Homer Tribune: DON'T FEED THE PHOTOGRAPHERS

This week's Homer Tribune contains a front-page story on how the Homer city council decided to permanently forbid eagle feeding in the city as of March 29, 2009.

Also on the front page is, ironically, a photograph with a bold, red caption: DON'T FEED THE PHOTOGRAPHERS.

Below is my response which, I suppose, will end up as pearls before swine:

The people of Homer, through their elected city council, have spoken on whether to continue to allow eagle feeding in the city. There were passionate and plausible arguments raised on all sides and, like it or not, a decision was made through the democratic process to forbid eagle feeding after March 29.

What's particularly disturbing, however, is the caption above a front-page photograph depicting several photographers hoping to record images of eagles on the Homer Spit; In bold red ink the caption proclaimed: DON'T FEED THE PHOTOGRAPHERS.

This cheap shot was insulting and uncalled for. Ironically it was above a photograph taken by one of your staff. The contributions of photographers and photography to our society have been numerous and compelling (for example, photographer William Henry Jackson takes much of the credit for persuading Congress to set aside land for Yellowstone National Park). Locally, photographers have not just contributed to Homer's winter economy but also to telling Homer's story. Further, many of us have volunteered in many ways while we are here to be of service to this community. The insulting caption leaves no doubt that the Homer Tribune is incapable of separating reporting from editorial comment which, as any responsible journalist knows, belongs on the editorial page or at least clearly labeled as such.

Dick Ginkowski
Pleasant Prairie, Wis.

I find your response very reasonable. The town must be well off if they are not interested in tourism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Axel Hildebrandt

. . . The town must be well off if they are not interested in tourism.

---

They are definitely interested in tourism, just not the small scale winter trade associated with eagles. There are whole rows of businesses on the Spit that aren't even open in the winter. I'm told the big bucks come in the summer from fishing and bear watching.

I guest they don't know how much money the city is about to loose.

It's a small fishing town foremost that busts at the seams with RV'ers and tourists during the summer. The small amount of income derived from the winter photographers is insignificant in regards to the hassle some of the townspeople feel it creates. The only financial benefits are a few extra motel rooms being occupied and meals served. As mentioned by Cliff the spit is active during the summer with numerous tourist shops and bars. During the winter there is really nothing open to spend ones money at. Most that visit there fly into Anchorage with the city reaping the benefits of car rentals and landing / takeoff fees, etc.. Also not to be overlooked are the extensive waste these birds generate. Cleaning up bird poop on nice boats and the surrounding establishments adds to the negative sentiments.

Mind you, I love Homer and it's eagles but my friend who lives nearby there says thats the general feeling.

Everyone hated spring breakers in Ft. Lauderdale till they left...

I've heard that there can be 10,000 people on the spit at it's peak in July. Most of the locals I've spent time with there feel that the added winter business is no big deal. A really good percentage of those that can, head south for a couple of months and close their business's. I'm sure the money will be missed by some but most just don't seem to care one way or the other.

The Chamber of Commerce folks acknowledge that there is a contribution to the local economy. While it is not anywhere near as significant as the summer crush, it does help pay the bills for year-round businesses.

But money isn't the only issue for the community -- nor should it be.

For one, a community is defined by many things. In the summer, Homer is the halibut capital (self-proclaimed) but in the winter it's known worldwide for its eagles. This is an intangible which adds to the identity and culture of a community.

Also, there should be concern for the eagles. They will be fed -- but not in a controlled environment in Homer. There are entepreneurs in the wings who will take you out for a heft fee and throw fish outside the city limits. The very thing the city council wanted to eliminate it will create and perpetuate.

I believe a controlled feeding with a more formal environmental research component would serve everyone's best interests.

But the original post had to do with the insulting tone of the newspaper headline. It's still ignornant and insulting.

Dick I have to agree with you on the headline ... it is insulting.

It is a shame its over but I see both sides of the argument. They live there and that is what they want, not much we can say about that.

As Alfred said he sees both sides of the argument and so do I. Only one small detail the council hasn't considered as far as revenue. Tourism is down tremendously and I would bet alot on the fact that this summer
they will feel it....

