I am currently engaged in an email exchange with the wildlife gallery mods (Brad, Lon and Vincent) that I think should be discussed here. This is obviously a controversial subject, but one that I think NPN needs to take a more formal position on.
It won't be easy and there's bound to be some differing opinions, but I think we need to collectively address this issue. So, let's open this up and have some dicussion!
I started this ball rolling for the following reasons:
1. At the time this began the Posting Guidelines for the Wildlife Fauna stated that if baiting was used to obtain photos it must be disclosed.
2. Based on what was stated in the Avian Posting Guidelines it was clear that we were NOT to debate the ethics of it in the photo critique forums.
3. That left any NPN member (and moderators) in a position where the strongest that could be said about the baiting was "Thanks for conforming to the guidelines on disclosure of the act of baiting".
4. Last week there were images posted in the Wildlife Gallery of baiting subjects of species known to form very fast food associations with humans (bears and foxes). This is the case with virtually ALL carnivores. Food association with humans (or the act of providing "foreign" food that may not be healthy for the subject) is not ALWAYS harmful to the subject, but it with many species it is. There is a reason that virtually all bear management policies start with the catchy - and almost always true - statement that "A Fed Bear is a Dead Bear." There is also a reason why feeding of wildlife is NOT permitted in virtually any park in North America.
5. Consider the effect and message when a novice wildlife photographer wanders into the Wildlife Gallery and sees images of bears and foxes that have been baited and the strongest comments about the act of baiting are "Thanks for conforming to the posting guidelines". To me this is implicit support for the act of baiting. And, as it stands now, we have to accept images of baited wildlife even if they were captured illegally in a National/State/Provincial Park!.
I do NOT disagree with Steve's point that it may be possible in some cases food baiting CAN be done in a responsible fashion and in those cases it is POSSIBLE that it MAY not lead to harm to the subject. I also know that there are some species that do NOT form rapid food associations with humans and where baiting does no visible harm to the individuals. And, while writing a taxonomically-based policy to allow baiting in some circumstances and not others is possible (based on the principle of "is the baiting likely to cause harm to the subject?") it would be very cumbersome at best. Prohibiting the posting of images of baited animals is simply erring (and erring in SOME cases only) on the side of protecting the resource (the animals) we use to capture our images and clearly states that we put concern for the welfare of the subject above that of our images.
Thus, I requested to Jim that he do the following:
1. Strengthen the wording in the NPN Code of Conduct to make it clear that baiting should not be done.
2. Add a posting guideline (for images posted in the critiquing forums) that images should be captured in a manner that conforms to the NPN Code of Conduct
3. Remove the need to disclose baiting in the Wildlife section of the posting guidelines (because #1 and #2 combine to make it clear images of baited animals should not be posted).
This policy change - if implemented - is MILD compared to rules and regulations in many jurisdictions (some states and provinces) pertaining to baiting and/or feeding wildlife and would put us in step with the behaviour expected of anyone entering a public park in North America. And, in my opinion, it is a clear public statement that we care about the welfare of our subjects and are a highly ethical organization.
Will it piss some people off? Probably. But is avoiding that more important than making a strong ethical statement?
Steve and Brad, thanks for getting this discussion underway.
A finer point for us to zero-in on; is it hypocritical to differentiate between the baiting of carnivores/raptors and song birds?
A few points to ponder which may help us make some distinctions;
1. While there is no "carnivore feeding industry" there is certainly a huge song bird feeding industry, which millions of people enjoy.
2. Is there a difference between taking a photo at an established bird feeder vs. setting up a feeding opportunity for the express purpose of photography?
3. Is there a moral difference between feeding a song bird with seed vs. sacrificing another live animal, such as a mouse to an owl, for the express purpose of photography?
4. Should any policy that we establish err on the side of animal welfare, how do we reconcile our own personal beliefs and actions?
To specifically answer your question: "is it hypocritical to differentiate between the baiting of carnivores/raptors and song birds?" I'll say this:
For me, it has nothing to do with hypocrisy - it all comes down to real or potential harm to the subject. If it can be shown that the feeding does no harm (which is MUCH tougher to ascertain than the opposite), then go for the feeding with a clear conscience.
But...bear in these kind of issues in mind when thinking about harm to the subject - even at a songbird feeder. It's well known that a poorly kept bird feeder can help spread several diseases, but admittedly this is only when it's neglected. It's equally well known that bird feeders can change the abundance and distribution of the species using them, including, with some species, affecting the size of both winter flock territories and summer breeding territories. Whether or not this change in abundance and distribution is harmful is a more subjective discussion that can depend on many other factors (both human-caused and natural). But the point is this - even what appears to be a very benign act like maintaining a bird feeder CAN have a major impact on the species using it.
But we're not telling someone that the can't have a bird feeder in their yard. Rather, we're simply depriving them of ONE means of distributing photos that were captured using a practice that often proves harmful to the the subjects. We're not telling them they can't post them on their own website or do anything else with them.
My original intent was limited to the situation in the Wildlife Gallery and I would be absolutely fine with a single statement in the Wildlife section of the posting guidelines that said "Images of non-avian wildlife baited with food are not permitted" to avoid bringing the avian folks into this.
That being said, I personally think that putting it in the Code of Ethics sends out a stronger message that NPN is concerned about the very real potential for harm when wildlife (furred or feathered) is baited with food. Further, to me it seems almost like a no-brainer that encouraging NPN members to post images that conform to the Code of Ethics is a good thing (most of it can't be policed anyway - we can't keep image posters from lying!) - it's a great signal to send. And I find it hard to believe that any NPN member would publicly disagree that posted images should conform to a Code of Ethics (that would be kind of like saying "I don't agree with following ethical guidelines with my own photography").
That's it for now!
Brad
Posted by Jim Erhardt on March 3, 2011 at 10:54 AM
Brad, I agree!
I think the message needs to be consistent across all galleries and that we all need to be on the same page with the statment. If the NPN staff is not in agreement when we are taken to task on it (as we surely will be), it will not be a good situation. We have already seen members equating baiting owls with live mice to the feeding of song birds with seed.
If we're going to take the lead on this (as I think we should), we better have all our ducks lined up nicely in a row...
Posted by Nate Chappell on March 3, 2011 at 11:39 AM
Hi all,
My opinion is that you are taking it too far if you eliminate shots of birds taken at bird feeders. Photography of songbirds at feeders both in their own yards and at established feeders is very common and generally accepted in the nature photography community. If you keep your feeders clean they shouldn't cause harm to the birds. From a practical matter I wouldn't be surprised if we lost some members if they aren't allowed to post bird feeding shots.
What about places where birds are fed by national park staff such as at vulture restaurants which are used in Africa for conservation of certain species? Is photography allowed there?
I like the BBC wildlife photography guidelines which expressly disallows any use of live bait. Any other bait must be disclosed in how you took the image.
I think equating live baiting of an owl where you are sacrificing a live animal to a predator to photographing songbirds at feeders is ridiculous. Just because someone draws this comparison doens't mean there is any validity to it. I also think comparing baiting a bear for photography to photographing songbirds at feeders is ridiculous. In the bear situation, it is obvious that this is a bad idea and it shouldn't be allowed. In the bird feeding situation you have a situation where possibly if someone isn't taking good care of their feeders it could be harmful and then some subjective arguments about species population distribution. Why do we have to lump these together?
In terms of being consistent I think most rational people can see the difference between baiting a bear for photography and feeding songbirds and taking photos of them. I don't see a problem differentiating the two. A few strange people may bring it up and say it's hypocritical but so what? Are we supposed to throw common sense out the window? There will be many more people who will be put off by the fact that they can't post photos of songbirds at feeders anymore.
I am fine with Brad's statement "Images of non-avian wildlife baited with food are not permitted" as well as I am fine with "Live baiting is not permitted in any galleries".
No disagreement with your argument that equating songbird "baiting" at a feeder to baiting a bear is ludicrous.
Question: Would you accept the proposed 3-step solution outlined above (in my original post) IF there was an explicit exclusion (or exclusions) for shots captured at a feeder (or other non-live baiting you deem acceptable) within the guidelines specific to the Avian Gallery?
Cheers...
Brad
Posted by Nate Chappell on March 3, 2011 at 12:20 PM
To me the primary issue isn't baiting per se (in all forms with all species), but actively avoiding and discouraging photographer behaviour known to be harmful to the subject. As applied to non-avian wildlife, and especially carnivores, baiting just happens to be the most identifiable behaviour that is so commonly harmful that I think it needs to be addressed (both in our Code of Conduct and the posting guidelines). To have workable guidelines I think we're forced to lump some things that arguably aren't harmful under the umbrella of "baiting". But, as I have said above, I have no problem with exclusions in the avian gallery if those making the decisions (presumably Nate, Keith, and Jim) feel they're moderately harmless practices.
I COMPLETELY agree with you that how commonly the behaviour is engaged in (or if there's a big industry behind it) says nothing about the impact (or harm) done by the behaviour.
I guess one question I would have is what constitutes wildlife and baiting in regards to the various state statutes? Is it limited to mammals? I think the law is going to treat me differently for feeding birds (I won't be going to jail) than for example the fellow who baited the bighorn sheep and was arrested. I had always assumed (potentially incorrectly) that the info on baiting wildlife in the NPN code of conduct related to mammals and not birds.
I'd start with a recognition that some forms are legal and some aren't. If it isn't legal, it shouldn't be done. Period. If it's legal in certain circumstances with certain species, then photographer and species ethics can be fine tuned.
For us the carnivore baiting isn't theoretical. We have brown bears right in our yard. As long as we're responsible and don't leave anything attractive, they move right on. As it should be. The whole neighborhood works together on this, and in 35 years living with bears in close proximity no one has ever had a problem in our neighborhood. Folks in other neighborhoods 20 miles away have had nothing but problems because one fool in the neighborhood taught a bear that people and their homes/yards were a good source of food. Successive generations of bears have learned from the first, and I bet a dozen bears have been killed in the last 20 years due to it all.
Now the borough wants to put rolling garbage carts at every house for convenient weekly curbside pickup, rather than making everyone to drive to a central garbage pickup station. Looks to me as though baiting around homes is being institutionalized, with whole generations of bears to reap the harvest of death even if the borough retracts the policy after a year of mayhem. Baiting bears is certainly illegal, but wheeled feeding stations at every house is perfectly fine, evidently.
Rant over. Long as the legal base is covered, folks can hash out what's ethical and I'll be content.
Beyond what I know about the situation in virtually all public parks (basically no feeding of any wildlife, including birds) I can't say I know diddly squat about the situation in the various US states (other than what I learned by Ron Dudley's post of the photographer being jailed for baiting a bighorn in Montana). Would probably be worth doing some research on the situation before "condoning" (or excluding bird feeding or whatever else one wants to exclude) from the "no photos of food-baited animals" ruleset being proposed. Sounds like a great job for those wanting the exclusions!!
Hi Brad,
I think you are incorrect regarding feeding of birds in virtually all public parks. A few examples are at Rio Bentsen State Park in Texas, Patagonia Lake State Park in Arizona, Reifel Refuge in British Columbia, one wildlife refuge that I can't remember the name in New York and many other locations feeding of birds is permitted and in some cases even encouraged. At many local public parks it is permitted as well. I am sure I could find hundreds if not thousands of examples where it is permitted (although I don't have time for that or to research the various state statutes.) I realize that there are also many public locations where it is not permitted.
Cheers,
Nate
I was mainly referring to National and Provincial/State and the majority of municipal parks. But no matter, my primary concern is the non-avian wildlife and as I have said I have no issue with exclusions that others deem necessary in the Avian Gallery (and while I would hope that the issue of harm to the subject would factor into the exclusions, that's more up to others than me).
After several back and forth emails between Brad, Vincent and myself, I felt comfortable declaring that I fully support posting guidelines that say “Posted images must conform to Code of Conduct.” And Code of Conduct should retain the provision “Do not entice a wild animal with food.”
I anticipate the possible issues that will arise will hinge on understanding of terms. Baiting can be broadly interpreted. One of the hypothetical situations I threw out was: What if I come upon a mountain lion killed deer in the mountains and situate a hide nearby for his return? I can imagine doing so. Then, what about a road kill deer that has been found by coyotes or other scavengers, that has to be repositioned a little for aesthetic reasons? Then it follows to ask what about moving the deer a few yards for a better photo background? Loading it in your truck and moving it a quarter mile? How is that different from gathering bones from the butcher and creating a bait pile?
