Agreed Keith........maybe the $9k fine will stop or at least slow him down of thoughts on his next invasive adventure. I'm sure the threat of losing his boat and camera gear was another strong deterrent.
Posted by Ron Dudley on February 27, 2014 at 8:03 PM
I'm of the opinion that a strong message should come out of this when he is sentenced. For some photographers ethics and legality don't matter, especially if they think they can get away with this kind of despicable behavior and still get "the shot". The penalties if they are exposed are often too light or not enforced aggressively. Personally, I believe that a sentence of more than just "probation" may be appropriate here (in addition to the 9K fine).
Posted by Ron Dudley on February 27, 2014 at 9:43 PM
I remember his time here well, Charlie. I ran into him out at Farmington a few years ago.
Posted by Brian Gatlin on February 27, 2014 at 11:10 PM
Very disturbing story. Makes me wonder how many other big name photographers and workshop leaders are similarly unethical. And makes me grateful for those folks here and elsewhere who set a higher standard.
Posted by Brian Gatlin on February 27, 2014 at 11:12 PM
actually, using the word unethical understates the point here--his actions were criminal, not just unethical....
Posted by Bill Maile on February 28, 2014 at 8:13 AM
Wow, some people just don't get it. Sad.
Posted by Dennis Plank on February 28, 2014 at 8:45 AM
Not a good image for us at all, Keith. This kind of thing happens far too often.
Posted by John Neukirch on February 28, 2014 at 11:34 AM
Greed or ego, maybe both. Hard enough to put up with the masses of people who don't value and respect Nature and then to hear about somebody who certainly knows better.
Discussion
14 replieshttp://www.wesh.com/news/central-florida/osceola-county/wildlife-photographer-pleads-guilty-to-violating-endangered-species-act/24700816
This is disturbing. I continue to be disappointed in what some photographers will do to "get the shot".
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=12287&CGISESSID=8c6c1f73663508295570b9b5ad539228&u=19676
I went back to the linked article and saw what you're talking about Sharon. Some pretty wild comments and many way off the subject.