Posted by Richard Ditch on January 12, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Let me be very clear that I am not not accusing anyone here at NPN of this behavior. But I wanted to remind everyone who has the good fortune to live within access to the places where owls occur in winter to be responsible in their behavior with the owls and the restrictions on property access.
And I will ask that all photographers refrain from baiting owls for the purpose of photographing them.
I've recently seen an email from New Jersey concerning a Snowy Owl in the northern part of the state being harassed, mostly be photographers. If I can get a link to an archive with it I will add that.
Posted by Mia McPherson on January 12, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Rich,
Reading about the Northern Hawk Owl brought tears to my eyes.
I could never bait birds like that because "if" some thing happened I would carry the thought that I contributed to the death of a bird. Even the thought of it repulses me.
Posted by Steve Foss on January 12, 2009 at 4:31 PM
It's really saddening to see that folks would bait owls so close to roads with heavy traffic that one was (presumably) struck and killed. I'm not naive. I know it happens. I just don't like it.
Whether one does or does not find it within their personal ethical framework to bait animals for photography, doing so in the way described in the northern hawk owl link is thoughtless and irresponsible.
In my opinion.
Posted by Steve Foss on January 12, 2009 at 8:12 PM
Raymond, this is just my opinion, but singling out a specific photographer and making an assumption about that photographer's image based on a couple comments by other NPN members (with no confirmation of baiting vs not baiting unless I missed that in the thread), is uncalled for. It makes ME cringe. If you want to be judgmental of others, that is of course your call and is not for me to judge, but you might want to wait until you know if the owl was baited first.
Posted by dan elster on January 12, 2009 at 8:36 PM
Raymond, I remember you declaring you were done with any sort of baiting last winter and I really admired you at the time for stating your position. Especially since I think you live in the Ontario area and probably run into some of these photographers from time to time. My hats off to you and I'll also point out you've posted some really nice owl images that look a whole lot more natural since then.
I won't even open a photo of a baited bird anymore, let alone comment. All I would be able to do is express my anger. It's usually quite obvious when an owl has been baited. The images and photographers who take part, make me sick.
The actions of a few selfish photographers whom have no regard or respect for the birds, property owners, bird watchers and other photographers, will eventually damage the reputations of all of us avian photogrpahers. I live 3000 miles away from Ontario, but I still worry about our reputations. Richards links to the snowy owl on the east coast and the hawk in AZ are perfect examples.
I'm not a member of NANPA, but I sure wish they would take a stand. Isn't that what they are supposed to be about? Perhaps the fact that a couple of very prominent members of NANPA condone this behavior makes them reluctant to say anything. Too bad.
Like Raymond says, maybe it's time for those of us who care about our hobbies/careers to take a stand and let some magazines,etc know exactly how some of these spectacular images are really being aquired. I'm guessing we are a huge silent majority. I also agree that the ethics on NPN are much better than some other forums, but maybe we could take it a step further.
I've been drawn into a couple of heated discussions on NPN and other forums and every time do, I end up regretting it and saying never again. So this is the last time........
Steve, your right, I shouldn't single out a photog, my apologies... i have seen his work for 2 winters now, and they are all baited., but no need to single anyone out.
Dan, I do not have much history with baiting, I witnessed it 2 times, took some pictures the second time, but later, when there were 60 white mice hanging from the trees nearby, and a bird sitting still, and done with hunting, and natural activity, my attituded changed dramatically.
I left one of the local forums here in Canada because I was tired of it., and I am guess I will leave others... if you don't like the show, change the channel. I do hope this birds death wasn't a result of baiting, hopefully we will find out soon.
Guys, I deleted the references to the NPN member in question. Without hard evidence, there's no room for this type of accusation here.
Dan - I agree with you completely. I wish an organization like NANPA took a strong stand on such issues.
Guy
Posted by Terry Sohl on January 12, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Not to beat a dead horse regarding an earlier thread I had about another avian photography site, but this is one huge difference between NPN and that site.
Go to that "other" website right now, and you'll be astounded over the number of Snowy Owls being posted right now. And you'll be astounded to see how many of them are acknowledged to be baited.
I hate the practice, period. However, I admit I'm a bit conflicted about it. There's capturing the beauty of the resource, and then there's abusing the resource. In my mind, baiting owls like this DOES seem like abusing the resource.
On the other hand, I certainly have no shortage of bird feeders in my back yard. Hence the conflict. Which is OK, and which is to be avoided? For me, baiting owls just "feels" wrong, and I don't feel that way about bird feeders.
Posted by Steve Foss on January 12, 2009 at 10:34 PM
Thanks, Guy.
Terry, I understand your philosophy completely.