"Do not entice a wild animal with food" is better than "Do not photograph over bait" because it addresses some of the above situations, and implies the difference in our intent between photographing over naturally occurring food and the very different behavior of providing food as a lure.
To me, exclusions for avian seem obvious, but the issue of raptors might require some careful defining.
All of this deals with the situational nature of most ethical problems, and in this case I think we are trying to "do no harm" or at least minimize the negative effects of our activities upon the natural world. Of course, humans are part of a natural world and it is unavoidable that we have some impact. The difference is that an ethical person acts in a thoughtful manner and what is ethically acceptable is partly defined by that person's intent.
I knew this one would get sticky but I'm glad we're hashing it out. I am comfortable with all of the suggestions so far, just want to make sure we are all in agreement and all on the same page "for the common defense of the policy.".
How about something like "The photographer should be able to say that no animals were harmed for the purpose of making this image." in the ethics statement. I realize that "harmed' may be subject to various interpretations and begs the question somewhat but it also leaves the photog with some discretion. Given the number of situations I can image, it seems like a more general statement is desirable. We would still require disclosure if bait was used of course.
With regard to laws, I guess my cut at it would be, that we obviously don't as an organization condone criminal activity.
I'm just trying to get something simple out that treats people like responsible adults.
pat
Looks like you guys may have wrapped this up while I was drafting a repsonse.
I understand your point and it's intent, but what I don't really agree with is leaving it so general and, more importantly, with the individual photographer to decide what is harmful. For instance, I got into a MASSIVE debate with a group of NPN photographers last year who were absolutely adamant that the baiting of bears with food for the purpose of photography was absolutely harmless, despite mounds of anecdotal and scientific evidence to the contrary. These photographers would absolutely claim "...that no animals were harmed for the purpose of making this image" even though it's a totally false claim. But, with the standard you propose, we'd have to accept the image post and we'd be exactly in the same place we are today.
See what you think about this? I think the statement does give you the teeth to do pretty much whatever you want. It's really you, the other Wildlife moderators and JIm that define what "harmed" means on your gallery. As a moderator you have a great podium for educating the folks who post that really don't understand the problems associated with baiting. But ultimately it's your call as to whether the critter was harmed or not. Assuming of course that the other Wildlife moderators and Jim end up on the same page.
My two cents worth. I'll butt out after this. Baiting isn't much of an issue for me in Flora. I do like to shoot avian and wildlife though if I think I have something interesting. Otherwise I'd have stayed out of it.
I guess one major concern I have is that this puts us (as moderators) into direct conflict with any member who is willing or wanting to argue the case. So...if I/we ran into another bear baiting situation with a member who believed it was harmless, we'd be pretty much in the same position as last year if we yanked the image (tho' the debate would largely be unseen because it wouldn't be in the image commentary). Personally I'd rather have a clear policy behind me that have to argue every case. And...to be clear...this isn't a "once a year" sort of thing - we get a fairly large number of images posted of baited wildlife (some/many of which aren't disclosed until the member is challenged) - last week there were two separate cases.
And it's not as though were going cutting edge or pushing the envelope with a "no baiting the wildlife" ban - it's consistent with the policy of our public parks (national, provincial, state) and even many states.
Ill butt in, since i get loads of wildlife posted in my gallery: birds, bears, bigfoot--you name it...course, since unethical behavior is not only accepted but encouraged in the Weekly Challenge, we never have any arguments
Seriously, ive read with interest the above discussion and the proposals sound reasonable to me. I think NPN has a resposibility to promote ethical behavior, which as Brad points out should take a stand against behavior that harms wildlife. I just think we have to be careful not to set ourselves up as a police force, let the applicable laws be the enforcing agency here, not the moderators. As has been pointed out, prohibiting behavior often just contributes to people keeping quiet about their methods...
Affter reading Brad's last response here, i guess i am a little confused--how often are photos of baited mammals posted where the baiting was not covered by some local or other regulation/law/policy??
Thanks for your input. Regarding your question: "...how often are photos of baited mammals posted where the baiting was not covered by some local or other regulation/law/policy??"
You know - I honestly can't answer that, largely because most of the time the exact location of the shot isn't disclosed and, even if it was, I don't know the laws of each jurisdiction (or state) well enough to give you an answer (and baiting IS outlawed in some states, as Ron Dudley's recent post about a photographer being jailed for breaking "no-baiting" laws in Montana). I can't recall a recent image post of an obvious illegal event (like an image of a bear baited in the middle of Yellowstone). Sorry I can't give you a better answer.
Ok, that's what i was afraid of--i had assumed that most cases were parks where it could be assumed that there was an established no-feeding policy. Bad assumption. I guess the problem i have is the gray areas. If we make an absolute no-baiting policy, i could see some very disgruntled memebers who want to argue those gray zones.
For example (off the top of my head): a couple of wildlife photogrpahers who i greatly admire on NPN posted a series of red fox images a while back. I was bloody impressed, since most red foxes ive encountered run from me when im within 600 yards of them (which is why the only decent shot of a red fox i have is one that was trying to get in the hen house at a local zoo ) so i was amazed at such great close ups of foxes in marvelous poses--it blew my mind how much patience and skill it must have took. Then, I Googled the approximate location of the fox photos and discovered that the foxes were part of a couple dens that were well known to local photographers and just plain locals--and there was even a shot of one of these folks (not sure it was a photog) hand-feeding one of the foxes a dog biscuit! So, they were very habituated foxes, to say the least. I lost no respect for the NPN photogs--but i did become dissilusioned by the whole thing and it saddened me that this has what has become of our local 'wildlife'. Sorry for rambling--im just pointing out (which has already been pointed out by Steve and others) that there could be some serious gray areas. We obviously can't prohibit the photography of habituated animals. But suppose the photographer had fed the fox?? Are they (the foxes, who are in a semi-urban park and are routinely fed by park visitors, non photogs and photogs alike) being harmed by the photographer who draws them to the shot with food? They might be so habituated to human handouts that they might be more harmed if human hand-outs stopped.
Just thinking out loud here, im just concerned that a strict policy leaves room for people to become pissed off over the non-so-clear-cut cases.
Well, i just answered my own question--I looked up the park in question and the website specifically states "it is illegal to feed foxes". I think then perhaps we should let the local or applicable laws be the determining factor, and not NPN. just a thought.
Sorry Stan, but I'm honestly having a tough time seeing where you're going with this and I don't see a debatable gray area in your example that would result in conflict. The bottom line is that the feeding of foxes often results in food association with humans and is often very harmful to foxes. I'm not saying or proposing we extend the "ban" to shooting images of wildlife that have been fed historically by others - just the photographer posting the image. Can there be an individual situation where the additional feeding or a previously habituated animal does no harm? Possibly. But it's not the normal situation.
Ultimately it's still very simple. Did the photographer bait the fox? If yes, then it crosses ethical boundaries. Simple. If someone else did it historically - well, there's little we can do about that. Of course it's possible that someone could be super mischievous and have someone else spend time baiting an animal until it's habituated and then move in and snap an image but...if someone is going to be this sneaky there's little we can do to stop it.
We can all dream up possible exceptions, gray areas, or slippery slopes to every rule or law ever created. And we can debate definitions all day long. What's art? What's pornography? But it reality I think we all know what baiting with food is when we see it - it's pretty simple. You intentionally put out a bit a food that a critter likes so that it will approach and you can take a photo.
RE: "I think then perhaps we should let the local or applicable laws be the determining factor, and not NPN."
So...after they get out of jail for breaking the law (I'm referring here to the situation of a photographer in Montana recently being thrown in jail for baiting a bighorn for the purposes of photography) we should accept the image(s) that resulted in convictions as posts on NPN? Maybe it's just me, but that seems really odd and a REAL lowering of the ethical bar! (sorry, I couldn't resist that one).
Thanks for the feedback Stan - you always have an interesting perspective that makes one think!
Brad--when i googled the park in question (prospect park in denver) i came across an article by another 'pro' photog who talked about the wonderful foxes there, and mentioned how well fed they were (some with "healthy" food, some "not-so-healthy")...he stated in his article that he "did not" advocate the feeding, but immediately followed that statement by a (paraphrased) "you will get better shots if you follow someone who does (feed them)" So, we can reap the benefits of illegal behavior--just don't do it ourselves!
All i am saying, is that i think it is very good that NPN advocate the establishment of local/regional/national policies and laws that prohibit harmful behavior such as baiting. What i question is the wisdom of NPN establishing it's own rule. That makes us a quasi-political body, which starts putting folks in camps--the very antithesis of what has made this group a respected success. In the case you mentioned, the Montana dudes' photos were illegally taken, and will always be associated with that illegality. Period--end o' story. That makes it real easy cause its some other body making the determination.
I happily defer to you guys though--you have far more knowlege of the subject than i do.
To put it another way (hopefull more clearly and to the point) I would be happier if we put out a statement that we as a group do not advocate the feeeding of wildlife, and that any photo taken in violation of applicable laws or regulations regarding feeding is subject to removal etc. What im not so sure about is coming out with a "if its baited, we remove it" policy--that makes us the lawmaker and judge/jury all in one.
Your suggestion "and that any photo taken in violation of applicable laws or regulations regarding feeding is subject to removal etc." seems really, really unwieldy to me. Who's going to do all the checking on applicable laws or regulations regarding feeding in the specific location where the photo was taken? And, because the laws vary between one region and another (which they do) should NPN have an ethical stance that flips and flops based on where the image was taken?
I'm not sure I like the idea of laws and regulations driving our ethical decisions or stances. Seems to me it should be the other way 'round, which is really what we're discussing here - developing a rule based on an ethical principle that is widely accepted in federal, state, and provincial parks and many other jurisdictions - and which is based on preventing harm to wildlife.
Well, is it an "ethical stance" or is it a rule with teeth? Suppose Montana guy posts his sheep in your forum, but denies it was baited. Someone else publicly accuses him of baiting. Do you remove it??? How do you decide? Are you going to be the arbitrator of the facts? Is Jim? Or will no action be taken? Just wondering....
I am proposing a rule which is basically self-policed - we state that images of wildlife that are baited with food are not permitted to be posted. The actual wording changes to Code of Conduct and posting guidelines (with possible exclusions for Avian Gallery) have been discussed above. That's it. Whether or not you consider that a "rule with teeth" is up to you to decide. But no one has proposed we need legal teams to check every law in the land. And no secret police force. No silent or paid informers (though if the pay was high enough I would volunteer ).
Of course we can't stop those who choose to lie. But we can set a good example for novice photographers and be known as an organization with high ethical standards.
The staff at the state park I live by routinely put out some kind of food pellets for the white tails and other deer in the park. They also put out corn for the pheasants in the winter and pretty much year round for the magpies. My wife feeds the squirrels in the neighborhood. (Yes, we've made the house squirrel proof - price of a decent lens (smile))
Now, while I've shot images from those areas, particularly the pheasants, I've never posted one because it strikes me as counter to the statement about baiting that's already in the code of conduct. Are making images in these situations harmful to the animals? It doesn't seem to me that it is but I'm certainly willing to admit that I'm uninformed and that it may be harmful in some way. But if we assume that it's not would I be allowed to post my deer and squirrel images in under the guideline you propose?
Taking the images isn't ever harmful to subjects - it's the act of supplementing them with the food (baiting) and beginning the food association with humans. This food association with humans is more often the cause of the harm. There is no doubt that some species are slow in forming food associations (or never do), but most do. Which is the whole reason that official policy in all national, provincial, and state parks - and even some entire states and provinces - is that wildlife can not be fed and/or baited on public land. And, as a further note that touches on your final question, even in species that don't form food associations that seem harmful to the animal, the food given to them is often harmful to them (e.g., salted peanuts aren't really the best thing for squirrels). And, by the way, we often think of these food associations as being most harmful for the species that quickly become what we think of as "pests" once they develop a food association - e.g., bears losing their fear of humans and getting into garbage, raccoons scavenging, etc. and that they end up being destroyed by wildlife officials. But often the harm comes totally unintentionally - food associated/habituated wildlife being hit by cars, etc. And, of course, then there's the situation I witnessed last fall - a big white-tail buck that had been hand-fed and habituated blown away on day 1 of hunting season as it approached the hunter for a hand-out. I'm not saying that the folks hand-feeding the buck were serious photographers (and they likely weren't NPN members), but I think the point is clear.
