# Attn wildlife photographers: to feed or not to feed?



## limr

What say ye about this? 
Some Wildlife Photographers Use Bait, But Is It Worth The Shot?


----------



## astroNikon

It is unethical and I think Illegal for hunters to bait .... but photographers ?

Do you mean my flowers (for bees and hummingbirds) and bird feeders are unethical ?


----------



## waday

The article has advice from an actual, real-life biologist saying it's bad, and then refutes that scientific opinion by quoting a photographer essentially saying: hey, it's probably not bad, because I like doing it.

That's weird.

From a scientific perspective, I'm going to listen to the biologist. Cause, you know, science.

This says it all, IMO:



> ...the main concern is it can habituate owls to humans. "You're essentially training the owl to lose its fear of humans and associate food with humans, so then they become bolder," Duncan says.



As opposed to: "...as far as I know, there's no data to back up any of the negative," says Terry Crayne, local photographer who is pro-baiting animals.

Why would I listen to a photographer over a biologist regarding actual scientific opinions?


----------



## limr

astroNikon said:


> It is unethical and I think Illegal for hunters to bait .... but photographers ?
> 
> Do you mean my flowers (for bees and hummingbirds) and bird feeders are unethical ?



No, the article is specifically about photographers bringing mice, for example, to lure a bird of prey so they can get the shot.


----------



## Designer

limr said:


> .. the article is specifically about photographers bringing mice, for example, to lure a bird of prey so they can get the shot.


As I recall; there was a scene in Jurassic Park in which the operators tied out a goat as bait to attract a T. Rex. 

For the amusement of visitors!  

They were wildlife biologists, if I'm not mistaken.

So.... if they can do it, then why not a photographer?  

But then the dinosaurs killed some people, so maybe it was a bad idea.


----------



## waday

Designer said:


> But then the dinosaurs killed some people, so maybe it was a bad idea.


Yeah, but since birds are the descendants of dinosaurs, maybe the dinosaurs were just exacting their revenge on baiting humans?


----------



## MSnowy

To me baiting is baiting. That means everything from mice to bird food. The funny thing is that the Audubon is against baiting of any kind except bird feeding. I wornder if this is do to the fact that the Audubon makes millions of dollars off of the sales of backyard birding books, bird food, bird feeders and licensing of their brand to other backyard bird product manufacturers.


----------



## limr

MSnowy said:


> To me baiting is baiting. That means everything from mice to bird food. The funny thing is that the Audubon is against baiting of any kind except bird feeding. I wornder if this is do to the fact that the Audubon makes millions of dollars off of the sales of backyard birding books, bird food, bird feeders and licensing of their brand to other backyard bird product manufacturers.



So do you consider having a bird feeder in the back yard baiting if its purpose is to feed the birds and not for photography?


----------



## Braineack

I can completely understand the position that baiting is unethical for _their_ publication...

just like war journalists shouldn't go out tossing grenades to get a few good action shots...


----------



## MSnowy

limr said:


> MSnowy said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me baiting is baiting. That means everything from mice to bird food. The funny thing is that the Audubon is against baiting of any kind except bird feeding. I wornder if this is do to the fact that the Audubon makes millions of dollars off of the sales of backyard birding books, bird food, bird feeders and licensing of their brand to other backyard bird product manufacturers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do you consider having a bird feeder in the back yard baiting if its purpose is to feed the birds and not for photography?
Click to expand...


I would if I go by what they consider the ethical wildlife photographer hand book. Wildlife agencies tell you to stop feeding birds if other wildlife shows up at your feeder. Changing the natural behavior of any wildlife is considered bad.


----------



## Designer

A couple of years ago I thought it would be a good idea to alter the behavior of our local songbirds by setting up some bird feeders.  What we got were more squirrels, chipmunks, and mice.


----------



## table1349

For me part of the issue is the nature of the bating.  Bating a carnivore that has to hunt for other prey I would never do.  The hunter/hunted paradigm is a fragile balance that nature sorts out.  Humans have not always been the hunter.  In their early development they were actually prey.  Evolution changed that paradigm.

I have however "baited" bears on a couple of occasions.  Not with meat, but with the very berries, from and in the very area that the bears were feeding in.   I gathered a few of the berries when there were berries on the bushes at the time of year the bears were eating them.   

I was not visible to the bear.  I was in a blind that was placed down wind from the bear.  All my baiting did was pull the bear out of the thicket to the edge for a better pose if you will.


----------



## Overread

I think baiting is not something you easily  cover with a single "catch all" rule. 

Furthermore within baiting itself there is responsible and irresponsible use of the method which can complicate matters. 


Baiting is a method by which you use a lure (we'll stick to food this time around) of food to attract an animal to an environment where you can observe and photograph it with ease. With some species of animal this might be the only way to reliably get a photo without having to invade its habitat (esp for woodland or other dense habitat species). As a result you might find that even big institutions use baiting as a method for TV shows/Photographs. 

Done correctly baiting with food should provide only a treat to a species. Ergo you are providing a short term limited food supply that is easy to obtain but which is no sufficient to provide sustained feeding; and which is not a sustained food source (although you might bait more than once you would not bait continuously). 

Furthermore it should not involve bringing the individual outside of its territory or its primary habitat nor place it in a location where by it would come to harm. 



Where problems arise are;
1) When baiting is used as a lure toward people not just a location. This is a problem because it can build an association of people=food. Human animal conflict often arises as a result of animals gaining confidence around humans and thus encroaching closer and closer onto human habitats. Furthermore if humans are seen as  source of food it can encourage animals to challenge humans and human habitation (bears raiding picnic baskets is the iconic example). 

