Why photographers get a bad name - Donna Nook

There is a nursery which is very close to the car park where there are quite a few seal pups which is fenced off. However some of the pups are right by the fence.

You can also go out on the beach and there are more seals with their pups out there which by the looks of it is where the woman was photographed. It can be quite a hike to the sea especially if the tide is out a rough guess up to a mile.

As you are most likely aware you can only get on the beach at weekends
 
I've never been to Donna Nook. I have visited Sea Lions in California. There access to the beach is forbidden.

The exception is with a guide, who take you around in small groups. I assume this might be the answer here. Some people might not like the restriction, but it would be the best compromise and would you hope educate people as well as stopping harmful behaviour to the seals. The downside of course is there would be a charge...
 
c75mitch said:
Why?, I am causing no harm to the animals, I am not chasing them round the beach, getting too close or chasing the mothers away from the pups. For the most part I pay little attention to the pups, in fact 90% of my photos were of the adults playing and/or fighting in the surf, which is the main reason I go. Out on the beach I only saw perhaps 5 or 6 pups. Just seeing a few adults and pups in the viewing area lying there doing nothing is only a very small part of what Donna Nook has to offer. If you're happy to go there for that, then that is you prerogative, that is not the reason I go.

As for the Wardens know best, well who's to know. For the most part they are untrained volunteers. Pups deaths will naturally fluctuate. Deaths from natural abandonment by first time mothers, killings by other seals, deaths from sickness, severe weather conditions and even still births vary every year. I am sure that they cannot show any evidence that proves photographers walking on the beach are causing the deaths of pups just the same as they have no real idea how may pups die each year from natural causes. As for knowing deaths increase with the amount of photographers going on the beach, very debatable.

I do agree about keeping a reasonable distance from the seals and that is why use my 600mm lens instead of the 400mm, but I do not agree that the beach should be off limits and will continue to visit.
Click to expand...

BLOODY IDIOT
 
c75mitch said:
http://www.chrisweston.uk.com/news/view/human-seal-interaction-at-donna-nook/
Click to expand...

Sorry but those views are again based on his wanting to get pictures, and by the look of it a nice salary taking people to the areas mentioned.

Unfortunately this is, as many others before it, a pointless argument. All that will happen is that the beach will be closed by the RAF and it will be lost to everyone.

It is upsetting that when it is in their personal interest people will not listen to advice and quote all manner of things to say that they are right and those in charge are talking rubbish.

If the actions of photographers contributed to the death of one pup, then that is one death too many.

I wonder if the attitude of some on here will change when the beach is closed because of their actions.
 
adrian5127 said:
I think they need to define how close is too close whether it be out on the beach or by the fenced off nursery area, put some signs up and do their best to enforce it hopefully with the RAFs backing.

I remember this time last year it go quite heated on here but there was a wildlife programme shortly afterwards ( a well known one but I cannot recall which one ) where some pups went right up to the cameraman even touching his tripod. If that is on national television then people will think six foot is more than fine. What is too close will always be subjective hence a definitive distance would be a good idea.
Click to expand...

Not wishing to drag up an older thread un-necassarily, but I whole-heartedly agree with this.

I would not necessarily have considered that person in the photos as being too close.
However, if there was a notice stating what is a reasonable shortest distance (10m?) and the reason for it, then that would be something that I could consider and respect.
 
I'm beginning to think we are all partly to blame too. I'll try and explain. Before digital, mostly the only people you saw with SLR's , motor drives and telephoto lenses were pro photographers. Today, practically everyone owns a DSLR and considers themselves the next prize winning photographer. It's all part of the "must have it" and "must have it now" society. Comes with the deal I'm afraid. Only way to stop it from happening? Ban people from being there put "MOD, No entry" signs up and a few armed troops on patrol, explaining that unexploded mines have been found and they'll scarper quick enough.....
 
The Chillinator said:
Looks like a prime example of today's Enviro-hippies, claiming to do good for the enviroment and our wildlife, but really making it ten times worse... :thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

Maybe, but in the interest of fairness you shouldn't simply tar everyone who does things differently to you with the same brush.

