Hand feeding critters in the name of photography

There have been a couple of photos on the Avian forum recently that have involved obvious baiting or feeding of birds. The NPN Code of Conduct seems to prohibit that conduct, but rather than argue it in the context of specific photos I thought I'd move the discussion over here.

Feeding birds or other animals for photos carries high risk for the animals. The greatest risk is that they become habituated to people, and get killed as a result. As just one example, the California Gulls at SeaWorld in San Diego have been hand-fed so often that they attack small children and steal their food. I watched a small girl have her hot dog stolen and get a long scratch on her arm. The bird was captured, carried off and discreetly euthanized. House cats can better prey on small birds that have become habituated to people; the loss of fear gets generalized. Diseases get transmitted - both ways - when people handle birds. Ask any bird bander. And the food they get fed is frequently unhealthy.

As an extreme example, back in the late 1970's there was a young grizzly bear at Eielson Visitor Center in Denali (then Mt. McKinley) National Park that would help visitors eat their lunches. He was immensely photogenic, but when a tourist declined to share her sandwich, the bear insisted, the lady got mauled, and the bear got killed.

I'm not sure that it can be justified by saying it's a photo of a bad example, either. "Don't try this at home, boys and girls." But I'm curious what others think.

For me, it kind of depends. I don't think an occasional scrap given to critters far removed from easy human access is a problem, especially if things are set up so that the animal doesn't associate people with food. An example might be setting a fresh roadkill animal in a spot to attract a coyote for a photo. OTOH, hand feeding animals at popular parks is bound to cause problems.


Kent in SD

I'm new to the group, but are you saying that if I take pictures of birds frequently my backyard feeders, that they should not be submitted for critique?

Laurie

People feeding geese and swans is a big problem here in this part of the country! Backyard bird feeders are OK in my opinion.

Backyard feeders are fine, so long as you recognize your responsibility to keep them filled and continue feeding the birds all winter.

As for any other animal you aren't prepared to continue feeding all year, nodamnway. Doesn't matter whether it's squirrels, birds, deer or predators.

We live right in the middle of serious coastal brown bear (grizzly) country an hour's drive from downtown Kodiak, where incidentally bears are willing to venture right into town to hit the Safeway dumpsters. Any unconscious acts of feeding such as feeding your pets outside, keeping livestock (especially chickens and other fowl), improper handling of garbage, compost piles, fish cleanings not pproperly disposed of, and lots more can attract and keep bears coming back. And yes, they do pass through our neighborhood periodically so it isn't a theoretical concern. The objective is for them not to find any reason to stick around or come back.

Animals are no different than us. Given a free lunch, we're going to check back in to see if we can get another.

Some birds, like sparrows, are ground feeders. I often watch them at a bird feeder and much of the seeds inevitably ends up on the ground. Wether it is "poor table manners" or a prefered feeding location, I am not sure, but soon many sparrows are on the ground below the feeder. I am sure cats are aware of this and wait like lions in ambush at an african water hole. So are bird feeders causing the demise of some of these birds? Are birds dependant on bird feeders? Perhaps city birds are. We have a bird feeder on the balcony. I never felt guilty for having it there. I still don't. Yet I refuse to feed a bird in the National Parks, not because it is against the law and I would risk a fine, but I want the birds to keep their wildness. Nutcrackers and jays are especially bold and will steal food off the picnic table if you turn your face away for an instant. They are just opportunists. I do not think they depend on picnickers to live. There are very few picnickers in winter and yet the birds survive to haunt the tables in the spring, summer, and fall. By keeping a feeder and not feeding birds (or any animal) in the Parks am I setting a double standard? And leaving an occassional "anonymous gift" for a creature so that it would not associate food with a human, are we doing more harm than good? And going against the code of conduct? I don't think so as long as we do not leave too many "anonymous gifts" and cause the creature to loose its ability to forage for itself.

You pose a good question, Jim. There is much food for thought here.

Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada

There are people in Florida who feed the gators, but then wonder where Fifi went. Gators should never be fed by humans unless they are captives, the wild ones should not expect a hand out from the people, or the people may literally give them a hand.

