# Ethics of a photograph containing a baited animal



## kirispupis (Dec 20, 2017)

Recently I went on a boat tour to see eagles, and the guide lured several in by throwing fish in the water. The eagles would then swoop down and catch the fish not far from our boat. Below is one shot from this trip. Note that the lighting was terrible, so I'm aware of issues in this shot.

So far, my belief is that this photo (or a better retake, since it's easy to take the tour again), should never go into my portfolio because the animal was baited. Also, the fish used is not native to this river and it was floating on the surface, so the splash pattern is not natural. I'm sure, though, that many photographers have similar shots that they pass off as completely natural.

Therefore I'd like to ask your opinions. Is it ethical to include such as such in a portfolio of wildlife photography, or does it taint my ability as a photographer to find and display truly natural phenomena at minimum impact to my subjects?

Note that I'd like to focus the discussion solely on the act of including it in my portfolio, and not on the boat operator doing this in the first place.



Baited Eagle by Joseph Calev, on Flickr


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 20, 2017)

There will be lots of opinions expressed on this one......

There are three different ethics at play.

First: Was the animal harmed? Since it was not, then that portion of the question is ok.

Second: Was the situation mis-represented? If you are honest about the conditions that the picture was taken under, then there is no problem. If you leave the impression that this was an unscripted encounter in the wild, then you are telling a lie. If you take a shot in a zoo and pass it off as wilderness (or say nothing) then you have been deceitful. 

Third: Is baiting ethical? You will never get agreement on this one. Baiting covers the gamut from throwing live mice out to get owl pictures, to planting berry bushes in the back yard to attract songbirds. Everyone has a level that they are comfortable with, and many hold extreme positions.

oh yes, nice picture!


----------



## Skywise (Dec 20, 2017)

I think it depends on how you present your portfolio.

If you're saying your portfolio is 100% natural where you camped out for days on end getting the right shot - yeah that'd be unethical.

But if you're up front about it and say here's some nature photos I took, this one was part of a boat trip to photograph eagles. I see no problem with that.

I do post processing all the time with my photos where I'll do things like saturate the colors and "boost reality" sometimes to bring out the colors in birds feathers, other times to just make things look more like the way I remember them. In a way that's quasi-ethical too - but that's also the nature of art.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 20, 2017)

This is just for me: 

1. The bird is a real bird.

2. The fish is a real fish and I'd bet money the birds react the same way to fish floating in other locations... naturally.

3. This would make the splash pattern natural.

4. The bird was paid for his work. 

5. The bird is in the wild and you got an excellent shot.

6. Flash use is common in macro work (and much other work). So is focus stacking. I don't see that as deceitful or unethical.

7. We tend to wait around places that are baited naturally to get shots. People baiting animals is natural too. It's been done since the beginning of time.

8. Follow your own conscience. That is what matters most.

9. Beautiful shot of a bird doing what a bird does... looking for a meal and taking it.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Dec 20, 2017)

As others have said, it is how you represent it. I think putting it in a portfolio is no problem at all. The only time disclosure might come into play is if a publisher is doing an article on wild eagles and wants to use it, then you would need to let them know.

I do a lot of zoo photography and have no problem posting those on my web galleries, but if someone wanted to use one of them I would never pretend it was taken in the wild.

The issue of whether or not the eagles should be baited in the first place is a separate discussion which you have said you are not interested in on this post, so I will not comment.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 20, 2017)

You say specifically



> I'd like to focus the discussion solely on the act of including it in my portfolio,



That is totally up to you and I am not sure there is a single person who would object if you did. I am puzzled why you say "so the splash pattern is not natural." Like a majority of raptors, most of their food comes from carion not fresh kill so dead fish on the surface are likely a common food source and the splash is perfectly natural in that respect. 

I would have this in my portfolio for reasons of image quality as much as anything - well tracked, sharp, well timed...who would want anything more. If I had such opportunities regularly I may start to prefer shots arising from 'wild' bird spotting - tracking the animal, waiting patiently for the right opportunity etc...the full monty. But a photo such as this would still remain in my portfolio. I would enjoy people saying 'lovely shot' and getting a zillion likes but I would still get more satisfaction from a marginally lesser quality that I 'earned' from hard graft. 

We had a local kingfisher and spending many (many, many!) hours on the riverbank waiting for it and getting merely a handful of images I am quite proud of (among the hundreds/thousand I actually took) I cannot drum up the enthusiasm to pay to go to these hides where the landowner baits them heavily and it becomes queue for buggin's turn. Just as I am totally unexcited by gong to a studio shoot where the the professional sets everything up and I am reduced to the role of a glorified remote trigger.


----------



## kirispupis (Dec 20, 2017)

Thanks for the replies. In my particular situation, since I stress that my portfolio is natural, I have chosen to not include this shot. I probably _will_ include shots from the same tour of eagles flying around (not near the water), since they would've done that regardless.

This shot has generated a lot of contemplation for me. After thinking about it, I also removed several other shots from my portfolio that I felt were also baited, though it was a very close call. Those particular ones were of possums in Queensland at a resort where everyone's encouraged to feed them. Again, I'm not debating the quandary of feeding them - but as presenting their photos in a wildlife portfolio.

Of course, one can argue that almost any photo of a hummingbird is of a baited animal, even though I have plenty myself that I plan to keep. Similarly, one of the most popular places near me to photograph eagles - Mosquito Lake Bridge on the Nooksack River - is technically baited. Fisheries release the salmon, then other photographers deliberately place the fish in photogenic spots.

So, I believe this is a very grey area. In my particular case, my portfolio includes shots of truly wild lions and cheetahs that I spent a lot of money to reach. It also contains jaguars that I found by chance. I therefore cannot risk having a photo like this taint my work that is truly wild.

Note that in terms of the splash pattern, my belief that it's unnatural stems from:
- It's a herring, which isn't natural to this river
- It was frozen and drilled with a hole to float. Live fish will be at a different depth/density.
- The dead fish eagles eat are typically washed to shore. The eagles then land and grab them (or in the case of salmon eat them right there since they're too heavy)
- The dive pattern of the eagles was much different than I've seen from truly wild encounters. The eagle glided along the water then reached out with its talons. From wild encounters, the eagles seem to do more of a sudden dive. I'm not an eagle expert, but it seems like the eagles know the fish isn't going anywhere.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 20, 2017)

I see absolutely no reason not to include this in your portfolio. This is in nature and not a zoo. I think you are creating an ethics question where none exists. Just my opinion, of course.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 20, 2017)

I got my training in bird photography from the mods in www.birdpix.nl. Man, are they tough on IQ, noise and sharpness as well ethics. Here are their criteria for baiting: https://www.birdpix.nl/faq.php?sid=e2e46ac67347e909de866e7c8dff1384#11

"*No pictures of birds on feeders, bird tables or purposely placed bait. *
In nature photography it is not unusual to alter the truth to the photographers benefit. 
Pictures of birds on feeders, bird tables etc. are relatively easy to make and are therefore of substandard quality. Such pictures will end up in the temporary album (= rejected). They are however unavoidable if the food is kept out of the picture. 
A commonly used method for photographing raptors is to use bait. This can be an previously found carcass that was kept in the freezer until needed or day old chicks. If the carcass is of an under the Dutch Flora and Fauna law protected species you are in violation of that law. Unless taken at a more or less natural site (i.e. a vulture-restaurant), these pictures will not be placed."