So, I have no plans to suggest an exclusion to the "no images of baited animals" guideline for squirrels, deer, or any other species of wildlife to Jim.
One final point about a question you didn't ask ( ), in previous discussions and/or debates on this issue of baiting I've had folks ask "why stop with food - what about putting out bowls of water, or hanging out at water holes that humans have dug, etc.?" Well, I've yet to find a single species that is harmed by water or to find any reference in the literature of wildlife forming a "water association" with humans (tho' I'm NOT saying it can't happen). But the reality is we can't stop EVERY form of human influence on wildlife. But baiting with food and/or supplemental feeding happens to be an easily identifiable act that is very commonly linked to harm to the subject - so much so that national parks, provincial parks, state parks all ban it (blah, blah, blah). So this spring when I lead my photo tours into the Great Bear Rainforest to photograph grizzlies I'm going to take a dog dish and put it out and, when it fills with water in 10 minutes, I'm going to sit there and wait for a grizzly to come in! KIDDING!!!!
Cheers Pat - sorry I brought out issues that you DIDN'T ask about, but I'm sure they would have come up sooner or later!
Brad
Posted by Jim Erhardt on March 4, 2011 at 10:23 AM
This thread is mighty good reading, offering some excellent points/counter-points. Please continue the discussion!
At some point very soon, I'm going to fire-up all three of my remaining brain cells and write an editorial that we can review/discuss in this forum before presenting to the membership.
I guess here's where I end up. As a moderator on the wildlife gallery, I consider you an expert. If you tell me that baiting is harmful to wildlife, to the extent that all baiting should be prohibited, I'll accept your judgement - same for the avian moderators. I think you're still going to have to interpret "baiting" in some instances and for some people but ...
I'd go with the more generic "has not been harmed' statement in the code of conduct and then spell out the baiting prohibition and any others on the specific gallery posting guidelines.
As a novice, amateur photog I've never been tempted to bait an animal or a bird. It's contrary to the spirit of my interests and what I enjoy in nature photography. Thanks for the insights though, I appreciate it.
Thanks for your feedback. As a matter of fact, EVERYONE's feedback on this has been valuable and, in my opinion, it was a really good decision of Jim's to start this post on this forum - if for no other reason, it does prepare us for possible counter-arguments by members if the proposed new policy on baiting is implemented.
Almost feel like Stan here buttin' in because this is not my field of expertise (like a have a field of expertise...) But I thought I would put a different spin on this discussion relating to what Jim may ultimately do in terms of NPN guidelines.
I recently went through an exercise with 2 other photographers. We were tasked with helping our local County Fair Fine Art/Photography director define the difference between a "manipulated" and "non-manipulated" photograph. As you might expect this topic is a discussion that just goes round and round and agreement can never be reached. At first we started talking about all the different ways a photograph can be manipulated; heck, what is the definition of manipulated anyway? I won't even bother with examples cause that's not the point. What we ultimately came up with was a definition that was very generic in nature. It contained no examples - because the second you include one example, someone entering the photo contest will want to know, "what about this technique?" We basically set some generic guidelines and let the person entering the contest decide the proper category to enter their prints in the fair.
This discussion, through nobody's fault, seems to me very similar in that folks are talking about local parks vs. National parks, birdfeeders and water dishes vs. live bait or roadkill. The scenarios are endless and I'm not sure you can put a hard and fast rule on a topic like this - just like "manipulation." So you end up needing to construct a statement that is generic enough as to not generate debate, but worded well enough to make a point.
I completely agree that NPN should stand for something, however my thinking is simply a generic statement included in the "Code of conduct" section is all that really can be done. Stan is right, you can't police this or any other "code of ethics" that the vast majority of photographers adhere to. It's always the exceptions that screw it up for everyone.
Maybe something like this:
"Baiting an animal for the explicit purpose of photographing that animal is discouraged by NPN and it's membership."
I think maybe this allows for backyard bird feeders? I have two bird feeders and I don't photograph the birds. But if I did, I'm not feeding them just for photography. I like bird crap all over my patio.
Your suggested modification to the Code of Conduct is very similar to what is there now (since Jim modified it earlier this week) but I think that the "is discouraged" phrase is too weak.
Personally, as one of the 3 moderators in the Wildlife Gallery (and both Lon Sharp and Vincent are on board with this) and the ones who have to deal with this, I feel strongly that I want linkage of the Code of Conduct to the posting guidelines OR an explicit statement in the Wildlife Gallery posting guidelines that images of animals that are baited with food should not be posted.
But...Jim is now aware of your point and ultimately he is the one who will be making the decision!
Cheers...
Brad
PS: I think defining "baiting with food" is MUCH, MUCH easier to define than image "manipulation" - it's a pretty simple and clear act - you intentionally put out food that a critter likes so it will approach (and then, presumably, you capture the image). I think it's pretty commonly understood. Heck, just check a dictionary what "bait" means:
noun
• food used to entice fish or other animals as prey : herrings make excellent bait for pike | fishing with live baits.
• figurative an allurement; a thing intended to tempt or entice : she used the prospect of freedom as bait to trap him into talking | many potential buyers are reluctant to take the bait.
Add in the phrase "with food" to the noun "bait" and tack on "for the purposes of photography" and I don't think the act could be much clearer defined!
Lon - that is an excellent comparison, and I completely agree. Really it's all about shades of gray. Edit: Brad, while the concept of baiting is clear, I think what is 'ok' is not so clear - baiting passerines is generally accepted. Baiting grizzlies is not. There's similar shades of gray in image processing - most people think it's pretty straightforward, but it's really hard to define in an unambiguous way.
I also think it is valuable to consider standing behind Mark Carwardine's code of ethics (as published in BBC Wildlife). At least by providing a link to it in our code of conduct / ethics. He covers image manipulation, as well as baiting (and more). My feeling is that NPN wants to 'breed' a similar kind of honest photographers that Mark wants, and since he (along with many others) put a lot of thought into this it would certainly be worth incorporating into our code.
Here's a summary (direct quote) of his baiting / wildlife photography ethical points to consider (but I recommend looking at the whole article):
By following these rules, you will reduce your impact on your wild subjects:
* Provide only organic food that is part of the animals’ natural diet.
* Be wary of live bait. It is probably OK to offer mealworms to songbirds, but providing mice for birds of prey is a step too far.
* Try not to leave the bait out too long.
* Don’t feed large species that are potentially dangerous.
* Don’t use sounds as bait if they are likely to cause unnecessary stress.
* Use the waterholes and feeding stations already provided in nature reserves.
* Stress in the caption that you used bait.
Wildlife photography code of conduct
Some photographers are prepared to do almost anything to get the shot they want, so conservation groups and photography associations have published a number of codes of conduct for wildlife photography. Most of the recommendations are common sense – the welfare of the subject is more important than getting the photo. Here are a few key points to remember:
* Always photograph animals from a safe and respectful distance.
* If an animal shows any sign of stress, move further back or leave altogether.
* Be patient and never try to force an animal to do something. Remember that the impact of many people is cumulative: you might be the 100th person that day to yell “Hey moose” while the poor creature is trying to feed or care for its young.
* Never encroach on nests or dens during the breeding season.
* Treat the habitat with the same regard that you have for the animals themselves.
* Respect local cultures and customs when you are working abroad.
* Check published recommendations, such as the excellent code produced by the Nature Group of The Royal Photographic Society
* Finally, always be honest and truthful when captioning your photos.
Sorry, but several of Mark's points on baiting simply don't jibe with wildlife management principles or known facets of animal behaviour. And...you know...I honestly DON'T think the baiting "guidelines" are very well thought out at ALL. To wit:
1. Regardless of whether you use organic food that's a natural part of their natural diet, many species (from carnivores to ungulates to rodents) will form a food association with humans after only a single instance of supplementary feeding. Bears are the quickest to do it, but almost all of the carnivores are right behind. Normally the food association and associated habituation are the more serious issue affecting the health of the animal, not the nutritional value of the food (tho' no one would argue that organic food that's part of their normal diet is BETTER for them than chocolate bars!).
2. Also, one of their baiting guidelines is: "Don’t feed large species that are potentially dangerous."
It's hard to see how this guideline is put there for the welfare of the subject - it would be hard to interpret this as anything but trying to protect the photographer! And...if that's their intent, well...wolverines are pretty small (between 20 and 35 lbs normally) but anyone trying to bait one of those in for a photo could only be described as suicidal!!
3. RE: another guideline: "Be wary of live bait. It is probably OK to offer mealworms to songbirds, but providing mice for birds of prey is a step too far."
I'm not sure if a guideline could be more subjective or an invitation to debate or have more shades of gray!
I'm not going spend any more time "dissecting" his remaining baiting points one-by-one, but rather I'm trying to point out that adding all this subjectivity as a start point would create a situation of infinite debate. For instance - "probably OK to offer mealworms to songbirds, but providing mice for birds of prey is a step too far". So...what about offering up grasshoppers to Kestrels? I honestly don't think we want to open up this can of (meal) worms!
But...when I look at the set of 8 bullet points under the "Wildlife Photography Code of Conduct" - well...I see nothing there that is even remotely debatable. They're just missing one point and they'd have the perfect list - "Never bait wildlife with food for the purposes of photography"!!
Brad. I agree that his Wildlife Photography Code of Conduct is the better of the two lists. And the Baiting Code of Conduct could use a little more thought. But...
They're just missing one point and they'd have the perfect list - "Never bait wildlife with food for the purposes of photography"!!
So.. using bird feeders should not be allowed? Personally, I'm ok with that, as I don't ever photograph at feeders. But I think that might cause some problems with the community at large (as has come up in our discussion here). This is where those shades of gray in the baiting ethics come up. I realize that you're the 'wildlife' guy, and that shade of gray is more in the avian domain... but the baiting regulations should be uniform for all living things IMO. If baiting a passerine with seed is ok, what about baiting a mouse with seed? I think that's where he was going with the "Don’t feed large species that are potentially dangerous". I'm sure there's a better way to phrase that - any suggestions? It's a lot easier if we were to ban all baiting outright, but as soon as any concessions are made the can of worms is opened.
This is a long discussion, so I may have missed it, but where do you stand on the 'gray shade' of dragging an already dead deer from one place to another where you can safely photograph any visitors? That falls under 'baiting'.
It's precisely because of these shades of gray that the line "Never bait wildlife with food for the purposes of photography" isn't in Mark's general code of ethics. If that line were there, plenty of highly respected National Geographic photographers would have to be considered as unethical.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I do not believe this is an issue relevant only to NPN, but to the *entire* nature photography community. As such, we should try to work with other established codes of ethics to cite - perhaps with slight modifications (which I think should then be proposed to someone like Mark, so that we can eventually settle on a code we're all satisfied with).
1. I think Brad's main point is that we should be aware/concerned with the conditioning of wildlife to accept/expect food from humans. It is this association that causes harm to wildlife.
2. Therefore, we need to craft our statement around this point and I suspect that a well-crafted "generic" statement could cover a lot of ground.
If this core point is agreeable, I will work on some sample statments to review/discuss here.
1. Floris: You might have missed this point in all the verbiage (mostly mine!): while I have opinions on whether or not the proposed guideline(s) should be applied to ALL wildlife (including birds), I feel it's up to Nate, Keith and Jim to work out if they want exclusions to the "rule" for the Avian Gallery. As I said before, my own line in the sand is based around the potential for harm to the subject, not baiting per se. So...while I would hope exceptions to the "no baiting" rule for the Avian Gallery would be driven by that point (little or no harm to the subject), uttimately that's not my call.
2. Jim: You state/ask "Therefore, we need to craft our statement around this point and I suspect that a well-crafted "generic" statement could cover a lot of ground. If this core point is agreeable..."
Depends on how specific that generic statement is (I recognize the oxymoron there ) and the utility it gives us to deal with situations of clearly unethical behaviour in image postings (e.g., baiting bears) in the wildlife gallery. But theoretically it should be possible!
I have not been able to chime in here. I'm on my iPhone, so typing a long reply
Isn't going to happen. In general I'm in agreement with Brad on crafting the
guidelines around not harming the wildlife. I do see a difference with avian
back yard feeders versus baiting an Owl with a mouse (alive or dead) as an
example. Attempting to describe situations where it may be ok
seems like a futile effort and will likely just lead to ambiguities.