To move on a bit (I'm not talking about Terry here), here are some questions for all of us to think about. Not to rail about. Not to vent spleen over. Not to rip other sites or some of our members, but to THINK about.
If someone baits owls with mice and does so in an area where the owls are not endangered by traffic/outside sources, and allows the owls to catch the mice and eat them, is that inherently wrong? If someone feeds finch-type birds sunflower seed, and allows them to actually eat the seed, is that inherently wrong?
Is there a difference between the two situations?
Now, if someone baits owls with mice in areas that endanger the owls, is that different than someone who feeds sunflower seed but doesn't clean their feeding stations, which allows bacterial diseases to flourish? Either can kill the birds in question, yet when bacterial disease at feeders is raised as an issue, people simply try to educate others on how best to keep their feeders clean. When baiting owls in locations that can endanger the owls is raised as an issue, faces turn red, teeth are gnashed and hands are wrung.
I'm always willing to listen to a balanced perspective thoughtfully delivered, so will someone explain the differences to me without ranting?
Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 13, 2009 at 6:26 AM
Steve, I'll offer this: Donna has a few feeders set up in our backyard. She does so because she loves to watch the birds (and the squirrels, chipmunks, etc.) and most of all, listen to their song in the warmer months when the windows are open. She does so because she loves song birds and enjoys the experience of having them in our yard.
Having never baited bird of prey for photography, I can offer no first-hand experience or reason. However, I can offer this;
1. In the case of Donna's backyard feeders, it is done primarily for the love of wildlife, and the joy of being in its presence. Baiting, as described in this thread, is done for the aquisition of a photo and any fame/ego-stroking/monetary reward it may bring.
2. Seed is used in backyard feeders. In the baiting of owls, live animals are being sacrificed in order to take a photo of a bird of prey.
When it comes to "baiting" for the purpose of photography, I think each case must be judged separately. For example, using the carcas of a road-killed animal to attract a predator in a natural setting away from any roadside danger is quite different than what is described above. It is only when the welfare of all wildlife is so blantantly disregarded for the purpose of nature photography that we find it objectionable. Where is that line between acceptable and not acceptable to be drawn? Perhaps through threads such as this one, that line can be better defined.
Posted by Steve Foss on January 13, 2009 at 8:42 AM
Thanks, Jim, for the thoughtful, balanced response.
I also have fed back-yard birds (since 1973) for the love of being close to them. It wasn't until the last several years that I began to alter the back-yard feeding station scene to take photographs of them. And when I'm out there in the blind in the yard, when I take my eyes away from my camera because I don't need chickadee photo No. 839,003, I just enjoy being close to them. But I do also make money from the photos I take of these birds. Love came first, then money.
In the case of owls, I have not baited them before, though I have been in the presence of another photographer who was. I have specifically enjoyed hawks and owls throughout the length of my birding career more than any other group of species, and to watch that owl focus sharply on the mouse, leave its perch and never waver as it approached the mouse and set its wings, extending its talons, well, I was breathless with awe and appreciation. If I do eventually bait owls, love will have come chronologically before money, just like with the back-yard birds. While I do have images of that owl coming in for the mouse, out of professional respect for the photographer who did the baiting/setup I will not display or sell them because it was not my setup.
I think my feelings cause a bit more blurring of the lines (for me) between what's done for pleasure and for money.
I am, of course, unable to in any way counter the fact that a live animal is being sacrificed, though of course some believe the owl benefits by getting an easy meal as much as the photographer does by getting the image. Whether an easy meal for a stressed owl is a good thing or not in the long sweep of natural history, no one of us really knows. And I believe there is some level of arrogance inherent in taking one live creature and encouraging another to kill it for profit. That is a uniquely human manipulation. Some people are comfortable with that and some are not. I don't believe either group should judge the other harshly, but realize it is naive to expect peace between so many individuals of such a contentious species.
I also fully agree with your final paragraph, Jim, and is why I take the time to participate in this type of discussion. Regardless where we stand on whichever issue is being talked over, I believe these discussions also encourage us to be thoughtful about our world. Often, our positions change over time and with increased experience. I know mine have.
Posted by dan elster on January 13, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Obviously there is a fine line of what is ethically acceptable with bird feeders, etc. My answer to that is does it feel right? Raymond Barlow describes this scene a few posts above.
"but later, when there were 60 white mice hanging from the trees nearby, and a bird sitting still, and done with hunting, and natural activity, my attituded changed dramatically."
That is an ugly scene. These idiots don't care about the well being of the bird. I wonder if it felt right to them.