So, these pros say no baiting allowed. I tend to agree with them. Personally, I don't like seeing photos of caged animals or birds in zoos or in falconry sites as I both don't like seeing imprisoned animals and they are just too easy to photograph. The skill is taking photos in the wild.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 20, 2017)

I'll open with I don't shoot wildlife, BIF, etc. but I have some feelings on this.

If this is for your own personal enjoyment, a special memory on a trip, or something you have been paid to get on assignment with no strings / conditions attached (i.e. they would not object with baiting, perhaps a less 'untouched nature' corporate client than your Nat Geos and Patagonias of the world)

AND 

You aren't doing anything injurious to the environment (live bait of an invasive fish species, for instance)

AND

You aren't doing this too often / too much as to create a dependency on the subject on your bait

...one would think you are good to bait away. But if not, don't. 

Also, if baiting is used to _create a reputation of being a great nature photographer_, that sets me off. This guy has popped up a number of times on photography sites I read, and it curdles my blood. He's building a rep built on the back of many things -- including some considerable talent, in fairness -- but one of them is the use of bait. 

For whatever reason, the minute things cross from just capturing a moment to 'Look what I just did, world -- _*I did that*_', I feel the bait is a very slippery slope to encourage others to do the same.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 20, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> - The dive pattern of the eagles was much different than I've seen from truly wild encounters. The eagle glided along the water then reached out with its talons. From wild encounters, the eagles seem to do more of a sudden dive. I'm not an eagle expert, but it seems like the eagles know the fish isn't going anywhere.



The ones that I have watched catch fish (and a goose) dropped down steeply from above.... The baited ones that I see just wait in a tree for the buffet to be spread out...... If you really want to see unnatural behavior, check out "Eagle Watch" in Nova Scotia, Canada....


----------



## Skatol (Dec 20, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> - The dive pattern of the eagles was much different than I've seen from truly wild encounters. The eagle glided along the water then reached out with its talons. From wild encounters, the eagles seem to do more of a sudden dive. I'm not an eagle expert, but it seems like the eagles know the fish isn't going anywhere.


Eagles are opportunists like any other creature. The splash pattern is identical to ones I have witnessed at a favorite location on the East Coast. This is the location of a hydro-electric dam where stunned / dead fish pass through the generators and float along the surface. Eagles fly down from perched positions from the trees and electrical towers and glide along the surface as your image shows. The eagles show up every year at the same time (food supply is frozen over in the north) and take advantage of the situation. It is a natural behavior of the eagle and you captured the moment, very well I might add. 

As for including the shot in your portfolio, I tend to agree with you. I won't go into the ethics of baiting per your request.


----------



## BeenThere (Dec 20, 2017)

A fish was killed for this photo.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 20, 2017)

I've started to respond several times, but after reading other comments, I wasn't seeing an opportunity to add to the discussion.

However, there are a few comments I do want to respond to. Not trying to pick fights, just showing an alternative viewpoint:



ahsanford said:


> ...if baiting is used to _create a reputation of being a great nature photographer_, that sets me off. This guy has popped up a number of times on photography sites I read, and it curdles my blood.. .



I'm not sure why this gets you so upset. He is taking portraits of animals, not attempting to pass them off as natural behavior, but rather trying to show a connection with other living things. 

How is this any different than National Geographic Photographer Joel Sartore's Ark project? Sartore takes the animals into the studio for portraits. This young man is going to their environment to get portraits. Clearly it takes incredible patience, skill and talent to produce those photos. Perhaps you are not interested in animal portraits, which is your right. But, he's not pretending to be anything he isn't -- which is a pretty talented portrait photographer focusing on animals. 



AlanF said:


> I got my training in bird photography from the mods in www.birdpix.nl. Man, are they tough on IQ, noise and sharpness as well ethics. Here are their criteria for baiting: https://www.birdpix.nl/faq.php?sid=e2e46ac67347e909de866e7c8dff1384#11...
> 
> "...A commonly used method for photographing raptors is to use bait. This can be an previously found carcass that was kept in the freezer until needed or day old chicks...Unless taken at a more or less natural site (i.e. a vulture-restaurant), these pictures will not be placed."
> 
> So, these pros say no baiting allowed...



Well, that doesn't seem to be quite what they are saying. Instead it sounds like they are saying that it can't be obvious that bait is being used or if you use bait it has to be already dead or a "day old chicks" (Not sure what kind of mental gymnastics it takes to say no baiting but okay to feed helpless live chicks to predators).



AlanF said:


> ...I both don't like seeing imprisoned animals and they are just too easy to photograph. The skill is taking photos in the wild.



Not sure I would make such a sweeping statement. Taking an outstanding and memorable portrait of a captive animal isn't that easy. Again I would reference Joel Sartore's work. I would agree that taking a picture of an animal in a zoo and passing it off as in the wild is unethical, but I'm certainly willing to entertain the thought that a really good portrait of a zoo animal can be challenging and artistic. 



BeenThere said:


> A fish was killed for this photo.



Nature is all about big things eating little things. Some little things get their revenge because they are toxic to the big things. 

Still, I would say that I am a bit uncomfortable with the circumstances described in the original post. I strongly suspect the operator/operators are feeding the eagles frequently enough that the behavior has become predictable and the feeding expected. The OP asked that we not debate the ethics of this type of baiting, but rather the use of the photograph, so I won't send the discussion off the rails...but still...


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 20, 2017)

It's a wild eagle behaving in a natural way. I've seem them pick a fish up off the surface of the water just like this a couple thousand times. I wouldn't worry about the fact that somebody threw a fish to it. That assisted you in seeing and photographing the behavior it didn't create the behavior. It's not like it's a grizzly bear riding a unicycle. What if it naturally caught an invasive species of fish? Oh no! Hit the trash button.

If you were to enter a contest or post it on a website then you'd be ethically required to follow their agreed upon rules otherwise I don't see anything to fuss over. I wouldn't worry about what the self-anointed purists think. You'll never please them no matter what you do and why would you care. Those are the people who take pictures of Yosemite Valley from tunnel view and present them as if they've discovered some previously unseen wilderness.

