Supplemental Feeding: Right or Wrong? [Archive] - BirdPhotographers.net

Arthur Morris

03-23-2009, 07:17 PM

Hi Chad,

Well I have not had to (my note here: had to consider how these birds, herons and egrets, have become responsive to being fed?), but the point has been researched ad nauseam for decades. If you do a google scholar search you will find over 22,000 peer reviewed scientific papers on the impacts of supplemental feeding of wildlife.

I was not referring to the impact of supplemental feeding, but to the root cause of habituated herons and egrets especially in Florida.

You do touch on the point that I was trying to make below, albeit inadvertently. Here is my point: Folks have been fishing on the beaches of Florida probably for 200+ years. Right or wrong, fisherman have been tossing discarded bait to the birds, they have been leaving their bait buckets uncovered, and they have been using their cast nets to capture live bait. On most Florida beachs if you walk down the beach with a cast net you will usually have and egret or two trailing you. That without even throwing the net. If you are successful with your cast net, it is inevitable that some of the live baitfish will escape and be snatched up bu the birds that have been educated for more than 10 decades.

It is my belief that if there were no fisherman there would be no habituated herons or egrets or gulls or pelicans. And the possiblity of either banning fishing or educating all fisherman are equally remote.

Yes, birds that come to cast nets may get tangled in the nets, if only rarely. Birds that grab baited hooks and/or lures often become hooked. Many die. Birds that become entangled in discarded fishing line with or without hooks, lures, or sinkers attached can be injured or killed.

The last time that I checked photographers do not use hooks, fishing line, or lures. If fishing did not exist birds would not be attracted to tossed bait.

So in the specific case of feeding small fish to herons and egrets, I do not believe the practice to be unethical. Why blame the photographers for a problem that would not exist if fishermen did not exist?

As for the argement that photographers who feed herons and egrets are perpetuating and reinforcing the habituation, I do not buy it. The birds have become habituated over the course of decades as a result of their encounters with fisherman. I would love to see some studies that explore the possibility that such habituation is passed on genetically. I am betting that it would show that many young birds will approach fisherman instinctively as soon as they see a rod or a bait bucket.

What they generally find out is that the unintended consequences are far reaching, and sometimes not very intuitive.

I am no sure where you are going there. Please do explain.

So as far as your question about herons and egrets specifically, no I have not. Here are the problems in general that I think are applicable to feeding any wildlife species.

-Supplemental feeding of wildlife encourages animals to become dependent on a food source or method of foraging that is not natural.

As above, after many decades of being around fisherman habituated behavior has become second "nature" for most birds.

-Young animals that are taught to depend on humans may never learn natural foraging behaviors and will not be able to pass them on to their offspring, instead they will pass on the deviant behavior that they do know.

I agree that the deviant behaviour may well be passed on but please, Snowy Egrets know how to fish without being taught by their parents. Always have, always will.

-Wildlife that lose there fear of humans are more likely to take on bold and aggressive behaviors in the pursuit of food that can result in injury to humans and animals.

Agree. Blame the fisherman who are out there every single day habituating the birds. Do not blame the bird photographers. At Estero Lagoon,I feed the birds maybe five or six days a year on average. Yes, there are a handlful of other photographers who go to the bother of catching or buying bait, but the total effect is a tiny fraction of that of the local fishermen.

-Wildlife feeding encourages congregation in high densities thereby increasing the chance to spread of disease

Can I assumme then that as a biologist that you are against folks with seed feeders or humingbird feeders at their homes?

-Supplemental feeding of wildlife when done on a regular basis can raise population numbers which creates stress in the population due to increased competition.

Especially when we are trashing the planet and destroying habitat on a daily basis.

-The effects of supplemental feeding on wildlife populations has been shown to cause a domino effect among other adjacent non-fed wildlife populations which is not fully understood yet.

I would love to see those studies.

Your actions on their own may seem harmless, but between you and all the other fisherman that share their catch with our wading birds you are part of a much larger problem that is shifting the foraging ecology and therefore the biology of the birds you so much enjoy and love to photograph. But ultimately and at the very least your taking the wildness out of wildlife.

Again, the fishermen are the cause of the problem and they are not going to go away. And again, they are the ones with the hooks and they are the ones who discard their fishing line.

I guess the main question is this: if there is even the slightest possibility that even a word of what decades of research has said is possibly applicable to egrets, is it really worth the risk to get a close up?

My position is that there is no risk to the birds in getting close to a photographer. The risks all come from getting close to fishermen, their hooks, lines, and sinkers.

Respectfully.

ps: I forgot to mention that if we show up at Estero when there is a natural feeding spree going on we do not feed until the party is over. And, as Peter Kes noted above, at such times (after a big feeding spree), the birds could care less about our fresh bait.

Arthur Morris

03-23-2009, 07:20 PM

If others would like to start discussions here on the baiting of owls or other raptors with live mice (or with live birds), maintaining seed feeders, attracting birds to seed feeders (or to water) for the purpose of photography, feeding bread to gulls, using carcasses to attract wildlife for the purpose of photography, etc., please feel free to open those doors while being sure to maintain civil forms of communication. Thanks.

Gary Dietz

03-23-2009, 10:19 PM

I did not see any answer to the seed feeder issue. I have read in magazines that wild birds only get around 10% of their diet from feeders. If feeders are a problem how about planting grass's and grains for the wildlife to feed on?

Jared Gricoskie

03-23-2009, 11:53 PM

Art and all,

I guide and lead workshops in Rocky Mountain National Park and in order to be in good standing for my permits there is a somewhat long list of guidelines (like no flash on animals or birds) the park service has put in place for the animals well being.

On the feeder bird topic, from the research I have read Gary is on track, most birds use feeders to supliment their diets making only 5-20% of their daily intake, which varies with species. However with a large number of birds visiting a feeder they can easily spread disease, and parasites. The parasites are particularly harmful to nestlings, and our birds are in North America for one reason, to nest. The limiting factor for most perching species are nesting areas or cavities, so more food will not dramatically increase a local population. Feeding birds has impacted their geographical distrubtion, with birds migrating later or not as far south (global warming also impacting this). Other birds are migrating west along river areas in part due to feeding. So eithically if you wash your feeders regularly putting out new seed you aren't doing much harm, but its not all puppies and roses, some harm is being done. But you also have to ask yourself if its ok that your feeding the local bird predators as well.

Outside the national park I feed birds at feeders, but inside the park one single peanut is a problem. In one area of Rocky called Rainbow Curve the population of Golden Mantled Ground Squirrels and Least Chimpmunks are 8 times higher due to people illegally feeding them. Like Artie said he won't break the rules and I doubt any member of this forum would either, but the lesson is that with such a high population of small mammals they need a proper diet to survive the cold winter. Nearly 3 million vistors come to the park and maybe 1 in 10 people will illegally feed, which one at a time doesn't seem like a lot, but 300,000 people breaking the law is a huge problem. Because these small mammals can not metabolize human food as well as their natural diet they don't produce enough brown fat and they literally freeze to death during the winter. The other factor is of course a few people get bitten each year, but the other factors you have to consider is the plants all these animals feed on are heavily grazed, this restricts what can grow and posionous plants can take over an area further degrading the habitat. The reduced natural grasses reduce the vital food sources of the herbirvous species like the American Pika which may soon be listed as an Endangered Species due to global warming.

Take this one example of the negative impacts of feeding, and multiply it to every location and habitat, and you can have some very big problems. I literally could go on with dozens more examples.

The purpose of this rant is point out that one action can have far flung unintended and potentially unknown impacts on the very creatures we are trying to photograph, or worse they can have an impact on countless other species that are far less interesting to the masses. Its those less interesting and less photogenic species that need our protection and respect the most. Subjects have to always come first, and you have to ask yourself how much your photo is worth to you.

Arthur Morris

03-24-2009, 04:20 AM

Jared, By your own admission, in your own words, you rant against feeding birds. Yet you write, "Outside the national park I feed birds at feeders...." Sorry, but once you contradict yourself, the rest of your arguments fail.

I have always advocated that folks follow the rules in places and I do just that. I have always said that in the matter of ethics in nature photography, the folks who preach (scream) the loudest, are always willing to make exceptions for themselves. In your post above, you have proven me right once again.

May I ask the purpose of your bird feeding outside the park?

Roger Clark

03-24-2009, 07:50 AM

In one area of Rocky called Rainbow Curve the population of Golden Mantled Ground Squirrels and Least Chimpmunks are 8 times higher due to people illegally feeding them. ........ but the lesson is that with such a high population of small mammals they need a proper diet to survive the cold winter. ........ 300,000 people breaking the law is a huge problem. Because these small mammals can not metabolize human food as well as their natural diet they don't produce enough brown fat and they literally freeze to death during the winter.

I would like to point out an inconsistency in the above statements. If the human food were so devastating and the chipmunks freeze to death in the winter due to improper food, why is the population 8x normal due to feeding?

I'm not declaring pro or con on this feeding issue--but sometimes in scientific studies conclusions are reached that have little to do with the real cause. I see this all the time, especially with the environment where multiple complex issues interplay. (I am a planetary scientist have have published on terrestrial environmental and ecosystems as well as planetary topics.)

c.w. moynihan

03-24-2009, 08:08 AM

I think the Homer Eagles that were fed by Jean is a good example. Were those eagles negatively affected by Jean tossing fish to them on a daily basis ? What about the big numbers of eagles feeding in dumps...is that natural ? Is it hurting the eagles ? While I think biologists feel that baiting is harmful.... in theory, is it really for birds ? Birds are one of the most resourceful creatures in the world and their resourcefulness to feed and survive is underestimated.

I feel the baiting arguments are more pertinant in regard to carnivores, mainly bears.....because they pose a danger to humans, bears should not be habituated to humans by feeding them. I think that's why places like Yellowstone prohibit such activity for good reason. It saves the bear from it's own demise from being shot if he presents a danger to humans because of the human to food connection.

Jim Poor

03-24-2009, 08:27 AM

I'm somewhat of a self-admitted hypocrite in this area. More to the point, I'm undecided.

I can't stand the idea of feeding a mouse to an owl (I find it cruel and distasteful), yet I don't get so squeamish about feeding a fish to an egret. I'm sure the fish doesn't like being eaten any more than the mouse does. It all boils down to what we humans see as cute, cuddly and whether or not we attribute "feelings" to the bait.

My trip to FL last year caused me to look at things a little more critically though. We all envy the approachable birds down there, yet we don't seem to notice the impact that approachability has on the birds themselves.

I saw birds tangled in fishing line, birds with hooks stuck in their necks, all manner of other injuries and mishaps that one doesn't see with non-habituated birds. Granted, none of them were tangled in camera straps, but habituation to humans is basically the root of all the issues.

As for feeders, I put up a few in my yard and tried to keep them clean and sanitary. Then I noticed a finch, then another and another with diseases of the eye (can't remember what it was called right now, but it was highly contagious). My feeders have stood empty for two year now, though I'm thinking about doing some smaller scale feeding this year.

The other area to consider is the legality of feeding the wildlife. I have great respect for Artie and thoroughly enjoyed the IPT I did last year, but during that IPT feeding was done in places with signs clearly stating that feeding is prohibited. It is probably my military background, but "breaking the rules" made me more uncomfortable in those cases than the feeding itself did. It is, of course, possible that nobody saw the signs but me.

Jared Gricoskie

03-24-2009, 08:31 AM

Artie,

What I advocate is not that bird feeding is unethical, its that you need to be aware of the impacts of your actions and mitigate the negative impacts. Then decide if its the best thing for you to do. Each case, each location, and each person will have a different take on it.

In the past while in PA I fed birds using sterile feeders and shelled seed that would not grow if uneaten. After years working at nature centers it became second nature, and if done right feeding birds at backyard feeders can be an enjoyable experience to see bird life on a daily basis, and have minor negative impact.

Now in CO, in the last 3 years I have feed once, on a private resort with a large selection of feeders, I tried to reproduce behaviors of Black-billed Magpies I observed inside the national park. These very smart birds inside the park have made the connection of the sound of car windows going down to being fed. The birds outside the park with seed feeders available did not show the same behavior.

Beyond that experiment I have not fed any wildlife, but I have to admit to feeding.

Rodger,

I can't agree with you more that there is never just one cause for things in an ecosystem. Per the ground squirrels and chipmunks, their mortality rates were statistically much higher in that area after accounting for the higher population. The higher mortality was found to be from the non-native food available, and the reduction of brown fat in those animals connected to the food given to them.

Mike Tracy

03-24-2009, 09:07 AM

I will offer my personal approach and thats all it is, my personal take. I think this is one of those discussions where both sides can make arguments for and against and in the end we haven't concluded a thing or swayed another's opinion.

Bird feeders: I have several and feel I provide my backyard friends a place to feel safe, secure, fat and happy. I have a couple of cardinals who for generations have been coming back as well as their offspring. If by feeding them they have become dependent on me I am comfortable with that. The fact they have survived, reproduced and are thriving makes me feel I have done something positive.

Snowy Owls: I have baited these on several occasions. Maybe the means to the end in order to get a great image might seem selfish to some. On the other hand these poor often emaciated birds fly south from their barren bitter cold homes in search of food. To make the argument that they become dependent on us does not hold water as they always return to their place of origin once spring returns. I tend to think the owls have us trained for this behavior more then we are habituating them. I do think that people who bait these birds foremost need to be cognizant of nearby roads and other hazards we might be luring them into.

Water birds: As a native Floridian I have been fishing in and off shore my whole life. One can be 50 miles out in blue water or on a small lake and the gulls and the other accompanying birds seem to know you will provide them a free meal by either tossing them dead bait or the remains from cleaning your catch. I think of it as a symbiotic relationship. Flying birds in the ocean and elsewhere point me to small schooling fish where of course lie the larger fish I am after. They have already located a source of food and the small pittance I toss them is just some easy pickings. After I leave the area they always stay and go back to depending on their instincts to provide for themselves.

Shore birds: No personal experience since I am able to find enough on my own to photograph to satisfy myself. I am not opposed to it though. I will add I have tossed many pelicans fish scraps over the years and they seem no worse from mine and others offerings.

Gators: I venture and live where I can find numerous amounts. I would never feed them because it does encourage them to lose their fear of humans and a habituated gator becomes a dangerous one both to humans and our beloved pets.

Bears and other large carnivores: We have a place on the Yellowstone river in Mt. Our property is frequented by a few bears and some wolves. I have no desire to encourage them to develop the mindset that instead of following and developing their natural predatory instincts they know where a free meal might be.

Grace Scalzo

03-24-2009, 09:07 AM

I don't bait, feed, or phish. It's more enjoyable to me to try and observe their world rather than draw them into mine. Baiting owls worries me....one was killed upstate NY this year when someone let a mouse go which drew the owl in front of a passing car. Also, they know how to hunt and I wonder if feeding them might make them a bit soft when they return to their unbaited world. As for phishing, any time and effort that a breeding bird spends responding to my call is energy that could have been spent looking for a mate. They have a hard enough time of it.

Roman Kurywczak

03-24-2009, 09:36 AM

Interesting debate and will only add.....go to any fishing pier/beach in Florida.....se how many fisherman feed the birds. Just recently....earlier this month.....I did'n have to do anything......just hang around the fisherman at the end of the day......when they dumped their bait bucket for the birds. It was at the Sanibel fishing pier.....where it is illegal to feed. What do you call dumping a bait bucket?
1000's more fisherman than photogs on a daily basis do this. what's the difference?? Again.....I'm just playing devil's advocate ......especially whe I see a fishing charter pull into port and all the birds follow because of the scraps.

As for Homer........bunch of hypocrites.......drive outside the town to the dump.......and see our national symbol feeding on crappy pampers and leftover human food.....same at the Venice dump and countless others. When you throw out your garbage........you do realize where it goes right???? Check out who's feeding there.
And Jared......while I agree with your principals (and Arti'e for that matter) and practices inside the NP.....most of the people feeding aren't the photogs.....and on that note......they aren't the best examples of good stewardship.......the Yellowstone dumps for Grizzly viewing were only closed recently (as far as history goes)......when they decided to change policy.....they closed them abruptly and the bears suffered......so not the best agency to offer as an example.
I can offer countless examples here in NJ.....of people feeding deer, racoons, turkeys.......bears getting into garbage....etc.
What I'm saying is don't single me out because I have a camera........we all have a hand in it somehow.

Arthur Morris

03-24-2009, 10:10 AM

The other area to consider is the legality of feeding the wildlife. I have great respect for Artie and thoroughly enjoyed the IPT I did last year, but during that IPT feeding was done in places with signs clearly stating that feeding is prohibited. It is probably my military background, but "breaking the rules" made me more uncomfortable in those cases than the feeding itself did. It is, of course, possible that nobody saw the signs but me.

Jim, Please let me know the area, the signs that you are referring to, and exactly what they said. Thanks.

ps: I had assumed that you were referring to the Sanibel Fishing Pier, but upon rereading your post I see that you mentioned "places" so now I am really baffled.

