Posted by Gary Gulash on December 30, 2006 at 2:00 AM
There is a multi-page story describing the humming bird photography project of Luis Mazariegos in Jan. 07 of NG. According to the article he has photographed 200 of 330 species of hummers in central and south America. His technique left me a bit shocked however; he nets the birds then transfers them into a mobile studio in the back of his SUV. The small box contains a nectar rich flower that the birds go to and the birds are photographed with what appears to be a Hasselblad. Not my idea of avian photography.
There have been literally thousands of photos of wildlife in National Geographic over the years that were made under controlled conditions, which I believe is in keeping with the mission of the magazine-research and dissimination (sp?) of findings related to our world. If the photgrapher's photos and his writing help preserve these birds and their habitat, such an endeavor is worthwhile.
Having said that, I do not particularly favor his method because of the potential for harming the birds. Years ago I rescued a ruby throat who had flown into a building. I actually held the little guy in my hand. He was the most delicate animal I had ever touched, so I can well imagine a netted bird thrashing around and hurting themselves.
From a photography standpoint, I personally prefer photographs of wildlife that are made in the field.
-PB
Posted by Kent Staubus on December 30, 2006 at 4:12 PM
They sound like they are trying to get reference type documentary photos. Being able to control the light and take photos from a uniform direction is a huge advantage for that. I don't have any problem with it. Note that the grand daddy of all the bird illustrators, Audobon, would plug birds with a shotgun so they would hold still long enough for him to draw them.
Kent in SD
Posted by Glenn Davy on December 31, 2006 at 9:12 AM
I can understand your concerns about the nets, but as a Biologist I've used mist nets (as they are called) in the field before for banding purposes. They tend to be quite elastic and really don't harm the birds so they are quite safe for use. I think if the methods are sound and as safe as possible, I too don't have any issues with this sort of practice, although my preference is for completely "wild" shots. If there is no research being conducted though, then I do take issue with it, as while the nets themselves don't tend to hurt the bird (or live trap for animals, etc.) the "critter" is still placed under a fair degree of stress in the process which does tap into their (often tight) energy budgets. That can be costly to them, so one does want to limit as much as possible any handling and time in captivity for the bird/animal/fish. Of course, this type of activity must be restricted to trained professionals only. I've seen amateur "photographers" doing the same sort of thing and the animal and birds ended up either severely stressed, dead or injured. That is completely and totally unacceptable, as I'm sure we all agree on here.
Glenn
Posted by Gary Gulash on December 31, 2006 at 10:36 AM
Glenn, I did some mist netting myself in an wildlife inventory study many years ago. Wildlife capture is never totally benign; I did not see any reference in the article as to exactly why the photographs were being taken. The reader is to assume I suppose that this was somehow important "research". It seemed to me that the photographs were being rendered in as artistic a manner as possible, although all the backgrounds were white, so "artistry" seemed to be the focus, literally. If you want to document that the species exists and that it exists in a certain critical habitat then shoot it in situ, no need for capture. The article does emphasize that these birds are a wonder of nature and much of the beauty is in their detail; I just question the need to have "bird in hand" to prove it. Thanks for sharing your opinions on this.
I sure agree with your concerns - but look also at the work of Lewis and Clark in collecting, cataloging and naming many species. They were all captured, killed, and stored - and they provided invaluable information both then and in the years following.
I hate seeing any animal in a zoo - but many of the world-renowned animal experts were so mesmerized by that first glimse of a cheetah (or whatver) in a zoo, they later dedicated their lives to teaching about and protecting the species. An example of great good coming from a bad thing.
It's often a very fine line between what is ethical and what is not, and depends a lot on the intended use. I hope anyone who nets and captures anything- even briefly - is very conscious of their role in presevation and responsibility to not permanently harm things.
Sandy R
Posted by Ed Erkes on December 31, 2006 at 6:52 PM
It is my understanding that the use of mist nets is illegal without a permit. A quick Google search on the subject provided this quote from the Nature Conservany web site: "Indeed, in the United States, it is against federal law to handle nongame migratory wild birds without a bird-banding, salvage or other special permit from the U.S. Geological Survey except under the direct supervision of a license holder."
I have to admit that I was taken back a bit by the methods used, but more from a sense that a justification was never presented and/or more explanation provided. If the whole point of the netting was capture for photography, it calls into question how the photos will be used. That's where the ethical questions will be raised or resolved.
I've participated in mist-netting efforts (rare bats in our case), and it was done by scientists for the sake of range documentation and species counts. If as a part of the project a similar "set" was at hand for photos, I'd have had no problems at all doing the work. On the other hand, if the nets had been strung simply so I could get photos that I might use some day in a magazine or a book, then it would have been a problem for me.
It's sometimes a thin line between ethical use and abuse, and as photographers we have to be prepared to answer the questions. I don't feel that either NG or Mazariegos did a good job in providing background on why the photos were being taken, and hence my feelling of abivalence about the results.
Posted by Gary Gulash on January 1, 2007 at 9:16 PM
Well put Hank, that is exactly what I was trying to get at, but you explained it much more eloquently.
