NPN code of ethics

The quote below is from the code of ethics of NPN. It is clearly and with increasing frequency not being adhered to in the avian forum.
That's all I have to say.

"Do not entice a wild animal with food from the hand in order to get the photo. Allow the animal to be wild, and to move about on its own accord."

I posted a very similar message last year and the thread exploded into 600+ reads and 40+ messages. If you search "ethics" it will likely turn up. There was no agreement, despite what you and I regard as a pretty clear statement. At the end of the thread, if there was a consensus, it was something along these lines:

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."

Not being an avian photographer, I don't have much experience. It seems to me, though, that the part of the code that reads "from the hand" would leave baiting open to interpretation. Are people actually hand feeding wild birds for photos? Or are you talking about baiting in general?

Gee, it could be really hard to hand feed a tiger!

Without sounding like a smart aleck:
What is the point of NPN's Code of ethics?


Jim, thanks for pointing me toward your prior post. I still haven't read through all of the comments, but will read them w/ great interest.
David, your question is a good one, but after reading Jim's prior post and responses, it's kind of hard to answer. In short, there are lots of photos being posted on NPN and a couple of other sites of relatively uncommon species of owls that have been lured to cameras w/ live mice. It's my opinion that:
-it's interferring with these birds hunting insticts, techniques, etc.Also, from what I've heard it's quite often done right on the side of the road. Attracting these owls to humans and to roadsides is at the very least-dangerous for the bird.
-these mice are from pet stores, disease, introducing exotic species and other problems could stem from this...
-it's not being done discreetly, therefore getting lots of attention from birders, Fish and Game officials, etc -which is not helping the reputation of all nature photographers.


-I'm already regretting posting this. Several weeks ago, I got in a heated exchange on another site w/ a very well known avian photographer and accomplished nothing.

-I guess what it boils down to is that I know I'm doing things the "right way", and can only hope the actions of a few don't affect my career.

-I really hope that this trend which seems to have started in Canada doesn't end up in my neck of the woods. If it does, I will be equal parts embarrassed and angry.

Dan I think this is always a good topic of conversation, regardless of how often it has been discussed before. As Jim summed up nicely in his post, there's a large gray area between the extremes that will always prove difficult to establish a consensus on. In the mean time, backyard feeders for songbirds seem to be OK but feeding the local pack of wolves your leftovers clearly is not.

Dan, I agree that this is always a good discussion to have, and I remember the heat on that other forum.

I was struck by your phrase that you know you're doing it the "right way," and simply wanted to point out, without raising the temperature here on this NPN thread, that your right way may not be the right way for others. Ethics are an individual thing.

Our ethics also may change as we're exposed to the actions of others, after we've considered how others do things and weighed those actions against our own code and decided what's right and wrong for us. I know I've changed the way I do some things over time, sometimes adopting a more liberal view and other times a more conservative one than I previously held. So that heated exchange you mentioned may actually have accomplished much, Dan, in that thoughtful people may have seen ideas in the discussion that led them to review and potentially alter their own ethical stances.

Many, many people see these threads but don't participate in them, and with new members and new lurkers coming in all the time, we never know who we're going to touch when we cover ground that's been covered before but is invisible to the newcomers because it's fallen far down the discussion boards.

I also saw the heated thread on "another site" re this topic, and it was an eye-opener for me. Guess I'm just naive since I was unaware that the widely published, head-on shots of owls were obtained by baiting the critters, and doing that is something that would never even occur to me. I simply thought they were lucky shots! Duh!

Beyond the personal ethics debate which has been widely covered on this and other sites, it disturbs me that the major, international nature and environmental organizations tacitly condone this technique (raptor baiting) by publishing these photos in their magazines, on calendars, etc. - we've all seen them, and they definitely have the "wow!" factor. These images win contests and earn money and recognition for the photographers who take them. And the same organizations that purport to hold themselves to a higher standard both ethically and photographically reward photographers for using this questionable technique.

Further, I doubt the members of these organizations and readers of their publications who see these photos are aware of how they were obtained, nor would they approve of the techniques used.

Just my opinion, but it's all been a disappointing revelation....

Gail.

Gail,,,Most of the head shots from what I have seen are from Raptor Rehab centers The donation or charge goes to the upkeep of the Center. Your correct in your observation that many of your calender and magazine images are either shot at game farms or baited.

There are some magazines that require you to label those images shot in a controlled environment. Others don't care and then there are some publishers who will not accept images taken in captive or controlled environments.

The issue has been discussed and milled over for ever. NANPA had a committee assigned to the issue and nothing was ever resolved. I guess its up to individual preference. The only problem I have with it is when a person lies and tells a customer that an image was shot in the wild when it wasn't. I have several images of Mountain Lions that were photographed on a release by the wildlife division , and those that were rescued and kept in an enclosed area until it could be released. Early in my career I also used a Game Farm to photograph the large cats. However shortly after I decided not to use this method any longer. When I sell
one of these images I make sure the buyer knows what conditions the image was taken under. Many of your most recognized photograpers promote and use Game Farms.
I'll stop rambling on but I wanted you to know that these methods exist and are widely used.
I'm not promoting or condeming these methods as my Dad always said "Let your conscience
be your guide in whatever you pursue in life.".

"The only problem I have with it is when a person lies and tells a customer that an image was shot in the wild when it wasn't."

Quite.

Just heard about a local who is baiting a hawk daily with a pigeon he had fed and killed. Where should he be reported to... the local Humane Society? The police? Thought about talking to him personally, but that also may have consequences... if he would do that he might be capable to doing worse. By the way, in this case it is not done for the sake of photography.