I, too, see both sides and that's why responsible controlled feeding makes sense.

The very "problem" they want to control will likely become exacerbated when the eagles start dumpster diving and charlatans will be feeding outside the city limits -- for a significant fee, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dick Ginkowski

I, too, see both sides and that's why responsible controlled feeding makes sense.

The very "problem" they want to control will likely become exacerbated when the eagles start dumpster diving and charlatans will be feeding outside the city limits -- for a significant fee, of course.

---

Dick:

I am just curious--Why do you refer to those who will be feeding outside the city limits as charlatans?

I had one great trip to Homer--but decided against ever going back when they passed the law saying only Jean could feed....

I sure enjoyed Homer, in March. Sounds like you would never, catch me on the spit, in the summer with 10,000 people. But I met some great folks, in Homer.
Best,
Howard.

Pardon my ignorance, but what stops me from buying a bucket of fish and doing my buisness out of town?? Alaska is a big state with allot of Eagles. I don't play loud music in a campground either, it's rude. I try to do what I want to do without disturbing other people. What am I not seeing or understanding here?

Rocky,

I posted -- or attempted to post, to be more accurate -- a reply from Homer but for some reason it didn't post. Probably won't be as good the second time around!

Anyway, I would say that my weekend there was interesting, to say the least.

The number of eagles is down but they are still there -- and some will be there even after the "official" feeding ends.

My take is that the city probably made the right decision for the wrong reasons and the wrong decision for the right reasons.

The eagles will continue to be there but consistent feeding seems to be the key to how well they and the community will fare. It doesn't appear to be the same without Jean, even though Steve tries his best. Appeared to me that he gets a little later start.

A local business will take you outside town for $300 per boat and fish will be thrown. My suspicion is that this won't be terribly consistent.

All this leads to the fears expressed by many locals that the eagles will become more aggressive -- dumpster diving, attacking domestic animals, etc. There was a report that a puppy fell victim to a hungry eagle and that another animal was attacked.

My educated suspicion is that the fears expressed by Jean's opponents that led to the eagle feeding ban will be realized as a direct and proximate result of the ban. How ironic.

It's really too bad that a plan was not implemented to ensure consistent feeding of the eagles when Jean was no longer able to do so.

I can't help thinking of Orr, Minnesota where black bears were a community problem -- breaking into homes in search of food. The late Vince Shute got fed up and started feeding bears to prevent the "home invasions." When Vince was getting up in years he thought ahead and partnered with the American Bear Association to set up a sanctuary to ensure continuation of his work.

There are those who were critical of the practice and, from a global perspective, their views are appropriate BUT from an Orr, Minnesota perspective, it was the right thing to do. Plus there is an educational research component to it.

It's most unfortunate that something like this wasn't attemped in Homer. The concentration of eagles could be a source of education and research and consistent, controlled feeding could be beneficial. Inconsistent, uncontrolled feeding (and the absence of feeding as well) could be counterproductive and, ironically, bring about the very things Jean's opponents feared.

If my guess is right, it's like ants after you remove the food source, they leave. Once you start unnaturally manipulating wildlife to any consistant extent you have broken down the natural order of things and I have never seen a good end to that. Not for the animals or the people involved. This is the reason most naturalist have learned to leave animals alone. It is a law in Africa and maybe in my opinion needs to be one here. Sorry I disagree with all this. Keep the wild - wild.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill McCrystyn

If my guess is right, it's like ants after you remove the food source, they leave. Once you start unnaturally manipulating wildlife to any consistant extent you have broken down the natural order of things and I have never seen a good end to that. Not for the animals or the people involved. This is the reason most naturalist have learned to leave animals alone. It is a law in Africa and maybe in my opinion needs to be one here. Sorry I disagree with all this. Keep the wild - wild.

---

Probably accurate, Bill, but not likely germane. There will still be food sources so the eagles won't leave but will become more predatory.

As for keeping the wild wild, it's a great concept and a great speech but in the real world it does not always work out that way and when you are in one of those situations, a sound byte rarely sufficies, sorry to say.

Dick,

Thanks for the explanation....It has always bothered (in the abstract) me that they had a special law in Homer allowing one person to feed the eagles. However, I was glad that the one person was Jean whO I met briefly on my one trip to Homer.

