Homer Eagles

[Bill Morgan]

I live in alaska and I'am a long time photographer and I am amazed at the

things photographers (some photographers)do for a photo.I visited Homer, Alaska

march 16-19 of this year and had a great time photographing the Eagles while

Jeanne feed them (Quite amazing to watch) and think it woud be common knowledge

that the eagle lady is the only one that is allowed to feed, but I found thats

not the case.

There were several groups of photographers that were feeding in the evening

hours and taking pictures like mad and some from Jeanne trailer, But did not

see Jeanne feeding the Eagles I am really confussed and disturbed that this is

allowed to happened. no wonder photographers are Getting a bad reputation.

 

comments PLEASE ( I have photos of this)

[pico]

:) I looked at your post because it has "Homer" and "Eagles".

 

I live near Homer, Minnesota. Lots and lots of Bald Eagles here. But there's some kind of covenant, if not law against interfering in any way, including feeding. They might be concerned that some eagles will change their regular habits if they are fed. Dunno!

[pico]

My gut feeling is that we should leave the Eagles be. I've been here long enough to have known the period when they were almost extinct. They get along on their own as long as we leave the area alone. That's the Upper Mississippi River.

[pico]

OOPS - Bill, this URL explains why she can feed the eagles.

 

http://www.homernews.com/stories/021506/news_021606new001.shtml

[jimstrutz]

This whole issue of feeding the Eagles has been debated a lot in Homer and all around Alaska. Ms Keene is getting well up in years and this will come to an end when she can no longer do it. All others have been forbidden to feed the birds. I seriously doubt that the damage done to the local Eagles is all that significant, but I do agree that we should probably let the practice die. It's certainly not natural, and I'm sad to hear that photographers are exacerbating the issue with more fish.

<P>

However, it's such a good, if small, mid winter economic boost to Homer that a lot of the locals will hate to see it go. They might even reverse their position, but I doubt it.

[pico]

<i>What difference does it make if Jeanne or Joe feeds them? </i><p>

Uh, the law, but the eagles don't care.<p>

Never mind the eagles. They fend for themselves! Feed the starving photographer!

[Bill Morgan]

Never mind the eagles. They fend for themselves! Feed the starving photographer!

 

 

Its hard enough to make a living as a photographer now days,But when you have to defend yourself to the general public ( Im not Fatali).

But when you have photographers breaking the law and setting a bad example in plain view of the public eyes, That makes us all look bad !

Anyway I've said my piece But I would like leave you with a Quote from Bob Atkins: One stupid photographer can give 100 responible photographers a bad name.

 

Thanks

[jautey]

I'm not sure why you would need to feed eagles in Homer to get a good photo in any case.

A 300mm lens, some patience and a little footwork will get you good eagle pictures. It's not like eagles are rare in Homer, quite the opposite in fact. If those photographers are feeding eagles than they're just plain lazy, stupid or both.

And quite frankley bald eagle photos have been a little overdone, get me some good owl or hawk photos, that'll impress me.

[pico]

Bill - I am with you. Down here we never feed the Eagles. Those who do try end up in deep

trouble. I am not sure if one person feeding them in Alaska is bad. I must defer to the local

experts on that.

 

But baiting them to get pictures is just so wrong!

[jo7hs2]

As for the feeding of the eagles, I'm not sure where I stand, ethically speaking, regarding a law against it. It seems acceptable to leave food out for songbirds and hummingbirds, both in the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of some photographers. I can see arguments for and against why birds of prey should be treated differently. Personally, with the possible exception planting hummingbird attracting plants, I wouldn't feed wildlife under any circumstances, especially not to get a photograph. But, where it is illegal, all photographers (and everyone else) should refrain from feeding the eagles, period.

[jo7hs2]

I should emphasize... I am <i>against</i> feeding animals to get a photograph. I just wonder if enough people would do it if it <i>were</i> legal to merit a blanket law against it.

[jo7hs2]

I mean a <i>national</i> blanket law against it. Local problems in certain areas certainly merit a local ban. Something tells me it would be too much of an issue in many areas.

<br><br>

I need to work on clarifying my thoughts before posting...

[eajames]

Joshua, your comments are some of the most salient I've read on the subject. I've enjoyed

viewing and photographing eagles in Homer, but I don't think of it as nature photography.

I'm not even sure that eagle photography at Bishop's Beach is wildlife photography. I know

that others disagree; we all have our own standards, however defined. Reading posts like

your help be to better define my personal philosophy.

[ShunCheung]

Just a note from your moderator: I deleted the off-topic discussion about commercial fishing in Alaska. Please stay on topic about nature photography.

[sergey_oboguev]

> My gut feeling is that we should leave the Eagles be.

 

How about also leaving sandhill cranes be? Shut down all that huge crane feeding operation that USFWS runs at Bosque del Apache and other refuges that comprise feeding network along both west and east coasts.

[ewert02]

I think it is sad that we have trained some of these magnificent birds to grovel for handouts. I am against the feedings.