2) When baiting provides a sustained food source. This is where you're altering behaviour by providing a sustained food source that is regular. The animal thus becoming expectant of food to the point where it might alter its territory; reduce its hunting time and potentially even remain within a location longer than migration might otherwise occure. All these things put the animal at increased risk and also a risk that when the food supply DOES run out they are left at a disadvantage to survival

3) When baiting provides excessive food. Like above only this time you are potentially allowing the support of a higher than normal population within the area. This can have huge knock on effects of increased damage from an over-populated species. It's more of a risk with predatory species in most cases of photography baiting (that being large enough for local scale but small enough that it shouldn't affect wide spread scales unless undertaken at large).

4) When baiting is undertaken at modest levels but over a large number of sites within a small catchment area. Ergo if everyone goes out and baits; even if they are individually baiting well, then you've got a problem.



Point 4 is, to me, the most likely result of damage as a result of baiting for photography after point 1. At present  point 1 is the most dangerous; however 4 could arise if baiting were encouraged within the population. 





To me baiting can be like camera traps in that it can allow photos that otherwise would be impossible to achieve; or which would put human and/or animal at great risk to be photographed. So it has a use and a purpose. Heck in the UK bird feeders are actively encouraged through the year - providing a massive sustained food source and the use of feeders to attract garden birds is very common; even major wildlife centres will oft have feeders up near to their main reception/visiting area. 

There is some debate (certain species given favourable survival as a result of being more dominant at feeders) and risk from the fact that its a sustained food source.


Predatory baiting is less common, but does happen. I would argue that its on the small scale; with known honeyspots being more popular with many photographers (eg following fishing trawlers or other locations where rare or impressive predatory species often congregate for easy food - these sites often then gaining additional income from visits/trips to those honeyspot areas).


----------



## Overread

gryphonslair99 said:


> I have however "baited" bears on a couple of occasions.  Not with meat, but with the very berries, from and in the very area that the bears were feeding in.   I gathered a few of the berries when there were berries on the bushes at the time of year the bears were eating them.
> 
> I was not visible to the bear.  I was in a blind that was placed down wind from the bear.  All my baiting did was pull the bear out of the thicket to the edge for a better pose if you will.



I forgot about this approach to baiting  and yes this is a prime example of a species otherwise very hard to photograph safely for both bear and photographer* being lured out by a baiting method. The method isn't providing any additional food so the bear isn't given any advantage. You could adapt this method to provide a small  amount of food in a regularly used area to the same effect - a bunch of berries won't sustain a bear for long; but if it brings it into the open for a photographic shot for a few moments then its unlikely to cause any sustained harm.

In that case it would only be if this were done en-mass that it would cause problems. 

*in a fight the bear will win - but it will then lose as will many others in the area when bears are shot as a result of a "killer bear" on the loose in an area. Even an attack will prompt action (legal or otherwise) as people take measures to protect themselves by removing dangerous animal individuals - even if they kill multiple innocent individual animals in the process


----------



## Derrel

Well-written post #13 above by overread!


----------



## Designer

I was actually surprised when our local DNR arrested a man for "baiting" a deer, because there was a salt block on the property, but not near where the deer was shot.  

Big surprise to me!  

This is the SAME DNR that PAYS people to plant "food plots" for the wildlife.  In addition subsidies to plant to cover (reforestation and native prairie) we also got subsidies to plant corn and grain sorghum plots expressly for the deer, turkeys, pheasant, etc. that habituated our property.  And we were being paid to do it.  

So is the DRN attempting to alter the behavior of wildlife?  (yes)  For what purpose?  (hunters)


----------



## Overread

Whats a DNR?


----------



## Overread

A few thoughts:
1) Hunted species often have very specific rules relating to how they are to be hunted. As a result baiting might well be illegal just like you have to use certain kinds of weapon and ammunition types depending on teh deer you're hunting. 

2) The provision of food for wildlife through plots or other systems is often done to encourage wildlife and provide food that is otherwise unobtainable. Modern farming practice and countryside life is very detrimental to wildlife when it doesn't put into place these measures. 
Consider how modern farming has far less waste; is far faster; is far more monoculture and often has more rotations of crops per year. This cuts out a huge food source that many species have relied upon (species that are often in small numbers and endangered due to changing practice and the shift in environments)

3) Consider that the food provided for wildlife is intended to be that; its food and habitat. Whilst the salt lick is a placed item designed to be a lure to bring wildlife into an area to be (in this case) shot.


----------



## Derrel

Overread said:


> Whats a DNR?



Acronym for Department of Natural Resources. Typically has wildlife and fishing law enforcement personnel ( sometimes called "game wardens" or "game cops") who write citiations for violations of laws and statutes regarding fish and wildlife laws,rules, or regulations, such as non-legal harvest of animals or fish; illegal hunting or chase methods; fishing out of season, and so on and so on. 

May also set fish and game harvesting seasons, bag limits, etc. in some states, but not in all. DNR acronym is used in many states, but not in all. In my state, we say ODFW, never DNR...ODFW stands for Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife.


----------



## table1349

Overread said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have however "baited" bears on a couple of occasions.  Not with meat, but with the very berries, from and in the very area that the bears were feeding in.   I gathered a few of the berries when there were berries on the bushes at the time of year the bears were eating them.
> 
> I was not visible to the bear.  I was in a blind that was placed down wind from the bear.  All my baiting did was pull the bear out of the thicket to the edge for a better pose if you will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I forgot about this approach to baiting  and yes this is a prime example of a species otherwise very hard to photograph safely for both bear and photographer* being lured out by a baiting method. The method isn't providing any additional food so the bear isn't given any advantage. You could adapt this method to provide a small  amount of food in a regularly used area to the same effect - a bunch of berries won't sustain a bear for long; but if it brings it into the open for a photographic shot for a few moments then its unlikely to cause any sustained harm.
> 
> In that case it would only be if this were done en-mass that it would cause problems.
> 
> *in a fight the bear will win - but it will then lose as will many others in the area when bears are shot as a result of a "killer bear" on the loose in an area. Even an attack will prompt action (legal or otherwise) as people take measures to protect themselves by removing dangerous animal individuals - even if they kill multiple innocent individual animals in the process
Click to expand...