Does the old lady in Homer, Alaska still feed the bald eagles?

I've been feeding birds for more than 30 years in five states at the places I've lived. I do so because I've loved birds since I was a boy. I keep my feeders clean and stocked year-around. I also have a blind set up and a variety of perches that I rotate in and out just a few inches outside the MFD of my favorite telephoto lens so that when I feel like being six feet away from birds and capturing "bird on a stick" images, I can. I don't consider this any type of ethical violation. Not because the fact that I've been doing it so long gives me some carte blanche, but because I've never seen the harm it does to birds. That being said, assuming that my inability to see harm indicates there is no real harm would be arrogance, and I'm certainly willing to be swayed.

Feeding wild predators is different, IMO. Very different. I've never agreed with feeding wild predators. I think there's a difference, however, when it comes to dragging a road kill into the woods and setting up to see what comes in. I think that's OK, but only rarely. If I lived where Hank does I would feel differently because only an idiot would set up over a carcass where there are wild brown/grizzly/polar bears.

Predators and scavengers are quite accustomed to dining on road kill, and in my part of the country I don't believe there's harm in repositioning a road-killed deer on rare occasions. Do it with some regularity, however, and you are asking for animals to become habituated to people being in their presence when they are eating, and that's a BAD thing for a predator to get used to. In more extreme cases (by extreme I don't mean uncommon), wild predators such as bears and wolves are actually hand-fed by people, most commonly in national and provincial parks in the U.S. and Canada. Such activity occasionally leads to a horrible conclusion, for the predator or the human. When the uninitiated do this, it's tragic. When those who know better do it, it's stupid, and perhaps criminal.

I'd like to share a link that brings you to a study published in Alaska in 2002 that is a compilation of 80 case histories of wild wolf/human encounters, from the most "harmless" to full-blown attacks and the rare death. Some of these animals that displayed aggressive behavior were rabid. Many others were habituated to being fed by people.

I have been studying wolves (not as a biologist, just as an aficionado) for more than 30 years, reading whatever I could get my hands on, and this study offers a lot of interesting material, including thoughts on what caused the wolves to behave as they did.

http://wildlife.alaska.gov/pubs/techpubs/research_pdfs/techb13_full.pdf

This report is about 50 pages long, but I've never seen anything as comprehensive and interesting published on human/wolf interaction. Maybe some of you know of this study, but for those who don't, it should be required reading for photographers who enter wolf country. There are only a few distinct concepts of wolf behavior you need to know to make sense of the report, and they are covered in the short introduction. This is not a report full of jargon. It is easy to understand. I am telling you it is worth your time to read.

Other than feeding birds in the backyard, I don't think humans should ever feed wild animals. Allow wild animals to be wild, whether it be for good or bad. Animals habituated to eating human food will eventually cause problems, and generally it is the animals that suffer because of this. I see morons feeding gators all the time here in Florida, then they scream how terrible it is when someone gets attacks. The only problem with this scenario is that the wrong person got attacked; it should have been the person who orginally caused the problem by feeding them in the first place.

I've been an active member of backpacking communities for over three decades. Many of these people have a rigid narrow view of feeding any wild animals or critters regardless of size mainly because that has been a politically correct attitude pounded into them. Those growing up in current generations probably think that has always been the mantra but it wasn't really pushed until the 1980s. I still remember scenes in national parks with carnivals of cars suddenly parked all over roadsides whenever animals like deer or bears wandered by with inevitable situations of some people trying to feed them. That was because that is what earlier generations did not only here in the USA but worldwide. Still in this day and age, I can guarantee one will still see quite a bit of this comically going on despite the obvious signs after summer bus passengers talking in strange tongues get off many daily busses at Olmsted Point in Yosemite. Thus authorities dumbed down the policies on what good citizens do to simply "don't feed wild animals" with no if ands or but exceptions. Of course if one really thinks about the vast number of situations that ought not apply so universely. Nothing to complain about though as it is just another issue the rest of us can take in stride for the common good. For instance as an extreme situations, what difference is it going to make to some tiny rodent that lives only three or four seasons in some remote place where no people have visited if someone chucks out a few peanuts for laughs? So what if some little sparrow grabs the crumbs off the ground at my backcountry campsite I shook off my shirt after downing a cupcake instead of carefully tossing them all in a waste bag? Likewise what if I catch a fat grasshopper and toss it into a creek up in the wilderness in order to amuse myself watching some trout rise up and gobble it down? ...David