There have been some great thoughts generated here. I'm looking forward
to Jim's proposed words to see where we all go from there.
Brad - thanks for cutting through the verbiage for me I of course agree with the no harm to subject concept. Seeing as a large potential for the harm comes from learning to associate humans with food, perhaps one prong of the general statement (for those cases where baiting is deemed 'acceptable') might be something along these lines:
Baiting should be done in such a way to prevent animals from associating the food with humans in any way. For example, the baited animal should never be able to see the human and the food together. Baiting should always be done far away from trails, roads, camping areas, and other places frequented by humans. Furthermore, baiting should always be done in a different location, to prevent animals from unnaturally congregating in a specific area.
This, along with a few other points, would allow for say, dragging a dead deer out into the woods, setting up a hide and waiting. But would not allow for hand feeding mice to owls. It would also not allow for hand feeding wild passerines, which I think we can probably agree is also past that 'line'. Though a stationary feeder is also not acceptable by this rule.. so perhaps we still need an exception. If we can come up with a general statement that doesn't require exceptions, I think that would be ideal. Thoughts?
Jim - I look forward to seeing what you come up with, just thought I'd help by throwing out this suggestion for you to mull over. I am by no means an expert whatsoever in this domain, seeing as I have never baited an animal (though I have on a few occasions used sound to a very limited extent), but I do want to make sure we figure out an ethical way for dancing around the shades of gray. This will help me decide for myself what is ok to do in the future as well.
Depends on how specific that generic statement is (I recognize the oxymoron there ) and the utility it gives us to deal with situations of clearly unethical behaviour in image postings (e.g., baiting bears) in the wildlife gallery.
That statement is what confuses me, Brad. I implied from your response to my last comment that you would "do nothing". That is what "self-policing" is. Now, you are talking about "utility" to "deal with" which implies you would remove an image. If a "no baiting" rule is imposed, no one is obviously going to admit baiting in their posts--so there will be no "clearly unethical behavior" to deal with. There will only be the cases where someone posts, and someone else accuses (whether publicly or privately). I want to know how we would deal with that specific situation. Tell the accuser, "sorry, but it's your word against his/hers, so even though we have a no baiting policy we are going to do nothing"? OR, remove the image, based on our subjective finding of the facts (since we're not a court)? It has to be one or the other, no?
Floris: The premise of your proposal is that baiting CAN be done in a way where food associations with humans can be avoided. In many situations the evidence argues against this. For instance, in the case of bears - who have senses of smell estimated at 100x that of a human, it is virtually impossible to present bait to them without it carrying human scent (unless one is absolutely hermetically sealed - think space suit - when dealing with the bait). Single instances of food provisioning to ursids with food carrying a human scent have shown to begin food associations. In the case of canids, their sense of smell is not as sensitive as a bear, but still many, many times better than a humans (and food associations CAN form just as quickly as with ursids). These are the types of reasons why I think it's best - when it comes to baiting and the welfare of the animal - to just not go there.
Stan: Relax. No one is going to play judge and jury. No subjective findings or guesses. "Utility to deal with it" simply means the ability to delete an image if an instance of baiting is suspected and the photographer, when diplomatically asked, owns up to it. As an example of how this would (and DID) occur: last week an image of a brown bear photographed in Finland was posted in the Wildlife Gallery and baiting was not disclosed (which, at the time, was what the guidelines said - it should be disclosed). Because I know that virtually ALL images of brown bears from Finland are of baited bears (from conversations I've had with both photographers and outfitters who work the area) I politely/diplomatically asked the photographer if the bear was baited. He acknowledged - without hesitation - that it was. Beyond this diplomatic direct approach I see no way to "check up" on situations of suspected baiting - no spies being paid to root out the evil perpetrator, no "he said, she said" will be accepted, no quasi-political thugs being paid for by money siphoned off from oil companies working in Libya, etc., etc., etc.
The goal would be primarily to stop images of baited animals being posted in the first place. Someone wishing to post images of baited wildlife would have a simple choice: Not post their images OR blatantly lie.
And, most importantly, we wouldn't have situations like we had last week when novice wildlife photographers were looking at images of bears and foxes - with full disclosure of baiting in the commentary (and with no one able to call them out on it). Just imagine what they were thinking when they left the Wildlife Gallery, very likely something like - "Oh, images of baited carnivores are OK on NPN - so it must be OK to bait them." What kind of message is that??? That I saw this happening and, with posting guidelines as they were, could say or do NOTHING about it, was what prompted me to start this whole thing off by emailing Jim with my concerns. In my opinion, even if we adopt a new policy that functionally drives baiting underground (i.e., photographers hide it so they can still post their images), it's STILL better than where we are now - at least we won't be teaching a new generation of photographers that it's OK to bait ANY species of wildlife we want just to get a photo.
There IS a limit to how much unethical behaviour you can absolve yourself of by simple disclosure of what you did. And to me the line is clear in wildlife photography - if you engage in behaviour known to harm your subject you can't justify it through disclosure.
Brad - I only meant to use vision as an example. Personally I don't think there's any ethical way to bait a bear (for the reasons you described, for example). By the way, in 2009 the BBC had a highly commended image in the young photographers section of a Finnish bear licking a strip of bacon off a tree. I think it was ridiculous that they allowed that.
The problem is dealing with the gray areas. On the one hand you're saying you "don't want to go there".. as in.. no baiting period. But then there's some circumstances in which it can be considered ok (birds at a feeder, a displaced deer carcass), so you give a wishy washy stance that "as long as no harm is done to the animal it's ok". Judging what is harmful to the animal is not straightforward, especially so for an amateur photographer who actually knows very little about wild wildlife. So you have to lay out guidelines that are more solid. But I absolutely agree, the overall message should be that baiting is to be avoided. I don't know how to do that. I guess that's why you're sticking to the 'zero tolerance' side, and just sweeping a few exceptions under the rug. That might be the best way to go after all.
Based on this discussion, I think short, sweet and to-the-point is what is called for. Since we already have a general statement in the code of conduct, I suggest we add the following sentences to the posting guidelines;
1. In the Wildlife Gallery description, we add;
Photos of baited wildlife are prohibitied.
2. In the Avian Gallery description we add;
Photos of baited raptors are prohibitied.
This way, we have harmony between both of these statements and to the code of conduct. They cover the majority of ethical ground we want to cover and are as unambiguous as we can possibly make them.
Finally, to add context to these statements, perhaps Brad would be willing to write an article covering the dangers of baiting wildlife, which I think would be a very worthy endeavor. We would include a link to this article in the code of conduct.
BTW, everyone in this discussion should read this.
So, that is how I propose we proceed. Let me know what you think and if you have any suggestions.
I'm in full agreement with the concept of short, sweet and to the point.
The first guideline absolutely works for me.
I fully understand the thinking behind the second guideline (and that it would effectively add a lot of exclusions that are normally not harmful to the subjects) and I'm totally OK with it. But I wonder if there will be debate around the dividing line of raptors vs. no raptors? But that could be said of ANY dividing line. And ultimately buy-in from Nate and Keith are much more important on this second guideline.
In both cases I'd suggest we spell "prohibited" correctly.
Will be interesting to see what others say. Thanks for doing this.
I like "prohibitied." It gives a feel that we have rope and duct tape handy for those who do not comply.
Posted by Nate Chappell on March 5, 2011 at 12:03 PM
There are many vulture restaurants in Africa and Europe where vultures are fed for conservation purposes - other raptors are attracted to these sites. Without these sites some species of vulture would likely disappear or at least be greatly reduced in numbers. They are often popular photography sites. Another example is all of the Red Kite photos from Wales are from a farm where they are baited. The numbers of Red Kites have grown back to their former numbers in this area. For better or worse carrion baiting of raptors and photography of them is very popular in Europe. Because of this I would be much more comfortable with "no live baiting of raptors".
I think from an enforcement standpoint in the avian gallery it would be difficult to police the difference between established carrion feeding places where I feel it's clear photography should be allowed and someone taking some road kill and setting up his own blind.
Posted by Keith Bauer on March 5, 2011 at 12:54 PM
Good point Nate. I had not thought of the situations you described. I would still like full disclosure on ANY baiting. The red kite scenario is a good example where understanding the shooting environment is helpful. I think that is already covered in the posting guidelines. Short and succinct works for me.
Nate - I've never baited an owl, but can that be done with both live and dead mice? If people bait owls with dead mice too, then allowing for non-live baiting could pose a problem for the owls?
Your comments on the role of feeding carrion to vultures for conservation purposes is interesting and sounds valid. Could you work that into the "exception" for the Avian Gallery?
RE: Song and/or vocalization playback: Back in my field research days I worked on avian vocalizations and was both familiar with the literature on the affects of song playback AND conducted a lot of song playback experiments myself. I would agree that song playback has the potential to be very harmful to the subjects, especially during the breeding season when male songbirds are already stressed physiologically by the energetic demands of territory defense, and in some species, feeding nestlings. Response to song playback wanes (for most passerines) as the birds proceed through the nesting phase, but trying to include this kind of information in an intelligible guideline would be completely impractical and unwieldy.
Because the response to song playback varies seasonally and between species, I think it's pretty hard to generalize and conclude it is more or less harmful than feeding could be.
Personally, I would NEVER consider using song playback to entice a bird to approach for the purposes of photography, but that's simply my own standard. Unfortunately, with the advent of digital field guides that include vocalizations using playback to entice birds is becoming easier to do all the time (not too hard to haul an iPad, and even mini-speakers to amplify the volume, into the field). The potential for this to become a more serious ethical issue very soon exists.
These issues convince me that I'm very happy the proposed wildlife guideline contains no exceptions!
Floris,
I don't know if it's possible to bait an owl with non live bait, I have never heard of anyone doing so, my guess if that owls don't eat carrrion but I am by no means an expert on the subject. My point was addressing other raptors (hawks, eagles, vultures etc) which are often baited with carrion, sometimes for conservation purposes.
Sorry to muddy the situation but I have a question about feeding stations for mammals that are for the purpose of conservation.
For example I have photographed the Orangutans at Semenggoh Wildlife Rehabilitation Center in Borneo. These are animals that have been taken from the wild from people who owned them illegally. They are reintroduced into the reserve forest there. However they are provided with feeding tables of fruit that they come back to in order to help them transition back to a totally natural state.
Another example is the elk feeding station at Oak Creek Wildlife Management Area in Washington state. The rangers put out hay for the elk to feed on in the winter (I imagine to help them get through difficult winters).
I would be willing to bet there are plenty of other examples out there as well.
It seems to me people should be able to photograph in these situations and post them. Are these situations considered "baited wildlife" for the purposes of NPN?
Hey Brad,
That's fine with me for the wildlife section. I guess part of my question is would this even be considered baiting by most people reading the guidelines when refuge staff etc is doing the feeding? I guess it doesn't matter if you used the wording "Photos of wildlife baited for the purpose of photography are prohibited" as you propose.
Cheers,
Nate
Hey Brad,
That's fine with me for the wildlife section. I guess part of my question is would this even be considered baiting by most people reading the guidelines when refuge staff etc is doing the feeding? I guess it doesn't matter if you used the wording "Photos of wildlife baited for the purpose of photography are prohibited" as you propose.
Cheers,
Nate
I don't think most folks would consider it baiting (I don't) - more like selected supplemental feeding...and it doesn't include the goal of bringing the wildlife closer to anyone (which any definition of baiting includes). I could definitely still live with Jim's proposed simpler wording or the one I just suggested with the "for the purpose of photography" addition.
I thought about "express" or "sole" to modify "purpose of photography" but then wondered if it left some weasel room, kind of along the lines of "I put the bait out just to see them up close, and then I decided I might as well take a picture."
Arguably the baiting wasn't then for the express purpose of photography? Ultimately I'm not sure if "express" really adds anything?
I think it's easier to defend and enforce in the avian forum:
Photos of birds that were live baited are prohibited than it is to defend and enforce photos of raptors that were baited for the express purpose of photography are prohibited. This is the standard the BBC uses. I could see a lot more arguments if the "express purpose of photography" is used in avian. After all, people who are critiquing are not going to know if a shot was taken at an established feeding location or not. The live bait rule to me is much more clear cut and it's fairly obvious to me which shots are baited owls (which are taken with live bait). You could also make the argument, why limit it to raptors if you use the express purpose of photography. If you just say all live bait with birds in my opinion there is much less to argue about. To me "express purpose of photography" brings a lot more gray area into it.