In my case it wasn't even so much of a matter of luring them out as it was getting them to turn around.  While many find the image of a bare butt to be enjoyable to look at.  I do not enjoy photographing a bear butt.  

One of the issues I have with wildlife discussions be it what lens, this topic or virtually any topic on "Wildlife" is the lack of definition of wildlife.   For some wildlife is birdies and squirrels, for others it may be sockeye salmon and trout, others it may be raptors.   For me it is generally bear, cougar, moose, elk, wolf, fox and eagles.  Each form of wildlife has it's own set of issues.


----------



## Designer

Overread said:


> Whats a DNR?


Department of Natural Resources  (state agency) Soil and water conservation, wildlife, hunting licenses, state parks, fisheries, etc.


----------



## Designer

Overread said:


> 3) Consider that the food provided for wildlife is intended to be that; its food and habitat. Whilst the salt lick is a placed item designed to be a lure to bring wildlife into an area to be (in this case) shot.


No difference. 

Both are intended to "benefit" the wildlife and encourage them to take up residence in a certain area.

Also cover and water.


----------



## table1349

Slowpoke.


----------



## Overread

Designer - the difference is that developing natural habitat or providing natural feed areas has the intent to  provide a longer lasting food source and environment. You are essentially increasing the potential carrying capacity of the area for species. Meanwhile the salt lick is purely a lure that isn't habitat related and is purely designed to draw a specific animal to a specific location.


----------



## table1349

Overread said:


> Designer - the difference is that developing natural habitat or providing natural feed areas has the intent to  provide a longer lasting food source and environment. You are essentially increasing the potential carrying capacity of the area for species. Meanwhile the salt lick is purely a lure that isn't habitat related and is purely designed to draw a specific animal to a specific location.


Not quite true.  In that particular case I would agree.  

However salt intake or the lack of it in humans is not a problem.  Humans tend to have too much salt intake.   However in animals, especially lactating animals salt deficiency is very much a problem for their overall health and the health of their suckling young.  We always have a couple of salt blocks as well as mineral blocks out in the pasture for the cattle so they can get the salt they need to maintain better health.


----------



## Overread

Gryph that is very true and I don't mean to say that an animal will not benefit from a salt lick - however in general one would attempt to source salt naturally rather than from a lick when looking toward habitat restoration. 

In general I've never really come across salt licks or other mineral supplements for conservation of wild species.


----------



## smoke665

For years we've kept both mineral blocks and a corn feeder at the edge of our yard to attract the deer. We've been awarded with closeup views of many bucks, does and fawns. Some of which have called our property thier permanent home. Of course I also have fields for grazing, oak and hickory for browse.


----------



## vintagesnaps

Even I know you're not supposed to put out bird feed (or whatever critter food) unless you intend to keep feeding them. I don't because the birds already think my bushes are their condos, and I have baby robins on the downspout so they have made themselves at home without any encouragement. 

Listen, if I couldn't bait hockey players to stand where I wanted them to be for a picture, then you shouldn't do it to other wildlife either. 

I'm being a smartass but really, don't people know not to bait animals?? We do have a controlled deer season here because there aren't many natural predators and the deer get overrun to the point of darting across the road even in the 'burbs and eating crops, etc. etc. I guess if you don't have the inclination to sit in a bird blind for a long time and such things then you aren't cut out to be a wildlife photographer.


----------



## smoke665

vintagesnaps said:


> don't people know not to bait animals?? We do have a controlled deer season here



I don't consider it baiting. Years ago thanks the help of a federal grant, state forestry , state biologist, and the county NCRS, I established a 35 acre self sustainable preserve of sort. We now have all sorts of wildlife, some of which wasn't here before. Sort of a "if you build it they will come", place. Occasionally I supplement what they can find naturally just to keep tack.


----------



## vintagesnaps

I wasn't talking about setting up what you've done, there was someone who I knew who set up their own sanctuary for wildlife because they had acres and acres of land and woods that already had a certain amount of wildlife, that seems to help support what's already there as you're doing. I meant to put food out just to bait animals but then to not maintain the food source. Just seems unnecessary and not such a great idea to attract animals then to have them keep coming back to no food. I always thought you weren't supposed to start feeding birds unless you plan to continue feeding them.


----------



## Overread

Vintage remember that baiting for a few days or even a week with a small amount of food is unlikely to cause harm unless the animal is being attracted well outside of its territory or if its on a territorial boundary. Small food like that would be an opportune moment for the animal to partake in the food and if the food isn't there ever again the animal shouldn't come to harm.

The real damage is done when its regular for weeks to months and when the amount itself is substantial. At that point the sudden ending of food can be detrimental unless timed with other factors (eg cutting off food to coincide with migration).


And hockey players CAN  be baited. First off you've got a natural lure of the pitch where you know, with 100% certainty that they will turn up there. After or before you can even bait them with money or other perks to get them to pose for you. 
Wildlife is different and to be done safely does require more planning and thought and awareness. But it can be done if one chooses to do it. Natural lures and hot-spots do exist, but can sometimes be inaccessible or impractical or even dangerous to use. Meanwhile sometimes the angle isn't right as in the example earlier of a bear. 



