Baited Nature Shots Duscussion

Anthony Medici wrote:

Kim wrote:Tony I agree with most of what you wrote except you seem to imply that it is all OK as the photographer is being smart at controlling the environment. I see no thought or concern for the wildlife in your drive to control the environment.

My personal approach is wildlife first, image second.

Going back to the original question about putting out food or pruning a twig, in what way are those bad for the wildlife?

At a local conservation area here in Ottawa, we had some nesting birds that provided good photo-ops.  An eastern screech owl that hung out in the same spot, in the open, for over a month, we assume a nest was nearby. It must have been the most photographed screech owl in town from morning to night. A couple of black-capped chickadee nests.  Downy woodpecker nest.  Northern flicker nest in the open.  And seconds from the Flickr nest was a pileated woodpecker nest. 

Some folks had watched the pileated build the cavity over the course of a few weeks. Nest hole was in the open except that a few branches with leaves on it were partially obscuring the top of the hole and sometimes more when the wind was blowing.  I was quite OK with that assuming the woodpeckers picked that spot to excavate the nest hole due to its foliage cover.

Then I heard some rumours that someone had broken off the branches that were in the way and others as well.  A wide flattened area was created near the nest tree in 2 spots. Now the nest hole was absolutely in the open with 2 vantage points.  It made for clear views of the birds as they perched outside the nest hole.  Not something I would have done.  Others reasoned that there are all manner of fallen over trees at this conservation area, so what is a few other branches. Many people knew who did it but few cared.  I did tell the person that the concern was the foliage over the nest hole provided some cover for the nesting birds. But he dismissed it.  In this case, the young pileated all fledged successfully.  Everyone got great photos without any branches in the way. 

OntPhoto wrote:

Anthony Medici wrote:

Kim wrote:Tony I agree with most of what you wrote except you seem to imply that it is all OK as the photographer is being smart at controlling the environment. I see no thought or concern for the wildlife in your drive to control the environment.

My personal approach is wildlife first, image second.

Going back to the original question about putting out food or pruning a twig, in what way are those bad for the wildlife?

At a local conservation area here in Ottawa, we had some nesting birds that provided good photo-ops.  An eastern screech owl that hung out in the same spot, in the open, for over a month, we assume a nest was nearby. It must have been the most photographed screech owl in town from morning to night. A couple of black-capped chickadee nests.  Downy woodpecker nest.  Northern flicker nest in the open.  And seconds from the Flickr nest was a pileated woodpecker nest. 

Some folks had watched the pileated build the cavity over the course of a few weeks. Nest hole was in the open except that a few branches with leaves on it were partially obscuring the top of the hole and sometimes more when the wind was blowing.  I was quite OK with that assuming the woodpeckers picked that spot to excavate the nest hole due to its foliage cover.

Then I heard some rumours that someone had broken off the branches that were in the way and others as well.  A wide flattened area was created near the nest tree in 2 spots. Now the nest hole was absolutely in the open with 2 vantage points.  It made for clear views of the birds as they perched outside the nest hole.  Not something I would have done.  Others reasoned that there are all manner of fallen over trees at this conservation area, so what is a few other branches. Many people knew who did it but few cared.  I did tell the person that the concern was the foliage over the nest hole provided some cover for the nesting birds. But he dismissed it.  In this case, the young pileated all fledged successfully.  Everyone got great photos without any branches in the way. 

Personally I think that is completely irresponsible behaviour. Those sort of actions put the birds potentially at risk, for what a photo!!

Anthony Medici wrote:The easiest way to control what is in the image is to pick the location that the image will be taken at.

An unsupportable assertion. There are many ways to control what is in the image. There is no single, reliable, consistent "easiest" way.

Anthony Medici wrote: Nature photography is no different in this than any other type of photography.

Nature photography is very different from many forms of photography. Try to tell a wild wolf to smile or turn it's head to the side. Or back up a yard or 2.

