Methodology and Ethics - Baiting for Avian Predators

[greg_russell]

<i>Look at the science. Evidence base your opinions and they will hold stronger meaning.

I see nothing stated in the negative responses on this thread regarding my proposal other

than opinions. No facts. Zippo.</i>

<br><br>

I'm not clear on one thing: are you planning on leaving the remains of one deer behind

from your yearly harvest and photograph the scavengers (i.e. raptors) that come to visit?

Or are you planning on continually baiting the birds in? I have no problems with the

former, however the latter seems a bit shaky.

<br><br>

You asked for scientific evidence? Have you ever thought that the raptors that are

becoming habituated to your feeding sessions are not eating the prey they're supposed to

be eating? If they are neglecting the populations of game birds, small mammals, etc,

those populations will grow quickly and largely unchecked. That can't be good for an

ecosystem. You might be well off to actually <i>look</i> for science before claiming

none exists. I found this in less than 5 minutes: <b>Birds of prey as limiting factors of

gamebird populations in Europe: a review</b>, <i>Biological Reviews (Cambridge)</i>

80(2): 171 (May 05).

<br><br>

I'm sure the point is lost on you since you've seem to made up your mind, but I urge you

to consider the ramifications of continued baiting raptors. You said you enjoy the thrill of

the hunt? Wouldn't it be more thrilling to create stunning raptor images <i>without</i>

knowing you 'cheated' by baiting them in?

[mark_chappell]

Disease transmission through feeders:<P>

 

<A href="http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/news05/05011.html">http://www.dfg.ca.gov/

news/news05/05011.html</a><P>

 

<a href="http://www.dfw.state.or.us/news/2005/may/003.asp">http://

www.dfw.state.or.us/news/2005/may/003.asp</a><P>

 

<a href="http://www.sare.org/sanet-mg/archives/html-home/30-html/

0380.html">http://www.sare.org/sanet-mg/archives/html-home/30-html/0380.html

</a><P>

 

<a href="http://www.umext.maine.edu/onlinepubs/htmpubs/habitats/7145.htm">http://

www.umext.maine.edu/onlinepubs/htmpubs/habitats/7145.htm</a><P>

 

<a href="http://filebox.vt.edu/users/reallen/Thesis.html">http://filebox.vt.edu/users/

reallen/Thesis.html</a><P>

[mark_chappell]

viewing the sun:<P>

 

<A HREF="http://andrewcarnegie.tripod.com/nrsol.htm">http://

andrewcarnegie.tripod.com/nrsol.htm</a><P>

 

<A HREF="http://www.eclipse-chasers.com/safe.htm">http://www.eclipse-chasers.com/

safe.htm</a><P>

 

<A HREF="http://www.bisque.com/help/paramountme/

Telescope_operation_disclaimer.htm">http://www.bisque.com/help/paramountme/

Telescope_operation_disclaimer.htm</a><P>

 

<A HREF="http://spaceweather.com/sunspots/doityourself.html">http://

spaceweather.com/sunspots/doityourself.html</a><P>

 

<A HREF="http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/safety.html">http://

sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/safety.html</a><P>

 

<A HREF="http://www.news-medical.net/?id=2085">http://www.news-medical.net/?

id=2085</a><P>

 

<A HREF="http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~rhill/alpo/solstuff/rptfrm1.html">http://

www.lpl.arizona.edu/~rhill/alpo/solstuff/rptfrm1.html</a><P>

[snakeroot]

These links are unrelated to the question at hand. Two questions:

 

1. Evidence that feeding raptors cause harm.

 

2. Evidence of retinal damage in mementary exposure to the sun through tracking soaring hawks with a telephoto lens. I say unless you are an idiot and stare at the sun, your reflexes should protect you.

 

You sent links on conjunctivitis in finches from bird feeders, and laypersons articles about to make sure to clean out your bird feeders. I don't think that's quite relevant to the question at hand.

