DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Photographing whales can be a felony?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 47, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/22/2011 02:26:46 PM · #1
Just wanted to keep you guys abreast! Actually would be pretty funny if it weren't so sad...

Videotaping whales is a felony?

The pertinent quote from the director of the Marine Mammal Conservancy:

"Additionally, by taking your camera in the water you are in violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and can be charged with a felony. I would prefer to leave things stand where they are, so should you."
06/22/2011 02:33:51 PM · #2
oh boy
06/22/2011 02:34:18 PM · #3
What if you get a model release?
06/22/2011 02:39:51 PM · #4
In the UK there are a number of wildlife species - and even some flowers that you can only photograph if you have a permit.
06/22/2011 02:43:20 PM · #5
Originally posted by SaraR:

In the UK there are a number of wildlife species - and even some flowers that you can only photograph if you have a permit.


I don't know what the laws are in the UK, but I looked up the MMPA and it only mentions "commercial and educational photography". Though I suppose you might have to go to court to prove your point, I highly doubt this would extend to all photography and the diretor is clearly speaking out of his blowhole.
06/22/2011 02:55:02 PM · #6
Two things strike me here-

1: It is always suspect when people care for animals- dogs, whales, anything- at the expense of being civil to other Humans/
2: Customer service is dead- (and no good deed goes unpunished-even for volunteers.)

Lighten up whale people- we used to use these things as oil! a few snapshots are not going to kill the damned thing!

Message edited by author 2011-06-22 14:55:43.
06/22/2011 02:55:19 PM · #7
Well, the wording of the MMPA seems to indicate that even whale-watching expeditions, as normally run from locations like Cape Cod, would fall afoul of the act. I really doubt that this is the intent of the act.
06/22/2011 02:57:33 PM · #8
That was some response from the director. I wonder what the whole story is. As written, that's not a place I would want to volunteer.

We have lots of whales migrating through the Santa Barbara Chanel. You can watch them from the shore or go out on boats to watch them. I've seen lots of footage of the whales, but never heard that it was illegal to film them. Learn something new every day!
06/22/2011 03:00:56 PM · #9
LOL
I shot the whale. So shoot me.

06/22/2011 03:02:54 PM · #10
Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), a permit may be issued for photography of marine mammals in the wild for educational or commercial purposes where the photography activities will not exceed Level B harassment.

1 Harassment: Under the 1994 Amendments to the MMPA, harassment is statutorily defined as, any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which—
(Level A harassment) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild; or,
(Level B harassment) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering but which does not have the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild.

Ok, so which one of these rules did the individual break? I believe being stranded on a beach and having a bunch of morons climbing all around them is in itself a disruption. Trying to help the animal survive gives no one the right to be an ass to a human being.
06/22/2011 03:03:14 PM · #11


Neener Neener?
06/22/2011 03:07:58 PM · #12
I do hope these folks will go after these brutes who harm whales by photographing them. The makers of "whale wars" ( a televison show on animal planet) and some of the Greenpeace activists who film whales (often while putting themselves between the whales and a boat full of harpoons) ought to be arrested on felony charges for risking the whale's lives like that. Those cameras are dangerous.
06/22/2011 03:28:52 PM · #13
so if we cant take pictures or video them or cant go on whale watching expeditions. why even bother keeping them around?
06/22/2011 03:31:02 PM · #14
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

... but I looked up the MMPA and it only mentions "commercial and educational photography". Though I suppose you might have to go to court to prove your point, I highly doubt this would extend to all photography and the diretor is clearly speaking out of his blowhole.

I interpret that wording to mean that those are the only activities for which a (required) permit would be issued. i.e. "Photography (close-up) is by permit only" and is restricted to those classes.

I suggest that commercial whale-watching expeditions take care to remain far enough away so as to avoid violating (Part B of?) the rule, so if you take pictures from a commercial whale-watching expedition you are probably OK.
06/22/2011 03:40:07 PM · #15
Originally posted by JamesKW:

Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), a permit may be issued for photography of marine mammals in the wild for educational or commercial purposes where the photography activities will not exceed Level B harassment.

1 Harassment: Under the 1994 Amendments to the MMPA, harassment is statutorily defined as, any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which—
(Level A harassment) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild; or,
(Level B harassment) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering but which does not have the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild.

Ok, so which one of these rules did the individual break? I believe being stranded on a beach and having a bunch of morons climbing all around them is in itself a disruption. Trying to help the animal survive gives no one the right to be an ass to a human being.


Clearly the existence of the beach itself caused the disruption for this whale. Go after the person who put that beach there.
06/22/2011 03:40:37 PM · #16
Challenge Suggestion: Photograph a whale in its natural environment....eating an activist.....while being chased by a whaling ship and the video crew of Whale Wars. All entries must be sent to the director of operations at the pilot whale rescue. LMAO

Message edited by author 2011-06-22 15:43:13.
06/22/2011 03:57:42 PM · #17
Originally posted by JamesKW:

Challenge Suggestion: Photograph a whale in its natural environment....eating an activist.....while being chased by a whaling ship and the video crew of Whale Wars. All entries must be sent to the director of operations at the pilot whale rescue. LMAO


OMG!