Posted by Jay Barnes on January 2, 2007 at 12:34 AM
Guys, put this into its proper context for a second.
He's attempting to photograph all 300+ species of hummingbirds from Central and South America! Every Trochilid on an entire continent.
It's very likely that many of these species are being photographed for the very first time, and I wouldn't be surprised if some are only known from a few skins laying in a collection drawer at a natural history museum. The documentation aspect alone is enough to make me turn a blind eye towards the occasional stressed bird. I wonder how many new species will be discovered? How many will never be seen again?
The habitat these birds depend on, which is the same habitat that many migrating birds from the United States depend on in winter, is being gobbled up at such a high rate that the corresponding numbers are beyond belief. Mazariegos' work, along with providing solid photographic documentation, will no doubt raise awareness across the West, awareness by people who have control over how this habitat is used or abused, that these areas need to be protected. When the below-average government clown is unable to discern a killdeer from a dove, even through a rifle scope, help needs to be provided.
As for the methods being used by Mazariegos, it sounds like they are almost a mirror of my own studio work with Salticids, except that my subjects will occasionally end up in a jar of alcohol so they can be properly identified under high magnification. It appears that many of my subjects have never been adequately photographed before.
It also sounds like NG could have done a better job explaining Mazariegos' purpose, but a few minutes in Google might be enough to clear things up.
Posted by Terry Sohl on January 2, 2007 at 1:43 AM
Do the ends justify the means? Not in my book.
I too was a bit shocked when getting to the end of the issue and seeing the methodology that was used.
You're right Jay...maybe some are being photographed for the first time. I'm sure in some cases the reason for that is at least partially due to the rarity of the species. Is it worth the photo to document that species? If they're so rare that "they may never be seen again", should we be netting them just to get a photo?
Once again...not in my book.
Nothing irks me more as a birder than someone who cares more about his life list than the birds themselves. Similarly, nothing irks me more as an avian photographer when someone cares more about getting the shot than the welfare of the bird itself.
Posted by Brian Monk on January 6, 2007 at 9:36 PM
Terry et al,
Finally a topic that I can speak to with some degree of expertise! I am an avian veterinarian and biologist. I am also a recreational birder.
The scientific reality is this: these birds will be documented, whether in a drawer of study skins or via photographs. Ornithologists will do this regardless of ethics or morals. Next, identification of birds is the first step toward their adequate study in the field. Identification will occur, regardless of the means, and is absolutely necssary for any study to have any significance. Without true identification of the species in question, no concrete conclusions about the species in question can be made.
It is true that before 1940 all identification of birds was carried out at the end of a shotgun. Simple observation was considered inadequate for true scientific study. Only in the last 70 years or so has observational identification become accurate enough to be acceptable. The end result of observational ID is simple: better studies, fewer dead birds, and a better understanding of these species.
If photographing these species will lead to better observational ID in the field (and it undoubtably will), then it stands to reason that this project is not without a significant degree of merit.
As far as harming these birds, hummingbirds are tough little bastards. I have worked on many of them. The only ones that have ever died on me were the ones that had fractured wings. Even the ones that seemed dead were only in a state of torpor, and bounced back when fed. Mist netting is potentially harmful, but this project has more value than danger. If you want to see dead hummingbirds, visit the Smithsonian, where the welfare of the study skin comes before the welfare of the bird.
Brian, I can attest to resiliency of this little birds. A few year ago a Ruby Throat flew into our fire station garage, attracted, no doubt, by the big red engines. He got caught up in some cobwebs near the ceiling and fell onto the hose bed of the engine. He wasn't moving and looked like he'd passed on. He was still breathing.
Not willing to give up, we took him into the station and made up a solution of sugar and tepid water. I moistened his beak with the liquid and then held a small poon near the tip of his beak. Well, he started to drink a tiny bit and his eyes popped open. He never struggled. We gently cleaned the cobwebs, and then gave him as much to drink as he wanted. After a bit, I carried him outside and put him in my palm: off he went, happy as a lark, er, hummingbird.
We figured that he was simply hypoglycemic and exhausted. It was really amazing to watch him come back, as if someone had turned on the light switch.
A very happy ending!
-PB
Posted by Gary Gulash on January 7, 2007 at 12:36 AM
Dr. Monk, I am a veterinarian as well, thanks for contributing to the discussion. But,"Yikes " I am surprised that you believe ornithologists will document birds as dead study skins in a drawer or by photograpic means, "regardless of ethics or morals". I'm under the impression that Mr. Mazariegos is a photographer anyway and as such should follow some ethical guidelines of nature photography. However, I decided to e-mail National Geographic to request further information about the purpose of the photography and how the live trapping is justified, hopefully they can provide the necessary informatiion that is so lacking in their article.
"However, I decided to e-mail National Geographic to request further information about the purpose of the photography and how the live trapping is justified, hopefully they can provide the necessary informatiion that is so lacking in their article. "
That's a great idea, Gary! I am very interested to see how the National Gepgraphic responds.
