Posted by Robert Fisher on November 21, 2008 at 8:48 AM
A discussion came up on another board where a member had posted a shot of a bird that she'd had someone purposely scare to move so she could shoot it in flight. I'm not an avian photographer, nor a general wildlife photographer. My initial thinking is this kind of action would be in the same category as baiting and considered unethical. It's putting undue and unnecessary stress on the animal. Sure, we sometimes scare animals by accident if we didn't know it was there or just by walking by a pond, but to do it purposely seems different in my view.
All things being equal, if the subject was an unsuspecting person being intimidated rather than a bird, the police would probably be involved. Seems like a simple case of disrespect if not harassment to me. It's sad that almost all wildlife/bird photography is now tainted for many viewers, not knowing what tactics were involved in getting the shot.
Guy
Posted by Steve Foss on November 21, 2008 at 10:55 AM
I'd have to know more about the condition of the bird and the situation before making a substantive comment on it. There is not enough detail supplied, and I could come up with situations in which it would seem OK to me and in which it would not. And any judgment I made would apply only to myself, since ethics are a very personal decision. It's not my place to judge the ethics of others. We already have Someone who does that.
Posted by David Bostedo on November 21, 2008 at 11:25 AM
My initial thinking is this kind of action would be in the same category as baiting and considered unethical.
I don't want to start another debate, but a lot of people don't think baiting is unethical either; Which just shows how different some people's point of view is. I think I agree with Steve - except that at some point you step out of any grey area and the ethics become public rather than personal.
Posted by Steve Foss on November 21, 2008 at 12:05 PM
at some point you step out of any grey area and the ethics become public rather than personal.
Yes, and it's human nature to be judgmental of others. For most of us it takes hard work to curb that impulse, always assuming one actually wants to avoid sitting in judgment of others.
Posted by Dwight Folts on November 21, 2008 at 12:30 PM
I agree with others... We need more information. Did the individual scare the bird by walking toward it or throwing a rock with intent to hit it or firing a gun? The latter two would not be appropriate but it is a matter of extremes when scaring a bird or any other animal.
As for baiting, I have five bird feeders in my back yard so the question of “baiting” in the literal sense does not work as an ethical problem for me. If on the other hand you are referring to “baiting” as ‘to persecute, harass or tease’ (from the Encarta Dictionary) it may be appropriate.
However, as I sees it we scare birds every day... robins in my back yard are constantly on the move as I go about gardening and other activities. I am not trying to make light of your concern but only to point out that birds whether we intentionally or inadvertently scare them are constantly on the move.
Therefore, the ethical question becomes the method used to scare the bird?
Posted by Robert Fisher on November 21, 2008 at 1:30 PM
When Guy moved this to the Hot Topics section he emailed me and said it might generate some fairly intense responses. Looks like we might be getting there.
Obviously I don't know all the details because I wasn't there. The description given was that the heron was under a dock and she sent her husband to scare it toward her. How he did it, I don't know.
As far as baiting, I'm a little surprised on a board like this that the responses are as varied as they are. I'm not talking about backyard feeders and photographing songbirds. I'm talking about things like tying mice to strings to entice owls. I'm talking about leaving food for other wildlife that, if done too much, could impact the animals' desire/ability to find their own food. Some of these practices are even illegal in some jurisdictions.
It's interesting that the question of ethics in this realm seems to be quite open to interpretation yet when it comes to things like preserving the natural environment, there seems to be more universal agreement.
Posted by Steve Foss on November 21, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Well, this is a discussion we've had before on these boards, in great depth and with strong feelings on many sides. It'll be interesting to see how this particular iteration of the ongoing debate evolves.
I have weighed these things hard for the last couple/three years. I don't have problems with backyard bird feeding stations, nor do I have problems with mice/owls.
I see more potential problems with people who bait large predators. Done poorly (too often in the same locations and with obvious human presence nearby), this is an invitation to habituate the animals to being fed around people, and research has repeatedly shown that such habituated animals can become aggressive toward people. Bad for the people, bad for the animal. Bad all the way around.