Is feeding a wild hawk illegal where you live? If not, there is no one to report him to. Any one alive on the planet can do "worse" things than they typically do if pressed, but I doubt there's any more likelihood this person would do something to you than that any other random person would.

Dan, don't regret the post. Even if it does get to be heated, this issue does need to be thought about.

Hi, Don. Yes, I've also done raptor photography at rehab centers. These centers do good things, and when I have sold these images, I've always stress that the birds were captive/injured birds that either could not, or were not yet able, to fend for themselves in the wild. No problem there.

As far as game farms, I'm also aware that a lot of photography goes on at these places, and many "name" photographers lead photo workshops at them. Personally, I don't do the game farm thing - it just doesn't appeal to me (ditto for zoos and aviaries). And in most publications, there's a note that the photographed animal was either captive or in a controlled situation. No problem there either.

My gripe is with misrepresentation of wild and free animals that are baited into a photo situation. It's generally obvious when a songbird or hummingbird is photographed at or near a feeder - no explanation is usually necessary. I take many of these myself and am always careful to note that the photograph was obtained at or near a feeder. But what about that eye-level, face-first Snowy Owl flying at you at close range? I've never seen a published notation stating "this bird was lured towards the photographer with a live mouse." Although the bird is indeed wild and free by definition, is the publisher obligated to reveal extenuating circumstances to the reader? Does the publisher even know?

I'll liken it to fishing. I'd be delighted to publish your photo of the eight-pound bass you caught this morning. Just don't lead me to believe it jumped into your boat unassisted.

I'd say I'm more concerned here with ethical standards held by nature/environmental organizations and publications than I am with individuals. As individuals, whether we all agree or not on personal standards is a matter of conscience. However, organizations and publications to which the public turns for information should be held to standards that are beyond reproach. If they choose to publish photos of wild and free birds (or any other animals) that are lured into a situation, that's fine - just be sure it's noted in the caption. Whether as a casual observer or a photographer, I'm as interested in the location and circumstances surrounding the capture as I am in the photographer's name and the camera data.

Okay, it's time for me to stop before I get more preachy than I already have, but I think my point is clear. How folks choose to photograph wildlife is a personal ethics matter. But however it's done, let the methods be open to scrutiny when those photos are presented to the public.

Cheers....Gail.

Since the only wildlife i photo are ones that accidentally get in the way of my shot, this is an enlightening thread for me. Gail makes an excellent point--there is a definite distinction between one's personal ethics and the ethical code of an organization or group, where everyone agrees to follow the rules. Dan's original point concerning the harm caused by luring/baiting seems to be valid to me--are people actually debating that those aren't valid conerns??

Recently, while shooting Bald Eagles at a local refuge, one photographer told me that the day before someone had purchased trout at the supermarket and placed them on the ice as a way of baiting the eagles closer and to a spot with a better lighting angle. Beyond the obvious negative impacts baiting can have on wildlife in general, I cringe at the additional restrictions that wildlife managers will likely place on photographers shooting wildlife on public lands as these trends grow - the old story of the actions of a few reflecting on and negatively affecting all of us. During the waterfowl hunting season one refuge employee told me that they have far fewer "problems" with the hunters than they do with the bird photographers. I was embarrassed.

Stan, I've watched and participated in the debate over baiting, and I haven't heard people say the concerns are not valid. I have heard quite a few people say they don't believe it harms a wild hawk or an owl to be fed mice. As for the store-bought mice and disease, I know a couple photographers who use live mouse traps in their yards to gather the mice they use to bait raptors.

Does it change the hunting habits of a hawk or owl to be given mice? Perhaps, perhaps not. I don't know, and I don't think anyone really knows. Does baiting raptors near roads endanger them? It could, depending on the road and the ethics of the baiter in waiting for an absence of fast-moving traffic. Do pet-store mice spread disease in raptors? I haven't heard a solid answer to that, either. And if there isn't any harm in this activity to the raptors, is it ethical to treat mice that way? And if there is harm, is it small harm, and is that small harm outbalanced by the awakening of passion for nature that can be aroused by the compelling photograph produced through the baiting?

So there are far more unknowns than knowns here. That is exactly why great care should be taken. As a whole, we are an arrogant and self-centered species, and we really don't have a sophisticated understanding of how our actions impact other creatures. It's my desire to tread lightly.

The debate will continue, but anyone expecting or desiring consensus on baiting will be disappointed.

Simple disclosure of methods would suffice for me.

My guess is that what prompted Dan to start the thread was the large number of Snowy Owl photos posted this winter, many with birds moving directly towards the camera at very close range.

Great photos, yes. But not ones I would ever grace with a positive comment, because of the way I feel about the method that was surely used to get the photo. If you are going to use methods like baiting, at least come out and say that's how the photo was obtained.

Or perhaps it says something about the photographer's own inner struggle with the choice to bait, in that they'll do to get the photo, but won't come out and disclose their methodology.

I agree with Steve Foss from above "The debate will continue, but anyone expecting or desiring consensus on baiting will be disappointed."

I also agree very much with Terry Sohl that disclosure of the methods would be nice. I'm not sure if it would suffice for me or not....

I did a search of the Avian gallery for the word "bait". The search returned 4 images. 3 of the 4 either said up front, or were asked and answered that the images were not baited. Kudos to those folks.
The other image did not disclose the method, was asked, but a reply was not given. I have no idea whether the image captured was a result of baiting or not and I'm guessing we won't ever know unless the photographer answers the question. Seems like a small favor to ask folks to disclose the use of baiting if that is how the image was captured. We ask people to identify images that are of captive animals in zoos or game farms already.