Anthony Medici wrote:Location and timing are, usually, key. Yet for this discussion, baiting is used as a curse word of what is bad to do.

Location and timing are both intrinsically very different from baiting a subject.

Intention matters with what we do. Baiting is much more a function of me controlling and coercing a subject. Me showing up at a river where eagles like to fish is more about time controlling myself, rather than the subject.

Anthony Medici wrote:Yet it is a method used to help pick the location and the timing

No .. it's a method used to help coerce and move your subject.

Anthony Medici wrote: ... and I will continue to see them as the same thing.

Which doesn't, at all, make them the same thing.

Anthony Medici wrote: It also seems that the photographer doing the baiting is bad yet would seem to allow other nonnatural situations to be ok. (Like shooting eagles in the winter by a darn which keeps the river from freezing over and allows the eagles to fish where they wouldn't be able to otherwise. The photographer took no part in building or controlling the darn yet takes advantage of it to take the images of eagles.)

Baiting certainly CAN be "bad". You know that as well as I do. Showing up to photograph an eagle or a bear at a place they go for food is very different to me feeding an animal. There's a good reason why most state Fish & Game dept's don't allow people to feed bears, yet don't disallow bears from walking down to a river and catching a fish. Your argument is that these 2 processes are no different from one another .. which is odd, at best.

Anthony Medici wrote:True, there are different types of baiting but that discussion doesn't say that one form of baiting is worse than another. It is only saying that baiting is bad and the image shouldn't be rated as highly which is nonsense. We've run similar topics through with "captive" animals too.

I agree completely that there are gray areas, and that some forms of baiting are far more benign than others .. but its also equally nonsense to go all the way in the other direction, which you're arguing, and saying that baiting is "good" and shouldn't affect how we rate or judge images at all ... That's simply a ridiculous viewpoint and one that hides itself from reality.

Look at how quickly the bar was raised for eagle photos once everyone discovered Homer. Anyone who pretends the standard for what might make a good eagle image didn't dramatically change is fooling themselves.

Anthony Medici wrote:If we take this to a logical conclusion, any nature images taken in an environment that was changed by man would be considered baited.

Baiting isn't simply altering the environment; why do you keep suggesting that's all it is?

Anthony Medici wrote:Yes that's worth repeating, the environment was change, so the image used a baiting technique. All backyards, all planted trees, all planted shrubs, all diverted water sources, etc are all methods of baiting. Whether the photograph cause those events or whether he is simply taking advantage of it has no concern to me. It is still baiting.

you've just suggested that hanging a backdrop behind a model is 'baiting'. This is incorrect.

Anthony Medici wrote:Simply put, I don't think that providing a food source is a reason to disqualify the resulting image or less then value of the resulting image.

That's probably up to the camera club in question .. but providing a food source to capture an image of a subject certainly CAN lessen the value of a resulting image. That doesn't make it "bad" ... you seem to be the only one using that description though.

Anthony Medici wrote: And trying to do so, by putting strict rules on what "type" of baiting isn't allowed, is what generates controversy within the group. Notice I didn't say that you could restrict all types of baiting since I believe, as I've written above, that there are many types of things that I would consider baiting and unnatural.

Well, clearly by not putting ANY rules in place it's generated controversy as well, hence the rules exist.

Part of the problem here comes not from the photography itself, but from the judging of photography; if we're going to judge any thing, or have any kind of competition, rules are set in place to define parameters, etc. Those are often quite arbitrary. An athlete races 100m but not 102m. They're allowed some benefits of training and foods and supplements and not others. Photography competitions are no different really .. the hosts set parameters by which they judge the merit of the photo. They don't (usually) include paintings, for example, though some might be very fine images indeed.

Cheers

Carl

Very few images motivate me anymore. They are all so gussied up I just don't give them the weight of a great image that I did say back in the seventies. Everything, or at least the major majority, is fake, or at least embellished to the point I am saturated with it all. But when I see an image nowadays that is good, AND, I know it is pure unadulterated image, that image evokes a real power on my senses. Something about credibility or honesty or reality or something like that.