David makes a good point -- there are few universal rules that apply in every case. However, even backcountry campers being a little careless with their food scraps (sometimes just careless, but often for the "benefit" of wildlife -- really the amusement of campers) has led to regulations that require us to carry bear resistant food canisters in many national parks and wilderness areas, after many "problem" bears had to be killed. Sometimes blanket rules are necessary.

Another Related Issue -- Bird Feeding: No harm in feeding birds? Unfortunately that's not always true anymore, even for people who carefully consider the needs of the birds. Like many issues involving natural resources, there are few answers that apply in every case. An increasingly bothersome problem in some parts of the country is seriously aggravated by bird feeding. Believe it or not, backyard bird feeders are quite attractive to black bears, and they can be the invitation that results in bears discovering that compost piles, garbage cans, pet food, and even our kitchens are easy food sources. This is bad for bears, rural and suburban residents, and for the public in general. Bears in and around houses are increasingly draining the time of wildlife management agencies whose employees could be doing work more beneficial to wildlife and the environment. Check out this link: http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7246.html. If you live in an area where bears and homeowners are beginning to clash, you need to consider some new consequences of bird feeding after bears emerge from their dens(usually March in my area).

Yeah, she's still feeding eagles in Homer, but only for two more years as I recall. Meanwhile her congregation of eagles has completely denuded the nearby bird sanctuary. Fun to see and photo the eagles, but they get kinda monotonous after they've eaten everything else that flies.

I forgot one more for my list of no-nos in bear country. Bird feeders! Folks in our rural areas with feeders have had seriously unwanted visitors. Folks in town still get away with it, but move away from town and it's a dying phenom.

I fill my bird feeders all winter, and not in summer when there is plenty food for them to eat. Even in northern CT the bird feeders have to be brought in at night because bears are repopulating.

"Baiting or feeding of birds"...well, that's a pretty broad topic, so if you're asking if it's bad, my answer is "sometimes".

There's no doubt backyard bird feeding has had an impact on bird behavior and populations in the U.S. Whether that's good or bad depends upon your interpretation. You've got species like Northern Cardinals who have undoubtedly expanded their range to the north and west, likely at least partially due to the proliferation of bird feeders. House Finches? Look at their range 100 years ago and now. Is it too at least partially due to bird feeders? Probably.

With that said...backyard bird feeding, in my book, should be praised, even with the potential effects on bird populations and behavior. How many birders first began their journey after spotting some unknown or colorful species in their backyard? How many birders couple their passion with a desire to conserve the resource? It's that passion for the resource that for me is the most important aspect of backyard birding.

So...where to draw the line? I was disgusted twice at Sax-Zim Bog during the big owl invasion by people baiting owls with live mice, right alongside paved highways. That directly puts the life of birds in danger.

On the other hand...what about this shot (of mine)?

http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=85425&b=up&st=0&la=16&ph=1&sid=18870&u=18870

I now live in a new home, and while I've had a ball landscaping over the past year, at the present time, my feeders don't attract much due to lack of established vegetation around. However, I live across the street from a park, chock full of birds. Is what I did for the above shot (spreading seed on the ground) "off-limits" (exact method explained in the post)?

I don't think so...I don't see how it's much different than backyard feeders. What I'd be curious in, however, is just HOW prevalent "staged" shots like this are on NPN. There are many shots posted in Avian shot in backyard setups like Steve mentioned above. There are many shots where people may shoot in "natural" settings, but place ther own perches for birds to land on. Sometimes it's pretty obvious on NPN shots that this has been done, sometimes it's not.

I ran my own Nuisance Wildlife Control business for about 15 years. People who routinely fed wildlife around their homes were my best customers. I bought two brand new trucks, while charging cheap rates.

