Wildlife photographers ethics allegedly stoops to unprecedented low.

<The photograph in National Wildlife magazine shows a grizzly sow and

a cub of the year climbing on "an abandoned bird feeder in the

Flathead National Forest".

What is'nt mentioned is that the bird feeder is next to the home of

wildlife photographer Stephen Krasemann, whom wildlife officials

accuse of spreading grain, attracting grizzly bears and habituating

them to humans.

"i know exactly where that feeder is," said Tim Manley, the state bear

management specialist for northwest Montana. "It's probably, oh, about

20 feet from his house."

"In his efforts to obtain high-quality photographs of grizzly bears,

Mr Krasemann knowingly habituated and food-conditioned those grizzly

bears, despite repeated efforts on our part to get him to stop,"

Manley wrote.(Billings gazette)>

<Krasemann admitted spreading grain around his property on the North

Fork of the Flathead River, but said it was for elk and deer.

"The only way it could be considered baiting bears is in a long,

roundabout way," he told the Kalispell Daily Interlake, calling

Manley's statement "very libelous".

But Manley said the end result was the same- as many as 10 different

grizzlies repeatedly found food at Krasemann's property and, as a

result, picked up habits that will THREATEN KRASEMANN'S NEIGHBOURS FOR

YEARS, AS WELL AS THE BEARS SURVIVAL.

Manley also said, "it's a sad twist that the grizzly cub on the feeder

is no longer alive. "Unfortunately, the grizzly cub in the photos was

illegally killed this fall largely due to his habituation to people,"

he wrote to National Wildlife.

"He died with a belly full of bird seed.">

I first heard rumblings about this in July from a Bear Bioligist

lecturing on bear control near Banff, a google search brought up the

aforementioned qoutes, has any one else in the group heard or seen

anything on this?

David Crossley/Crossley Photography.......www.crossleyphotography.com

I know nothing about this case, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me. There's a lot of unethical activity out there. Part of it is driven by market saturation - just how many photos of Grizzlies catching salmon can you sell, but here's always room for that "special" shot. Part of it may be driven by the increasing difficulty of making a living doing wildlife photography given royalty free CDs and everybody and his brother (or sister) marketing work via the internet. Part of it is just plain stupidity. I'm sure we've all seen enough of that.

Again, I know nothing about this particular case, so my comments aren't directed at Mr Krasemann

Well, what goes around comes around. In this case Grizzly Bears. Maybe the guy will be the subject of a future search to find this remains when the bears get pissed because they want pizza also.

Baiting goes on often. This isn't anything new. But that doesn't make it right. All the excuses in the world won't help his cause if this is really what he is doing.

Maybe a copy of the article sent the the magazine editors will help clean up the situation?

"Maybe a copy of the article sent to the magazine editors will clean up the situation"?

<Although the Missoula office of the National Wildlife Federation was aware of Manleys letter, the Virginia based editors of the magazine did'nt get the word until Manley contacted them. Sterling Miller, a bear biologist who works with the federation in Missoula, explains that there was little that the editors could do, considering that Krasemann had not been forthcoming about the conditions under which his pictures were taken. Several photos by other photographers that accompany the article are labelled either "captive" or "controlled conditions," an indication that they were not taken in the wild. In a letter responding to Manley, NWF President Mark Van Putten writes, "All of us at the National Wildlife Federation are extremely chagrined to hear about Stephen Krasemann using unethical practices to photograph grizzlies."(Kalispell Daily Interlake)>

Forest service grizzly bear recovery coordinator Jay Gore also alerted his fellow Forest Service employees to avoid using Krasemanns work. Gore also told the paper, " i think if a reasonable person could assume that feeding bears led to their death , it would be against the Endangered Species Act."

David Crossley/Crossley Photography.....www.crossleyphotography.com

Here is the article referencing this thread. What a disgusting human being.

http://www.hcn.org/1999/mar01/dir/Western_A_question.html

Come on guys. What's going on here? This isn't very "new" news (December '99). Have things become so boring here that we have to flame other people, and even post a personal address and phone number encouraging others to harass them?

