Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-17-2010, 08:46 AM   #31
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,543
I'm not sure what is "unethical" in getting bird or other wildlife shots. I'd be willing to bet that most bird pictures in a lot of books you see on birding have a bird feeder just outside the frame. It's been known for a long time that much of the wildlife shows "stage" some of their stuff with not so wild animals. You will even see that stated somewhere in the credits. Animals have learned to eat from the scraps we leave. Gulls will follow a fishing boat for hundreds of miles. Go to any state park picnic area around sundown and whatever the birds and squirrels haven't already eaten, the racoons, fox, skunks, deer, etc will finish off the rest. Good place to get pictures. Fishermen chum, hunters use scent and calls to attract, why would it be wrong for a photographer to use the same tricks to get a photo?

03-17-2010, 10:20 AM   #32
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: northeast USA
Posts: 273
A little OT question....

QuoteOriginally posted by borno Quote
I don't think any self-respecting wildlife photographer should ever bait an animal. I've seen it done, and think it's cheap. I would rather not get a shot myself, but that is just me. I don't like zoo shots either though, so I probably am in the minority. (I don't like fishing with bait either)
How do you guys feel about these game farms that photographers can pay to go to in order to shoot pictures? I read something by Tom Mangelsen and I have to say, at the risk of 'ruffling some feathers' if you will, that I pretty much agree with what he has to say. I would not personally go to or support such a place. But again, that is my personal stance on it for a myriad of reasons, most of which are unrelated to photography. Anyway, just wondered how you guys feel as this thread reminded me of what Mr. Mangelsen wrote.

Btw, here's the link to what he wrote.

Point of View: Game Farm Photography

If that doesn't work try going to THOMAS D. MANGELSEN'S | Images of Nature Under "About Tom", click on "News". Then from there look under 2009 for "Point of View: Game Farm photography" for a link.


P.S. Sorry OP if I'm hijacking the thread here. I'll start a separate one if ya would prefer.
03-17-2010, 10:48 AM   #33
Veteran Member
foxglove's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Atlantic Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,049
There is a lot not to like about this practice.

My French is spotty at best, but I gather than one of the problems is that the owls become habituated to humans and their vehicles, venture too close to the road, and because of their poor peripheral vision are very likely to get hit by passing cars. Not to mention the risks of approaching non-photographers who might be walking dogs. Anything that habituates wild animals to humans is a bad idea.

That said, I should admit that I have a bird feeder in my yard. Mind you, I can't imagine how much more habituated goldfinches, chickadees and bluejays could possibly be!

Someone (sorry I'm too lazy to dig back through the thread!) mentioned moving roadkill to a better location - I'm all for that. Okay, yes, you are technically using a bait to attract a subject (I assume that's why you've done it), but you're also reducing the risk associated with the roadkill. Like the habituated owls, animals feeding on roadkill are at risk of being hit themselves. A friend of mine stops whenever she spots roadkill, and moves it well off the shoulder for that reason.

I won't say anything about the ethics of using live domestic mice as bait except to say that it wouldn't get past the university animal care or research ethics committees if you were proposing it for a research project.

I have enormous respect for the people who learn their subjects' behaviour and will sit freezing in a blind for eight hours for just the chance of a great shot. This sort of thing devalues their efforts.

Julie
03-17-2010, 11:20 AM   #34
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,263
QuoteOriginally posted by foxglove Quote
I have enormous respect for the people who learn their subjects' behaviour and will sit freezing in a blind for eight hours for just the chance of a great shot. This sort of thing devalues their efforts.
I could run a string of rhetorical questions about whether the use of techniques or tools devalues the work of those who don't, but I'll just say, I don't buy that point. For various reasons, some people have the time and inclination to do it the hard way, and others don't. As a (formerly, long ago) working photographer, I learned to do what it took to produce the image.

It's valid to draw boundaries; I quite agree about not further habituating wildlife to humans, and shunning practices that endanger populations. But we temperate- and sub-temperate-zone first-worlders have the luxury of setting aside vast wildlife reserves, limiting human access and involvement, 'managing' the terrain etc. whilst at the same time building suburbs in marginal areas and thus habituating 'wild' creatures to our presence. In much of the world, human habitats are not so sanitized; humans and wildlife live in proximity, not always easily. Humans keep on reproducing; wild populations are further impacted. It is increasingly difficult for animals to exhibit 'natural' behaviour untainted by humans.

A note on the ethical treatment of domestic rodents: An urban shop I knew of sold reptiles and various other animals. Mice and hamsters and gerbils were sold to the public. Those rodents that bit potential customers were set aside to be fed to the snakes. Immoral? Unethical? Practical?