 

The visual stuff is again from agencies that say it's not a good idea to stare at the sun directly for extended periods or watch eclipses. There is one layperson's opinion of "instant" damage thru a telescope. I need case reports and hard evidence and I told you will do my own literature search. On the subject. I repeat, never seen it and never heard of it in 20 years of clinical practice. It's your opinion and reminiscent of the LSD scare in the 60's of the professor and his students going blind while high on LSD staring at the sun. It just didn't happen, and I serious doubt accidental momentary exposure throug a telephoto lens causes instant retinal damage. The sky might fall on you and hurt you though.

 

It's like the tobacco company claims in the 1960's. Citing a whole bunch of irrelevent and unverifiable claims to back up their assertion that cigarette smoke doesn't cause cancer.

 

You continue to blow a lot of hot air and it ain't making you soar.

[snakeroot]

Greg can't find your article "Birds of prey as limiting factors of gamebird populations in Europe: a review, Biological Reviews (Cambridge) 80(2): 171 (May 05)".

 

If you send a link, I'll read it, but again it doesn't really seem relevant to the question at hand. I can send you some irrelevant articles too, but the question at hand is that does anyone have hard evidence that feeding raptors causes harm?

 

Maybe attracting more hawks to the area might result in predation of songbirds at my other feeders. Maybe. I assume that's what that article says, but again, what is the evidence and how did they back it up? How was the data garthered? Any double blinding of the data? Is it believable?

 

Where are the articles showing harm to raptors?

 

My opinion is as good as yours and irrelevant links don't support your case.

[heatherforcier]

<p><i>"Also, I live in the boonies, and have a small dog that seems to like to play with the coyotes out back."</i></p>

 

<p>Just how small is your dog? Keep in mind an eagle can carry prey up to about 8 pounds, if memory serves. While reports of eagles picking off cats and dogs in Homer due to the feeding appear to have been exaggerated by the anti-feeding lobby, it has been happening more recently in the Seward area due to a growing eagle population. The birds won't just be around when you're feeding them, they will be checking it out in between meals, too, and if you don't put anything out a small dog could be at risk.</p>

 

<p><i>"I do not and will not sell my work. I do it for the joy and the chase. I suggest the righteous look within themselves, and see if they too work for the joy or some other purpose."</i></p>

 

<p>Not sure what is meant by this.</p>

[greg_russell]

<i>Maybe attracting more hawks to the area might result in predation of songbirds at my

other feeders. Maybe. I assume that's what that article says, but again, what is the

evidence and how did they back it up? How was the data garthered? Any double blinding of

the data? Is it believable?</i>

<br><br>

Its obvious that nothing anyone says at this point is going to make any impact on you. Its

also clear from the above that you didn't bother to read my post very clearly. The article

regards <i>game</i>birds not <i>song</i>birds (if you had read the title, you would

have seen that), and I have yet to see a Black Vulture nail a songbird at any feeder.

<br><br>

I'm wondering what sort of scientific evidence you want to see? Mark Chappell and I have

both given you articles from reputable sources (mine was from a peer-reviewed scientific

journal) that describe the harm that can come from mass-feeding of birds. An example

from mammals: look at the transmission of brucellosis in elk at the feeding grounds in

Jackson Hole, Wyoming. There may not be any evidence yet that baiting raptors directly

affects them in a negative manner, but I for one would not want to take the chance.

<br><br>

Are you familiar with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918? It sets aside special federal

protection for raptors that prohibits killing, harassing, pursuing, etc. You should know

that what you're planning on doing is <i>illegal</i> without the proper permits (I got this

from the mouth of a US Fish and Wildlife Service law enforcement agent this afternoon).

Before you say it, I know you aren't planning on capturing, handling, or killing any birds,

but it could happen inadvertantly, and that's a chance I wouldn't be willing to take.

<br><br>

Don't assume that its OK; call your state government as well as the federal government

and OK it with them.

[mbb]

It was worth to wait couple of days to see more replies. Both good and bad ones. One more time I am learning how artistic, romantic and knowledgeable some ?nature? photographers are. Killing and piling gophers to get snaps of coming raptor. It is so tragic and antic at the same time. I would be very surprise if this is legal to do. Same as possession of road-kill deer when transporting with no tag from one place to another.

<P>

It is normal to take record or documentary shots, stock quality photographs are needed as well. But taking only below average snaps of arranged scenes, which bring nothing new is a pure waste. Mass buying of photo equipment has an good effect ? drives prices down but?.