I think baiting, much like camera traps; gets a lot of flak because the "wildlife photographer" is often viewed as a bit of a godly power of stalking. That they are able to twist their bodies into insane locations and become one with the natural world to get amazing photos. When in actuality traps, tricks, bait and more are often used to aid such work. 
Done responsibly nothing gets hurt; animals go on their normal lives and photographers get some photos. 


There are irresponsible individuals though and they are teh reason that there are laws against some forms of photography. In the UK there's a list of birds you cannot photograph at the nest without licence


----------



## Vtec44

I simply avoid feeding/baiting wild animals in general.


----------



## waday

Overread said:


> There are irresponsible individuals though and they are teh reason that there are laws against some forms of photography.


Like...
Wildlife photographers caught cruelly inflating fish to bait eagles


----------



## MSnowy

The issue with baiting around here is only part of the bigger issue and that is  "birders" vs "photographers". Most"birders" around here would like to see bird photography banned.


----------



## smoke665

vintagesnaps said:


> not such a great idea to attract animals then to have them keep coming back to no food.



Yup the last time I planted sweet corn was in 2013. I used the tractor and planter to put about 3 acres of corn. The thinking was that the deer would have some, and we would have enough for the freezer. After the expense and caring for it, I was watching for it to get ripe. The deer never even made an appearance, till the night before the morning I was set to harvest. When we went to the field it looked like a steam roller had gone through, didn't get a single ear. So yeah, it's not a great idea to feed them to well LOL


----------



## table1349

vintagesnaps said:


> Even I know you're not supposed to put out bird feed (or whatever critter food) unless you intend to keep feeding them. I don't because the birds already think my bushes are their condos, and I have baby robins on the downspout so they have made themselves at home without any encouragement.
> 
> Listen, if I couldn't bait hockey players to stand where I wanted them to be for a picture, then you shouldn't do it to other wildlife either.
> 
> I'm being a smartass but really, don't people know not to bait animals?? We do have a controlled deer season here because there aren't many natural predators and the deer get overrun to the point of darting across the road even in the 'burbs and eating crops, etc. etc. I guess if you don't have the inclination to sit in a bird blind for a long time and such things then you aren't cut out to be a wildlife photographer.


Sharon, you can bait hockey players.  It is actually very simple.  All you need is some hookers & strippers.


----------



## table1349

We have fed the deer, pheasant, quail, rabbits and many other creatures for years.  Some directly and some secondarily.  When you raise crops and beef you provide food for many.  Often easy sources of food.  It can't be helped.  Deer like corn as do other animals, milo and wheat also attract critters.  Chickens attract foxes and coyotes.  They also feed on the rabbits that hang around for the garden as well as the pheasant and quail.  Humans, buy their very nature of needing to feed himself feeds a whole plethora of wild life.   We loose a small bit of crop, a chicken or two but we all have to eat including the vast amount of wildlife that lives on our land.  

I also have always had no problem filling our larder with wild game.  Pheasant, prairie chicken, and quail, a deer once a year as well as catfish and perch.  All good eating as well as controlling populations that could get out of hand in these times if not legally thinned.


----------



## Designer

smoke665 said:


> When we went to the field it looked like a steam roller had gone through, didn't get a single ear.


At our place in the country (don't own it anymore) there were a few fruit trees, some berries, and a small patch of asparagus that was overgrown with grass.  I had read somewhere that salt would kill grass but not asparagus, so I salted that area.  The deer ate it all, including the roots.  Apparently it just needed a little salt.


----------



## smoke665

@Designer we routinely have small herds of 8 to 10 deer at a time visiting. (Might have something to do with the free food). Once they stared bringing the babies to the yard, and my wife made pets of them that was the end of hunting for me.


----------



## coastalconn

I am a master baiter. Oh wait wrong forum..

I personally am against baiting raptors for photography. I want my photography to reflect the real deal. When I first started out I was blown away by Miguel Lasa's Osprey images. I lost all respect for them when I found out that they were taken at a place that actively injures trout and tosses them in the water to get the Osprey to dive close.  

I am also very against "birders" that will get in the face of owls with their iPhones to snap a picture...


----------



## DarkShadow

Absolutely not a fan of this especially when we talk about dead rodents they may have died from poisons then poisons the raptor afterwards. I don't think live baiting should be done either be a real sportsman learn some skills, get longer lenses  and put the time in. 4 years and I still have no osprey dive's but if or when I do,It won't  be from  cheating. I never cheated at anything in life and perhaps thats why I have less then  some others, but I am not about to start now. Though I   did think about getting a hat with a stuffed fuzzy pink mouse hanging from it.


----------



## coastalconn

DarkShadow said:


> Absolutely not a fan of this especially when we talk about dead rodents they may have died from poisons then poisons the raptor afterwards. I don't think live baiting should be done either be a real sportsman learn some skills, get longer lenses  and put the time in. 4 years and I still have no osprey dive's but if or when I do,It won't  be from  cheating. I never cheated at anything in life and perhaps thats why I have less then  some others, but I am not about to start now. Though I   did think about getting a hat with a stuffed fuzzy pink mouse hanging from it.


Well, you know where I live and where the Osprey dive   I've invited you before, just saying...


----------



## DarkShadow

Yes I remember but then you had to work and we never set anything up after but yeah one day lets meet and vice versa your more then welcome to come down here to and we can meet up. I been really thinking of taking a little road trip out that way and Essex area see if I could find some owls or an eagle or something.