What about the damage baiting is doing to the reputations of all wildlife photographers? Shouldn't that be a consideration. Pretty soon, they'll be leading "workshops" teaching more and more people the finer points of baiting. And the leaders of these classes will be seen as "authorities" by their students and that it's a perfectly acceptable practice and things will get more and more out of hand.
Posted by Richard Ditch on January 13, 2009 at 4:33 PM
I am sorry to see this discussion stray off into yet another discussion about backyard bird feeding. That was not my intended topic when I started this. My intention was to remind photographers about the potential consequences of their interactions with certain "high profile" species in public situations in terms of effects on those birds, problems of private property, and the collective reputation of "nature" photographers in general. At no point did I mention "backyards" or "bird feeders." The title of this threat is "Harassment of Owls."
Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 13, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Rich (and Fred), I did a little editing to get the thread back on topic. Let's try to keep it there!
Posted by Terry Sohl on January 13, 2009 at 8:08 PM
I don't see how you can clearly distinguish between the two. There are those out there that try to justify baiting of owls by pointing to those who have bird feeders, stating both are doing the same thing. And one small part of me can't totally dismiss that argument.
Even though I don't agree with it and would never practice it, I'm not entirely comfortable going ahead and just outright damning the practice of baiting owls. Every action we take has an effect on bird behavior, even when we just take a simple walk with our camera. Some actions obviously have a more significant impact on potential species survival than others.
But what exactly ARE the real impacts? Not to say this is necessarily the case, but just to play devil's advocate...who is to say that more owls survive winters BECAUSE they're being fed, than owls are being killed from being lured close to roads. God knows in "the" year at Sax-Zim, there were one heck of a lot of owls around looking for food somewhere. I have no doubt that the ecosystem couldn't support them all, and some starved.
What it all boils down to for me though...even the potential argument I just gave would be, to me, just an excuse for those who bait owls. Maybe that's why it just feels "wrong" to me. These people don't have the health and well being of the owl in mind. All they have in mind is their own desire to get the photo, whether that desire is based on personal satisfaction or on the good ol' dollar that might result from the photo.
Posted by Terry Sohl on January 13, 2009 at 8:13 PM
And BTW...
Yet more Snowy Owl photos being posted on the Internet, with outright statements that they were obtained through baiting. Don't think a day passes there without this occurring, which REALLY makes me wonder how widespread the practice is, and how many owls are being impacted.
And while I'm at it...it makes you wonder what OTHER practices some folks do to get the shot...
Posted by Steve Foss on January 13, 2009 at 8:17 PM
Might we refrain from implicit criticism of other Web sites? It makes NPN look catty. Just IMO.
Posted by Terry Sohl on January 13, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Implicit criticism of another website?
The thread is about the owls being baited. All I was doing was pointing out how widespread the practice is, and how many photos of baited owls are posted online. Seems like fair game to me.
Posted by Ron Dudley on January 13, 2009 at 11:07 PM
I agree. Seems to me that there was no criticism of other websites, implicit or not. Very fair game, esp in "Hot Topics" IMO.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 13, 2009 at 11:10 PM
Terry, we just want to stay on topic and leave any references to other sites out of the discussion. That is why I edited your "and BTW" post to read "being posted on the Internet."
Thanks.
Posted by Richard Ditch on January 14, 2009 at 12:24 PM
FYI for those looking for some codified rules, the American Birding Association (a membership organization of birders) has promoted ethical birding since at least the 1980's. See their Code of Ethics
And just to be clear, here is a disclaimer from the linked page:
The American Birding Association's Code of Birding Ethics may be freely reproduced for distribution/dissemination. Please acknowledge the role of ABA in developing and promoting this code with a link to the ABA website using the url http://www.aba.org. Thank you.
I'll go straight back to the original title of this thread, and ask:
If someone is feeding mice to an owl, on public or permitted property, away from any vehicular traffic, discreetly enough not to draw hostile attention to what he's doing, and in sufficient moderation that the natural behavior of the bird doesn't change, how does this constitute harassment of the owl? Feeding of mice to owls in this manner doesn't really upset me. I get upset if I see people repeatedly flushing an owl by trying to get too close to it; this constitutes harassment IMO.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 17, 2009 at 8:32 AM
"...and in sufficient moderation that the natural behavior of the bird doesn't change..."
I think for some that is a key point. Unfortunately, we really have no way of knowing whether the behavior of the owl was modified. What if there was other prey readily available, but the owl ignored it in favor of the more easily obtained sacrifical mouse? In that case, the behavior of the owl - at least at that point in time - was most certainly modified. Does one such instance have long term effect on the owl's behavior? Does repeated exposure to this practice over a period of time by multiple photographers have a long term impact on the well being of the owl?
