NANPA and baiting birds.

Does anyone know what NANPA's position on baiting birds and wildlife is? I browsed their site and can't seem to find anything concrete on the subject. I would think an organization who portrays themselves as representative of the nature photography community should have a position on this.

I know I posted something about this subject recently, but it keeps coming up and and I just can't seem to "let it go".

NANPA took on the issue of Game farms many years ago. I knew at the time it was senseless to even try. After months of deliberation and heated editorials etc. nothing was resolved. Most of your big names in photography use game farms (captive animals released from pens and cages). Its a large money maker for those who conduct these types of photo shoots. I'm sure if they could not come up with other than a neutral stand on this their sure not dealing with the issue of baiting and feeding birds! Or maybe they have who know's. We feed birds during the winter and enjoy doing so. As soon as the ground clears of snow etc. and the tempertures warm up we stop. The key is if you do feed them during the winter continue to do so as they depend on your feeding as a source of food.

If you put out feed you invite a higher concentration of the animals you are feeding. The higher numbers will increase the likelihood of predators being drawn to the area and can increase the likelihood of the spread of disease among the animals you are feeding.

On the other hand, it seems to me that the same problems are created when you simply improve the habitat for a species. There is an area by my house that is naturally sub-irrigated. The deer like it for the browse and cover and the cougars like it for the same reasons...food and cover.

The wild turkeys roost in the trees and feed around the scrub oak. I don't see much substantive difference between putting corn out for the turkeys and providing scrub oak thickets for them to feed in. I haven't feed the turkeys yet, but I'm thinking that the best way to get some pictures of the toms strutting their finery this spring is to encourage them out of the scrub oak with some corn.

I think the bigger controversy (and perhaps what Dan was referring to?) is baiting predators, particularly raptors. Many avian photogs use live or killed rodents to bait in raptors. At times I've heard of bears being baited to come close to people with seal meat or fat. This seems to be the larger issue - especially the use of live rodents. There are actually two issues : 1. The practice itself, and 2. Whether it's disclosed to others by the photographer.

Of course, amongst photographers there is still debate on this - including amongst NANPA members. And if an organization's members can't agree amongst themselves, it's awfully hard for the organization to take a stand.

I am referring to the predator type of baiting. There are increasing numbers of photographers tossing mice to various raptors(mostly snowy and hawk owls). I don't think anyone knows for sure what effect it will have on birds that are actually supposed to hunt for themselves. It also annoys me that they are upsetting lots of other people in the birding world. People like refuge managers, local audobon groups and other birders. In short, hurting all of our reputations.

I only posted this the other day because someone had just offered up another "workshop" for photographing baited birds on NPN(the post has been deleted). All I could think about is teaching twenty or thirty photographers at a time how to pitch pet store mice while telling them there is nothing even questionable about the practice.

I don't know what I'd do if I found a bunch of guys doing this in my neck of woods.

I've posted my opinions on this in earlier threads; suffice to say I agree with Dan.

The opinions of Dan and others, as well as my own experience, have forced me to re-think even calling birds in for photography. Playing a recording of a Northern Hawk Owl in spring is guaranteed to bring in any male NHOW within range - and their hearing is acute. But the bird spends a lot of energy "defending" its territory, and remains distressed for a long time afterwards, if the extent of his calling afterwards is any indication.

And while the bird is "defending" its territory, it's pretty much oblivious to events around it. A few years ago, I saw a NHOW very nearly get nailed by a Red-tailed Hawk. Feathers were lost in the incident. The NHOW had been called in by a played tape, and was so focused on "defending" his territory that he wasn't paying attention to anything else.

I think as nature photographers we do best when we have the least impact. Put another way, I think the best shots are the ones that are completely natural. No bait, no tapes, no interference. Everything else, to some extent, is just our rationalization.

From Jim: "I think the best shots are the ones that are completely natural. No bait, no tapes, no interference. Everything else, to some extent, is just our rationalization."

Jim, this is trenchantly and gracefully expressed.

I doubt they will take a strong position on anything remotely contentious.

NANPA's ethics committee page starts with the sentence "NANPA does not set or enforce rules for ethical conduct."

...yes, seriously.

Guy

Wow...that's crazy Guy. I would have expected at least something Hippocratic-oathy like "First, do no harm." I can understand not trying to enforce rules, but you'd think they'd at least have some general guidelines...