I am in favor of disclosure up front. For me it is a simple matter of forthrightness. While some may be put off by a photo produced through baiting, I'd rather have them upset up front than to operate under the assumption that it was a completely natural capture and then find out later they've been fooled. The latter scenario leads to people far more angry than the former scenario.

And that goes for captive animals passed off as wild ones, too. There is a built-in presumption among most uninitiated viewers of wildlife photographs that images of wild species were captured in the wild, and I can't tell you how many times I've seen it come back and bite a photographer in the butt to post a captive shot without disclosing that only to be forced into acknowledging it later to choruses of angry boos.

I have baited birds (I do it with backyard feeders all the time) and I have on a few occasions shot captive individuals of wild species, but I'm always honest about it when I share an image. Well, I rarely say I "baited" a purple finch at my feeder, but generally say it was shot at a feeder setup.

I have to guess that anyone reluctant to reveal their methods or willing to lie about them darned sure questions the methods. But ego or bux are the bigger moral markers in their lives. Sad. Really sad.

If you're going to do it, be proud and put it out there. If you have to conceal it or lie about it, I'd say you need to look at the face in the mirror.

Concerning the disclosure of baiting, I believe that many choose not to because they prefer to try and spare themselves the judgemental comments that are often associated. What I find to be even more disturbing is that on a page with a half dozen potentially baited images only some of the posters are harrassed about it. This says to me that a less well-known photographer is more susceptable to have their ethics challenged than a well-known one. It seems that some of us are simply a safer bet for harassment.

With so many other negative environmental effects whose order of magnitude far outweigh the largely unproven concerns of baiting using mice that are bred to be fed to reptiles, it is hard for me to fathom how someone can be so active and passionate about this particular issue. Especially when one considers what Steve said about the conservation benefits that imagery supports through public awareness. As far as the pragmatic and competitive business of imagery sales are concerned, the more spectacular the image, the better the sales potential. In many cases a non-baited image of a given species simply isn`t competetive. It is hard for me to dismiss the idea that perhaps this frustrating reality in some ways fuels the passionate stance against this practice.

Scott

Gee, it could be really hard to hand feed a tiger!

Nah, feeding is not a problem. Keeping your hand connected to your arm is, however.

Basil

Ron Dudley's story about the photographer throwing fish to get eagles in better light cuts right to one of my major points. These actions will eventually lead to tighter restrictions put on all of us. Wildlife refuges are already pushing back at photographers. From what I hear, Bosque del Apache and Ding Darling are both becoming a little less friendly to photographers these days. That may just be the start of it. Some of "us" like to think they are standing up for "our" rights by being pushy and argumentative with refuge managers.
That makes me cringe. This vocal minority does not speak for me, Ron and most other photographers.

Standing up for photographers rights brings me to another question. I looked at NANPA's site and they say nothing about baiting in their ethics page. Don George states above that they had a committee look into it and nothing was ever resolved. Does anyone know why they won't take a position on this? Are they afraid of a little controversy? I thought NANPA had a greater purpose than just providing equipment insaurance.

Scott Linstead wrote:
"With so many other negative environmental effects whose order of magnitude far outweigh the largely unproven concerns of baiting using mice that are bred to be fed to reptiles, it is hard for me to fathom how someone can be so active and passionate about this particular issue."
I agree that the negatives have not been proven about baiting.

In fact, if a limited amount of baiting was done by a couple of individuals in a very discreet way, completely out of the general publics view, I probably wouldn't be so annoyed by this. But now the general public, Audobon groups, Refuge managers, etc are all looking at how "we" conduct ourselves in the field and right or wrong, they don't like it one bit.
BTW Scott-hats off to you for even entering this debate.

Questionable conduct in the field will eventually hurt all nature photographers reputations, not just bird and wildlife photogs.

I appreciate everyone weighing in on this.

Hand feeding a tiger basically ensures you'll be feeding it your hand.

And one more thing while I'm on my soap box. I think the majority of people who are unwilling to disclose photographs taken inbaiting/ captive situations really hope noone ever asks because they know it will dimish the impact of the photo in question. A don't ask, don't tell policy.

In the end, I know it doesn't really matter what I think to anyone but me. I may never get a northern hawk owl pouncing on a mouse at point blank range, but at least I'm proud of my methods, not just my photographs.

I've never been to Bosque, but on my one trip to Ding Darling late last year the staff was very friendly and helpful to photogs as near as I could tell - I talked to a couple of them, standing beside my big tripod with camera, and their tripod with spotting scope. I can't imagine that they'd be upset with photogs, although it wasn't very busy.

I have seen some reports of Bosque management not being as accomodating to photographers as in the past in terms of creating lines of sight and good viewing areas; But not directly being hard on any individuals.

I'd guess these places, which are used to droves of photographers, are probably less perturbed by the actions of a couple of rogue people than some less visited places.

"BTW Scott-hats off to you for even entering this debate."

Hey, thanks, Dan! And kudos to you, too, for taking the high road by welcoming rational discussion from the other side of the argument.

I undertake low profile baiting occasionally and do my best to keep it out of the public eyes. This is not out of embarrassment or shame on my part but a desire to avoid starting it all up again. I don't want to misrepresent my skills. In fact, I think that if someone were to obtain a head-on owl shot without baiting, it would be more a result of pure luck than photographic virtuosity. My best selling images to publications last year were a series of belted kingfisher images. The bait used was minnows extracted from the same body of water from which I was shooting. My pre-positioned perch was popularized by providing a localized concentration of minnows. Great images were created, revenue was generated, the techniques were out of the public eye and no new species were introduced to the body of water. I agree that high-profile baiting is damaging to the collective reputations of photographers even if there is no hard evidence of any ecological fallout.