No doubt the use of live bait will facilitate the capturing of superb bird photos. Whether the person using such tactics feels the practice is ethical or not is very much a personal decision.
I can totally understand both sides of this issue. So, with that in mind I ask, why is it that with owls it's referred to as "Baiting" and with sugar water for hummingbirds it's called "feeding"? In many instances both are done strictly for obtaining a photograph but the connotation is very clear with the term "baiting" for the most part being used in a negative way. If it's because of ones feelings for the feeder mouse then it makes sense but environmentally I'm not sure. I don't think anyone will ever come up with an opinion that everyone will agree with but one thing is clear to me.... those feeding owls on busy roads with lots of people around are being irresponsible and not doing bird/wildlife photographers any good at all, not to mention the birds themselves.
Posted by Scott Fricke on January 19, 2009 at 12:49 AM
I've been following this thread and have found it quite interesting even though I don't photograph birds on a regular basis, usually only when they get in the way of my landscape shots . While this is a little off-topic to the owls, I was reading about the feeding of the eagles by the "Eagle Lady" mentioned in a couple threads in the General discussion forum. Seems as if there has been almost universal admiration of her, talks of a memorial to her, yet now that she has died there are some saying these eagles may starve to death without continued feeding by her assistant for the rest of the season. Would love to here your thoughts as it pertains to the issues in this thread.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 19, 2009 at 6:24 AM
Jim Zipp said:
I can totally understand both sides of this issue. So, with that in mind I ask, why is it that with owls it's referred to as "Baiting" and with sugar water for hummingbirds it's called "feeding"?
Jim, IMO it's the conscious decision to sacrifice one form of wildlife (the mouse) for the purpose of obtaining a photo of another. It can leave one wondering when the chariots and man-eating lions are going to enter the coliseum.
I also think that it's a practice that the nature photography community as a whole may not want to be associated with (though some obviously have no issue with it). Most of us think of ourselves as the voice for all of nature on a planet dominated by human interest. Our photos should help build a sense of wonder and appreciation of nature for the masses, but IMO we should not abandon such a basic principle as "respect for all life" in the process.
" I've been following this thread and have found it quite interesting even though I don't photograph birds on a regular basis, usually only when they get in the way of my landscape shots . While this is a little off-topic to the owls, I was reading about the feeding of the eagles by the "Eagle Lady" mentioned in a couple threads in the General discussion forum. Seems as if there has been almost universal admiration of her, talks of a memorial to her, yet now that she has died there are some saying these eagles may starve to death without continued feeding by her assistant for the rest of the season. Would love to here your thoughts as it pertains to the issues in this thread."
From all I know, it's a case of unintended consequences. Last year we had the infamous incident in which a bunch of eagles were killed or injured while feeding on uncovered fish wastes at a processor here in Kodiak.
Frankly (and aside from the news accounts), the birds had been congregating for such feasts for years at all of the fish processing plants on Kodiak's cannery row. It was normal to see hundreds and hundreds of them in the trees on the hillside above the canneries, on utilitity poles and lamp posts, soaring over the harbor, lining the roof ridges like seagulls, and feeding like a brown mass of writhing worms in every truck and dumpster along cannery row.
Though it had never resulted in a kill, the situation had been going on for a LONG time, and no one was worried about it. Heck, the fish and wildlife authorities (both federal and state) drove by the scene daily every winter on their way to and from work.
Now the waterfront has cleaned up its act and the food source has been taken away. Some eagles still hang around town for smaller food sources, but most have disappeared. Die off? Nah. No record of it, and they were watched pretty carefully. They got hungry and went somewhere else.
In the Homer example, I expect the same to happen. It's also not surprising that the chamber of commerce is darned concerned about the flocks of human visitors that will depart with them.
Bringing this in a broad (very broad!) loop back to the mouse in the grasp of owls, eagles aren't just scavengers. One of their principal winter foods up here is waterfowl. Friends in the Homer Audubon and in the agencies have told me that even as the fish feeding was under way, the unnatural concentration of eagles swarmed the nearby refuge and virtually denuded it of waterfowl. So, if you happen to value waterfowl, won't you be real happy when the eagles move on and give the waterfowl a chance?
I expect the wailing to go loud and long over the Homer situation, and the chamber of commerce will be only too happy to help stir it and sustain the feeding operation. I don't think we should get our collective panties in a bunch about poor starving eagles. They're smart, and there are other food sources available near and far from Homer. Spreading out the concentration of birds over a larger area is probably better for the birds, but darned hard on commerce. The Eagle Lady was a delightful character who will be fondly remembered. But was her work necessary for the wellbeing of the eagles? Not if the experience with 3 or 4 times that number in Kodiak is a fair comparison.