As for the practice of baiting predators in the first place, all the wild canids are quite used to feeding off road killed deer and other animals. That's food we have provided them. Is it ethical to take advantage of that in order to capture photographs of wild animals? I see no problem with, at infrequent intervals, dragging one of those road kills off into the woods in a more photogenic location and waiting to see what might come in.
Those are merely my philosophies. Others will have different ones, and no doubt some of those people will find it appropriate in their hearts to judge me harshly even though I don't reciprocate.
I believe the most important thing in this whole debate is to think hard about all the issues, weigh the arguments against your conscience and make a decision you are at peace with. I also think it's important with this issue, as with any ethical issue, to be open to changing one's position over time. We develop as people, and things we feel psychologically comfortable doing when we were younger often become uncomfortable as we age.
Posted by Mike Spivey on November 21, 2008 at 4:44 PM
I shoot birds rarely, but when I do, I usually try to creep closer and closer to get a great shot. When I finally scooch a little close for the bird's comfort, it flies away and I try to shoot it on the wing. I never really thought about that being unethical. Maybe I just need longer glass :)
I recently bought a Better Beamer in anticipation of a trip to Holla Bend AR (the Bosque of the Central States). Is there sentiment that it's cruel to use flash to shoot a bird?
No one should have to actually scare a bird (or any animal) to make it take flight. Simple proximity should do the trick.
Posted by Ross Warner on November 21, 2008 at 7:25 PM
Mike, if you asked the bird I suppose using a better beamer may be torture, let alone be unethical. Is walking a field, where one knows there are pheasants, to scare one up for an inflight photo unethical? If it is, I suppose just walking a field where there may be a pheasant and scaring one up would also be unethical.
Posted by Carl Donohue on November 21, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Hey Folks,
IMO, the discussion of ethics has to include intention. I don't see how anyone can conflate accidentally frightening an animal as we hike through the woods with deliberately frightening an animal so we can take it's picture. I can accidentally run over you with my car, but I don't get charged with murder. The difference is merely my intention - yet it probably made little difference to you either way, no?
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Stan Rose on November 22, 2008 at 7:36 AM
If youre gonna make that analogy, Carl, remember that in some cases you can be charged with murder even if there was no intent to kill (criminally negligent homicide, dwi etc) So, with that in mind, if you recklessly walk through a wildlife area and it gets frightened, there really is no difference between that and intentionally frightening it! Sorry, the ex-lawyer in me had to pointlessly argue with you
Posted by Carl Donohue on November 22, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Hey Stan
Murder 1, Murder, 2, etc, etc.
Take insurance then. I pay money specifically so I get some kickback if something happens to my car when I drive it. And if I go driving today, in the snow (which I will), and someone runs into me, HOPEFULLY my insurance company will pay me money. But if I push it off a cliff, no dough. Intention is pretty important in this discussion.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Jim Erhardt on November 23, 2008 at 12:22 PM
And sometimes, birds just don't care...
Posted by Steve Foss on November 23, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Jim, what did you put in your hair? Were you baiting that poor titmouse?
Sorry Jim, just ribbin ya a little.
Good thoughts, Peter.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on November 24, 2008 at 5:26 AM
Steve, this usually happens just before my monthly bath.
Posted by Arlen Fletcher on November 25, 2008 at 8:17 AM
I'll throw in another angle on this discussion... Birds are out there trying to make a living (i.e. eat) pretty much the entire day - every day - rain, shine, snow, heat - they still have to eat. (Hey - that rhymes!) Certainly it's more difficult for some species than for others, but flushing a bird results in him/her expending a lot of energy - and up's the need for food. If the bird is also trying to feed young, then the hunt for food is even more difficult.