I am not sure whether live baiting of owls if done correctly is good, bad or indifferent for them. I have seen arguments both ways from biologists. However, part of my reasoning is that the carnival like atmosphere that live baiting of owls can create (as discussed in a few threads in the bird photography section recently)causes a black eye for the nature photography community.
It's not my forum but I think it would be fine to stick with the original Photos of Baited Wildlife are prohibited. With the orangutan and elk feeding station question I just wanted some clarificiation as to what is considered baiting and what is not. I agree with Brad that I wouldn't have considered those baiting before reading this thread.
In that scenario wouldn't photographing birds at a bird feeder in your back yard be prohibited? I would prefer the baiting of raptors is prohibited to that statement. Or "the photographs of raptors that were baited for the express purpose of photography are prohibited" My first choice would be "no live baiting of birds".
I think if we don't use "live" in avian we are going to be fighting the issue of feeders. I think images captured near feeders are a reality, and I'm fine with them.
So I'm ok with "no live baiting of birds". I think that gets at the essence of the biggest part of the issue and is likely the easiest to figure out when reviewing images.
I really appreciate the honest, informative, and cool-headed discussion on this topic, and the way it resolved into easy to comprehend statements regarding baiting.
OK, here are the Posting Guidelines updates now online;
Avian Gallery - All images with birds as the main subject. Images of captive birds must be stated as such. Photos of live-baited birds are prohibited. Note - the ethics of baiting should not be discussed in this gallery, only in the Hot Topics forum!
Wildlife Gallery - Wildlife other than birds. Images of captive animals or staged, set-up, and studio shots must be stated as such. Images that include domesticated animals should be posted in the Man & Nature Gallery. Photos of baited wildlife are prohibited. Note - the ethics of baiting should not be discussed in this gallery, only in the Hot Topics forum!
The following update was made in the NPN Code of Conduct;
- Do not entice a wild animal with food (baiting) in order to get the photo. Allow the animal to be wild, and to move about on its own accord. Note - photos of live-baited birds are prohibited in the NPN Avian Gallery. Photos of baited wildlife are prohibited in the NPN Wildlife Gallery.
Are we all OK with these updates?
Posted by Pat Sampson on March 6, 2011 at 10:09 AM
Just a dumb procedural question - if we post a link to this discussion (as per your suggestion) is it functionally "read only" for non-staff? Also, I did see a few comments where the staff member expressed gratitude that this was a "confidential" forum (suggesting they would prefer that general members didn't see what they said). Part of me sees tremendous value for having this thread available as a resource to show how much thought and effort went into the decision to change the baiting policy, but I would want to respect the right of perceived confidentiality that some of the staff may have thought existed when they posted their thoughts.
For the record, I'm 100% comfortable with my own views (as expressed above WAY too many times!) being available for public.consumption.
Suggestion: perhaps whenever we're having a debate over possible policy changes in here, we should start with a disclaimer that the thread MAY end up being viewable by the general membership? Just a thought.
Good points, Brad. While I didn't post any comments I wouldn't want my boss to read, I think threads in this forum should be kept confidential among the staff.
I believe what Jim means is for us mods to post a link to the thread where the new guidelines are being challenged or discussed. post that link here so we're all aware and can defend the policy if necessary. I don't think he means for someone to read this thread. Hope that makes sense.
Nice job with this folks. The updated guidelines look good to me.
Here we go. This post isn't a result of the changed guidelines but of a couple of different posts recently. I certainly have no problem with anyone putting out water for either wildlife or birds and wouldn't consider it baiting but it seems we are going to need to define what exactly baiting is and which kind of baiting (photographing birds at feeders) is allowed etc.
I will chime in on the bird live bait versus non live bait issue in that thread. I think at some point the issue of why did we change from disclosure of any baiting or taping in the avian section to not having to disclose it will come up. I am not entirely clear on why we dropped those.
All images with birds as the main subject. Images of captive birds, or birds baited with seed or recordings must be disclosed as such. Photos of live-baited birds are prohibited.
Thanks Jim
It's almost perfect in my opinion but to cover all bases I would say ....or birds baited with seed, other non-live bait or recordings must be disclosed as such. Photos of live-baited birds are prohibited.
That way all those raptor carrion feeding stations in Europe are covered and we don't have a gray area where we are deciding whether one is for conservation versus solely for photography.
I assume you are also going to leave the part about not discussing the ethics of baiting in the critique gallery.
Sounds good to me Jim. I agree with the guidelines you put forth in you post dated 03/06/11 at 09:45 am EST. I rarely, if ever shoot wildlife myself, but have been following the thread. Great thread with a lot of thoughtful discussion. It is relevant to M&N though since from time to time there are bird and wildlife images posted there. Thanks for starting this.
Hi Jim: Maybe you are already planning on doing this, but thought I'd ask anyway..... Are you going to create a post in one of the forums that contains the new posting guidelines? I'm guessing many of the members don't go to the posting guidelines often to see if anything is new.
Discussion
95 repliesIt won't be easy and there's bound to be some differing opinions, but I think we need to collectively address this issue. So, let's open this up and have some dicussion!
1. At the time this began the Posting Guidelines for the Wildlife Fauna stated that if baiting was used to obtain photos it must be disclosed.
2. Based on what was stated in the Avian Posting Guidelines it was clear that we were NOT to debate the ethics of it in the photo critique forums.
3. That left any NPN member (and moderators) in a position where the strongest that could be said about the baiting was "Thanks for conforming to the guidelines on disclosure of the act of baiting".
4. Last week there were images posted in the Wildlife Gallery of baiting subjects of species known to form very fast food associations with humans (bears and foxes). This is the case with virtually ALL carnivores. Food association with humans (or the act of providing "foreign" food that may not be healthy for the subject) is not ALWAYS harmful to the subject, but it with many species it is. There is a reason that virtually all bear management policies start with the catchy - and almost always true - statement that "A Fed Bear is a Dead Bear." There is also a reason why feeding of wildlife is NOT permitted in virtually any park in North America.
5. Consider the effect and message when a novice wildlife photographer wanders into the Wildlife Gallery and sees images of bears and foxes that have been baited and the strongest comments about the act of baiting are "Thanks for conforming to the posting guidelines". To me this is implicit support for the act of baiting. And, as it stands now, we have to accept images of baited wildlife even if they were captured illegally in a National/State/Provincial Park!.
I do NOT disagree with Steve's point that it may be possible in some cases food baiting CAN be done in a responsible fashion and in those cases it is POSSIBLE that it MAY not lead to harm to the subject. I also know that there are some species that do NOT form rapid food associations with humans and where baiting does no visible harm to the individuals. And, while writing a taxonomically-based policy to allow baiting in some circumstances and not others is possible (based on the principle of "is the baiting likely to cause harm to the subject?") it would be very cumbersome at best. Prohibiting the posting of images of baited animals is simply erring (and erring in SOME cases only) on the side of protecting the resource (the animals) we use to capture our images and clearly states that we put concern for the welfare of the subject above that of our images.
Thus, I requested to Jim that he do the following:
1. Strengthen the wording in the NPN Code of Conduct to make it clear that baiting should not be done.
2. Add a posting guideline (for images posted in the critiquing forums) that images should be captured in a manner that conforms to the NPN Code of Conduct
3. Remove the need to disclose baiting in the Wildlife section of the posting guidelines (because #1 and #2 combine to make it clear images of baited animals should not be posted).
This policy change - if implemented - is MILD compared to rules and regulations in many jurisdictions (some states and provinces) pertaining to baiting and/or feeding wildlife and would put us in step with the behaviour expected of anyone entering a public park in North America. And, in my opinion, it is a clear public statement that we care about the welfare of our subjects and are a highly ethical organization.
Will it piss some people off? Probably. But is avoiding that more important than making a strong ethical statement?
A finer point for us to zero-in on; is it hypocritical to differentiate between the baiting of carnivores/raptors and song birds?
A few points to ponder which may help us make some distinctions;
1. While there is no "carnivore feeding industry" there is certainly a huge song bird feeding industry, which millions of people enjoy.
2. Is there a difference between taking a photo at an established bird feeder vs. setting up a feeding opportunity for the express purpose of photography?
3. Is there a moral difference between feeding a song bird with seed vs. sacrificing another live animal, such as a mouse to an owl, for the express purpose of photography?
4. Should any policy that we establish err on the side of animal welfare, how do we reconcile our own personal beliefs and actions?
To specifically answer your question: "is it hypocritical to differentiate between the baiting of carnivores/raptors and song birds?" I'll say this:
For me, it has nothing to do with hypocrisy - it all comes down to real or potential harm to the subject. If it can be shown that the feeding does no harm (which is MUCH tougher to ascertain than the opposite), then go for the feeding with a clear conscience.
But...bear in these kind of issues in mind when thinking about harm to the subject - even at a songbird feeder. It's well known that a poorly kept bird feeder can help spread several diseases, but admittedly this is only when it's neglected. It's equally well known that bird feeders can change the abundance and distribution of the species using them, including, with some species, affecting the size of both winter flock territories and summer breeding territories. Whether or not this change in abundance and distribution is harmful is a more subjective discussion that can depend on many other factors (both human-caused and natural). But the point is this - even what appears to be a very benign act like maintaining a bird feeder CAN have a major impact on the species using it.
But we're not telling someone that the can't have a bird feeder in their yard. Rather, we're simply depriving them of ONE means of distributing photos that were captured using a practice that often proves harmful to the the subjects. We're not telling them they can't post them on their own website or do anything else with them.
My original intent was limited to the situation in the Wildlife Gallery and I would be absolutely fine with a single statement in the Wildlife section of the posting guidelines that said "Images of non-avian wildlife baited with food are not permitted" to avoid bringing the avian folks into this.
That being said, I personally think that putting it in the Code of Ethics sends out a stronger message that NPN is concerned about the very real potential for harm when wildlife (furred or feathered) is baited with food. Further, to me it seems almost like a no-brainer that encouraging NPN members to post images that conform to the Code of Ethics is a good thing (most of it can't be policed anyway - we can't keep image posters from lying!) - it's a great signal to send. And I find it hard to believe that any NPN member would publicly disagree that posted images should conform to a Code of Ethics (that would be kind of like saying "I don't agree with following ethical guidelines with my own photography").
That's it for now!
Brad
I think the message needs to be consistent across all galleries and that we all need to be on the same page with the statment. If the NPN staff is not in agreement when we are taken to task on it (as we surely will be), it will not be a good situation. We have already seen members equating baiting owls with live mice to the feeding of song birds with seed.
If we're going to take the lead on this (as I think we should), we better have all our ducks lined up nicely in a row...
My opinion is that you are taking it too far if you eliminate shots of birds taken at bird feeders. Photography of songbirds at feeders both in their own yards and at established feeders is very common and generally accepted in the nature photography community. If you keep your feeders clean they shouldn't cause harm to the birds. From a practical matter I wouldn't be surprised if we lost some members if they aren't allowed to post bird feeding shots.
What about places where birds are fed by national park staff such as at vulture restaurants which are used in Africa for conservation of certain species? Is photography allowed there?
I like the BBC wildlife photography guidelines which expressly disallows any use of live bait. Any other bait must be disclosed in how you took the image.
I think equating live baiting of an owl where you are sacrificing a live animal to a predator to photographing songbirds at feeders is ridiculous. Just because someone draws this comparison doens't mean there is any validity to it. I also think comparing baiting a bear for photography to photographing songbirds at feeders is ridiculous. In the bear situation, it is obvious that this is a bad idea and it shouldn't be allowed. In the bird feeding situation you have a situation where possibly if someone isn't taking good care of their feeders it could be harmful and then some subjective arguments about species population distribution. Why do we have to lump these together?
In terms of being consistent I think most rational people can see the difference between baiting a bear for photography and feeding songbirds and taking photos of them. I don't see a problem differentiating the two. A few strange people may bring it up and say it's hypocritical but so what? Are we supposed to throw common sense out the window? There will be many more people who will be put off by the fact that they can't post photos of songbirds at feeders anymore.
I am fine with Brad's statement "Images of non-avian wildlife baited with food are not permitted" as well as I am fine with "Live baiting is not permitted in any galleries".