All life on this planet is interconnected and "wildlife" is constantly reacting to and modifying their behavior based on our activities. It's silly to pretend otherwise. One of the things that I admire most about birds in their ability to adapt themselves to our environments. 

Its a very nice picture in my opinion. I wouldn't worry about the rest assuming you felt as though the outfitter was behaving in a responsible way.


----------



## kirispupis (Dec 20, 2017)

unfocused said:


> One last comment/observation though: I'm not sure that people who take safaris and bring back great shots of African wildlife are, in all cases, exhibiting that much greater skill than those who shoot captive animals. The tour operators know exactly where the animals are and make it their duty to get the tourists to the animals. It sounds like great fun and I'd love to do it, but I'd feel like I was in a bit of a glass house if I were to throw stones at others.



I've spent time on safaris, and this isn't really the truth. On most occasions, the guides don't know where the animals actually are. They just know that a certain pride or specific leopard lives on an extremely large tract of land. We spent a great deal of time driving around trying to find them - even with a guide and tracker. Other vehicles will often spot animals and call you in for a view, but a number of animals (rhino, leopard, and wild dogs) in our case took several days to collectively find. Of course, behavior that may make your shot stand out (such as a hunt) requires a lot of luck and enough skill to capture the fleeting moment.


----------



## Skatol (Dec 20, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> ......Of course, behavior that may make your shot stand out (such as a hunt) requires a lot of luck and enough skill to capture the fleeting moment.


I think this is what it really boils down to. *Study the subject enough to understand the behavior.* I do not agree with creating a dependence of the animals on the baiter for a food source. In several cases I'm aware of, animals have been euthanized due to illnesses directly related to poor diets.

Sorry, derailed.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 20, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > One last comment/observation though: I'm not sure that people who take safaris and bring back great shots of African wildlife are, in all cases, exhibiting that much greater skill than those who shoot captive animals. The tour operators know exactly where the animals are and make it their duty to get the tourists to the animals. It sounds like great fun and I'd love to do it, but I'd feel like I was in a bit of a glass house if I were to throw stones at others.
> ...



I'll defer to your experience. My intent was not to criticize those who go on safaris. As I said, I'd love to do it. I apologize if my comments came across as too harsh or judgmental. My intent was simply to suggest that there is a wide range of experiences and talents needed to produce great photographs. We all do our best to improve our odds of getting memorable shots and ultimately I think it is about being honest with yourself and with others. 

Upon further reflection I've deleted that last paragraph from my earlier post, as I don't think it really added anything to the discussion.


----------



## RGF (Dec 20, 2017)

will some explain baiting to me.

toss a mouse, fish, etc for a bird is baiting

What about a feeder?

What about a man made water hole?

Is setting up a perch near a nest site equivalent to baiting? Or a perch near a water hole (either natural or man made)?

I could go on

I find the topic confusing - reminds of Talmudic law.


----------



## kirispupis (Dec 20, 2017)

RGF said:


> will some explain baiting to me.
> 
> toss a mouse, fish, etc for a bird is baiting
> 
> ...



It is confusing and I don't think we're going to reach a consensus. It's one of those questions where many are passionate, but the entire thing is really a grey area.

In my particular case, I've come to the conclusion that I need to ask three questions concerning the event.
[list type=decimal]
[*]Was the animal harmed in any way by the activity in which I participated? This is of course subjective itself,
but say someone pulled a sea turtle out of the ocean and let it flap around in the boat for an hour while people photographed it. For any cases like this, I shouldn't even be there.
[*]Was the animal restrained from its natural course in any way? For example, is the animal in a zoo or any other enclosure? In this case, I may take photos but not include them in my portfolio.
[*]Was the animal's behavior changed in any way, compared to how it would behave were we standing still, just to obtain a photograph? Photos in this category also don't belong in my portfolio.
[/list]

So, based on my personal limits:
- Tossing a mouse - not allowed. I'm changing its behavior.
- A feeder - for standard garden birds, allowed. Garden birds have grown used to this, so no change in behavior.
- man made water hole - allowed. Animals don't care that it's man made, and they're not changing for me.
- setting up a perch - allowed. Similar to a water hole.


----------



## applecider (Dec 20, 2017)

I would not overthink this. If you are promoting this as something that it is not then that is on you for ethics. We all set up our shots in some ways, I happen to enjoy interacting with wildlife, whether it be walking around them or sneaking them a snack. 

The ducks at my local pond have gotten used to me walking my hunting dog and slipping both the dog and the ducks almost all mallards, a few dog treats. Ducks are at least as omnivorous as dogs so they enjoy them.

The ducks follow us around the pond, and are comfortable with the dog to about five feet when feeding both dog and ducks. If the eagles see the aggregation of fowl and chose to overfly, that’s a natural picture to me.

And what constitutes feeding? Is a roadside deer feeding on an unnatural source or elk in an alfalfa field? Or is any wildlife at Yellowstone?


----------



## Skatol (Dec 20, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > will some explain baiting to me.
> ...


Agreed. The one thing I would add is if using a feeder make sure to set it up in an area close to cover so the birds can retreat if necessary. This will also increase the number of visits to your feeder.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 20, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > One last comment/observation though: I'm not sure that people who take safaris and bring back great shots of African wildlife are, in all cases, exhibiting that much greater skill than those who shoot captive animals. The tour operators know exactly where the animals are and make it their duty to get the tourists to the animals. It sounds like great fun and I'd love to do it, but I'd feel like I was in a bit of a glass house if I were to throw stones at others.
> ...



So what is the difference between a guide knowing where to go and driving into the right position to take the photo, and someone having a hide where they know the animals are? 

'In our case took several days to find'....not you. The guide. You did zip. You were simply plonked in the right position to take the photo. Capturing the fleeting moment takes skill and luck whether it is truly 'hunted' by yourself, or you were put in the right position by a guide driving a truck, or you went to a wildlife hide in the right place, or someone baiting the animals to make it easier or in a zoo. 

I know I am being deliberately contentious here to simply point out that your issues are self imposed. As I see it, your whole reason for posting this thread is for people to validate your own ethics. You have already decided to not include this image in your portfolio, and anyone who says 'include it' you have said why you haven't. So I am not sure why you asked the question other than self-validation.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 20, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> - A feeder - for standard garden birds, allowed. Garden birds have grown used to this, so no change in behavior.



Yeah, but as Adam Rubin and Daniel Salmieri show us, birds aren't the only ones who like bird feeders...


----------



## KarstenReis (Dec 20, 2017)

I would take a look at this: http://www.audubon.org/get-outside/audubons-guide-ethical-bird-photography

My personal opinion is that you shouldn't include that photo in your portfolio. Raptors (i.e. hawks, owls, and eagles) are smart and once they start associating food with humans that directly alters the way they behave. You would be misrepresenting yourself based on the parameters set out.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 20, 2017)

There have been studies on baiting and feeding wildlife and its effects.
So this is a tough one.