I spent quite a bit of time in the PNW tracking radio-tagged irruptive Great Gray Owls back to their nesting grounds in BC. While they were in the PNW, I'd watch the swarms of birders trying to catch a glimpse of them - which was perfectly reasonable - they're magnificent birds. There were always a few folks that had to see how close they could get to the owl - and in each case these folks were photographers (including at least one 'Explorer of Light'). They'd get close enough to disrupt the owl's feeding - sometimes for the entire morning (GGOW's are crepuscular - they feed at dusk & dawn) forcing the owl to be more productive on the evening hunt in order to make up the food deficit. Now, did any of them (owls) die as a result? Not that I'm aware of. In each case though, they moved to hunting areas that were not visible to the general public - which was unfortunate for people that wanted to observe them - even from a safe distance.
Flushing a bird on purpose just to get a shot is something I personally wouldn't be comfortable doing.
Astute photographers (and birders) can tell when the bird they're approaching is getting uncomfortable. If you pick up on those signs - back off a little. If you don't recognize the signs, spend some time observing, you'll end up knowing your subject better and in the long run I'll wager you'll get better images as a result.
[The foregoing editorial comment was worth exactly what you paid for it.]
Posted by Robert Fisher on November 25, 2008 at 10:18 PM
You know, I'm really sorry I asked the question. And I don't mean sorry as in an apology.
In my mind, respecting the avian world does not preclude interaction with it. Flushing a bird in proximity to you, deliberately or otherwise, depends on both you and the bird. I have walked within a few feet, slowly and carefully of Great Blue Herons who absolutely didn't seem to mind, and obviously flew as a precautionary measure. I have slowed my vehicle down within 100 yards of a flock of migrating ducks and they all took off in a panic. Birds have different responses within species at different times of year and different times of the day and whether they are feeding or not. Different species and different types of birds have different responses. The basic premise I have as a photographer is to know the bird. And I have felt comfortable flushing some birds and avoided flushing others.
Feeding birds is also not necessarily good for all birds. The little birds tend to be totally stressed when they have to compete with grackles, jays, starlings, pigeons, rats and squirrels for food. Canada geese and some other geese that take up residence in public parks develop angel wing when fed a steady diet of bread, and become unable to fly. Feeding birds is also not necessarily good for the one who feeds them, either. Birds can tear up a lawn. They are noisy early in the morning. They poop on your cars and out door furniture. Which is quite stressful, but the birds don't seem to care.
My point is, a knowledgeable relationship with birds (and other animals) is possible. It takes study, commitment and experience—and proper expectations. Nothing in life is stress free, either for the birds or for us humans. Respect and tolerance are great levelers, but they don't cure stress. Neither does ethics.
Posted by David Bostedo on December 4, 2008 at 11:01 PM
You know, I'm really sorry I asked the question. And I don't mean sorry as in an apology.
Can you explain Robert? I don't get what you're saying...
Posted by Terry Sohl on December 4, 2008 at 11:30 PM
On one hand, you do have to recognize that every time you head to the field you're going to end up affecting animal behavior. Just driving to and from work here every day, I usually end up flushing birds, be they longspurs or horned larks on the side of the road, or hawks perched on fence posts or telephone poles. Not a lot I can do about that.
However, I agree with those here that mention intent. I would have a hard time justifying going out of your way to flush a bird just to get a photo.
I have been photographing birds for about 5 years. I would have to say that ignorance is no excuse for scaring birds. I have to agree with Arlen that the first thing to do is learn about your subjects. That being said, the individual birds have incredible diversity in their reactions. I have seen Bald Eagles stay perched while dogs play at the base of their tree and others take flight when you open the car door a quarter mile away. As birders we will flush birds inadvertently. However we owe it to the birds to have as light a tread as possible.
I was photographing a Great Blue Heron this past summer that was perched on the bank of a pond area. The heron was used to people and thus very cooperative. We all took our shots.
After some time had passed, I saw a newbie photograher and another relatively new birder/photographer slowly edge toward the heron, closer and closer. I said, if you get too close the heron will fly off (I was still taking photos). I was surprised to hear the response, 'we want some flight shots'. I explained that this heron does fly all on its own and if you're patient you'll eventually get flight shots. This is true as the heron in question flies around from time to time.
