Social media is nothing if not a lightning rod for raging arguments and polarizing opinions. Take for example a frenzy of commentary that erupted last week when the administrator of a wildlife photography group on Facebook announced that no one would be permitted to disclose the geographic location of any image taken of any animal species posted to the group. I had intended to include quotes from some of the replies to that post, but I have always been much more interested in what remains unspoken, and the motivations behind a person's stance on any topic.
The directive from the wildlife photographer's Facebook group stemmed from the throngs of people pursuing Snowy Owls that have strayed far south of their normal range and are showing up even in Kansas this winter. Each spotting ignites the bird equivalent of what one might call Princess Diana Syndrome. Hordes of camera- and phone-wielding citizens descend upon the place the bird was reported from. Many people are protesting that crowds are endangering the owls, causing them to expend energy in fleeing instead of hunting rodents. That may be true, but what constitutes harassment of wildlife is debatable. Maybe the people complaining just don't like crowds themselves. The point is that the public conversation is always the tip of the iceberg.
I have my theories. Given what is happening in the natural range of the Snowy Owl, I can understand wildlife professionals and enthusiasts wanting to limit impacts on individual birds. Between climate change, and the U.S. actively seeking to drill for oil in what are now protected Arctic refuges, it may be a matter of decades before the Snowy Owl goes extinct and no one has the privilege of seeing one, anywhere. The interesting thing is that few, if any, advocates for the "rogue" owls in the lower forty-eight are making this point.
You may have legitimate concerns, but claiming to speak on behalf of another species is usually done to avoid speaking selfishly, though selfishness is not a crime. Dishonesty is a crime, and that is the kind of dialogue we have with each other daily, on almost every issue whether personal or public. We fail to speak frankly. That dishonesty leaves the recipient on the other end free to make wild assumptions about your motives.
Assigning the proper location to a specimen, be it the actual organism or an image of it, is standard for the scientific community. Each data point is crucial to our understanding of distribution, behavior, and other aspects of a species. Not including that information could be construed as you having no interest in science, or furthering our collective knowledge in a era when one could argue there is a war on science.
Posting an image and then not disclosing the location can be interpreted as "I got my photo, but I'm not helping you get yours." It is an attitude of smugness and snobbery that you probably never intended, but because you did not honestly explain your motivations, we are free to make assumptions about your character.
Then there is flat-out irony. By driving any distance to see a Snowy Owl, or any other organism, you burned fossil fuels directly or indirectly, and may even have killed some other animal on the road along the way (insects at the very least). One could argue that the process used to get your image is part of the problem. You have added to the demand for fuel that is driving the encroachment into Arctic habitat. Your vehicle's exhaust is adding pollutants that are hastening global warming. The people that don't chase might claim the higher moral ground in this scenario.
We may have to come to peace with not getting "our" shot, our own personal trophy. Instead, maybe we should explore closer to home. In my Bug Eric blog I talk all the time about the potential for discovery in one's own backyard, or neighborhood. You can make a big splash with little if any negative impact. You can find something never seen before in your city, county, or state. You can observe behaviors previously unknown.
Most of all, in your speech and actions, strive to be honest no matter how selfish, strange, or surprising it sounds. It will be refreshing, and maybe it will catch on. Who knows, maybe even members of Congress will have the courage to speak truthfully. No, I'm not holding my breath.
Eric is correct - observations without correct data collection are deemed useless by the scientific community. Whether another snowy owl sighting and its proper location adds much to the 'science' part of any data base and is therefore worth risking stressing the bird even more remains a question, though. What is most questionable is the current craze of listing and driving long distances to bag a lifer. As Eric says, the pollution caused by all that driving, plus the disturbance to habitat and individual animals is undeniable. As most of the avid listers (with camera or without) were originally nature enthusiasts with probably at least a hint of willingness to protect the environment, maybe they should ask themselves what they are doing. Mass media and social media have probably increased the awareness of and the incentive to list and go to great lengths to add to those life lists. But why? If the exact thing that you are interested in - nature and birds - ultimately suffers from your activity? A poor bird that has been driven way off its path and is probably suffering, most likely for ever lost to its genetic pool (like the European Wagtail and the European Cuckoo in the western US lately), becomes a sought after attraction worth hundreds of miles of driving. That's totally perverse!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you 100%. Most all of my wildlife photos, birds to macros, have been taken within a few hundred yards of my home. Trophy hunting, shooting the biggest elk, is no different than driving hundreds of miles to photograph a bird, and like you say, the drive probably is a lot more harmful to the enviornment & biota.
ReplyDeleteI am not inclined to give a location when it comes to endangered species or species of concern, but in all other cases I will give county location at the very least.
ReplyDeletePeople need to be happy to photograph what they CAN see and what they CAN get too. It's like a giant Pokemon hunt with everyone trying to complete their lists or get the rarest shot.
ReplyDeleteUnless your livelihood depends on this (you work for National Geographic) or your work is considered of the utmost scientific or historical value, this is never necessary.
Everyone thinks their work is important. But let's face it. I grew up in a day and age when a pencil drawing of the same photograph of an Ivory-Billed Woodpecker was in every kids' science book and I still learned what one looked like. The perfect capture is certain to make other amateurs envious, but usually this is the only reason it is taken.
A blurry photo from a cell phone through a window in your house is enough to identify a snowy owl and you could easily send it to the people who are actually collecting this data, such as Cornell. Everybody with access to social media does not need to know.
You may be different because you are actually involved in documenting wildlife trends. But then, someone you know or work with closely knows where the bugs are and is willing to tell you because they trust you.
People who are not in a close network of trust do not need to know, PERIOD. They are not serious about wildlife, they will do more harm than good, and they are not in it for scientific reasons.
Very well written piece, as always. But you are operating on some flawed assumptions. First, the location "ban" was in effect before the snowy owl situation. Second, you are assuming wildlife photographers want to withhold locations to be selfish or snobs. It's a much more pleasant way to deal with people to assume positive intent.
ReplyDeleteEric, this is Brian Banker (Brian Orion) from SEABA.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of something like herps, which have a limited reproductive rate and a fairly large collecting community that is hot for them, and to a lesser extent birds (also a limited reproductive rate, also have lots of folks after them, but more able to flee from humans) I can understand vague locality data. However, in the case of all but a handful of insect populations, this is counterproductive political correctness. The overwhelming preponderance of insect colonies are not harmed by recreational take, and a lot of these sightings come on refuges, in parks, etc. that are all protected anyway.
This is a *huge* problem with BAMONA for instance, rendering it almost useless for getting serious, hard data points. This has to go. In the case of the RGVB Facebook group, where there are periodic "collecting scares", it is patently absurd.
Some big assumptions you're using. Had you contacted me, I would have been happy to provide actual information. As CAZ mentioned above, the ban was already in effect prior to the appearance of the snowy owl. And this has not been the first episode of wildlife being endangered by our collective behavior. What could have been an opportunity to openly discuss this issue has, it seems, been wasted on venting your opinion. Best wishes for the future.
ReplyDeleteI would be happy to edit or amend the post if someone would clarify with particulars the incidents that triggered your decision. So far I am hearing only vague references. Thank you.
Delete