In reality, you're right, some of the animals will probably have to be put down to finally end the nuisance. You see, it's not only a great concept, but it is a lesson for those ignorant who created and allowed it to happen in the first place. By violating that basic concept they opened Pandora's box. It is reality, and while you may find the frantic maneuvers to end the plague amusing and ironic - I find it all very tragic.

It appears that the main concern with your story is that (1) Homer will lose your community service (2) They will lose their winter income and the dubious rewards enjoyed from the photography gathered (3) Possibly, someone other than us, may benefit from selling trips and profiting on the circus. (4) Some photographers got their feelings hurt by the local editorial.

Perhaps if you can look out a little farther from your window you will see the much worse consequences that we should all be concerned with and how to keep it from happening again. Unfortunately, this scenario is already spilled milk.

Bill, I'm also concerned for the welfare of the eagles, other creatures and the community. As I said, the very things the opponents of eagle feeding raised as concerns will likely be realized as a result of Jean's no longer feeding them in a controlled, consistent manner. This was not to suggest or discuss whether Jean was correct or incorrect but rather to deal with the real world hand being dealt. As in the Orr example, it's generally not accepted that bears should be fed but it was the only way to stop the home invasions in the community. Once started it was not a reasonable or feasible notion to back off. What made sense was to do so in a way that might also have other benefits, such as research and environmental education. It's unfortunate that this opportunity was lost in Homer.

Sometimes the world isn't always perfect and things aren't always clear cut.

An archbishop who grew up in the Depression era recalled a problem he faced as a boy during Lent when his mother had come into possession of a chicken. He believed it was inappropriate under church law to eat meat on a Friday. His exasperated mother, worried that the meat would spoil, turned to the parish priest for advice. He told the boy, "The Ten Commandments teach that you should honor your parents. The meat will spoil if not consumed today."

Forgot to mention above -- the eagles were in Homer before Jean started feeding them.

A Monsignor I once meet had a sign on his office door. It read "after all is said and done, more is said, than done". Amen

It is a conundrum and I am glad to hear you appreciate all the unfortunate circumstances of it.

Thanks, Bill

A person or a company feeding either Bald or Golden Eagles can be prosecuted under Federal Law under the Eagle Treaty Act.
Jean was a special case and the Federal Goverment did not intervene.
City Officials intervened after State Officials said they would not.
The city passed a resouloution back in 2006 that would stop All Eaglre feeding and allowed Jean to feed up until 2010 when she also would have to stop.
Upon Jeans death the city allowed the feeding to continue this year as advised by wildlife officials the same officials told the city that they would recomend against feeding in the future as the Eagles would fend for themselves as Eagles do.

I severly doubt that guides will be offering trips top remote locations and tossing fish out as it took Jean many years to build up the Eagle following at the Spit.
after these Eagles dispurse you would not be abvle to just venture out and locate the same density of Eagles again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john crookes

. . . after these Eagles dispurse you would not be abvle to just venture out and locate the same density of Eagles again.

---

I agree. Remember, one of the charges made by Ed Bailey and the one or two other anti-eagle-feeding activists (Ed himself being a crane and goose feeder, remember, and thus not against feeding in general) was that the eagles would starve if Jean ever stopped feeding. I didn't believe it then, and I don't believe it now. Driving down from Anchorage, I always saw a number of eagles perched over the unfrozen rivers along Route 1. As those eagles were no doubt finding food, the eagles that formerly wintered at Homer won't need to fly very far to find sustenance. Some may go further south, but many may not, as according to the Birds of North America Online account by Dr. D.A. Buehler, coastal Alaska is included in the eagle's normal winter range.

It would be nice to think this wrong could be made right. It seems probable to me. Unlike Bears, Eagles have a much further range and a more generally accessible food source available. I am still concerned they have been taken off the wildlife endangered list but keeping them away from irresponsible people would be helpful.

John,

re:

A person or a company feeding either Bald or Golden Eagles can be prosecuted under Federal Law under the Eagle Treaty Act.

I do not believe that the info above is correct. Can you provide a link?

Jean was a special case and the Federal Goverment did not intervene.

