Endangering wildlife

I personally haven't been flying my drone for long, and found this repulsive. Complete reckless use. Irresponsible and another scar for our hobby/profession.
 
Pegasus2: Thank you for starting this thread. I was about to do it, until I saw you had already done so. I'm now back in the UK from our huge nature reserve in South Africa and saw this news story on a main television channel news a few hours ago.

Whereas I am not in any way a polar bear expert, this is somewhat irrelevant. I am a wildlife professional with 40 years' experience in the field internationally.

Two things are obvious from the video. First, it was filmed using a drone. Second, both the mother and cub are repeatedly stressed beyond an acceptable level. Other suitably qualified professionals have apparently arrived at the same considered conclusions.

It's impossible to say if there was any complication as a result. But the disturbance could easily have resulted in severe injury to the cub and/or death. More likely is some significant response to the stress, subsequently. The cub was very young and therefore extra vulnerable. Whereas a certain amount of stress is actually good for animal/human physiology, an excessive amount can be surprisingly (or even shockingly) bad. Studies looking at the effects of stress caused by humans that I'm aware of range from lizard species to deer species, with death not being an uncommon result. The reality is that certain human behaviour towards wild animals goes way beyond their otherwise natural range of encounters.

Sadly, but not surprisingly, this isn't the first video showing an unacceptable level of stress on wildlife caused by a drone. I've seen examples of such on this forum. We're back to the normalised "me, first" mentality as an explanation (which isn't the same as someone being a "bad" person).
 
Hav'n't seen the video footage but it's clear from the still that the mother is not happy (why do snow slopes always get steeper at the top).

Pretty deplorable that some insensitive individual should exacerbate this clearly delicate situation, by pestering the mother with a drone. My experience (25 years) says that "professionals" are just as bad, sometimes much worse, than amateurs in this respect - especially if they are in it for the money, and, nowadays, most of them are, with deadlines and producers to satisfy.

Having made my point, I must say that I think it would take a lot more than a pesky little drone to come between a brown bear mother and her cub!
 
It’s time we have a continuing discussion about wildlife. In the U.S. wildlife sensitive areas are surrounded by a series of blue or magenta dots on the VFR charts. Flight over those areas below charted altitudes can result in hefty fines. A local helicopter pilot got zapped for $70,000 for flying over a sea otter sensitive area. Lucky him, he got it reduced to $35,000.
 
It’s time we have a continuing discussion about wildlife. In the U.S. wildlife sensitive areas are surrounded by a series of blue or magenta dots on the VFR charts. Flight over those areas below charted altitudes can result in hefty fines. A local helicopter pilot got zapped for $70,000 for flying over a sea otter sensitive area. Lucky him, he got it reduced to $35,000.


Usually those "Charted Altitudes" are well above the "Normal Operating Alts" of our aircraft. Unfortunately this will have to be taken to court the first time someone is cited with sUAS over sensitive areas.
 
My experience (25 years) says that "professionals" are just as bad, sometimes much worse, than amateurs in this respect - especially if they are in it for the money, and, nowadays, most of them are, with deadlines and producers to satisfy.
Geoff: There are, of course, two broad categories of (genuine) professionals: wildlife specialists and general news gatherers. Wildlife photographers and cinematographers would be unlikely to push an animal or animals too far for one basic reason. The resulting footage or image would reflect the unwanted intrusion; it wouldn't look natural (and therefore would never be accepted/used by any respected editor). Long lenses help maintain distance - and remote cameras when wider lenses are needed. Plus hides are frequently used to minimise risk of disturbance. And the amount of time taken to get that special footage or image is often measured in at least days or weeks - sometimes months - hours, only if you are lucky. Standards are extremely high and there's always someone younger wanting to progress in his/her career, willing to put in even more extraordinary effort. Messing up a potential opportunity is simply unproductive and with wildlife you rarely get a second chance without double the wait. Working in a wild environment is rarely comfortable, with long stretches away from family.

General news gatherers - who do have much less time, with pressing deadlines - usually understand that wildlife footage is a specialist area and heavily rely on library material, focusing instead on getting human interviews and background clips.

Those of us who are trained and/or work with wild animals know the signs of "enough, no further". Years ago, we were filming an Indian one-horned rhino in Chitwan National Park, Nepal. There were four of us, with myself as cameraman. We'd been filming this incredible animal for over 20 minutes when a tourist jeep came along and seriously agitated the rhino. They ignored the classic warning sign of a raised tail. And, when provoked further, it charged at the jeep. The jeep speed away to safety and the rhino turned to instead charge us. We were on foot and narrowly escaped unhurt.

