Red Shouldered Hawk #1

Hi Ben,

 

I posted a different crop of the photo here.

 

 

 

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/2503612-md.jpg

Strong points: beautiful light, nice unobtrusive background, plenty sharp with good detail

 

Not so good: bullseye composition (seems to happen alot with birds), would've been nice to have a more "head-on" angle with better eye contact

 

I won't weigh in heavily on the feeding issue, except to say it isn't "cheating" if you're honest about how the image was taken. Cheers...

What if you train your pet hawk to catch and eat your pet rats? Or pet mice? I bet you could get some amazing pictures that way.

I'm sure your intentions are good, and I don't call staging a photograph this way cheating, and it is a wonderful photo, but...

 

Here is a quote taken off the Bryce Canyon National Park website. http://www.nps.gov/brca/feeding_wildlife.html

 

"Feeding wildlife is actually a form of animal cruelty. Animals that are fed by humans learn to frequent roadsides and parking lots, dramatically increasing their chances of being run-over by a careless motorist. Most animals have very specific natural diets and therefore specific kinds of digestive bacteria. Being fed human food causes the wrong type of bacteria to become dominant in the stomachs. Soon these animals are no longer able to digest their natural foods. They end up starving to death with stomachs full of what they should have been eating all along. What could be more cruel?"

Hey D. Burgess,

 

Not sure I understand your question. Good advice, cruel or just funny?

It seems to me the best situation would be one of non-interference and no contact with the subject in order to study the natural behavior of the bird instead of the behavior of a baited bird.

 

I preferred the original (uncropped) version myself.

Cary, You had some idea that baiting the bird was not a good idea or you would not have mentioned it,(you expressed a bit of guilt in your original statement with your photo). You then have a declined opinion of photos taken in this maner as well. So work harder to capture a natural photo. You and all that view the natural photo will have positive comments and feelings. Some things are best not told. Emotions have termendious power in the way people judge all things. The capture (subject) is fantastic! The crop and the noise degrade the photo severely. Feeding the wildlife really does destroy the life cycle of a wild animal. You've heard of co-dependency? Bill @ Blackstar Arts...

Re: alternatvie crop - http://gallery.photo.net/photo/2503612-md.jpg

Thanks Cary, this works much better for me.

Cruel, or funny? I'm surprised by this question. It's common sense, all the way. Hawks eat mice all the time, and rabbits, and other furry creatures.

 

The debate here regarding the ethics of feeding wildlife seems to be predicated in this instance on the kind of food, chicken parts, or sandwiches, as much as the issue of how the food is acquired, whether at the hand of man, or by the hawks hunting ability.

 

The sandwich question clearly is not worth pursuit as even photographers, known more for their artistic vision and sexual perversions rather than their intellect, can see the dangers of acclimating wild animals to tuna salad, and ham on rye. Chicken parts, at least, are a step in the right direction, but to some, still a shortfall in the overall question of keeping the wild in the animal.

 

Predators spill blood. What can you do? Cary's hawk grew to adulthood by ripping flesh, not by gnawing grain, so there is really nothing cruel about my idea. As long as a single hawk glides on afternoon thermals, the blood of mice will stain the fields, so why not turn it loose on its natural prey? Simply release enough furry creatures into the back yard, feed them, of course, whatever they eat, and the hawk, looking for its cold chicken offering, will gladly snatch a warm juicy mouse instead.

 

Everyone wins: The photographer is free of blame, since he's not actually feeding the hawk, rather, he's merely increasing the natural food supply; his photo ops are more legitimate; we get to see more stunning imagery of genuinely wild animals; the hawk hones and retains his hunting skills; and the rodents...well, they loose out, admittedly, but that's not such a big deal since some squealing rodent somewhere is today's or tomorrow's meal.

The uncropped photo works much better. I think it works better still if the bird is placed as

far in the upper left as possible so that it appears to be looking down over a vast expanse

for prospective prey.

 

Regarding the ethics question, we now know that the overwhelming consensus both here

and among wildlife professionals is against feeding wild hawks because it is/likely is/can

be detrimental to the bird and not the least bit analagous to feeding the spatsies in the

back yard. Although one can, and should, trust the intentions of the photographer up to

this point, to continue feeding the bird would demonstrate a different type of ethical

intention.

 

One more note, I'm thankful to the elves for picking a POW with equipment-related

technical problems. I think that for purposes of discussion, the composition is much more

important than the quality of the camera.

So to get to the question at hand. Do I appreciate this photo any less (or more) knowing the methods used to obtain it? No. It's a nice capture. Like some of the others have said above, I prefer the uncropped photo.

 

Do I think it is cheating to have fed the animal? Yes. The same picture of the wild animal may not be better. However, one would understand just how hard it was to get the one of the wild animal. One could appreciate the effort needed to make such a capture, but a good photo is still a good photo, right? Do we appreciate studio shots of models any less than a good street scene?

 

My personal feeling on the feeding - stop. Do it slowly, but stop. However, my thoughts on that having nothing to do with the fact that you've made a cool photograph. Nice job.

WOW! You caught an awesome shot! It shows the huge glory of such an incredible species. Thank you for sharing it with us. Seeing this Bird like this gives everyone proof of the beauty of nature and why we should take good care of her-Mother Nature. Thank you so much again for sharing it with us. Great Job!!!

Lack of more advanced definition takes the edge off this photo opportunity!

