What are some practical advice for being ethical with your Nature Photography?

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1722891">Tim Lookingbill</a> said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Nice squirrel shot, David. I can't tell if it was you or the rules that made it that way.<br>

Methods to how something is accomplished make a big difference in the results. Limit the methods, limit the results.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you, Tim. </p>

<p>It was not my intent to get the squirrel. That's the first and last time that I saw that behavior. I was shooting the birds flying in and out of this pond when the squirrel showed up, allowing me to shoot a behavior I'd never seen. Luck and perseverance (I shoot many hours every week) led me to this shot. My long lens and high-end body, together with my experience, allowed the capture.<br>

Dave</p>

 

 

<p>Tim asked:</p>

<p>How many bald eagles can one shoot to make it stand out from the rest while staying within the law. Of course you follow the law, but how would you make the photo look interesting?<br>

<br>

Tim, I've spent hundreds of hours, spread over several years and this is what I have to show for it:<br>

<br>

<br>

I expect to spend over 1-hundred hours in the next few months trying to get better shots. I want fishing shots closer to me, in better light and I want shots of eagles playing with their food, passing fish from one to the other in midair and midair mating displays. I'm trying to do it at my local lake, but I'm tempted to go to Alaska in the future to increase my odds.<br>

<br>

I consider all my shots ethically shot, but some would disagree with me, thinking that I was too close, in some cases. (For instance, in many shots, I'm closer than arbitrary Colorado guidelines suggest).<br>

<br>

I think this is to the point of what we're talking about. Ethical behavior falls along a continuum, such that you and I have different opinions and others disagree with both of use. Part of the point of the thread is to think about such things. As 21st century humans, most of have thought very little about our interaction with wildlife, prior to taking a camera into the woods. The point is to consider the animal or botanical subject.<br>

<br>

Strangely, there are no guidelines for approaching squirrels! ;-)</p>

<p>Tim, I'm sure that you can tell, but I enjoy the discussion and would love to have a pint with you some day. </p>

<p>The law may be different where Tim Lookingbill lives, but it is actually illegal to feed deer in Vermont and New York State.</p>

<p>The ethics of baiting for photography aside, I think it is a poor idea to feed any animal that is hunted. Animals expecting food from people are easier to kill, whether or not you're the one doing the killing. It's no favor to the animal.</p>

<p>And sure, you stopping it won't make others stop it, but that's true of any number of things you can probably get away with but should not do. One need not get all Kantian to consider at least the possibility that there are some things that you just shouldn't do no matter what others do.</p>

<p>edit: sorry misspelled name....</p>

<p>Totally agree with Laura.</p>

<p>A couple of related issues that have bothered me regarding this subject are:</p>

<p>1. What do pro photographers and videographers who work for let's say Nat Geo or make pro nature movies do to get their shots. You know they're not just waiting all day for the animal to pass by. There's lots of baiting and other procedures they follow to get the animals to interact so they get interesting pictures.</p>

<p>2. Why are special access rights granted by the government to mainly pros to film in off limits areas. There are a lot of national preserves that you aren't even allowed to enter without a pass. So the people with connections from the cable company, or Nat Geo, or who ever who know people in government or pay high fees get the passes so they can support their livelihood. The rest of us nobodies aren't allowed into those areas. I don't want to take away their livelihoods. But frankly its a game and we all pay taxes and should have more rights of access. Like a lot of what we're seeing in this political season. You need money and access and connections to the upper levels of government.</p>

<p>Meanwhile we're being distracted by issues of throwing a few nuts on the ground to attract animals while the connected are doing whatever they need to do to get the pictures.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Gordon, can you give me some indicators that the geese are in bad health from them eating bread?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tim, there are literally hundreds of articles to research stating that feeding waterfowl bread is bad for them.<br>

Do a google search and you'll come up with many links.<br>

Here is one to get you started;<br>

<a href="http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/stop-feeding-bread-ducks-people/">Why You Should Never Feed Bread To Ducks | IFLScience</a></p>

<p>None of that Wonder White Bread for geese. You should use whole wheat!</p>

<p>On the other hand, living in NYC I've seen countless people feed bread to pigeons as well as geese. Too many geese around blew out the jet engines and caused the landing of the jet in the Hudson River (Sully). Pigeons don't seem to be suffering too much either. My picture above shows me feeding them a salted pretzel that I bought at the nearby street vender. That bird watched me like an eagle as I walked with it and ate it for awhile then decided enough was enough and landed on my arm. He wanted his share. After posing for the picture and having his snack, he flew off not looking the bit unhealthy for his insistent way.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've seen countless people feed bread to pigeons as well as geese.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've seen countless people falling out of bars at closing time and countless people smoking cigarettes. Countless people doing something, doesn't make it healthy.</p>

