This month’s Outdoor Photography magazine carries an interesting piece by Peter Moonlight on the number of photographers now visiting the Donna Nook grey seal colony in Lincolnshire – anecdotal evidence suggests upwards of 200 on a busy day. The site is managed by Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust and they are increasingly concerned about the impact of irresponsible photographers on pup abandonment.
So how do we define ‘irresponsible’? Every photographer I know that’s been to Donna Nook blames someone else and claims that their finely honed fieldcraft or professional status exempts them from being ‘irresponsible’. But if we define the term by the causing of disturbance – no matter how insignificant- then every photographer who visits, is ‘irresponsible’ whether they’re prepared to admit it or not. For the record, I am one of those implicated.
The ‘problem’ is not unique to Lincolnshire’s seals. Wherever there is an opportunity to get close to wildlife, it’s inevitable that a photographer/filmmaker will take that opportunity. The images find their way into the public domain and more photographers visit. Their images get seen and so on and so on. But I’m not sure we can have it both ways.
Even at a political level there is a mandate to encourage public engagement with nature. Those responsible for fulfilling that task often rely on imagery as a catalyst to cajole that engagement. That is exactly what has happened at Donna Nook – with tens of thousands of people now visiting the main seal colony each year; it’s a PR success story.
The irony of course is that the UK grey seal population has increased dramatically in recent decades – not because of over-zealous photographers but certainly in spite of them. Ditto Bass Rock’s gannets and Wales’ red kites.
I’m not condoning irresponsible photographers and for what it’s worth, I won’t be visiting Donna Nook until management changes, but we can’t expect to celebrate Britain’s wildlife through the medium of imagery and then reel at the consequences.