"I think that if someone were to obtain a head-on owl shot without baiting, it would be more a result of pure luck than photographic virtuosity"

Not necessarily true Scott and I only point this out to deflect unwarranted criticism of head-on owl shots that are not baited. Where I often shoot it is, at times, relatively easy to get head-on flight shots of Barn Owls and Short-eared Owls during winter as the birds regularly cruise right by photographers as they hunt during daytime. Even I have captured some of them from this angle and I'm far from a "photographic virtuoso".

I have often wondered if some thought some of my raptor posts were baited. They weren't and will never be in the future. I've considered placing a "no bait" line in my posts but thought that might come across as a little self-righteous but I'm reconsidering the decision.

I'm really glad you joined in here Scott. We may not agree but I appreciate you explaining your POV.

What a great thread - no serious animosity on a subject that many people feel passionately about, different views shared and hopefully some folks will be able take a position on the issue based on some of the rational and thoughtful info provided here.

Kudos, NPN'ers.

Hand feeding a tiger basically ensures you'll be feeding it your hand.

That's a really good one, Steve!

Ron said;

What a great thread - no serious animosity on a subject that many people feel passionately about, different views shared and hopefully some folks will be able take a position on the issue based on some of the rational and thoughtful info provided here.

I agree, and not just because I'm the head tidybowl keeper here. Ego often gets in the way of rational discourse, especially when you encounter a high density of large egos in one place. Thanks to all for keeping NPN a great place for rational discourse on controversial topics!

Back to mopping the floors...

I don't think i would use any live or real bait , but i would consider using a blind and a Coyote hunting decoy . Its powered by a battery and looks like a squirrel . It wiggles back and forth . I would also never do it near any roads , But being that i don't have a telephoto and don't see me getting one anytime soon , just don't have the $$$ . I will just have to dream about how fun it would be !!

A very Good discussion by the way !!!!!!!!!

Thanks -
RobK .

"Great images were created, revenue was generated, the techniques were out of the public eye and no new species were introduced to the body of water."

So...I guess the ends justify the means? "Great images" and "Revenue" were generated...is that the most important factor? Where does it stop? With just baiting? What about shooting nests? Tough to do that in most cases without upsetting the parents and/or chicks. Is that worth it if you get "great images" and "revenue"?

I also take issue with the "low-profile" vs. "high-profile" baiting comment. The only difference with your approved "low-profile" baiting? You're not being caught.

It's pretty simple to me. The resource comes first, not the capture of "great images" or the "revenue". Anything that could potentially put that resource in jeopardy, due to the actions/methodologies used to get the shot, shouldn't be done.

The resource comes first, not the capture of "great images" or the "revenue". Anything that could potentially put that resource in jeopardy, due to the actions/methodologies used to get the shot, shouldn't be done.

Terry - I think that points out another difference between "low-profile" and "high-profile". I would think that Scott's example doesn't put the resource in jeopardy, the way "high-profile" might.

David,

If that's where it stops, maybe. What about owl baiting though? God knows I saw my share of it at Sax-Zim a few years ago during the owl invasion, along with multiple dead owls along the sides of the road. Do you really want a wild owl to associate food with some guy in a car tossing out mice?

Once "revenue" starts getting mentioned in a discussion like this, I get a little cynical about where this type of behavior stops.

I agree with that Terry - there's definitely the proverbial "slippery slope" involved.

"It's pretty simple to me. The resource comes first, not the capture of "great images" or the "revenue". Anything that could potentially put that resource in jeopardy, due to the actions/methodologies used to get the shot, shouldn't be done."

Terry, since I make a living as a photographer I don't find the word revenue to be so evil. There is no way that the resource was harmed in this case either in the long or short term. No bad example was set for amateurs, no new species introduced, no long-term exposure to hand-outs to generate scientifically unproven dependence, no foreign food source, non-nesting birds..... the list goes on.

When researching the topic for the 5 different publications that featured the kingfisher article, I found that John James Audobon captured and killed many of this species so that he could comment on the taste of the cooked flesh as well as that of kingfisher eggs in the form of an omelet. In this case I am guessing that the positives that this man brought to ornithology outweigh the negative impact of his means.

I feel that judging the above kingfisher baiting practice as unacceptable given the obvious lack of negative impact and the extreme care taken to do so responsibly and discreetly -- then to not take into account any of the positive effects: revenue for a working photographer, public awareness of the species through world-class imagery, donation of 25% of exhibition revenue to local conservation efforts, is nothing short of the brand of birding ethics fanaticism that leads the uninformed public to the mass condemnation of photographers in the first place.

For me it comes down to the "nature" part of "nature photography." That means subjects (birds) not brought in to artificial perches by bait or taped playback. I don't bait, I don't play tapes, I don't shoot at zoos, I don't go to game farms. The real pleasure comes from meeting the birds in as natural of conditions as possible, and spending the time in habitat until I find one that cooperates.

Yes, we feed birds in our back yard (I could never get my wife to stop), and we enjoy seeing them. But I seldom take photos of backyard birds, and never as part of the feeding ritual.

On occasion I will include a line in my posts along the lines of "As is my custom, this is a wild bird in a natural setting, neither baited nor taped," partially in hopes of avoiding comments telling me how I should have gotten closer or removed some branches. I am always happy when someone sends me a private message supporting that comment and my approach.