I don't see any problem with the occasional bait pile in a remote location, But the routine feeding of wild animals in areas with human activity, usually gets real expensive for the humans, and is a death sentence for most wild animals.

One more comment...there are multiple conversations going on here. Discussing backyard bird feeding, and the feeding of grizzly bears, obviously belong in two different conversations.

"Death sentence for most wild animals" or other such broad statements obviously don't apply to birds attending feeders. I'm sure winter survival in my neck of the woods is greatly enhanced by the presence of feeders. As for "generalized loss of fear" for birds attending feeders, something mentioned previously...holds no water in my book, given that you still typically need a blind of some sort to do feeder photography. God knows the birds I do get at my feeder are still wary of my presence, and extremely wary should the neighbor's cat make an unwanted stop in my yard.

They're taking advantage of a resource, that's it. They don't automatically become stupid in the process.

I think the conversation started regarding baiting animals and birds away from home. Bird feeders in the back yard are a separate topic, at least until they become a source of habituation for other animals ranging from squirrels to raccoons to grizzly bears. Bird feeders, well managed, are a given as conservation tools. But irresponsible use is as bad as me dumping fish guts in the woods beside a neighbor's house.

Thank you for posting this. I live in San Diego and never heard about that incident at Sea World. I have also gone camping in the far East County and was himming and hawing about posting some photos that I have of squirrels that attacked our Doritos. We just had them sitting on the picnic table [because we were snacking on them] and we were sitting right next to the picnic table and the squirrels just came up and helped themselves. As soon as we were done eating, all the food was put away [in the back of my car]. Not just because of the squirrels, but the blue jays as well as the yellow jackets. There were also times that I had to eat in my car because there was a contest between myself and the yellow jackets. Obviously, I won. LOL

I think it's ironic that there is so much worry about bird feeders when the hunting industry depends on raising the numbers of wildlife so there can be more hunters buying permits.

In Pennsylvania the Game Commission can fine home owners whose bird feeders attract bears. Of course their slogan is a "fed bear is a dead bear" but that law depends on who does the feeding. The Game Commission cuts down forests so it can replant the area with plants that wildlife like to eat. If you own a hunting camp you are allowed to set-up a bait station at a certain distance from your lodge. Put food out all year as long as you stop 30 or so days before the hunting season starts. In this case the feeding is considered part of "conservation" and nota problem.

I'm not against hunting, I just have to laugh at our human logic.

To answer Laurie welcome to the group and there is nothing wrong with taking pictures of birds at your feeders and submitting them for critiquing unless you are observing a lot of deaths at your feeders which I doubt.

Just to correct the original post - the NPN Code of Conduct is a set of guidelines - i think it is quite a jump to "seems to prohibits" the feeding of birds. Each photographer should assume responsibility for where they feel the line should not be crossed and leave it at that rather than impose their standards on someone else. I'm not saying the OP or anyone else that has responded in this thread is trying to impose their standards on anyone it is only my opinion and how I approach photography. If I am photographing a bear from what I feel is a safe distance for me I don't need another photographer telling me I am getting too close. Likewise, if a another photographer approaches closer than I feel safe I don't feel it is up to me to question their actions.

I have on numerous occasions photographed animals being fed by humans. Whether it is birds at feeders or, just last week, sharks being fed in the Caribbean. Yes there can be repercussions from these actions such as raptors showing up to dine at a backyard feeder but in no way in my opinion can the feeding of wild animals for photographs be considered "high risk" to the animal. The feeding of wild animals by humans for photographs would be so far down the list of causes of death to probably not even have its own category but listed something like ... Other causes .01%