<P>

First I like to make a couple suggestions to novice photographers who have a trill from a snapshot of any habituated or baited bird, or any snap-shot in that matter<P>

 

<li>learn basics of photography first </li>

<li>study your subject thoughtfully: by reading about it and by observing chosen animal in its natural habitat </li><P>

 

It will take time but those are first steps and they are necessary. Do not ask me why if you have problems to comprehend. Just do it. <P>

 

Mark C you have extensive knowledge about animals and experience in photographing them. Now you should understand (after reading many comments here) why I am opposing so strongly recommending (describing) calls or chilling techniques to masses on Internet. There are a few who will use those methods only if necessary for right reasons but they would learn about anyway from available advanced sources. Others, I hope, would usually end up with homemade plans how to mount stick in the ground. Giving those ideas (calls, chilling) to many individuals who cannot clearly justify their actions is simply dangerous. You won?t give a gun to child? Or would you?<P>

 

Bill made many good points in very delicate and polite way but still his suggestions are evidently way above comprehension level to few. Grey area in feeding small birds in towns or around the house is there but those birds are already depending on humans a lot. Photos like one which Joe took is very cute and very good illustrate relationship between the men and bird.

 

<P>

I would like to finish with one more time stressing the fact that there is always possible to find a wild individual raptor (or any animal) which will accept close observer/photographer presence. And yes, as Greg R already said, it will be more trilling experience for photographer then sitting near feeder or pile of dead gophers. <P>

 

Just to show it is possible without bait.<P>

 

Red-shouldered Hawk was hunting for long time near by tolerating my presence. This is a full frame shot, cropped to square format.

<p style="text-align:center"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3975323-lg.jpg" /></p>

 

<P>

American Kestrel, individual which let me to get as close as 20 feet when he was hunting grasshoppers.

<p style="text-align:center"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3927759-lg.jpg" /></p>

 

<P>

another (different) one

<p style="text-align:center"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3975249-lg.jpg" /></p>

<P>

Raptors do not hold my strongest interest. If one want to go and see the best examples available on this site one can visit Miguel Lasa portfolio with his extraordinary images of raptors.<P>

http://www.photo.net/photos/ML

 

<P>

And if anybody feels that shot of the raptor picking up piled gophers is more interesting to get I wish him/her best health, get well, and I have no desire to continue this discussion any more.

[ed_erkes]

This topic is being discussed in another forum at this link:

 

http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=5120&b=vf2&st=0&la=634&ph=34&sid=27618&u=27618

 

I copied my last response in that thread:

 

Jerry,

Your example illustrates my point exactly. Individuals feeding bears "for years" will definitely lead to habituation and harm to the wildlife. Also, feeding wildllife in any National Park is illegal. But to use that example as proof that all baiting or other luring techniques are unethical is, too be blunt, ludicrous.

I consulted a number of wildlife photography references in my personal library. Of the 16 books that I consulted, 12 advocated the responsible use of lures: either baiting, calls, or decoys. Three did not address the topic at all and only one was against the use of lures. To be conservative, I did not include bird feeders, baiting with bird seed, or providing a water source as positive responses. Positive responses were the imitation or playing of calls, decoys, and live or dead animals as bait (fish, road kill ,etc..).

 

The lone book against lures was Larry West's How to Photograph Birds. John Shaw's books did not address the topic.

 

The following books discussed and advocated the responsible use of lures:

George Lepp Beyond the Basics;

Joe McDonald The New Complete Guide to Wildlife Photography;

Art Morris The Art of Bird Photography;

Moose Peterson The Nikon Guide to Wildlife Photography;

L.L. Rue How I Photograph Wildlife and Nature;

Gilles Martin Nature Photography: Learning From a Master;

R. Simmons and B Littlehales National Geographic Photography Field Guide : Birds;

Tim Fitzharris Wild Bird Photography;

Tim Gallagher Wild Bird Photography;

Laurie Campbell Guide to Bird and Nature Photography;

Chris Gomersall Photographing Wild Birds; and

Paul Hicks Photographing Birds in the Wild.