Just a few of my thoughts on the topic.
No disagreement with your argument that equating songbird "baiting" at a feeder to baiting a bear is ludicrous.
Question: Would you accept the proposed 3-step solution outlined above (in my original post) IF there was an explicit exclusion (or exclusions) for shots captured at a feeder (or other non-live baiting you deem acceptable) within the guidelines specific to the Avian Gallery?
Cheers...
Brad
Yeah, I think I would be OK with that.
To me the primary issue isn't baiting per se (in all forms with all species), but actively avoiding and discouraging photographer behaviour known to be harmful to the subject. As applied to non-avian wildlife, and especially carnivores, baiting just happens to be the most identifiable behaviour that is so commonly harmful that I think it needs to be addressed (both in our Code of Conduct and the posting guidelines). To have workable guidelines I think we're forced to lump some things that arguably aren't harmful under the umbrella of "baiting". But, as I have said above, I have no problem with exclusions in the avian gallery if those making the decisions (presumably Nate, Keith, and Jim) feel they're moderately harmless practices.
I COMPLETELY agree with you that how commonly the behaviour is engaged in (or if there's a big industry behind it) says nothing about the impact (or harm) done by the behaviour.
Cheers...
Brad
For us the carnivore baiting isn't theoretical. We have brown bears right in our yard. As long as we're responsible and don't leave anything attractive, they move right on. As it should be. The whole neighborhood works together on this, and in 35 years living with bears in close proximity no one has ever had a problem in our neighborhood. Folks in other neighborhoods 20 miles away have had nothing but problems because one fool in the neighborhood taught a bear that people and their homes/yards were a good source of food. Successive generations of bears have learned from the first, and I bet a dozen bears have been killed in the last 20 years due to it all.
Now the borough wants to put rolling garbage carts at every house for convenient weekly curbside pickup, rather than making everyone to drive to a central garbage pickup station. Looks to me as though baiting around homes is being institutionalized, with whole generations of bears to reap the harvest of death even if the borough retracts the policy after a year of mayhem. Baiting bears is certainly illegal, but wheeled feeding stations at every house is perfectly fine, evidently.
Rant over. Long as the legal base is covered, folks can hash out what's ethical and I'll be content.
Beyond what I know about the situation in virtually all public parks (basically no feeding of any wildlife, including birds) I can't say I know diddly squat about the situation in the various US states (other than what I learned by Ron Dudley's post of the photographer being jailed for baiting a bighorn in Montana). Would probably be worth doing some research on the situation before "condoning" (or excluding bird feeding or whatever else one wants to exclude) from the "no photos of food-baited animals" ruleset being proposed. Sounds like a great job for those wanting the exclusions!!
I think you are incorrect regarding feeding of birds in virtually all public parks. A few examples are at Rio Bentsen State Park in Texas, Patagonia Lake State Park in Arizona, Reifel Refuge in British Columbia, one wildlife refuge that I can't remember the name in New York and many other locations feeding of birds is permitted and in some cases even encouraged. At many local public parks it is permitted as well. I am sure I could find hundreds if not thousands of examples where it is permitted (although I don't have time for that or to research the various state statutes.) I realize that there are also many public locations where it is not permitted.
Cheers,
Nate
I was mainly referring to National and Provincial/State and the majority of municipal parks. But no matter, my primary concern is the non-avian wildlife and as I have said I have no issue with exclusions that others deem necessary in the Avian Gallery (and while I would hope that the issue of harm to the subject would factor into the exclusions, that's more up to others than me).
Cheers...
Brad
I anticipate the possible issues that will arise will hinge on understanding of terms. Baiting can be broadly interpreted. One of the hypothetical situations I threw out was: What if I come upon a mountain lion killed deer in the mountains and situate a hide nearby for his return? I can imagine doing so. Then, what about a road kill deer that has been found by coyotes or other scavengers, that has to be repositioned a little for aesthetic reasons? Then it follows to ask what about moving the deer a few yards for a better photo background? Loading it in your truck and moving it a quarter mile? How is that different from gathering bones from the butcher and creating a bait pile?
"Do not entice a wild animal with food" is better than "Do not photograph over bait" because it addresses some of the above situations, and implies the difference in our intent between photographing over naturally occurring food and the very different behavior of providing food as a lure.
To me, exclusions for avian seem obvious, but the issue of raptors might require some careful defining.
All of this deals with the situational nature of most ethical problems, and in this case I think we are trying to "do no harm" or at least minimize the negative effects of our activities upon the natural world. Of course, humans are part of a natural world and it is unavoidable that we have some impact. The difference is that an ethical person acts in a thoughtful manner and what is ethically acceptable is partly defined by that person's intent.
With regard to laws, I guess my cut at it would be, that we obviously don't as an organization condone criminal activity.
I'm just trying to get something simple out that treats people like responsible adults.
pat
Looks like you guys may have wrapped this up while I was drafting a repsonse.
I understand your point and it's intent, but what I don't really agree with is leaving it so general and, more importantly, with the individual photographer to decide what is harmful. For instance, I got into a MASSIVE debate with a group of NPN photographers last year who were absolutely adamant that the baiting of bears with food for the purpose of photography was absolutely harmless, despite mounds of anecdotal and scientific evidence to the contrary. These photographers would absolutely claim "...that no animals were harmed for the purpose of making this image" even though it's a totally false claim. But, with the standard you propose, we'd have to accept the image post and we'd be exactly in the same place we are today.
Cheers...
Brad
pat
See what you think about this? I think the statement does give you the teeth to do pretty much whatever you want. It's really you, the other Wildlife moderators and JIm that define what "harmed" means on your gallery. As a moderator you have a great podium for educating the folks who post that really don't understand the problems associated with baiting. But ultimately it's your call as to whether the critter was harmed or not. Assuming of course that the other Wildlife moderators and Jim end up on the same page.
My two cents worth. I'll butt out after this. Baiting isn't much of an issue for me in Flora. I do like to shoot avian and wildlife though if I think I have something interesting. Otherwise I'd have stayed out of it.
Regards,
pat
I guess one major concern I have is that this puts us (as moderators) into direct conflict with any member who is willing or wanting to argue the case. So...if I/we ran into another bear baiting situation with a member who believed it was harmless, we'd be pretty much in the same position as last year if we yanked the image (tho' the debate would largely be unseen because it wouldn't be in the image commentary). Personally I'd rather have a clear policy behind me that have to argue every case. And...to be clear...this isn't a "once a year" sort of thing - we get a fairly large number of images posted of baited wildlife (some/many of which aren't disclosed until the member is challenged) - last week there were two separate cases.
And it's not as though were going cutting edge or pushing the envelope with a "no baiting the wildlife" ban - it's consistent with the policy of our public parks (national, provincial, state) and even many states.
Cheers Pat...
Brad
Seriously, ive read with interest the above discussion and the proposals sound reasonable to me. I think NPN has a resposibility to promote ethical behavior, which as Brad points out should take a stand against behavior that harms wildlife. I just think we have to be careful not to set ourselves up as a police force, let the applicable laws be the enforcing agency here, not the moderators. As has been pointed out, prohibiting behavior often just contributes to people keeping quiet about their methods...
Thanks for your input. Regarding your question: "...how often are photos of baited mammals posted where the baiting was not covered by some local or other regulation/law/policy??"
You know - I honestly can't answer that, largely because most of the time the exact location of the shot isn't disclosed and, even if it was, I don't know the laws of each jurisdiction (or state) well enough to give you an answer (and baiting IS outlawed in some states, as Ron Dudley's recent post about a photographer being jailed for breaking "no-baiting" laws in Montana). I can't recall a recent image post of an obvious illegal event (like an image of a bear baited in the middle of Yellowstone). Sorry I can't give you a better answer.
Cheers...
Brad
For example (off the top of my head): a couple of wildlife photogrpahers who i greatly admire on NPN posted a series of red fox images a while back. I was bloody impressed, since most red foxes ive encountered run from me when im within 600 yards of them (which is why the only decent shot of a red fox i have is one that was trying to get in the hen house at a local zoo
Just thinking out loud here, im just concerned that a strict policy leaves room for people to become pissed off over the non-so-clear-cut cases.
Ultimately it's still very simple. Did the photographer bait the fox? If yes, then it crosses ethical boundaries. Simple. If someone else did it historically - well, there's little we can do about that. Of course it's possible that someone could be super mischievous and have someone else spend time baiting an animal until it's habituated and then move in and snap an image but...if someone is going to be this sneaky there's little we can do to stop it.
We can all dream up possible exceptions, gray areas, or slippery slopes to every rule or law ever created. And we can debate definitions all day long. What's art? What's pornography? But it reality I think we all know what baiting with food is when we see it - it's pretty simple. You intentionally put out a bit a food that a critter likes so that it will approach and you can take a photo.
RE: "I think then perhaps we should let the local or applicable laws be the determining factor, and not NPN."
So...after they get out of jail for breaking the law (I'm referring here to the situation of a photographer in Montana recently being thrown in jail for baiting a bighorn for the purposes of photography) we should accept the image(s) that resulted in convictions as posts on NPN? Maybe it's just me, but that seems really odd and a REAL lowering of the ethical bar!
Thanks for the feedback Stan - you always have an interesting perspective that makes one think!
Brad
Brad--when i googled the park in question (prospect park in denver) i came across an article by another 'pro' photog who talked about the wonderful foxes there, and mentioned how well fed they were (some with "healthy" food, some "not-so-healthy")...he stated in his article that he "did not" advocate the feeding, but immediately followed that statement by a (paraphrased) "you will get better shots if you follow someone who does (feed them)"
All i am saying, is that i think it is very good that NPN advocate the establishment of local/regional/national policies and laws that prohibit harmful behavior such as baiting. What i question is the wisdom of NPN establishing it's own rule. That makes us a quasi-political body, which starts putting folks in camps--the very antithesis of what has made this group a respected success. In the case you mentioned, the Montana dudes' photos were illegally taken, and will always be associated with that illegality. Period--end o' story. That makes it real easy cause its some other body making the determination.
I happily defer to you guys though--you have far more knowlege of the subject than i do.
Your suggestion "and that any photo taken in violation of applicable laws or regulations regarding feeding is subject to removal etc." seems really, really unwieldy to me. Who's going to do all the checking on applicable laws or regulations regarding feeding in the specific location where the photo was taken? And, because the laws vary between one region and another (which they do) should NPN have an ethical stance that flips and flops based on where the image was taken?
I'm not sure I like the idea of laws and regulations driving our ethical decisions or stances. Seems to me it should be the other way 'round, which is really what we're discussing here - developing a rule based on an ethical principle that is widely accepted in federal, state, and provincial parks and many other jurisdictions - and which is based on preventing harm to wildlife.
Of course we can't stop those who choose to lie. But we can set a good example for novice photographers and be known as an organization with high ethical standards.
The staff at the state park I live by routinely put out some kind of food pellets for the white tails and other deer in the park. They also put out corn for the pheasants in the winter and pretty much year round for the magpies. My wife feeds the squirrels in the neighborhood. (Yes, we've made the house squirrel proof - price of a decent lens (smile))
Now, while I've shot images from those areas, particularly the pheasants, I've never posted one because it strikes me as counter to the statement about baiting that's already in the code of conduct. Are making images in these situations harmful to the animals? It doesn't seem to me that it is but I'm certainly willing to admit that I'm uninformed and that it may be harmful in some way. But if we assume that it's not would I be allowed to post my deer and squirrel images in under the guideline you propose?
pat
Taking the images isn't ever harmful to subjects - it's the act of supplementing them with the food (baiting) and beginning the food association with humans. This food association with humans is more often the cause of the harm. There is no doubt that some species are slow in forming food associations (or never do), but most do. Which is the whole reason that official policy in all national, provincial, and state parks - and even some entire states and provinces - is that wildlife can not be fed and/or baited on public land. And, as a further note that touches on your final question, even in species that don't form food associations that seem harmful to the animal, the food given to them is often harmful to them (e.g., salted peanuts aren't really the best thing for squirrels). And, by the way, we often think of these food associations as being most harmful for the species that quickly become what we think of as "pests" once they develop a food association - e.g., bears losing their fear of humans and getting into garbage, raccoons scavenging, etc. and that they end up being destroyed by wildlife officials. But often the harm comes totally unintentionally - food associated/habituated wildlife being hit by cars, etc. And, of course, then there's the situation I witnessed last fall - a big white-tail buck that had been hand-fed and habituated blown away on day 1 of hunting season as it approached the hunter for a hand-out. I'm not saying that the folks hand-feeding the buck were serious photographers (and they likely weren't NPN members), but I think the point is clear.