Take alligators for instance (not picking on you Bill ) ... there are about 7 attacks a year in the US and about one person is killed every three years. I know it is tough to assume how many of these attacks are caused by the alligator looking for a handout but I take it not all as other causes like protecting young, injured and unable to hunt normal prey & opportunistic would seem much more likely. Even if half of them were the result of human feeding you are talking about four attacks in the US in a year and as Bill pointed out "I see morons feeding gators all the time here in Florida" so the percentage of attacks from feeding would seem rather small. Which sort of brings me to the other side of the equation. Some seem to focus on the dark side of feeding but never consider the enjoyment or pleasure it brings to others. From the elderly person than enjoys feeding the family of raccoons on her deck to the kids that get introduced to nature by watching birds at a backyard feeder or that enjoy having that seagull hoover in front of their face as it takes a scrap of food being offered. Yes there are dangers of being attacked by a rabid coon, spreading disease by not keeping feeders cleaned or the occasional snatching of ones meal but in the overall picture I see feeding of wildlife as bringing more people into the fold where they are eager to maybe learn more about protecting that animal. I guess I just never like being told "You can look but don't touch".

Finally if I wanted to reverse my guidelines on imposing standards on someone else just let me throw this out .... If you are a photographer that feels it is wrong to feed wildlife as it can result in their possible death regardless of the enjoyment it brings to some then you might want to rethink using a cell phone or letting your cat outside. Take a stroll around the ground of a cell tower during songbird migration and see how many birds are killed from striking the towers. In the US alone cats kill hundreds of millions of birds and more than a billion small mammals such as rabbits, squirrels and chipmunks each year. And it makes no difference if the animal happens to be endangered or is caring for young.

I think discussions like these are good and it gives people an opportunity to rethink their own guidelines. Sorry for the long thread but if I had to sum it up I would say in the overall scheme of things, to quote Shakespeare, it is "much ado about nothing".

Excellent thoughts, Mike.

I'll argue just a bit, and good-naturedly, over this statement you made: "in no way in my opinion can the feeding of wild animals for photographs be considered "high risk" to the animal."

If you look narrowly at the actual act of feeding a wild animal, I'd accept your statement. However, the report I linked to indicates there's a lot of evidence that wolves that get fed by people get habituated. They lose their fear. More than that, the report documents cases in which habituated wolves became aggressive toward people when they weren't fed and were then shot. In most places in wolf country, an aggressive wolf is a dead wolf.

So, while the act of feeding hasn't killed those animals, the results of feeding have. If I as a photographer feed wild predators as a matter of course, they will become habituated, and I will be partly responsible for their eventual death if they become aggressive.

"So, while the act of feeding hasn't killed those animals, the results of feeding have. If I as a photographer feed wild predators as a matter of course, they will become habituated, and I will be partly responsible for their eventual death if they become aggressive."

I'll go one step further Steve. Anyone who contributes to the habituation of an animal that is killed because it was habituated is as culpable as the finger on the trigger.

Yep.

Steve .. I appreciate your rebuttal but it did nothing to change my mind. I'm not saying wolves are not put down as a result of feeding by humans I am merely saying deaths that result form this behavior, IMHO, are not "high risk". I guess what I am trying to say is that it is not one of the leading causes of wolves deaths. We maybe just looking at it from two different view points.

I always draw from my actual experience and when that is lacking I seek outside sources. I am curious since you seem to be familiar with wolves (and your note it was a fifty page article kept me from reading the study you linked) do you think wolves become habituated to humans or habituated to the surroundings where food is offered. The reason I ask is after reflecting on some of my experiences I am wondering if some animals associate surroundings with food source more so than humans who just happen to be part of the same surroundings. For example my friend has been feeding the same mother raccoon and several generation of offspring for several years. She has a very distinct notch in here ear. While standing on his front porch he can actually call to her and she will usually come to feed. He can get very close to her but she won't allow me the same privilege. Hence I draw the conclusion she can recognize him. However she will not approach him or come to his calls if he is not near his front porch. If she encounters him anywhere else she runs. This makes me think that she associates his porch and surrounding area with a food source not him per se. Thus I would say in this instance she is not habituated to humans as she won't allow the close approach of other humans and she will even run from him if he is not on his front porch.

Do you think if a wolf is fed a roadkill in the same spot for several years with say you standing nearby each time that if he sees you away from that spot he associates you with the provider of food and could become aggressive toward you? Or do you think it is more likely that if someone other than you stumbled onto the spot you provided the roadkill the wolf would become aggressive toward him. Or do you think both conditions ... you at the same spot .. would more likely cause a confrontation.