The real freaking shame is that the KILLER whale that killed two people is still doing shows at Seaworld. Because it wasn't equipped with the necessary tools to "make it in the wild." I have no pity for an animal that kills humans, dogs, whales, housecat or bee; release that whale into the wild- it will either make it face a trainer's fate... and take its picture as we let it go, for good measure, its getting off easy.

*sorry to rant off topic- but some of these things seem like such nonsense- its almost best to show its absurdity through similar circumstance.

Message edited by author 2011-06-22 16:27:28.
06/22/2011 04:05:59 PM · #18
somewhat related: I've always wanted to see the Japanese version of "Whale Wars"
06/22/2011 04:11:31 PM · #19
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

... but I looked up the MMPA and it only mentions "commercial and educational photography". Though I suppose you might have to go to court to prove your point, I highly doubt this would extend to all photography and the diretor is clearly speaking out of his blowhole.

I interpret that wording to mean that those are the only activities for which a (required) permit would be issued. i.e. "Photography (close-up) is by permit only" and is restricted to those classes.

I suggest that commercial whale-watching expeditions take care to remain far enough away so as to avoid violating (Part B of?) the rule, so if you take pictures from a commercial whale-watching expedition you are probably OK.


Again, it would be for the courts, I guess. At first blush, I interpret it to mean that commercial and educational photography is banned without a permit but other photography, not being mentioned, is not covered. This makes some sense as the government probably has some interest in regulating whale watching, etc.

Actually, now that I think about it, I've run into this law before. I was shooting pictures at Yaquina Head and there was a seal (as there often are) and the ranger/volunteer told me I had to stay 100 yards away from the seal, but made no mention of my photography). Later, seeing the rules posted, it was actually 50 yards, but anyway, it was the distance this particular person cared about not the fact I had a camera in my hand.

Message edited by author 2011-06-22 16:13:52.
06/22/2011 05:16:20 PM · #20
What a bunch of assholes.

If the whales are really that sensitive, the people running the organization need to do a better job communicating to their volunteers.

I'm all for saving the whales, but that would be the last time I'd ever work for those idiots and I'd be sure to let everyone know how "pleasant" my experience was.
06/22/2011 05:28:50 PM · #21
Let us assume for a minute that these poor whales are indeed super sensitive and that taking images is a hazard to their well being... how does deleting footage alleviate this problem.

I do believe that this is one of those instances where I would seek some form of disciplinary action...they must be made to understand that they simply cannot take upon themselves to confiscates another person's property.

Sadly, actions such as this will only serve to seriously diminish the number of volunteers and the end results will be that the whales, while not suffering from the shock of being photographed, will end up dying on the beach.

Ray
06/22/2011 05:48:11 PM · #22
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Let us assume for a minute that these poor whales are indeed super sensitive and that taking images is a hazard to their well being...

I really think it doesn't have to do with taking pictures -- it has to do with where the pictures are taken from. The law is (should be) based on scientific evidence that having humans within those distance limits can indeed have adverse effects on the whales' behavior and health.

You know, if you don't want your picture taken, you can get off the street and go inside your house. Cetaceans have no such structural retreat available ... this affords them some degree of privacy. If they want you to take a close-up they can swim up to the boat.
06/22/2011 05:50:57 PM · #23
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Sadly, actions such as this will only serve to seriously diminish the number of volunteers and the end results will be that the whales, while not suffering from the shock of being photographed, will end up dying on the beach.


It will probably attract the same style nutbags that Greenpeace and PETA do.
06/22/2011 05:54:59 PM · #24
The issue of proximity to marine mammals is real, and ought to be respected. When visiting the elephant seal mating and birthing grounds at Año Nuevo a twenty yard distance is required. One time when walking with a ranger we had the fun of being chased ( slowly) by a bored young bachelor who killed time by creeping up to groups to make them go any way he wanted. It seemed this was a game the ranger knew and the young bull enjoyed.

That said the part of the story that annoys me is the assumption that taking photographs is hazardous to the animals. In Mr. Welch's email he says that the supervisor that took his camera and deleted his images said " The “electronic pulses” from the camera probably causes massive damage to the whales and that I put their health at serious risk." Presumably these are the same pulses that ban using digital cameras from being used on a commercial airline flight, despite the fact that that no evidence has ever been proven to exist. Yes, whales hear things we cant, but the conservancy use other electronic around them that we know emit high frequencies and allow sanctioned photography. They would not allow such devices near the whales if they knew it to be harmfull.

Then the head of Marine Mammal Conservancy told Mr. Welch "by taking your camera in the water you are in violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and can be charged with a felony." The "no photography rule" is a Conservancy rule, and not a federal law. By coming close enough to help the stranded whales he was violating the letter of a federal law, but the notion that photographing a beached whale is going to harm it is silly. If "electronic pulses" were going to cause "massive damage" to a two thousand Kg whale, most of the people reading this would have been dead long ago.
06/22/2011 05:59:51 PM · #25
Perhaps being that close with a digital camera could bother a whale.

Being beached and having a hand on your fin, must pale in comparison. I gather the head of the organization would rather have it die and rot on the beach, than suffer the trauma of photography.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 04:09:43 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 04:09:43 PM EDT.