So, I have no plans to suggest an exclusion to the "no images of baited animals" guideline for squirrels, deer, or any other species of wildlife to Jim.
One final point about a question you didn't ask (
Cheers Pat - sorry I brought out issues that you DIDN'T ask about, but I'm sure they would have come up sooner or later!
Brad
At some point very soon, I'm going to fire-up all three of my remaining brain cells and write an editorial that we can review/discuss in this forum before presenting to the membership.
I guess here's where I end up. As a moderator on the wildlife gallery, I consider you an expert. If you tell me that baiting is harmful to wildlife, to the extent that all baiting should be prohibited, I'll accept your judgement - same for the avian moderators. I think you're still going to have to interpret "baiting" in some instances and for some people but ...
I'd go with the more generic "has not been harmed' statement in the code of conduct and then spell out the baiting prohibition and any others on the specific gallery posting guidelines.
As a novice, amateur photog I've never been tempted to bait an animal or a bird. It's contrary to the spirit of my interests and what I enjoy in nature photography. Thanks for the insights though, I appreciate it.
Regards,
pat
Thanks for your feedback. As a matter of fact, EVERYONE's feedback on this has been valuable and, in my opinion, it was a really good decision of Jim's to start this post on this forum - if for no other reason, it does prepare us for possible counter-arguments by members if the proposed new policy on baiting is implemented.
Cheers...
Brad
I recently went through an exercise with 2 other photographers. We were tasked with helping our local County Fair Fine Art/Photography director define the difference between a "manipulated" and "non-manipulated" photograph. As you might expect this topic is a discussion that just goes round and round and agreement can never be reached. At first we started talking about all the different ways a photograph can be manipulated; heck, what is the definition of manipulated anyway? I won't even bother with examples cause that's not the point. What we ultimately came up with was a definition that was very generic in nature. It contained no examples - because the second you include one example, someone entering the photo contest will want to know, "what about this technique?" We basically set some generic guidelines and let the person entering the contest decide the proper category to enter their prints in the fair.
This discussion, through nobody's fault, seems to me very similar in that folks are talking about local parks vs. National parks, birdfeeders and water dishes vs. live bait or roadkill. The scenarios are endless and I'm not sure you can put a hard and fast rule on a topic like this - just like "manipulation." So you end up needing to construct a statement that is generic enough as to not generate debate, but worded well enough to make a point.
I completely agree that NPN should stand for something, however my thinking is simply a generic statement included in the "Code of conduct" section is all that really can be done. Stan is right, you can't police this or any other "code of ethics" that the vast majority of photographers adhere to. It's always the exceptions that screw it up for everyone.
Maybe something like this:
"Baiting an animal for the explicit purpose of photographing that animal is discouraged by NPN and it's membership."
I think maybe this allows for backyard bird feeders? I have two bird feeders and I don't photograph the birds. But if I did, I'm not feeding them just for photography. I like bird crap all over my patio.
Just some thoughts and inserting an opinion here.
Lon
Your suggested modification to the Code of Conduct is very similar to what is there now (since Jim modified it earlier this week) but I think that the "is discouraged" phrase is too weak.
Personally, as one of the 3 moderators in the Wildlife Gallery (and both Lon Sharp and Vincent are on board with this) and the ones who have to deal with this, I feel strongly that I want linkage of the Code of Conduct to the posting guidelines OR an explicit statement in the Wildlife Gallery posting guidelines that images of animals that are baited with food should not be posted.
But...Jim is now aware of your point and ultimately he is the one who will be making the decision!
Cheers...
Brad
PS: I think defining "baiting with food" is MUCH, MUCH easier to define than image "manipulation" - it's a pretty simple and clear act - you intentionally put out food that a critter likes so it will approach (and then, presumably, you capture the image). I think it's pretty commonly understood. Heck, just check a dictionary what "bait" means:
noun
• food used to entice fish or other animals as prey : herrings make excellent bait for pike | fishing with live baits.
• figurative an allurement; a thing intended to tempt or entice : she used the prospect of freedom as bait to trap him into talking | many potential buyers are reluctant to take the bait.
Add in the phrase "with food" to the noun "bait" and tack on "for the purposes of photography" and I don't think the act could be much clearer defined!
I also think it is valuable to consider standing behind Mark Carwardine's code of ethics (as published in BBC Wildlife). At least by providing a link to it in our code of conduct / ethics. He covers image manipulation, as well as baiting (and more). My feeling is that NPN wants to 'breed' a similar kind of honest photographers that Mark wants, and since he (along with many others) put a lot of thought into this it would certainly be worth incorporating into our code.
Ethics in Wildlife Photography
Here's a summary (direct quote) of his baiting / wildlife photography ethical points to consider (but I recommend looking at the whole article):
By following these rules, you will reduce your impact on your wild subjects:
* Provide only organic food that is part of the animals’ natural diet.
* Be wary of live bait. It is probably OK to offer mealworms to songbirds, but providing mice for birds of prey is a step too far.
* Try not to leave the bait out too long.
* Don’t feed large species that are potentially dangerous.
* Don’t use sounds as bait if they are likely to cause unnecessary stress.
* Use the waterholes and feeding stations already provided in nature reserves.
* Stress in the caption that you used bait.
Wildlife photography code of conduct
Some photographers are prepared to do almost anything to get the shot they want, so conservation groups and photography associations have published a number of codes of conduct for wildlife photography. Most of the recommendations are common sense – the welfare of the subject is more important than getting the photo. Here are a few key points to remember:
* Always photograph animals from a safe and respectful distance.
* If an animal shows any sign of stress, move further back or leave altogether.
* Be patient and never try to force an animal to do something. Remember that the impact of many people is cumulative: you might be the 100th person that day to yell “Hey moose” while the poor creature is trying to feed or care for its young.
* Never encroach on nests or dens during the breeding season.
* Treat the habitat with the same regard that you have for the animals themselves.
* Respect local cultures and customs when you are working abroad.
* Check published recommendations, such as the excellent code produced by the Nature Group of The Royal Photographic Society
* Finally, always be honest and truthful when captioning your photos.
Sorry, but several of Mark's points on baiting simply don't jibe with wildlife management principles or known facets of animal behaviour. And...you know...I honestly DON'T think the baiting "guidelines" are very well thought out at ALL. To wit:
1. Regardless of whether you use organic food that's a natural part of their natural diet, many species (from carnivores to ungulates to rodents) will form a food association with humans after only a single instance of supplementary feeding. Bears are the quickest to do it, but almost all of the carnivores are right behind. Normally the food association and associated habituation are the more serious issue affecting the health of the animal, not the nutritional value of the food (tho' no one would argue that organic food that's part of their normal diet is BETTER for them than chocolate bars!).
2. Also, one of their baiting guidelines is: "Don’t feed large species that are potentially dangerous."
It's hard to see how this guideline is put there for the welfare of the subject - it would be hard to interpret this as anything but trying to protect the photographer! And...if that's their intent, well...wolverines are pretty small (between 20 and 35 lbs normally) but anyone trying to bait one of those in for a photo could only be described as suicidal!!
3. RE: another guideline: "Be wary of live bait. It is probably OK to offer mealworms to songbirds, but providing mice for birds of prey is a step too far."
I'm not sure if a guideline could be more subjective or an invitation to debate or have more shades of gray!
I'm not going spend any more time "dissecting" his remaining baiting points one-by-one, but rather I'm trying to point out that adding all this subjectivity as a start point would create a situation of infinite debate. For instance - "probably OK to offer mealworms to songbirds, but providing mice for birds of prey is a step too far". So...what about offering up grasshoppers to Kestrels? I honestly don't think we want to open up this can of (meal) worms!
But...when I look at the set of 8 bullet points under the "Wildlife Photography Code of Conduct" - well...I see nothing there that is even remotely debatable. They're just missing one point and they'd have the perfect list - "Never bait wildlife with food for the purposes of photography"!!
Sorry, I just couldn't resist that little barb!!
Cheers...
Brad
So.. using bird feeders should not be allowed? Personally, I'm ok with that, as I don't ever photograph at feeders. But I think that might cause some problems with the community at large (as has come up in our discussion here). This is where those shades of gray in the baiting ethics come up. I realize that you're the 'wildlife' guy, and that shade of gray is more in the avian domain... but the baiting regulations should be uniform for all living things IMO. If baiting a passerine with seed is ok, what about baiting a mouse with seed? I think that's where he was going with the "Don’t feed large species that are potentially dangerous". I'm sure there's a better way to phrase that - any suggestions? It's a lot easier if we were to ban all baiting outright, but as soon as any concessions are made the can of worms is opened.
This is a long discussion, so I may have missed it, but where do you stand on the 'gray shade' of dragging an already dead deer from one place to another where you can safely photograph any visitors? That falls under 'baiting'.
It's precisely because of these shades of gray that the line "Never bait wildlife with food for the purposes of photography" isn't in Mark's general code of ethics. If that line were there, plenty of highly respected National Geographic photographers would have to be considered as unethical.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I do not believe this is an issue relevant only to NPN, but to the *entire* nature photography community. As such, we should try to work with other established codes of ethics to cite - perhaps with slight modifications (which I think should then be proposed to someone like Mark, so that we can eventually settle on a code we're all satisfied with).
1. I think Brad's main point is that we should be aware/concerned with the conditioning of wildlife to accept/expect food from humans. It is this association that causes harm to wildlife.
2. Therefore, we need to craft our statement around this point and I suspect that a well-crafted "generic" statement could cover a lot of ground.
If this core point is agreeable, I will work on some sample statments to review/discuss here.
--P
1. Floris: You might have missed this point in all the verbiage (mostly mine!): while I have opinions on whether or not the proposed guideline(s) should be applied to ALL wildlife (including birds), I feel it's up to Nate, Keith and Jim to work out if they want exclusions to the "rule" for the Avian Gallery. As I said before, my own line in the sand is based around the potential for harm to the subject, not baiting per se. So...while I would hope exceptions to the "no baiting" rule for the Avian Gallery would be driven by that point (little or no harm to the subject), uttimately that's not my call.
2. Jim: You state/ask "Therefore, we need to craft our statement around this point and I suspect that a well-crafted "generic" statement could cover a lot of ground. If this core point is agreeable..."
Depends on how specific that generic statement is (I recognize the oxymoron there
Brad
Isn't going to happen. In general I'm in agreement with Brad on crafting the
guidelines around not harming the wildlife. I do see a difference with avian
back yard feeders versus baiting an Owl with a mouse (alive or dead) as an
example. Attempting to describe situations where it may be ok
seems like a futile effort and will likely just lead to ambiguities.
There have been some great thoughts generated here. I'm looking forward
to Jim's proposed words to see where we all go from there.
Baiting should be done in such a way to prevent animals from associating the food with humans in any way. For example, the baited animal should never be able to see the human and the food together. Baiting should always be done far away from trails, roads, camping areas, and other places frequented by humans. Furthermore, baiting should always be done in a different location, to prevent animals from unnaturally congregating in a specific area.
This, along with a few other points, would allow for say, dragging a dead deer out into the woods, setting up a hide and waiting. But would not allow for hand feeding mice to owls. It would also not allow for hand feeding wild passerines, which I think we can probably agree is also past that 'line'. Though a stationary feeder is also not acceptable by this rule.. so perhaps we still need an exception. If we can come up with a general statement that doesn't require exceptions, I think that would be ideal. Thoughts?
Jim - I look forward to seeing what you come up with, just thought I'd help by throwing out this suggestion for you to mull over. I am by no means an expert whatsoever in this domain, seeing as I have never baited an animal (though I have on a few occasions used sound to a very limited extent), but I do want to make sure we figure out an ethical way for dancing around the shades of gray. This will help me decide for myself what is ok to do in the future as well.