If all of the above is true, it makes a mockery of our laws.

City Officials intervened after State Officials said they would not.

Both state and federal authorities refused to pass a ban on eagle feeding because their was not evidence the the feeding was detrimental to the eagles.

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


they decided not to interfer and thats when the city decided to take the matters into their own hands

Hi John,

re:

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 subject to fines and penalties.

Thanks for the link. By any means, that is a bit of a stretch. Where were these officials for the 25+ years that Jean was feeding????????????????????????????????????

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.

Jeez, she did'nt have much money but with all those felonies she could have spent a lifetime in jail.


They decided not to interfer and thats when the city decided to take the matters into their own hands.

OK. Let me get this straight. For 25+ years Jean fed the eagles. Everybody knew that. The Feds looked the other way. From roughly 2000 through 2005, everybody and there uncle was feeding eagles in Homer, including me. The Feds look the other way. Nobody was fined, arrested, or prosecuted. Now (I am assuming that you are talking about 2009), they finally decided not to interfer--heck, they had not been interfering for 25+ years. But now, with Jean dead, the city finally decides to protect the birds?

The above tale is ridiculous.

And best of all, the original Homer town council ban, said not one word about the welfare of the birds. But now that their iconic hero is dead, they come riding in on their white horse to save the birds.

You have really got to be kidding me if you believe any of that. And BTW, you can find the original ban on line somewhere or request a copy.

Everyone does realize that the bald eagle is not on the list in Alaska....right????

Artie

The town voted in 2006 the end the feeding and gave jean the right to feed until 2010
they did not react after her death but acted long before her untimely passing

She was the only one that could feed after 2006 and after she passed they allowed her assistant to finish this year. They did so after asking wildlife officials about sudden stopping of the feeding and the officials recommended that the feeding should continue through the end of the year and then end.

All of this is on public record and can be found online

Roman.

This treaty has nothing to do with the endangered species act or list it is a seperate treaty and revamped in 2007 after the eagle was taken off the endangered species list

Well then.....how do you explain Jeane???? I was there with her 3years ago.
Your link is to the fed.

Oh...BTW John....considering you live in the greater Boston metro area...pop over 3.5 million....I just have a few questions from a jersey guy with the density per capity at the highest in the country......do you drive a hybrid......recycle.....bicycle to work often????.....people in these denstiy areas.....really need to consider impact.....beyond the feeding of the birds.

John,

It seems that folks are having trouble getting simple facts straight.

re:


Artie The town voted in 2006 the end the feeding and gave jean the right to feed until 2010...

The above is correct.

...they did not react after her death but acted long before her untimely passing.

That would seem to be true but, they felt the need to do this recently as per the article in the Homer paper:

With no fanfare and little oral testimony from the public, the Homer City Council passed an ordinance at Monday's meeting making it illegal to feed eagles on the Spit or anywhere else in the city. The ordinance goes into effect on March 29, 2009, and penalties for a first-time offense of eagle feeding range in fines between $5 and $50.

Thus, they did react after her death (though I am not sure why as there was already a ban in place).

She was the only one that could feed after 2006 and after she passed they allowed her assistant to finish this year. They did so after asking wildlife officials about sudden stopping of the feeding and the officials recommended that the feeding should continue through the end of the year and then end.

All of this is on public record and can be found online.

I have no problem with anything that you said above except as noted.

But the question remains, if feeding the eagles was a viloation of the treaty then why did the Feds do nothing for 25 years???? It is all a political load of crap.

If Ed Bailey lived in China this would all be a non-issue and folks would be feeding eagles at Homer each year. It was a one man dog and pony show. He won so all the power to him, but let's be giving the Homer City Council or the Feds a shred of credit for giving one **** about the birds.

