Baiting animals, Wildlife photographer of the year.

I just bought a book on the Wildlife photographer of the year

competition (Vie sauvage(Wildlife), volume 2). The pictures are

awesome but a few things got my teeth grinding.

 

I find odd that a competition with such prestige even considered

giving a prize for a photograph titled "The Bait". The photographer

clearly states that he baited a wolverine just to get the picture. To

top this off, the image is in the endangered species category.

 

Also, in "The world in our hands" category, there is a picture

showing a pile of dead foxes which, as they say, denonciates the

agressions of man against the environment. Well, another prize-

winning photograph was taken by someone who was feeding buzzards but

got a fox instead.

 

I don't think that any nature photography competition that claims to

care about nature should give a prize for a picture of baited

animals, no matter how good it is. What do you think?

What exactly is so awful about baiting?

This is a very sensitive issue that I think needs to be handled

carefully. I think baiting is ok under certain circumstances. The

primary one being that it is not done in such a way as to endanger or

alter an animals behavior. Most of us bait birds with bird feeders.

Yet if it is done improperly such as not keeping the feeder clean

birds can die. The same goes for baiting animals. If people bait

animals over a long period of time they will become dependent upon it.

Also larger animals such as bears or mountain lions may become less

fearful of the human scent. I used to bait near my house using road

kill for vultures. I stopped when I found both bear and mountain lion

tracks around the carcass. I didn't want to put my family or the

animals in danger. Overall I believe baiting is ok so long as you are

resposible about it. We all alter and animals behavior just by being

in their prescence. We just need to be as non disruptive as possible.

When I used a road kill for vultures I was feeding them something they

would have eaten anyway, in a location safer than the highway.Good

lig

The results of a competition are often only as good as the qualifications of the judges. Not that I would

ever expect to be asked to be a judge of such a competition, but if I were, I would have no problem in

discounting a contrived shot when comparing it to an apparently uncontrived one. This implies that I

could discern one from the other in the first place. My point is that two photographers might end up with

an equally good picture of a wolverine but the one who used patience instead of bait should be chosen

as the photographer of the year.

In the first case, the photographer saw a wolverine climbing up a tree at the beginning of the year. He/She then tried to recreate the scene by baiting the animal. The shot was made in august.

 

Chris, I agree that sometimes feeding wildlife is more acceptable, but it doesn't make it right. I have shot birds around feeders, given handouts to gray jays and went as far as moving a dead cariboo a few hundred feet to get a better view and background in case wolves would find it. One thing I wouldn't dare do is to pick up some meat from the freezer to attract an animal, espescially an endangered species.

 

In the book's introduction it is written about capturing the

"magic instant", the respect of ethics and how wildlife photographer are different because they are not superficial and work with real subjects. I think they missed the mark here with this picture.

 

BTW, the original title of the book is: Wildlife Photographer of the Year, Portfolio nine.

Baiting Animals isn't Wildlife to me !

Baiting bears or cougars is illegal for both photography and hunting in Oregon. I voted for it, personally. And I sell my photography...

Suppose you are taking pictures of deer. Now is it unethical to take pictures of them from a blind on the edge of an field where they go to eat every night? What about at a watering hole? What if the watering hole is manmade or the field was planted in order to feed the deer? Is there really any difference between taking pictures of deer at the field or watering hole and taking picures of them while they're eating corn that you put out?

 

This seems kind of like an odd issue to me. Here in Texas, baiting is the common method for hunting deer - particularly in the heavy brush of South Texas. On our ranch, there are deerfeeders in several locations as well as fields that the deer regularly eat in. I personally have no qualms about taking pictures of deer while they're eating in a field and I really dont see much of a difference between taking pictures at a deerfeeder or at a field where they go to eat.

 

This brings up other interesting issues. Is it unethical to use an old pair of antlers to "rattle" in deer? What about using calls to bring in coyotes or otherwise wary animals? It seems to me that it ceases to be "wildlife" photography when the animals are either domesticated or in a closed environment like a safari park. I feel that any picture either taken in a captive environment or that features an animal that has been domesticated needs to be identified. However, I don't feel the need to identify pictures that have been taken of animals that were "baited" or called in. Similarly, I don't feel that somebody who took a picture from their car is any less of a "wildlife" photographer than somebody like me who goes out and sits in a blind for three hours in the morning and three hours in the evening. Just my 2 cents.

In general, Nordic wildlife photographers are strongly against

baiting, the use of captive animals and game farms, and all the other

Feldman-school tricks. Wolverines are an exception - falling into the

category of animals so rare and elusive that when you find one which

will actually touch a bait (most won't), it's better to photograph

that one than go harassing less accomodating animals.

