While at Bunaken Oasis, we dove with Hentje Pontoh, the esteemed guide who identified, and then facilitated the recognition of, the Pontohi Pygmy Seahorse as a distinct species. He told us he had not seen one in several years, and attributed it to fish figuring out that photographers (or perhaps just divers) mean food and following them in for an easy morsel. I've heard the same elsewhere. So--is it "unethical" to photograph--or just view--pygmy seahorses at all, because it could lead to their being had for lunch? If the ethic is "do no harm," then it probably is.
Then there's the consequences of burning a jillion pounds of fuel to get to a dive destination, the carbon footprint of the dive boat . . . But without divers and photographs, the Pontohi, and myriad other ocean dwellers, would have existed--at least until conditions become untenable--without notice. I think that the world is better off for the contributions of citizen scientists, including photographers, who introduce people to the wonders we all encounter. To me, there is no "answer" to the ethics question except to be mindful, careful, and responsible.
Then there's the consequences of burning a jillion pounds of fuel to get to a dive destination, the carbon footprint of the dive boat . . . But without divers and photographs, the Pontohi, and myriad other ocean dwellers, would have existed--at least until conditions become untenable--without notice. I think that the world is better off for the contributions of citizen scientists, including photographers, who introduce people to the wonders we all encounter. To me, there is no "answer" to the ethics question except to be mindful, careful, and responsible.