Grady Weed

03-24-2009, 10:12 AM

Again, this is one of those issues that will never be resolved to everyones liking or satisfaction. To me it is simple; 1) Just be respectful to the others around you, 2) Don't do something stupid just to get an image to hang on the wall for your own edification, 3) And the most important issue to remember: We, humans, are not the most intelligent of species sometimes. We have been given the stewardship of this beautiful planet by the creator. He does not take kindly to us ruining the earth. Therefore we are accountable to him and each other for what we do.

Feeding a few birds at the feeders in the back yards where we have that right, versus dis-obeying the posted rules in other places, or feeding a huge mammal that will rip your head open, like bears or alligators, are two very different issues. VERY DIFFERENT. Let's not ruin the fun by micro managing others viewpoints or putting our ethics above others, blasting them in the forums for doing something we find distasteful. Many here have made some good points. Photographers are a small portion of the equation. We all, all humans, make up this planet. Whether we are fisherman, photographers or boaters, we all bear responsibility to respect the earth. We only have one!

Arthur Morris

03-24-2009, 10:13 AM

Mike, Well rambled.

Roman, Well said.

Grace, How about spishing on migration?

Roger, Well asked, well stated.

CW, Well asked, well stated.

Jim Poor

03-24-2009, 10:16 AM

Off the top of my head, it was the area just under one of the bridges. I may actually have the sign in a photo on my back-up drives somewhere. I'll try to dig it up and get more info for you.

Jim, Please let me know the area, the signs that you are referring to, and exactly what they said. Thanks.

ps: I had assumed that you were referring to the Sanibel Fishing Pier, but upon rereading your post I see that you mentioned "places" so now I am really baffled.

Grace Scalzo

03-24-2009, 10:24 AM

Artie, No....they need to be focused on what they are doing, not being distracted by me. It's a tough journey.

Arthur Morris

03-24-2009, 10:24 AM

Off the top of my head, it was the area just under one of the bridges. I may actually have the sign in a photo on my back-up drives somewhere. I'll try to dig it up and get more info for you.

Please do as I am now more baffled than before. I do not recall doing any photography by "a bridge." And you did say "places" implying that I fed illegally in more than one place.

Pardon me for being touchy but I have been down this road before. After 25 years pretty much everyone knows who I am and I never knowingly violate any regulations or laws. Period.

Is there a chance that we fed in a spot where a sign had recently been erected that was unseen by me? Perhaps. That is why I am anxious to see the photograph or photographs.

Arthur Morris

03-24-2009, 10:29 AM

Artie, No....they need to be focused on what they are doing, not being distracted by me. It's a tough journey.

How about just walking through the woods (either during migration or breeding season), stepping on a branch, and startling a bird nearby. Or simply walking down a path and scaring away the birds that are either feeding on the path or near it?

Jim Poor

03-24-2009, 10:42 AM

. . . implying that I fed illegally in more than one place. . .

Not really pointing fingers and if I were it would have to be "we" as I had my hand in the bucket too.

Grace Scalzo

03-24-2009, 11:08 AM

Artie, if I held myself to that standard, I'd have to take up knitting. I try not to disturb anything (and that includes plants), but yes, it does happen that I crush something, startle a bird, etc. I just try to have the smallest amount of impact to the best that I can and learn from each field mistake that I make.

I will add here that what I am writing about today is my own ethics as I have determined them to be right for me. They have evolved, and will continue to do so as I spend time in the field. It is up to each to think about and decide for himself.

ChasMcRae

03-24-2009, 11:43 AM

Gee, I think I have seen this discussion many times over the last 20 yrs !
If you set your criteria too high then the only photographs without effect on wildlife would be those shot from orbiting satellites.
I will have to admit I have softened my thoughts about this subject ,in that I am not as critical as I use to be.
The spishing argument to me seems a little extreme, although it is officially not legal in National Parks. National Park rules although do not always make sense.

I confess 1.I feed birds 2.I spish 3. I call ,but use a little sense and only in areas not regularly birded. I limit disturbance ,but of course have to abide by my own conscience. 4. I feed squirrels(I feed birds) 5. I feed opossums(I feed birds). This is beginning to sound like an AA meeting( I also drink a little wine).

I admire Grace for her stand, but I dont want to take up knitting either.

Most of us realize the negative impact on feeding dangerous aanimals ,but the general population doesnt. I suspect Floridians will continue to feed alligators and then complain when Fido disappears .

Well when I reread this I see I was rambling, so be it. I also reserve the right to change my mind.

Chas.

Grady Weed

03-24-2009, 12:02 PM

I will touch on a few point s raised above by several. As to fishing and tossing out the guts or left overs. I see no harm there. I have done that for most of my life as well others have for hundreds of years. As long as you do not just cut off the line or toss a hook, throw trash around, littering, then go ahead, I don't think it hurts one bit. Some like Jean or Art, and quite few others I'm sure, toss fish to get a flight image or close up, do it responsibly and no problem, unless posted other wise. I'm sure most of us have feed the animals at one time or another. Just to be cute or to get an image, we've all done it.

Now bears or gators will get you killed or maimed, so don't do it or suffer the consequences of your actions. The only problem with that is, some one else usually see you do it and then they do it. I saw an old Yellowstone video once where someone ran to-wards a grizzly to image it with an Kodak Instamatic camera, tourist type person, and the ranger was yelling a them to stop. The bear charged them, the person wet themselves, and the ranger shot at the bear. Over time many bears are shot just because some are too stupid for their won good.

Go to Katmai, McNeil River or Kodiak, and you can pay to have someone guide you to within feet of these guys while they fish for salmon and no one gets hurt. I've never been there or to Homer to see the eagles. I would love to go. I love creation and cherish each moment out in it. But lets be reasonable. Don't feed the bears and you will live a bit longer.

Birds, to me it is different. In my back yard I have 12 feeding stations for meaties or shelled sunflower seeds, a few suet feeders with fat and peanut butter. I bleach them 6 times per year and rake up all old or moldy droppings. It keeps me sane to feed them. One of my only salvations in these very harsh winters. The songbirds are not harmed and I feel good watching them. But I would not feed the loons in the ponds I frequent. The Maine Wardens will hang you for it.

But beyond that, the laws, you have to use common sense and moral ethics. Just because it is legal or popular to do something, does not make it right. We have laws to tell us murder and rape are wrong, yet some do that without a second thought. So, when they break those laws, we prosecute them. Now I am not pointing fingers here at Art or anyone else. I've never meet him, only on the phone to buy some great deals. Thanks by the way. Jim took a picture of the "Do not feed the wildlife sign" Why? Did you do so for future reference? Again, why take a picture of a sign, unless you wanted to make a point later about something.

So, lets all be careful not to throw mud without knowing it. Not to say your throwing mud Jim. I've never meet you either. So I have to assume you and Art are good folks, until otherwise proven to me by my own eyes. Lets just have a good time photographing life as we see it.

My aim here is not to offend anyone, just to add my thoughts as asked by the original poster, Art. Thanks.

Arthur Morris

03-24-2009, 12:04 PM

Thanks Jim. That info helps. Thanks for saving the evidenence. The area in question was the boat launch by the Sanibel bridge. To the best of my knowledge I never saw that sign, didn't know that feeding wildlife was not permitted in Lee County Parks (I found the ordinance on line), and did not even know that the boat launch was a Lee County Park. Now we can leave the feeding there to the fishermen.

As far as I know feeding wildlife at Little Estero Lagoon is not forbidden by anmy ordinance. I have done that search.

Lastly, I am curious as to why you did not mention the sign at the time.

Arthur Morris

03-24-2009, 12:06 PM

Chas. I enjoyed your rambling.

Grady, Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Arthur Morris

03-24-2009, 12:16 PM

Artie, if I held myself to that standard, I'd have to take up knitting.

Hi Grace, That was my point.... I spish on occasion, usually without result.

Jim Poor

03-24-2009, 12:34 PM

. . . Jim took a picture of the "Do not feed the wildlife sign" Why? Did you do so for future reference? Again, why take a picture of a sign, unless you wanted to make a point later about something.

So, lets all be careful not to throw mud without knowing it. Not to say your throwing mud Jim. I've never meet you either. So I have to assume you and Art are good folks, until otherwise proven to me by my own eyes. Lets just have a good time photographing life as we see it.

My aim here is not to offend anyone, just to add my thoughts as asked by the original poster, Art. Thanks.

It was actually kind of a funny bit of irony at the time. I wanted to get a group shot in front of the sign too. Like I said, I've got mixed feelings on the topic as a whole. I had to crank up my external archive just to find it, it's not in my main database. (Every RAW file I have gets backed up before I do any culling so my archive has pictures in it that aren't found anywhere else.) I only posted the picture when asked for details.

Thanks Jim. That info helps. Thanks for saving the evidenence. The area in question was the boat launch by the Sanibel bridge. To the best of my knowledge I never saw that sign, didn't know that feeding wildlife was not permitted in Lee County Parks (I found the ordinance on line), and did not even know that the boat launch was a Lee County Park. Now we can leave the feeding there to the fishermen.

As far as I know feeding wildlife at Little Estero Lagoon is not forbidden by anmy ordinance. I have done that search.

Lastly, I am curious as to why you did not mention the sign at the time.

Well, I'm shy that way. Actually I did show the sign to a few folks (co-leaders and participants, but not directly to you). On one hand I figured if it was an issue, they would bring it up to you. One of those army things again (handle it at the lowest level). The other factor is that, as I've said, I don't really have a major issue with feeding fish to birds and at that time it was probably even less of an issue than it is now that I've seen the close-ups of birds in distress because they like us humans so much.

Basically, it wasn't my place and it wasn't a big enough deal for me to make it my place.

Don Lacy

03-24-2009, 05:16 PM

The Everglades are slowly dying of thirst and pollution with Florida Bay becoming a dead zone. The St Lucie estuaries are decimated about every 5 years from the mismanagement of Lake Okeechobee not to mention the damage done to the lake itself and today i read in the paper of a bill in the state house that would make it easier for developers to drain wetlands with all that and more I think the human feeding of our local birds is the least of their problems.

If the birds down here and else were have adapted and changed their behavior to take advantage of a new or different food source isn't that what their suppose to do isn't that Darwin's theory at work. While it's true that habituated birds face a new set of challenges and dangers it is also true that non habituated birds with little are no contact with humans are injured and die every day.

Mike Tracy

03-24-2009, 06:13 PM

Mike, Well rambled.

My wife says I ramble as well.

I might add that with such a sensitive question posed we have as a community forum discussed this above board. This is one of the reasons I really like this place.

Jared Lloyd

03-24-2009, 07:08 PM

I am going to take a step away from the issue of birds and talk about another species for a moment. Where I live, there are wild horses. No roads connect my town the the rest of western civilization. If you want to come here, you have to drive on the beach for 10 miles to get here. Its a place like no other in North America. No stores, no pavement, only sand, more sand, and the ocean. Yet every year, we have wild horses that are killed because people feed them. The feeding is done by tourists who visit or vacation in this area, and is primarily done for the sake of photography. Depending upon the month, the season, and even the weather that day, the horses at times can be very difficult to find as they are well adapted to this barrier island. 400 years of genetic isolation will do that. Thus people will at times bring hay, bushels of apples and the like the toss out in order to attract the horses. As these animals, in the summer time, are more active at night time, they stumble across these caches of food and will stick around until the morning or until they are depleted. Problem is though, that these horses digestive tracts cannot handle the same type of foodstuffs that we feed domesticated horses. The result, more often than we would like to think, is that horse ends up perishing due to colic or other complications - including mold developing on the hay. This past summer one family came down from NJ and tossed out a bail of hay to bring in a few horses to where they were staying - this was a Saturday. Thursday morning they woke up with two dead horses in front of their house.

As a result of the unique situation that I live around, I am somewhat jaded when it comes to the discussion of feeding other types of wildlife. As horses are large charismatic mega-fauna people care what happens to them, and therefore the population of these horses is closely monitored and studied. We know when an individual horse dies, especially from coming into contact with our society. I guess I am left to wonder if we really know what the outcome of feeding birds is in the same respect. Do the sunflower and other seeds that may or may not be native to an area have the same nutritional benefit as native species? If not, is this detrimental to the bird in the long run? Does it impact their survival or the survival of eggs? Simple actions often times have unforeseeable consequences. Lets not forget what happens when we use DDT, as no one could have imagined that the pesticide would have bio-accumulated through the trophic levels of the food chain only to inhibit the ability of birds to properly metabolize calcium thus causing the shells of their eggs to be paper thin. Or, quite in contrast to the issue of DDT, what about the explosion of snow geese numbers to ecologically unsustainable levels as a result of the extensive agricultural feilds along thier paths of migration. As far more snow geese not only return to the Hudson Bay area, but return fit, and with enough energy to breed because of the limitless supply of food along thier migration route, Canada is witnessing a complete ecological collapse around the Hudson Bay and other nesting areas as a result. This is a well documented issue, and one that has made our own federal government consider the opening of market hunting in order to reverse the explosion.

We all know the old adage that "a fed bear is a dead bear." We also know its not a smart idea to feed the alligators. Such notions come from the fact that we face a very real threat to our own well being from these actions, therefore we do not do it. This is a selfish notion of course, which ultimately dictates most of our actions. It is from selfish want that people feed the wild horses of Carova Beach. They are just not there long enough to see that the big fuzzy animal they loved watching and photographing so much, died the day after they left because of their selfish action. If there have yet to be any long term studies on the effects to birds, than how do we know that our selfish actions are not negatively impacting the animals in question or the communities they live in?

Cheers,
Jared

Bill McCrystyn

03-24-2009, 10:22 PM

ChasMcRae

03-24-2009, 10:31 PM

Of Course !
We do not know the long term effect of our actions !
Perhaps in a hundred years we will look back and know ,but now we can only surmise and discuss.
The Snow Goose discussion is an interesting one because when we intervene a second time ,do we know we are correct ?
Sometimes I throw up my hands and think of man(us-me) and wonder how in H--- did this all come about and then I know--we overpopulated the earth and threw everything out of balance.
Forgive the rant but as "Pogo" said we have met the enemy and it is us.
Well there is my 3 cents(inflation) worth ! and it is worth every bit of 3 cents.
Heck and all this started with someone feeding a small fish to an Egret !
Next we should work on global warming,etc !
Chas.

Arthur Morris

03-25-2009, 04:25 AM

This debate was raised just a few weeks ago regarding the end result of feeding Eagles in Alaska. To make a long story short - the end for the Eagles and the towns population was not a good one as some may imagine. What bothered me as much as anything was that it seemed the concern centered on how much money was lost by all on the enterprise, rather than any real concern for the animals involved. While this was an extreme case of abuse many such senarios are playing out all over the world. This is why strick laws apply against it in most countries including this one. If this is what it takes to get close enough for a shot - go to the zoo and don't get me started on that one. :D

Hey Bill,

Some facts:

#1:regional populations of Bald Eagles increased dramatically during the 25+ years that Jean fed.
#2: about five years ago both the Feds and the Alaska Board of Fish and Game considered a ban on eagle feeding and each concluded that the feeding was not detrimental to the eagles. No eagle on the Homer Spit had ever been struck by either a car or a plane.
#3: The ban, which was enacted by the town council, had zero to do with the health of the eagle population. The number one reason for the ban was "So the people of Homer could better enjoy their lives and their homes" (or something very close to that). The ban was simply political BS, an end run around the decisions noted in #2. The whole thing began with the efforts on one man who did not like the fact that the eagles would occasionally prey on one of his llegally kept pet birds.

The only problem that I saw in Homer was that when Jean was the only one feeding, the concentration of birds in her compound was way too high--some injuries to eagles were reported over the years, usually the result of birds fighting over the fish. When others, myself included, were permitted to feed, the birds were much more spread out.

And yes, the wiinter economy of this little fishing and tourist town will be severly crippled unless and until the ban is rescinded.

I am curious as to what you were inferring by this: "To make a long story short - the end for the Eagles and the towns population was not a good one as some may imagine."

Please explain.

Respectfully.

Arthur Morris

03-25-2009, 04:28 AM

Jared, Interesting comments. Two questions: how do the tourists get their bales of hay to the area?

Are not the wild horses descended from domesticated horses?

Jim Fenton

03-25-2009, 06:47 AM

As far as baiting owls is concerned, my personal feelings and that's all they are, is that baiting these creatures causes stress on a couple of levels:

-When groups of photographers in the fields of Canada and elsewhere feed these owls it causes stress simply by humans getting to darn close to them en mass and also by changing their natural feeding habits. It appalls me when I see web pages for owl excursions where it clearly states that photographers should bring their wide angle lenses! You tell me.....is it a good thing to be so close to an owl where someone is tempting it toward you with food that you need a wide angle lens for full wing spread images?

I've personally corresponded with individuals who bragged that the group went through 2 dozen mice in a single day while out shooting both norther hawk owls and snowy owls.

As far as those who argue that they are doing the owl population a favor by feeding poor starving creatures, I disagree completely. These birds are supposed to hunt for themselves. Those who are unable to do so successfully on their own or in times of low prey cycles, members of the population are supposed to perish. It's simply survival of the fittest and natural selection processes. Prey sources cycle and those who prey upon them have population cycles in response to their food source as well.

