Originally posted by foxglove 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?