Supplemental Feeding: Right or Wrong?

[stephen farmer]

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

Steve.

[Glenn Forbes]

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

[chad anderson]

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

[Glen Fox]

Although I am a relative newcomer to the bird photography community, I have been an active bird watcher for over 50 years and am professionally trained as an ornithologist, ecologist, and environmental physiologist. I spent my 32 year career was as a scientist in the Canadian Wildlife Service, the federal agency responsible for the study, protection, and conservation of birds in Canada. I am/have been a member of naturalist, professional ornithological and wildlife conservation organizations. I am passionate about bird photography!

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

What is wrong with the practice of baiting? If done once, out of sight of the birdwatching public, probably very little. However, that is not where the problem lies. When a northern owl is sighted in southern Ontario and Quebec(and probably the northern states), the sighting is reported on the various telephone, e-mail hotlines and bird columns in newspapers. Soon literally 1000s of people know where it is. Yes, and day-to-day postings will follow, reporting its whereabouts and activities. This brings the bird watchers and bird photographers out in droves, where some members of both communities exhibit unethical behavior. It is these widely publicized owls that are being baited, frequently in the presence of the bird watching community. They are being baited again and again. In fact, some have been baited so frequently that there are numerous uneaten prey cached in their favorite tree, others fly to cars when people stop and get out. Some local owls actually scream to be fed. And some, identify the baiter in a group of individuals, and land on his camera. These observations clearly suggest that these owls are being baited very often, and that some of these owls have become habituated or dependent on bait. This is inappropriate. I have visited many galleries of bird photographs and marveled at the flight photographs of the owls, some actually showing the prey being captured. I’m sure very, very few of them were not obtained by baiting. In many cases the domestic mouse, rat or gerbil bait is clearly visible. Locally, the baiters repeatedly bait an owl in an attempt to capture and post a better, more spectacular image than the one posted the previous day by another member of the group or another group. How many photographs of an individual owl do we need? How many times does any one photographer have to revisit any individual owl? All the time they are being watched by members of the birdwatching community. And yes, frequently being observed trespassing on private property. Or, exceeding the numbers and frequency expected by the property owner. More and more “no trespassing” signs are going up.

The majority of northern owls that migrate south are young of the year. They are relatively inexperienced hunters and are often in poor body condition. They are hungry. They are here to find food in a local environment where they do not have to compete with adults. Ideally they will find sufficient food, develop their hunting skills, grow, and return to their northern breeding grounds in better condition than when they migrated south, with the skills necessary to survive and breed. They have had relatively little contact with man, or automobiles. That is reflected in many hundreds that are killed or injured by automobiles. So, repeated free handouts of food and habituation to automobiles are not in the interest of the owl’s health and long-term survival. When an owl that has been seen being baited is found dead on the road, the baiters are immediately blamed, and the anti-bird photographer lobby gains more voices and support.

Then there are ethical issues related to the bait. A naive mouse, rat, or gerbil raised in a warm sheltered environment, is suddenly thrown out onto the snow, to caught and consumed by the owl, while a group of humans look on, some of whom photograph the whole event. Folks, that is equivalent to a blood sport! No different than cock- or dog-fighting! Yes, it’s legal for licensed hunters to bait deer and bear, but that is NOT done with living food items. Raptor banders use live animals in cages to attract hawks and owls, but the bait animal is not injured. Bird lovers worldwide provide supplementary food for birds at feeding stations. The latter practices are all very different from throwing a live, domesticated rodent, to the owls. Nobody can believe that baiting is humane.

So, where does this get us. It gets us into angry exchanges on websites and local newspapers. It adds to the growing anti-bird photographer sentiment in the birding community. It leads to less and less access to properties where birds are found. It has led to reduced numbers of postings of the whereabouts of these birds. All have a negative effect on our ability to photograph and enjoy these and other birds. It is true that generally, there are currently no laws against live baiting of raptors for photographic purposes. However, should vocal bird watchers, conservationists, animal rights activists, land owners etc get together and make a strong and vociferous case, that could change very quickly. The animal rights activists could have a hay day with this one. There are many more bird watchers and bird lovers than bird photographers, and they are well organized at the local, state, and national level.. both as amateurs and professionals. If they take it upon themselves to do so, we bird photographers could find ourselves in a very restrictive world.

So what should BPN members be doing? I believe we should all think long and hard about this practice. I believe we should refrain from baiting and discourage it in the wider bird photography community. I believe it should be covered in our code of practice. Its all about respect, respect for the birds and wildlife we photograph and for the habitat that supports them, respect for the rights of property owners etc, and respect for others who also enjoy these birds and wildlife. The welfare of the subject must come before the content of the image. We, as bird photographers have to police one another!


Glen Fox

[Grady Weed]

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

[allanrube]

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

[Jay Gould]

Hi Everyone,

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

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

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

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

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

And

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

Chad, your statements contains two separate and distinct issues: ethics and necessity.

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

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

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

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

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

Artie, you concede too much too soon:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having played the Devil’s Advocate regarding the scientists let’s look at the photographers and my obvious naivety.

Frankly, I expect one or more of you “shooters” to say – “you’ve got to be kidding; how did you think we obtained all of those great images; sitting and waiting forever; of course, we used bait!”

Well, I’m not kidding; there is no doubt in my mind that while the general public understands the use of blinds/hides, Joe Public would be shocked if he knew about putting frogs and mice in a refrigerator to slow it down to make it stay put as prey, and all the other baiting tricks used to get that great shot.

