A Statement at Last

A few minutes ago my phone rang, suddenly reminding me that there are other things in the world than than the code for my upcoming website. On the other end of the phone was Sam Waldron, rousing me further from my trance-like state of geekery to inform me that Jose Luis Rodrigez has been stripped of the title of BBC wildlife photographer of the year.

A statement on the competition's website states that "it was likely that the wolf featured in the image was an animal model that can be hired for photographic purposes and, as a result, the image had been entered in breach of rule 10 of the 2009 Competition."

The rule in question stated that images taken of captive animals must be declared as such, and that preference would be given to images of wild animals by judges.

These allegations are denied by the photographer, but as the rules equally clearly state "the decision of the judges is final." As such Rodriguez has been stripped of his title, and the £10,000 that would shortly have been headed in his way. Rodriguez will find little comfort in the fact that he is being allowed to keep the £500 he received as a category winner in place of any royalty payments the image has earned the competition thus far.

To me it is completely appalling that someone could enter a competition with an image that does not comply with the rules. Not only this but after winning Rodriguez simply lied about the methodology behind his photograph at events including WildPhotos.

I should imagine that for all those who entered the competition in 2009 the experience has now been severely tainted. I have had many conversations about past winners of the competition where I have fondly remembered "that backlit shot of the polar bear" or "the shot of the starling flock and sparrow hawk". The public will now not remember 2009 fondly as "the year with the jumping wolf shot" but instead as "the year with that fake wolf shot".

Not only this but it is the first year ever where no winner has been declared. The judges rightly decided that they could not fairly award the title to another photographer as the competition are judged blind and after the awards ceremony this would not be possible. Those photographers closest to receiving the reward will undoubtedly feel cheated.

Within an hour of an announcement the news is already being greeted as wildlife photography's biggest ever scandal, taking the crown from the 2003 revelations that photographs in the National Geographic of a kingfisher fishing for mayflies were of a stuffed museum specimen.

As well as being scandalous, to me Rodriguez's actions are tantamount to fraud. This was an attempt to dishonestly receive a converted title as well as £10,000. I believe this to be criminal as well as dishonest.

Scandals such as these unfairly damage the reputation of photographers worldwide. I hope we will be able to move on from this and continue to focus on the undeniably worthwhile conservation causes wildlife photographers throughout the world continue to attempt to highlight and continue to appreciate their art. Just because one photographer was dishonest does not mean all are and does not in any way detract from the beliefs, honesty, or skill of other photographers.