 

Ed Erkes

[bill_thorlin]

Read the link in full and it seems to me that the majority opinion is the same there as it is here.

[ed_erkes]

Bill, it is true that the majority opinion is similar to the one in this thread. My question is: Is it an informed, knowledgeable opinion?

 

Ed

[mbb]

<I>My question is: Is it an informed, knowledgeable opinion?</I>

<P>

Differences between pro nature photographers (those who are making living from photography) and amateurs (those who make living from other sources) can be very drastic sometimes. Pro will often utilize many questionable methods trying to be sure they have food on the table. Amateurs on the other hand have easier ethical choices because money from photo sales are not important. <P>

 

Essence of knowledgeable opinion very often will be impacted by ethical opinion of person speaking. Some facts can be hide or overstress. This is without doubt that any human actions will impact surrounding wildlife resulting in good or bad consequences, more often bad than good. Minimizing our actions will lead to less impact which in my opinion is only good.

[bill_thorlin]

Ed - I believe that the vast majority of the people who feel this way ( at least on this forum ) are both informed and knowledgeable and in addition they are concerned.

 

I have a favourite saying which comes from a sign seen in a Ugandan National Park - "elephants have the right of way".

[snakeroot]

Lotsa replies and I will take them in squence, and I may unfortuanately not get to all of them. I worked my 7p to 7am shift last night and have two more to go (and it was busy).

 

Heather I have a fiesty JRT, (Jack Russell Terror), and he has 10 lives. Hit by a truck, two laparotomies, playing with coyotes, and bit me with seven stitches (his closest brush with death). I love the guy, but an eagle won't mess with him. He's 20 pounds going on 120. He's a very tough dog and not at risk.

 

I'm not willing to sell my work, but I think that others on this site have economic gain in appearing as "authorities" and posting copyrighted material with watermarks. Not into that. There's some minor irritaion I have with a couple of the posts, the elitism and righteousness of the posters boil my blood a bit. They probably don't have a clue how transparently motivated their criticisms are. I suspect many of the negative postings on this web are from professional photographes who have used a variation of my suggested technique, or fail to reconize the species bias they have assumed. Look at the eagle feeding on the kangaroo carcass. They attack me for my reqeust on ideas for similar methodology.

 

For example, why isn't that insect an equal life form when compared to the songbird in an earlier critic's response about baiting raptors? (The 911 guy with the big C's watermarked on his photo.) Hiprocrasy, showboating and elitism. Flattened kangaroos seem to have only irritation value to the poor raptor struck by the car while plunging into the rotten carcass. The poor poor eagle! The damned kangaroo did it, that flattened beast!

 

More from me later, bunches of shifts to get done soon not fair to patients if I type on photo.net all day.

 

By the way, I did my literature search on medline regarding retinal injuries from the sun. I'll post it later, and you will understand that in science you believe 25% of what someone tells you is fact, 50% of what someone writes as fact, and somewhat more of scientifically verifiable facts in clinical studies. (But not 100%.) Kinda humorous, I might not get to it for a couple of days.

 

Regards.<div></div>

[snakeroot]

sorry about the photo, here tis:<div></div>

[bill_thorlin]

Methodology and ethics of responses.

 

There is of course another way to deal with facts and that is to be highly selective and ignore those that do not fit in with your particular perspective.

 

The same approach can be applied to postings on a thread.

 

And then of course if all else fails you can be facile in your responses or just plain rude.

[heatherforcier]

<p>I think I would disagree with you that people trying to dissuade you from doing this are only doing so based on their own self-interests. Without knowing anyone personally, I suspect people are more concerned about the subjects and possible impacts, rather than whether or not you're able to get some photos that you don't plan to sell.</p>

 

<p>Keep in mind, impact is a difficult thing to measure. When you have a clear result, such as a fatality or a successful nest when all prior years have failed, it might seem a bit easier to evaluate. But a question about the possible impacts of the endeavor you describe is best posed to people with an appropriate scientific background. Even then the opinion could be subject to personal bias. I'm not sure if there are any easy answers.</p>

 