Not saying the other images don't do something for me, and not saying I don't and will continue to embellish myself, just sayin when I find myself looking at a real and natural image I give it at least my undivided attention, plus reserve a special consideration for it that I do not allocate for the computer generated images.*

So do what you want one and all, just remember too much of a good thing begins to come back on you, it sort of diminishes.....


But this whole discussion, at least so far, leaves out what is way more important, and that's that baiting affects the wildlife themselves. Not getting into whether that could be good or bad, simply the total fact is, anything we do as a non natural world living entity affects that natural world.

Go with me a minute:
Say your sitting on your lazy boy or whatever, and your watching the golden state warriors beat the cavaliers in the 6th game of the playoffs, and suddenly some guy you never saw before, opens your front door and looks in. He doesn't come in, he doesn't have a gun or anything, and doesn't look threatening...he just looks in at you. Now isn't that a bit unsettling and don't you loose track of what you were doing and aren't you going to miss some fantastic plays ?? Now what if the guy comes in and leaves you a hamburger? Are you going to eat it? Are you to trust it? What if it's poisoned? What if it's dog food? Worse yet-- cat food....

What if he then helps himself to a beer out of the fridge? Kisses your wife who is making diner. And then walks out...and as he leaves pulls out his camera phone and snaps a picture of you. Now wouldn't you say this man has intruded, has violated, has interrupted, has taken for granted, has affected your life, has changed your thinking, has made you feel insecure, scared, angry....because this man upset the natural order of your particular little world you were living in??

OK same for the animals. We don't know it cause we don't listen. They can't speak English so we need to listen harder if we want to hear. One cannot even walk up to the edge of the woods and look in without affecting that which is in those woods, the same as when that guy opens the front door and looks in your house affected you..

Our mere presence, let alone all the other things we do, totally affects wildlife. And that includes baiting of any kind. Now it just could be that baiting in a certain situation could be good maybe and certainly there are certain situations where it could be bad, and some where it is neither, but one thing is for certain....there is not a single person here that can state in an unqualified way what the full consequences are, or would be, as far as to the adverse affects of their actions if they pursued baiting. Period. Universally for certain when you we bait we affect nature from it's natural course.

I really don't care at all what one does with their images, if they are baited or not or whatever..as far as the image is concerned. Those overworked set ups, over cooked saturation's, cloned to death antiseptic scenes, perfectly in focused impossible depth of field, transplanted parts from god knows where..... all start to swing more and more towards being about the person doing the deeds, and less and less about nature, the supposed object of our love. This includes baiting. It's the same old philosophy of the "Me". "Me" more important than anything else. It's about "Me".

Yeah I'm guilty too. But it is the truth. I'm not sitting in judgement of others, it's just an honest assessment. It's a bit of a trap really...

But surely no single or small group of photogs here is even qualified to make full judgments on whether baiting is ok or not at least as far as the natural world is concerned.

Contests are a trap and an extension of the "Me" problem the way I see it, so really they are not in the interest of the subject enough to warrant their legitimacy. Like everything they have some value but not enough to overcome the detriments, in my opinion.

Kim you just keep speaking your mind dear...


Paul

There are several situations that could effect evaluation in competitions whether or not they are "baited".

Photographers living in northern parts of North America have to deal with birds that are more difficult to photograph than those visiting or living in Florida, for instance.  Does the visitor's photograph get a higher or lower evaluation?

Does the person who lives in an area and goes out every day get a higher or lower evaluation than someone visiting for a short period of time whether or not the subject is baited.

The person who goes on a photography tour with a leader who knows the area has a better chance of getting a great photograph than the person who goes with an inexperienced leader who has not done their homework or has never been to the area and photographed there themselves.