----------



## Pixilox

coastalconn said:


> I am a master baiter. Oh wait wrong forum..
> 
> I personally am against baiting raptors for photography. I want my photography to reflect the real deal. When I first started out I was blown away by Miguel Lasa's Osprey images. I lost all respect for them when I found out that they were taken at a place that actively injures trout and tosses them in the water to get the Osprey to dive close.
> 
> I am also very against "birders" that will get in the face of owls with their iPhones to snap a picture...



I agree 100%.  I am lucky to live near places that Osprey frequent (I have even had them land on the telephone pole in the back yard to eat lunch!), as well as many other birds.  If I miss one I am hoping to see, oh well, better luck next time.  As far as the owls, it's gotten to the point that a couple of groups I am in you are not allowed to post where you've seen/photographed them, exactly for that reason.  I have a nice set of binoculars and a very long lens so I don't have to get close, but the iPhone users man...smh.


----------



## ZombiesniperJr

I don't like baiting but around my area we have groups that go out and bait the snowy owls I have taken shots of the snows being baited and flying but I prefer the flight shots I get of a snowy flying for some other reason other then them being baited


----------



## MSnowy

I guess the subject of feeding wildlife directly or indirectly really depends on where you live. Around here they don't want you directly feeding them to cut down on the number of wildlife that are hit by cars. What has happened is the wildlife come out of where they normal are and cross roads because they now know where the easy meals can be had. On the other hand the powers that be 
have no issue with you planting  $100s of dollars worth of nice new landscaping that can disappear overnight.


----------



## Derrel

This has been a good discussion. Enjoyed hearing the differing points of view.


----------



## Designer

MSnowy said:


> I guess the subject of feeding wildlife directly or indirectly really depends on where you live. Around here they don't want you directly feeding them to cut down on the number of wildlife that are hit by cars. What has happened is the wildlife come out of where they normal are and cross roads because they now know where the easy meals can be had. On the other hand the powers that be
> have no issue with you planting  $100s of dollars worth of nice new landscaping that can disappear overnight.


There is a big problem with deer feeding in upscale residential areas.  The lots are big enough to have a "woods" connecting with the neighbor's "woods", and homeowners invest serious money in landscaping, which can disappear overnight.  And the deer cannot permanently be chased out of a neighborhood like that because they'll simply return later.  

Would that they could alter the deer's behavior.


----------



## DarkShadow

There is a place I go fresh water fishing regional water authority reservoir that was opened to public fishing way back but the use of live bait is prohibited with the exception of worms but no pond shiners. This is something I never understood because pond shiners are in fresh water, they don't get more the a few inches and have no teeth. It's not a   carnivorous snake head fish so its not going to eat the entire lake of fish if it falls of the hook when you live line it.


----------



## Derrel

Look up Diamond Lake + tui chub...and read some of the history of that massive lake. Introducing non-native baitfish as fishing bait can have horrible consequences, and Diamond Lake is a good lesson in how shiners, chubs, and other types of non-native baithfish can ruin a lake or pond, either by overpopulation of the baitfish species, or by the elimination of the forage base, and then a huge die-off of the fish that depended upon the forage species. Diamond Lake has been poisoned off and all fish killed at least twice within my lifetime, due to explosions in the tui chub population.


----------



## Derrel

Good article here on tui chubs ruining Diamond Lake; has picture of the golden shiner species as well.
Oregon Battles The Invasive Tui Chub To Protect Non-Native Trout


----------



## Overread

Derrel said:


> This has been a good discussion. Enjoyed hearing the differing points of view.



It's very interesting hearing differnt points of view from not only different people but different countries as well. Whilst nature is nature our relationship with it differs a lot country to country - and in big nations (like the USA) even region to region. So its really great to hear a diverse number of replies and opinions.

I think it also serves to highlight who are not only the more experienced in finding wildlife; but also on the abundance and local fauna in their area as well as access to the natural world (many times there ca nbe wildlife but gaining access to the environment they are in can be tricky or restrictive)


----------



## Derrel

Yes, there are very different regional differences of opinion on feeding of deer and wildlife. For example, in Oregon, the far-far west of the USA, salt licks for deer and such would get a person fined for an illegal baiting of deer. In Texas, the feeding of deer that is done there before hunting season would be illegal here. In this state, despite a lot of black bears, bear baiting is illegal; in many states, it is considered "normal" to bait bears for hunting. Here, fishing at night is highly illegal; just across the river in Washington, it's been legal for decades. There are also very different land ownership differences; here in the far west, the states or the federal government own huge tracts of *public lands*; in the south, many people pursure wildlife on *leased, private tracts* of land. So, all in all, very different laws, different attitudes of what constitutes _*fair chase*_, and so on.


----------



## DarkShadow

Someone did a video posted on Facebook a while back of deers coming up to some guy and he was feeding them something from a bag, this maybe very cute but now the deer becomes use to close human contact and becomes much more vulnerable to danger. I see this could happen with baiting to of a raptor coming to close then  normally.


----------



## Pixilox

Well, there was that incident at Disney with people thinking it was neat to feed the gators .  They even had to put up signs to not take selfies with the gators where I go birding at.  Some people tend to think there's no harm in feeding/baiting but it can have tragic consequences, for both man and beast.


----------



## pgriz

It depends on the wildlife.  If you go and pay for a round at the local biker bar, you will be real popular for about ten minutes.   Then they will want you to give them more.  If you stop feeding them, they can become insistent and even dangerous.  I say, don't feed the wildlife.


----------



## table1349

Pixilox said:


> Well, there was that incident at Disney with people thinking it was neat to feed the gators .  They even had to put up signs to not take selfies with the gators where I go birding at.  Some people tend to think there's no harm in feeding/baiting but it can have tragic consequences, for both man and beast.


These are the same kinds of people that do photo shoots on rail road tracks.