I'm having a little trouble bowing out of this discussion .
Jim Zipp said:
"I can totally understand both sides of this issue. So, with that in mind I ask, why is it that with owls it's referred to as "Baiting" and with sugar water for hummingbirds it's called "feeding"?"
To which Jim Erhardt replied:
"Jim, IMO it's the conscious decision to sacrifice one form of wildlife (the mouse) for the purpose of obtaining a photo of another. It can leave one wondering when the chariots and man-eating lions are going to enter the coliseum." <snip>
Not to get too bogged down in semantics, but I don't know of any definition of baiting which entails a live animal being sacrificed. But even if it does, how then does feeding mice to owls differ from feeding mealworms to bluebirds, or fish to kingfishers, or fresh kidneys to caracaras? How does it differ from hawk banders using live pigeons to attract hawks?
Jim Erhardt said:
It is only when the welfare of all wildlife is so blantantly disregarded for the purpose of nature photography that we find it objectionable."
Perhaps a minor point, but store-bought mice aren't "wildlife"; they're bred by us, completely isolated from any natural ecosystem (in order to be fed to people's pet reptiles, incidentally).
Jim, I completely understand and respect your feelings about the importance of all life. But, as you say, the issue is a personal decision and there is room for disagreement; I'm not sure "respect for all life" could be categorized as a basic principle. In some parts of the world it's hard to find respect for any kind of life, including human.
One other small point - unless I misinterpret, you've twice referred to intention as being important in whether or not feeding birds is acceptable. You described a "love of wildlife", and contrasted it with "acquisition of a photo". Personally, my motivation in doing wildlife photography is many things, including love of wildlife, but also love of wildlife photography (and doesn't generally include a craving for fame or monetary reward). Is my motivation less "worthy" than anyone else's? Do I have less right to feed sunflower seed to chickadees and photograph them than someone whose sole motivation is "love of wildlife"? Is the effect on the wildlife different based on my attitude or intention? I understand that intention can sometimes color an act acceptable or unacceptable, but in most cases of feeding birds I don't see a significant difference.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 19, 2009 at 9:04 PM
Mike, in response to your post:
Yes, we slaughter animals every day for a wide variety of purposes. We kill them for food, for medical research, and we even feed one live animal to another. But when we feed one live animal to another, it is usally done for substanence or for some other benefit to the animal being fed.
I think the point being missed here is that in the case of baiting owls with live mice, that the owl does not need to be fed to survive. I'm sure if the mouse had any say, it would prefer to go back to its cage in some warm pet store as opposed to being "hung out to be eaten."
Like it or not, the practice of baiting owls (or any other bird of prey) with live mice for the purpose of "hobby photography" is not for the benefit of the mouse or the bird, only for the self gratification of the photographer. In this case, there's no way around it, regardless of how you try to rationalize it - a conscious decision is made that the aquisition of the photo is more important than the life of the rodent, along with any peril the owl may be placed in.
Not looking to be judgemental, but as Terry stated above, for some this just does not "feel right."
What you said in your most recent post applies to practically all feeding of all wildlife, aside from the issue of the food being given to the owls being alive. The wildlife doesn't need to be fed to survive, and the fundamental motivation is human gratification.
I don't mean to suggest that I love the idea of feeding mice to owls, or of interfering with nature in any way; it's just that I fail to see any substantial difference between that and any other sort of wildlife feeding, the practitioners of which aren't vilified at all. And I still believe that people repeatedly and/or intentionally flushing owls by trying to get closer to them is far more damaging than what happens when feeding them mice within the parameters I listed in my first post to this thread.
Anyhow, we can agree to disagree on these issues, and that's ok.
Bowing out now ...
Discussion
31 repliesAnd I will ask that all photographers refrain from baiting owls for the purpose of photographing them.
Ontario Northern Hawk Owl issues
Addendum:
I've recently seen an email from New Jersey concerning a Snowy Owl in the northern part of the state being harassed, mostly be photographers. If I can get a link to an archive with it I will add that.
And here in AZ the latest related incident: Tucson Short-tailed Hawk
Reading about the Northern Hawk Owl brought tears to my eyes.
I could never bait birds like that because "if" some thing happened I would carry the thought that I contributed to the death of a bird. Even the thought of it repulses me.
Whether one does or does not find it within their personal ethical framework to bait animals for photography, doing so in the way described in the northern hawk owl link is thoughtless and irresponsible.
In my opinion.
I won't even open a photo of a baited bird anymore, let alone comment. All I would be able to do is express my anger. It's usually quite obvious when an owl has been baited. The images and photographers who take part, make me sick.