While I don't know the answer from a scientific basis, I have to wonder if providing a snowy owl or northern hawk owl with far more food than it is suppose to have to survive on, causes negative impacts to it's health? Do they get more robust and healthier or do they gain a higher body fat percentage that may have some negative impact on their migration and breeding? Do they get lazy and loose the edge required to hunt and survive on their own?

Are those who engage in this activity potentially introducing some pathogen from these captive bred mice that the owl might not have a natural resistance to?

Does it cause them to stay further south longer than they should and cause them to loose their chance at obtaining prime breeding habitat back home?

This past season there was reported to be a very high success rate of snowy owls up north and a subsequent early and large southward migration of juvenile males in particular. We had juvenile snowy owls on the beaches in northeast Massachusetts the 2nd weekend of October this year, which is unheard of.

Common sense tells me that large numbers of these birds should perish both from the rigors of the migration, lack of food sources, etc. It's nature...these things are supposed to happen and any impact from humans which might alter this is not a good thing for the overall population in my opinion.

As far as the images captured by baiting these owls...it is simply bird porn in my eyes brought about by those who could care less about the subjects well being. I feel that they are simply being selfish in needing to obtain that perfect image capture without having to do it the hard way.....by capturing the subject in its natural environment while it is going about it's daily business of existing without human intervention.

Cliff Beittel

03-25-2009, 06:59 AM

Nonda Surratt

03-25-2009, 08:33 AM

Wading in:-) As someone who has worked hands on with both songbirds and small, medium sized wildlife, meaning completely responsible for all of their food needs, what we see them eat in our yards is just a fraction of how much they actually eat, or need to eat, to survive. However supplemental feeding can keep what we call marginal animals alive that might not have made it on their own. So be it.

Congregating mammals (prey species) and songbirds will attract predators to some degree, bring them in closer to your house. We have the same number of Coops and Sharpies around as we did prior to feeding songbirds. We have fed squirrels for years and as soon as the mast (nut crop) comes on they vanish, we provide nothing more than a nice snack.

Disease can be an issue, House Finch Conjunctivitis is spread not so much by the birds and buy 'things' keeping feeders clean helps, but even if you never put feeders out HFC is always out there. Wildlife on its very own will congregate in areas of high natural food sources.

Having 50+ raccoons show up in your yard every night is not a good idea:-) Some serious human health issue there. Suburban feeding of deer is causing quite a few problems in this area right now and not because we don't have plenty of habitat, we do, but wilds are opportunistic and work on the premise of energy used, energy gained.

The Homer eagles. I asked Dr Erica Miller (Tri-State) what would happen once the feeding stopped and how should it be stopped. Her reply was they should continue feeding until March, the eagles would disperse a few would probably die, the vast majority would do fine. We come back to marginal wilds that on their own would probably have not made it anyway.

Anything in excess can cause problems, but wilds are much more instinctive and adaptive that we give them credit for. Quit all feeding and some will die, but they were marginals anyway. Not touching on bears:-) And I can certainly understand the no feeding rule in national parks and other parks. Side note a few years ago in SC (I think) there was an Owl that was casing golf balls, general thought was some not good rehab practice with a juvie.

And another thought..We are in a big migration path and I'm sure some of the G Egrets that fly though here along with various ducks and waders..that pose wonderfully for folks that either live in the summer or winter homes, you can't get within a quarter mile of them here. We are flyover country, they are not comfortable at all and I'm sure many have ate fish at the docks or been fed bread in ponds. There is a huge difference in our year around mallards and honkin huge Canadas as apposed to the migraters of the same species.

Will add I do think the excessive protracted baiting of a single bird is tacky for a variety of reasons.

Ramble off be nice please:D

Bill McCrystyn

03-25-2009, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Arthur Morris:
Some facts:

#1:regional populations of Bald Eagles increased dramatically during the 25+ years that Jean fed.
#2: about five years ago both the Feds and the Alaska Board of Fish and Game considered a ban on eagle feeding and each concluded that the feeding was not detrimental to the eagles. No eagle on the Homer Spit had ever been struck by either a car or a plane.
#3: The ban, which was enacted by the town council, had zero to do with the health of the eagle population. The number one reason for the ban was "So the people of Homer could better enjoy their lives and their homes" (or something very close to that). The ban was simply political BS, an end run around the decisions noted in #2. The whole thing began with the efforts on one man who did not like the fact that the eagles would occasionally prey on one of his llegally kept pet birds.

"Facts" noted, I am not clear how relevent #1 is to this specific issue and location. They also increased when they stopped using DDT. I am aware the Eagle has been taken off the endangered species list but that should not give free reign to subjecting them to unatural distrubances.

#2 If I am not mistaken the Officials concluded that because the Eagles had been hand fed for so long with such regularity, that abruptly cutting them off of their food source would be detrimental and should be weaned off over a time period, not to be left indefinatly. I am not sure the fact they had escaped being hit by a car was one of the main conerns.

#3 As I said, the end for the Eagles and the towns population was/is not a good one. The town now has a large population of hungry Eagels dempsy dumpster diving and a lot of Eagle poo to deal with. The Eagles wonder were the food source went and in many cases will suffer not able to cope with learning the natural way to find food. Upsetting the balance of the wild and creating "unatural" circumstances never ends well.

I am sorry if tour people and photographers lost their income source. Having Eagles gather in those numbers much like Pigeons to feed in a park is not how it should be, unless you would like to see the Eagles end up, like the Pigeons in the park.

Arthur Morris

03-25-2009, 09:18 AM

Nondra, Well stated. Serving as devil's advocate here while opening up a new can of worms, if letting nature be nature is the rule--no human hands or intervention allowed--why do we allow bird re-habs facilities to operate?

(I am personally in favor of such operations....)

Arthur Morris

03-25-2009, 09:19 AM

Question for Jim Fenton: may we assume that you are opposed to bird rehab operations?

Arthur Morris

03-25-2009, 09:32 AM

Hi Bill,

re:

"Facts" noted, I am not clear how relevent #1 is to this specific issue and location. They also increased when they stopped using DDT. I am aware the Eagle has been taken off the endangered species list but that should not give free reign to subjecting them to unatural distrubances.

Well, at least we have downgraded from "an extreme case of abuse" to "unnatural disturbances." Bill, those classifications are your opinion. #1 is relevant because if feeding were bad for the birds there numbers would be declining.

#2 If I am not mistaken the Officials concluded that because the Eagles had been hand fed for so long with such regularity, that abruptly cutting them off of their food source would be detrimental and should be weaned off over a time period, not to be left indefinatly. I am not sure the fact they had escaped being hit by a car was one of the main conerns.

I do not at all understand your point with regards to #2. Who are these "officials" that you mention? It was the town council of Homer that passed the ban and they do not know squat about the birds or biology.

#3 As I said, the end for the Eagles and the towns population was/is not a good one. The town now has a large population of hungry Eagels dempsy dumpster diving and a lot of Eagle poo to deal with. The Eagles wonder were the food source went and in many cases will suffer not able to cope with learning the natural way to find food. Upsetting the balance of the wild and creating "unatural" circumstances never ends well.

Again, thanks for sharing your opinion. The eagles disperse naturally in early spring each year. As for the natural behaviors of eagles any biologist will tell you that they include eating road kill and devouring what they can from garbage dumps.

I am sorry if tour people and photographers lost their income source.

My concern is for the restaurant and motel owners on the spit. Funny though that eagle feeding was fine until tour leaders like myself started bring large groups to Homer and profiting from that.

Having Eagles gather in those numbers much like Pigeons to feed in a park is not how it should be, unless you would like to see the Eagles end up, like the Pigeons in the park.

For me lots of healthy eagles is not a bad thing. What do you have against pigeons?

Roger Clark

03-25-2009, 09:36 AM

More thoughts and questions...

First, I'll say I'm neutral on baiting by photographers. I can see situations where it won't impact animals, and others where it will. I personally have never baited, but I have photographed in areas with other (non photographers were baiting, or as they would call it feeding the birds, e.g. in a park).

A good example. There have been Colorado fox images posted by BPN members from Prospect Park, Wheatridge, Colorado. This is a premier location for photographing fox. It is a local greenbelt running through the city. When I learned of this place many years ago, I got up early and was there at sunrise (which was around 5:30am). No foxes. I searched and searched. Nothing. I left without seeing a fox. I came back another time to try again. Sunrise: no foxes. I persisted and stayed longer, and low and behold, after 7am, the foxes started coming out. Well, it turns out the "old people" come out after 7 am for walks and feed the foxes! This has been going on for decades. Then a few years ago the local wildlife officials imposed a $50 fine for feeding the foxes. While feeding dropped, it didn't end as you might expect. But in the last year the fox population suddenly dropped. A scientific study could conclude that stopping feeding resulted in a more natural population. Not so, coyotes moved in and killed many foxes. Like many ecosystems, situations change and populations ebb and flow.

(In case anyone is interested, here are a few Fox images from prospect park; these are just a few of the probably 5,000 fox images I have done there. The bat-eared fox on the web page is not from Colorado
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.foxes

But this leads to questions based on some of the things posted in this thread so far. I have read numerous conflicting reports of bird populations. Is it up or down in North America? How about Europe? I've read different reports saying both up and down. Is there a definitive scientific report? On the web there are reports (not scientific, but sometimes referencing scientific papers, others not so scientific references) such as the thread we recently had about wind turbines and the number of deaths from turbines. One report had about 1/4 of the North American bird population being killed each year by man made things, mostly by collisions with buildings, which is just absurd.

Chad posted several interesting statements (I'm going to play devil's advocate here):

- Supplemental feeding of wildlife encourages animals to become dependent on a food source or method of foraging that is not natural

The human population of the world has changed the equations. Animals must adapt to that fact or perish. Birds have done quite well in that regard, probably related to the adaptability over eons coming from dinosaurs.

-Wildlife that lose there fear of humans are more likely to take on bold and aggressive behaviors in the pursuit of food that can result in injury to humans and animals

Yes, I've encountered them. In Rocky Mountain N. Park, the birds will steal a sandwich right out of your hand.
But the best example is a male-female Canadian geese at a local office park. One goose would come up to you in front honking and making a lot of noise to distract you. The other one would sneak up quietly behind you and steal your lunch!
Now that is great adaptability. But in the end (e.g. winter comes) the people are not there and the birds must learn/know to do something else. If they can't figure that out, they will perish, and it seems for birds, they have done quite well.

-Wildlife feeding encourages congregation in high densities thereby increasing the chance to spread of disease

Works with people too! ;-)

-Supplemental feeding of wildlife when done on a regular basis can raise population numbers which creates stress in the population due to increased competition.

Works with people too ;-)

-The effects of supplemental feeding on wildlife populations has been shown to cause a domino effect among other adjacent non-fed wildlife populations which is not fully understood yet.

Works with people too. ;-) Can lead to war :-(

Back to being more serious.
Jared wrote "Or, quite in contrast to the issue of DDT, what about the explosion of snow geese numbers to ecologically unsustainable levels as a result of the extensive agricultural feilds along thier paths of migration. As far more snow geese not only return to the Hudson Bay area, but return fit, and with enough energy to breed because of the limitless supply of food along thier migration route, Canada is witnessing a complete ecological collapse around the Hudson Bay and other nesting areas as a result."

Isn't part of this issue due not only to more food from agricultural fields but the fact that man has killed off many predators that would have kept populations more in balance?

Regardless, it is not likely we will reduce agricultural fields or bring back enough predators. This points to, again, animals must adapt to the presence of man. It looks like some have, perhaps too well. I guess those birds have learned to not hit buildings. Either that or their birth rate has soared to compensate for the 25% loss of hitting buildings each year.

My general point here is that birds and other animals are adapting to the presence of man, good or bad. And I see no way to educate/legislate the population to have no impact, or even to significantly reduce the impact. Photographers baiting is such a tiny issue in most cases that is is a non-issue in my opinion. (Again, there are probably exceptions.)

Arthur Morris

03-25-2009, 09:47 AM

Roger, Thanks for your excellent comments. I pretty much agree 100% with everything that you said.

Bill McCrystyn

03-25-2009, 10:09 AM

Arthur, with all due respect, I must say I agree with the other side that has chirped in (no pun intented). I still regard unnecessary association just that - unnecessary. I agree with you that perhaps Nonda said it well. It is refreshing how a group of our nature can get together and agree to disagree while learning from each other. Congratulations for such a fine forum you have. I am proud to be a member of BPN.

Nonda Surratt

03-25-2009, 10:18 AM

Artie,

When it is nature taking its course we really don't see it. When we (rehabbers) keep track of why animals are admitted to care 95+% are from human impact. We do, on occasion, get in infant wilds (birds and mammals) that have been abandon and that can happen for various reasons. Wilds do not waste their time on defective young, pitch jobs as I call them, and while it isn't always a 'for sure' pitch job when they are they don't survive. OR they do and once so old you realize they will not make it in the wild and are put down, which sucks BTW.

Do rehabbers make a difference in the grand scheme of things probably not. That said we are often on the leading edge of disease outbreaks and provide a service for people who have cared enough to bring an animal in, making sure it is actually necessary by asking/ answering questions and educating the public about natural behavior. I work very closely with my Wildlife Officer as well as our Division of Wildlife as do most rehabbers so I guess we are useful;)

Will add one more thing. Rehab mammals done properly and released in to proper habitat, good woods as apposed to urban settings, they can't get away from you fast enough. When they have that choice, when they don't they adapt.

Arthur Morris

03-25-2009, 10:33 AM

Thanks for your kind words Bill. Me too. What thrills me most is that everything here has been done with civility and respect.

Jim Fenton

03-25-2009, 11:05 AM

I think personally that "bird rehab" and consciously baiting / feeding owls, eagles or whatever are two entirely different things.

In many instances, birds which require rehab have been injured by us humans...be it being hit by a vehicle, becoming covered in oil from a spill, becoming entangled in some man made debris such as fishing line, 6 pack plastic, etc. They of course also care for animals which have become injured through normal channels and while I don't know, I'll bet you that this number is pretty low as many of those simply perish in the wild as nature intended.

Attempting to rehab an animal which has been damaged by the hand of man is acceptable IMHO if the animal will live out it's life in captivity OR it can absolutely be released back to the wild and survive with no assistance on its own as it should.

This, again in my opinion, is in far contrast to groups of photographers feeding dozens of mice, rats or whatever to a wintering owl. If the bird can't survive the winter on it's own, it is natures way of culling the weak and controlling the population density.

Arthur Morris

03-25-2009, 11:57 AM

Jim, So in your world, a chick that has fallen out of the nest should be euthanized, correct?

Another question: you seem to be concerned that the owls approach very closely. Many birds from northern climes may have never seen a human before and may be quite tame (as are many juvenile shorebirds.) If owl photo tour leaders threw the mice 15 feet away would you be more comfortable with that? I think not.

Nondra, I was playing Devil's advocate <smile>

As has been stated several times above, folks need to remember that humans are part of the natural world for good or for bad; the animals that adapt, survive, those that do not, perish.

Though I have fed the eagles of Homer when it was legal, and I have no problem feeding fish to herons and egrets here in FLA, I have never made the journey to Quebec. If the feeding is done away from the road I have no problem with that.

Arthur Morris

03-25-2009, 12:07 PM

One more thing, Jim. You wrote: "Attempting to rehab an animal which has been damaged by the hand of man is acceptable IMHO if the animal will live out it's life in captivity OR it can absolutely be released back to the wild and survive with no assistance on its own as it should.

When can any animal (or any human for that matter) be guaranteed survival on its own? That condition simply does not make any sense.

Nonda Surratt

03-25-2009, 02:10 PM

Artie
Nondra, I was playing Devil's advocate >>I know, but I love rehab as much as I love photography and will blabber on about both:)

Bill McCrystyn

03-25-2009, 03:16 PM

Artie - these are the "officials" I was refering too. This was posted on John Crookes thread about the Eagles in Homer.

here is the link to the treaty which has under it guidelines the statues

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/eagle/guidelines/bgepa.html

For purposes of these guidelines, "disturb" means: “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior

Wildlife officials have agreed that the amount of feeding that occured made a difference in the Eagles normal behavior and could have been subjet to fines and penalties

A violation of the Act can result in a fine of $100,000 ($200,000 for organizations), imprisonment for one year, or both, for a first offense. Penalties increase substantially for additional offenses, and a second violation of this Act is a felony

Beyond this I don't mean to digress, but along the same vien, what do you or yours think of say, The Alligator Farm? I am not personally familiar with it but it seems like, including other wild life preserves and game parks to be a better way to go that would serve our purposes and perhaps be less invasive on the wildlife.

Cliff Beittel

03-25-2009, 04:10 PM

. . . If I am not mistaken the Officials concluded that because the Eagles had been hand fed for so long with such regularity, that abruptly cutting them off of their food source would be detrimental and should be weaned off over a time period, not to be left indefinatly. . . .