That statement is what confuses me, Brad. I implied from your response to my last comment that you would "do nothing". That is what "self-policing" is. Now, you are talking about "utility" to "deal with" which implies you would remove an image. If a "no baiting" rule is imposed, no one is obviously going to admit baiting in their posts--so there will be no "clearly unethical behavior" to deal with. There will only be the cases where someone posts, and someone else accuses (whether publicly or privately). I want to know how we would deal with that specific situation. Tell the accuser, "sorry, but it's your word against his/hers, so even though we have a no baiting policy we are going to do nothing"? OR, remove the image, based on our subjective finding of the facts (since we're not a court)? It has to be one or the other, no?
Stan: Relax. No one is going to play judge and jury. No subjective findings or guesses. "Utility to deal with it" simply means the ability to delete an image if an instance of baiting is suspected and the photographer, when diplomatically asked, owns up to it. As an example of how this would (and DID) occur: last week an image of a brown bear photographed in Finland was posted in the Wildlife Gallery and baiting was not disclosed (which, at the time, was what the guidelines said - it should be disclosed). Because I know that virtually ALL images of brown bears from Finland are of baited bears (from conversations I've had with both photographers and outfitters who work the area) I politely/diplomatically asked the photographer if the bear was baited. He acknowledged - without hesitation - that it was. Beyond this diplomatic direct approach I see no way to "check up" on situations of suspected baiting - no spies being paid to root out the evil perpetrator, no "he said, she said" will be accepted, no quasi-political thugs being paid for by money siphoned off from oil companies working in Libya, etc., etc., etc.
The goal would be primarily to stop images of baited animals being posted in the first place. Someone wishing to post images of baited wildlife would have a simple choice: Not post their images OR blatantly lie.
And, most importantly, we wouldn't have situations like we had last week when novice wildlife photographers were looking at images of bears and foxes - with full disclosure of baiting in the commentary (and with no one able to call them out on it). Just imagine what they were thinking when they left the Wildlife Gallery, very likely something like - "Oh, images of baited carnivores are OK on NPN - so it must be OK to bait them." What kind of message is that??? That I saw this happening and, with posting guidelines as they were, could say or do NOTHING about it, was what prompted me to start this whole thing off by emailing Jim with my concerns. In my opinion, even if we adopt a new policy that functionally drives baiting underground (i.e., photographers hide it so they can still post their images), it's STILL better than where we are now - at least we won't be teaching a new generation of photographers that it's OK to bait ANY species of wildlife we want just to get a photo.
There IS a limit to how much unethical behaviour you can absolve yourself of by simple disclosure of what you did. And to me the line is clear in wildlife photography - if you engage in behaviour known to harm your subject you can't justify it through disclosure.
I can't relax, BTW, my chief tripod is being held hostage by Manfrotto right now and a big snowstorm is only days away...
The problem is dealing with the gray areas. On the one hand you're saying you "don't want to go there".. as in.. no baiting period. But then there's some circumstances in which it can be considered ok (birds at a feeder, a displaced deer carcass), so you give a wishy washy stance that "as long as no harm is done to the animal it's ok". Judging what is harmful to the animal is not straightforward, especially so for an amateur photographer who actually knows very little about wild wildlife. So you have to lay out guidelines that are more solid. But I absolutely agree, the overall message should be that baiting is to be avoided. I don't know how to do that. I guess that's why you're sticking to the 'zero tolerance' side, and just sweeping a few exceptions under the rug. That might be the best way to go after all.
1. In the Wildlife Gallery description, we add;
Photos of baited wildlife are prohibitied.
2. In the Avian Gallery description we add;
Photos of baited raptors are prohibitied.
This way, we have harmony between both of these statements and to the code of conduct. They cover the majority of ethical ground we want to cover and are as unambiguous as we can possibly make them.
Finally, to add context to these statements, perhaps Brad would be willing to write an article covering the dangers of baiting wildlife, which I think would be a very worthy endeavor. We would include a link to this article in the code of conduct.
BTW, everyone in this discussion should read this.
So, that is how I propose we proceed. Let me know what you think and if you have any suggestions.
I'm in full agreement with the concept of short, sweet and to the point.
The first guideline absolutely works for me.
I fully understand the thinking behind the second guideline (and that it would effectively add a lot of exclusions that are normally not harmful to the subjects) and I'm totally OK with it. But I wonder if there will be debate around the dividing line of raptors vs. no raptors? But that could be said of ANY dividing line. And ultimately buy-in from Nate and Keith are much more important on this second guideline.
In both cases I'd suggest we spell "prohibited" correctly.
Will be interesting to see what others say. Thanks for doing this.
Brad
PS: No problem on the article.
I think from an enforcement standpoint in the avian gallery it would be difficult to police the difference between established carrion feeding places where I feel it's clear photography should be allowed and someone taking some road kill and setting up his own blind.
Your comments on the role of feeding carrion to vultures for conservation purposes is interesting and sounds valid. Could you work that into the "exception" for the Avian Gallery?
RE: Song and/or vocalization playback: Back in my field research days I worked on avian vocalizations and was both familiar with the literature on the affects of song playback AND conducted a lot of song playback experiments myself. I would agree that song playback has the potential to be very harmful to the subjects, especially during the breeding season when male songbirds are already stressed physiologically by the energetic demands of territory defense, and in some species, feeding nestlings. Response to song playback wanes (for most passerines) as the birds proceed through the nesting phase, but trying to include this kind of information in an intelligible guideline would be completely impractical and unwieldy.
Because the response to song playback varies seasonally and between species, I think it's pretty hard to generalize and conclude it is more or less harmful than feeding could be.
Personally, I would NEVER consider using song playback to entice a bird to approach for the purposes of photography, but that's simply my own standard. Unfortunately, with the advent of digital field guides that include vocalizations using playback to entice birds is becoming easier to do all the time (not too hard to haul an iPad, and even mini-speakers to amplify the volume, into the field). The potential for this to become a more serious ethical issue very soon exists.
These issues convince me that I'm very happy the proposed wildlife guideline contains no exceptions!
Cheers (and good luck!)...
Brad
I don't know if it's possible to bait an owl with non live bait, I have never heard of anyone doing so, my guess if that owls don't eat carrrion but I am by no means an expert on the subject. My point was addressing other raptors (hawks, eagles, vultures etc) which are often baited with carrion, sometimes for conservation purposes.
Live baiting of raptors is prohibited
Live baiting of birds is prohibited
For example I have photographed the Orangutans at Semenggoh Wildlife Rehabilitation Center in Borneo. These are animals that have been taken from the wild from people who owned them illegally. They are reintroduced into the reserve forest there. However they are provided with feeding tables of fruit that they come back to in order to help them transition back to a totally natural state.
Another example is the elk feeding station at Oak Creek Wildlife Management Area in Washington state. The rangers put out hay for the elk to feed on in the winter (I imagine to help them get through difficult winters).
I would be willing to bet there are plenty of other examples out there as well.
It seems to me people should be able to photograph in these situations and post them. Are these situations considered "baited wildlife" for the purposes of NPN?
Good point. I think we could deal with that situation by simply changing the guideline to read:
Photos of wildlife baited for the purpose of photography are prohibitied.
MIght read better if the first word was "Images". Still going with Jim's prohibitied!
Work for you?
Brad
That's fine with me for the wildlife section. I guess part of my question is would this even be considered baiting by most people reading the guidelines when refuge staff etc is doing the feeding? I guess it doesn't matter if you used the wording "Photos of wildlife baited for the purpose of photography are prohibited" as you propose.
Cheers,
Nate
That's fine with me for the wildlife section. I guess part of my question is would this even be considered baiting by most people reading the guidelines when refuge staff etc is doing the feeding? I guess it doesn't matter if you used the wording "Photos of wildlife baited for the purpose of photography are prohibited" as you propose.
Cheers,
Nate
I don't think most folks would consider it baiting (I don't) - more like selected supplemental feeding...and it doesn't include the goal of bringing the wildlife closer to anyone (which any definition of baiting includes). I could definitely still live with Jim's proposed simpler wording or the one I just suggested with the "for the purpose of photography" addition.
Jim - your thoughts?
Brad
Photos of wildlife that was baited for the express purpose of photography are prohibited.
Photos of raptors that were baited for the express purpose of photography are prohibited.
Arguably the baiting wasn't then for the express purpose of photography? Ultimately I'm not sure if "express" really adds anything?
Brad
Photos of birds that were live baited are prohibited than it is to defend and enforce photos of raptors that were baited for the express purpose of photography are prohibited. This is the standard the BBC uses. I could see a lot more arguments if the "express purpose of photography" is used in avian. After all, people who are critiquing are not going to know if a shot was taken at an established feeding location or not. The live bait rule to me is much more clear cut and it's fairly obvious to me which shots are baited owls (which are taken with live bait). You could also make the argument, why limit it to raptors if you use the express purpose of photography. If you just say all live bait with birds in my opinion there is much less to argue about. To me "express purpose of photography" brings a lot more gray area into it.
I am not sure whether live baiting of owls if done correctly is good, bad or indifferent for them. I have seen arguments both ways from biologists. However, part of my reasoning is that the carnival like atmosphere that live baiting of owls can create (as discussed in a few threads in the bird photography section recently)causes a black eye for the nature photography community.
It's not my forum but I think it would be fine to stick with the original Photos of Baited Wildlife are prohibited. With the orangutan and elk feeding station question I just wanted some clarificiation as to what is considered baiting and what is not. I agree with Brad that I wouldn't have considered those baiting before reading this thread.
We'll use this statement to cover both wildlife and avian, yes?
Brad
"No live baiting of birds."
These work for me. Are we nearing consensus? I think so!
So I'm ok with "no live baiting of birds". I think that gets at the essence of the biggest part of the issue and is likely the easiest to figure out when reviewing images.
Good job!
--P
Avian Gallery - All images with birds as the main subject. Images of captive birds must be stated as such. Photos of live-baited birds are prohibited. Note - the ethics of baiting should not be discussed in this gallery, only in the Hot Topics forum!
Wildlife Gallery - Wildlife other than birds. Images of captive animals or staged, set-up, and studio shots must be stated as such. Images that include domesticated animals should be posted in the Man & Nature Gallery. Photos of baited wildlife are prohibited. Note - the ethics of baiting should not be discussed in this gallery, only in the Hot Topics forum!
The following update was made in the NPN Code of Conduct;
- Do not entice a wild animal with food (baiting) in order to get the photo. Allow the animal to be wild, and to move about on its own accord. Note - photos of live-baited birds are prohibited in the NPN Avian Gallery. Photos of baited wildlife are prohibited in the NPN Wildlife Gallery.
Are we all OK with these updates?
pat
Brad
--P
If any "challenges" come up to these new guidelines, please post a link in this forum so we can collectively defend and explain.
Just a dumb procedural question - if we post a link to this discussion (as per your suggestion) is it functionally "read only" for non-staff? Also, I did see a few comments where the staff member expressed gratitude that this was a "confidential" forum (suggesting they would prefer that general members didn't see what they said). Part of me sees tremendous value for having this thread available as a resource to show how much thought and effort went into the decision to change the baiting policy, but I would want to respect the right of perceived confidentiality that some of the staff may have thought existed when they posted their thoughts.
For the record, I'm 100% comfortable with my own views (as expressed above WAY too many times!) being available for public.consumption.
Suggestion: perhaps whenever we're having a debate over possible policy changes in here, we should start with a disclaimer that the thread MAY end up being viewable by the general membership? Just a thought.
Brad
Just my 0.0002
--P
I believe what Jim means is for us mods to post a link to the thread where the new guidelines are being challenged or discussed. post that link here so we're all aware and can defend the policy if necessary. I don't think he means for someone to read this thread. Hope that makes sense.
Nice job with this folks. The updated guidelines look good to me.
Lon
Here we go. This post isn't a result of the changed guidelines but of a couple of different posts recently. I certainly have no problem with anyone putting out water for either wildlife or birds and wouldn't consider it baiting but it seems we are going to need to define what exactly baiting is and which kind of baiting (photographing birds at feeders) is allowed etc.
All images with birds as the main subject. Images of captive birds, or birds baited with seed or recordings must be disclosed as such. Photos of live-baited birds are prohibited.
It's almost perfect in my opinion but to cover all bases I would say ....or birds baited with seed, other non-live bait or recordings must be disclosed as such. Photos of live-baited birds are prohibited.
That way all those raptor carrion feeding stations in Europe are covered and we don't have a gray area where we are deciding whether one is for conservation versus solely for photography.
I assume you are also going to leave the part about not discussing the ethics of baiting in the critique gallery.