----------



## zombiesniper

I guess if you go by the broad interpretation I'm guilty of baiting with feeders in my yard. I'm okay with this since the birds that are in my yard are naturally within a couple of blocks and surrounded by people anyhow.

I don't agree with baiting at any other time but it is legal in my area so I can't really do anything about it. 
We do have a couple of photo tour operators in my area that bait. They know I wouldn't but they are cautious with where and how much they feed so not to endanger the bird. One operator also has a biologist on his team that tags and periodically monitors the owls health. For this reason alone I give this operator a pass.

The other issue I have is that some do not know how to or care to safely bait a bird and on a couple of occasions I have seen an owl get baited across a busy road. This easily could have been the end but luckily there was no traffic at the time.

In short. Guilty in my yard but won't in the wild = hypocrite? Dunno but that's how I do it.


----------



## MSnowy

zombiesniper said:


> I guess if you go by the broad interpretation I'm guilty of baiting with feeders in my yard. I'm okay with this since the birds that are in my yard are naturally within a couple of blocks and surrounded by people anyhow.
> 
> I don't agree with baiting at any other time but it is legal in my area so I can't really do anything about it.
> We do have a couple of photo tour operators in my area that bait. They know I wouldn't but they are cautious with where and how much they feed so not to endanger the bird. One operator also has a biologist on his team that tags and periodically monitors the owls health. For this reason alone I give this operator a pass.
> 
> The other issue I have is that some do not know how to or care to safely bait a bird and on a couple of occasions I have seen an owl get baited across a busy road. This easily could have been the end but luckily there was no traffic at the time.
> 
> In short. Guilty in my yard but won't in the wild = hypocrite? Dunno but that's how I do it.



Ya l seen baiting around here and when this happens I've pack up my gear and move on asap. I don't what to be associated with "cheaters" as they're known by the true wildlife photographers around here


----------



## smoke665

Designer said:


> There is a big problem with deer feeding in upscale residential areas. The lots are big enough to have a "woods" connecting with the neighbor's "woods", and homeowners invest serious money in landscaping, which can disappear overnight. And the deer cannot permanently be chased out of a neighborhood like that because they'll simply return later.



I'm always amazed when people move to a residential community in the middle of the woods and think that having an "upscale" designation means that all the wildlife was removed from the area. The deer and other critters don't check the papers and real estate listings for "upscale" communities they can "move" to, they were there first. Then people compound the problem by spending $$$$ to landscape their property when they should be spending wisely with wildlife friendly plantings.


----------



## Overread

MSnowy said:


> I don't what to be associated with "cheaters" as they're known by the true wildlife photographers around here



See this is something I dislike when the subjects of baiting,  captive and trailcamera discussions come up in wildlife photography. Mostly because it isn't actual cheating unless said photo is being miss-represented as to how it was taken. 

Some consider any form of captive non-domestic animal photograph to be "cheating" but its only cheating if you claim it was non-captive.

Trailcameras are said to be cheating because you weren't there to press the shutter, regardless of the fact that placement of a trail camera requires skill if you're to get the shot you want (or indeed any decent shot) and also often allows photographing very elusive or dangerous animals that might otherwise be very hard or dangerous to perform. Plus some animals just won't come near people what so ever which means you'd be highly unlikely to ever get sight of them. 

Baiting again isn't cheating, in my view, as all you've done is bring an animal already within an environment into a slightly controlled situation within its environment to facilitate a photograph. It could be as simple as the earlier example of getting a bear to turn from showing its back end to its front. Or with high-speed predatory birds it could mean getting them to actually come close enough to photograph more than a dot if you don't have a 1000mm lens




I totally appreciate that many prefer wildlife photography to be a bit akin to the idealistic view of hunting. That of man and beast in the wild together; of the challenge of the "hunt" as it were; with the prize in this case being the photograph. I also appreciate that if you've spent weeks getting a single photo that can be gotten in seconds at a baiting site it can be VERY frustrating - because whilst a photo says 1000words it only shows the instant and doesn't tell the story leading up to it. 

But I'd try to shy away from calling alternative methods cheating. Cheating is only valid if you pre-define what standard and methods are allowable. And since this varies person to person I think casual statements of it being "cheating" is wrong. Now present a competition with rules or some standards to measure each other against and then we can bring cheating to the table.


----------



## zombiesniper

I agree with most of the above and couldn't care about how others get their shots providing it doesn't present any danger to the subject.

The only reason I dislike baiting has nothing to do with the fact someone got an easy shot but the fact that most people that bait are unaware that they are exponentially putting the bird/animal at risk of coming into conflict with the worst creature on the planet. Man.

Man is that creature that wants to get the close up pictures of the pretty animal. Man is also the horrible creature that kills the same creature when it encroaches on us for exhibiting the same behaviour we taught it.

Now am I saying people that bait are killing the animals? Indirectly yes. They are teaching the animals to be less afraid of humans which does increase the chances of them becoming a casualty of man.

Am I saying people that bait do this on purpose? NO, I doubt a lot of them even gave it a second though.

Because it is legal here where I am I will never tell anyone they can't bait. I will watch to ensure they are not trying to bait an animal across a dangerous path, or give guidance for those that trample across a field. But here it is their legal right to bait and mine nor anyone else's rights doesn't trump theirs.

Edit: None of the preceding post beyond the first sentence was directed at anyone. Just rambling.


----------



## pgriz

I think you make an eloquent case for why it's not a good idea.  Please ramble some more.  Not everyone can ramble intelligently.