03-17-2010, 11:46 AM   #35
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,251
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by wildlifephotog Quote
Here is a start, Marty Stouffer fake film - Google Search
Wild Kingdom and Marty Stouffer are two of the biggest fakes. Stouffer has even killed tame animals to show "natural" events. Wild Kingdom dumped a tame bear in a swamp to make it look like they rescued a wild bear. Baiting is mild compared to animal cruelty.
Well .... that guy sure is some weird individual! That is the first time I read something about him.
I had no idea whatsoever that the Mutual of Omaha had anything to do with this sort of cruelty either!
JP
03-17-2010, 11:52 AM   #36
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,251
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by wildlifephotog Quote
If the presenting of food is done in a proper manner, the animals will be unaffected by it.
I go for the larger mammels, and I never bait. I use stalking skills and balls to get the shots I want. But if the unexpected shot popped up over natural bait, I'd take it.
I agree that the meatheads in Canada that are feeding the owls, need a lesson in wildlife habits. And if the officials had the nads, they'd outlaw that type of baiting.
Now to take my chill pills. LOL
Because this was presented on national TV, I am hoping for some response from the general public as well as from fellow photographers.
As far as I am concerned, they (the baiters of snowy owls in that video) ought to be stopped. They will likely repeat their feat next winter and they will never be caught (so to speak) unless the "officials" make a move.
I am a bit of a radical when it comes to this sort of situation ... God forbids I am present at their next "meet".

JP
03-17-2010, 11:56 AM   #37
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,251
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by borno Quote
There is a local guy who has done some photo's for Ducks Unlimited who I have seen baiting the waterfowl (he thinks nobody notices). He has a bag in his truck and feeds them every day so when he has his camera they fly right on over. I guess I'm a bit of a hypocrite though, since I do enjoy my bird feeder.
I receive the Ducks Unlimited magazine here at work. I wondered sometimes how in the world were some of those pics taken.
If you see him again, just take a picture of him doing his stuff and ... publish it!

JP

03-17-2010, 11:57 AM   #38
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 924
As long as it's legal, there's not much can be done. Getting yourself in trouble or arrested doesn't serve much purpose.
Been there myself.
03-17-2010, 11:58 AM   #39
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,251
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by StarDust Quote
I'm not against baiting, but live bait is a bit cruel. If you bait animals in a secluded location and do it once or twice but don't make a habit out of it, I wouldn't say it's harmful. I've never tried baiting myself but I'm thinking of trying it this spring.
Just don't fall in the trap!
My guess is that it would probably be addictive.

JP
03-17-2010, 12:08 PM   #40
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,469
Most of my bird photography was taken on my own land or adjacent to it. My land was wild open land pretty much surrounded by State and Federal wildlife preserves.

My attitude is pretty simple. When I stepped off my porch to take pictures and my foot hit the ground I was on their (wildlife's) land not mine. Other than my mere presence I did absolutely nothing to consciously interfere in the natural spontaneous behavior of the subjects I was trying to capture in my camera.

I am a guest in their home and this attitude to me is just simple respect that does not require any fancy ethical or legal justification.

I have taken pictures of birds for some time now and I know now that I will die and still have many species unrecorded. That's OK. It only makes the ones I do have even more valuable to me.

The life of a individual wild creature is always much, much, more important than any pictures I may get of it:

1. The well being and survival of a species is more important than the
pursuit of a hobby.

2. If the implications of the above is not clear in any given practical
situation then step back, leave it alone and remain silent.

This is my wildlife ethic and mine alone.

****************************************

For the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more
complete than ours, they move finished and complete, gifted with
extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by
voices we shall never hear. They are not bretheren; they are not
underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of
life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the
Earth'

Henry Beston

Last edited by wildman; 03-17-2010 at 12:15 PM.
03-17-2010, 12:11 PM   #41
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,251
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
OK, so it's unethical to use live bait. How about if YOU, the photog, are the live bait? Imagine the great shots you'll get whilst being pursued by a pack of wild whatevers! Maybe the question then becomes, not one of ethics, but of sanity. But with that South African bloke in Kenya immersing himself in a watering hole for weeks, absorbing diseases and parasites, to get wondrous pictures of creatures there, maybe sanity isn't a barrier either.

I'M NO BIRDER BUT: On my first trip to Guatemala some years back, I visited a butterfly sanctuary at Panajachel ('Gringotenango') on Lake Atitlan. This site is a steep couple acres enclosed in butterfly net. At a high point on the trail, a hawk stood on an open fence near a sit-down. (My ornithologist aunt recognized the species from my photos, but I forget her ID.) It wasn't tethered; I don't know about wing-clipping. It glared at me, and DANG ME it it wasn't posing for my primitive P&S camera! I moved within about one meter/yard and it didn't avoid me, just shifted position and spread its wings and glared.