Some might say it is unethical to bait any wildlife, and the fact that you even took the picture when this was happening brings in to question your ethics. 

Some might say if you are selling the picture for cash to feed your family, then it is ethical to do what you have to feed your starving family.

And finally some might say, it would be ethical to have brought a shotgun and harvested the eagle to feed your starving family.

For me it is in the representation, if you lie and tell me it is a natural unaltered picture then my ethical judgment is you are a liar. I see no problem with displaying the picture with no claim, real or fake. The only problem is the lie.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 20, 2017)

RGF said:


> will some explain baiting to me.
> 
> toss a mouse, fish, etc for a bird is baiting
> 
> ...



+1. One thing I keep thinking about is how farmers along the natural flyways of Sandhill Cranes are encouraged to leave some of their grain in the field. In fact, even wildlife refuges do this. Is that baiting?


----------



## unfocused (Dec 20, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> ...'In our case took several days to find'....not you. The guide. You did zip. You were simply plonked in the right position to take the photo. Capturing the fleeting moment takes skill and luck whether it is truly 'hunted' by yourself, or you were put in the right position by a guide driving a truck, or you went to a wildlife hide in the right place, or someone baiting the animals to make it easier or in a zoo.
> 
> I know I am being deliberately contentious here to simply point out that your issues are self imposed. As I see it, your whole reason for posting this thread is for people to validate your own ethics. You have already decided to not include this image in your portfolio, and anyone who says 'include it' you have said why you haven't. So I am not sure why you asked the question other than self-validation.



Maybe a bit harsh, but I'm thinking you have a valid point. I feel like many of us got suckered into giving thoughtful, honest answers only to learn that fostering a discussion might not have been the point of this thread after all.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 20, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > - A feeder - for standard garden birds, allowed. Garden birds have grown used to this, so no change in behavior.
> ...



Hey! Is that my backyard?


----------



## Otara (Dec 20, 2017)

This might be obvious, but it also depends who the portfolio is going to be viewed by, ie who your intended audience is. If you plan on it potentially being presented to organisations or individuals that disagree with the idea of baiting etc, then its not going to be very useful including it, regardless of your own ethical stance towards it.


----------



## kirispupis (Dec 21, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> So what is the difference between a guide knowing where to go and driving into the right position to take the photo, and someone having a hide where they know the animals are?
> 
> 'In our case took several days to find'....not you. The guide. You did zip. You were simply plonked in the right position to take the photo. Capturing the fleeting moment takes skill and luck whether it is truly 'hunted' by yourself, or you were put in the right position by a guide driving a truck, or you went to a wildlife hide in the right place, or someone baiting the animals to make it easier or in a zoo.
> 
> I know I am being deliberately contentious here to simply point out that your issues are self imposed. As I see it, your whole reason for posting this thread is for people to validate your own ethics. You have already decided to not include this image in your portfolio, and anyone who says 'include it' you have said why you haven't. So I am not sure why you asked the question other than self-validation.



First, this absolutely is a discussion. My own opinions have changed during its course. Yes, I've already decided not to include _this_ photo, but I was very undecided about others. As has already been covered here, there are a lot of grey areas. Technically, the instant we show up or place anything in an environment, we're changing animal behavior - so what line do I need to draw for my own work?

In terms of your questions on a safari, that certainly depends on your photographic skills. I can say in my case that I'm certainly not "doing zip". The guide, tracker, and I are in constant communication.

I'm telling them which animals and behaviors I'm looking for.
I'm paying strong attention to the light. At times I redirect them to different experiences. For example, I wanted to get giraffes and elephants in the sunset. We also wanted lions, so we found the giraffes + elephants,
then went searching for lions with the knowledge that when the sun base close to setting we'd find the giraffes or elephants again.
I'm telling them where to place the vehicle
I'm telling them how long to spend with each animal. For some behaviors, the only way you're going to get it is patience

There's also the preparation involved. Which reserves are the best in Africa for obtaining certain shots? You're not going to find everything in a single place. For example, cheetahs are more common where lions are not. Some locations require special access that needs to be arranged. Finally, in my case I read several books about animal behaviors. While the guides do provide help, ultimately you need to understand enough about their behavior to understand what they may be on the verge of doing.

Finally, there's nothing wrong with hiring an expert to help. When I went to the Pantanal, I had no idea how to find jaguars - so I hired someone who'd lived there for 30 years to help.


----------



## slclick (Dec 21, 2017)

Excellent shot, end of story.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 21, 2017)

slclick said:


> Excellent shot, end of story.



Best answer by far. I think that is really all that is wanted. Driving a truck into a wild area for a photo changes behavior more than tossing a fish. Silly discussion for sure.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 21, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent shot, end of story.
> ...


History is full of scoundrels who claimed that the ends justify the means. 

This is not to say that baiting is always wrong, but it's always worthwhile to think whether you have the expertise to know whether it negatively affects the animal.


----------



## slclick (Dec 21, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



Quote whatever you want, in the end it's just a picture, not the Bosnian Serb trials at The Hague.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 21, 2017)

My 2 cents relating to a similar but different situation. I went to Haida Gwaii specifically because I fancied shooting Bald eagles. They are everywhere but not all that easy to get super shots. BTW, the Haida claim to have been on that/those islands for thousands of years.

Then a friendly person told me to go to Copper Bay, a tiny gathering spot with no permanent residents where natives are allowed to catch the salmon with some restrictions. They set out their nets in the evening and in the morning before the tide goes out they retrieve their catch of food for the coming winter. 

One lazy fellow slept in and his fish ended up on dry land and boy did the eagles enjoy that. i got many shots and observed lots of interesting behaviour.

Later in the day one couple cleaned dozens of fish on the bank using a portable table and threw the heads into the shallow water prior to the tide coming in and once again, eagles and more eagles.

If this has been going on 10 000 years is it natural?

As others have said the only issue for me is being up front on how photos were acquired. I converted the top of my barn to an observatory across from a nice grove of trees and that has given me some lovely bird photos. Lots of seed scattered everywhere has helped also. Is it better if I were to have no photos and be less aware of bird behaviour. No doubt there is a limit to what's acceptable and lying when entering a photo contest is unethical but taking and showing photos is my personal right provided it's not illegal.

I am a little puzzled by the OP. Does elitism enter into this?

Jack


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 21, 2017)

More importantly, is a man-bun ethical? Or is it just a staged display?  : ;D


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 21, 2017)

slclick said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



Are you a wildlife biologist? If not, your assertion has no value. Only someone who has professional knowledge of the effects of habituation is qualified to assert that it's not harmful to the animal.