. . . these are the "officials" I was refering too. This was posted on John Crookes thread about the Eagles in Homer.

here is the link to the treaty which has under it guidelines the statues

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/eagle/guidelines/bgepa.html

For purposes of these guidelines, "disturb" means: “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior

Wildlife officials have agreed that the amount of feeding that occured made a difference in the Eagles normal behavior and could have been subjet to fines and penalties . . .
Bill,

You know, I guess, that Jean's feeding in Homer was only the winter, mostly December to March. Thus, there was never any need for the eagles to be "weaned" from Jean's feeding; any ban enacted during the Spring, Summer, or Fall would have caused eagles no distress. And yet, despite all the controversy stirred up by a former USFWS employee, the USFWS officials in question never got around to banning feeding. So again, as I think Artie asked, who are these officials you mention and where are the minutes or other public records indicating they thought Jean's feeding violated the Eagle Act? And if so, why didn't they act?

By the way, from what I've read from Alaskans, eagles feed at dumps all over Alaska, not just in Homer. They also congregate in large numbers (hundreds) at other places where food is available, such as salmon runs. Even here in PA, they congregate in dozens at hydro dams, in the midst of high-tension lines, to feed on injured and dead fish. Must this dam feeding be stopped too? They are impressive birds, but as Ben Franklin noted, they prefer to scavenge. As Buehler puts it in the BONA account: "It [the Bald Eagle] often scavenges prey items when available, pirates food from other species when it can, and captures its own prey only as a last resort" (perhaps a better symbol for AIG America than Franklin could have known ;)).

Jared Lloyd

03-25-2009, 04:19 PM

Jared, Interesting comments. Two questions: how do the tourists get their bales of hay to the area?

Are not the wild horses descended from domesticated horses?

Artie, great questions.

In regards to the first one, the tourist pick up the bales of hay at places off the Outer Banks, most likely in transit to vacation here. There is certainly no hay for sale on the beach.

The second question may be a bit more loaded than you intended it to be. I'm not sure if you are insinuating that these horse are considered to be feral by the federal government and therefore, why should we care, or why would feeding a horse that originally came from a domesticated breed would possibly hurt them. The first part is a quite heated debate amongst many circles of people. If that was in fact the question you are asking, say so and I will happily address it. However I assume that you are curious as to why these horses cannot eat hay. . .

Simply put, there is no hay, naturally, on the island. These horses have been genetically isolated on these barrier islands since around 1585. The biggest link to their survival here in such an incredibly harsh environment has been their eventual adaptation to the natural forage that is available. American beach grass, sea oats, salt marsh cord grass, numerous species of sedges, native persimmons, and live oak acorns dominate their diets out here.

The strange thing about a horse is that despite being such large "tough" animals, they have a surprisingly delicate digestive system. Equine veterinarians keep themselves in business as a result, treating everything from colic to stomach parasites and intestinal worms. Hay does not break down like the food that is naturally available on the barrier island and therefore will sometimes "backup" undigested in their systems, creating complications such as colic which can be fatal. Along this same line of reasoning, mold spores that are quite common in hay are not found on the barrier islands and there have been several documented cases of horses dying from eating "moldy" hay.

Oddly enough though, these horses can eat something that no other breed of horse in the world can stomach - acorns. Acorns have a high concentration of tannic acid which has been documented repeatedly to kill horses when ingested in quantity. This is a constant problem for ranches in California where live oaks grow naturally as live oak acorns actually have a bit of a sweet taste to them which hides the otherwise bitter flavor of the tannic acid. This has been a major adaptation for these horses to this environment because not only do the acorns provide an excelent source of food - thier primary food source in the winter - but that same tannic acid that would otherwise kill domesticated horses in turn flushes out their systems of such things as intestinal worms.

When a horse has to be removed from the island according to the state management plan, that horse spends an entire year slowly being weened off of the natural forage that it is so highly adapted to and onto a domesticated diet. The process is overseen by a staff of equine vetenerians.

Horses out west - Nevada, Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico and the like - are a bit different. As the horse originally evolved in North America, diying out during the pliestecene extinctions along side of wooly mammoths, dire wolves, and giant ground sloths, those horses of the west are actually recolonizing the very same niche that they originally evolved to fill in those environments. Thus is why a stray horses in the west thrive so easily in the wild.

I hope this answers your question

Cheers,
Jared Lloyd

Arthur Morris

03-25-2009, 05:18 PM

Hi Bill,

re:

Artie - these are the "officials" I was refering too. This was posted on John Crookes thread about the Eagles in Homer.

here is the link to the treaty which has under it guidelines the statues

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/eagle/guidelines/bgepa.html

For purposes of these guidelines, "disturb" means: “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.......

As I stated in my response to John, the story you are buying and attempting to sell, is beyond ludicrous as Cliff Beittel was kind enough to infer: " So again, as I think Artie asked, who are these officials you mention and where are the minutes or other public records indicating they thought Jean's feeding violated the Eagle Act? And if so, why didn't they act?

(Emphasis mine.)

Beyond this I don't mean to digress, but along the same vien, what do you or yours think of say, The Alligator Farm? I am not personally familiar with it but it seems like, including other wild life preserves and game parks to be a better way to go that would serve our purposes and perhaps be less invasive on the wildlife.

I think that both the Alligator Farm and Gatorland are great, great for photography, and great for the birds. I am, however, quite confused by your question. Please let me know what you want to know, Thanks.

Dan Brown

03-25-2009, 05:54 PM

We all feed wildlife every day! Have you ever been to your local gargage dump and seen the hundreds or thousands of scavangers! You are feeding them and feeding them the real good stuff too!

If you accidentally strike a small animal with your car, you are feeding critters!

I feed the raccoons in my backyard fish pond and in my garbage, because I exist!

Don't break the law and use some common sense and all will be well!

My .02:)

john crookes

03-25-2009, 06:40 PM

From the US goverments ask a scientist web site

Question - We live near a lake in Orange County California.
There are many species of ducks and geese at the lake. Many people feed
them bread (of different kinds and freshness levels). Our local fish and
game people told "someone" that it is bad to feed them bread as the yeast
in the breads may interact with bacteria in the water and cause disease
and/or death. We did have several ducks die earlier this year. Do you
have any information on why the birds should not be fed bread? Thank you.
-------
Any feeding that concentrates waterfowl in a small area creates a serious
potential for spread of disease through contact and droppings,
particularly avian botulism. Bread is not very good nutrition for
waterfowl, and "training" birds for a reliance on easy but nutritionally
poor food may reduce their ability to survive harsh conditions or when
feeding stops. Naturalists and biologists generally discourage or prohibit
any feeding of wildlife beyond backyard bird feeders.

Now can I ask someone to show any studies that reveal that feeding wildlife is benificial or good for the wildlife

I would love to see these studies

John

john crookes

03-25-2009, 06:47 PM

From Ducks Unlimited which i think we can all agree on that they do a wonderfull job of protecting habitat for our wildlife

What do I feed ducks?

Answer: Feed adult domestic ducks cracked corn and/or wheat. Feed domestic ducklings chick starter, which you can by at a pet store.

Ducks Unlimited does not recommend feeding wild waterfowl. As is often the case when humans interact with wildlife, problems begin to arise when humans feed waterfowl. Hand feeding wild animals, although entertaining, prevents them from learning to be wary of humans and can cause them to become a nuisance. Instead of living in the wild, these birds learn that they have food and protection from predators when they settle in the city.

Waterfowl become more susceptible to attack by domestic dogs, children throwing stones or trying to catch them, and other harassment from those who see them as a problem. Flocks of semi-tame birds can become nuisances by defecating of the grass and causing damage to parks, golf courses, and other recreational areas. Waterfowl can also become a water-quality issue because of the high levels of fecal coliform and nitrogen in their waste.

Furthermore, many people do not realize that a diet of white bread can be fatal to waterfowl. When the birds gorge themselves on bread, they stop eating their natural foods, which are much more nutritious. The birds become malnourished and there have also been cases of birds choking on wads of bread.

Many people feed waterfowl in the winter because they feel badly for the birds that have to live in the cold. Because of the extreme temperatures reached in the winter, migratory waterfowl need to fly south to find sufficient amounts of marsh and grassland plants to eat. Supplementary unnatural feedings may disrupt this natural cycle of migration.

Please, if you care for the birds, do not feed them. You are really doing them more harm than good.

john crookes

03-25-2009, 07:02 PM

Finally some good read Ultimately it is the choice of the individual

What about Ethics?
Like many topics, the subject of bait feeding, as well as using calls, brings forth many viewpoints. From our perspective, there seem to be two relevant factors: does it do harm – and is it legal? And, is too much of a good thing bad?
Does it do harm? If it can be shown, as opposed to merely asserted as fiat in a burst of righteous indignation, that feeding an individual or a group of individuals of a species is harmful – whether the harm is general or applicable only in particular circumstances, and whether the harm is to health or through building a dependency or by creating a nuisance or danger to the animal or to people – then feeding should not take place.

In some cases this has been sufficiently shown – or at least a sufficient number of people have been sufficiently convinced that it has been shown – to cause laws to be passed to that effect. Anyone who, in preparation for a birding or photography visit, has taken the time to browse Florida's web site for information about rules for feeding wild animals will have found that certain species may not be legally fed. By inference, those species not named may legally be fed, at least under some circumstances. If such takes place in a manner and to a degree sufficiently constrained to avoid the mob scenes that sometimes accompany activities that have become overly popular, then one is left to question what harm has been done.
Of course, the "if" in the previous sentence is a daunting one, and often what starts out as isolated can spiral out of control – see the discussion below. That potentiality is also a valid consideration, although not the only one, in establishing limits.

A matter of degree? What about cases that are not illegal and are not prime facie harmful upon initial examination? There can still be harm, depending on circumstances. That which is not harmful in small degree can sometimes be (note that I do not say "must be") harmful when practiced by large numbers of people. This seems to be a basic rule of ecology – a corollary of the concept of sustainability if you will – too much of some things risks negative consequences.

Let us examine the practice of bait feeding by considering two polar opposite situations. (For the moment we leave undiscussed the subject of moral scruples regarding the use of anything living as bait.) In the first case, we have a single photographer who is feeding a single live rodent to a single owl of a non-endangered species. This solitary and very conscientious photographer has previously obtained the permission of the property owner and has picked a location away from public view and the temptation it might engender. Field conduct is cautious and restrained such that no damage results to property or habitat. Further suppose that this photography outing happens only once so that the owl does not become habituated to being fed, causing it to abandon the practice of foraging for itself.
Since we have complete license to construct this imaginary case, still further suppose that the images thus captured, when published, lead many people to become more sympathetic to ecological causes, to contribute financial support and volunteer time to ecological preservation and to modify behavior in ways beneficial to environment and sustainability. Finally, suppose (against all reason, perhaps!) that publication of these miracle-working images does not cause a mass rush of people to the site where the images were captured.

A Worse Case? It would be difficult to convince most people that the isolated incident just described, in and of itself, poses a threat to the individual owl, to the species to which it belongs, to its habitat, or to the property of the owner who gave permission. But multiply that single incident by hundreds or thousands in a relatively small natural area and it's likely a different matter. Imagine hundreds of people parked along dozens of rural roads across a small geographic area, with photographers and birders, and perhaps the media, vying with one another for position and vantage as they knock down fences, violate property, trample crops, pollute habitat, and generally spook most wildlife in the area while tossing dozens of squealing rodents toward whatever owl happens to be at that site.
Imagine also that in the process several owls engaged in pursuit of said rodents are lured to their doom on the windshields of the few passing cars that manage to weave their way through the haphazardly parked vehicles alongside the road. Further imagine that some owls give up in disgust or fright and abandon what would otherwise have been a productive hunting ground, only to eventually perish because the substandard habitat they were forced into could not sustain them. Imagine also that a good many of their hatchlings starve due to the stress inflicted on their parents by those hundreds of photographers, birders and casual bystanders. Finally, imagine that publication of the resulting images, along with tales of the opportunities for more of the same – spread at the speed of electronic transmission – draws even more hundreds to the area, compounding the chaos even further.
It is difficult to deny that this latter case might cause at least a few concerned people to validly question the wisdom of the practice.

Some may contend that one or both sides of this thought experiment are artificial. While the two cases are admittedly drawn to represent opposite ends of a spectrum, I would contend that they are useful in that they lead one to consider the possibility that numbers matter – and that actual conduct matters as well.

Homer's Eagles. Something tending at least moderately toward the latter end of the spectrum appears to have occurred in Homer, Alaska. For decades the late Jean Keene fed dozens of eagles daily at a spit on the beach near her home. The numbers of eagles reporting for dinner grew over time, until 500 lb of fish were being fed daily to an enormous number of eagles. So compelling was this spectacle that the "Eagle Lady's" daily feeding attracted dozens of photographers, and eventually whole commercial tour groups of photographers, come for the opportunity to make killer closeup eagle images. The practice eventually became controversial, particularly in view of the large crowds that gathered watch and photography. After her passing, and following a grace period whereby the eagles continued to be fed so as not to disrupt their established patterns in a harmful way, the practice was ended by the Homer city council, effective 29 March 2009.
From all reports, local residents supported this ban despite the fact that the loss of revenue for local merchants and food and lodging providers must have an economic impact on the town. What started as a single woman tossing fish scraps to a few eagles, with few spectators in attendance, had evolved into a crowded enterprise that could potentially be viewed as disruptive to the town and harmful to the eagles – rightly or wrongly. One has to speculate that this evolution played a significant role in the decision by local government to eliminate the practice.
Without judging the Homer case specifically, note that sometimes perception becomes reality, and though it may be that no harm is actually caused the perception of it may be sufficient to lead to adoption of constraints. In a crowded world, that which is not restrained voluntarily may eventually be restrained by force of law -- or by natural collapse, see Garrett Hardin's "The Tragedy of the Commons."
What to do
There may, of course, be those who take the position that anything that is wrong for a large number of people must also be wrong for a single person acting alone. They may also contend that what is wrong when practiced to excess is also wrong even if practiced in moderation. Or that if something is wrong in one set of circumstances it is wrong in all circumstances, no matter how remote or casual the resemblance. The frequent attempts to morally equivalence live baiting of less numerous individuals of wild species, that require a large habitat range away from human settlement, with backyard seed feeders for common and plentiful song bird species acclimatized to human presence, comes to mind.
In order to deflect the potentially contentious nature of the above perspective, I would say only that, in my opinion, it depends on the thing in question. Hopefully, we can all agree that some things are wrong in virtually all circumstances – surely self-evident examples of this come immediately to mind. Other cases are, perhaps, more dependent on particular circumstances. For the latter, it becomes a matter of public debate and, ultimately, of incorporation of amendments, whether formal or informal, into the social contract that we all agree to abide by as the price of living in a civilized society.

In the grander scheme of things, like most nature lovers I am a believer in nature-friendly ecology. I also believe in the importance of achieving sustainability as a way of life. For that reason, I strongly recommend both Edward O. Wilson's The Future of Life and Jared Diamond's Collapse, How Civilizations Choose to Fail or Succeed as introductions to where the environment and wild animals and their habitat stand in the face of a growing human population.
Dialogs such as this are helpful, despite differences of opinion, if they strengthen our commitment to sustainability. If you would like to express thoughts on this subject, send me an email (info@grayfoximages.com?subject=Thoughts about %22Nature Photography and Bait Feeding%22 article).

© 2009 Michael W. Masters

Roman Kurywczak

03-25-2009, 07:09 PM

Again John....I agree with your ethics.....but will question them......you live in a town of over 50,000.....where does your garbage go???......landfill???......I want you to go there and take some pictures. Get back to me after that. Too bad I don't have an image from the Homer dump.....where I personally witnessed an adult bald eagle....with his bill in a c*** filled Pamper! Was it one of the visiting photogs feeding herring/salmon???.......unless you recycle 100%.......and that does mean your sewerage.....tough to stand on the podium.......after re-eaxaming myself.....and my own consumption....difficult to argue that feeding impacts more than I do in the scheme of things!

Arthur Morris

03-25-2009, 07:19 PM

John's ethics post was well written and thought out with lots of good questions and points.

As for Ducks Unlimited, lets not forget that all of their good work is towards one end: the production of more ducks for hunters to shoot.

john crookes

03-25-2009, 07:19 PM

One step at a time ROMAN one step at a time

we need to crawl before we walk and steps have been taken to reduce our waste we do not need to add to the problem IMO

Bill McCrystyn

03-25-2009, 07:22 PM

Cliff and Artie, perhaps I have the story wrong and hence the confusion, apparently on my part. It was my understanding that not Jean in a controlled enviroment set aside for a small time period during the year, but others less responsible, in a rather year round free for all was upseting the apple cart. I had it that Jean was allowed an exception by Federal "officials" for a time until expected to cease and desist. This in either case would have been founded on Federal law as we have it here in Hot Springs National Park with our indigenous pairs.

I am aware they are scavengers to a point having witnessed them in their arial acrobactics above the lakes chasing the Ospreys around for their fish (talons in tow) and understand they will eat what they find. Most animals will scavage to one degree or another.

Cleaning up waste at the dump compared to the occasional dead scrap in the woods to me are two different things. Sea Gulls and Sparrows have a much higher reproduction rate than Eagles and so, in my mind, deserve better - more stringent protection. Perhaps call me a tree hugging fool with an emotional argument. For some odd reason Federal Wildlife Professionals and Biologist (some heard from here) have mandated clear protection statues for these birds other than just to bother well meaning photographers.