So I snapped some pics. How should I present them? Is this a tame hawk? Is that possible? If I used labels like FIERCE RAPTOR OF MAYAN WILDS or PICTURE TAKEN IN GUATEMALAN JUNGLE, I may be technically correct, but am I ethical? Am I obliged to say that the photos were taken within a butterfly cage? I didn't offer it anything so I can't be accused of baiting.

(I suppose the parallel would be photos taken in zoos. If the enclosure isn't evident, if they're not represented as 'wild' shots, must they be labeled as zoo shots? If I climb into the enclosure to get photos of some beast(s) charging me, am I unethical or just insane?)

Nearby is another preserve, this one inhabited by spider monkeys. At a snack bar on the trail, visitors can sit whilst just across a steep narrow ravine, spider monkeys hang in the trees watching the tourists. I'm sitting there. Twenty feet away, these guys are suspended by their tails, upright, swinging back and forth as if in glider chairs, watching me. A splendid time is guaranteed for all. If we gave them cameras, would they brag of bagging tourists?
Very interesting stories you have here, Rio.
I guess the point is not to decide whether the animals are confined or tame, but rather to evaluate the photographers' behavior in that video.
Don't get me wrong though, I appreciate your comments.

JP
03-17-2010, 12:24 PM   #42
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,251
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by JesseDavis Quote
^about as succinct as can be.

as to the ethics of baiting and the OP; there is nothing more ethically wrong with screwing with an owl's day for a picture than there is in killing a mouse for a picture. Besides the owl still gets a free meal.

The point of the video, quite well made, was that certain tourist spots become regular crowds of shooters and domesticate the animals, as with the eagles in Alaska.

Of course if we taught an animal to lay out bait for their prey (owls leaving grain out for mice?) don't you think they would use it?

Also, I sincerely doubt that most of these predators will be unable to go back to the hunting they have learned to become adult after the humans lose interest.

Unethical: no. Distasteful, probably. Better only the cook knows what's in the stew.

Now if I post some images of a hacked-up mouse in macro, will everyone here still think it's 'debatable' ethics? : The power of the lens.
I suppose I should have titled my thread as: "Disgraceful Ethics of Wildlife Photography"
The nice thing about this thread is that one can read different attitudes toward baiting and photography, whether I agree with some of them or not.
Your reply is just as "valid" as any other and there will be no bashing from me.
For me, live baiting, as shown in the video, is out of the question. Of course, if I happen to stumble upon a dead carcass on which a wolverine is feeding, I'll take the shot ... and run like hell afterward!

JP
03-17-2010, 12:25 PM   #43
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,251
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Nass Quote
I don't mind dead and I think that's just common sense.

Live bait gives me difficulties
Dead as in "dead upon arrival at the scene" is OK for me.

JP
03-17-2010, 12:29 PM   #44
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,251
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Live bait, no problems. Nature is not a nice place full of dancing Bambis and talking bears living together in peace and harmony.
Baiting the animal, no problems, it makes their day a littler easier and as long as it isn't overdone, won't affect their ability to hunt.
However, if baiting is done too often, the animal becomes dependent on the bait, whether or not it knows where it is coming from, which can lead to hardships for the animal when the manna from heaven gets shut off.
The reportage goes on to mention and show the little pet store where they (photographers) bought dozens of mice on a daily basis ... that's way, way out of line!
Anything which causes the animal stress (the hand clapping and chasing the animal off the bait) is very definitely unethical. This has nothing to do with the photography, it is animal cruelty, plain and simple.
I totally agree with that.

Then again, you know my opinion on baiting.

JP
03-17-2010, 12:34 PM   #45
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 924
DOA bait is fine, if the creature will eat it. Owls don't eat carrion. That is why live bait is always involved.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
bird, camera, clip, owls, photography, video
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Multiple images of similar scene, and some photography comments CWyatt Photographic Technique 3 10-12-2009 07:36 PM
Pentax bird photography birderdave Welcomes and Introductions 5 01-26-2009 04:03 AM
A black bird, a silver bird, an orange bird, a red bird. cputeq Post Your Photos! 5 07-28-2008 06:08 PM
First attempt at bird photography dgsullivan Post Your Photos! 7 04-17-2008 08:44 AM
Bigma for Bird Photography channeler Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 0 01-15-2008 04:21 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:07 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top