<p>You didn't read my whole post. The point I was making was that geese and pigeons are doing just fine, multiplying to the nuisance level, even though they're eating bread. Maybe the bread is why they're doing so great. None of them seem to be falling ill because of it. Maybe the argument bread isn't good is just wrong or maybe birds get use to it and thrive on the added nourishment. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>PS Not everyone thinks bating/feeding is wrong. What is "wrong" anyway? Is it because the wildlife is harmed? - It depends, this may not be true in some situations. Or is it because it is "not fair" that certain photographers produce outstanding images using baits and do not disclose it? Whatever.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not saying baiting is wrong or right, Mary. I'm saying I don't see evidence of it aiding or preventing a nature photographer in making a compelling photo.</p>

<p>If baiting gets the animal to stay put but the photographer isn't imaginative enough to make hay out of the situation and just takes a straight on shot with the subject smack dab in the center of the frame any one with a P&S with a 1200x power zoom lens can take, that's on the photographer. Baiting didn't ruin the shot. But if the photographer for example gets in close and low laying on his belly without scaring the animal off then baiting helped. The results are all that matters in photography. No one cares or knows whether baiting was used.</p>

<p>In regard to the ends justifying the means for creating compelling photography following local, state and federal laws trumps all other made up ethical standards of behavior established by some photographic society's arbitrarily defined rules that limit a photographer from making compelling photos. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Tim, I've spent hundreds of hours, spread over several years and this is what I have to show for it:<br /><br /> /><br /> I expect to spend over 1-hundred hours in the next few months trying to get better shots.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>David, that's quite a lot of majestic looking eagle shots, but I'm not seeing a lot of variety in their presentation which was my original point. Having been a recent digital camera convert since 2006 with a fair amount of time on my hands to scout what to shoot, I discovered a phenomenon affecting my shooting habits dominated by my love and focus for one subject instead of focusing on creating compelling images.</p>

<p>I would shoot a lot of ducks in my park and noticed becoming excited and nervous at getting a sharp and detailed capture that I threw years of training as an art director out the window. Every shot had the subject dead center in the frame just like yours and a bunch of other's I've seen online, not just with eagle shots.</p>

<p>The frame of an image is made up of uniquely shaped light and dark, negative and positive spaces of varying sizes arranged in an interesting pattern that makes the viewer take notice...then they see the subject or story.</p>

<p>This approach to creating an image has to be intuitive like a quiet inner voice, so I'm going to have hard time considering what I described above on top of remembering rules of ethics just to get an animal in frame in a compelling composition. </p>

<p>This is most likely the reason NatGeo videographers employ pre-planning and elaborate setups within the animal's natural environment to be at the ready for constantly changing and moving subjects and other periphery within the frame that also has to move as well to maintain compelling compositions. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>As someone who is getting more and more into nature and wildlife photography, I find myself in situations where I am interacting a lot with nature and animals. I was reading this <a href="https://www.photoblog.com/learn/11-wildlife-photography-tips/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">article on wildlife photography</a> tips and one of the sections is dedicated to Ethics in Nature Photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting that Ethics in Nature Photography paragraph 9 of the OP's referenced article states you shouldn't live bait animals to get your pictures. So then in paragraph 11, he states how he used hazelnuts to live bait the squirrel in the picture he took. Give me a break.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Tim, there are literally hundreds of articles to research stating that feeding waterfowl bread is bad for them.<br /> Do a google search and you'll come up with many links.<br /> Here is one to get you started;<br /><a href="http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/stop-feeding-bread-ducks-people/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Why You Should Never Feed Bread To Ducks | IFLScience</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That linked article has some info that's not matching up to what I'm seeing in my local park, specifically the point about the animals becoming addicted to being fed bread (or anything else) by people that they don't eat what they should be getting by foraging. It's not like they're getting fed bread 24/7. Weekdays the park is vacant except only on the weekends.</p>

<p>I've fed a lot of ducks, squirrels and deer in my local park and the one thing I've noticed is they quickly get tired of what I've fed them that they leave me to go foraging in the grass and ground for other stuff I can't see. I don't know what they're eating, but they're eating something and they like it more than my raw peanuts. I've seen herds of deer chewing up the grass picking at tree leaves and ignore the food I'm showing them in my hands. They know what they want to eat. And geese and ducks do the same. They're constantly foraging in the park so I'm not seeing any addictions here.</p>

<p>I was hoping for more concrete evidence than what'ld get from a Dr. Oz show dietician in connecting symptoms of bad health caused by diet that turns out to be nothing more than weight gain. And there are some geese getting a bit too fat but it's only a few and those are the aggressive ones that chase off the others that aren't fat.</p>