Chad asked do you think it is ethical to bait? A valid question!!

Chad raised the impact of baiting on the animal population – valid concerns to someone.

Jared: “Outside the national park I feed birds at feeders, but inside the park one single peanut is a problem.” Give me a break! Inside/Outside was a political/economic decision when the boundaries were drawn having nothing to do with the plants, birds, and animals.

“If done right feeding birds at backyard feeders can be an enjoyable experience to see bird life on a daily basis, and have minor negative impact.” Again, the scientist says it is OK because it is “minor negative impact”, but if you apply the ”minor negative impact” test to the photographer then a bird turning its head equates to an unwarranted disturbance of the bird, and another scientist pops up and asks if the shot was necessary in the first place.

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

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

First, we took it and we do what we do to the planet and other species because it is in the nature of man to consider himself more important than any other species known or unknown; second, “he” perhaps is a “she” or an “it”, and thirdly we are only accountable to each other to the extent that we choose to be accountable to each other.

“What bothered me as much as anything was that it seemed the concern centered on how much money was lost by all on the enterprise, rather than any real concern for the animals involved.” Bill, I never read the thread – happened before my time! – However, if the concern was about how much money was lost then it must have been written by and about humans for and about humans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, photographers can and should be able to feed, bait, and phish so long as they do not harm (as defined by Man) the lesser species; scientists should be able to mist net and band and do all other research activities so long as they do not harm (as defined by Man) the lesser species.

[James Shadle]

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

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

Tethering a mouse to attract a raptor is baiting.

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

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

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

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

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


James

[Grady Weed]

Jay above wrote:

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

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

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

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

[Arthur Morris]

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

[Arthur Morris]

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

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


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

As far as I know, baiting with live mice is at the present time a local problem in the various Canadian locales that you mention above.

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

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

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

I agree but that does not make supplemental feeding wrong.

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

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

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

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

And yes, frequently being observed trespassing on private property.

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

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

And that is a good thing.


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

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

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

Again, your (and their) case for direct cause and effect is quite weak here.

Then there are ethical issues related to the bait.

All ethics are personal.

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

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

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

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

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

Again your opinion. And you really do need to go talk to your raptor banding colleagues.

So, where does this get us. It gets us into angry exchanges on websites and local newspapers. It adds to the growing anti-bird photographer sentiment in the birding community. It leads to less and less access to properties where birds are found. It has led to reduced numbers of postings of the whereabouts of these birds. All have a negative effect on our ability to photograph and enjoy these and other birds.

And all may be very good for the birds.

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

Amazing.

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

Man, you gotta read that book!

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

Most will be amazed to learn that if this happened with regards to the feeding of owls in areas where it is currently practiced I would not object.

So what should BPN members be doing? I believe we should all think long and hard about this practice. I believe we should refrain from baiting and discourage it in the wider bird photography community. I believe it should be covered in our code of practice. Its all about respect, respect for the birds and wildlife we photograph and for the habitat that supports them, respect for the rights of property owners etc, and respect for others who also enjoy these birds and wildlife. The welfare of the subject must come before the content of the image. We, as bird photographers have to police one another!

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

[Jay Gould]

Hi Glen,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jay Gould]

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

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

[Roger Clark]

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

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

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

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

[Arthur Morris]

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

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

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

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

Tethering a mouse to attract a raptor is baiting."

From James Shadle's post above.

[Roger Clark]

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

Interesting statistic.

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

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

http://birdstuff.blogspot.com/2002/0...are-there.html

[Roy Priest]

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

[Roger Clark]

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

[Paul Lagasi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Lagasi

[Jay Gould]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For whom? The studier or the studied?

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

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

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

[Jay Gould]

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

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

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

Tethering a mouse to attract a raptor is baiting."

From James Shadle's post above.

Artie, I wasn't calling you out - I was serious! It should be called baiting and feeding - at the end of the day they are both legal and there is nothing wrong with either activity.

Calling it supplemental is falling into the political trap of saying something in a way that makes otherwise unacceptable conduct to some acceptable.

$19.95 is acceptable; $20.00 is not acceptable.

Supplemental feeding is acceptable; Feeding without the modifier "supplemental" is not acceptable.

[Kevin Hall]

Something to think about:

Birders have their code of ethics set out by the ABA. I do agree with much of what it suggests but it is only that, suggested guidance and it is not law. As has been mentioned in this conversation, ethics are personal - something that many forget and sometimes by choice. My ethics are for me, your ethics for you, and so on. Where no law is being broken there is no right for me to enforce my ethics on another and since I don't hold a badge I don't enforce the law either.

There are some that try to enforce their ethics on others, they have no right to do so. This is what I find curious.
When birders who are evangelical about the code of ethics are hostile or confrontational towards another individual pertaining an activity that goes against the code they are then breaking the code themselves.

Number 2 of the ABA's code of ethics is titled Respect the Law and the Rights of Others. Part c says "Practice common courtesy in contacts with other people. Your exemplary behavior will generate goodwill with birders and non-birders alike."

As photographers we need to reflect individually on our actions, yes. But we are not solely responsible for generating much of the badwill that is going around.

[James Shadle]

This thread is now closed.

Thank you all for your comments and views.

BPN encourages healthily, respectful debate. This thread has remained healthy and respectful with very few minor exceptions.

At this time, most point of views have been presented. I see no need to keep this thread open any longer.

James