I really would like to see open disclosure about how people get their images, as it puts so much in perspective.

Scott,

I do find the word "revenue" to be evil when it is used in a discussion of ethics, using the fact that revenue was obtained to defend a certain practice. Ethics isn't about whether revenue is generated.

I could care less about the collective reputation of photographers. What I do care about is the resource. I don't particularly have anything against what you did for the Kingfisher shot. What I had a problem with was defending the technique by stating that revenue was obtained.

As David stated, that's a slippery slope. Be it baiting owls for head-on shots, sticking my camera into a nesting area to get a shot, etc., I'm sure I could appreciably increase my revenue, but I certainly wouldn't feel very good about it. Once you start down the path of doing "anything to get the shot"...I think it's darn hard for people to know where to draw the line.

I see I am being likened to some corporate giant cutting down rain forests for profit and the lack of negative impact and abundance of positive is being selectively ignored. As far as I can tell, the ethical standard you are alluding to is one that, in the name of erring on the conservative side, restricts behavior that has no negative impact since those that engage in it can't be trusted to not descend into some kind of eco-terrorist role. It seems to me that the ability to weigh the negatives against the greater good has always been important to birders -- especially when banding practices are harmful to individual birds despite the benefit for the species as a whole.

Please don't try to compare to bird banding, and doing it for the "benefit of the species as a whole".

At least be honest about it...the true benefit of baiting and other such practices isn't for "the species as a whole". It's for the photographer, and his/her pocketbook.

Like I said...your Kingfisher example is fine by me. Who knows, maybe you're the exception, but pardon me if I'm a bit cynical about most people's ability to know when to draw the line. As Dan stated at the very beginning, photos where baiting has likely occurred pop up more and more often on NPN. Given the exploding numbers of amateur/semi-pro photographers, these types of activities have more and more potential to do harm to the resource.

EDIT
Just for clarification...here are behaviors I DO have a problem with, given the potential to harm the subject, and all are behaviors I see more and more of:
1) Baiting raptors, especially from automobiles or near areas of human activity
2) Nest photography
3) Excessive use of audio calls to attract birds.

Interesting discussion for this non-wildlife photographer. Thanks Steve for answering my question. Im somewhat of a purist when it comes to environmentalism, so i come down more on Terry's side of the debate. It seems to me quite similar to athletes who use steroids to get the edge--they also claim there's noproven harm when used correctly etc.
Pretty easy to rationalize when you derive your income and sometimes sense of identity from an activity! But noone is calling Scott an ecoterrorist and i respect his point of view.

Terry, it is definately not a selfless act. I wholeheartedly agree. But I think there is value in trying to offset one's ecological footprint. If you look hard at anything you can find the selfishness or the selflessness. Maybe a professor initiates an arguably unnecessary banding exercise to get funding for a new grad student. Maybe I offer 25% of my exhibition revenue to a conservation effort so that they will let me use their property to display my work. Maybe the huge revenue generated by golf courses is one of the more successful yet inadvertent ways of preventing development on habitat. Maybe a lot of anti-baiting photographers are really passionate about this topic because their hard-line approach puts them at a disadvantage commercially and it would suit both their passion for conservation as well as their competitiveness in the market if laws were passed either in a court, or ,as they are here, in the court of public opinion.

IMO, the slippery slope argument is a fair one for the persistent dissemination of knowledge about the responsible use of the techniques, but not for the universal condemnation of them. And, who knows, maybe the stress and energy that you and I spend duking this out in a public forum will lead to some new photographers making a more informed decision.

Scott

The commercial aspect has little to do with the argument to me, because there are so few who rely on this type of photography to make a living. How many folks on NPN rely on nature photography as their primary income, and how many are amateurs or perhaps part-time pros?

I think economic competitiveness has very little to do with how people feel, it's more personal preference and views towards the resource. There is definitely a photographic competitiveness though. Just look at Avian within NPN, and how many folks participate. God knows there are one hell of a lot of folks out there trying their hand at avian photography, and when 8 billion closeups of Snowy Owls show up, other folks are going to say "I want one too!!", and wonder about technique.

I think that's what scares me most. You'll note some posts popping up on Avian now saying "Baited" or "Unbaited". What I'd hate to see happen are folks looking at the "baited" shots, whether they're advertised as such or not, as justification for giving it a whirl themselves. I wouldn't want NPN-posted photos to serve as validation for some techniques which may be questionable.

Scott, you definitely seem to understand the game and have made your choice. If you're always as aware of the consequences of your choices as you seem to be here, then you're probably well positioned to avoid going further down the road of the "anything for the shot" type of mentality.

How many "Joe Weekend" photographers pop up on NPN though, see photos of a baited owl, and decide to give it a whirl themselves? Do you trust them to always do things in a responsible way? Is that the example you'd want NPN to give?

I hear you, Terry -- point well taken. Maybe then, it is best to not disclose the baiting. Just let those in the know, know. And those that are brand new do like I did: walk around in the woods for a few years with a camera without ever getting a good shot. Landscape shooters will find out by trial and error that you can`t get a certain look without managing the contrast with neutral density filters. They will research the topic, buy the gear and learn the hard way. Photographers who REALLY want dynamic shots of owls will have to commit themselves to finding out how and, while researching, will inevitably find ethics forums littered with discussions like this one. In finding out how it is done they will inevitably read something about the contraversy surrounding this. Rather than going all "spanish inquisition" on a suspected post, why not just let it be as it has been for years and allow those who really want to be informed to pursue on their own. As it is now, persecuting for lack of disclosure till everyone feels compelled to tell everything about how they got the image, we are allowing the information on how to undertake delicate techniques to be available to anyone with very little effort.