<p>I guess I'll have to do more searching for articles with less pseudo science.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You didn't read my whole post. The point I was making was that geese and pigeons are doing just fine, multiplying to the nuisance level, even though they're eating bread. Maybe the bread is why they're doing so great. None of them seem to be falling ill because of it. Maybe the argument bread isn't good is just wrong or maybe birds get use to it and thrive on the added nourishment.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are many positive and negative factors affecting how any species of wildlife is doing. For urban birds, it's not just people feeding them snacks, it's also industrial pollution, reduced predation, better or worse nesting sites, extra food sources like park lawns (goose food!), or whatever other factors are present. Any individual bird or individual species may have a smaller or larger exposure to any of these factors. A passerby just doesn't know what factors any one bird, flock of birds, or species of bird may have been exposed to and to what degree, and is in no position to state that an apparent absence of problems upon superficial examination means the birds are just fine.</p>

<p>Bread or other snacks fed to birds may or may not be a significant part of the diet of any one bird you see. If some small percentage of urban ducks end up in poor health due to heavy reliance on bread you may not notice those birds among all the others that didn't get this consistently heavy bread diet.</p>

<p>By analogy, consider a human population with poor diet and major exposure to industrial toxins but no method of birth control. Such a population could grow rapidly and have many young individuals who look healthy, yet have very serious population-level health problems and a lot of early mortality. Appearances can be deceiving, especially superficial appearances.</p>

<p>I'm not worried about the overall population levels of urban geese, pigeons, and so on - they are certainly abundant enough in these areas. These are common and unspecialized species that adapt to a variety of environments. That still leaves me not wanting to harm individual birds, and to not train birds to approach and harass other people in the expectation of being fed.</p>

<p>Outside the city in the wilds, not feeding wildlife is IMO more important. Training animals in the wild to approach people is a recipe for trouble, both for animals and for people and for a variety of reasons I won't go into here. There are very good reasons why national parks in the U.S., for instance, forbid all feeding of wild animals.</p>

<p>I understand your point about wide animals vs. city dwelling geese. But, leaving aside dangerous animals that look to human food because they were spoiled by it. What real harm to an individual animal that is baited with one meal over one weekend let's say? After all, the rest of the time it will have to eat naturally. I'm diabetic. But even I am allowed an ice cream now and then. Or a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on two slices of white bread. :)</p>

<p>Tim said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>David, that's quite a lot of majestic looking eagle shots, but I'm not seeing a lot of variety in their presentation which was my original point. Having been a recent digital camera convert since 2006 with a fair amount of time on my hands to scout what to shoot, I discovered a phenomenon affecting my shooting habits dominated by my love and focus for one subject instead of focusing on creating compelling images.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks Tim. That's an unfiltered search of all of my bald eagle shots. No attempt was made to show only the best, most compelling shots. Of the many there, I only consider around 10 to be print worthy, if that.</p>

<p>Here's a favorite of mine that has elements that I seek, while still not my "ideal.":</p>

<p><a title="Bald Eagle Gives Us "The Eye"" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://c6.staticflickr.com/9/8596/16584746269_f99898bdee_b.jpg" alt="Bald Eagle Gives Us "The Eye"" width="1024" height="683" /></a></p>

<p>Not baited, but feeding on a nearby hole in the ice. Some people might consider it "unethical" because I was so close, but it came to me, not the other way around AND it was not stressed at all, continuing to fish for quite a while.</p>

<p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1478110065273_581043">Tim said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1478110065273_580968">I'm saying I don't see evidence of it aiding or preventing a nature photographer in making a compelling photo.<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here's a compelling shot by Pat Gaines (hosted on Flickr) of a snowy owl that was baited:</p>

<p>

<p>t's possible to get this shot without baiting, but it'll take much longer, unless you're extremely lucky. I know the photographer and he did not bait, but others were doing it when he arrived. Without baiting, he's shot snowy owls every winter since this shot in 2010 and never gotten a better shot.</p>

<p>Now that is a very creative use of negative & positive space within a frame that delivers an interesting composition of a snowy owl. That's what I'm talking about.</p>

<p>In that shooting scenario I wouldn't think baiting or not baiting would've made any difference. You can only go so far in creating your own luck in such an uncontrollable environment that there are so many other variables that come into play that can change the results.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Outside the city in the wilds, not feeding wildlife is IMO more important. Training animals in the wild to approach people is a recipe for trouble, both for animals and for people and for a variety of reasons I won't go into here. There are very good reasons why national parks in the U.S., for instance, forbid all feeding of wild animals.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with your points about feeding wildlife in large areas of government managed wilderness. That's mainly due to the fact it takes too long to hike and carry food to them and in several of these hikes I'ld never see any animal.</p>

<p>And when I did see them they were so skittish and scared they didn't care what food was in my hand. They'ld run away as soon as they spotted me.</p>