----------



## MSnowy

Overread said:


> MSnowy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't what to be associated with "cheaters" as they're known by the true wildlife photographers around here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See this is something I dislike when the subjects of baiting,  captive and trailcamera discussions come up in wildlife photography. Mostly because it isn't actual cheating unless said photo is being miss-represented as to how it was taken.
> 
> Some consider any form of captive non-domestic animal photograph to be "cheating" but its only cheating if you claim it was non-captive.
> 
> Trailcameras are said to be cheating because you weren't there to press the shutter, regardless of the fact that placement of a trail camera requires skill if you're to get the shot you want (or indeed any decent shot) and also often allows photographing very elusive or dangerous animals that might otherwise be very hard or dangerous to perform. Plus some animals just won't come near people what so ever which means you'd be highly unlikely to ever get sight of them.
> 
> Baiting again isn't cheating, in my view, as all you've done is bring an animal already within an environment into a slightly controlled situation within its environment to facilitate a photograph. It could be as simple as the earlier example of getting a bear to turn from showing its back end to its front. Or with high-speed predatory birds it could mean getting them to actually come close enough to photograph more than a dot if you don't have a 1000mm lens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I totally appreciate that many prefer wildlife photography to be a bit akin to the idealistic view of hunting. That of man and beast in the wild together; of the challenge of the "hunt" as it were; with the prize in this case being the photograph. I also appreciate that if you've spent weeks getting a single photo that can be gotten in seconds at a baiting site it can be VERY frustrating - because whilst a photo says 1000words it only shows the instant and doesn't tell the story leading up to it.
> 
> But I'd try to shy away from calling alternative methods cheating. Cheating is only valid if you pre-define what standard and methods are allowable. And since this varies person to person I think casual statements of it being "cheating" is wrong. Now present a competition with rules or some standards to measure each other against and then we can bring cheating to the table.
Click to expand...


Hey I really believe "to each their own". I'm just offering my opinion on baiting. Hey if someone isn't good enough to get a picture of their subject the natural way go ahead and bait or better yet go to a zoo at feeding time. Throwing rocks in the general direction of wildlife to get them to move isn't against any rules either but it still a crappy thing to do to get "The Shot". Oh and I think this is cheating too.


----------



## ZombiesniperJr

Yeah i have watched photographers make herons and things fly like eagles just for the shot i will admit when i began for the first two weeks i did but then i remembered that they are trying to hunt and in scaring purposly i make it harder for them to find food if they keep having to fly around so i have since stopped and will not do it again by the way that was the summer of 2015 when i did that


----------



## Designer




----------



## TheNevadanStig

No "bait" in the wild, but blinds and electronic calls. I do have a bird feeder at home and occasionally snap pics of the birds in ky own backyard, but dont think that really counts.

Sent from my SM-T237P using Tapatalk


----------



## Overread

Animal calls must be carefully used. 

Since many can be territorial or mating in nature they can cause issues. Even light use of some can result in species leaving territories due to potential competition (most animals will avoid fights rather than engage in them; thus sometimes competition or pressure will cause them to abandon sites or to not breed/nest for a year); or can result in abnormal behaviour of a detrimental nature.

If anything calls are potentially more damaging in the short term than food provision (over short time scales). 

A key to any system is to understand the species and to read up on what is advised practice. Remembering that if you're in the wilds and in an area that is not heavily managed/monitored by officials there might be little to no restriction on activities. So your 1 call might be fine; but the calls made by others before and after when added to yours, are what causes the problem. 

This second point is where good networking within photography circles is very important to help self-manage methods that can achieve what all want, but without detrimental impact to the wildlife


----------



## Gary A.

smoke665 said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a big problem with deer feeding in upscale residential areas. The lots are big enough to have a "woods" connecting with the neighbor's "woods", and homeowners invest serious money in landscaping, which can disappear overnight. And the deer cannot permanently be chased out of a neighborhood like that because they'll simply return later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm always amazed when people move to a residential community in the middle of the woods and think that having an "upscale" designation means that all the wildlife was removed from the area. The deer and other critters don't check the papers and real estate listings for "upscale" communities they can "move" to, they were there first. Then people compound the problem by spending $$$$ to landscape their property when they should be spending wisely with wildlife friendly plantings.
Click to expand...

Similarity here, people move out along the edge of civilization, into the shrub and chaparral areas, which in summer is as flammable as a box of matches. Then when a fire pops up, (it is not 'if' but 'when), they expect that the fire departments paid for by city-folk taxes, come to their aid.  There is a bit of a tax revolt out here resulting in some privately owned fire organization being funded via homeowner associations.


----------



## Designer

Gary A. said:


> There is a bit of a tax revolt out here resulting in some privately owned fire organization being funded via homeowner associations.


Properly funded, they could really do some good by educating the rural homeowners on what types of plants to keep and which ones to get rid of.  

When I worked in the SF Valley, I made a run once a week to Castaic. One of the residents there had run sprinkler piping along the roof of his house.  

WHEN a fire got close, all he had to do was run his pump and open the valve, making his entire roof wet.


----------



## Gary A.

I try not to judge ... but for "me", I agree with the man in the snow suit, baiting is cheating.  And, as a lover of Mother Nature, I agree with zombiesniper that teaching wild beasts that man is benelovent is a prescription of an early death for that beast.

But we all have our own code to live by.


----------



## Gary A.

Designer said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a bit of a tax revolt out here resulting in some privately owned fire organization being funded via homeowner associations.
> 
> 
> 
> Properly funded, they could really do some good by educating the rural homeowners on what types of plants to keep and which ones to get rid of.
> 
> When I worked in the SF Valley, I made a run once a week to Castaic. One of the residents there had run sprinkler piping along the roof of his house.
> 
> WHEN a fire got close, all he had to do was run his pump and open the valve, making his entire roof wet.
Click to expand...