I am sorry if I have offended you with my thoughts and understanding but my position remains the same. You feed yours, I'll find mine.

Arthur Morris

03-25-2009, 07:36 PM

Bill,

re:

Cliff and Artie, perhaps I have the story wrong and hence the confusion, apparently on my part. It was my understanding that not Jean in a controlled enviroment set aside for a small time period during the year, but others less responsible, in a rather year round free for all was upseting the apple cart.

That is patently ridiculous information. Jean was the town hero so it did not matter what she did or did not do. To some degree, I do believe that some locals resented the various tour leaders, myself included, who came to Homer and left with substantial profits. (Some folks elsewhere and even on this thread consider that some sort of a crime...) As I have stated several times in this post (nobody seems to be reading or understanding it, including it seems, Roman), when others besides Jean were feeding the eagles were less concentrated. All of the scientists and biologists quoted here would agree that the more dispersed the eagles were, the better.

I had it that Jean was allowed an exception by Federal "officials" for a time until expected to cease and desist.

I would not call being excused from committing felonies for more than 25 years "for a time." OK, you an break the law with imputnity until you die. Nice gig if you can get it.

This in either case would have been founded on Federal law as we have it here in Hot Springs National Park with our indigenous pairs.

????

I am aware they are scavengers to a point having witnessed them in their arial acrobactics above the lakes chasing the Ospreys around for their fish (talons in tow) and understand they will eat what they find. Most animals will scavage to one degree or another.

Cleaning up waste at the dump compared to the occasional dead scrap in the woods to me are two different things. Sea Gulls and Sparrows have a much higher reproduction rate than Eagles and so, in my mind, deserve better - more stringent protection. Perhaps call me a tree hugging fool with an emotional argument. For some odd reason Federal Wildlife Professionals and Biologist (some heard from here) have mandated clear protection statues for these birds other than just to bother well meaning photographers.

????

I am sorry if I have offended you with my thoughts and understanding but my position remains the same. You feed yours, I'll find mine.

????

Respectfully.

john crookes

03-25-2009, 07:43 PM

Artie ,

I wholeheartly agree that it seams as if no one is reading these posts in full or just do not want to .

We can all take blame it the world as it is today it does not pertain to the question at hand which it seams most like to step around.

John

Bill McCrystyn

03-25-2009, 07:57 PM

John, can I interest you in preparing my briefs for me? :D

john crookes

03-25-2009, 08:02 PM

Sorry but I only do BOXERS

Briefs cut off my circulation :)

Roman Kurywczak

03-25-2009, 08:05 PM

Bill,
Is this the same Fed....that went against it's own scientist quota.....and allowed snowmobiles into yellowstone???? ot the same gov't that is considering hunting wolves again???....or the same gov't that allowed the use of DDT...and then said Oops!....the list is endless......I won't even go into the FDA....and food safety....and product recall safety.

Roman Kurywczak

03-25-2009, 08:06 PM

I missed the boxer brief debate! too busy typing.....Stick to the laws and your own ethics!

Roman Kurywczak

03-25-2009, 08:13 PM

OK........I don't feel I'm steeping around the feeding issue.....as i was right beside you Artie in Homer for the year in question......feeding.......and I was on Jeane's property....while she was feeding......I'm asking????....what the difference between the garbage dump......and my fedding fish??? Nobody answered that!
BTW....John....were you ever in Homer during the feeding?

john crookes

03-25-2009, 08:30 PM

Roman ,

The question raised here was is it ok or ehtical to bait wildlife not if there was a difference between how the enviorment has contributed to the problem.

if you feel it is fine to bait then that is your feeling and I respect that If you can show me studies that show it is helpfull to feed or bait wildlife then I would love to see those studies because everything I have ever read or seen on the issue is that it is detrimental to feed or bait wildlife.

John

Bill McCrystyn

03-25-2009, 08:40 PM

Roman, I take it from your FDA concern you don't drink Chinese beer as of late? :)

To answer your question, Yes, these are for the most part one and the same agency. Mistakes have been made and other good laws have been recinded by politicians. I won't mention which ONE, least we get started on that. The law that mandated Federal protection and brought back the Bald Eagle and California Condor, was and is one of the undisputed good ones, that in my mind should be kept and are still in effect today. Hunting Wolves with helicopters is an example of a bad one. Yet, having the law on her side, the Governor of Alaska apparently takes full advantage of this situation.

As we can all see, even amougst generally nature loving people, there can be and should be room to disagree and if one or the other learns something in the exchange - all the better.

Roman Kurywczak

03-25-2009, 08:43 PM

OK.......so you are asking me if I feel it ethical to bait.....as you can clearly see....I was in Homer and fed the eagles......I can't point to a study that says....nor do I feel....that feeding is helpful....not sure it is harmful either....so I do bait some birds. I also felt the converstion did move on.....so I did want an answer to ....how are backyard feeders/garbage dumps/fisherman dumping bait ethically different? Is it because someone puts their bait in a pretty feeder.....or the trash receptacle....that mekes it acceptable??? remember.....this is a question and I do respect the opinions offered here! You have my opinion....now i just want an expansion.
PS....man I hate typing when someone is responding......anlthough chinese beer has never been high on the list! Very good point on the Alaska hunting also.

Jim Fenton

03-26-2009, 04:21 AM

In response to your two question...

A) A chick which falls from the nest doesn't need to be euthanized. It either dies of it's injuries / dehydration / starvation or it is preyed upon and used by some other creature as nature intended.

B) I don't understand how my statement that I could see rehabbing an animal and releasing it as long as it was able to survive on it's own. My point was that it would be either acceptable to release it or support it as a captive creature. Again, it is my opinion that many of these are afflicted by some sort of intervention / damage from us humans.

Again....Respectfully,

Mike Moats

03-26-2009, 06:19 AM

Hey All, I am not a bird or wildlife photographer and I don't feed any wildlife including birds, so I'm unfamiliar with the issue you are talking about. I do read forums on baiting and know there are both views on right or wrong.

Please educate me, are the laws imposed in some areas due to a decline of the subjects population, or is the law there based on what could happen due to baiting.

I guess my feeling is if the baiting is causing a decline in the population than I would think that its a bad thing, but if there is no evidence that it hurts the population then I don't see a problem with it.

Arthur Morris

03-26-2009, 06:33 AM

Hi Mike, It was nice meeting you ever-so-briefly at NANPA. As far as I know, there are ZERO studies and zero evidence showing population declines of any bird species due to feeding. No such study could ever be done as except for bird species that have adapted to living in urban and semmi-urban areas, most species are declining due to habitat loss, pollution, and other global problems.

Arthur Morris

03-26-2009, 06:41 AM

Jim, re:

A) A chick which falls from the nest doesn't need to be euthanized. It either dies of it's injuries / dehydration / starvation or it is preyed upon and used by some other creature as nature intended.

That is not correct. Many chicks are brought to re-hab facilities. Since you are advocating always letting nature take it course (except when humans have caused an injury), I should have asked if chicks that are broguht to rehab facilities should, in your opinion, be euthanized.

B) I don't understand how my statement that I could see rehabbing an animal and releasing it as long as it was able to survive on it's own. My point was that it would be either acceptable to release it or support it as a captive creature. Again, it is my opinion that many of these are afflicted by some sort of intervention / damage from us humans.

You used the word "absolutely." I was trying to point out that when it comes to survival there are no guarantees.

Nonda Surratt

03-26-2009, 07:02 AM

Jim most wilds that are not releasable are euthanized.
USF&W has 4 or 5 regions and each region is overseen by its own group and for what its worth they don't always enforce the rules the same or interpret them them same, tis the nature of the beast. The Fed would like everyone to be on the same page but I don't see it happening anytime soon. Heck our state DoW has a hard time just getting our 5 regions on the same page. This, understandably, can cause confusion. Plus while we have the USF&W regs, state DoW's, while they can not weaken those regs they can make then stronger by designating their own state endangered species. More confusion.

In defense of DU, Ohio's wetlands would not be near what they are today w/o them and the wildlife goes well beyond ducks. They also support WL's that are no hunting. One local chapter donated a hefty chunk of change that allowed a rehabber to build a flight cage for small raptors. So while they do duck hunt they have also done one heck of a lot of good with wonderful stopping places for migrating birds of all kinds as well as plants, bugs etc. Northern Harriers and American bitterns, both on Ohio's endangered species list are making huge comebacks. We have a law now that any state project that takes a WL's, meaning any depression that holds water, must be replaced in kind somewhere else in that area. So DU has made a huge difference in my area as well as other areas in Ohio. Off topic, sorry:o

And good morning

john crookes

03-26-2009, 07:51 AM

Here is an abstract from Science Direct you can order the whole study like I did and examine for yourselves but here is the abstract from the study

The feeding of wildlife has become a popular means by which tourists and tourism operators can facilitate close observation and interaction with wildlife in the wild. These practices are widespread and have a variety of impacts on the wildlife—and on the tourists. Deliberate and long-term provision of food to wildlife has been shown to alter natural behaviour patterns and population levels. It has also resulted in the dependency of animals on the human provided food and their habituation to human contact. Intra- and inter-species aggression has also occurred where wildlife, in their efforts to obtain food, have harmed one another and harmed tourists. There are also important health implications arising from artificial food sources where injury and disease have resulted. While the great majority of cases show negative impacts arising from supplemental feeding of wildlife, this is not always the case. Certainly there are psychological, social and economic benefits that are experienced on the human side of the interaction and, in a limited number of cases, the wildlife can be shown to have benefited as well. The issue of feeding wildlife for tourism is a controversial one with little consensus regarding how it should be managed. Approaches range from complete prohibition, to active promotion and management, to simply ignoring the practices. Little empirical research, inconsistent management and differing views of the role of animals in humans’ lives ensure that this issue will remain a contentious one worthy of further examination and consideration

and a link to the site

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9R-44B2BV8-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1ba3e75a49ab802748dace7332ff71b0

John

Arthur Morris

03-26-2009, 08:00 AM

Nondra,

re:

Jim most wilds that are not releasable are euthanized.

#1: How in the world could anyone determine if a tiny chick will be releasable after being re-habbed? God would have trouble with that one.
#2: I have a friend who worked at Pelican Man in Sarasota and she told me of the countless hours spent feeding the little ones with special blends. And that is what you see on TV, so it is evident that lots of time, money, and effort are being spent on saving chicks that will only weaken the gene pool. Again I am playing devil's advocate here.

In defense of DU, Ohio's wetlands would not be near what they are today w/o them and the wildlife goes well beyond ducks. They also support WL's that are no hunting. One local chapter donated a hefty chunk of change that allowed a rehabber to build a flight cage for small raptors. So while they do duck hunt they have also done one heck of a lot of good with wonderful stopping places for migrating birds of all kinds as well as plants, bugs etc. Northern Harriers and American bitterns, both on Ohio's endangered species list are making huge comebacks. We have a law now that any state project that takes a WL's, meaning any depression that holds water, must be replaced in kind somewhere else in that area. So DU has made a huge difference in my area as well as other areas in Ohio. Off topic, sorry:o

I was not knocking either DU or duck hunters or hunting, just pointing out that there primary objective is to have more ducks for hunters to harvest. Therefore, it bugs me that folks are concerned that Grandma brings a loaf of white bread down to the local pond with the grandkids. Again, folks are not seeing the broad picture.

john crookes

03-26-2009, 08:05 AM

Roman,

For my own personal direction we try as hard as we can not to add to the existing problems of the world.

We do drive a hybrid car we also use public transportation as much as possible.
we use rain barrels on our downspouts to collect water that we use in our yard and garden.
we plant native specimens to attract and watch wildlife.
we do not have any bird feeders up on our proberty but do plant to attract.
we do not have grass in our yard .
we do recycle over 60 percent of our waste and we do keep a compost for both yard waste and food scraps of vegetables.
We strongly support our local and state land trust and helped pass a law that takes 2.5 percent on top of our real estate taxes and uses the funds to protect and purchase open lands.
The local land trust has purchased over 500 acres to keep natural and advises users of the land not to feed the wildlife in any way but we do not enforce we try to educate.

As you are quite aware I hope the Canada Goose on the Atlantic Flyway is or has become non migratory and become a finacial burden to communities trying to cope with their over abundance to the geese staying permantely.

I hope the same fate does not lay in wait for other species and I would rather err on the side of caution than to ignore the problem with STATEMENTS LIKE" WELL THE DUMP'S END UP FEEDING THEM SO WHY SHOULDN'T I "

Our town has closed all its dumps and landfills and converted them back to natural areas.
Our town is also looking into new technoligies that can convert garbage into fuel pellets than can be used to generate electricity.

The point is that one person can help to make a difference and there are loads of good that has been done by grass roots

you can make a difference but only if you try and not take the stand that my little bit makes no difference

John

john crookes

03-26-2009, 08:17 AM

Artie,

It is not just one Grandma going down to the pond and throwing non nutrional bread to the ducks but compound that by the Hundreds that do the same thing and you can see the effect piles up .

It is like a dominoe effect on top of the data that shows the bread has no value to the wildlife as a food source and does way more harm than good.

I would hope that at least try to get the same person to feed cracked corn or other nutrional feed to the ducks as at least that would not be detrimental to the overall problem..
Also the waste form these feedings has been shown to increase the bacter4ia count on bodies of water as to have an adverse effect to the ecology

John

Bill McCrystyn

03-26-2009, 08:20 AM

Good morning Mike. As you can see this is a highly charged debate. Blanket statements like "there have been ZERO studies and zero evidence" would on the face of it appear doubtful at best and irresponsible at worst. The second post in this thread by Chad Anderson using the term "ad nauseam" would perhaps be more accurate. I followed some of those studies as suggested with a Google search to find many - not all - that would support much concern in regard feeding. As others have noted, Federal statues regarding specifically feeding, have been in place for some time now. As I suggested, these were not mandated after careful study and suggestion by professionals just to annoy Photographers.

Artie suggesting that the Duck Unlimited studies were after all, meant to put more ducks in the air to shoot is like sugessting Artie wants to feed more birds to get easier access for photography. Both statements are going in the wrong direction and remind me much of the global warming debate by those that apparently don't want to read the studies and watch the ice pack melt.

Jim Fenton

03-26-2009, 09:04 AM

Quite honestly Artie, I didn't know that folks pick up young birds who have fallen or been tossed out of the nest and bring them to rehab centers.

Now that you've educated me that this does occur I would state that I would prefer to see them put down. If folks hadn't intervened, they would not have survived anyway...again, as nature intended. While the birds life may have ended, it provides nourishment to other creatures.

I watch a lot of red tail hawks nests locally and every year, one or sometimes even two of the chicks get ejected from the nest....typically by a younger sibling who is more aggressive and doing whatever it must to insure it's own survival. Sometimes they simply kill a sibling and eat it.

I personally would not try and rescue a chick which has become dislodged from the nest for any reason and I would not expect that it should be saved by anyone.

My feelings relative to baiting are rather clear.

Personally, I don't even pay much attention to images created by this practice. IMHO....and it's only MY opinion, these images don't hold anywhere near the stature of an image created of a bird or animal doing it's own thing in the wild without someone having to feed it to get close to it.

I far prefer to study my subjects, understand how and why they are doing what they are doing relative to their environment and placing myself in an optimal position to acheive my goal of creating an image.

Roman Kurywczak

03-26-2009, 09:05 AM

Wow,
Good morning all! first John......I have a truck for work (construction)......and do carpool whenever I can. I recycle 70% of my garbage......compost leaves and grass.....don't water/fertilize/pesticide my lawn (if you could call it that....bunch of green weeds at this point).......Have planted 5 trees in addition to the 3 fully mature oaks and maples onthe property......what garbage I do have......goes to an incenerator..(where does the garbage you do generate go now??...just another fill......so I'm pretty green for a Jersey boy.....but now I have to ask you and Bill.....why weren't the laws enforced and Jeane arrested.......why weren't the 20 fisherman dumping their bait bucket 2 weeks ago in sanibel arrested......why was grandma with the loaf of bread.....or the dad with his son.....for feeding the ducks. I do not bait and never feed where I know it is illegal (NP's). As far as I knew.....I was in Homer the last year it was allowed.....and won't be back unless the law changes. Yes we can educate......been to a NP lately???....go to any picnic area......clear marking all around to not feed wildlife.....enforced?....effective. for that matter....go to any county park. With all the studies out pro/con......does it include the fact that many of the not so cute predator species of these species is no longer around so that's why some #'s are way too high. Great example is the above mentioned Canada Goose.....no/not many fox or coyotes.....to keep the #'s down.....didn't we have a hand in that? I have struggled personally with the pro's and con's.....much like the debate above. do we habituate them.....no doubt....but I habituate them by the sheer fact of where I live......within 45 minutes of 10 million or more of my closest friends. I think sprawl and habitat loss have more to do with population declines than any other factor.....just my opinion......and not sure what more I can do about it!

final note to Bill...google the snowmobile impact study in Yellowstone NP by the fed.....and see how the NPS went against it's own studies this year in that regard.