----------



## ooF Fighters (Dec 21, 2017)

In the end, it's your own ethics that determine what goes into your portfolio. Just know that you may be at a distinct disadvantage, having held yourself to standards higher than National Geographic photographers.-
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/12/shark-pictures-not-fake-brain-skerry/


----------



## RGF (Dec 21, 2017)

unfocused said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > will some explain baiting to me.
> ...



The $64000 question


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 21, 2017)

ooF Fighters said:


> In the end, it's your own ethics that determine what goes into your portfolio. Just know that you may be at a distinct disadvantage, having held yourself to standards higher than National Geographic photographers.-
> https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/12/shark-pictures-not-fake-brain-skerry/



Interesting video that highlights why totally natural may not be feasible. Thanks.

The nice thing about hobby nature photography is that by shear chance opportunities arise that can produce photos that are occasionally/more likely rarely, award winning. It's the "chance" fun factor that makes the endeavor worthwhile along with all the great photos that are not award winning but really nice to view while reliving the experience. 

While there are certain practices that I personally would never engage in (i.e. feeding wildlife on trips through national parks where it is forbidden and where numerous people may feed and then the feeding disappears for a season leaving the animals disadvantaged or creates safety hazards), I still think the key is being honest about the techniques used. 

Jack


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 21, 2017)

ooF Fighters said:


> In the end, it's your own ethics that determine what goes into your portfolio. Just know that you may be at a distinct disadvantage, having held yourself to standards higher than National Geographic photographers.-
> https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/12/shark-pictures-not-fake-brain-skerry/



This is why it's important to consult with a wildlife biologist who specializes in the kind of animal you want to photograph. Some species will habituate to human interaction, others not so much. Habituation is usually bad for wild animals. There are exceptions: current belief is that dogs evolved from wolves through habituation.

As humans we all should evolve our ethics as we gain life experience: I doubt any of us would like to see a world full of people who act with the ethics of a 2-year old. Even in adulthood we must continue to examine our own ethics. I've heard several stories of "alternative medicine" practitioners who have walked-away from lucrative businesses after figuring out that what they were taught doesn't actually work. 

So yes, you should be willing to put yourself at a disadvantage to avoid being unethical. When you take a photo you should ask yourself whether your photo will benefit the subject (or their population/species/society) as much as it benefits you. If the answer is no, then think twice about it.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 21, 2017)

unfocused said:


> One thing I keep thinking about is how farmers along the natural flyways of Sandhill Cranes are encouraged to leave some of their grain in the field. In fact, even wildlife refuges do this. Is that baiting?



No, because the program was designed by biologists for the benefit of the bird species. The ethical questions are: who benefits, and who is harmed (or may be harmed)? Only the appropriate scientists are in position to answer these questions for wild species.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 21, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



Lol! And only Evel Knievel knew his jumps were dangerous. Silly as can be.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 21, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



Let me see if I understand you correctly: you're saying that aptitude, training, experience and practice are needed for good photography, but none of those are needed to understand animal behavior and welfare? Well, I'll be darned! Your real name must be Scott Pruitt, amirite?

I would not trust a lawyer to perform surgery.

I would not trust a doctor to defend me in court.

I would not trust either of these to fix my plumbing or electrical problems.

And I would not trust a photographer to make a scientific judgement about wildlife.

Each discipline requires separate study and experience.


----------



## snoke (Dec 21, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> So far, my belief is that this photo, should never go into my portfolio because the animal was baited.



Like model situation. Man made construct. Many portfolio with model picture.

You must frame, expose, process. Picture cannot make itself.

If you honest when talk about it, what problem?


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 21, 2017)

snoke said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > So far, my belief is that this photo, should never go into my portfolio because the animal was baited.
> ...



100% wrong. Human models are able to decide for themselves whether the modeling contract is a fair bargain, wild animals are not. 

You don't feed a Labrador Retriever all the food it wants because it can't see the long-term effects of excess consumption.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 21, 2017)

As a poster previously alluded to; the entire U.S. National Wildlife Refuge complex (millions of acres) operates as a giant bird feeding and baiting system. If I have to drop all of those photo's that's going to leave a big hole in my portfolio. Should I feel guilty now for all of the Duck Stamps I've bought over the years? If poster's think the Audubon Society isn't just as complicit in baiting birds for their own purposes they are kidding themselves.

There is no absolute right or wrong here and ignore anybody who says that there is. Find a middle path you can live with and then go out and take some photo's.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 21, 2017)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> As a poster previously alluded to; the entire U.S. National Wildlife Refuge complex (millions of acres) operates as a giant bird feeding and baiting system. If I have to drop all of those photo's that's going to leave a big hole in my portfolio. Should I feel guilty now for all of the Duck Stamps I've bought over the years? If poster's think the Audubon Society isn't just as complicit in baiting birds for their own purposes they are kidding themselves.
> 
> There is no absolute right or wrong here and ignore anybody who says that there is. Find a middle path you can live with and then go out and take some photo's.



As I keep trying to say, the question is *who* decides to provide food to the critters, and *why*. If the decision is made by qualified biologists, and if it's done for the benefit of the animals, then it's fine. What is not OK is for a photographer to decide on his own to bait an elusive animal because he covets the shot like a 2-year old covets sweets. "Because I really really want it" lost its value when you turned 5.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 21, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> Graphic.Artifacts said:
> 
> 
> > As a poster previously alluded to; the entire U.S. National Wildlife Refuge complex (millions of acres) operates as a giant bird feeding and baiting system. If I have to drop all of those photo's that's going to leave a big hole in my portfolio. Should I feel guilty now for all of the Duck Stamps I've bought over the years? If poster's think the Audubon Society isn't just as complicit in baiting birds for their own purposes they are kidding themselves.
> ...



Of course that sounds reasonable. I think we all get that. No one is saying it's OK to be a selfish jerk. But that applies to any number of behaviors and certainly not just baiting. 

However, the basic fact is that anyone who thinks that they can photograph wildlife without exploiting it in some way is living in a fantasy world. It's childish not to accept that simple fact and hiding behind the "we're doing science" facade doesn't change anything. Everyone has an agenda.

That's pretty much all I have to say on it. Everyone has to find a space they can live with on this topic. I'm always working to define mine. I'm sure that most people who don't agree with me come by their position honestly and they are entitled to them.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 21, 2017)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Graphic.Artifacts said:
> ...


Unfortunately, I think some were saying that.




> But that applies to any number of behaviors and certainly not just baiting.


Yup.


----------



## swkitt (Dec 21, 2017)

In my opinion, if you wonder whether you should put it in your portfolio or not, then the reply is NO. 
You were there, you saw how the guy feed the eagle, and it didn't satisfy you, unless you wouldn't ask. So just don't put it, a portfolio is not a stamp collection, and having a sea eagle in it don't make you a better photographer.