Soon after this topic was posted folks began to place in the titles of their posts notations like "baited" or "not baited" in the avian forum. I applaud those whose images are of birds that have been baited for noting that fact.

However, it seems to me that placing "not baited" notations in the title are a little "in your face" to those who, to their point of view, rationally disagree with the rest of us. Personally, I will make the same notation in my raptor posts in the future, but not in the title. Instead I will make it in the "description". Seems like a little thing but.....

What works for me may not work for you but this has been bothering me a little, so now it's off my chest.

interesting discussions, my view is simple, I do not bait raptors, never will. The act of a raptor chasing after a store bought mouse is not nature., I will wait for the bird to hunt and capture a real prey. This is a nice satisfaction associated with a raptor image created with little or no human influence, and I do see the fantastic results of baiting, but with respect and good ethics in mind, I could not be proud of such a photograph.

Since cameras were invented, this has been an ongoing issue, that won't change anytime soon ... what a photographer does in the field will always be a personal choice.

kind regards

I know nobody like birdwatchers who love to put up rules for how anybody else should behave in nature. It seems like nature-photographers are following along, each with his own little crusade.

These baiting discussions seems to continue to pop up, first on one forum, then on the next – is the need for washing ones hands, and glorify or hug oneself really that big ?

To Terry, you are listing all the ways of nature-photography you don’t like. So what do you do ? Cruise along those Dakota back-roads in your big car, in search for perched birds along the road ? Maybe the environment would prefer if you used less gasoline, erected a hide, left out a road-killed fox and waited for the raptors to come in ? The birds would probably prefer being fed than flushed ? But then again, I guess you first and foremost are a birdwatcher and it’s maybe the “hunt” for the specie that ticks you ?

In these questions, I am much more in line with Scott. I think this comment by Scott is right on:

“Maybe a lot of anti-baiting photographers are really passionate about this topic because their hard-line approach puts them at a disadvantage commercially and it would suit both their passion for conservation as well as their competitiveness in the market if laws were passed either in a court, or ,as they are here, in the court of public opinion.”

The way I see it, is that wildlife photography is like magic: The public marvel over the results, wondering about how it was done. To obtain good photos of most species you have to use different kind of tricks, but if you reveal them the magic disappears.

Most of us probably treasure the shots where we didn’t have to use tricks to get it. When I see a photo and like it, I will always like it less if I know it’s a setup, whether that being artificial perches, baiting, captive. Most times I can see it’s a setup right away, and so can most of you undoubtedly. But Joe Public cannot!

Because of the internet and forums like NPN, many of the tricks are being revealed and are being used by everybody, resulting in similar pictures suffering from lack of uniqueness. Many of the new wildlife photographers are not naturalists, but people searching for a new hobby, maybe with a background in general photography. In trying to copy some of the revealed tricks they might hurt the subject, and that is when the problems arise – whether it being life baiting, nest photography, use of tapes etc. Therefore I don’t think we should reveal too much when we post. On the other hand honestly must be our guideline, if asked, we should answer truthfully (maybe sometimes just in a private email). In my recent Goshawk-post in Avian I said it was “baited”. Obviously it was not live-bait, as Goshawks don’t catch mice. I think it would suffice to maybe indicate that the photo had been taken from a hide.

I think as long as we are talking about Wildlife (like in the word/concept “WILD”) meaning free roaming species deciding on themselves whether they want us near or not, or whether they will come to a bait or not – then we shouldn’t have to explain too much. Obviously here I expect that the photographer still adhere to the laws in the area. Regarding life baiting it would make sense to do so sparingly, and obviously not in front of a crowd of birdwatchers/photographers. Find your own owls, preferably in a remote place. Then give it a few rodents (max. 2-3 a day), and not every day. You don’t want to habituate the bird to humans, and never do it close to the road or vehicles. Similar guidelines could be made for other kind of tricks.

Staying with the matter “truth” try going to the PhotoPortfolios and do a search for “Mountain Lion”. On the first page there are 29 images of Mountain Lion, but only 12 tell they are captive….but probably only one is genuine wild. When you enter a photo in the Online portfolios you have to indicate whether it’s captive or not – so if that’s not trying to cheat, then what is ? I think NPN should police that a bit, so you have to write either “yes” or “no” in order to upload the image.


When it comes too non Wildlife, like captive stuff, I think it should always be marked as such. Why ? – well because it isn’t wildlife and shouldn’t pretend to be!

Cheers, Helge

The use of bait and scent is nothing new in the world of wildlife photography - link.

A few rambing thoughts to add to this excellent discussion;

1. The use of live bait is perhaps the real point of contention here. It's good that we think about the impact on the raptor of "hand feeding" it a live mouse, but how about the mouse? We are intentionally (and by design) sacrificing life for the chance to capture a photo, which IMO creates a moral dilemma.

2. I personally hold a photo taken without the use of baiting in higher regard than one that used the technique. I suspect most others feel the same. IMO, a photo like this one is what wildlife photography is really about (at least in my book).

3. Some members enjoy nature photography for the simple joy of being in nature and capturing scenes they discover with a camera. To others, nature photography is a business where the "tricks of the trade" can make the difference between failure and success.

4. Perhaps it's not the use of bait itself that generates such discussion, but rather how it is used.

5. We have bird feeders in our backyard that attract plenty of songbirds. We do this for our own enjoyment. We also unintentionally attract raptors that feed on those birds.