Artie

From the Washiongton post April of 2005
The cure for Homer's winter of big-bird discontent would be simple: Stop feeding the eagles.</NITF>
<NITF>For nearly three decades, bald eagles across south-central Alaska have gotten wise to the daily fish handouts that are available on the Homer Spit between late December and April. Without having to fuss with hunting, without having to worry about freezing to death, between 300 and 650 bald eagles have been able to count on large helpings of semi-frozen herring, halibut and salmon that each winter weigh in at between 50,000 and 70,000 pounds, depending on how many eagles decide to hang out in Homer.</NITF>
<NITF>While the cure for eagle trouble is easy to explain, it's hard to implement. That's partly because the person in charge of handouts is a local hero and international media celebrity.</NITF>
<NITF>She's Jean Keene, the "Eagle Lady," the 2004 winner of the Lifetime Meritorious Service Award from the American Bald Eagle Foundation. She's the subject of an admiring picture book. She has been on television all over the world and celebrated in feature stories from Tokyo to Prague. She also happens to be 81 years old and is an exceedingly nice person to talk to.</NITF>
<NITF>Keene, a one-time rodeo cowgirl from Minnesota, has been feeding fish to bald eagles on the Homer Spit for 27 consecutive winters. Nearly every morning at 8:30, despite painful arthritis and bitterly cold weather, she emerges from her mobile home (which is parked on the spit near the water and is a gift from one of her many admirers) and tosses out several hundred pounds of fish. Most of it is spoiled or freezer-burned stuff given to her by a friend at a nearby packing plant.</NITF>
<NITF>"The best time for me is when it is just the eagles and me," she said recently. "But that would be selfish, and I am happy to share the experience."</NITF>
<NITF>"Nobody wants to be the bad guy with Jean," said Walt Wrede, city manager for Homer, explaining that Keene and her eagles have become such a beloved and well-publicized institution that city, state and federal officials are reluctant to mess with her.</NITF>

so what you are saying.....rules don't apply to all of us???? You do realize that the same paper you quote was pissed off at all of us back east....about the spotted owl incidents and logging???....they weren't too happy with us easterners dictating policy to them.....while we we voraciously consuming those products! See the hypocrosy???

Roman,

Artie asked for facts and I supplied them to him I am not in favor of feeding Wildlife nor am I against those that do It is a personell decission that you make. If a law is passed either by city state or federal gov to stop the feeding then we either have to get the goverment to change the law but at the same time abide by their law

John

John, the Washington Post article that you excerpted is nothing but a bunch of hot air, one guys opinion. I was not big fan of Jean's; a ban on eagle feeding on everyone "except for Jean" does not quite seem to be the American way. And with Jean feeding tons of fish and really concentrating the birds the chances for injury was greater than when there were several groups in town feeding at different locations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john crookes

Roman,

Artie asked for facts and I supplied them to him I am not in favor of feeding Wildlife nor am I against those that do It is a personell decission that you make. If a law is passed either by city state or federal gov to stop the feeding then we either have to get the goverment to change the law but at the same time abide by their law

John

---

Hi John,
I agree with you philosophically.....and totally respect your own decision.......but many years ago....I too confronted my decision.....& for the record.....I do not share Artie's view on Jeane.....but I do agree with him on most of the other stuff pertaining to the city council and the facts surrounding the ban...that being said....all I was bringing up in the debate.....is how much we...US consumers....no matter how noble our efforts....impact the "wild" world we live in. I am not pointing the finger at you.....quite the contrary.....I live in one of the most densely populated states.......I am an environmentalist.....but that is almost an oxymoron....considering where I live and how much my family consumes! I'm not Ed Begley Jr......I don't have a cistern.....I don't bicycle to my supermarket (even though it is less than 2 miles from home)....no solar panels.....I commute.....usually solo to work.....yet I recycle almost everything I can...use very little pesticides/none on the weed in my front yard I call a lawn.....would rather give an arm....than cut down one of my trees.....but does that make up for my consuption and stuff in the state of NJ......hardly.....factor in my sewerage.....electric use.....etc. I do wonder how much an effect me/Jeane feeding the eagles affected the world in the scheme of things! I have always considered myself an environmentalist....but when i took a deep hard look.....you think my 100 year old house compares to me throwing/Jeane throwing fish to the eagles.....compared to my oil/electric use?? Do remember that our federal gov't.....allowed the use of DDT.....which decimated the pop of eagles and other raptors. I'm not blaming you!!!....I have turned the mirror inward.....not too pleased with what I see environmentally!
PS....last time I was there.....it was an international affair!