Supplemental Feeding: Right or Wrong?

[Arthur Morris]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

. . . 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

© 2009 Michael W. Masters

[Roman Kurywczak]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[john crookes]

Sorry but I only do BOXERS

Briefs cut off my circulation :)

[Roman Kurywczak]

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]

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

[Roman Kurywczak]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...dace7332ff71b0

John

[Arthur Morris]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.