The actions of a few selfish photographers whom have no regard or respect for the birds, property owners, bird watchers and other photographers, will eventually damage the reputations of all of us avian photogrpahers. I live 3000 miles away from Ontario, but I still worry about our reputations. Richards links to the snowy owl on the east coast and the hawk in AZ are perfect examples.
I'm not a member of NANPA, but I sure wish they would take a stand. Isn't that what they are supposed to be about? Perhaps the fact that a couple of very prominent members of NANPA condone this behavior makes them reluctant to say anything. Too bad.
Like Raymond says, maybe it's time for those of us who care about our hobbies/careers to take a stand and let some magazines,etc know exactly how some of these spectacular images are really being aquired. I'm guessing we are a huge silent majority. I also agree that the ethics on NPN are much better than some other forums, but maybe we could take it a step further.
I've been drawn into a couple of heated discussions on NPN and other forums and every time do, I end up regretting it and saying never again. So this is the last time........
I left one of the local forums here in Canada because I was tired of it., and I am guess I will leave others... if you don't like the show, change the channel. I do hope this birds death wasn't a result of baiting, hopefully we will find out soon.
Dan - I agree with you completely. I wish an organization like NANPA took a strong stand on such issues.
Guy
Go to that "other" website right now, and you'll be astounded over the number of Snowy Owls being posted right now. And you'll be astounded to see how many of them are acknowledged to be baited.
I hate the practice, period. However, I admit I'm a bit conflicted about it. There's capturing the beauty of the resource, and then there's abusing the resource. In my mind, baiting owls like this DOES seem like abusing the resource.
On the other hand, I certainly have no shortage of bird feeders in my back yard. Hence the conflict. Which is OK, and which is to be avoided? For me, baiting owls just "feels" wrong, and I don't feel that way about bird feeders.
Terry, I understand your philosophy completely.
To move on a bit (I'm not talking about Terry here), here are some questions for all of us to think about. Not to rail about. Not to vent spleen over. Not to rip other sites or some of our members, but to THINK about.
If someone baits owls with mice and does so in an area where the owls are not endangered by traffic/outside sources, and allows the owls to catch the mice and eat them, is that inherently wrong? If someone feeds finch-type birds sunflower seed, and allows them to actually eat the seed, is that inherently wrong?
Is there a difference between the two situations?
Now, if someone baits owls with mice in areas that endanger the owls, is that different than someone who feeds sunflower seed but doesn't clean their feeding stations, which allows bacterial diseases to flourish? Either can kill the birds in question, yet when bacterial disease at feeders is raised as an issue, people simply try to educate others on how best to keep their feeders clean. When baiting owls in locations that can endanger the owls is raised as an issue, faces turn red, teeth are gnashed and hands are wrung.
I'm always willing to listen to a balanced perspective thoughtfully delivered, so will someone explain the differences to me without ranting?
Having never baited bird of prey for photography, I can offer no first-hand experience or reason. However, I can offer this;
1. In the case of Donna's backyard feeders, it is done primarily for the love of wildlife, and the joy of being in its presence. Baiting, as described in this thread, is done for the aquisition of a photo and any fame/ego-stroking/monetary reward it may bring.
2. Seed is used in backyard feeders. In the baiting of owls, live animals are being sacrificed in order to take a photo of a bird of prey.
When it comes to "baiting" for the purpose of photography, I think each case must be judged separately. For example, using the carcas of a road-killed animal to attract a predator in a natural setting away from any roadside danger is quite different than what is described above. It is only when the welfare of all wildlife is so blantantly disregarded for the purpose of nature photography that we find it objectionable. Where is that line between acceptable and not acceptable to be drawn? Perhaps through threads such as this one, that line can be better defined.
I also have fed back-yard birds (since 1973) for the love of being close to them. It wasn't until the last several years that I began to alter the back-yard feeding station scene to take photographs of them. And when I'm out there in the blind in the yard, when I take my eyes away from my camera because I don't need chickadee photo No. 839,003, I just enjoy being close to them. But I do also make money from the photos I take of these birds. Love came first, then money.
In the case of owls, I have not baited them before, though I have been in the presence of another photographer who was. I have specifically enjoyed hawks and owls throughout the length of my birding career more than any other group of species, and to watch that owl focus sharply on the mouse, leave its perch and never waver as it approached the mouse and set its wings, extending its talons, well, I was breathless with awe and appreciation. If I do eventually bait owls, love will have come chronologically before money, just like with the back-yard birds. While I do have images of that owl coming in for the mouse, out of professional respect for the photographer who did the baiting/setup I will not display or sell them because it was not my setup.
I think my feelings cause a bit more blurring of the lines (for me) between what's done for pleasure and for money.