I know Stephen, and I've spent a fair amount of time with him in the field at various times over the past 25 years. He's an excellent photographer, and I've never seen him harass an animal. I have seen him get into arguments with "officials" and biologists in the field; I might say that his "people communication skills" aren't always very good.

But what really happened here. From the sounds of it, he used grain to encourage deer to come into his yard to photograph them. Is it wrong? Should we feed any wildlife? How many of us have bird feeders? I do.

I also live in an area where black and brown bears are both common. In some places around South Central Alaska, black bears frequent people's bird feeders, and it does get to be a problem. I've watched brown bears investigate my own feeders, and so far, at least these bears haven't shown any interest in bird food. If they do, and it gets to be a regular occurance, of course I will stop feeding the birds.

David Crossley posted a response in July 99 about photographing wolves. In that response, he told about how he'd been invited to join researchers who were feeding road-killed ungulates to wolves, and those animals had become somewhat habituated to man. Can't that lead to serious problems,too? Sure it can. And how about the famous photos of wolves on Elsemere Island by Jim Brandenberg? An NGS film special showing how they filmed the story showed Brandenberg feeding a sandwich to a wolf. Do you think that improves that particular wolf's chances of staying away from humans with guns or traps? No.

What's really important here is that all of us should strive to do our best to make sure that our own actions don't harm the wildlife and natural areas we are viewing or photographing. We all make mistakes at some time. Let the authorities take care of the serious problems. There's so much that is good and positive in this world; we don't need to get so enraptured with negative things that we don't see the beauty around us. Get out, and spend more time photographing and don't obsess so much about the mistakes others have made!

No, you come on Steve. People that are concerned about habitat and wildlife extinction are talking about this story. It's very much current news and folks that have heard about this recently at lectures hosted by Bear Wildlife Management Experts want to know the outcome.

It's also very serious stuff. Serious because the Grizzly Bear is a protected and endangered species. Serious because Grizzly Bears are being relocated from Canada to the Bitteroot Wilderness because there are far too few of them. Serious because a Grizzly Cub in one of your friends pictures is dead more than likely from it's habituation to people (allegedly). And yes serious Steve, because the alleged habituation selfishly inflicted on at least 9 Grizzly Bears in the same territory might cause one of your friends neighbours to get chewed on or even killed sometime soon down the road!

<"we dont need to get so enraptured with negative things".>

Well, i gotta tell ya Steve, i'm sick to the eyebrows of dealing with chokehold rules, dangerously habituated wildlife and biased park & wildlife officials soley because of the army of twerps and morons that have gone out and wrecked the landscape before me. Selfish, abusive and grossly unethical behaviour by a disrespectful few, negatively affects all photographers and nature lovers who follow in their footsteps. It needs to be stopped!

As for my invitation to join researchers feeding road killed ungulates to Wolves. That study was hosted by a Government Agency where any observations took place from the shelter of a hardshell blind. It took place in a wilderness area far removed from any human dwellings or acreages, but more importantly at a time of year when Grizzly Bears and Black Bears are tucked away safely sleeping away the winter period in their dens.

David Crossley/Crossley Photography...www.crossleyphotography.com

I have no comments regarding the incident as I don't have enough information. However, I do think it is in poor taste to post Mr. Krasemann's address and phone number so that others can presumably harrass him. Without knowing the details, persons often overreact.

I appreciate it David bringing this to our attention, and I agree that if Mr. Krasemann acted irresponsibly he should be taken to task for it. However, sending badgering or threatening letters and phone calls to someone at home is not the way to do it.

Posting the mail address and phone numbers may also make it easier for those of us who would like to get in contact with him to get his side of the story.