In 40 years, I've messed up only once - and I still talk about it to others as a training lesson over 20 years on. Two of us were working in northern California, photographing a bald eagle that we'd been with for almost three hours. I agreed something with my colleague, then I stupidly changed my mind at the last second and did the opposite, causing the bird to fly off. Yes, I already had great material which was subsequently published - but I nevertheless acted as an idiot, instantly ending any further chances on that occasion.

You correctly used the work "insensitive", Geoff, to describe the individual in this video instance. Another similar word would be "ignorant". Wildlife photographers/cinematographers are rarely either, at least whilst working in the field, including any crew and support staff. The problem here, yet again, is lack of education - compounded by the normalised "me, first" mentality. Only occasionally is a so-called "bad" person involved. I'm saying this as an explanation for the behaviour, not in any way as an excuse for it.
 
Usually those "Charted Altitudes" are well above the "Normal Operating Alts" of our aircraft. Unfortunately this will have to be taken to court the first time someone is cited with sUAS over sensitive areas.

So out of curiosity, you are saying that (to the best of your knowledge) a case involving an sUAS flying over a wildelife area designated by FAA hasn't been adjudicated???

Hmm.... I live out by the Golden Gate Bridge and it is all national park and wildlife preserves out here. Lots of areas with a NOAA 1,000 ft AGL limit (thank you, SkyVector, for the online sectional charts). Some of the guys from the local FAA office should hang out here as they would probably cite an awful lot of RPIC on any clear day.
 
So out of curiosity, you are saying that (to the best of your knowledge) a case involving an sUAS flying over a wildelife area designated by FAA hasn't been adjudicated???

Hmm.... I live out by the Golden Gate Bridge and it is all national park and wildlife preserves out here. Lots of areas with a NOAA 1,000 ft AGL limit (thank you, SkyVector, for the online sectional charts). Some of the guys from the local FAA office should hang out here as they would probably cite an awful lot of RPIC on any clear day.


All I'm saying is if they have I've not seen anything about it.

Keep in mind that the FAA is about EDUCATION first and foremost. Here is a break down from an article that was recently written on this subject:

The FAA has several enforcement tools at their disposal. FAA Inspectors are required to consider several criteria before making a judgment about how to proceed, as follows:

  • For a first-time, inadvertent violation with a low actual or potential safety impact that can be addressed through education, you should expect that the FAA inspector will informally counsel you and that will end the matter.
  • If the inspector determines that a first-time, inadvertent violation poses a low actual or potential risk to safety but doesn’t feel education is sufficient, the inspector will issue a warning notice or letter of correction if additional training has been taken, or needs to be taken, and satisfactorily completed.
  • If the Inspector believes that a violation poses a medium or high actual or potential risk to safety, the inspector will forward evidence of the violation to the FAA’s legal office to initiate an enforcement action against the drone operator.
The kinds of cases that the FAA believes will warrant legal enforcement are those involving an unacceptable risk of endangering the operation of another aircraft or endangering persons or property on the ground. It also considers repeated or intentional violations to generally warrant legal enforcement action.

Legal enforcement action will take the form of a civil penalty or a certificate suspension or revocation, or both. The amount of the civil penalty and the length of the suspension or the revocation of any airman certificate will depend on the circumstances of the case and the gravity of the conduct. If the drone violation is committed by someone who already holds an FAA certificate, the FAA considers this an aggravating factor because the FAA maintains that a certificate holder should appreciate the potential for endangerment that operating a UAS contrary to the FAA’s safety regulations may cause.

Civil penalties against individuals can range from $500 to $1,100 per violation and against entities can range from $1,100 to $25,000 per violation.



So odds are any that have been caught flying in such a manner are being "educated" first and foremost and we wouldn't know/hear about those usually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Just Mark
All I'm saying is if they have I've not seen anything about it.

Keep in mind that the FAA is about EDUCATION first and foremost. Here is a break down from an article that was recently written on this subject:

The FAA has several enforcement tools at their disposal. FAA Inspectors are required to consider several criteria before making a judgment about how to proceed, as follows:

  • For a first-time, inadvertent violation with a low actual or potential safety impact that can be addressed through education, you should expect that the FAA inspector will informally counsel you and that will end the matter.
  • If the inspector determines that a first-time, inadvertent violation poses a low actual or potential risk to safety but doesn’t feel education is sufficient, the inspector will issue a warning notice or letter of correction if additional training has been taken, or needs to be taken, and satisfactorily completed.
  • If the Inspector believes that a violation poses a medium or high actual or potential risk to safety, the inspector will forward evidence of the violation to the FAA’s legal office to initiate an enforcement action against the drone operator.
The kinds of cases that the FAA believes will warrant legal enforcement are those involving an unacceptable risk of endangering the operation of another aircraft or endangering persons or property on the ground. It also considers repeated or intentional violations to generally warrant legal enforcement action.

