That's some really poor decision making. I Googled his name and got 7 pages of hits describing his conviction, and only two articles of 60+ in which ironically the guilty party wrote articles advocating more environmental protection.
Posted by Pam Colander on March 3, 2011 at 12:53 AM
I am so glad to see this posted on NPN. I have seen a few photographers bait wildlife. Then I see the effects of it when sandhill cranes are brought to our hospital with compound fractures after being hit by a moving car that they had no fear of because they have been fed by people through the windows of cars. We almost always have to put them down due to their injuries. It is very, very sad. Yes, I know. It isn't only photographers who bait wildlife. But we can set the example. Thank you, Ron, for posting the article.
It is refreshing to see the Law take this kind of misbehaving seriously. In my country the government cut almost in half the funds for the National Parks…
I'm glad to see that Montana has stepped up to the plate on this matter. This person was warned that they were breaking the law. Their actions may have cost the lives of several sheep. They knew they were wrong and made a stupid choice. Their stupid choice can reflect badly on all nature photographers. An example of a person who does "anything to get the shot".
I can see a future when we will all need a "license" to photograph wildlife. People like this guy are the reason. The gov't needs the money and at some point the types of fines that this guy got don't begin to cover the cost of putting up with too many stupid photographers. Seems strange that if you're caught copying a movie, the fine is $100,000 or more, but this guy got off with $1,000 and that was the maximum penalty. What a jerk.
Nothing "strange" about it Charlie. The fine for copyright infringement is part of a law that was put in effect by fat walleted lobbyists from Hollywood. Where are the animal's lobbyists? Unfortunately many who take on wildlife's defense are on the extreme end (or at least those who get noticed) and collectively are referred to as "nuts" "crazies" or "whackos". No one would call a Hollywood Lobbyist a "whacko"
It was against the law to feed those sheep, the photographer was warned not to do it again, he did plus he may have been responsible for the deaths of other sheep because he was baiting them. I find it as obscene that he violated the law concerning this the same if he broke the law and flashed his privates to a young child, both are against the law in Montana.
No this is not the same as feeding birds at a feeder. No this is not the same as managing refuges. Neither of those is against the law.
National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) provide many thousands of acres of critical wildlife habitat that is a permanent fixture on the land. People who bait wildlife to take pictures of them, or to hunt them (baiting for hunting is illegal in most places for most huntable species), do it to exploit the animals; many times for profit. The food and/or habitat the baiters provide is very short lived relatively speaking and is not put out for the animals benefit, only for the human photographers benefit. NWRs are created to conserve nature. Two completely different motivations. No way the same!
What on earth are you going on about? Wildlife refuges are ranches leased out to grow various grains, potatoes, cattle and soy beans to attract waterfowl for hunters. While there, the waterfowl die off of botulism, dredge up lead shot, and often break their necks from flying into barbed wire fences. Where have you been? Do you have any actual experience with the press? How about state game commissions whose job is to turn out trophies for hunters? I can't say I trust anyone on either side of this equation. Just saying for sake of argument.
I happen to have 20+ years of professional experience in the Wildlife Management field and have dealt with the establishment and management of several refuges around the country as well as enhancement of wildlife habitat on private land. I can honestly say, you don't have much of clue as to what refuges and wildlife habitat management and conservation are about. One example. The reason waterfowl die of disease on some refuges has nothing to do with the refuge. It has everything to do with the fact that we humans have destroyed so much of the original wetlands these birds migrated through and wintered on that they now have to gather in much greater numbers on the few remaining quality habitat areas (wildlife refuges). This some times results in diseases spreading quicker and affecting more birds. However, the overall benefit of refuges and the conservation work on private lands far outweighs the negatives. Oh, and if were not for hunters, there would be basically no waterfowl, deer, wild turkeys, etc. left in the U.S. Who do you think has paid and continues to pay for the lions share of the restoration and conservation work? Hunters, through their purchases and the special taxes they pay on hunting related items. Also, these people run and belong to organizations such as Ducks Unlimited and The Wild Turkey Federation. They donate millions of dollars to wildlife conservation. I know, I compete for these funds through grants to do conserve the bird species you enjoy taking pictures of so much.
You really need to get better educated on a topic before you go on the attack like this. Your argument is very much flawed. But of course, this is the U.S. so you can believe what you like.
Posted by Brian Gatlin on March 5, 2011 at 6:15 PM
While there, the waterfowl die off of botulism, dredge up lead shot, and often break their necks from flying into barbed wire fences.
If you want to argue against wildlife refuges (although that doesn't seem relevant to the topic at hand), you'd do better to avoid hyperbole. I have a hard time believing that collisions with barbed wire make NWRs a negative for wildlife populations.
But who cares. The point of this is that the guy knowingly violated the law. Certainly game management is controversial. Maybe you're against wildlife refuges. Whatever, that's fine. But I see a significant difference, personally, between things I'm against that are legal and things that are illegal!
Just saying for sake of argument
Actually, it seems like that may be all you are after here....
Wildlife is baited in to wildlife refuges to be shot. There is not much doubt about this. I'm glad Brian sees a clear difference in legalities. He is in th minority. I find laws ambiguous, complex, and full of gray areas. The barbed wire issue is essentially the same as the sheep/highway issue. The refuge system seems more intent on modifying habitat than preserving it. People say "wildlife" and mean animals. Native plants are life and wild. Try finding natural habitat on most refuges. You will find only small remnants that haven't been plowed up at best. Hunters blow the stuffings out of about anything that moves-there is a lot of collateral damage, and no body goes to jail. A photographer screws up and goes to jail. We don't get his side of the story. Seems kind of weird to me.
"Pleading guilty" is code for something and one can never be sure of what. Only the parties involved know for sure. The "flashing" thing smacks of character assasination. I would like to know what was really going on here. Beware. This could happen to you.
"Pleading guilty" is code for something and one can never be sure of what.
IMO you're really reaching on that one Robert.
Beware. This could happen to you.
I guarantee it won't happen to me. And it won't happen to other photogs who don't bait, who care more about their subjects than they do about the image or the dollar and who obey the law.
Discussion
23 repliesSandy
"The fine handed down to Molde was also the maximum allowed by state law.
The court also required him to turn over all photographs related to the crime, and he was barred from selling any of them in the future."
May it ever be so.
It was against the law to feed those sheep, the photographer was warned not to do it again, he did plus he may have been responsible for the deaths of other sheep because he was baiting them. I find it as obscene that he violated the law concerning this the same if he broke the law and flashed his privates to a young child, both are against the law in Montana.
No this is not the same as feeding birds at a feeder. No this is not the same as managing refuges. Neither of those is against the law.
You really need to get better educated on a topic before you go on the attack like this. Your argument is very much flawed. But of course, this is the U.S. so you can believe what you like.
If you want to argue against wildlife refuges (although that doesn't seem relevant to the topic at hand), you'd do better to avoid hyperbole. I have a hard time believing that collisions with barbed wire make NWRs a negative for wildlife populations.
But who cares. The point of this is that the guy knowingly violated the law. Certainly game management is controversial. Maybe you're against wildlife refuges. Whatever, that's fine. But I see a significant difference, personally, between things I'm against that are legal and things that are illegal!
Actually, it seems like that may be all you are after here....
IMO you're really reaching on that one Robert.
I guarantee it won't happen to me. And it won't happen to other photogs who don't bait, who care more about their subjects than they do about the image or the dollar and who obey the law.
"Pleading guilty" is code for something alright: being guilty. No reason to look for some secret agenda or conspiracy theory behind the scenes.