It could be that all he did was provide food for deer and the grizzlies were not part of the plan. Providing food for animals to feed on while bringing them into photo range spans the gamut from planting orchards specifically to bring them in to baiting polar bears to putting out seeds or suet for birds. Ethics can and do change as we go along. The National Park Service used to do feeding of the bears in Yellowstone at the dump and went so far as to put up bleachers for the people to watch the bears come in. Then someone decided it was wrong and the Park Service closed the dump. After years of feeding the bears were suddenly on their own. Starving bears everywhere.

Ethics questions are easy but the answers are not. If what is done harms the animals it is wrong. If what is being done is illegal then the authorities may get involved. If it is ethically wrong then the sales outlets should be asking questions and deciding whether or not to use the images. By alerting the magazines to what 'may' be a problem they can make the decision for themselves. No accusations need be made nor a crusade to crucify someone without the facts. But after investigation if the facts show illegal activity or ethical malfeasance, then we can start yelling to all who will listen. Until we find out what really happened, and we may well never know, asking and waiting for some kind of answer seems to me to be a good way to go.

Don't blow this out of proportion. The photographer may have had good intentions and not intended to cause a problem with the grizzlies. There is also nothing illegal or unethical about baiting most wildlife on ones own property for personal viewing or photography purposes. Most of us here on this site probably have bird feeders and other animals also are attracted to them? But most of us probably don't have grizzlies around....

Also the bird feeder was called an ABANDONED feeder which leads me to believe that the baiting may already have been stopped by the photographer under recommendation from wildlife officials.

Pardon me for reverting to my "day job" as a lawyer---but---

I have some strong concerns. Certainly I don't condone activity which threatens anyone's safety -- human or wildlife -- but I also think there is a line between legitimate debate and libel. This is an old story -- more than a year old -- and while there is an unsubstantiated accusation of illegal conduct, it appears that no charges were ever filed and that matter has not been adjudicated. I would note that the primary accuser is a state official who certainly has access to the law enforcement and prosecutorial officials in his jurisdiction. He clearly is in the position to initiate an investigation that could lead to prosecution. The fact that more than a year has gone by without prosecution, while not dispositive, is still worthy of note.

I do not believe the discussion of ethics in photography is inappropriate. To the contrary, it is a good discussion and one that should always be on our minds as photographers in the field.

Nonetheless, the photographer here is legally innocent unless proven otherwise in a court of law. Before anyone gets a little too high and mighty, we must also remember that guiding principle of law. Those who don't (including the operators of this forum) could subject themselves to litigation (and, while only about 5% of libel suits are ever successful in terms of obtaining a monetary judgment, the costs to defend an action are nonetheless enormous).

Wow. I suppose I should delete this thread then.

Score 1 for the lawyers, 0 for the ethicists

Disclaimer. Please insert the word "allegedly" where appropriate.

Hello, my name is Jordan Coffey and Stephen J. Krasemann is my uncle. Before you criticize Steve's works you should consider what he has provided to the world through his photos. Though I have grown up without truly knowing Steve, for he has lived abroad for many years, I have participated in his journey's through his books and other works, giving me a small look at wildlife that I am likely never to see. It is the job a photographer to gain quality photos of their subjects and, though his methods may not have been appropriate he was doing it in the name of art. If he has done something illegle, let the courts deal with it. Until they do, mind what you say about others.

Jordan Coffey

"though his methods may not have been appropriate he was doing it in the name of art"

So as long as you label it as art, you are free to do what you want???

I came across this site while searching for a photo to purchase of Grizzlys fishing for salmon in Alaska. These famous pictures represent one of the last romantic icons of a vanishing wilderness.

After reading this thread, I doubt I'll ever look at wildlife photography the same again, and I certainly won't be giving any of my hard earned money to these so called "artists," who in reality are only about a half step up from poachers.

In a just world, the bears in Krasemann's yard, being omnivores, would eventually tire of bird seed and find something more, shall we say "fleshy," for dinner.