Also, some of you may not know, but sometimes, the fish that the boat guys send to the eagles are filled with styrofoam bits, so that they will float longer... even if the eagle is able to take it apart when he eats, that's not very good for environment and ethical, hmm ?

Apart of that, if some people are happy with their photos they made with baits, good for them. Some kind of baiting is harmless, but some is not.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 21, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> Graphic.Artifacts said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



Yes, just like the Nat Geo biologist/photographer that baited eagles in the Aleutian Islands to get his shots. He's a biologist, so that's okay. http://proof.nationalgeographic.com/2014/12/15/everyday-eagles-the-flip-side-of-a-national-symbol/


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 21, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Graphic.Artifacts said:
> ...



I don't know this guy, but the article doesn't appear to say that *he* baited them. Rather, that he hung out with fisherman, and the fish business attracted them.

You are clearly missing an important point: there's a difference between photographing an existing relationship between wild animals and human activity versus actively baiting wild animals for the purpose of getting photos. the first is an unfortunate side-effect of human society; the second is mischief or worse.

Intent is important.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 21, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



It specifically says he baited using frozen fish.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 21, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> You are clearly missing an important point: there's a difference between photographing an existing relationship between wild animals and human activity versus actively baiting wild animals for the purpose of getting photos. the first is an unfortunate side-effect of human society; the second is mischief or worse.
> 
> Intent is important.



Exactly!

For example, I live on the edge of the Ottawa river. There is about 50 square kilometers of corn fields in the local area.... The farmers harvest the corn, some is spilled as part of the process, and as a result there are HUGE flocks of Canada geese in the fields every fall during the day, and they spend the nights on the river. This has been going on for quite a long time, to the point where the stop here to fill up on corn has become an important part of the migration route. There is another spot, about 50K to the east of Ottawa, that has the same thing happen with snow geese. This is no longer "convenience" for the birds, it is now a solid part of the migration. This is not baiting, it is now part of the natural cycle....

I can take their picture and it is not baiting....


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 21, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...


I re-read, and you are correct. That was not ethical, regardless of his professional training.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 21, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



Says you. I think it is. Like I said to the OP, "Follow your own conscience." Those birds have a healthy population thanks to man's activity in the area.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 21, 2017)

The OP asked whether it is ethical from the photographic point of view not conservation. Here are two photos I took on a trip to Baddeck in Canada two years ago. The bald eagle was from a cruise where the crew were throwing fish into the sea and tourist cameras were clicking like mad. The osprey was a chance encounter as it flew overhead and I happened to have my camera at the ready as I was leaving my car in a car park. Which one do I prefer? The osprey by a country mile. It was totally unexpected and the flounder is either still alive or only just deceased. I still am pleased with the bald eagle but it gives me only a fraction of the satisfaction.


----------



## aceflibble (Dec 21, 2017)

There's a big difference between "we know where the animals are, and will go to them; if we toss out a little food we'll probably see them better" and "we're gonna put an irresistible pile of food in a place the animals would not usually go and set up camera traps all around".

If the animal is wild and doing what it would usually do in the place it would usually do it, snap away and use whatever good photographs you get. In the case of OP's image, the fact the fish was throw into the water by a person or picked out by the bird itself doesn't really make a difference one way or another to the bird itself; as long as you don't lie and claim it was a random fish the bird hunted on its own, it's fine.

If the animal is either becoming tame (relatively or entirely) by routine baiting, tricked into doing something it would not usually do in its daily routine, or has been tricked into coming to a location it would not usually come to, put the camera away and don't encourage whoever is interfering.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 21, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > I re-read, and you are correct. That was not ethical, regardless of his professional training.
> ...


Really? Don't we grow out of that fantasy as we reach adulthood, and begin to realize that there are other people who know vastly more than we do on a particular topic? Also, the human conscience is susceptible to motivated reasoning.




> Those birds have a healthy population thanks to man's activity in the area.



Perhaps so, but it sets a bad example for others who think they can follow their own conscience in other circumstances.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 21, 2017)

AlanF said:


> The OP asked whether it is ethical from the photographic point of view not conservation.



To me they are connected.


----------



## dabsond (Dec 21, 2017)

Personally, I would say it is not ethical. If the eagles were not baited you would probably have never gotten that close or known exact location where they would be. I do spend a lot of time trying to get great bird photos but, I would not bait any wild animal for the shot.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 21, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > The OP asked whether it is ethical from the photographic point of view not conservation.
> ...



+1. This is a thorny, multidimensional consideration. I started thinking of a Venn diagram with [Photography Ethics and Reputation] / [Nature Conservation] / [Don't be a Crappy Example for Others] to make my point, but I'd imagine we'd all populate it a bit differently.

But if this is _just_ a [Photography Ethics and Reputation] question w.r.t. your portfolio -- if you really just want that aspect addressed devoid of connectivity to the other considerations above -- why not just be fully transparent with your methods? If your portfolio has a photo-gallery-like museum description, just state what you did to get each shot. That seems honest to me. 

To _not_ do that, to arbitrarily find the strictest bar out there on the internet and hold yourself to that (possibly absurd) standard may have you throw out wonderful work all for a sense of pride of doing it the hard way. Why not keep all your work and just be upfront about how you collected it? You still can post your legit 'I saw something happen without any help' work in those stricter forums if you like.

Just riffing here. I'm no wildlifer, but it would appear that _only being able to be a legit wildlifer is if you stick to some Jedi code of strictness_ seems a bit harsh and exclusive. There is a middle ground and you shouldn't be afraid to tread there if you do so responsibly.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Dec 21, 2017)

While this has gone off the rails a bit, it has actually turned into an interesting discussion prompting some self-examination. 

The original post raised questions for me about the ethics of the tour operator. Questions that can't be answered without knowing the specific situation – are they qualified/licensed by a regulatory agency that has reviewed their practices. 

The fact that the tour operator could throw out a random fish and the eagles would immediately come get it, certainly sounds like this isn't a one-off situation, but rather that they have trained the eagles to expect to be fed. 

I found this on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service site: "Do not intentionally feed bald eagles. Artificially feeding bald eagles can disrupt their essential behavioral patterns and put them at increased risk from power lines, collision with windows and cars, and other mortality factors." 

It doesn't say it is illegal, but it certainly sounds marginal at best.

To me, the moral dilemma is not whether or not to use the picture, but rather, whether or not you should contract with a tour operator or guide that is unethical. I'm not saying the OP knew beforehand that the tour guide was going to bait the birds, I'm simply saying that now that he knows that, he should not use the tour operator in the future. Whether or not you use the picture in your portfolio will have no impact on the safety and viability of the eagles, but refusing to use the tour operator and encouraging others to avoid that operator would be beneficial to the birds. 

