The ethics of nature photography and the ostracising of photographers

The Hesarghatta Landscape and the tracks that photographers use - Credit Prathima Kharvi

A couple of days back Dr MB Krishna published a rapid assessment study on his website, entitled "Ruining the ecology of Hesarghatta Lake - the role of bird photographers".  The team spent time in the month of December 2012 using a variety of research methods to conclude that 136 hectares of Hesarghatta's grassland habitat is now lost to vehicular movement. The study said that this destruction to the vegetation of the grassland came from vehicles that photographers drove into the area. They also had a few suggestions to mitigate this problem and I'll try to summarise them here:

1. Regulation and self-regulation: Stop all off-track driving and encourage photographers to follow a strict code of ethics.
2. Need for a stakeholder committee: One that looks at long term solutions to the problem and creates means to regulate activity in the grassland.
3. Clear demarcation of pathways: In order to prevent off-track driving
4. Digging a trench: So that off-roading isn't possible at all.
5. Policing, legal bans and protection: Getting the authorities involved so there's adequate protection for wildlife in the area and adequate punishments for those that destroy the habitat.

Let me just say that I agree with each of these points. I'd agree with them even without a study! In fact, grasslands are such neglected ecosystems in our country that I'd be pleased if we took such interest conserve all our last remaining grasslands. All this said, I also realise that this is an academic study and one that tries to indicate causality. While I'm no expert at conducting these studies, I do know that a good study is one that's backed with evidence and one that looks at the matter on hand without bias. It seems to me that the team conducting this study has an obvious bias against photographers and may have inadvertently cherry picked some of their facts and observations to train their guns against this community.

The shades of gray

I see four slightly odd areas of the study. The first is the direct attribution of vehicular tracks to photographers. I think this needs a little more research. The site was a marsh until 2010 and for regular vehicles to access the area was quite impossible. The three large tracks in the area were most likely created by the tractors and earth moving vehicles that have plied in the grassland for the last 2-3 years. In fact, I have never visited the grassland and not seen these vehicles. I must add that on weekdays the grassland has no photography vehicles, but does have a lot of these bigger vehicles. The team has ignored the impact of these machines. In no way should this undermine the impact that photography vehicles might bring to the habitat, but the impact of tractors and larger vehicles is surely not negligible. 

Second, the team has over estimated the traffic at the grassland based on their few visits. Even on weekends, it's very rare that there are 20 vehicles at the same time at Hesarghatta. The grassland is not navigable for most vehicles until mid-November given the trend of monsoons in Bangalore in recent years. The estimate of 4200 passes on every track is therefore quite high and oversimplified in my view. This said, we can't ignore that there is sufficient vehicular traffic to destroy vegetation each year.

The slightly more controversial part of the report for me is the one that has no evidence to back it up. Times of India published a rather alarmist report based on this study. I don't blame the newspaper - they like others of their kind, love a sensation. In the report Krishna is quoted as saying, "In the name of bird photography, they chase birds in cars and many a time, the birds die." As it turns out there's no evidence to suggest that any bird died because of a photographer. The statement feels sensationalist, to say the least.

The report also had statements like:

"However, on several occasions, when vehicles approached a Common Kestrel close, the bird ran to avoid the photographers rather than flying. We believe that this avoidance behaviour was not because the bird was too lazy to fly but it was too tired to fly."

The report also had a photograph of a common kestrel in front of some photographers. The report claimed that the kestrel was 'exhausted'.

I'll tell you more about the kestrels of Hesarghatta later in this post, but in the mean time, let me explain my reservations about this comment. Just because a bird decides to strut on the grassland floor or if it stays stationary in front of a photographer, we can't conclude that the bird is exhausted. The research team had no evidence to conclude this. Even when I raised this question on the bngbirds group, I got nothing more than conjecture.

Last but not the least, the team mentions in their study that.

"Damage to animals is observable. Birds, invertebrates, amphibians and reptiles are likely to be run over by vehicles. Damage is compounded as several ground nesting birds loose their nests and young ones."

While the team did say this, it was surprising that they were not able to recover one roadkill from their exercise. After all, if the damage is at the scale they report, is it not likely for them to find at least one victim of the proceedings? More importantly they mentioned that the photography traffic is primarily in months between October and February which is the season for migrants. And yet, most ground nesting birds such as larks and pipits don't nest until summer time which begins in March and April. In fact, few photographers visit Hesarghatta in summer.

My aim of raising these points is not to cast aspersions on the ability or intent of the individuals involved in the study. They're all highly capable people and the recommendations in their report are spot on. All I want to state is that there are some parts of the report which we can't take at face value, without adequate evidence. It's also worth examining the team's biases prior to the study. Often, despite the best intentions, if you've already reached a conclusion - you're very likely to select observations and data to suit that conclusion.

