if you were a nat geographic photographer, would you leave animals in trouble to die?
 

i was watching the discovery channel a few days ago and noticed a few cases where the people taking the documentaries seem to leave the animals stricken to die.

in one case there were 2 caribou who had fought and their horns had gotten tangled. one died and as the other was trying to free themselves in vain, the voice in the background said that unfortunately, it had died because they had to play the role of passive observers and couldn’t interfere by freeing the animal.

in another case there was a tortoise that had somehow got stuck on its back, then there was another shot, presumably of the same tortoise later, of a just a skelton laying on its shell

kind of mixed on this, i would have a hard time leaving an animal to die like that

best to leave these matters to nature - I would not interfere - if I did I wouldn't tell anybody about it - especially if I was a high profile nature photographer - seems taboo in that perspective.

pretty sure most of the national geographic people are taught to leave the animals alone..

It's best not to meddle with nature. Let it happen the way it's meant to happen.

I would have flipped the tortoise over, but I would not want to get kicked by something as big as caribou. In most of those cases, there's nothing you really CAN do. If you come across an animal tangled in something, trapped in a hole, or whatever, unless it JUST happened, there's just not a whole lot you can do that is safe and useful in any way to the animal.

who would have guessed with a name like turtle?

It is nature, leave it up to nature.

I'd help if there wasn't any chance of getting myself seriously hurt.

That's a wee bit like saying if someone trips and falls over into a hole they're unable to climb out of, you shouldn't help them out if you happen to pass by because you should leave it up to nature. We may be more intelligent, but we are still animals.

I'd help any animal I saw that was in trouble as long as doing so didn't put me in a position of danger. Flipping a turtle over is a fucking no brainer as far as I'm concerned.

Sad but true.

Judging by the few other posts of yours that I have read, no brainers should be your specialty.

i would eat those animals, why let them go to waste

turtle flip, obviously

So another animal goes hungry because you decided to meddle?

I am part of nature, so I'd flip the damn thing over. :thumbsup

as a concern citizen, definitely not, its because as a human being i believed that animals are gods creation therefore we entitled to take care of their lives as like how we take of ourselves because all of us are gods creation, we should promote life.

they should leave the animals...in nature there is a reason for everything

Judging by your 50,000+ posts you have no place to talk. So if you are walking your dog by a canal, and an alligator pops out and tries to eat your dog, you shouldn't interfere because you shouldn't spite nature? So the alligator should go hungry because you interfered? You are the most worthless poster on this board. You constantly try to start conflict with no intelligence to back it up. Why don't you bleach those nasty liver spots off your forehead?

I was thinking the same thing. What's the differene between a human and an animal? Why would you help a man in trouble and leave an animal to die? If I would ever shoot that kind of documentary about a flipped over turtle I'd say "Oh,yeah, that's the way it has to be. Natural selection." and so on, but after shooting, I'd turn the damn thing back to it's feet.

Only stupid hillbilly trash like baddog would use the natural selection argument.

not sure how i am meddling. we are all part of nature. i have a science degree in Genetics, and have never heard of something quite so ridiculous. yes, i would turn the turtle over. just like i would help a drowning puppy out of a lake. or a drowning baby out of a bathtub. did i forget the prime directive?

I'd flip the turtle over for sure, just like I'd pick one up crossing a road and help it. On the caribou, it would really depend if I thought I could actually help it without getting myself hurt.

Those that say, let nature run it's course.. You do know there are many cases of Dolphins protecting humans from sharks don't yea? If you can save an animal you should regardless of what "nature" thinks.

I wouldn't film dying animals. I'm a pussy when it comes to that :)

If it is natural things happening then sometimes they just have to happen. Now, if it was a poacher coming in after the animals that would be different.

http://image.bayimg.com/caempaabe.jpg

Those bastard NatGeo photographers left it die in vain...

It is a strict code. People working on documentaries, and news stories, are taught never to get involved in the story. They are there to report and document events, not get involved in them.

I would help the animals, because one day I hope the animals would help me.

Animals are my friends, I don't eat them either.

But I can see how the NG photogs can't help all those animals they shoot. And ultimately they are creating content to make money, not there to help anyone.

omfg, what happened here? :Oh crap

btw, I agree with JMM and cherry as well - so hard to decide.

This is too much!

If I was working as a photographer for National Geographic I would understand that I'm there as an observer and it's my place not to interfere with the course of nature. I would be there to record the action in hope of gaining a greater understanding which in it's own way is a course of nature.

If I was on my own just hiking through the woods and came upon an animal in distress, I would do what I could to give it a second chance.

As a photographer your job is to observe and record nature, I'm sure nat geo is sure about this policy, however when the camera stops I wouldn't doubt that a journalist untangles a bird from some string, or flips a turtle every now and then.

hahahahahaha good answer

Or someone who's loyal to the ethics of the job. :2 cents:

If I was there as a National Geo photographer, I'm pretty sure "noninterference" would be an ethic pretty high on the agenda... in all facets of what I'm doing, 24/7.

There's no Gonzo Journalism on the Nature channel. :winkwink:

But if I'm I just strolling along on my own, that'd be a different story... and I'd probably flip the turtle, or try to untangle the caribou, or whatever.

I don't think they are allowed to touch the animals at all.

I was watching this one show on there, it had a newbie host and they were underwater filming while he was talking. I forget what the show was about. But, in one scene you see him trying to pet on of the animals in the water, then the scene cut out and next you see him with his arms behind his back like he had been told not to touch them. I'm no expert, of course, but judging by his body language, he was trying really hard to make it known he wasn't going to touch the animals.

That's exactly the point of documentarist. However, what others don't understand is why would these people let the animals die in front of themselves. It's a case to case basis I would say. And in the case of documentarists, they just shoot for the sake of showing what happen to those animals. You cannot really blame them. :2 cents:

omg how did this poor boy get stuck like this. surely he'd have just fallen over on his side.

i'm nauseous.

Nature photographers aren't equipped with equipment to rescue animals - in the matter of turning the tortoise over you have to be a cruel bastard not to help. there are things much more important than the rules of journalism. following that loopy logic a reporter could be standing in a crowd where the President is making a speech, the reporter sees the guy next to him pull out a gun and pointing it at the President - now the reporter is supposed to just be recording all this, instead of tackling the assailant he just watches and describes it into his tape machine or whatever gadget they use these days.

You are right and thats why I could never be that type of photog because I would want to help but thats not nature.Also if you dont have the meds to knock out the caribou trying to untangle caribou might get you killed.

depends on how cute the animal was.

id have got my desert eagle and pinned it between the eyes.

the turtle and the caribou both.

Only if they were cute and fluffy animals... I'm kidding, I'd leave things to nature.

Nice rack!