I have bird feeders out.  Some years the Hairy Woodpeckers bring their young in to show them one place to find food.  One year I calculated that I had 150 opportunities to get a great photograph of the adult passing a seed to the young one.  I got exactly two photographs of that behaviour.  Neither one of them were great photographs.  It wasn't for lack of trying and baiting that I didn't get the photograph.  The birds did not perch in photographable locations that season. 

What is more highly valued?  Time and effort?  It could take years to get the perfect set-up to yield a great photograph if you have to wait for the berry bushes you planted to grow or the water feature you put in to look natural.

Should there be a higher value put on a great chance photograph than a long-planned one?

I am just pointing out that "baiting" isn't the only consideration that could be used for evaluation.

The value of a photograph is determined by how good is the image; which may be a subjective value from the observer. This is not public school where you get an A for effort. If you object to the ethics of the photographer's technique that is a judgement of the photographer and should not affect the judgement of a work's quality. Set-ups often have a controlled composition, so if neat is not your taste and you prefer a chaos or ruffled style then that is your subjective valuation, and should not be a judgement against the photographer.

walkinman wrote:

Anthony Medici wrote:The easiest way to control what is in the image is to pick the location that the image will be taken at.

An unsupportable assertion. There are many ways to control what is in the image. There is no single, reliable, consistent "easiest" way.

Figuring out how to reply to a multi part quoted comment is much harder than what we are talking about!

The examples for the club seemed to be around bird photography, not mammals and the most consistent baiting situation I know of is to build a blind and put a pond in front of it. Then clear out the foliage behind the water and leave all the side foliage in place. Now I've picked the location I want to take the image. At the edge of the water in one direction from the blind. I'm using water (or possibly food) as bait to bring in the birds and smaller mammals. What part of this isn't easier and more consistent than using a random water hole where you happen to have the correct amount of cleared foliage in a direction that you plan to shoot. It certainly works for the intended subjects well enough.

walkinman wrote:

Anthony Medici wrote: Nature photography is no different in this than any other type of photography.

Nature photography is very different from many forms of photography. Try to tell a wild wolf to smile or turn it's head to the side. Or back up a yard or 2.

Have you ever photographed a show. Any type of theater production, concert, ballet, opera, etc has exactly the same problem as photographing your wolf. Live event photography and nature photography have a lot in common. You can't control the lights. You can't control the subjects. And timing is key.

walkinman wrote:

Anthony Medici wrote:Location and timing are, usually, key. Yet for this discussion, baiting is used as a curse word of what is bad to do.

Location and timing are both intrinsically very different from baiting a subject.

Intention matters with what we do. Baiting is much more a function of me controlling and coercing a subject. Me showing up at a river where eagles like to fish is more about time controlling myself, rather than the subject.

Having someone build a darn in the river that you happen to use is certainly baiting. The Haines Alaska thing was a bit of a push and I'll concede that point though humans ultimately controls the amount of Salmon available as well as whether the eagles are allowed to fish there.

walkinman wrote:

Anthony Medici wrote:Yet it is a method used to help pick the location and the timing

No .. it's a method used to help coerce and move your subject.

It depends on the type of baiting you are taking about. With calls, you are trying to coerce and move the subject. In laying food, less so since it is ineffective unless you can then hide and not disturb the food source. Feed enough and the bird consider it an easy source of food. And nothing in that force the bird to decide to use that food source.

walkinman wrote:

Anthony Medici wrote: It also seems that the photographer doing the baiting is bad yet would seem to allow other nonnatural situations to be ok. (Like shooting eagles in the winter by a darn which keeps the river from freezing over and allows the eagles to fish where they wouldn't be able to otherwise. The photographer took no part in building or controlling the darn yet takes advantage of it to take the images of eagles.)

Baiting certainly CAN be "bad". You know that as well as I do. Showing up to photograph an eagle or a bear at a place they go for food is very different to me feeding an animal. There's a good reason why most state Fish & Game dept's don't allow people to feed bears, yet don't disallow bears from walking down to a river and catching a fish. Your argument is that these 2 processes are no different from one another .. which is odd, at best.