Mike, I like to draw from actual experience as well. I wish it were possible to have more personal experiences with wolves, but in the four years I've lived here and have worked hard to get close to wolves, it's only happened a few times.

It's an interesting point, whether animals become habituated to the people feeding them or the location itself. The case reports seem to indicate it's the location rather than the individual person that's important. But this is wolves, not other animals, so it has limited value as a broad statement. And, of course, individuals within a species show a wide variety of so-called "personalities." Some individual wolves could become more easily habituated than others, and of the habituated wolves, some could become aggressive more or less easily than others.

I also know that a prominent bear researcher near Ely does a lot of his research at a station in the woods several miles from town, and that black bears that come in for food at the station (feeding troughs, not by hand), get very used to being close to people but as soon as they leave the station they revert to their characteristically wary state and are impossible to approach except for a small handful of animals that know the researchers very well.

In the case of wild wolves, I'd say whether they're habituated to the place or the person is a moot point. The result is likely to be the same in either case as long as there regularly are people in the same location the wolves are habituated to. For example, one county here in northeastern Minnesota uses a small remote landfill to dump road-killed deer. Wolves make that landfill a regular part of their rounds and so are habituated to finding food there, but since there aren't people around (it's closed to the public) there are no problems.

And while I certainly won't argue that wolf mortality caused by people shooting habituated wolves is a tiny percentage of overall wolf mortality, for me it wasn't a question of numbers, but of ethics. For me, it would be unethical to participate in the food habituation of even a single wild wolf, because I would be responsible for its death if it becomes aggressive and gets shot.

That decision is similar to one I made several months ago. I often don full camo and try to call in predators to the camera up here. Aside from wolves in their potential to kill a person, we're seeing greater numbers of mountain lion. As a safety precaution, I was carrying a .357, just in case a big predator came in and, once it recognized me as a person, couldn't or wouldn't switch gears and just kept coming.

I mentioned that is a post here on NPN and a couple people pointed out the ethical contradiction in luring an animal close to take photos but then killing it if it got too close or if I felt too threatened. I thought that over long and hard. Now, I still try to call in predators but don't take a gun with me.

So that's my thinking on the deal, anyway.

Steve,
As I said these threads give pause for rethinking ones guidelines. Since I was not a party to the thread on predator calling I am at a disadvantage debating it but again I would draw on my own experiences up to that point over someone who is speculating what might happen. I think in my state you can only do it during hunting season so I would carry a gun and a hunting license and would be very surprised if I even had to fire a warning shot. I am curious, if a mountain lion attacked you would you just let it kill you ? You know by attempting to fight it you now run the risk of injuring it where it might need to be put down or being responsible for it attacking someone else for and easy meal because of injuries. Again as I said in my original post each person has to decide where he will draw the line and should accept that it is different for different folks.

A good thread with plenty of thoughtful responses - this one will certainly be archived.

I agree that there is no "one size fits all" conclusion to this discussion. At the extremes, the deliberate "hand feeding" of dangerous predators is obviously foolhardy. At the other end, backyard bird feeders are usually more acceptable as long as they are responsibly maintained. Just about everything else requires careful consideration as to whether it is ethical or not.

Like it or not, the human race has tremendous impact on all other species of this planet. I do not believe that there is any way man can live "separate" from the rest of the life that inhabits Earth. This includes the "unintentional feeding" of wildlife, from our own garbage cans to the local landfill that usually has a cloud of gulls circling overhead looking for their next meal. I would venture a guess that just about every human has (or will) contribute to the diet of local wildlife, one way or another. So there is (IMO) no "high moral ground" in this discussion due to that fact - we all contribute to the diet of wildlife, whether we want to admit it or not.

That said, the fact that we unintentionally feed wildlife on such an immense scale does not excuse reckless intentional feeding that could lead to "more harm than usual."