Legal enforcement action will take the form of a civil penalty or a certificate suspension or revocation, or both. The amount of the civil penalty and the length of the suspension or the revocation of any airman certificate will depend on the circumstances of the case and the gravity of the conduct. If the drone violation is committed by someone who already holds an FAA certificate, the FAA considers this an aggravating factor because the FAA maintains that a certificate holder should appreciate the potential for endangerment that operating a UAS contrary to the FAA’s safety regulations may cause.

Civil penalties against individuals can range from $500 to $1,100 per violation and against entities can range from $1,100 to $25,000 per violation.


So odds are any that have been caught flying in such a manner are being "educated" first and foremost and we wouldn't know/hear about those usually.

Thanks for posting this!!! Much appreciated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
It's a learning process for all of us. The day we stop learning we become VERY dangerous :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: captainmilehigh
I believe there are too many assumptions here to draw any sort of conclusion. This is an example of dangerous assumptions by all parties and the lack of a through investigation which leads to panic which leads to unnecessary regulations. The operator could have been half-mile away with a zoom lens. We don't know. The off the bat assumptions that people's actions are generally bad is what's driving the ridiculous political climate we see today. Assume good intent until PROVEN otherwise. Taking this approach you will find the vast majority of concerns are simply not concerns.

For example - in the article it states "She may, as some biologists have suggested, have parsed it as an eagle (and indeed, the shadow of a bird of prey can be seen in the video). " This single line cast so much doubt on the issue as to make it completely unarguable. Was it the drone or the eagle? We simply don't know.

I think the reaction to the video is doing way more 'damage' than the operator of the drone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhantomWetSuits
I hate to be the one to break the bad news to people but we have these things called ZOO's : These animals are taken, shackled, caged and than tormented for the rest of there life , with people talking, pointing and throwing things at the Animals and its relentless it never stops.

The heart rate of the animals has never been taken into consideration.

We go camping : Generators are loud, motorcycles are really loud, and the bears are not effected , they move slowly as do Deer .
Speaking of deer we have them almost everyday they are in the river less then 20 ft behind my house where I Fly my Drone from, they have never been affected by the drone in an adverse way nor do the hundreds of geese.

However we have noticed that a mother deer and her babies are slightly much more prone to panic. When we walk the path and come upon the mother deer , there is a new level of threat , just the mother deer seeing you starts to cause them Anxiety and soon panic..

These bears are clearly walking dangerously on the side of the mountain to begin with as is clearly shown in this video, they are not on the side of that mountain because of the drone and as they walk they come to the the snowy covered steep as hell cliff.

The drone is not harrassing the bears in any way, the distance from the drone is more than safe , the operator of the drone states that the video was zoomed in,, and showing the quality of the video it is apparent that is the case.

The article was written by the NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC - A huge reason why Wild Life Photographers exist in the first place, , talk about calling the kettle black.

Wild Life Photographers are known for getting close and taking dramatic pictures, sometimes sitting like a rock and letting the animal smell them for hours until they can snap better , closer photos.

If we truly want to believe that this is considered Harassment , anxiety and stress , than we need to Rethink taking any picture of Wild life and put the National Geographic out of Business.

This very well could have been YOU OR ME taking a picture with our Iphone Camera and the same exact articale could have been written about us in the most negative way. Your name would have been smeared all over the internet with Disgust for panicking the Bears .

WHEN YOU WATCH THE VIDEO - Notice the overhang at beginning where the bears are at and how they come to an opening and they only have one choice but to go up.

Just be glad that it was not you that got crucified , and I think the national Geographic is just angry that they do not have rights to the VIDEO.

Viral bear video shows dark side of filming animals with drones

This is a Horrible Attack on anyone in the wrong place at the wrong time.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
I hate to be the one to break the bad news to people but we have these things called ZOO's : These animals are taken, shackled, caged and than tormented for the rest of there life , with people talking, pointing and throwing things at the Animals and its relentless it never stops.

The heart rate of the animals has never been taken into consideration.

We go camping : Generators are loud, motorcycles are really loud, and the bears are not effected , they move slowly as do Deer .
Speaking of deer we have them almost everyday they are in the river less then 20 ft behind my house where I Fly my Drone from, they have never been affected by the drone in an adverse way nor do the hundreds of geese.

However we have noticed that a mother deer and her babies are slightly much more prone to panic. When we walk the path and come upon the mother deer , there is a new level of threat , just the mother deer seeing you starts to cause them Anxiety and soon panic..

