Wild Life Photographers : Positive Intrusion & where to draw a line?

[Chitrita Chatterjee]

Lately the Shades of Grey seems to be the dominant color....

Tell me something..... as you talk of "Playing God" or " Positive intrusion"... where does one draw the line.....???

I would love to moderate on this one....

[Ranbir Mahapatra]

I am actually in two minds now

When I started this thread I was definitely on the "play God" side as Sabyasachi put it. But now, I would say I am in the "grey"!

My starting premise was: It was us humans who brought about this mess. So isn't it our obligation now to make up for past crimes?

But now, even if we have good intention, if we act, how can we be sure about the repercussions? Would it have a deleterious effect? How much of risk mitigation can be actually planed out?

I think the need of the hour, is to positively intrude in situations pertaining to habitat protection and infrastructure management for the same. And we should be seriously considering pitching in when we feel there is a threat to the "gene pool" diversity, be it man / animal.

[Mrudul Godbole]

Wildlife documentary makers are infringing animals' rights to privacy by filming their most private and intimate moments, according to a new study.

Footage of animals giving birth in their burrows or mating crosses an ethical line that film-makers should respect, according to Brett Mills, a lecturer in film studies at the University of East Anglia.

Mills compiled a report on animals' rights to privacy after reviewing scenes from the BBC's 2009 wildlife series "Nature's Great Events". Among the offending footage was film of a narwhal whale that appeared to have retreated from view beneath the Arctic ice sheet.

"Instead of thinking we'll leave it alone, film-makers decide the only solution is to develop new technology so they can film it," Mills said.

"We have an assumption that humans have some right to privacy, so why do we not assume that for other species, particularly when they are engaging in behaviour that suggests they don't want to be seen?"

In 2008 the BBC was inundated with complaints after Springwatch presenter Bill Oddie described an encounter between two beetles: "He crash-lands on top of a likely looking lady. There's a bit of luck! One thing's for sure: this boy is horny!"

Mills said filming such encounters with miniature cameras was a level of surveillance humans would most likely object to. "The key thing in most wildlife documentaries is filming those very private moments of mating or giving birth. Many of these activities, in the human realm, are considered deeply private, but with other species we don't recognise that," he said. Mills' report appears in the Journal of Media and Cultural Studies.

Mills said that while it might seem odd to claim animals have a right to privacy, the idea should not be dismissed. "We can never really know if animals are giving consent, but they do often engage in forms of behaviour which suggest they'd rather not encounter humans," he said.

The BBC's Natural History unit in Bristol said: "Constantly developing filming technology gives wildlife film-makers the ability to film animal behaviour with minimal disruption to the animal. Film-makers work very closely with scientists whose work studying the complexity of animal lives is vital for wildlife conservation.

"Natural history films play a major role in spreading knowledge of their work. And understanding the world around is vital in the continuing endeavour to preserve our ecosystem."

Link - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...fringe-privacy

[Ranbir Mahapatra]

There is a lot of ambiguity to Bret Mills' report. The logic proposed by the researcher could potentially be taken to absurd levels. Here Bret is holding up typical "human societal" propriety to the animal world.

What really should be of concern is the intrusion factor and its effects. To take a unique image if one builds a hide by tampering with surrounding flora - that is a problem. If I make too much of noise while I filming wildlife - that is a problem. If my friends make loud noise by seeing a tiger nap - that is a problem.

As long as we are discreet; it should not be a problem.

[V S Sankar]

Mahendra Singh Dhoni blamed the "IPL parties" for India's debacle at the World cup T20 in West Indies.Then somebody countered by asking; "Why he didn't say this before the tournament started?!"

We all talk as per our convenience.Man has been playing God for many years to come.Why is that there are man made water holes in many of the Tiger reserves of India?Many of the Tiger photos on Indiawilds are of Tigers moving around these waterholes......

Many more are of Tigers either taking rest or taking a stroll on man made roads(Not tarred of course!)

Man is the ultimate God for Animals.He decides whether they should survive or not.

Many a cattle were culled in europe a few years ago.Why is that nobody shed some tears for that?

Lets now imagine a situation.All the Tigers of Ranthanbore are carrying a deadly virus.Any man comes even close to 1Km radius can be infected with the virus and no cure exists.What you do in such a situation?

So it is Man who decides the fate of animals.Sabyasachi says we should not play God.We already have.......

All these Tiger reserves are made by men.We have already intervened in their natural survival.Why is that there is no "Hyena reserves" in India.

Is it because that the Tiger is more photogenic?Or is it because that it is on the top of the food pyramid?

In reality men looked at animals only after he settled down in his life.Befeore that he had no time for animal survival.

All those wildlife documentaries have intervened in the natural way the animals behave, and entertained us.Steve Irwin asked Larry King "Havn't I entertained You".But of course at the cost of the animals.He of course had not harmed any animal.But still intervened in their natural behaviour.

Animals having courtship is diffrent from humans.We are "civilized".Animals are not.If they were; why are they not wearing clothes?!

We take pictures of Tgers,Elephants,Gaurs and Langurs in the Gundlupet- Ooty road.Havn't we intervened in their natural surroundings?We constructed roads and resorts so that we can stay and travel comfortably.

We have looked at animal comfort only after we have reached a certain level of comfort.The only consolation is that there are still a "Few Good men" existing in this world who would see that all those magnificient animals survive for the future generations to see....

Regards

[Aparna Kolekar]

Indeed even Ullas Karanth says in his book 'A view from the machan' that man has already infringed the jungle life and made irreversible impact that, now a retreat would mean more harm than good. Of course the point again is debatable. A thorough scientific study can only confirm. Then again a study again means disturbing the natural course of life?

I agree with Sabyasachi that we must not play god.. but we can make sure about their sustainability by protecting their surviving habitats.