To get back to the overall discussion: most people who photograph nature and wildlife are coming from a good place -- we find the animals fascinating and feel an emotional and spiritual attachment to the natural world. For many of us, nature is our religion. 

I get where Orangutan is coming from, although I don't have quite the blind faith in scientists that he does. 

I think it comes down to the doctor's oath: "First, do no harm." 

Many would say that any intrusion on the natural world does harm, so I guess a better motto might be, "minimize the harm and keep it transitory, rather than permanent."

I can be forgiving of the photographer taking pictures of eagles in that remote area of Alaska. 

It reminds me a bit of my own experience with Great Blue Herons. Here in the Midwest the herons tend to be quite skittish. On the other hand, I've been to Gulf Shores and seen herons hanging out on the beach, standing on coolers and beach chairs. They are fairly indifferent to humans. 

The point being that natural behavior can be situational and we need to take that into consideration as well. The Alaska eagles are already accustomed to being fed by the local fishermen and his baiting is not going to have any impact whatsoever on their behavior. Once the photographer is gone, the eagles will continue to return to that site and continue to eat fish provided by the local fishermen. No harm. No foul.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 21, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I get where Orangutan is coming from, although I don't have quite the blind faith in scientists that he does.


I assume you meant this as a figure of speech, but just FYI: I have no blind faith in anything. Science is not a matter of faith at all, it's our current best effort to overcome our very imperfect reasoning. Science is far from perfect, but it gets us much closer to the truth than putting forth our personal whims as if they have magical validity.



> I think it comes down to the doctor's oath: "First, do no harm." Many would say that any intrusion on the natural world does harm, so I guess a better motto might be, "minimize the harm and keep it transitory, rather than permanent."


+5


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 21, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I think it comes down to the doctor's oath: "First, do no harm." Many would say that any intrusion on the natural world does harm, so I guess a better motto might be, "minimize the harm and keep it transitory, rather than permanent."
> ...



So sayeth we as we overpopulate the planet, exacerbating every single problem we have (regardless of our thoughtful and well-intentioned approach to wildlife photography). That's a permanent harm in my book.

I'm not implying that in light of that fact we should all gleefully go on irresponsible BIF escapades where we indiscriminately throwing buckets of chum overboard or anything like that. But let's not flog ourselves over the small and responsible 'touching of nature' we do in our hiking/camping/photography/etc. -- we'd only be out there if we wanted to experience and appreciate it.

In other words, for all our evils done to nature, the transgressions of wildlife photographers are quite low on the list.

I just think we need responsibility and balance in our decisions. I think (by and large) we do that as photographers.

- A


----------



## Ryananthony (Dec 21, 2017)

Where I live, we have a large number of eagles migrate down during the winter months. A very popular place for them to reside is about half a mile from a compost facility, and about a mile from a dump. Every single year. They reside here for the obvious reason that food is easily come by from both the compost and the dump. Like clockwork around 3pm the eagles fly over head from park where they nest to the compost site as the trucks drop off their loads. The eagles grab their treats and fly back to the nests. You often see them challenge each other for food in the air and it is a known spot for the millions of people who reside here. (who carry an interest at least). Like every animal. Eagles are opportunistic, and will take advantage. These eagles come here every year, and stay for months. These facilities know they are "baiting" the eagles every year.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...


Venn was one of our locals - here is the stained glass window commemorating him.
The great thing about ethics, as opposed to the laws of physics, is that everyone can have their own opinions and can BS to their hearts content. Mind you, there are some who do the same for physics.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 21, 2017)

Massive confusion here. Human beings are every bit as much a part of "Nature" as a polar bear or a butterfly. Those who say otherwise believe we are aliens constructed by other aliens and dropped here as an invasive species.

Any animal has the potential to mess up its local habitat. Homo sapiens simply tends to do it more often and on a larger scale. But we are not separate from nature!


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 21, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Human beings are every bit as much a part of "Nature" as a polar bear or a butterfly. *Those who say otherwise *


I don't believe anyone was making that assertion.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 21, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



So good to know I have the conscience of others to rely on as mine must be childish and flawed. Now if I could just find the right one to rely upon. Yours? : The OP followed his conscience and made the right decision for him. 

Nobody is going to walk in lock step with you on everything. Classing those who do not along with "scoundrels" from history makes you closed minded as heck. I have no problem with what you believe. It works for you. Have at it. You should not feel threatened by disagreement. Without disagreement, there would be no science. There wouldn't be any without imagination or fantasy either. Today's realities in science are yesterday's fantasies and imaginings.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 21, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Nobody is going to walk in lock step with you on everything.


I said nothing of the kind, read my posts. I said you should refer to experts to help make the call, rather than rely on flawed personal experience. The same goes for me.



> Classing those who do not along with "scoundrels" from history


I did not classify anyone that way, I simply pointed out that it's easy to talk ourselves into believing our personal needs justify potential harm to others.



> You should not feel threatened by disagreement. Without disagreement, there would be no science.



I don't, and true. The trouble is that you offered no real discussion, only the pablum of "follow your conscience."



> There wouldn't be any without imagination or fantasy either. Today's realities in science are yesterday's fantasies and imaginings.


Very true! How does that relate to the question?

Again, my point is simple: non-specialists simply do not have the expertise to judge how our actions affect wild animals. It's not an insult or disparagement, just a fact, and it applies to me as well. Scientists who study specific species or ecosystems full-time for 10+ years know more than we do, and we should defer to their judgement. I agree you should not take my word on which species can be baited without harm, ask an expert! I avoid the problem by assuming that I shouldn't -- about all I do is hang up a few bird feeders in my urban yard. I'm also careful not to play bird calls during the nesting season. 

When you consider baiting a wild animal for a photo, ask yourself how it benefits and harms the animal. Then ask an expert for their opinion.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 21, 2017)

This has gone from informative to entertaining!  ;D I read CR for the humour.

BTW, the woodpecker you see under my name was baited rewarded for posing ... there, my conscience is clear! 

Jack


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 21, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody is going to walk in lock step with you on everything.
> ...



Actually, you should read your posts. You did exactly those things. Experts and scientists are also wrong many times because of what you call motivated reasoning (grants, a paycheck, a position, public and colleague admiration, status, ego, etc.). Science and conscience should go hand in hand. Just ask the concentration camp "docs"/"scientists". Wait, conscience didn't exist for them.

Conscience isn't fantasy. Hopefully nobody grows out of it when reaching adulthood.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 21, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Science and conscience should go hand in hand. Just ask the concentration camp "docs"/"scientists". Wait, conscience didn't exist for them.



Next stop on this thread: Godwin's Law

(Fully hear your point, but please find another metaphor, thank you.)