No & No. And yet a 3rd "no" to the knee jerk criticisms of a centered image. While I see no benefit in fawning over this image, I believe that this site that should focus on the unusual merit (or lack of it) as is presented in this photo.

oh, i know. big letters along the bottom that say: "Majesty" and are followed by smaller letters with some business oriented quotation. then it could be mounted in some CEO's office.

 

i dunno, i really appreciate the effort that it takes to shoot animals in the wild. i've tried and failed. but this shot just doesn't do anything for me. good technically, and definitely an excellent moment capture. but still nothing that particularly grabs my interest. just my singular opinion.

 

perhaps i'm spoiled by national geographic.

First, fantastic photo!

 

Second, just coming back from a wildlife (mainly birds) trip, I would say that it is never a good idea to feed a wild bird. Let the wild be wild.

Personally I think it is kind of boring. I will not critize your technique or discuss the feeding thing, but the picture just does not do it for me.

 

Looking at your portraits I stared at the b/w picture of the painted boy for quite some time. Truly amazing picture, art!

Interesting. I just want to point out that it is not a universal theme out there never to feed wildlife. Like all of life's rules, there are exceptions.

 

Some things I know for certain though... the overwhelming majority of wildlife are adaptable, opportunistic and are just looking to have a warm safe home, a full belly, and an ideal mate to produce offspring with. Wildlife are creatures of habit. And as a wildlife photographer, that's the trick, learning and observing not just the species, but individual animals long enough to recognize their patterns so that great shots of wildlife can be made.

 

Cary recognized this pattern and set up the shot accordingly. Since wildlife won't "pose" for us, in the right sweet light, with the right look, properly blase' background, with just the right composition, etc... when you nail a shot like this, its certainly a small victory for the photographer.

 

It's an excellent shot Cary! Well done.

Stephanie, It's a univeral theme for those who would like to keep wildlife wild. Just curious,

what are the exceptions?

I often think of standing in a tree, waiting for the blue heron to near, possibly land

and me at the ready, shooting at that right moment. Here's a wonderful reminder for

me. Great shot Gary. How long did you wait?

Hi Alfred,

 

No Tarzan in the tree here.! The tree the hawk is perched on is in front of my sundeck, approx. 35ft away. I pre-focus with a tripod mounted camera with a corded remote. This allows me to be ready when she ariives.

 

Thanks for the comments.

I know this is a little off topic to the POW, but it's regarding the Elves opening up the dialogue on the ethics of feeding. Sean asked a specific question, regarding some of the exceptions to the feeding wild animals philosphy. I can tell you backyard bird feeders have become critical in the survival of several species due to habitat loss. Primarily birds on the Atlantic migratory flyway. Food placed out during the winter months especially, have compensated for the loss of some natural food sources and have allowed them to complete their migrations. Keeping with the birds, I can tell you we "fed" (placed live domesticated mice out for them) spotted owls during our studies of them in order to identify their nests so we could identify numbers of nests and off-spring. some pretty significant bioloy of the birds.

 

Aside from birds, marine biologists often place food out for the target species in order to attract them for tagging, measurements and the like. When herd species of land mammals develop communicable diseases, wildlife biologists, here and on other continents often place medicine in food drops rather than work with the risks associated with darting and individual cature and treatment, not to mention costs.

 

On the wildlife "detriment" side, humans have placed poison in carcasses in order to erradicate unwanted species. (let's not get into the morality of that!). Hunters often bait deer in order to get them into a particular routine for open hunting season.

 

And finally, when we get into the humans have dominion over all the environment topic, we can see example after example of humans inserting themselves over the life cycle of animals, sometimes for the better (such as California condors, Giant Pandas, White Rhinos, Cheetas, Mute Swans, etc. etc.) and sometimes not (almost all predator species, rabbits in Australia, European starling, zebra mussels, all invasive species in Hawaii).

 

These are just some of the examples I can think of off the top of my head. I think one's feelings about feeding "wildlife" are very individual and I respect (mostly everyone's (not really those that leave poison out for so called pests) everyone's opinions about it. Personally, my only hard and fast motto is not to harm any wildlife. That leaves alot of room for individual interpretation.

 

Thanks for the shots Cary. Keep up the work. Thanks for letting me share some thoughts.

Steph

Cary, to live in such a beautiful place and to take superlative photagraphs is a

double blessing. Keep them coming. I do hope you fed the Princess French

Brioche:)

Stephanie's comments were so enlightening. Thanks

To add what I hope is a final comment on the issue of feeding wild animals... I volunteer at one of the largest raptor recovery centers in the country, east of Denver. We receive 2 to 3 raptors weekly who are near death as a result of starvation. The reason for their condition, in the midst of more than enough prey, is feeding by people. Raptors who are fed accomodate rapidly to receiving food from people (called imprinting) and stop hunting. We currently know of no way to induce or teach a raptor to hunt again and therefore, these raptors, if they survive, are forced to live out their lives in raptor recovery centers (we cannot accomodate all the birds we receive, so we ship many of them to other centers). In case you're wondering, we do not give these birds to zoos because of the typically poor treatment they receive there.

 

We have been participating in a research project for over 10 years examining methods for changing raptors' behavior (this has been a nation-wide project supported by the Dept. of Fish & Wildlife) and thusfar have been entirely unsuccessful. Raptors imprint on people and presently there is no way to reverse that process.

 

Therefore, I would encourage you to avoid feeding raptors and other animals as the adverse effects will not always be obvious to you.

Is hiring a model cheating ?