The issue isn't feeding the bears, it is figuring out how to not make them a nuisance when people don't feed them after they have been fed for a while. That is why parks with animals that allow people to drive through where the animals are fed are so dangerous. The animals might consider that the humans in the cars will feed them too. Yellowstone had this issue with a number of animals until they stopped the intentional and unintentional feeding. They still have general problems with human stupidity though.

But the original poster seemed to imply that it was birds being fed and landscaping was being done to help the image. Again, as long as the land is private and the feeding is consistent, I don't think it is any worse than the land being private and is hostile to birds in general. (Like having a few dozen cats around the location!)

walkinman wrote:

Anthony Medici wrote:True, there are different types of baiting but that discussion doesn't say that one form of baiting is worse than another. It is only saying that baiting is bad and the image shouldn't be rated as highly which is nonsense. We've run similar topics through with "captive" animals too.

I agree completely that there are gray areas, and that some forms of baiting are far more benign than others .. but its also equally nonsense to go all the way in the other direction, which you're arguing, and saying that baiting is "good" and shouldn't affect how we rate or judge images at all ... That's simply a ridiculous viewpoint and one that hides itself from reality.

Look at how quickly the bar was raised for eagle photos once everyone discovered Homer. Anyone who pretends the standard for what might make a good eagle image didn't dramatically change is fooling themselves.

Homer is a good example of just how stupid some people can be. But Homer started with baiting and simply increased the level of types of baiting being used. I think overall, what Jean did with the feeding was generally good. And initially, most of the photographers understood restraint and consequences of their actions. And let's just say some didn't. The bar did change yet the bar changes when no baiting is involved also. That's the fickle nature of photography in general.

walkinman wrote:

Anthony Medici wrote:If we take this to a logical conclusion, any nature images taken in an environment that was changed by man would be considered baited.

Baiting isn't simply altering the environment; why do you keep suggesting that's all it is?

If I change the level of food, it is baiting. If I change the access to water, it is baiting. Many of the things that happen every day around where most people live do both of these things a lot. Sometimes it drive the animals away. Sometimes it attracts them because others have driven them away. All of it start with changing the environment. Humans change the environment constantly so I contend that it all baiting to different degrees. 

walkinman wrote:

Anthony Medici wrote:Yes that's worth repeating, the environment was change, so the image used a baiting technique. All backyards, all planted trees, all planted shrubs, all diverted water sources, etc are all methods of baiting. Whether the photograph cause those events or whether he is simply taking advantage of it has no concern to me. It is still baiting.

you've just suggested that hanging a backdrop behind a model is 'baiting'. This is incorrect.

Getting to animal to stand in front of the backdrop implies baiting. Or an incredible amount of luck. The problem with banning all baiting from the contest described is that you are highly rewarding luck rather than good planning. That seems counter productive to keeping people interested in photography. Better to show what good or bad baiting is as examples rather than ban one type over random approaches.

walkinman wrote:

Anthony Medici wrote:Simply put, I don't think that providing a food source is a reason to disqualify the resulting image or less then value of the resulting image.

That's probably up to the camera club in question .. but providing a food source to capture an image of a subject certainly CAN lessen the value of a resulting image. That doesn't make it "bad" ... you seem to be the only one using that description though.

I use making it bad since it lessens the value of the image. Isn't that bad? Saying you can't do it implies it is bad. So I'll use that term.
Yet lessen the value for who? In 200 years, though I doubt anyone will be around then, who will care if an image was baited or not. 

walkinman wrote:

Anthony Medici wrote: And trying to do so, by putting strict rules on what "type" of baiting isn't allowed, is what generates controversy within the group. Notice I didn't say that you could restrict all types of baiting since I believe, as I've written above, that there are many types of things that I would consider baiting and unnatural.

Well, clearly by not putting ANY rules in place it's generated controversy as well, hence the rules exist.