In January I was told that there were Bohemian Waxwings and Pine Grosbeaks feeding on Mountian Ash berries at a Tim Horton's at an extremely busy intersection in a town nearby. I went and parked my car near the tree and, using it as a blind, photographed both species on two days.
The Pine Grosbeaks sat calmly feeding on the berries no matter what went on in the surrounding parking lot but the Bohemian Waxwings perched in trees a distance away, flew in as a flock, stayed just long enough to pluck one or two berries and then took off again. I wondered just how much energy they expended using this feeding strategy. It wasn't until the third day I decided to get out of my vehicle to try for some flight shots of the waxwings flying to and from the tree. I quickly discovered that it wasn't humans that were the cause of their seemingly frantic flights. They paid absolutely no attention to my being withing 10 ft of the tree and it wasn't the traffic either. It became apparent that it was just the way they fed.
Different species have different habits and it isn't always obvious whether or not we are the cause of their flight. The Pine Grosbeaks sat in the tree for 2 hours at a time without once flying in and out. The waxwings would have flown in and out 20 times in that same period.
Discussion
23 repliesWhat's the consensus?
Guy
Yes, and it's human nature to be judgmental of others. For most of us it takes hard work to curb that impulse, always assuming one actually wants to avoid sitting in judgment of others.
As for baiting, I have five bird feeders in my back yard so the question of “baiting” in the literal sense does not work as an ethical problem for me. If on the other hand you are referring to “baiting” as ‘to persecute, harass or tease’ (from the Encarta Dictionary) it may be appropriate.
However, as I sees it we scare birds every day... robins in my back yard are constantly on the move as I go about gardening and other activities. I am not trying to make light of your concern but only to point out that birds whether we intentionally or inadvertently scare them are constantly on the move.
Therefore, the ethical question becomes the method used to scare the bird?
Obviously I don't know all the details because I wasn't there. The description given was that the heron was under a dock and she sent her husband to scare it toward her. How he did it, I don't know.
As far as baiting, I'm a little surprised on a board like this that the responses are as varied as they are. I'm not talking about backyard feeders and photographing songbirds. I'm talking about things like tying mice to strings to entice owls. I'm talking about leaving food for other wildlife that, if done too much, could impact the animals' desire/ability to find their own food. Some of these practices are even illegal in some jurisdictions.
It's interesting that the question of ethics in this realm seems to be quite open to interpretation yet when it comes to things like preserving the natural environment, there seems to be more universal agreement.
I have weighed these things hard for the last couple/three years. I don't have problems with backyard bird feeding stations, nor do I have problems with mice/owls.
I see more potential problems with people who bait large predators. Done poorly (too often in the same locations and with obvious human presence nearby), this is an invitation to habituate the animals to being fed around people, and research has repeatedly shown that such habituated animals can become aggressive toward people. Bad for the people, bad for the animal. Bad all the way around.
As for the practice of baiting predators in the first place, all the wild canids are quite used to feeding off road killed deer and other animals. That's food we have provided them. Is it ethical to take advantage of that in order to capture photographs of wild animals? I see no problem with, at infrequent intervals, dragging one of those road kills off into the woods in a more photogenic location and waiting to see what might come in.
Those are merely my philosophies. Others will have different ones, and no doubt some of those people will find it appropriate in their hearts to judge me harshly even though I don't reciprocate.
I believe the most important thing in this whole debate is to think hard about all the issues, weigh the arguments against your conscience and make a decision you are at peace with. I also think it's important with this issue, as with any ethical issue, to be open to changing one's position over time. We develop as people, and things we feel psychologically comfortable doing when we were younger often become uncomfortable as we age.
I recently bought a Better Beamer in anticipation of a trip to Holla Bend AR (the Bosque of the Central States). Is there sentiment that it's cruel to use flash to shoot a bird?
No one should have to actually scare a bird (or any animal) to make it take flight. Simple proximity should do the trick.