<p>I'm here to enjoy animals in nature, not micromanage their health which can't be controlled anyway the closer they live with people as in city parks. Feeding of local free roaming animals is not going to stop where I live so I'm not going to be concerned about it. I'm going to enjoy it in the short time I have on this planet.</p>

<p>Tim said about the snowy owl shot that I linked to:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>In that shooting scenario I wouldn't think baiting or not baiting would've made any difference. You can only go so far in creating your own luck in such an uncontrollable environment that there are so many other variables that come into play that can change the results.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Tim, you talk about walking in the wild and not seeing anything for hours and yet you dismiss that snowy shot as if it would be easy to get without baiting. Simply being in the area of any owl and just waiting for that pose to happen would most likely take hundreds of hours without baiting. That's the point we're discussing.<br /><br /><br>

BTW, the baiters were throwing live mice out onto the snow in front of the owl. Apparently the owl had been baited over several days and ignored all the cameras that showed up.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Tim, you talk about walking in the wild and not seeing anything for hours and yet you dismiss that snowy shot as if it would be easy to get without baiting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you misinterpreted what I said. I never said any of this is easy or dismissed it. I said baiting would not have any affect on being seen in the results, not the methods used to get the results which there are way more uncontrollable variables that far more influence the results seen in a finished photo.</p>

<p>I couldn't look at that snowy owl image and say the photographer baited or not baited that animal to get the shot. I know why it takes 100 shots to get a good one in regard to similar snowy owl scenes is that viewing and positioning the subject within frame through a long lens especially a moving/flying target as an owl is very difficult.</p>

<p>I have 300mm Sigma lens I like to zoom in on people at my park to shoot telephoto compression compositions in a surveillance style similar to the Francis Ford Coppola movie "The Conversation". I noticed once I composed the subject in frame one slight move by me or the subject and they're out of frame and I had to pull back from the viewfinder and note where they moved to recompose the subject. It seemed to take forever just to get several shots. I can't imagine the difficulty getting flying owl within frame with a similar long lens. Baiting or not baiting would be of least concern to me. Control of placement of subject is barely manageable in that situation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>BTW, the baiters were throwing live mice out onto the snow in front of the owl. Apparently the owl had been baited over several days and ignored all the cameras that showed up.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I cringe at people using mice or voles to bait owls, hawks... It is one thing if the vole wanders into places where it gets eaten and we happen to be there with our cameras. It's another if I cause its death just because I want a piece of photograph, good, bad, cheap, or mediocre. I was referring to a photographer earlier who is known to do that, albeit he produces stunning images. Other photographers "bait" with mating calls to get the attention of birds. This methodology can stress out the birds.</p>

<p>This now reminds me of someone who photographed a little sulphur butterfly that patiently posed for him. After he got his fill, he picked up the butterfly and fed it to a praying mantis so he could have pictures of the mantid eating that nice little butterfly who worked for him. That was unconscionable.</p>

<p>I said it before, in a thread I can't find: baiting photographers always works.</p>

<p>Tim declared:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think you misinterpreted what I said. I never said any of this is easy or dismissed it. I said baiting would not have any affect on being seen in the results, not the methods used to get the results which there are way more uncontrollable variables that far more influence the results seen in a finished photo.<br>

I couldn't look at that snowy owl image and say the photographer baited or not baited that animal to get the shot. I know why it takes 100 shots to get a good one in regard to similar snowy owl scenes is that viewing and positioning the subject within frame through a long lens especially a moving/flying target as an owl is very difficult.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The odds that the owl would fly toward the photographer, at low altitude, are greatly enhanced by baiting. Without the bait in the frame, or the photographer telling us, we can't be certain that it was baited. </p>

<p>You seem to be saying, baiting is okay, so long as the viewer doesn't know that it was baited. That's not what the rest of us are talking about. We're talking about whether or not the act of baiting to get a particular shot is ethical. I think not.</p>

<p>Mary Doo raised an interesting point. She's against using live bait. Well, what if the bait is some sort of pellet? I happen to believe that voles and mice were put in this world largely to feed raptors. One dying at the talons of an owl doesn't bother me any more than a pellet.</p>

<p>I don't consider baiting unethical because it allows some people to get better shots than me more quickly, I'm against it because it potentially changes the behavior of wild animals. If I do it once, then I'm unlikely to change the course of nature, but if it becomes accepted photographer behavior and we all start doing it, then we could have a significant impact on some species. </p>

<p>I think now that Tim is saying that he can bait and we will never be able to tell if he did it by looking at his images. I think he's right about that, but that's not what the rest of us are talking about. I'm not worried if I'll be caught, I'm trying to discourage fellow photographers from doing it because of the potential impact on wildlife. </p>