I am, of course, unable to in any way counter the fact that a live animal is being sacrificed, though of course some believe the owl benefits by getting an easy meal as much as the photographer does by getting the image. Whether an easy meal for a stressed owl is a good thing or not in the long sweep of natural history, no one of us really knows. And I believe there is some level of arrogance inherent in taking one live creature and encouraging another to kill it for profit. That is a uniquely human manipulation. Some people are comfortable with that and some are not. I don't believe either group should judge the other harshly, but realize it is naive to expect peace between so many individuals of such a contentious species.
I also fully agree with your final paragraph, Jim, and is why I take the time to participate in this type of discussion. Regardless where we stand on whichever issue is being talked over, I believe these discussions also encourage us to be thoughtful about our world. Often, our positions change over time and with increased experience. I know mine have.
"but later, when there were 60 white mice hanging from the trees nearby, and a bird sitting still, and done with hunting, and natural activity, my attituded changed dramatically."
That is an ugly scene. These idiots don't care about the well being of the bird. I wonder if it felt right to them.
What about the damage baiting is doing to the reputations of all wildlife photographers? Shouldn't that be a consideration. Pretty soon, they'll be leading "workshops" teaching more and more people the finer points of baiting. And the leaders of these classes will be seen as "authorities" by their students and that it's a perfectly acceptable practice and things will get more and more out of hand.
Even though I don't agree with it and would never practice it, I'm not entirely comfortable going ahead and just outright damning the practice of baiting owls. Every action we take has an effect on bird behavior, even when we just take a simple walk with our camera. Some actions obviously have a more significant impact on potential species survival than others.
But what exactly ARE the real impacts? Not to say this is necessarily the case, but just to play devil's advocate...who is to say that more owls survive winters BECAUSE they're being fed, than owls are being killed from being lured close to roads. God knows in "the" year at Sax-Zim, there were one heck of a lot of owls around looking for food somewhere. I have no doubt that the ecosystem couldn't support them all, and some starved.
What it all boils down to for me though...even the potential argument I just gave would be, to me, just an excuse for those who bait owls. Maybe that's why it just feels "wrong" to me. These people don't have the health and well being of the owl in mind. All they have in mind is their own desire to get the photo, whether that desire is based on personal satisfaction or on the good ol' dollar that might result from the photo.
Yet more Snowy Owl photos being posted on the Internet, with outright statements that they were obtained through baiting. Don't think a day passes there without this occurring, which REALLY makes me wonder how widespread the practice is, and how many owls are being impacted.
And while I'm at it...it makes you wonder what OTHER practices some folks do to get the shot...
The thread is about the owls being baited. All I was doing was pointing out how widespread the practice is, and how many photos of baited owls are posted online. Seems like fair game to me.
Thanks.
And just to be clear, here is a disclaimer from the linked page:
If someone is feeding mice to an owl, on public or permitted property, away from any vehicular traffic, discreetly enough not to draw hostile attention to what he's doing, and in sufficient moderation that the natural behavior of the bird doesn't change, how does this constitute harassment of the owl? Feeding of mice to owls in this manner doesn't really upset me. I get upset if I see people repeatedly flushing an owl by trying to get too close to it; this constitutes harassment IMO.
I think for some that is a key point. Unfortunately, we really have no way of knowing whether the behavior of the owl was modified. What if there was other prey readily available, but the owl ignored it in favor of the more easily obtained sacrifical mouse? In that case, the behavior of the owl - at least at that point in time - was most certainly modified. Does one such instance have long term effect on the owl's behavior? Does repeated exposure to this practice over a period of time by multiple photographers have a long term impact on the well being of the owl?
No doubt the use of live bait will facilitate the capturing of superb bird photos. Whether the person using such tactics feels the practice is ethical or not is very much a personal decision.
I also think that it's a practice that the nature photography community as a whole may not want to be associated with (though some obviously have no issue with it). Most of us think of ourselves as the voice for all of nature on a planet dominated by human interest. Our photos should help build a sense of wonder and appreciation of nature for the masses, but IMO we should not abandon such a basic principle as "respect for all life" in the process.
From all I know, it's a case of unintended consequences. Last year we had the infamous incident in which a bunch of eagles were killed or injured while feeding on uncovered fish wastes at a processor here in Kodiak.
Frankly (and aside from the news accounts), the birds had been congregating for such feasts for years at all of the fish processing plants on Kodiak's cannery row. It was normal to see hundreds and hundreds of them in the trees on the hillside above the canneries, on utilitity poles and lamp posts, soaring over the harbor, lining the roof ridges like seagulls, and feeding like a brown mass of writhing worms in every truck and dumpster along cannery row.