[lauren_macintosh]

Joshua Szulecki][i should emphasize... I am against feeding animals to get a photograph.] Would this also include Model "Wild" Animals for foto shoots???? so as to all you to shot such supposedly wild animals when in fact their are not!! to me there is no difference's

Just a thought :::\\\Lauren

[greg s]

I'm not a fan of tossing fish at the eagles, but am much more concerned about climate change in regards to the future well being of Alaskan (and other) wildlife.

[jo7hs2]

Lauren,

 

Your post was somewhat confusing, but I guess I should clarify, again. I have no problem with feeding a CAPTIVE animal, unless doing so will be detrimental to the animals health or future rehabilitation. Feeding a captive animal, for whatever purpose, is a part of keeping it alive.

 

Sure, I'd bait my dog to get a picture of him. ;)

 

My point is, if feeding the animals could have a detrimental influence on their health, current or future, it should be avoided, and when it becomes an issue, should be illegal to deter people from doing it.

[walang_pangalan]

Thanks for your opinion, Mr. Szulecki. Here's mine:

 

With the exception of some species that, for whatever evolutionary reason, have little concern about people, I'd hazard that most wildlife images are of subjects that are naturally stressed to the point that they don't care much about that strange looking thing with the camera over there. It's either find food or shelter or die.

 

My best images of ducks, for example, are invariably obtained in the late winter, when months of cold have created a weakened population that comes close to shore to feed, where they don't need to dive as far, offer relief from the relentless environment, etc. Just a few weeks ago, I was photographing a redhead(!) some 3m away (normally they are in with the mats of scaup, hundreds of meters off shore, and take flight at the flimsiest excuse).

 

Why is spring migration such a good photo-opportunity? Same reason: priority is given to eating instead instant flight. Dead is dead, be it by starvation or predation, and they'll take the chance if they have to. (Not that the animals are sitting around making conscious risk-assessments. Evolution is what evolution does.)

 

A simple experiment. Try feeding chickadee's in winter. In most places, they will come right to your hand. (Heck, I've had nuthatches and even downy woodpeckers come to my hand.) Now try again in the summer. A surfeit of food, easy climate, and general good health makes even attracting their attention a difficult job.

 

You can also read some of Bernd Heinrich's material on ravens ("Ravens in Winter", "Mind of the Raven"). He has probably supported an entire population of wild ravens over years, and with no visible effect. (The ravens didn't know this either!)

 

The point here is simple: the animals don't care what we think or do. Not in the slighest. They are also more capable than you imply: hundreds of millions of years of evolution is not going to be voided by half an orange nailed to a tree. A little (or even a lot) of food you offer isn't going to "hurt" them, but neither does it "help" either (sick animals are probably going to die anyways). The healthy ones will naturally adapt to their locality: once the food is gone, they go back to their 'normal' foraging behavior. (There was nothing abnormal in the first place, of course).

 

So if anyone wants to take advantage of this kind of thing for a few photographs, who cares? The photographer gets what he wants, the bird gets what it wants. Everyone is happy.

[jo7hs2]

Walang Pangalan,

 

I don't think our views are actually as disparate as you suggest. While I wouldn't personally feed a wild animal for a photograph, I don't necessarily think that it is inherantly wrong to do so. A little feeding isn't a major issue. I think where it comes into play is where animals begin to change their behavior locally due to human feeding, AND that new behavior is detrimental. If the behavior or population size isn't detrimental, then there is no issue, which is the case in most situations.

 

As for Homer, I actually wonder if it wouldn't be better if they GRADUALLY phased out feeding the eagles, rather than tying it to Jeanne, because when she is no longer feeding the eagles, some will probably die due to overpopulation. Perhaps, if the stopage were gradual, the eagles would slowly relocate, rather than an abrupt loss of a food source.

[lauren_macintosh]

Joshua Szulecki: So you feel that feeding a captive animal is all right , Ok now as fotographer do you feel good if you go out and go to foto set up and they use capitive anamils to allow you to shot this way so you can brag look what I got in my foto[ I use the word [ You] as a person other than you!]] so as not have you think that I think that you do this!! I think what has happened in homer is different but something that got out of control up there and this is why they have mandated the position for their people and guest: And I have no problem with any one feeding any bird at anytime since we as the agresor have limited and taken away a lot of their food supply by expanding in to their domain! and since jeanne gives them fish parts that is their natural food any way: but from what I have found they were being feed other things just for pictures????

So in reality this is a difficult fence post to sit on:: but I do understand your point well; It just goes against mine:: \\\Lauren

[jo7hs2]

Lauren,

 

I firmly believe that photographs of captive animals should, in some way, be labelled as photographs of a captive animal, so I have no problem with feeding a captive animal for a shot, so long as it is not passed off as a wild animal, but that is a totally different argument for another day...

[bryan_andersen]

"Never mind the eagles. They fend for themselves! Feed the starving photographer!"

 

If you feed a starving photographer you will endanger the species. You will be encouraging behavior that doesn't produce ecconomically viable photographs. Photographers need to learn what does and doesn't make a sellable photograph. If you feed them they will start hanging around philanthropists instead of getting out and taking photographs. Who knows we might have to start relocating them from around philanthropists and retuning them to streets and wildernesses. :) :) :)

 

PS: Do a google search on "A fed bear is a dead bear".

[pico]

Bryan, you made my day! I laughed out loud. Good stuff!