Bill McCrystyn

03-26-2009, 09:37 AM

Your right Roman, Yellowstone was another sad backward chapter and a good example of science vs. politics and greed. How long can we ingnore it is becoming the question. Some say we have already lost it. Frankly, watching human nature for 63 years makes me believe "we" are in a losing battle. Watching shows like Planet Earth make me wonder - why?

John Chardine

03-26-2009, 09:41 AM

Almost all natural food sources are ephemeral. Animals are adapted to take advantage of these. The time scales of this ephemerality vary from seconds (e.g., schooling fish at the surface) to decades (e.g., shellfish beds), and the amplitude of variation in food abundance can be small or large, the latter creating periods of complete absence of food. Providing food for wildlife is intrinsically little different to what happens in the wild and therefore animals are generally adapted to cope.

A big mistake we often make is to consider humans as somehow outside of nature and not animals- thus feeding other animals is "un-natural". Of course it isn't. There are some unintended consequences of feeding and habituation and when this happens we should adjust our behaviour as appropriate.

Good thread by the way!

Roman Kurywczak

03-26-2009, 09:47 AM

Very well said John....and Bill....I like you am an observer of bioevolution (love that).......but John does bring up a very good point..... we need to adapt/adjust our behavior.......and I still believe in our abilities to save ourselves......from ourselves!
This debate only re-enforces it.

Bill McCrystyn

03-26-2009, 09:51 AM

Here of course John, we could argue that we don't see monkeys feeding squirrels, and should we, how that might affect a number of things. :p

Bill

Nonda Surratt

03-26-2009, 09:52 AM

Artie

With you being devils advocate again..Not all wildlife develops properly and because we aren't God we can't tell right off the bat;) Head trauma that shows up later can be one reason for non-release, but many times it is injury, failure to thrive and on and on. That said I don't have a problem with Granny with tots in tow feeding bread to duckies..Now 100 Grannies feeding duckies on the same pond could be a problem.

Jim, please rehab is not black and white, chicks as well as infant mammals come out of nests for many reasons and while you might be there to see exactly why many people are not, all they see is 'baby-fillintheblank' out of the nest. We do know the natural behaviors of the species we deal with and our goal is to keep wilds from being 'kidnapped' by accident, re-uniting when possible and with some species fostering.

A few years back a Barn Owl nest (cavity) in the top of a tree was pretty well destroyed in a storm, two of the youngsters remained in the nest and the rest hit the ground, one had a broken leg. The nest was now open to the elements so I kept the healthy youngsters here, the one with a broken leg went into rehab. With the help of the neighborhood and a tree trimmer who had the equipment the nest was rebuilt and the non-injured Barn Owl young were re-nested, it was quite the project, it worked. There is a huge difference between interfering and intervening and as professionals we try very hard to know which one we are dealing with, but since we don't walk on water and we aren't right there, it comes down to 'best judgment' with the information we have.

Grady Weed

03-26-2009, 10:08 AM

Finally some good read Ultimately it is the choice of the individual

What about Ethics?: Like many topics, the subject of bait feeding, as well as using calls, brings forth many viewpoints. From our perspective, there seem to be two relevant factors: does it do harm – and is it legal? And, is too much of a good thing bad?
Does it do harm? If it can be shown, as opposed to merely asserted as fiat in a burst of righteous indignation, that feeding an individual or a group of individuals of a species is harmful – whether the harm is general or applicable only in particular circumstances, and whether the harm is to health or through building a dependency or by creating a nuisance or danger to the animal or to people – then feeding should not take place.

Since we have complete license to construct this imaginary case, still further suppose that the images thus captured, when published, lead many people to become more sympathetic to ecological causes, to contribute financial support and volunteer time to ecological preservation and to modify behavior in ways beneficial to environment and sustainability. Finally, suppose (against all reason, perhaps!) that publication of these miracle-working images does not cause a mass rush of people to the site where the images were captured.

Homer's Eagles. Something tending at least moderately toward the latter end of the spectrum appears to have occurred in Homer, Alaska. For decades the late Jean Keene fed dozens of eagles daily at a spit on the beach near her home. The numbers of eagles reporting for dinner grew over time, until 500 lb of fish were being fed daily to an enormous number of eagles. So compelling was this spectacle that the "Eagle Lady's" daily feeding attracted dozens of photographers, and eventually whole commercial tour groups of photographers, come for the opportunity to make killer closeup eagle images. The practice eventually became controversial, particularly in view of the large crowds that gathered watch and photography. After her passing, and following a grace period whereby the eagles continued to be fed so as not to disrupt their established patterns in a harmful way, the practice was ended by the Homer city council, effective 29 March 2009.

From all reports, local residents supported this ban despite the fact that the loss of revenue for local merchants and food and lodging providers must have an economic impact on the town. What started as a single woman tossing fish scraps to a few eagles, with few spectators in attendance, had evolved into a crowded enterprise that could potentially be viewed as disruptive to the town and harmful to the eagles – rightly or wrongly. One has to speculate that this evolution played a significant role in the decision by local government to eliminate the practice.

Without judging the Homer case specifically, note that sometimes perception becomes reality, and though it may be that no harm is actually caused the perception of it may be sufficient to lead to adoption of constraints. In a crowded world, that which is not restrained voluntarily may eventually be restrained by force of law -- or by natural collapse, see Garrett Hardin's "The Tragedy of the Commons."

What to do: There may, of course, be those who take the position that anything that is wrong for a large number of people must also be wrong for a single person acting alone. They may also contend that what is wrong when practiced to excess is also wrong even if practiced in moderation. Or that if something is wrong in one set of circumstances it is wrong in all circumstances, no matter how remote or casual the resemblance. The frequent attempts to morally equivalence live baiting of less numerous individuals of wild species, that require a large habitat range away from human settlement, with backyard seed feeders for common and plentiful song bird species acclimatized to human presence, comes to mind.

© 2009 Michael W. Masters

Thank you John for a good read and practical sense of view point. Personally I read each and every viewpoint expressed in a post before I comment. That gives me a sense of where the conversation came from, its going, and where all are coming from. We here in this forum will not put an end to baiting or change the worlds viewpoint on it. Not that this is a total waste of time to try.

Sometimes too much of a good thing is ruined when too many try to follow to see what the hub bub is about. The Homer's Eagle is a good point in this regard. It all started when a lady feed a few eagles, too many eagles came, and then too many photographers came, then the profiteering soon followed. If everyone who came followed proper ethics and where guided by pros who kept strict watch on everyone, then all might still be allowed to feed them and photograph them as they previously did.

But people are sometimes foolish and irresponsible, greedy and all else. Both sides of the coin are responsible for the loss of the sites photo opportunities. Now I know some tour operators and photographers were kind and caring, as well as most residents were graceful for the increased income from this practice. But...all good things come to an end eventually due to mankind's ignorance or greed.

An example close to home for me both financially and photographically is the eagles and loons on several ponds i frequent. The eagles first: a local trapper and his friends trapped over 200 beavers in a 30 mile radius of our home here last year. They have been doing this for decades now. And they are only a few who do mind you. The numbers of trapped animals is staggering to comprehend. He told me once about the eagles who frequented the frozen pond he dumped the remains on for them to eat. He asked to make some images of them for him to send them to his brother. So I went over for 3 years, countless mornings freezing my butt off in minus 30 to 20 degrees weather just to get these images for him.

The local wardens knew he was dumping the carcasses there and that I was photographing them. They, the wardens, even took some of the dead beavers home to put out over a spot so they could at night shoot coyotes. Most folks up here hate coyotes. I do not. Eventually the practice stopped because too many wanted in on the action. He, the trapper, could have put out thousands of beaver for the wardens and others who wanted them to use as bait for coyotes. Guess how many coyotes we have around here compared to 100 years ago?

The lady who rehabs the wolves I photograph gets them because too many bred them with dogs or as pure wolves, then give or sell them to others as pets. Apparently some stupid people are too blinded by the obvious, wolves grow up and will bite, eat or maime you if you abuse them. All of the wolves she rehabs cannot be released back into the wild due to their distrust of humans. I have gone over there for 3 years now, just to get them to trust me enough to go inside the pens and pet them and photograph them. They love me and I love them, and Iwill be forever graeful for the privelege to have been a part of their lives. This past winter Denali died form old age and natural causes at 14. He lived his life well feed and very much loved. He and Spirit, his mate, were the most photographed wolves here in the North East.

A young girl from a local high school went over to do a story for her school paper. She was told not to do certain things, stay inside a certain spot etc. She disobeyed. She went over to Tazlina's hut and leaned against it. A very big no no! She got nipped at and was removed from the pen by the owners. She was not really hurt, just scared. No marks were left, just torn clothing. Her mom and she agreed she was all right. A few days later the dad, who is divorced from the mom, a local builder who went bankrupt 2 times, we know of, called in a rage over his baby, who did not pay attention and paid a price, was mauled as he put it.

Fortunately, he was calmed down. I knew him personally and reasoned with him to let it go. It turns out he was considering going bankrupt one more time and all of the pressure had built up and he choose to blow off steam at this particular situation. Maybe he saw dollar signs, maybe not. Gratefully he backed. The owners of the wolves depend on donations and kindness to do what she does. The backlash to me? Now I have to take more than the usual precautions and can only go over after making an appointment, I cannot go over or stay if they leave, the owners, and the property is now padlocked. Previous tot his incident I could stay if the owners had to leave or go out for a short ime. They live on a near deserted piece of road and are surrounded by very tolerant neighbors. But lawyers and the threat of being sued now has taken center stage.

The loons I love so much are very accessible on a pond here called Long Pond. It has become so popular with boaters, mostly those who have more money than brains, who race each other back and forth sometimes for hours. Swimmers come for 4 hours around in all directions. They leave diapers with poop, soda cans, all manner of paper trash, all of it is cleaned up by someone else. The pond is owned by a large youth camp who lets the towns folks use it. For the first time in over 50 years, we may now lose access to it because the owners are tired of cleaning up after those though less people.

My point? The morals of quite a few have degraded from the the norm so far, they ruin it for all others. Unless you change the person, no law will change the challenges we face today regarding our creation. We can debate this all day or to eternity. Change the person don't make more laws.

Those who choose to take short cuts in photography by disregarding common sense and results in death to the subjects they image or who by example encourage others to follow their short sighted lead will pay the price sooner or later. The loss of habitat and ares to enjoy is felt by all of us. So we all are responsible to monitor and chastise others who ruin it for the rest of us. I hope we all think more clearly from here on out.

One more note. Those of us who make our living, or a portion of it, by leading tour groups to photograph our dwindling creation, have a moral obligation to lead by example. Lets hope Homer and my little area of the world is not a foretaste of the future.

john crookes

03-26-2009, 10:17 AM

Google look ups scientific sites

Public health and safety risks are a growing concern with Canada geese. A large population of geese that frequents a lawn, a golf course, or an agricultural field can leave behind an unpleasant mess. Studies have shown that a well-fed, healthy adult Canada goose can produce up to 1.5 pounds of fecal matter per day. Where resident goose populations are sizeable (>100 birds), the continuous influx of nutrients contained in Canada goose feces can contribute to the eutrophication of small water bodies, especially those that have restricted circulation and flow-through, which in turn may stimulate algae and weed growth. Bacteria and particulate matter contained in goose feces, when present in sufficient quantity, may lead to the need for special treatment of drinking water drawn from surface ponds or reservoirs where geese congregate. Additionally, beaches and other public areas littered with accumulated goose feces have been closed due to the contamination or the threat of personal injury resulting from falls as people lose footing on the slippery material. Canada geese present a potentially significant problem at airports. Many of today's modern airplanes, but especially those driven by jet engines, are susceptible to catastrophic mechanical failure should the engine ingest a foreign object. Even a small songbird drawn into a jet engine easily can cause thousands of dollars in damage to the plane but, more importantly, also places passengers on that plane in serious risk. For example, in 1995, a US Air Force AWACS plane, worth $184 million dollars, taking off from Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska, ingested 13 Canada geese on take-off and crashed, killing all 24 people aboard. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has estimated that 35% of all reported bird-aircraft strikes involve Canada geese (about 240 goose-aircraft collisions occur each year

But lets let all those grandma's and grandkids continue to feed the poor geese at our local parks and recreation areasl

Nonda Surratt

03-26-2009, 10:51 AM

But lets let all those grandma's and grandkids continue to feed the poor geese at our local parks and recreation areasl

I don't know John..We do not have parks around here were folks go feed the ducks and geese, we do have quite a bit of water and zillions of Canada's that are here year round and they are quite easy to track where they are coming from and going to during the day. We do have loads of corn fields tho':) The only thing keeping us from being knee deep in goose poop is the resurgent population of coyotes, mink and the ever over populated coons, bread doesn't have a thing to do with it.

Grady Weed

03-26-2009, 10:59 AM

Personally, I don't even pay much attention to images created by this practice. IMHO....and it's only MY opinion, these images don't hold anywhere near the stature of an image created of a bird or animal doing it's own thing in the wild without someone having to feed it to get close to it.

I far prefer to study my subjects, understand how and why they are doing what they are doing relative to their environment and placing myself in an optimal position to acheive my goal of creating an image.

Well said Jim!

Bill McCrystyn

03-26-2009, 12:02 PM

I was once being critiqued on a Canada Goose shot I made named "call of the wild". You may have seen it here and Arti helped me make a decent shot out of it with his critque and guidance (thank you Arti), I was joked by a critquier in L.A. that geese there are feed in parks year round and nothing remotely close to wild came to mind. I simply responded that was unfortunate. Here in Arkansas, like a wolf howl in Alaska, it reminds me of how lucky I am to live where their honk flying over en masse puts me in the space I belong in.

Nonda Surratt

03-26-2009, 01:30 PM

Here in Arkansas, like a wolf howl in Alaska, it reminds me of how lucky I am to live where their honk flying over en masse puts me in the space I belong in.

Aren't they grand Bill! Wasn't all that many years ago seeing a flock of CG's (here) was big news, how things have changed, still a big flock going overhead stirs the heart.

stephen farmer

03-26-2009, 01:31 PM

Well heres my take on the subject from the other side of the pond,supplementary feeding in harsh winters helps birds they are able to come into the breeding season fitter & are better able to cope with the demands of the breeding season.In the UK a succession of poor springs has led to a under average breeding season,the birds I feed in the spring & summer are mostly African migrants ie European Redstart.For the past 3 yrs i`ve used mealworms at exactly the same spot & the birds have afforded me with some great photographic moments.The thing to bear in mind is I use the right food in the right seasons for the right species.When i`m not there the birds go back to their natural feeding routine.The point i`m making is that all creatures are opportunistic they have to be for the continuation of the species.Birds feed on rubbish dumps road kills etc.

Steve.

Glenn Forbes

03-26-2009, 06:34 PM

I have read through all the threads on this discussion and tend to agree with the anti-baiting group. Nothing good can come from feeding wildlife that is truly wild. Bird feeders aren’t a problem because the birds usually only use the feeders when their food supply isn’t available. Feeding weak or sick animals is OK, I guess, but what happened to “Natural Selection”. These animals probably wouldn’t survive in the wild for long, anyway.<o></o>
There is another problem with feeding wildlife. It’s the nuisance factor. I live in California near Morro Bay. There is a huge problem in Morro Bay with seagulls, ground squirrels, and seals. All of these animals get feed by tourists and fishermen. The species makeup in the bay is totally altered by these feeding practices. Fishing boats regularly clean their fish as they approach the harbor entrance and throw the guts overboard. Needless to say, there are 100’s of seagulls, seals and pelicans following the boats.<o>></o>>
Another problem with feeding wildlife is that there is no control as to what is being feed to them. Professional photographers know what the birds eat, but tourists don’t even know what is healthy to feed their own kids, much less some bird that they know almost nothing about.<o></o>
One of the pleasures of bird photography is the challenge of finding a difficult subject and being able to get some great shots out in the wild. It seems to me, that by baiting the birds, a large part of this challenge is lost.<o></o>

chad anderson

03-28-2009, 01:44 PM

Wow looks like I missed a good debate after my comments. I dont really have much else to say except for I am glad a dialog has been started on the issue!