Part of the problem here comes not from the photography itself, but from the judging of photography; if we're going to judge any thing, or have any kind of competition, rules are set in place to define parameters, etc. Those are often quite arbitrary. An athlete races 100m but not 102m. They're allowed some benefits of training and foods and supplements and not others. Photography competitions are no different really .. the hosts set parameters by which they judge the merit of the photo. They don't (usually) include paintings, for example, though some might be very fine images indeed.

But the argument seems to be that it wasn't fair to people that didn't do that because to get an image as good took either too much time or too much luck. The idea of a club in my mind is to get people interested in photography. And providing methods to take consistent images. If the club is only shooting nature then they need to consider setting up their own blinds to allow their members to shoot and equal the footing.

Stephen Feingold wrote:The value of a photograph is determined by how good is the image; which may be a subjective value from the observer. This is not public school where you get an A for effort. If you object to the ethics of the photographer's technique that is a judgement of the photographer and should not affect the judgement of a work's quality. Set-ups often have a controlled composition, so if neat is not your taste and you prefer a chaos or ruffled style then that is your subjective valuation, and should not be a judgement against the photographer.

Stephen I think this is fine for a photo in general  but don't you think a contest IS all about getting an "A" for effort?? Certainly it would be unfair in a contest to have a very unlevel playing field that gives great advantage to one individual over another.  Being a contest changes the focus from the image to the person making the image which is why I stated earlier that they don't hold a lot of value for me personally.


Paul

This being a predominantly nature forum, I am saddened and actually shocked by some people's views on baiting and their need to get that perfect shot without concerns of their actions. I see the same thing occur in landscape photography where people will trample some very sensitive area to get into a better vantage point for their shot.

I find these actions very selfish and total disregard to the environment they are trying to capture.

Tony your points make sense, but don't you think you getting into specific situations and basically looking at aspects more or less with tunnel vision where as Carl is generalizing and taking in the whole, sometimes bigger more important picture? I think we can all find very particular instances that refute a general argument of any kind, all day long, everyday, but does that negate the underlying truths?

I think all humans want structure and to get it they want a definitive answer. It's either this or that, yeas or nays, black or white. The reality and truth is always in between those diametrically opposed notions. The gray areas, the compromises, the how you look at it views, the what context are we talking. Carl is correct I believe that baiting can be good, can be bad, and can be a bit of either. This thread is trying to mix up all those in a blender and seeking a clear cut answer. Doesn't work that way I'm afraid. This is why it's better NOT to bait. That, again is not saying it's BAD to bait, it's just better in the big picture view not to bait. I certainly would not say it's equal to asses a dam's ability to draw in bald eagles with a photographer setting out some bait at a particular location. The dam scenario is one in which the animal(s) have had years to adjust to, as well as other species, and it does not appear to the animals as a hand of man structure at that point. Placing bait out spontaneously simply affords no consideration for all the possibilities and consequences of the pressure put on that local environment. A cascade of events may ensue that completely results in a possible very unintended result for example.

My only real point is that photographers, even naturalists, are not consciously aware of every little detail that can follow a disturbance in general and baiting action in specific.

Baiting can have an animal hanging around much longer in the year than it otherwise would, can lead to many other prey species showing up with the pressures that entire environment experiences that until that point was strategically balanced and structured by the host species at a time where beforehand it assessed there was no prey species. Babies in nests may wind up as snacks for just one example. Set a bird feeder up as anyone knows who has one, and you'll wind up giving the sharp shinned and coopers hawks a much better opportunity to snatch a hungry sparrow or cardinal that just might be supporting a nest of babies somewhere. Who knows and how can anyone with certainty predict. We can't.
There's too much going on that is out of our hands if we wish to maintain a natural balance. Comparing things as trees and dams and anything else that an environment has had years to adapt to and develop alternate survival strategies to, surely, is not on the same playing field as someone doing an impromptu set up or baiting session.