6. Wildlife in general would be better off without human interference.

What a great continued discussion this is.

Human beings in the last several generations seem to feel sundered from the landscape and the natural world. We use terms like "getting back to nature" or "becoming one with the wilderness." I've said those things myself.

My understanding about our role in the world is developing as I age. I don't mean I understand more, just that I believe different things than I did 25 years ago about humans and nature.

Here's where I am now. We are inextricably bound to the earth, the land, the water. All that we do impacts these things and the other creatures with whom we share our world. We are not sundered from them. And it is human nature to manipulate, tamper, excavate, explore, transform.

When we pursue our photographic passions (and in all our diverse tactics) we are acting in a way completely natural to our species, and our species is as inextricably linked to all else on the planet as is, say, the kangaroo or the pink ladyslipper. We can work to change the nature of our species, and many of us see that as a worthy mission. Meanwhile, we are what we are. I say it's vital that each of us come to terms with how we are as individuals, to keep no secrets from ourselves, to constantly weigh whether what we are doing is right, and then to move forward in the way we believe is right and not worry overly much what someone else thinks of our decision.

How does this bear on the topic at hand? That's obvious, I think.

Now I'm going out in the snow to take some pictures. See you all this evening.

Well, when I am out shooting an owl, and I walk up to a tree, set up my camera at a reasonable distance, shoot the owl with my basic photography skills, pack up my gear and walk away... the are very few people who would have a problem with that.

Now, if I walk out onto a field with a box of 20 mice, toss the mice into the snow, and shoot the bird "incoming", although quite spectacular in image impact, there are a lot of people who do have a problem with it.

Now a smart fellow like many who are baiters can drag all kinds of issues in there to their defense, feeders, snakes, etc etc., but what it comes down to imo, is what would the majority of people in our country approve of.

This issue can be compared to many situations in life, it comes down to the laws of our land, and after that it is personal choice. Personally, i think its all about respect, and I do not think baiting suggests respect to the animal. Baiting is taking the concept of exploitation to the limit, and I for sure will choose to say away from such a practice.

It is certainly not my business what others do, I have a lot of friends who bait owls, and although I don't agree with what they do, it sure isn't a personal issue... I admire Scott for coming in here and stating his position, and all I can do is state mine., so be it, we are still good friends.

take care.

"Many of the new wildlife photographers are not naturalists, but people searching for a new hobby, maybe with a background in general photography. In trying to copy some of the revealed tricks they might hurt the subject, and that is when the problems arise – whether it being life baiting, nest photography, use of tapes etc. Therefore I don’t think we should reveal too much when we post."

A couple of points here. First, there seems to often be the thought that it's OK if I do it because I do it "right", but not others because they might do it wrong and harm the subject.

If you're going to bait raptors, use electronic calls, photograph nests, etc., at least admit that the practice has the real potential to do harm to the subject, before deciding you're OK with the methodology. It's not just 'that other guy'. It's your actions as well.

2nd point...the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. If there aren't any problems with the technique, any moral concerns, why would you want to hide how you got a photograph? I'm sure at least part of it is that your customers in many cases wouldn't be too thrilled with how a photo was obtained.

Helge Sorenson wrote :

Therefore I don’t think we should reveal too much when we post. On the other hand honestly must be our guideline, if asked, we should answer truthfully (maybe sometimes just in a private email).

I feel that it's much too late for this to really have any impact. There are, as you said, many discussions and many web pages (and probably a lot of books) dealing with this already. The only people who won't easily find the information are those who don't want to put the effort in to take those kinds of pictures. For the general public at a gallery or fair - sure, they might not need to be told. But on here, it's not really revealing any secret to say that baiting occurs or how common it is.

This quote by Raymond Barlow is a great one:
"Personally, i think its all about respect, and I do not think baiting suggests respect to the animal. Baiting is taking the concept of exploitation to the limit, and I for sure will choose to say away from such a practice."
- Respect and exploitation are the key words in that quote.

I wonder when a bunch of guys are baiting one of these owls if it "feels right" to them. I love birds, wildlife, photography, etc but I wouldn't be caught anywhere near a scene involving a bunch of guys baiting. I would slimy being any part of it.

I think baiting is lazy. Great images can be had w/out it.

Regarding Terry and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. I've asked people at art shows point blank if it would bother them if I told them half of my photos are of captive creatures. The answer is almost universally "YES". I guarantee they'd say the same thing if I asked them about baiting. The general public does care about how these things are done, but it doesn't even occur to most to ask. These people actually trust that we all do things the "right" way.

Helge Sorenson wrote
"For the general public at a gallery or fair - sure, they might not need to be told."
Sorry Helge but I very much disagree with this statement.

I am confused about what is meant by not respecting the bird. Do you mean respect like what we are trying to pay to each other on a public forum by choosing our words carefully. Because for me this kind of respect does not apply to birds. For me, disrespecting a bird has to begin and end with negative impact to a living thing. An owl doesn`t get humiliated by taking a mouse from a human.

How does the mouse feel about it?

What I mean by respect is that if we aren't sure that baiting isn't having a negative affect, than we shouldn't do it...period. None of us is sure whether or not the practice of baiting is unhealthy, but most of us see that it's a decent possibility. That's enough for me.

I guess I see more than a photo op. when I get a look at a cool bird in the wild.

fair enough....

For the general public at a gallery or fair - sure, they might not need to be told.

