If any of you who followed my link to Chris Weston's website following my last post on Donna Nook, you may be wondering why I am so concerned. Chris's website contains a news article, dated November 2010, in rebuke to the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust's concerns that photographers harm seals' welfare.
To those without biological or statistical training, Chris' article probably has the look of an authoritative piece. Let me assure you that this is not the case. As the old saying goes, there are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Chris' article contains all three.
Chris starts his argument by stating that official figures show that seal colonies around the UK are declining. Chris does not reference this statement. The latest figures on Grey Seal numbers in the UK come from the the Sea Mammals Research Unit at St Andrews University. Their Special Committee on Seals report (2010) clearly states that Grey Seal numbers are increasing:
Populations in Canada, USA, and the Baltic are increasing.
The report also states, equally clearly, that this is a trend that has continued unabated since around 1960 (although there is evidence that growth is leveling off). Total UK Grey Seal pup production increased by 1.9% between 2008 and 2009, the very period Chris claims exhibited a decline.
Chris proceeds by using flawed statistics on his fabricated data. Paul Harcourt Davies has today pointed out in a comment on Niall Benvie's excellent post on the subject, that what follows is a logical fallacy:
In contrast to this declining trend ... Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust has recorded an increase in seal numbers at Donna Nook each year since 2007, a period that coincides with a large increase in photographic recreation at Donna Nook. Statistically, therefore, one could draw the conclusion that the reported increase in seal numbers is a direct consequence of the increase in photographers - post hoc ergo proctor hoc.
This is a widely known fallacy; namely, if a follows b, a must have caused b. This is obviously rubbish: the sun did not rise today because I stubbed my toe yesterday.
Chris continues by reeling off a list of evidence from "studies", few of which are relevant and none of which are cited. While writing my article, I trawled the scientific literature for any studies relating to human behaviour and seal mortality. My searches were fruitless and the Sea Mammals Research Unit confirmed such studies do not exist.
This shows Chris Weston is willing to fabricate evidence and misuse statistics at the expense of seal welfare for nothing more than his own self-interest and commercial gain. Equally, he is willing to mislead others, spreading lies which probably do as much harm as Chris' own actions. This is, as Niall Benvie's post states, "a bad advert for the profession and isn't going to do anything to allay the suspicions of scientists who have never had a lot of time for photographers".
It will not surprise you to learn that neither Chris Weston nor Photographers on Safari have responded to my enquiries.
2011/01/11 - Edit:
Chris Weston no longer offers workshops to Donna Nook in response to the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust's statement. Chris has responded to the statement and this article here:
Hi Peter - this having been on my mind since I read your posts along with Niall Benvie's yesterday, I was quite shocked tonight when I noticed on the magazine rack of my local supermarket a new large magazine publication, The Essential Guide to Outdoor Photography(published in association with Digital SLR magazine) advertising Donna Nook as a place where 'hundreds of greys can be found on the beach', adding that photographers to 'get close with relative ease'. The article even states that a warden is on hand to 'eager visitors don't disturb the new mums'. There is no mention of the dune colonies. After the great publicity the disturbance received last year, especially from your superb article in Outdoor Photography which got many people talking (and made my blood run cold at the thought that I'd been on the beach myself in 2008) it seems inconceivable that writers and magazine editors can be unaware of the issues here. And articles that continue to encourage a new generation of photographers (many of whom may be novices) in 2011 to go down onto the beach with no mention of LWT's advice are rather disturbing in my book. It appears that it is not just the workshops that may be responsible, but also that such publications could be generating a new wave of well-meaning people who will find their way down to the beach on the advice of trusted magazines, unaware of the problems that may be associated with their actions.
ReplyDeletePlease keep up the good work.
Best wishes,
Kris
Hi Kris,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for the "heads up" regarding this. I had no idea that magazines were still publicising Donna Nook like this. You would think they would check their information with the site's wardens before proceeding..
I shall contact the magazine tomorrow to discuss this. Unless proven otherwise, which I doubt will happen, I shall assume that the publishers are blissfully unaware of the controversial nature of their article.
Kind regards,
Peter