<p>My own personal opinion on the matter is that information about questionable techniques such as baiting predators should not be discussed on the internet at large. There is no way to know the interests or ethics of the people reading the thread, which is indexed by Google and visible to everyone, not just the registered posters at Photo.Net.</p>

 

<p>As to "joy," being that nature photography endeavors are my livelihood, I can only say that if someone is in this purely for the riches I'd like to see their business model. I can't imagine anyone working so hard without a love for the subjects being significantly involved in there somewhere.</p>

 

<p>The copyright watermarks...well, copyright infringement on the internet is rampant. Especially with <a href=http://www.naturescapes.net/032006/sm0306.htm><u>"orphan works"</u></a> legislation being drafted, I think anyone trying to make it in photography should mark the heck out of their images posted on the internet. It is okay to try to make a living at this and safeguard your work with marks - images are just like any other business inventory item worthy of protecting. </p>

 

<p>Anyway, based on the description of your dog, sounds like he would be a little too big to be a viable Bald Eagle target, at least based on my own limited knowledge.</p>

[mbb]

<I> the elitism and righteousness of the posters boil my blood a bit</I>

<P>

anger management, perhaps?

[cappoldt]

Yeow - hot thread.

 

Beyond the ethics, I frankly wouldn't be surprised if the only thing stinky meat and fish brought were ants and flys.

 

For them, I'd ditch the bazooka and go 105mm macro with extension tubes.

[mbb]

<I>My own personal opinion on the matter is that information about questionable techniques such as baiting predators should not be discussed on the internet at large. There is no way to know the interests or ethics of the people reading the thread, which is indexed by Google and visible to everyoneﾅ</I><P>

 

Heather, I am so glad to see that more people understand the problem and (especially those with knowledge in subject like you) they are opposing to spread information that can bring more harm than good.

<P>

Your posted link is very interesting. I had a few my images stolen before and now have no desire to post anything without watermark. So now it can be stolen anytime, I already had photo-researchers which found me using my watermark on images floating freely on the Internet. Problems of willing or not willing to sell photographs I will leave for others to worry as for one to be a seller it must be a buyer first.

<P>

In fact I understand less and less how you and others are making living in nature photography. Except for a few well established photographers from the past it is a cutthroat business now days. I do not believe that somebody without 'joy' would chose this path. So far I prefer to have a 'daytime job' and do my photography in free time which often, except winter, add to more then 40 hours a week anyway. But I photograph what I want and where I want without worries of not paying my bills.

<P>

All the best, Mark

[greg s]

During the duration of this discussion I couldn't help but think back to a June '04 POW and the "I feed her chicken drumsticks" explanation. Looks like a lot of that discourse was deleted.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/2472632

[snakeroot]

Does anybody on this thread know a decent skunk poison?

[bill_thorlin]

Some of your comments should do.

[matt_sallis]

Seems it's not just raptors being baited here.

 

I was told recently that a very well known UK pro wildlife photog had used a baiting method to acquire some quite spectacular images of kingfishers in action.

I won't describe the technique as I agree with Heather on non-proliferation of such methods.

 

When thinking about this I came to the conclusion that, whilst they are amazing images to see, for me they would always be nothing more than set-up studio shots, purely to earn money. It's not like capturing a real moment from nature.

 

If the reason for photographing wildlife is solely for the joy, then what joy will you really feel from falsley engineering such an opportunity? Wouldn't it be better to have captured such an image in a natural situation?

 

I think that if you want to go down this road, you really might as well just go to a zoo or wildlife park, where you can get very close to captive raptors, without any risk of upsetting the eco-balance. You will probably even get better photos of them.

 

I really feel that genuine "wildlife" photos should be just that, entirely separated from human influence.

 

Matt Sallis

www.nature-photos.biz

[snakeroot]

Cool posting.

 

There is something to said for the purity of capturing nature. Any pure shots would clearly be superior to contrived shots.

 

Part of the issue for me is to set up the equipment, get proper lighting, depth of field, shutter speed and remote triggering. It's a stage I agree, but a stage that is very interesting to consider.

 

I would much rather catch wild things doing wild activities, and will continue. But I am very disappointed that you won't reveal the kingfisher details, but understand and agree from Heather's post that it is not something for internet consumption.