 

This obviously raises important issues, but also means that cases have

to be decided on their individual merits. My friends tell me that the

Finnish photographer who took that image is well-known and respected

in the conservation community, so the "do no harm" imperitive was in

fact obeyed. Even if this picture encourages less responsible

individuals to try baiting for wolverines, their chances of success

are so miniscule that the likely harm caused is negligable (at least,

in Scandinavia, perhaps US wolverines are less paranoid).

 

I confess I had a huge feeling of disappointment on learning that that

image was the result of a bait, but it has been clearly labelled as

such in all the places I've seen it. I certainly don't think

criticism of the photographer on the basis of rules suitable for other

species is fair - or, at least, is too simplistic. George Schaller's

images of Tibetan wildlife (particularly snow leopards) raise similar

issues, with a similar response from me: sometimes the ends do justify

the means.

Well, I think one just has to be realistic. How many so-called wildlife photographers claim to be very patient, but use captive animals or bait. Next to the picture you can read stories like "... and than I stayed put for five weeks by minus 100C with no food at all till I finally got the animal before my 600 mm...". I think it is more fair to use a trick (under the condition no harm was done), make a beautiful picture, use it for nature conservation and just tell how you did it. At least I have no problems with it.

 

Rollin

Ah, the human's capacity to justify whatever conduct that they wish to engage in but it really would be a smart move to know what you are doing and to what you are doing it to and where you are doing it before doing it. Example, it is illegal to feed wildlife in all national parks located in the United States and in Canada. State law varies. In Michigan there is "baiting" and there is "feeding" and they are defined differently. "Baiting" applies exclusively to hunting. "Feeding" wildlife is for any other purpose other than hunting. Both have there own set of rules which must be followed. In Texas," baiting" whitetail deer is not only acceptable, but often the deer are hunted at the feeders. Colorado calls "baiting" feeding wildlife and it is illegal. A few states permit baiting for all big-game animals. Many states allow no baiting of any kind and others follow a middle of the road approach, allowing baiting for some species, but not for others. The USFWS controls migratory birds and prohibit hunting over baited fields. So before one justifies the ethics, one should find out if it is legal.

What exactly is baiting? Moving a carcass two feet to get a better background would probably not be considered unethical by most photographers. What about moving it half a mile? Keeping it in the freezer till the weather gets better and then putting it back where you found it? I don't think it makes any sense to try and establish a set of fixed rules. My rule of thumb would be this: I've done something wrong if I am embarassed to tell people how I got the picture. I would also take extreme care so that the pictures don't lie - e.g, a raptor in winter feeding on an apparantly freshly killed growse in summer plumage.

I don't think baiting is unethical in itself. On the contrary, if it's properly done, being baited is probably much better than being chased. Still, a discussion about the dangers associated with baiting would of course be useful.

Hypocrisy and self-justification usually go hand-in-hand. That much is clear when anyone "justifies" baiting under certain circumstances(e.g., when there's a buck to be made).Didn't the Marlin Perkins' school of nature photography pass into well-deserved disrepute? Perhaps not, judging from some posters' views.

There is a difference between sticking corn out to attract an animal and improving the habitat to attract an animal. I think this is obvious. If it is not obvious to anyone, I recommend they take up duck or dove hunting and bait their prey. Then, their local wildlife agent can give them a wounderful lesson on the topic, as well as a court date before a federal judge.

 

If you have truely mastered your sport (whether it be nature photography or hunting) you shouldn't have to bait. If you are lazy and unskilled, I guess baiting would seem like a good alternative.

Brett, I assume we can agree that the reason baiting is illegal for certain species is that it gives too much of an advantage to the hunter. I can see where giving the animal as much of a chance as possible comes into play when you're talking about hunting, but I feel that when pictures are the end goal, the situation is a little bit different. If you're baiting doves or ducks and only taking pictures of them, I don't think the warden would have any beef with you at all.

 

How exactly is going in and modifying an area any better or worse than putting out corn to attract an animal? I mean really what is the difference between planting some corn or oats in a field and putting out some corn in that field? Does putting out the corn make it too easy for the photographer? Well then, is it ok to take pictures from your car instead of sitting outside in the cold all morning waiting for an animal to arrive at a watering hole? What about using calls to bring in animals? Is that unethical as well?