- A


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 21, 2017)

CanonFanBoy, I tend to agree with you that a healthy skepticism is needed regarding experts but there needs to be very solid evidence that prompts that approach. Often an expert in a given field becomes a spokesperson for unrelated fields and their PhD is held up as being meaningful. It isn't, other than perhaps being indicative of mental ability. And then there is the politics - ugh. How many so called experts lack what is called "common sense".

These days getting the "truth" is increasingly difficult.  

Jack


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 21, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> This has gone from informative to entertaining!  ;D I read CR for the humour.
> 
> BTW, the woodpecker you see under my name was baited rewarded for posing ... there, my conscience is clear!
> 
> Jack


And the animal you see under my name was baited rewarded for posing ... there, my conscience is also clear


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 21, 2017)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> However, the basic fact is that anyone who thinks that they can photograph wildlife without exploiting it in some way is living in a fantasy world.



And so started the photographer-macaque copyright case...


----------



## snoke (Dec 22, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> snoke said:
> 
> 
> > kirispupis said:
> ...



No difference. Bird not dive for fish if small like sardine. Model not agree for $1. Only difference you think animal not smart, yes? You not understand how smart animal.

And your name orangutan. What you think of this animal, smart or not smart?


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 22, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> CanonFanBoy, I tend to agree with you that a healthy skepticism is needed regarding experts but there needs to be very solid evidence that prompts that approach. Often an expert in a given field becomes a spokesperson for unrelated fields and their PhD is held up as being meaningful. It isn't, other than perhaps being indicative of mental ability. And then there is the politics - ugh. How many so called experts lack what is called "common sense".
> 
> These days getting the "truth" is increasingly difficult.
> 
> Jack



So true. I defer to the biologist / photographer expert at Dutch Harbor. He just isn't an expert Orangutan will accept because he goes against O's ethical views. There must be no dissent. Obey!


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 22, 2017)

So..... is this ethical?.....


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 22, 2017)

Is this ethical?


----------



## ethanz (Dec 22, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> So..... is this ethical?.....



Not with that lens. You need a Canon lens to be 100% ethical.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 22, 2017)

Don, I know you reward your subjects richly. Where's Harry the Heron to speak up and give his opinion? The bread was fed to the fish, not Harry. 

Jack


----------



## Valvebounce (Dec 22, 2017)

Hi Jack. 
Yes the adventures of Harry were good, but I think that was more of a pest control situation, feed the invasive fish species to trick them in to getting eaten by Harry. 

Cheers, Graham. 



Jack Douglas said:


> Don, I know you reward your subjects richly. Where's Harry the Heron to speak up and give his opinion? The bread was fed to the fish, not Harry.
> 
> Jack


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 22, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> snoke said:
> 
> 
> > kirispupis said:
> ...



You are the one 100% wrong. The animal decides if it wants to eat the food provided.

and

The food for my Lab is in a feeder that continually dispenses. Food is always in front of it. It is lean and trim because it is active and works. Fat labs are usually the result of lazy people who do not understand the responsibility of owning an active dog.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 22, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Is this ethical?



Nope

But this could be another debate. Do man made elements in a wildlife picture take away form the subject?
Should they be avoided?
A Wildlife Purist attitude maybe.
I try and avoid these kind of pics and they usually get deleted, it is just poor composition.

As for the OP's original post, has any one even asked if the fish in the picture is a native to that lake?
What kind of carp set up would that be if the prop fish isn't accurate.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 22, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> So..... is this ethical?.....



In another post a Labrador Retriever was mentioned. Would it have been unethical to bring the Lab for a shoot like this so I could get a few BIF shots.

He would have gotten his daily exercise and he would have had fun doing it. Is my Lab unethical, he is just going with his instincts?


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 22, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Is this ethical?
> ...



I built this antenna about 30 years ago..... and then Ospreys started building nests in it.... this resulted in a several year battle between myself and the ospreys, in the end we put up a 90 foot post with a nesting platform on top. Fast forward 20 years and there are now 6 different osprey nests clustered around the edges of the field and they like to sit on top of my antenna and watch the river. Definitely a case of man altering the environment.....

And btw, when you are 130 feet up, on the side of a tower, you have very little control over composition. Stepping back a few feet means a loud scream, followed by a thud!


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 22, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



With the back story it is an ethical picture. 
And a more interesting pic.


----------



## Valvebounce (Dec 22, 2017)

Hi Don. 
And today’s quote of the day goes to 
“when you are 130 feet up, on the side of a tower, you have very little control over composition. Stepping back a few feet means a loud scream, followed by a thud!”a ;D ;D

Thanks for the laugh, the back story is interesting too. 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 22, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> Nope
> 
> But this could be another debate. Do man made elements in a wildlife picture take away form the subject?
> Should they be avoided?
> ...



Interestingly, some of the premier wildlife photography competitions rejected any photograph that had human constructions or evidence of human activity. A few years ago (some or all, not sure which) they relaxed this to say that they would permit 'human elements' as long as the behaviour was wild. All this did was change the goal posts and led to the infamous case where a photo of a 'wild' wolf was banned because (depending on whose report you read) the wolf was recognised as a captive one but also that in the wild wolves are not really known to jump obstacles in this manner so was probably either bated to do so or trained to do so. All of this is speculative because to this day the photographer refuses to admit any wrong doing but it was the behavioural aspect that was the biggest 'give away'.
Whatever the truth, it shows how the 'ethics' of competitions has changed probably because human influence is expanding all the time making it harder to be genuinely 'untouched' and after all, it is animal behaviour that people are entranced by, not the location. 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/wolf-wildlife-photographer-award-stripped


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 22, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Nope
> ...



I remember reading that several years ago. Everything about it looked staged.

But there are human elements in this picture. A fence/gate.
While it isn't baiting it would be a natural act for a wolf to jump a fence to get in to a pen to eat a chicken. 
In this instance a wild wolf would have most likely crawled through or under.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 22, 2017)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Don.
> And today’s quote of the day goes to
> “when you are 130 feet up, on the side of a tower, you have very little control over composition. Stepping back a few feet means a loud scream, followed by a thud!”a ;D ;D
> 
> ...



Then there as my war against the starlings who were making nests in the search and rescue satellite dishes.... In my infinite wisdom, I got some plastic owls and mounted them on the dish.... soon after I found that the birds had made a small hole in the plastic owls and were nesting inside!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 22, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Valvebounce said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Don.
> ...



What "bird brains".

Jack


----------



## Click (Dec 22, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Then there as my war against the starlings who were making nests in the search and rescue satellite dishes.... In my infinite wisdom, I got some plastic owls and mounted them on the dish.... soon after I found that the birds had made a small hole in the plastic owls and were nesting inside!



;D ;D ;D Funny story.


----------