Discussion
14 repliesHaving said that, I do not particularly favor his method because of the potential for harming the birds. Years ago I rescued a ruby throat who had flown into a building. I actually held the little guy in my hand. He was the most delicate animal I had ever touched, so I can well imagine a netted bird thrashing around and hurting themselves.
From a photography standpoint, I personally prefer photographs of wildlife that are made in the field.
-PB
Kent in SD
Glenn
I hate seeing any animal in a zoo - but many of the world-renowned animal experts were so mesmerized by that first glimse of a cheetah (or whatver) in a zoo, they later dedicated their lives to teaching about and protecting the species. An example of great good coming from a bad thing.
It's often a very fine line between what is ethical and what is not, and depends a lot on the intended use. I hope anyone who nets and captures anything- even briefly - is very conscious of their role in presevation and responsibility to not permanently harm things.
Sandy R
I've participated in mist-netting efforts (rare bats in our case), and it was done by scientists for the sake of range documentation and species counts. If as a part of the project a similar "set" was at hand for photos, I'd have had no problems at all doing the work. On the other hand, if the nets had been strung simply so I could get photos that I might use some day in a magazine or a book, then it would have been a problem for me.
It's sometimes a thin line between ethical use and abuse, and as photographers we have to be prepared to answer the questions. I don't feel that either NG or Mazariegos did a good job in providing background on why the photos were being taken, and hence my feelling of abivalence about the results.
He's attempting to photograph all 300+ species of hummingbirds from Central and South America! Every Trochilid on an entire continent.
It's very likely that many of these species are being photographed for the very first time, and I wouldn't be surprised if some are only known from a few skins laying in a collection drawer at a natural history museum. The documentation aspect alone is enough to make me turn a blind eye towards the occasional stressed bird. I wonder how many new species will be discovered? How many will never be seen again?
The habitat these birds depend on, which is the same habitat that many migrating birds from the United States depend on in winter, is being gobbled up at such a high rate that the corresponding numbers are beyond belief. Mazariegos' work, along with providing solid photographic documentation, will no doubt raise awareness across the West, awareness by people who have control over how this habitat is used or abused, that these areas need to be protected. When the below-average government clown is unable to discern a killdeer from a dove, even through a rifle scope, help needs to be provided.
As for the methods being used by Mazariegos, it sounds like they are almost a mirror of my own studio work with Salticids, except that my subjects will occasionally end up in a jar of alcohol so they can be properly identified under high magnification. It appears that many of my subjects have never been adequately photographed before.
It also sounds like NG could have done a better job explaining Mazariegos' purpose, but a few minutes in Google might be enough to clear things up.
I too was a bit shocked when getting to the end of the issue and seeing the methodology that was used.
You're right Jay...maybe some are being photographed for the first time. I'm sure in some cases the reason for that is at least partially due to the rarity of the species. Is it worth the photo to document that species? If they're so rare that "they may never be seen again", should we be netting them just to get a photo?
Once again...not in my book.
Nothing irks me more as a birder than someone who cares more about his life list than the birds themselves. Similarly, nothing irks me more as an avian photographer when someone cares more about getting the shot than the welfare of the bird itself.
Finally a topic that I can speak to with some degree of expertise! I am an avian veterinarian and biologist. I am also a recreational birder.
The scientific reality is this: these birds will be documented, whether in a drawer of study skins or via photographs. Ornithologists will do this regardless of ethics or morals. Next, identification of birds is the first step toward their adequate study in the field. Identification will occur, regardless of the means, and is absolutely necssary for any study to have any significance. Without true identification of the species in question, no concrete conclusions about the species in question can be made.
It is true that before 1940 all identification of birds was carried out at the end of a shotgun. Simple observation was considered inadequate for true scientific study. Only in the last 70 years or so has observational identification become accurate enough to be acceptable. The end result of observational ID is simple: better studies, fewer dead birds, and a better understanding of these species.
If photographing these species will lead to better observational ID in the field (and it undoubtably will), then it stands to reason that this project is not without a significant degree of merit.
As far as harming these birds, hummingbirds are tough little bastards. I have worked on many of them. The only ones that have ever died on me were the ones that had fractured wings. Even the ones that seemed dead were only in a state of torpor, and bounced back when fed. Mist netting is potentially harmful, but this project has more value than danger. If you want to see dead hummingbirds, visit the Smithsonian, where the welfare of the study skin comes before the welfare of the bird.
Not willing to give up, we took him into the station and made up a solution of sugar and tepid water. I moistened his beak with the liquid and then held a small poon near the tip of his beak. Well, he started to drink a tiny bit and his eyes popped open. He never struggled. We gently cleaned the cobwebs, and then gave him as much to drink as he wanted. After a bit, I carried him outside and put him in my palm: off he went, happy as a lark, er, hummingbird.
We figured that he was simply hypoglycemic and exhausted. It was really amazing to watch him come back, as if someone had turned on the light switch.
A very happy ending!
-PB
"However, I decided to e-mail National Geographic to request further information about the purpose of the photography and how the live trapping is justified, hopefully they can provide the necessary informatiion that is so lacking in their article. "
That's a great idea, Gary! I am very interested to see how the National Gepgraphic responds.
-PB