Though it had never resulted in a kill, the situation had been going on for a LONG time, and no one was worried about it. Heck, the fish and wildlife authorities (both federal and state) drove by the scene daily every winter on their way to and from work.
Now the waterfront has cleaned up its act and the food source has been taken away. Some eagles still hang around town for smaller food sources, but most have disappeared. Die off? Nah. No record of it, and they were watched pretty carefully. They got hungry and went somewhere else.
In the Homer example, I expect the same to happen. It's also not surprising that the chamber of commerce is darned concerned about the flocks of human visitors that will depart with them.
Bringing this in a broad (very broad!) loop back to the mouse in the grasp of owls, eagles aren't just scavengers. One of their principal winter foods up here is waterfowl. Friends in the Homer Audubon and in the agencies have told me that even as the fish feeding was under way, the unnatural concentration of eagles swarmed the nearby refuge and virtually denuded it of waterfowl. So, if you happen to value waterfowl, won't you be real happy when the eagles move on and give the waterfowl a chance?
I expect the wailing to go loud and long over the Homer situation, and the chamber of commerce will be only too happy to help stir it and sustain the feeding operation. I don't think we should get our collective panties in a bunch about poor starving eagles. They're smart, and there are other food sources available near and far from Homer. Spreading out the concentration of birds over a larger area is probably better for the birds, but darned hard on commerce. The Eagle Lady was a delightful character who will be fondly remembered. But was her work necessary for the wellbeing of the eagles? Not if the experience with 3 or 4 times that number in Kodiak is a fair comparison.
Not to get too bogged down in semantics, but I don't know of any definition of baiting which entails a live animal being sacrificed. But even if it does, how then does feeding mice to owls differ from feeding mealworms to bluebirds, or fish to kingfishers, or fresh kidneys to caracaras? How does it differ from hawk banders using live pigeons to attract hawks?
Perhaps a minor point, but store-bought mice aren't "wildlife"; they're bred by us, completely isolated from any natural ecosystem (in order to be fed to people's pet reptiles, incidentally).
Jim, I completely understand and respect your feelings about the importance of all life. But, as you say, the issue is a personal decision and there is room for disagreement; I'm not sure "respect for all life" could be categorized as a basic principle. In some parts of the world it's hard to find respect for any kind of life, including human.
One other small point - unless I misinterpret, you've twice referred to intention as being important in whether or not feeding birds is acceptable. You described a "love of wildlife", and contrasted it with "acquisition of a photo". Personally, my motivation in doing wildlife photography is many things, including love of wildlife, but also love of wildlife photography (and doesn't generally include a craving for fame or monetary reward). Is my motivation less "worthy" than anyone else's? Do I have less right to feed sunflower seed to chickadees and photograph them than someone whose sole motivation is "love of wildlife"? Is the effect on the wildlife different based on my attitude or intention? I understand that intention can sometimes color an act acceptable or unacceptable, but in most cases of feeding birds I don't see a significant difference.
Yes, we slaughter animals every day for a wide variety of purposes. We kill them for food, for medical research, and we even feed one live animal to another. But when we feed one live animal to another, it is usally done for substanence or for some other benefit to the animal being fed.
I think the point being missed here is that in the case of baiting owls with live mice, that the owl does not need to be fed to survive. I'm sure if the mouse had any say, it would prefer to go back to its cage in some warm pet store as opposed to being "hung out to be eaten."
Like it or not, the practice of baiting owls (or any other bird of prey) with live mice for the purpose of "hobby photography" is not for the benefit of the mouse or the bird, only for the self gratification of the photographer. In this case, there's no way around it, regardless of how you try to rationalize it - a conscious decision is made that the aquisition of the photo is more important than the life of the rodent, along with any peril the owl may be placed in.
Not looking to be judgemental, but as Terry stated above, for some this just does not "feel right."
What you said in your most recent post applies to practically all feeding of all wildlife, aside from the issue of the food being given to the owls being alive. The wildlife doesn't need to be fed to survive, and the fundamental motivation is human gratification.
I don't mean to suggest that I love the idea of feeding mice to owls, or of interfering with nature in any way; it's just that I fail to see any substantial difference between that and any other sort of wildlife feeding, the practitioners of which aren't vilified at all. And I still believe that people repeatedly and/or intentionally flushing owls by trying to get closer to them is far more damaging than what happens when feeding them mice within the parameters I listed in my first post to this thread.
Anyhow, we can agree to disagree on these issues, and that's ok.
Bowing out now ...
Folks, please don't make this a personal finger pointing thread. If you want to air out personal issues, please discuss in private.
Guy