Glen Fox

03-28-2009, 08:32 PM

<o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" images="" smilies="" redface.gif="" border="0" alt="" title="Embarrassment" smilieid="2" class="inlineimg"></o:smarttagtype> Although I am a relative newcomer to the bird photography community, I have been an active bird watcher for over 50 years and am professionally trained as an ornithologist, ecologist, and environmental physiologist. I spent my 32 year career was as a scientist in the Canadian Wildlife Service, the federal agency responsible for the study, protection, and conservation of birds in<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1> Canada</st1></st1:country-region>. I am/have been a member of naturalist, professional ornithological and wildlife conservation organizations. I am passionate about bird photography!
<o></o>
Here in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Canada</st1:country-region>, especially in <st1:state w:st="on">Ontario</st1:state> and <st1:state w:st="on"><st1>Quebec</st1></st1:state>, the issue of baiting owls and other raptorial birds for the purpose of obtaining flight photographs is a hot button issue in the birding community. I suspect it may be similar in the northern states where northern owl invasions also occur. In fact, locally, it is becoming confrontational. Clearly it is one of practices which paints the bird photography community in a bad light. How we, as bird photographers, are perceived by the birding and conservation community should be of great concern to us all. It is for that very reason that I am entering this discussion.
<o></o>
What is wrong with the practice of baiting? If done once, out of sight of the birdwatching public, probably very little. However, that is not where the problem lies. When a northern owl is sighted in southern <st1:state w:st="on">Ontario</st1:state> and <st1:state w:st="on"><st1>Quebec</st1></st1:state>(and probably the northern states), the sighting is reported on the various telephone, e-mail hotlines and bird columns in newspapers. Soon literally 1000s of people know where it is. Yes, and day-to-day postings will follow, reporting its whereabouts and activities. This brings the bird watchers and bird photographers out in droves, where some members of both communities exhibit unethical behavior. It is these widely publicized owls that are being baited, frequently in the presence of the bird watching community. They are being baited again and again. In fact, some have been baited so frequently that there are numerous uneaten prey cached in their favorite tree, others fly to cars when people stop and get out. Some local owls actually scream to be fed. And some, identify the baiter in a group of individuals, and land on his camera. These observations clearly suggest that these owls are being baited very often, and that some of these owls have become habituated or dependent on bait. This is inappropriate. I have visited many galleries of bird photographs and marveled at the flight photographs of the owls, some actually showing the prey being captured. I’m sure very, very few of them were not obtained by baiting. In many cases the domestic mouse, rat or gerbil bait is clearly visible. Locally, the baiters repeatedly bait an owl in an attempt to capture and post a better, more spectacular image than the one posted the previous day by another member of the group or another group. How many photographs of an individual owl do we need? How many times does any one photographer have to revisit any individual owl? All the time they are being watched by members of the birdwatching community. And yes, frequently being observed trespassing on private property. Or, exceeding the numbers and frequency expected by the property owner. More and more “no trespassing” signs are going up.
<o></o>
The majority of northern owls that migrate south are young of the year. They are relatively inexperienced hunters and are often in poor body condition. They are hungry. They are here to find food in a local environment where they do not have to compete with adults. Ideally they will find sufficient food, develop their hunting skills, grow, and return to their northern breeding grounds in better condition than when they migrated south, with the skills necessary to survive and breed. They have had relatively little contact with man, or automobiles. That is reflected in many hundreds that are killed or injured by automobiles. So, repeated free handouts of food and habituation to automobiles are not in the interest of the owl’s health and long-term survival. When an owl that has been seen being baited is found dead on the road, the baiters are immediately blamed, and the anti-bird photographer lobby gains more voices and support.
<o></o>
Then there are ethical issues related to the bait. A naive mouse, rat, or gerbil raised in a warm sheltered environment, is suddenly thrown out onto the snow, to caught and consumed by the owl, while a group of humans look on, some of whom photograph the whole event. Folks, that is equivalent to a blood sport! No different than cock- or dog-fighting! Yes, it’s legal for licensed hunters to bait deer and bear, but that is NOT done with living food items. Raptor banders use live animals in cages to attract hawks and owls, but the bait animal is not injured. Bird lovers worldwide provide supplementary food for birds at feeding stations. The latter practices are all very different from throwing a live, domesticated rodent, to the owls. Nobody can believe that baiting is humane.
<o></o>
So, where does this get us. It gets us into angry exchanges on websites and local newspapers. It adds to the growing anti-bird photographer sentiment in the birding community. It leads to less and less access to properties where birds are found. It has led to reduced numbers of postings of the whereabouts of these birds. All have a negative effect on our ability to photograph and enjoy these and other birds. It is true that generally, there are currently no laws against live baiting of raptors for photographic purposes. However, should vocal bird watchers, conservationists, animal rights activists, land owners etc get together and make a strong and vociferous case, that could change very quickly. The animal rights activists could have a hay day with this one. There are many more bird watchers and bird lovers than bird photographers, and they are well organized at the local, state, and national level.. both as amateurs and professionals. If they take it upon themselves to do so, we bird photographers could find ourselves in a very restrictive world.
<o></o>
So what should BPN members be doing? I believe we should all think long and hard about this practice. I believe we should refrain from baiting and discourage it in the wider bird photography community. I believe it should be covered in our code of practice. Its all about respect, respect for the birds and wildlife we photograph and for the habitat that supports them, respect for the rights of property owners etc, and respect for others who also enjoy these birds and wildlife. The welfare of the subject must come before the content of the image. We, as bird photographers have to police one another!

Glen Fox
<o>
</o>

Grady Weed

03-28-2009, 08:40 PM

Very well put Glen. I don't think it could be said any better or more sound reasoning used. You make a lot of good points to ponder.

allanrube

03-28-2009, 08:44 PM

I agree with Grady. Glen, a very thoughtful post!

Jay Gould

03-29-2009, 12:00 AM

Hi Everyone,

While this is being posted in the Baiting Thread, I have also drawn from the Mist Netting Thread because I really do not see a difference in the underlying issues, to wit: what is right and what is wrong and who get to decide.<o></o>

I must admit that as a virgin newbie to the field of nature photography, and especially BIF, I am blown away by all of the comments on all sides of these issues. While I do not believe that I am a naive member of the general public, some of the things said here have surprised me and I believe would surprise the general public at large.<o></o>

As you read this long and rambling thread, do not assume from what you are reading until you get to the end what I believe is proper or improper conduct.<o>

</o> I am taking “shots” at everyone; if you want to take it personal – OK – if you want to calmly respond – OK – and……….well……………..some of the writings to my virgin ears are so off the wall I thought I would simply bag everyone and then everyone has open season to bag me in the future.<o>

</o> What caused me to go back and write this long reply were the following statements by Chad:<o></o>
”Do you guys really think feeding birds is ethical? For that matter is it even necessary to photograph snowy egrets?”<o></o>

And<o>

</o> “I guess the main question is this: if there is even the slightest possibility that even a word of what decades of research has said is possibly applicable to egrets, is it really worth the risk to get a close up?"
<o></o>
Chad, your statements contains two separate and distinct issues: ethics and necessity.<o>

</o> Simplistically, you as a scientist/biologist has decided that scientists’ ethics are higher than photographers’ ethics, and applying your ethics you have decided that it is OK to Mist Net, band, and do all the other things scientists do for the greater good of the species.<o></o>

From all of your comments you have reached the conclusion that it is worth the risk to stress, damage and kill some birds or other animals for the sake of science, but it is not OK to disturb the birds to get a close up image.<o>

</o> What rights do we as humans have to study other species? Are we researching for their good? Are we doing it to preserve these other lesser species? Are we doing it to increase our knowledge of the species with whom we share this planet regardless of whether they want to be studied, regardless of whether they want to be caught, counted, banded, stuffed in a sack for a short or long periods of time?<o>

</o> Roger, you object? Object to what? The fact that some people might think your research is unnecessary? You say:<o> </o>“Most are very passionate about their research, and their goal is not simply to put their name on a research paper. Their goal is in general to find something interesting that will make a difference in the world. To accomplish that, you must publish the results, because after all, if you do not, then there will be no good coming out of it.”<o>

</o> A scientist’s “goal is to find something interesting” – interesting to whom? The general public funding the research through tax dollars – I think not; make a difference in the world – whose world – the species being studied?<o>

</o> Artie, you concede too much too soon:<o>

</o> “Mist netting and banding cause injury and mortality. About that there is no doubt. Mist netting and banding is not "poor methodology". Both are accepted standard practices in avian research.”<o>

</o> Of course it causes injury and mortality – even the researchers will admit that – and then say it is OK because they are passionate about their research and it will do well for someone, sometime, and somewhere. Of course it is not “poor methodology” because you beg the question and answer the question when you say they are accepted standard practices in avian research. Who set the standard? The Avians or the Researchers?<o>

</o> Trey: “the information gained by properly banding birds is extremely important.” To whom is it important? A segment of our tax paying public that does not believe in animal research for medical reasons; do you think they believe you should band birds, count birds etc.?<o></o>

“used to identify individuals in populations that are generally in trouble. Using 2-3 bands allows the identification of an individual bird without being recaptured and thus reducing stress.”<o>

</o> Ah ha! If the scientists decide that a “population is in trouble” it is OK to engage in standard practices that WILL result in injury and mortality; however, if a photographer wants that super close shot then the scientist asks if it is necessary!<o>

</o> “I think that mist netting and banding is very valuable to gain knowledge on the avian world. The benefit to both biologist, photographers, and future generations is hard to put a price on.” What benefit? Again, what rights do we as the dominant species have to collect the knowledge on the avian world, and to do so at the expense of the avian world?<o>

</o> Having played the Devil’s Advocate regarding the scientists let’s look at the photographers and my obvious naivety.
<o></o>
Frankly, I expect one or more of you “shooters” to say – “you’ve got to be kidding; how did you think we obtained all of those great images; sitting and waiting forever; of course, we used bait!”
<o></o>
Well, I’m not kidding; there is no doubt in my mind that while the general public understands the use of blinds/hides, Joe Public would be shocked if he knew about putting frogs and mice in a refrigerator to slow it down to make it stay put as prey, and all the other baiting tricks used to get that great shot.<o>

</o> Chad asked do you think it is ethical to bait? A valid question!!<o>

</o> Chad raised the impact of baiting on the animal population – valid concerns to someone.
<o></o>
Jared: “Outside the national park I feed birds at feeders, but inside the park one single peanut is a problem.” Give me a break! Inside/Outside was a political/economic decision when the boundaries were drawn having nothing to do with the plants, birds, and animals.
<o></o>
“If done right feeding birds at backyard feeders can be an enjoyable experience to see bird life on a daily basis, and have minor negative impact.” Again, the scientist says it is OK because it is “minor negative impact”, but if you apply the ”minor negative impact” test to the photographer then a bird turning its head equates to an unwarranted disturbance of the bird, and another scientist pops up and asks if the shot was necessary in the first place.<o>

</o> Grace: “I don't bait, feed, or phish.” Me neither for a photograph – perhaps because I never thought to do it! Just shows my naivety – I didn’t know that for the purpose of getting that necessary image photographers baited, fed, or phished (just learned that word). Why? Is the image that important? Do we as the superior species have the right to “sucker play” the lesser species just so we can satisfy our urge to pull the trigger?<o>

</o> “Let's not ruin the fun by micro managing others viewpoints or putting our ethics above others, blasting them in the forums for doing something we find distasteful.” Grady, with all due respect, bringing religion into this discussion, being as presumptuous as to state “We have been given the stewardship of this beautiful planet by the creator. He does not take kindly to us ruining the earth. Therefore we are accountable to him and each other for what we do”.

First, we took it and we do what we do to the planet and other species because it is in the nature of man to consider himself more important than any other species known or unknown; second, “he” perhaps is a “she” or an “it”, and thirdly we are only accountable to each other to the extent that we choose to be accountable to each other.
<o></o>
“What bothered me as much as anything was that it seemed the concern centered on how much money was lost by all on the enterprise, rather than any real concern for the animals involved.” Bill, I never read the thread – happened before my time! – However, if the concern was about how much money was lost then it must have been written by and about humans for and about humans.<o>

</o> At the same time Bill “This is why strick laws apply against it in most countries including this one. If this is what it takes to get close enough for a shot - go to the zoo and don't get me started on that one.”

A zoo! Really – you are an admitted observer of bio evolution – is that why you support the superior species caging the lesser species so that lesser members of the superior species can take their children to the zoo and throw peanuts at the lesser species.<o>

</o> “Birds, to me it is different. In my back yard I have 12 feeding stations for meaties or shelled sunflower seeds, a few suet feeders with fat and peanut butter. I bleach them 6 times per year and rake up all old or moldy droppings. It keeps me sane to feed them. One of my only salvations in these very harsh winters. The songbirds are not harmed and I feel good watching them. But I would not feed the loons in the ponds I frequent. The Maine Wardens will hang you for it.”

Grady, wait just a minute! Your last line really says it all: you do not feed the loons because the Main Wardens will hang you for it. In other words, so long as the law permits the behavior – law is just codified morals – you will do what you want to do because you want to do it. Sorta like providing a true avian dietary item – fat and peanut butter. I always thought that winter was part of a natural cycle like some critters die in the winter and it is part of the natural cycle. Providing suet in the winter – a man creation – does seem to be interfering with the natural order or your creator’s order.<o>

</o> “However supplemental feeding can keep what we call marginal animals alive that might not have made it on their own. So be it.” Nonda, perhaps they shouldn’t have been kept alive; perhaps natural selection is again and again being interfered with by man doing good for the lesser species and someday all of this interference is going to bite us on our big fat a………….<o>

</o> What do I believe: Man is destroying and will over the long term continue to destroy the planet – perhaps that is part of the (?) Creator's grand design; Man is superior to the other species because there is nothing currently known to dispute that statement and the other species have co-existed with Man on Man’s terms; when the other species do not co-exist with Man, Man does that which is necessary to make them co-exist either by destroying them or taking some lesser action; I have no problem with any type of research, especially medical research, and Man can and should use the other species to further Man; to the extent that research furthers the other species as a by-product of furthering Man that is OK however Man comes first last and always; <o></o>
<o></o>
Therefore, photographers can and should be able to feed, bait, and phish so long as they do not harm (as defined by Man) the lesser species; scientists should be able to mist net and band and do all other research activities so long as they do not harm (as defined by Man) the lesser species.

James Shadle

03-29-2009, 01:47 AM

Perhaps this thread should be titled "Supplemental Feeding: Right or Wrong?" or maybe "Chumming: Right or Wrong?" rather than "Baiting: Right or Wrong?"

Here is the definition of Baiting:
1. To place a lure in (a trap) or on (a fishing hook).
2. To entice, especially by trickery or strategy.

Tethering a mouse to attract a raptor is baiting.

As a Florida Wetlands Master Naturalist and Nature Photographer I see both sides of the issue.
Here are some of the problems that present themselves when trying to come to a consensus on issues like this:
Passion, Self-Righteousness, Inflexibility, Lack of Balance, Lack of Knowledge and Lack of Common Sense.

In Florida, if a "Wader" hears a cast-net, that bird will immediately fly over and start trying to pick fish out of it.
I've seen them take bait out of the fisherman's bucket! Once the fisherman is gone, the "Wader" goes back to foraging as if the fisherman had never been there.

If we are talking about offering fish to waders, gulls or terns, in areas that are normally frequented by fisherman, I don't see a problem. From watching this behavior for years, I have determined that feeding waders, gulls or terns, in areas that are normally frequented by fisherman does no harm.

I can't say this is true for all wildlife. In fact, feeding most wildlife species is problematic.

Feeding, Chumming or Baiting should be looked at on by a case by case, location by location and species by species basis.

James

Grady Weed

03-29-2009, 02:57 AM

Jay above wrote:

"“Birds, to me it is different. In my back yard I have 12 feeding stations for meaties or shelled sunflower seeds, a few suet feeders with fat and peanut butter. I bleach them 6 times per year and rake up all old or moldy droppings. It keeps me sane to feed them. One of my only salvations in these very harsh winters. The songbirds are not harmed and I feel good watching them. But I would not feed the loons in the ponds I frequent. The Maine Wardens will hang you for it.”

Grady, wait just a minute! Your last line really says it all: you do not feed the loons because the Main Wardens will hang you for it. In other words, so long as the law permits the behavior – law is just codified morals – you will do what you want to do because you want to do it. Sorta like providing a true avian dietary item – fat and peanut butter. I always thought that winter was part of a natural cycle like some critters die in the winter and it is part of the natural cycle. Providing suet in the winter – a man creation – does seem to be interfering with the natural order or your creator’s order."

You assumed way too much here Jay. I never said it was ok to do as you pleased just because you want to and only obey just because the "Warden might get you". How absurd of you to think so and assume you know me. Anyone who has meet me knows different. And yes my religion plays a large role in my life, it is my life. I hold myself accountable to the creator, he has the right to hold me accountable. We as his subjects do no have the right to do as please just because we want to. No matter what you think.

I found your comments imflammatory and showed a lack of respect.<O>

Arthur Morris

03-29-2009, 03:33 AM

Grady, I found Jay's remarks well thought out and honest, not inflammatory (inflamatory is to a great degree a choice), and in no way disrespectful to you or to anyone.

Arthur Morris

03-29-2009, 04:16 AM

Hi Glen (and that rest!), Thanks for sharing your thoughts here in a civil manner.

Your post, however, contains both mis-statements of fact and weakly developed arguments. I shall address only a few of them here:

<O></O>Here in <?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = ST1 /><ST1:COUNTRY-REGION w:st="on">Canada</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>, especially in <ST1:STATE w:st="on">Ontario</ST1:STATE> and <ST1:STATE w:st="on"><ST1>Quebec</ST1></ST1:STATE>, the issue of baiting owls and other raptorial birds for the purpose of obtaining flight photographs is a hot button issue in the birding community. I suspect it may be similar in the northern states where northern owl invasions also occur. In fact, locally, it is becoming confrontational. Clearly it is one of practices which paints the bird photography community in a bad light. How we, as bird photographers, are perceived by the birding and conservation community should be of great concern to us all. It is for that very reason that I am entering this discussion.