A homeowner paying for a private fire company, will learn real quick how to lower their dues and minimize their fire risk.


----------



## DarkShadow

Does this count as baiting.I didn't do it,I swear. people are now feeding birds and wildlife home food what looks like a Bun. I was going to have a closer look but the bird was going no where any time soon. what ever it is, it looks pretty good. I thought it was a barbecue  chip at first, I would have to fight him or her for it.


----------



## Gary A.

Maybe a Wren of some type.  (I can be baited with a nice Cabernet Sauvignon ... properly chilled.)


----------



## DarkShadow

I know what the bird is a Tufted titmouse its the food source.has to be a bread bun or something I don't think a a chip will work to well stuck on a stick.


----------



## Gary A.

Maybe a BBQ chip ...


----------



## smoke665

Gary A. said:


> Similarity here, people move out along the edge of civilization, into the shrub and chaparral areas, which in summer is as flammable as a box of matches. Then when a fire pops up, (it is not 'if' but 'when), they expect that the fire departments paid for by city-folk taxes, come to their aid. There is a bit of a tax revolt out here resulting in some privately owned fire organization being funded via homeowner associations



Must be a different world there, here the city-folks don't give a rip for the country folks, and wouldn't come to our aid if we asked. The FD district I live in is a valley 26 miles long by 5-6 miles wide, mostly woods. Not to say it's a poor area, lot of 5-7,000 sq ft homes in the trees protected by an all volunteer "unpaid" department that operates on an annual budget of less than $50k, and few grants here and there for equipment.


----------



## DonaldC

I do believe it is unethical to bait a wild animal for the sake of the shot. I say this because part of wildlife photography has do do with having the knowledge, experience, and patience to be able to capture an authentic shot of the animal in it's natural habitat. Baiting is tantamount to staging a shot for convenience and thus, can diminish the photographers reputation as a wildlife photographer. Moreover, over time, it may compromise the animal's skill and natural instincts to be able function well on its own as it was intended to do , thus posing a potential for harm to come to the animal, or people in its vicinity. I feel that is the ethical problem faced in the OP's question. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## snowbear

limr said:


> No, the article is specifically about photographers bringing mice, for example, to lure a bird of prey so they can get the shot.


Kind of like giving little kids cake and ice cream so you can photo the messy faces, isn't it?  Though, most of the raptors that I know are better behaved than the little kids that I know.


----------



## table1349

snowbear said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the article is specifically about photographers bringing mice, for example, to lure a bird of prey so they can get the shot.
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of like giving little kids cake and ice cream so you can photo the messy faces, isn't it?  Though, most of the raptors that I know are better behaved than the little kids that I know.
Click to expand...

You have discovered the secret to why Tigers sometimes eat their young.


----------



## snowbear

gryphonslair99 said:


> snowbear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the article is specifically about photographers bringing mice, for example, to lure a bird of prey so they can get the shot.
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of like giving little kids cake and ice cream so you can photo the messy faces, isn't it?  Though, most of the raptors that I know are better behaved than the little kids that I know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have discovered the secret to why Tigers sometimes eat their young.
Click to expand...

and Gerbils


----------



## chuasam

Braineack said:


> I can completely understand the position that baiting is unethical for _their_ publication...
> 
> just like war journalists shouldn't go out tossing grenades to get a few good action shots...


crap! i've been doing it all wrong then...


----------



## DarkShadow

Ok gerbils is ok with me,I had them as pets and they bit the crap out of me,If I was into birds when I had them I would have tossed them up to the hawks that visit my yard from time to time.


----------



## table1349

snowbear said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snowbear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the article is specifically about photographers bringing mice, for example, to lure a bird of prey so they can get the shot.
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of like giving little kids cake and ice cream so you can photo the messy faces, isn't it?  Though, most of the raptors that I know are better behaved than the little kids that I know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have discovered the secret to why Tigers sometimes eat their young.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and Gerbils
Click to expand...

Tigers don't bother eating Gerbils.  Well not unless they are at the Fair and they happen come across a Deep Fried Gerbil on a Stick stand.


----------



## table1349

Sometimes baiting is not only a good thing, it is the right thing to do.  We just got done baiting my neighbors back yard.  Yesterday one of the neighbors spotted a skunk wandering around in the neighbors back yard at 10:30 in the morning.  Skunks that are about at that time of day have usually either been chased from their den or more likely are diseased.  (rabies)  

Animal Control brought us the trap and we set it in a good spot in the neighbors back yard.  As for photos, well that will depend on which direction the wind is blowing when we catch the thing.


----------



## gckless

I haven't read the whole thread, but I think dependency has to come into play here. I think baiting once or twice in an area is probably ok to get a few shots, especially if it's local (stuff that grows or is found in that area), but you can not do it anywhere near as much as to let the animal get dependent on that food. This isn't the stance any public company or club or whatever can take though, since this is completely up to the intelligence of the shooter. A lot of us would have the tendency to say "just one more time will be fine", and it's probably not. All that said, I don't do it, nor will I. As with hunting, I kinda look down on those that do. Like, you're this much smarter and you can't figure out how to get to this animal without using what it needs to live to do it?


----------



## lisamombasa

I baited a young elephant with bananas once.he came very close to the vehicle and was calm and curious.but later i felt guilty as i know there are many poachers around and i wouldnt want an elephant aproaching a poachers vehicle believing he will get bananas
plus its risky too curiosity can quickly turn into agression especially if behaviour is incorectly interpreted.so i will surely not do it again.as for birds im two ways about it.i think if it does not alter their behaviour its alright.on the other side i think a wildlife shot taken of a wild bird shout exhibit it doing wild behaviour and not eating bird seed that was spread out for a photo.


----------

