Personal responsibility with photos

[tastrax]

Its great to see these sorts of articles appearing about folks understanding their responsibilities when it comes to promotion of natural areas

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-22/i ... ie/9344444

[north-north-west]

It's a complex issue. But some places . . . are the Instagram crowd really going to go to the effort of getting out to some of the more remote and inaccessible areas just to try to duplicate an image? Things that are reasonably easy to access are, of course, extremely vulnerable, but somewhere that can only be reached by days of off-track walking are - for the moment at least - relatively secure.

[tastrax]

The Lake Oberon shot is one that many strive for - there are tales of day visitors at Mt Field asking how they get there!

Check out the names of many of the instagrammers posting remote images - many are photographers pushing their skills.

[north-north-west]

I don't do Instagram. FB withe only friends being bushwalkers and/or photographers/artists and a few nature related fora are the limit of my social media involvement.

[north-north-west]

ps: Excellent article on the issue here from one of our leading 'amateur' photographers:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/nick-monk/the-environment-the-damage-the-rants-the-friends-the-peers-the-hurt/10159783921005487/

[Nuts]

Tourism Tas's campaign should be subject to P&W vetting.

[tastrax]

ps: Excellent article on the issue here from one of our leading 'amateur' photographers:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/nick-monk/the-environment-the-damage-the-rants-the-friends-the-peers-the-hurt/10159783921005487/

+1 Excellent article.

In actual fact most of what Nick is advocating were recommendations of the WHA Track Management Strategy from 1994 which at the time was quite controversial. The only thing I dont agree with is his interpretation of damage levels. I will send him some documentation on the trampling trials that took place in the 90's showing the progression of impacts over time in various envirnments.

[Dexter]

ps: Excellent article on the issue here from one of our leading 'amateur' photographers:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/nick-monk/the-environment-the-damage-the-rants-the-friends-the-peers-the-hurt/10159783921005487/

Fantastic article.

Pro shooter here... but not in regards to landscape/wildlife - that's just for me... to get away from the medical photography grind, and connect with the process that made me so passionate about photography in the first place. And that word is key... for me at least, it's the process that I love. If I get some great photos then awesome. But it's just a bonus, and not essential to me to enjoy nature and my adventure. I have only just started using instagram and posting up some of my travel/wildlife images, and I think that Nick makes a good point about being careful how you hashtag those shots. It's a very complex issue, but I also have seen tourism of some areas improve the conservation effort. Take the Galapagos Islands for example, I've been there a couple of times and had some lengthy discussions with the guides in the area. Ecuador is quite poor as a nation, and the tourism has been to thank for eradicating goats on the islands which contributed to the extinction of a species of giant tortoise on one island (see lonesome George). Pinta wasn't the only island infested by goats/rats, and they have been extremely tough to remove from the environment. The tourism there is actually on the brink of bring over exploited. It just needs the right balance. Perhaps this is whats needed to be researched, and tested in Tassie. I wouldn't mind having to pay a fee to enter various national parks if it contributed to conservation and 'policing' for want of a better word.

[headwerkn]

I think Nick's post hit the nail on the head. It strikes a reasonable balance between conservation and access. Yeah, you don't want every man and his dog going to certain places - you only need to see what happens to free camping areas accessible in 2WD vehicles - but on the flipside, locking people out of areas isn't going to help them appreciate it or want to care for it either.

I don't want to go to Lake Oberon to get 'that photo' into my camera - I want to go there to experience 'that photo' in the real for myself. If I can do it and leave no lasting trace of my presence there, if everyone who does go there can do that, then I don't see an issue.

Mercifully, a lot of the truly sensitive areas are self-protecting, due to the effort required to get there.

Cheers, Ben.

[Nuts]

Nick's writings are interesting, as are similar perspectives/comments coming from other park visitors, with a position of being heavily invested in photography.
It's debatable, the power of the vast majority of their work to promote 'protection' of wild places. So it's good to see Nick acknowledge this as a 'belief'.

There is not a lot left for many photographers if this is, in fact, not the case and it was indeed just those few pioneering images in threatened places, and yet to be formally protected places, that has made any real positive difference .. If PD's pic of Lake Oberon (or Rock Is Bend) was the only existing image, what would be the consequence?

I have long suspected the majority of photographers, their subjects and their followers (everyone else) represent just another net deficit for wild places. Probably even so, Independent of the issue of tagging place names (or not). It's my belief that those smart enough to take a decent image have also suspected this from their earliest days..

Anyhow.. It's good to see parallel discussions of intrinsic worth doing the rounds (of my limited social media catch-ups). Is it even really necessary to set a foot in some places (for their own protection)? Is it too late to stop such a final assault? What fragment of 'wilderness' will survive this next generation? Sadly. Controlling our numbers may represent the only positive management option. I have my doubts in collective self-control.