As far as I know, baiting with live mice is at the present time a local problem in the various Canadian locales that you mention above.
<O></O>
What is wrong with the practice of baiting? If done once, out of sight of the birdwatching public, probably very little. However, that is not where the problem lies. When a northern owl is sighted in southern <ST1:STATE w:st="on">Ontario</ST1:STATE> and <ST1:STATE w:st="on"><ST1>Quebec</ST1></ST1:STATE>(and probably the northern states), the sighting is reported on the various telephone, e-mail hotlines and bird columns in newspapers. Soon literally 1000s of people know where it is. Yes, and day-to-day postings will follow, reporting its whereabouts and activities. This brings the bird watchers and bird photographers out in droves, where some members of both communities exhibit unethical behavior. It is these widely publicized owls that are being baited, frequently in the presence of the bird watching community. They are being baited again and again. In fact, some have been baited so frequently that there are numerous uneaten prey cached in their favorite tree, others fly to cars when people stop and get out. Some local owls actually scream to be fed. And some, identify the baiter in a group of individuals, and land on his camera. These observations clearly suggest that these owls are being baited very often, and that some of these owls have become habituated or dependent on bait. This is inappropriate.

Pardon me, but you seem to be playing God here; perhaps you forgot to mention that this is your opinion?

I have visited many galleries of bird photographs and marveled at the flight photographs of the owls, some actually showing the prey being captured. I’m sure very, very few of them were not obtained by baiting.

I agree but that does not make supplemental feeding wrong.

In many cases the domestic mouse, rat or gerbil bait is clearly visible. Locally, the baiters repeatedly bait an owl in an attempt to capture and post a better, more spectacular image than the one posted the previous day by another member of the group or another group. How many photographs of an individual owl do we need?

OK, so according to you, if a species has been well photographed there is no longer a need to photograph it? If I bought that argument, I would pretty much be staying in the house.

How many times does any one photographer have to revisit any individual owl? All the time they are being watched by members of the birdwatching community.

A behavior is not right or wrong based on who is watching. Something is either right or wrong. It cannot be right if only a few people do it out of the sight of others. and wrong if lots of people do it. Likewise, the reaction of the birding community does not make it right or wrong (though I do understand your concern as to how we are perceived).

And yes, frequently being observed trespassing on private property.

As you very well know, both birders and bird photographers trespass (and as you say, there are a lot more of them than of us). Trespassing is wrong and the violators should be prosecuted under the law. Again, this has nothing to do with whether supplemental feeding (thanks Froggie!) is right or wrong.

Or, exceeding the numbers and frequency expected by the property owner. More and more “no trespassing” signs are going up.

And that is a good thing.

<O></O>
The majority of northern owls that migrate south are young of the year. They are relatively inexperienced hunters and are often in poor body condition. They are hungry. They are here to find food in a local environment where they do not have to compete with adults. Ideally they will find sufficient food, develop their hunting skills, grow, and return to their northern breeding grounds in better condition than when they migrated south, with the skills necessary to survive and breed. They have had relatively little contact with man, or automobiles. That is reflected in many hundreds that are killed or injured by automobiles.

I am thinking that if "many hundreds" are actually killed in a given winter that the vast majority of them are killed as they scavenge road kill and that a very tiny percentage of them have been lured to their death by folks use live rodents. Do note that many wintering raptors including owls spend much of their time at garbage dumps.

So, repeated free handouts of food and habituation to automobiles are not in the interest of the owl’s health and long-term survival. When an owl that has been seen being baited is found dead on the road, the baiters are immediately blamed, and the anti-bird photographer lobby gains more voices and support.

Again, your (and their) case for direct cause and effect is quite weak here.
<O></O>
Then there are ethical issues related to the bait.

All ethics are personal.

A naive mouse, rat, or gerbil raised in a warm sheltered environment, is suddenly thrown out onto the snow, to caught and consumed by the owl, while a group of humans look on, some of whom photograph the whole event. Folks, that is equivalent to a blood sport! No different than cock- or dog-fighting! Yes, it’s legal for licensed hunters to bait deer and bear, but that is NOT done with living food items.

It is OK, however for those same mice to be fed to pet snakes. I can understand that some folks have legitimate ethical problems with using live bait as opposed to dead bait, but even this does not make supplemental feeding right or wrong.

Raptor banders use live animals in cages to attract hawks and owls, but the bait animal is not injured.

You are living in a cave. What happens when the raptor avoids hitting the net as 80 miles per hour? It rips the head off of the starling, the house sparrow, or the pigeon in .2 seconds. For sure banders do not want it to be known that this is a common occurrence; it is a fairly well protected secret. Doubt that? Try reading Jack Connor's "Season at the Point." It is a great read all around.

Bird lovers worldwide provide supplementary food for birds at feeding stations. The latter practices are all very different from throwing a live, domesticated rodent, to the owls. Nobody can believe that baiting is humane.

Again your opinion. And you really do need to go talk to your raptor banding colleagues.
<O></O>
So, where does this get us. It gets us into angry exchanges on websites and local newspapers. It adds to the growing anti-bird photographer sentiment in the birding community. It leads to less and less access to properties where birds are found. It has led to reduced numbers of postings of the whereabouts of these birds. All have a negative effect on our ability to photograph and enjoy these and other birds.

And all may be very good for the birds.

It is true that generally, there are currently no laws against live baiting of raptors for photographic purposes.

Amazing.

However, should vocal bird watchers, conservationists, animal rights activists, land owners etc get together and make a strong and vociferous case, that could change very quickly. The animal rights activists could have a hay day with this one.

Man, you gotta read that book!

There are many more bird watchers and bird lovers than bird photographers, and they are well organized at the local, state, and national level.. both as amateurs and professionals. If they take it upon themselves to do so, we bird photographers could find ourselves in a very restrictive world.

Most will be amazed to learn that if this happened with regards to the feeding of owls in areas where it is currently practiced I would not object.
<O></O>
So what should BPN members be doing? I believe we should all think long and hard about this practice. I believe we should refrain from baiting and discourage it in the wider bird photography community. I believe it should be covered in our code of practice. Its all about respect, respect for the birds and wildlife we photograph and for the habitat that supports them, respect for the rights of property owners etc, and respect for others who also enjoy these birds and wildlife. The welfare of the subject must come before the content of the image. We, as bird photographers have to police one another!

Great ideas but ethics are personal. One thing that I have not mentioned in any of these proceedings is that the folks that scream the loudest about ethics are the folks that will do unconscionable things when nobody is looking, that observation backed by 25+ years of experience.

Jay Gould

03-29-2009, 05:10 AM

Hi Glen,

Do you really mean to limit your post to simply Owl Baiting?

I applaud the fact that you honestly open by telling us that you are an active bird watcher. What are we to take from that in the opening of your post?

Do we assume just from the label you gave yourself that you support all of the limitations on photographers that have been suggested in this thread?

While this thread is about the tensions between scientists/biologists and photographers, there is also an underlying message from the long-term serious photographers in this thread and in the Mist Net thread that the bird watchers are also doing their utmost to limit the ability of photographers. Are you one of those bird watchers; or are you a bird watcher that believes in live and let live?

Frankly, given your experiences, I am glad you are passionate about bird photography.

I am missing something regarding the owl baiting described in your third paragraph. You refer to baiting taking place in front of bird watchers. What is that all about? Are you saying it is ok to bait but hot in front of bird watchers? Are you saying that photographers must take a back seat to bird watchers; that bird watchers some how have precedence?

“How many photographs of an individual owl do we need? How many times does any one photographer have to revisit any individual owl? All the time they are being watched by members of the birdwatching community.”

Perhaps one; perhaps thousands! How many times are the same birds counted over and over and over again bird watchers attempting to qualify for some type of merit badge based upon the number of different birds they have observed?

Seriously, what does the fact that a photographer is being watched by members of the birdwatching community have to do with anything UNLESS you identify yourself first with the birdwatchers, secondly with the photographers, and thirdly you believe that whenever there are birdwatchers about, photographers must curtail their otherwise lawful behavior?

“frequently being observed trespassing on private property. Or, exceeding the numbers and frequency expected by the property owner. More and more “no trespassing” signs are going up.” Are you suggesting that birdwatchers are more ethical than photographers? Are you suggesting that bird watchers chasing a sighting of a rare bird do not trespass on private property, and in numbers exceeding the expectation of the property owner?

“Then there are ethical issues related to the bait.” Ethics are very personal, aren’t they!

I have friends that own pythons and enjoy watching the python “sup” on a live mouse; I have friends that have carnivorous fish and enjoy watching their fish catch and consume gold fish.

Do I do it; no! Are my friends wrong; **** no!! It is not for me to impose my ethics on my friends.
“It adds to the growing anti-bird photographer sentiment in the birding community.”

I am curious about the extent to which you post on birding community forums educating your fellow birders that it is only a small minority of photographers that violate the law just as it is only a small minority of birders that violate the law.

“There are many more bird watchers and bird lovers than bird photographers, and they are well organized at the local, state, and national level.. both as amateurs and professionals. If they take it upon themselves to do so, we bird photographers could find ourselves in a very restrictive world.”

Of that you are absolutely correct – there are more of them than us. So, please share what you are doing in the birding community to protect the rights of photographers.

“Its all about respect, respect for the birds and wildlife we photograph and for the habitat that supports them, respect for the rights of property owners etc, and respect for others who also enjoy these birds and wildlife. The welfare of the subject must come before the content of the image. We, as bird photographers have to police one another!”

Didn’t you leave out that we, as bird photographers/bird watchers have to police the bird watchers too?
Like you I am new to the BPN.

If there is one thing I want to create from my posts it is that I am not taking sides when the issue is doing that which is legal – that is an individual matter of conscience and no one should be preaching to someone else what is right or wrong. The most that should be preached regarding various acts of legal conduct is that I don’t do “X” for the following reasons.

Also, I am taking sides when the issue is doing something that is illegal – don’t do it!

Jay Gould

03-29-2009, 05:33 AM

How tactful: changing the name from baiting to supplemental feeding!

Shouldn't it be called both baiting and supplemental feeding? Both are legal; neither are wrong depending upon how conducted.

Roger Clark

03-29-2009, 11:06 AM

<o></o><o>
</o> Roger, you object? Object to what? The fact that some people might think your research is unnecessary? You say:<o> </o>“Most are very passionate about their research, and their goal is not simply to put their name on a research paper. Their goal is in general to find something interesting that will make a difference in the world. To accomplish that, you must publish the results, because after all, if you do not, then there will be no good coming out of it.”

Jay, you misunderstood my discussion. I was objecting to Art's calling researchers out to only get their name on papers.

<o>
</o>

A scientist’s “goal is to find something interesting” – interesting to whom? The general public funding the research through tax dollars – I think not; make a difference in the world – whose world – the species being studied?<o>
</o>

Interesting to the scientific community that will further insight and understanding. What proceeds with publication is imparting that knowledge to others, some of whom will bring it to the public. That will then be incorporated into a greater knowledge, even to schools and everyone might learn. Increased knowledge can lead to better lives for both people, and everything on the planet, in theory. Of course someone can come along and misuse that knowledge to do harm, but overall science has given us much better lives throughout history.

Arthur Morris

03-29-2009, 11:49 AM

How tactful: changing the name from baiting to supplemental feeding! Shouldn't it be called both baiting and supplemental feeding? Both are legal; neither are wrong depending upon how conducted.

Wow, I am not sure that I have ever been called out for being tactful before. Here is my defense:

"Perhaps this thread should be titled "Supplemental Feeding: Right or Wrong?" or maybe "Chumming: Right or Wrong?" rather than "Baiting: Right or Wrong?"

Here is the definition of Baiting:
1. To place a lure in (a trap) or on (a fishing hook).
2. To entice, especially by trickery or strategy.

Tethering a mouse to attract a raptor is baiting."

From James Shadle's post above.

Roger Clark

03-29-2009, 11:57 AM

As we speak, we want to have our pet cat at home. Despite being fed they still go out and kill birds. In the UK alone, 90 million birds fall victim to pet cats, every year.

Interesting statistic.

Fisher (1940) calculated a density of 1,350 breeding birds/square mile in Great Britain,
or an overall total of about 64 million birds.

Fisher, J. 1940. Watching birds. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Endland.

http://birdstuff.blogspot.com/2002/07/how-many-birds-are-there.html

Roy Priest

03-29-2009, 02:35 PM

This is a very interesting thread to me. As a new bird photographer it never entered my mind that you could or would use bait in attempting to photograph a bird, unless you count putting seed in feeders baiting.
I have seen photos of researchers using a fishing rod and an imitation mouse catching Great Grey Owls though. Is that baiting?
Most if not all the birds mentioned are protected and it is illegal to harass them, but is feeding them harassment?

Roger Clark

03-29-2009, 03:11 PM

Peter,
These numbers imply half the bird population is killed each year by cats alone. We had a recent thread about collisions with wind turbines and buildings. There were similarly large numbers of deaths due to collisions. If you add all these numbers up, it is a wonder there are any birds anywhere! Yet the total bird population in Great Britain has remained constant for many decades:
http://www.swenvo.org.uk/environment/birds.asp
Something is fishy with these numbers.

Paul Lagasi

03-29-2009, 04:35 PM

Oh Boy..Here I go
I understand that supplemental feeding is important to animals that can't find or get enough food to survive, eg. elk feeding in Jackson Hole, deer who yard up and can't get to food sources because of deep snow and birds in winter during a bad seed crop year.

I do feel sorry for the Mice, so I won't bait.
I think its a matter of conscience (or ethics, whatever), if you think its ok go ahead, bait. If you don't then, don't bait.

In the recent case we had here (As Glen stated " is a hot button issue in the birding community"), you could walk the field where this Owl was hunting and scare up a vole with almost every step, it didn't need baiting or supplemental feeding, the photos I got of this Great Grey hunting, were taken without bait. You just had to wait..sooner or later the Owl would launch and come up with a meal. This is how I choose to get my flight shots.

What actually started this, was that the baiters drew the Owl away, so the 25 people on the road (birders and photographers alike) lost their chances to see and photograph, the Owl up close. So of course, some feathers were ruffled.

There was talk up here about closing the Owl Woods to the public because of a birder/photographer feud (which didn't go any further, thank goodness).
I read articles, in these forums from England about photographers not being allowed on beaches. When will it stop..who knows.
But I hope and pray it stops soon..

Unless its Law, do what you want, life is too short, enjoy it while we can, your hobby/passion/career, whatever makes you happy.
Glenn, Jay and Artie, Everyone Else, great threads..

Paul Lagasi

Jay Gould

03-29-2009, 06:07 PM

Jay, you misunderstood my discussion. I was objecting to Art's calling researchers out to only get their name on papers.<o></o>

Interesting to the scientific community that will further insight and understanding. What proceeds with publication is imparting that knowledge to others, some of whom will bring it to the public. That will then be incorporated into a greater knowledge, even to schools and everyone might learn. Increased knowledge can lead to better lives for both people, and everything on the planet, in theory. Of course someone can come along and misuse that knowledge to do harm, but overall science has given us much better lives throughout history.

Hi Roger, no I didn't misunderstand your discussion; in fact, before I wrote my long rambling post I read what I could about each of the persons about whom I was commenting. Frankly, I believe that if you are going to seriously try to understand what someone wrote, you need to understand a little about them - that means taking the time to do a little research instead of shooting from the hip.

You: very impressive website and very very impressive bio. Yes, you are a scientist's scientist.

"Interesting to the scientific community that will further insight and understanding". Generalizing, it seems to be the case that if it is "interesting to the scientific community" than it must be OK. Sorry, I do not buy into that argument. It is used all to often to justify a chosen pursuit.

I am saying this tongue in cheek BUT only partially: the scientific community wants to study birds therefore is is OK and no one is going to ask the birds. The fact that a few birds might be injured or killed is acceptable because the scientists say it is acceptable to "further insight and understanding".

As I said earlier, study to your heart's content; however, all too often the justification that it is in the pursuit of science just doesn't wash at least with me.

Plants, animals, fish et cetera with whom Man cannot communicate do not get a vote. Does anybody really think that the other species want to be studied? Does anybody really believe that the other species really want to be used in valid (according to Man) medical studies? We don't give them a vote!

Roger, it goes further! Superior Man always justifies studying lesser man in the name of science. From the beginning of time when one human culture wanted to study another human culture they just went ahead and did the studies because they just went ahead and did the studies. When asked to justify: "What do you mean justify; it is in the name of science; it is interesting; trust me it will lead to further insight and understanding."

For whom? The studier or the studied?

Today, probably the most controversial area of study relates to stem cell research. So that there is misunderstanding, I totally support all research and have no problem with the fact that what is being studied doesn't get a vote.

What I am saying is - be honest! Studies are going to be done because studies are going to be done; there is no need - except politically - to create fanciful justifications.

The protection and furtherance of Man takes precedence over all other living things. Simple.