Here at the Erhardt residence, the Mrs. has had many feeders set up in our backyard for over 10 years. Though the feeders are intended for small song birds, they do attract plenty of attention from small mammals, including squirrels, chipmunks and voles. This leads to never-ending activity, all of which fosters an appreciation - and even love - for the wildlife that comes to feed. It also leads to some pretty entertaining circumstances.

Donna is very responsible with her "keep the feeders filled" duties. When the feeders get low, the birds make quite a racket and ‘scold’ Donna as she goes to the feeders to replenish them. The chickadees become especially indignant and hover just inches above the feeders as Donna refills them. When Donna has to travel with her job, one of the things she always asks when she calls is "did you feed the birds?"

The voles are another story. Since we do not use fertilizer or insecticide on our "lawn," the voles feast on the abundant grubs just under the surface. They have figured out that they can burrow up to under the feeders and get to the seed that spills to the ground. There are numerous holes in the ground by the feeders and it's not unusual to see a set of eyes staring up waiting for us to move away.

The squirrels are totally out of control. We figure at least 50% of the seed is eaten by them, and we have given up trying to keep them out of the feeders. Donna thinks we have the fattest population of squirrels in town, who have made our backyard a kind of Club Med. Between the feeders, the wooden lawn furniture and various other items we have placed there, the squirrels can come and pig out, run around and then rest in our lawn furniture. Yes, you read that correctly - the squirrels hang out on our lawn furniture!

Recently, the nuthatches have become quite insistent about their feeding time and have been spotted driving the squirrels off the feeders. They just "buzz" the squirrels until they become unnerved and move away. The rest of the birds, including the chickadees, finches, woodpeckers, sparrows, titmouse, mourning doves and cardinals all seem to appreciate the policing efforts of the nuthatches.

But by far the most entertaining of all of the wildlife visiting our feeders are the chipmunks. They scamper about at amazing speed for their size, laying low in the platform feeders while filling their cheeks. We set up a special feeder for them, which they put to good use. It's not unusual to have a chipmunk race across our deck right under our chairs to navigate to the various feeders. They will also stop on the top rail of the deck - a few feet from where we are sitting - to groom them selves and give us a curious stare. One day many years ago one of the chipmunks decided to investigate our basement through a Bilco door I had left open. We store all of the seed in the basement and this little guy hit pay dirt with an open bag of sunflower seed. A few cheek-filled trips later we knew that we could no longer leave the door open as we work around the yard.

As you can tell, all of this has brought a "joy of nature" into our lives. The antics, the songs, the non-stop action is something that we have come to enjoy. Are we being irresponsible or unethical for doing this? That I'm not sure of, but is something we continue to wrestle with.

Nice stuff, Jim. That exactly echoes our experiences with feeding birds and other critters at the feeders.

Mike, I carry bear-strength pepper spray and a horn-in-a-can to deter any predator that gets aggressive. They are non-lethal repellants. Pepper spray has not really had much of a track record for wolves and cats, though I believe it will put wolves out of sorts in a hurry based on what I've seen in police reports about pepper spray on aggressive dogs. I've also read that a photographer shooting mountain lions had one get a little too frisky and pepper spray put it right down. But I read that in an online forum and, of course, it's hard to believe everything you read on online forums.

The horn in a can is what the staff at the International Wolf Center in Ely use when the wolves get in a fight that staff believe is too harmful. One ear-piercing blast a couple seconds long knocks the wolves right down and takes the fight out of them, apparently. And all cats do not like loud noises, so I think the horn would have a good chance of deterring a mountain lion.

I carry these defensive systems with me all the time in the woods, and I have practiced with them so I know how to get them out quickly and use them. I also carry a long-bladed hunting knife, and that would be a last resort. Odds are none of these measures will ever be needed (a lot more likely I'd have to use one on a person than a beast), but if they ever are, I'll have them.

So no, I would not just let a mountain lion kill me. I think that would be bad for my health.

"Ive two animals on my 'would love to get a shot of' someday list.. for very persnal reasons- a black wolf, which is quite sacred in my culture.. and elk. I've seen/heard both.. but as I was taught, if they chose to gift me with a close encounter, they will.. if not, just knowing they are 'out there' is good enough."