It seems to me that the experienced, vocal photographers on here who regularly visiting places like this are the best-placed individuals to offer advice, from one tog to another, about good working practises. Shooting your mouth off on an internet forum to people who agree with you won't get you very far in educating those who are apparently doing wrong....
 
specialman said:
Maybe, but in the interest of fairness you shouldn't simply tar everyone who does things differently to you with the same brush.

It seems to me that the experienced, vocal photographers on here who regularly visiting places like this are the best-placed individuals to offer advice, from one tog to another, about good working practises. Shooting your mouth off on an internet forum to people who agree with you won't get you very far in educating those who are apparently doing wrong....
Click to expand...


Hear ! Hear !
 
Never been to a seal sanctuary, beach with seals on, breeding ground, or in any way ever attempted to take a photo of a seal. There we go, credentials established.

What I have done is try to find information on mortality in seals. I've trawled through the peer reviewed literature (the parts of it that I have free access to), and I simply can't find anything on the subject related to humans getting close to seals. Plenty on people killing seals of course, but nothing on proximity in line with the activity described at Donna Nook.

I don't claim to be a scientist, but I do read enough science literature (peer review, not popular press) due to a laymans interested in evolutionary biology to know that differentiating between a causal link and a coincidence is difficult at best without proper study.

Is it possible that the volume and proximity of people to this seal population is causing an increase in pup mortality? Yes, certainly. Is it happening? I don't know, and neither does anyone else at this point (unless I missed the appropriate study, link if anyone has it).

Given the circumstances I personally wouldn't want to get close to these pups. I would suggest that given a small probability that there is a causal relationship here it would be unethical to get so close. I would further feel it reasonable to inform others of the possible link. Simply stating as fact that such a causal link exists is presumptuous at best, though.

Given the nature of the claim being made I certainly wouldn't ask for anything close to definitive evidence, but currently all that exists is speculation. Be cautious, yes, and I would advocate not getting close entirely due to that caution. But the vitriol directed at others who do not share this concern is not, yet, justified.
 
From studying mortality at one site I guess it'd be tough to rule out the effects of changing food supplies, weather etc., unless visiting could be stopped in random years. Or maybe compare two nearby sites, one with visitors and one without.

But I guess no-one would argue with the advice about not getting close to birds feeding. If I get close enough to make them fly off, I've interrupted their feeding _and_ made them expend extra energy in flight. If 100 or 500 more people do that during the day I can see how significant that might be, especially on a subsequent migration.

Maybe people getting close to seals might affect mother / pup bonding?

I'd like to take the best pics possible, but not at the expense of the animals I'm photographing.

Edit: Rather than guessing here's what I found in "ProQuest Environmental Science and Pollution Management". I work in engineering at a Uni but we've got access to other subject databases. The abstracts are available on-line for free for at least some of these - just google the titles. I've had quick look : they've got lines which could be taken out of context to swing the argument either way. I think we'd have to read them all slowly and carefully to make the best judgement...

Mass of weaned elephant seal pups in areas of low and high human presence
Engelhard, G H; van den Hoff, J; Broekman, M; Baarspul, AN; Field, I; et al.
Polar Biology24.4 (Mar 22, 2001): 244-251.

Human Disturbance, Nursing Behaviour, and Lactational Pup Growth in a Declining Southern Elephant Seal (Mirounga leonina) Population
Engelhard, Georg H; Baarspul, Antonie NJ; Broekman, Martijn; Creuwels, Jeroen CS; Reijnders, Peter JH.
Canadian Journal of Zoology80.11 (Nov 2002): 1876.

Southern elephant seal population declines: The human onshore disturbance hypothesis
Engelhard, G H. 184 pp. Van Denderen b.v,

A preliminary investigation of the effect of repeated pedestrian approaches to Weddell seals (Leptonychotes weddellii)
van Polanen Petel, T; Giese, M; Hindell, M.
Applied Animal Behaviour Science112.1-2 (Jul 2008): 205-211.
 
Last edited:
That is silly actions. I heard they are / have putting cordons up now. People are banned from the beach
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top