it is an offence to disturb fauna without a lawful authority to do so. If a photographer determines that their activities are likely to take or disturb fauna, they can contact the Department of Biodiveristy, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) Wildlife Licensing Section to apply for an appropriate licence.
NOTE:
The article titled 'Liked to Death? The Social Media Race for Nature Photos Can Trash Ecosystems - or Trigger Rapid Extinction', authored by three scientists, explores social media's impact on nature and is essential reading for all: Link here.
This article has been widely cited and republished, reaching an audience of 232 million people globally (excluding social media mentions), highlighting the growing global concern regarding ethical nature photography.
Comments