Nicely said, Cindy. I've spent years trying to get close to wolves with little success, and when the black wolf walked right up to me earlier this fall it was clear that the wolf made the decision, not me.

Cindy, I wrote a story about that encounter. It's about to be published. I believe, based on your reference to your culture, that you likely will understand some things about the gift better than most. If you'd like, shoot me an e-mail at stevefossimages@yahoo.com and I'll send it to you.

Sorry, all, don't mean to take this off topic.

I was driving thru the birding reserve at Newport Beach this weekend and saw a photographer on the roadside. not too far from him was what looked to be two large pumpkins that were split open. I didn't take a closer look at what was going on but it just struck me as odd. I probably should have pulled over and seen what he was doing since I didn't know if he doing anything unethical / illegal or not.

Art?

I started this topic and I have been pleasantly surprised by the thoughtful responses and politeness of the conversation. I am a member of other groups who would have brought out the flame throwers early on; your civility is appreciated. I agree with a private message I got that we're never likely to reach a consensus, but let me see if I can extract a few principles upon which we all agree:

1. The bigger, more dangerous or more endangered the animal, the more serious the issue becomes. Feeding Black-capped Chickadees is one thing; they are small, abundant and harmless. Feeding a Grey Wolf is near the opposite end; they are big, endangered and dangerous.

2. Operating a bird feeder or feeders is generally okay, subject to Rule #1. It imposes special obligations: operate it so as to not attract critters that violate Rule #1, don't quit on critters that have become highly dependent on it, and keep it sanitary.

3. Something can be a bird feeder in more than one way. If you attract a lot of song birds, at some point you are going to also attract critters that prey on song birds: Northern Shrikes, Sharp-shinned Hawks, foxes, weasels and the like. (I once had a Northern Goshawk chasing a Sharp-shinned Hawk chasing a Dark-eyed Junco at our feeders.) You have to accept the responsibility and the consequences. We don't agree on whether messing with Mother Nature by creating the bird density is "wrong."

4. We will not recklessly endanger birds. Baiting owls along a roadside, for example,

5. The more "natural" a photo, the better. We disagree on any definition of "natural."

Thanks again for all of your thoughtful input.

Best,

Jim DeWitt

Jim, that's one of the things that immediately attracted me to this forum when I first found it. On continued review, it was easy to decide to become a member here. Discussions tend to be at a much higher level -- in experience, thoughtfulness and politeness -- on NPN than on other photo forums.

When the flamethrowers come out, meaningful exchange stops.

Jim D--

I think that's a good summation. The main idea is that we shouldn't be putting critters in danger just to photo them. The bigger or more aggressive an animal is, the more problems are likely if they begin to associate people with free food. As I wrote many posts ago, I will sometimes put a carcass in a secluded spot and see what shows up, but I wear rubber gloves and boots and am careful to not be detected. I've never "baited" the same place twice either. Usually just skunks, raccoons, and coyotes show up for me. Keep in mind that even small animals that lose their natural fear of people are in jeopardy though. Where I live, if a skunk is seen walking up to you, it's assumed it has rabies and is shot. Not sure I'd want even friendly skunks hanging around my yard anyway.


Kent in SD

Reminds me of long ago friends in the Southwest who had a couple of "de-scented" skunks as pets. Delightful animals, even if they were a little bothersome due to their nocturnal nature.

The husband came out on the porch one day and found them tearing into a garbage sack that had inadvertently been left on the porch overnight. He yelled and ran at them.

You guessed it. Wrong skunks. Major oops.

Jim,

I think you made some excellent points in your last post.

I think NPN is a wonderful community where people can have differing opinions without nastiness, and I truly appreciate that as my life, and I am sure many other people too, have enough drama in it.

I don't feed wild animals intentionally, I do not want to foster dependency in the animals.

Thank you for a thoughtful thread Jim.

Hey Cindy, it gets worse.

The friend was on his way to work at the time- as a school bus driver. Picture a bus going down the road with all the kids sticking their heads out the windows and screaming- for good reason.