IMO, the discussion of ethics has to include intention. I don't see how anyone can conflate accidentally frightening an animal as we hike through the woods with deliberately frightening an animal so we can take it's picture. I can accidentally run over you with my car, but I don't get charged with murder. The difference is merely my intention - yet it probably made little difference to you either way, no?
Cheers
Carl
Murder 1, Murder, 2, etc, etc.
Take insurance then. I pay money specifically so I get some kickback if something happens to my car when I drive it. And if I go driving today, in the snow (which I will), and someone runs into me, HOPEFULLY my insurance company will pay me money. But if I push it off a cliff, no dough. Intention is pretty important in this discussion.
Cheers
Carl
Sorry Jim, just ribbin ya a little.
Good thoughts, Peter.
I spent quite a bit of time in the PNW tracking radio-tagged irruptive Great Gray Owls back to their nesting grounds in BC. While they were in the PNW, I'd watch the swarms of birders trying to catch a glimpse of them - which was perfectly reasonable - they're magnificent birds. There were always a few folks that had to see how close they could get to the owl - and in each case these folks were photographers (including at least one 'Explorer of Light'). They'd get close enough to disrupt the owl's feeding - sometimes for the entire morning (GGOW's are crepuscular - they feed at dusk & dawn) forcing the owl to be more productive on the evening hunt in order to make up the food deficit. Now, did any of them (owls) die as a result? Not that I'm aware of. In each case though, they moved to hunting areas that were not visible to the general public - which was unfortunate for people that wanted to observe them - even from a safe distance.
Flushing a bird on purpose just to get a shot is something I personally wouldn't be comfortable doing.
Astute photographers (and birders) can tell when the bird they're approaching is getting uncomfortable. If you pick up on those signs - back off a little. If you don't recognize the signs, spend some time observing, you'll end up knowing your subject better and in the long run I'll wager you'll get better images as a result.
[The foregoing editorial comment was worth exactly what you paid for it.]
Feeding birds is also not necessarily good for all birds. The little birds tend to be totally stressed when they have to compete with grackles, jays, starlings, pigeons, rats and squirrels for food. Canada geese and some other geese that take up residence in public parks develop angel wing when fed a steady diet of bread, and become unable to fly. Feeding birds is also not necessarily good for the one who feeds them, either. Birds can tear up a lawn. They are noisy early in the morning. They poop on your cars and out door furniture. Which is quite stressful, but the birds don't seem to care.
My point is, a knowledgeable relationship with birds (and other animals) is possible. It takes study, commitment and experience—and proper expectations. Nothing in life is stress free, either for the birds or for us humans. Respect and tolerance are great levelers, but they don't cure stress. Neither does ethics.
However, I agree with those here that mention intent. I would have a hard time justifying going out of your way to flush a bird just to get a photo.
After some time had passed, I saw a newbie photograher and another relatively new birder/photographer slowly edge toward the heron, closer and closer. I said, if you get too close the heron will fly off (I was still taking photos). I was surprised to hear the response, 'we want some flight shots'. I explained that this heron does fly all on its own and if you're patient you'll eventually get flight shots. This is true as the heron in question flies around from time to time.
The Pine Grosbeaks sat calmly feeding on the berries no matter what went on in the surrounding parking lot but the Bohemian Waxwings perched in trees a distance away, flew in as a flock, stayed just long enough to pluck one or two berries and then took off again. I wondered just how much energy they expended using this feeding strategy. It wasn't until the third day I decided to get out of my vehicle to try for some flight shots of the waxwings flying to and from the tree. I quickly discovered that it wasn't humans that were the cause of their seemingly frantic flights. They paid absolutely no attention to my being withing 10 ft of the tree and it wasn't the traffic either. It became apparent that it was just the way they fed.
Different species have different habits and it isn't always obvious whether or not we are the cause of their flight. The Pine Grosbeaks sat in the tree for 2 hours at a time without once flying in and out. The waxwings would have flown in and out 20 times in that same period.
Eleanor Kee Wellman
Muskoka, Ontario