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

<p>OK so baiting with pellets is OK but not with real bait. What about sport fishing? Anyone here do it? You catch a fish that struggles near half to death, and then you release it so the fish can live. What's that about? Isn't that cruel? What about cloning in a beautiful deep blue sky behind the snowy white owl? Is that ethical? This is serious stuff.</p>

<p>Obviously, bird feeders, sport fishing, nuts for the chipmunks and such things provide a gray area in the baiting debate that is ripe for philosophical parrying, but I would have thought, as a sort of general, common sense guideline, that since it's photography we're talking about, one could make a separation. I would think that if it's generally considered all right to feed, catch, pet, or otherwise interact with an animal when you don't have a camera, then it should be all right to photograph what's going on. If you do something to get a photograph that would be considered bad form, harmful, or illegal, then you probably should not do it. If the discussion is of the ethics of nature photography, then perhaps it's too big a bite to consider the ethics of life itself, and enough to consider the difference between what we would do with or without intervening domestication, and with or without a camera. </p>

<p>Of course philosophical wanderings are fun at times, but I would hope that in our everyday lives we can tell the difference between throwing peanuts out for the squirrels in the yard and throwing stunned mice out for the owls. </p>

<p>Well said, Mathew, but we all draw that line in different places. I think that all we can do is call people to think about it, draw there own line, but stick to it and be able to explain their position. I think that the exercise here has been useful. </p>

<p>We seem to be spending a lot of time in our concern about the health and suffering of the bait. What about the ethical considerations how a picture is captured because of the bait. Is there really any difference between a picture shot between the bars of the cage in a Zoo or a game farm and a picture shot in the wild where dazed voles scurrying around are being used to attract owls? </p>

<p>You can get pretty deep down the rabbit hole of philosophy and the pathetic fallacy trying to figure out whether a wild animal values its wildness, whether or not we in turn should value its wildness, and where the lines are drawn, but I'd say there is at least a little difference between the zoo animal and the wild animal insofar as our behavior toward it compromises its wildness, or in connection with that, its ability to survive in the wild. </p>

<p>I've mentioned before that it's illegal here to feed deer, because it does change the balance between the hunter and the hunted. It's considered unethical even though it's considered ethical to hunt, kill and eat them. </p>

<p>Owls? Your guess. </p>

<p>I do have a small anecdotal story. Years ago we had a spider living in a corner of the stairwell. She was a nice, big, healthy specimen, who wove a beautiful and symmetrical web, and we began to enjoy seeing her there, catching flies. Since we were also swatting flies, we took to tossing the occasional one in the web. She obligingly wrapped them and gobbled them up, and before long, she stopped maintaining the web. After a while the formerly beautiful, well repaired web was a tangled mess, and full of holes. Now as it happens, she spawned a litter of little spiders and died anyway, but we could not help but wonder if we'd upset the balance of nature just that little bit. </p>

<p> </p>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=6173649">Alan Klein</a> asked:</p>

 

<p>We seem to be spending a lot of time in our concern about the health and suffering of the bait. What about the ethical considerations how a picture is captured because of the bait. Is there really any difference between a picture shot between the bars of the cage in a Zoo or a game farm and a picture shot in the wild where dazed voles scurrying around are being used to attract owls?</p>

<p>I believe that it's ethical to shoot a captive animal, but to identify it as "captive". I don't shoot baited animals, but, if I did, I believe that the ethical thing to do would be to identify it as "baited."</p>

<p>The ethics of zoos and game farms is for another forum, IMO.</p>

 

Laura's comments were excellent.

 

I do think people should enjoy nature and wildlife on its own whether you get a shot or not. I don't feel the

must-have need for photos so do not mind watching instead of pushing the animal to flee.

 

Ask yourself "would I be there enjoying the wildlife if I did not have a camera?" If you are there only for the

photos, maybe you should be doing something else. Don't let your camera be a crutch. Nature first, photos

second.

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=6173649">Alan Klein</a> asked:</p>

 

<p>We seem to be spending a lot of time in our concern about the health and suffering of the bait. What about the ethical considerations how a picture is captured because of the bait. Is there really any difference between a picture shot between the bars of the cage in a Zoo or a game farm and a picture shot in the wild where dazed voles scurrying around are being used to attract owls?</p>

<p>I believe that it's ethical to shoot a captive animal, but to identify it as "captive". I don't shoot baited animals, but, if I did, I believe that the ethical thing to do would be to identify it as "baited."</p>

<p>The ethics of zoos and game farms is for another forum, IMO.</p>

 

<p>Kerry asked:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ask yourself "would I be there enjoying the wildlife if I did not have a camera?" If you are there only for the photos, maybe you should be doing something else. Don't let your camera be a crutch. Nature first, photos second.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Personally, I'd probably be listening to music or practicing my trumpet if it weren't for photography. A big part of my fascination with wildlife photography is that it allows me to details that I can't see with the naked eye, or even a spotting scope. Birders will come and go while I work a great blue heron, taking hundreds of pictures, trying to get one stunning view. Like fishing, i'm back over and over, trying to capture a illusive image that's in my mind. My cameras are not crutches, instead, they are tools that allow me to see things that I wouldn't otherwise see. <br>

<br>

Oh, while I'm out there, I enjoy what God shows me, which is more often than not, not my intended subject. Still, I'm not there to merely walk around. I want to "see" things that others don't see or notice, capture them well, enjoy them myself and share them with others. My cameras deepen my appreciation of nature.</p>