 

I'm sure you use blinds for photography. Doesn't the blind give you an advantage over the animals you're trying to photograph? We both know you'd be very lucky to get anywhere near a duck without being in a blind and wearing camoflauge. Especially from a boat as you mentioned in another thread. I also wonder if you use decoys and calls to bring in ducks as most duck hunters do(certainly all of the ones I know). If you do, doesn't putting out fake ducks on the water in order to trick the real ones into landing there constitute some kind of unfair advantage?

One other point I wanted to make. In most areas in the US that I know of, it is highly illegal to hunt from a vehicle. Yet, if you go to Africa you're going to be doing almost all of your photography from a vehicle. Is it then unethical to take pictures from a vehicle when you're on a Safari? Not in my opinion.

"Baiting" is a term explained how? I give you food, you let me take your picture? People bait people, don't they? Let's see . . . dull meeting vs. dull meeting with free beer & sandwiches; no doubt which will have the better attendance here in Wisconsin! Would churches be so full if there was no refreshment after the service? I wonder. Am I baiting birds by placing feeders in my back yard during the brutal cold of winter? My cats feel that I'm doing my civic duty on that one! I really can't get too excited about arguing the "heart is pure" or the "good intentions" on this one.

Some good points have been made here. Where do you draw the line? Is it O.K. to feed birds but not other animals? etc. etc. My position on this is pretty simple. If you are not altering an animal's behavior in such a manner that will bring harm to the animal or person doing the baiting (i.e. habituating an animal so that it becomes dependent on natural food sources, allowing a predator to lose its innate fear of humans such that some is bitten, etc.) then fine. Just label the photograph as baited.

Whoops, that should have read, (so that the animals don't become dependent on UNnatural food sources).

Ask any dairy or beef cattle farmer in Michigan, and they will show you the problems that baiting/feeding deer have caused. TB is now widespread thru Michigan once again because of feeding the deer. I don't agree with baiting for any purpose...hunting or photographing. My thinking is, if you want their photograph you go into their environment.

I hope that at least the practice of disclosure continues to take hold. My girlfriend bought a video on jaguars which had stunning shots that, if they weren't taken under controlled circumstances with captive critters, I'll eat my lens cap.

Derek, the other examples you listed mostly deal with concealment. The issue at hand deals with feeding the animals. An animal's feeding pattern should not be disrupted. By improving the habitat, you are increasing the available food for the species without altering the animals feeding habits. This will provide for the animals far beyond the hunt or photo shoot. I don't think anyone will have a problem with habitat improvement. On the other hand, putting out some corn to attract an animal only gets the animal accustomed to taking "handouts."

 

I suppose if you shoot the animal while it is taking the "handouts," the issue is moot. Oh wait, what about the ones that come and eat the remaining "handouts" when no one is there to shoot them?

Do you honestly believe that planting a field of crops for deer to come and eat doesn't affect their feeding habits? What happens then, when you choose not to replant the field the next year? The animals have become accustomed to eating in that field and now when they go back there isn't anything for them to eat.

 

As far as "handouts" go, "handouts" tend to imply that the animals begin to associate humans with food. I can assure you that on my family's ranch, there is no association between food and humans. The other implication of "handouts" is that it replaces the animals natural food source and is temporary. Well, the feeders on our ranch are permanent and have been there for years. Not to mention, they don't put out enough corn to feed the number of deer that are on our ranch. The deer have to find other food sources as the corn is just a treat for them.

 

As far as I can tell, you're telling me that it's ok for me to plant food for the deer (which I do - mostly oats), but not OK for me to put out food for the deer. If both sources of food are permanent and there is no assocation with humans by the deer, then why is one any better than the other?

One last response with respect to the issue. Just because a feeder is permanently on your land, does not mean that it can be relied upon as a permanent food source. I say this under the assumption that the deer are free to enter and exit your property, i.e. you do not participate in "canned hunts." When the deer leaves your property and wanders into an area with little or no human impact, how long will it have to search until it finds a big barrel full of corn on stilts to spit out supper? Mabye where you live, the answer is "not far."

 

While I don't think that this practice is good for the animals, I realize that it is perfectly legal. Over the years I have discovered that "legal" does not always equal "good for" when it comes to wildlife. Therefore, the use of these items is a matter of personal taste. The purpose of my post is merely to express my personal opinion on the subject - that baiting is a crutch that people use to make up for a lack of skill. Since both of our opinions fall within the law, I guess all I can say is to each his own.

I think we can agree to disagree. I just happen to feel that taking pictures over bait is no more a crutch for those with a lack of skill than taking pictures over any other food source such as a field of oats.