The ethics of photography and the gray of it all

A visitor to a bird bath (bait?) at a popular 'birding' lodge

One of the big talking points in the aftermath of this report was about the ethics of nature photography.  The biggest governing rule for me is that no wildlife photograph is ever worth causing any grievous harm to your subjects or their habitat. This said, there's a trade-off each one of us makes. Just by stepping into the wilderness we cause disturbance to its inhabitants. If our aim is zero-impact, then I'm sorry that's impossible unless we all stay at home. The aim should be to minimise our impact as far as possible and every individual draws their own lines to achieve this. And we need to be careful to understand that there are very few rules that are absolutes. Let me bring up a couple of points that are often hotly debated and often frowned upon in bird photography circles:

• Nest Photography: I've never photographed birds at nests and I perhaps will never do so for the risk it poses to them. Several photography forums even ban such photographs. And even then, the Cornell Lab of Orinthology (folks behind the Birds of Paradise project) take a rather soft stance towards it. Evidence enough that the condemnation of the practice isn't universal.
• Baiting: A slightly more gray area this; baiting can have some serious impacts on birds. For example, you could be changing a bird's feeding habits and you may even end up introducing diseases through the food you provide. And yet, bird feeders seem to have near universal acceptance. In fact, in the west people seem to consider placing feeders in their gardens a part of their responsibility to nature given how humans have inhabited large tracts of erstwhile wilderness. Heck, even organisations like the Audobon society promote it. And even amongst bird photographers, there isn't consensus about whether baiting is the right thing or not. For example, is it ok to leave some water for birds on a hot summer's day? Would you rather the birds die without water? The photograph above is of a blue capped rock thrush at a bird bath. Would you call this unethical?
• Bird Calls: You could consider bird calls as the equivalent of bait - after all, you're drawing the bird to you by luring it with a sound. The Sibley guides have a great article about this; a very balanced one that lists the arguments in favour and against the practice. The key conclusion is that no research has demonstrated a negative impact of playback on birds at the population level. Until that happens, the use of bird calls will also remain an area of gray.

We could go on and discuss every controversy in the field of nature photography and observation be it the use of flash, or artificial perches, hides and blinds or for that matter tracking on foot vs using a vehicle. Each area is open to debate and there are rarely any clear blacks and whites. The key is to look at each situation and consider our own impact and remember the cardinal rule of not causing any harm, wilful or accidental to our subjects or their surroundings.

Hesarghatta's Kestrels and the fallacy of tired birds

A Kestrel on the ground - not so tired, after all

Those who have been out photographing with me know that I don't like chasing birds for a couple of reasons. I don't want to cause them anxiety and more so because I'm plain lazy. I also don't like to work in a crowd, because I feel it just isn't the right environment either for the bird or for me to enjoy the experience. So even when I go birding in Bangalore, I usually prefer going on weekday mornings so I'm not in a crowd. On several of my mornings, I've encountered this Kestrel on the north side of Hesarghatta. She is extremely tolerant of human beings and has allowed me very close without exception. In fact, as you can deduce from the angle of this photograph, I was sitting right in front of her, on the ground - not in a car. Let's also understand the other variables. There was no other vehicle 'chasing' her. I approached her once and then just sat down on the ground, so I wasn't chasing her either. And she had the entire grassland to go to, if she so chose. Instead, she just kept walking around me on the ground and kept picking grasshoppers and smaller insects as prey. She just didn't look at me while feeding and that's why I have no good feeding shots, and I chose not to disturb her foraging routine as well. This continued for a good 30-40 minutes. I chose not to get up so as to have a prolonged viewing and the Kestrel obliged. When she was done, she moved to another spot in the grassland and I just went back home since the sun was too harsh by then. This was not the only time the Kestrel has displayed this behaviour. I'm happy to share photos from other days, when she exhibited similar behaviour.

The point I'm trying to make is that the bird will walk on the ground if need be and if there's enough prey around. And while it isn't common to see kestrels being so cooperative with photos or spending so much time on the ground, it's entirely situational and could also be linked to the bird's individual personality. I daresay that some of the Kestrels at Hesarghatta are tough as nails and are far bolder than those in other habitats. Now you might say birds don't have personalities, but Bev and Derek Joubert say big cats have them. Raptors often have longer lives than big cats - so I wouldn't be surprised if they have personalities too! So, if this perfectly content Kestrel spent so much time on the ground of its own accord, how could the team on the Hesarghatta study conclude that walking on the ground implies the bird is tired? The passion with which the team berated photographers in their study merits a slightly deeper observation of the very birds they're seeking to protect, I'm afraid.

---

It's been a long blogpost and I must say again that my aim is not to question the credentials or the work of the team behind the Hesarghatta study. I applaud their drive and their work and I support their suggestions whole heartedly. I can't however take off my critical thinking hat and accept every statement in the report at face value. As a photographer, nature lover and conscientious visitor to Hesarghatta I'd like people who I know to also understand other aspects to the Hesarghatta crisis.

And by the way, the report is likely to make you believe that the main threat to the habitat is photographers. I strongly disagree with that assumption. Indiscriminate planting of trees, the spread of non native acacia such prosopis juliflora and the government's plans to trash the landscape in favour of amusement parks and film institutes is a far bigger threat. The priority for nature lovers shouldn't be to train their guns on photographers (who incidentally love nature too!) - instead we need to focus our attention on matters of greater importance.