These bears are clearly walking dangerously on the side of the mountain to begin with as is clearly shown in this video, they are not on the side of that mountain because of the drone and as they walk they come to the the snowy covered steep as hell cliff.

The drone is not harrassing the bears in any way, the distance from the drone is more than safe , the operator of the drone states that the video was zoomed in,, and showing the quality of the video it is apparent that is the case.

The article was written by the NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC - A huge reason why Wild Life Photographers exist in the first place, , talk about calling the kettle black.

Wild Life Photographers are known for getting close and taking dramatic pictures, sometimes sitting like a rock and letting the animal smell them for hours until they can snap better , closer photos.

If we truly want to believe that this is considered Harassment , anxiety and stress , than we need to Rethink taking any picture of Wild life and put the National Geographic out of Business.

This very well could have been YOU OR ME taking a picture with our Iphone Camera and the same exact articale could have been written about us in the most negative way. Your name would have been smeared all over the internet with Disgust for panicking the Bears .

WHEN YOU WATCH THE VIDEO - Notice the overhang at beginning where the bears are at and how they come to an opening and they only have one choice but to go up.

Just be glad that it was not you that got crucified , and I think the national Geographic is just angry that they do not have rights to the VIDEO.

Viral bear video shows dark side of filming animals with drones

This is a Horrible Attack on anyone in the wrong place at the wrong time.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Where is the proof that this was shot with a recreational drone? Notice at the end the remarkably good zoom. What recreational drone has that? Of course we should respect wildlife. But perhaps this was a helicopter that shot the video from miles away. Where's the proof?
 
Geoff: There are, of course, two broad categories of (genuine) professionals: wildlife specialists and general news gatherers. Wildlife photographers and cinematographers would be unlikely to push an animal or animals too far for one basic reason.

Hi African Wildlife. I'm sure that we have complete agreement in the important principle - understand your subject and treat it with respect.

I don't have much direct experience with news crews, but they are " of the moment" , here today, gone tomorrow.

More worrying are the "professional" wildlife film makers. There is much less need for fully experienced wildlife camera people (director / camera ) now, because most film making is run on a research led, tightly costed basis (especially major series). It's quite common to see the operator reading a downloaded instruction manual before staring to record! They need to suceed to get the next job.
I was inspired by highly skilled film makers like Des Bartlet, Dieter Plague, Hugh Hiles etc. but where are their modern counterparts? We live in the age of the instant expert - if only!
 
Where is the proof that this was shot with a recreational drone? Notice at the end the remarkably good zoom. What recreational drone has that? Of course we should respect wildlife. But perhaps this was a helicopter that shot the video from miles away. Where's the proof?

I did not see that. I saw the camera track towards the bears (the perpective changes). This track was cut - I wonder what happened next........?

Whoever filmed it was clearly inexperienced, as he/she made the same mistake twice - only beginners do that!

The camera was not "miles away". As the bear cub slides down the slope the camera tilts to re-establish the shot from a high angle. To do this from miles away is clearly not possible . Anyway, it's not a long lens shot.

To put htis into perspective, it's pretty clear that whoever recorded (recreational or comercial) this was disturbing the mother bear, albeit in a minor way (the cub was too focused to notice!). No damage was done, and perhaps it's best to put it down to lack of experience (or, less good, a knowledge of its news-worthyness). The cub could be a candidate for speed climbing in the next olympics!
 
I saw this compressed on twitter and had no clue that it was a drone.mov, until now, The reverberation, itself, in that hilly region would be distracting enough for both mamma and cub. But these mammals are highly intelligent with a full deck of highly tuned senses and this clearly crossed the nature-ethics line.

Two big thumbs down!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Geoff G
It is all very well being self righteous about disturbing animals, but in Russia, (and the US I believe) it is acceptable and legal to kill these brown (and polar) bears for fun.
A disturbance is preferable to a high velocity bullet.

Well, I'm from the UK, and my ancestors wiped out all of our bigger mammal species centuries ago!
But we can only speak as we find. I only shoot with a camera and try not to disturb at all.
Leave only footprints.........
 
The footage was shot with a wide angle lens, not a telephoto wildlife lens.

I have only worked from a helicopter or light aircraft on a handful of occasions, but you can almost certainly rule out either option.

The footage shows no signs of any professional cinematography technique.

It is 99.9% certain that it's amateur footage from a drone. People are convicted (correctly) by legal courts on grounds of reasonable doubt amounting to much less certainty.

Geoff: One of my early inspirations was Hugo van Lawick, for both film and stills. I urged him to stop smoking, advice he ignored, and his last few years were tragic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wakko and Geoff G

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,935
Latest member
Pauos31