Dan - That was my quote, not Helge's. What I was assuming was not that you'd lie, just that you may not need to publicize it (along the lines with Helge "only tell when asked" sentiment).

Of course, I have zero experience with art fairs, and haven't sold anything photo related myself. I was just making a supposition - perhaps it was too uninformed.

Personally, I mean respect the bird... it is possible for a group of photogs show up at an owl sight at 9 am, with a box of 15 mice... their done by 10, and at 12, another group... 20 mice... at 3 pm, another group.. do any of these photogs have any concern for the bird? not likely., total 100% disrespect, imo. just the stress alone cannot be good for the bird.

The whole selfishness of this type of shooting, imo, is brutal., but again, all these guys are my friends, and I better not vent too much!!

I better get lost before I get carried away., sorry.

Alright, Ray, I guess I can see how what you are describing can be thought of as disrespectful. I'm still thinking in terms of moderation and discretion. But, if it turns out that feeding mice is totally harmless then this is no different than a bunch of birders repeatedly flushing a rare species by multiple visits in a day.

I wonder if the owl would feel dissed if a photog started crackin' wise about his mama. gotta keep a little humor in this post...

I am fine with your approach Scott, you are a great photog, ... the issue is not directed at you, it is the whole concept., also, if you sat down a 100 of the worlds top biologists, explained what is going on in mild and extreme terms, how many of them would suggest that what everyone is doing is cool beans/??

None, I would expect.

The other interesting thing is that every time I read these discussions lately, the baiters are the major minority as 95% of them just won't comment, or defend the issue... I really commend you for at least coming in here and stating your case., very cool.

Now, from what I heard, that birds mama was a gem,!!!

Well, Ray, I am glad you said it because standing alone here (with the exception of Helge's contribution, Thanks!) IS a sacrifice in many ways. I really don't get off on arguing with my peers over several days and probably tainting my name on this forum for all time. Folks on my side of the argument have been well advised to save themselves the pain since I know I am not convincing anyone to change their minds. Still, I believe that this subject receives an undue bombardment of a particularly righteous brand of disapproval. It is a fact that the principle opponents to baiting are birdwatchers and, as many photogs already know, in the absence of baiting, there are few things that wildlife photographers can do that are not seen in a negative light by birdwatchers. Just walk around Pointe Pelee in the spring and bare witness to countless confrontations that never quite get off the ground over the use of flash or a tripod leg off the path. In the purest and most unbiased form, a birdwatcher is legitimately concerned with the well-being of the species. But, I can't help but believe that the rigid mantra of birdwatching itself sometimes attracts a personality type that takes some pleasure in imposing rules on others. This hurts the credibility of the argument from a birdwatchers point of view. To be fair, I am a photographer before a naturalist and my primary concern is getting stunning images -- even more important than the revenue that may or may not come from said image. I live for the thrill of coming home with a world class image, period. But, I can count on one hand the number of times that I feel have crossed the line inadvertently and I pride myself on this. For me, there is a self imposed limit based on my own ethics that stops me from doing whatever it takes. I can understand that the opposite extreme exists in my practice as well and unethical or uninformed photographers do exist. Nonetheless, I simply cannot see baiting as holding such a higher order of magnitude of potential harm than most activities centered around the fascination with wildlife including those of photographers and birdwatchers. And, I will go as far as to say that the positive that comes from the existence of both groups i.e. public awareness, far outweigh the collective negatives.

Scott, having been an avid birder for a very long time and an avian photographer for far less time, I can understand the frustration some photographers sometimes feel at birders.

One of the reasons I faded away from the birding community was the number of rules required to play the game of the life list, and how competitive some birders seem to be. Rules for this, rules for that. If one rule wasn't followed, you couldn't count the species. It got tiresome. I birded for the love of it. I kept a life list (still have it somewhere) that reached over 400 North American species, but ended up not caring for the type of people I was spending my time around. I'm not saying all birders are rule-mongers and thrive on forcing others to see things their way, but enough were that I felt alienated when among birding groups.

I don't unfortunately have the time or the best lenses for avian photography, but if I had the resources and was limited to a single type of photography for the rest of my life it would be avian. Hands down. Being in the company of those gorgeous creatures is gift enough, but to have the luxury of keeping company with them for photograpy, full time, is, well, words fail me.

Anyway, while I have not baited owls or hawks with live mice, I have baited other animals (and I'm not talking about backyard bird feeders). I don't necessarily know that I'd avoid baiting raptors with mice, it just hasn't come up yet. It may be that I would, or maybe not. I would not bait if it were illegal. I do know that, once I'd made my decision, I wouldn't care much what anyone else had to say about it.

It's always interesting and fruitful for me to listen to all sides in debates like these. I almost always learn something, or someone brings up a point I hadn't considered. And even though this topic comes up again and again on boards like this, the number of views and responses on this thread indicates the high level of interest such topics garner. Even after we've said it all before, we're willing to say it all again.

That being pointed out, the argument I hear pretty often about how some large percentage of photographers or birders or just the mass of humanity is for or against someone's actions doesn't register with me. My ethics are not determined by committee or peer pressure. What goes on inside my head is not a democracy. My ethics are between me and my conscience.

You have made a decision you consider ethical. And you shared your thinking for everyone here, even knowing you'd get some grief for that. Good for you.

Well said Steve, I agree 100%... it is all about opinions, and we all have our own thoughts and we should carry out and do what is good for us. Its cool we can all share opinions here, and be civil. Its kinda like speeding... i don't think anyone should travel on our major highways more then 120 km per hour ( around 71 mph), just my opinion, but it sure isn't Scotts!! Eh???