Paul

Each of us is entitled to our own opinions on this subject. IMO some posters' logic, carried forward, would require that all zoos in the world be closed, and all man made items that animals now use in their habitats, like power lines, barb wire, dock posts, man made lakes, etc be removed from any habitat they now use or wish wish to use. The natural order includes both man and animals. Coexistence is possible and required.
Joe

I think there is no clear and definite answer. It depends upon what we as individuals feel is right or wrong within the confines of our own moral boundaries.

Instinctively we all know what is real 'baiting' and what is not. For argument's sake we can go on about everything that humans do resulting in a change in our environment or the habitat of an animal, but in truth we also know that there are human activities that specifically affect the life of animals directly.

Zoos are a classic example. Granted they are not created for photography but most people these days who visit a zoo certainly take pictures - I used to make a trip twice a month to the local zoo because that was the only way I could see such beautiful creatures and photograph them.

Are zoos a good thing? Certainly not from the animal's perspective, but then we wouldn't dream of closing them down.

Is a circus a good thing? Again, not for the poor elephant or tiger who is goaded with sharp hooks and cattle prods until he learns to jump through that hoop.

Is a backyard feeder a good thing? for the lonely old woman who enjoys the company of the birds that visit, it certainly is, and in some ways for the birds struggling to sustain themselves through a tough winter it is too. Yes, there may be a hawk lurking nearby and the birds become dependent upon the constant supply of food, but if the food is always there - both for the birds and the hawk - is that a problem?

What then is the issue? Putting out bait in a remote part of the wilderness if you know there is a much sought after bird there, so you can get a photo and win a local contest? Taking a picture of a captive animal in a game farm with much less discomfort than you otherwise would in its natural habitat?

Technically (and photographically) speaking, how is a photo taken under such conditions different from one without any bait or without affecting the animal's freedom or behavior?

We all have our own moral compass and know when we have done something 'wrong'. I would not submit a photo taken when the animal was in any way hurt/imprisoned/tortured in order to take such an image. I think we would all feel the same - I hope. 

If a photo was taken by luring the animal out into the open by offering food, and yet it was not physically harmed, would it be OK? That is where we all differ. 

Pradeep

Bobjb wrote:     I would like to hear your opinions regarding competition scoring of nature images when they are captured in baited situations. I belong to a photo club that has a lot of nature photographers.

How about we get back to the original question. Personally I have never submitted a single image to any contest, but I would assume that any contest would have the rules specified for submissions. If they did not clearly state that images should not be baited or any kind of setup, then I would think it should be okay to submit any image that looks natural and like it was taken in nature. My hopes would be that any nature photo contest would have a category for non-setup or true nature images, and another for images taken at setups or baited.

These debates have been going on for decades, and I can assure you each side will never agree. I can also assure you that all the baited or setup photographers are never going to change or stop. The pursuit of artistically pleasing and perfect images will always continue. Just do what you feel comfortable with (assuming no harm to the subjects) on your own and enjoy photography.

FWIW, I am pretty much totally in agreement with Tony on this one.

In answer to paul:
I think a photo contest is about selecting the best image in the subjective view of the judges. It is purely about excellence.If it is about selecting the best photographer, then they all should be submitting an image of the same subject to see who did the best study. A grade for effort belongs in schooling or training to reward for improvement. In a blind contest you do not know the contestants nor what effort or improvement was involved. A very simple subject and composition may involve more work to accomplish than something more complex that was just luck of happenstance. Nobody would know this unless they were there to see the process.

.

Tim, Here are selected portion of rules from some of the major Nature wildlife photo contests. Only the British Natural History Museum rules mention the word "live bait". I am assuming that dead bait and seed is allowed. To read the rules in their entirety, look at the links provided.

Some of these contests allow practices I do not agree with, but that did not stop me from participating in them.

Joe

Natures Best:
https://www.naturesbestphotography.com/ ... elines.php

IMPORTANT NOTE: All photos must accurately reflect the subject matter as it appeared in the viewfinder. Nothing should be added to an image, and aside from dust spots, nothing should be taken away. Normal processing of RAW image files and minor adjustments to color and contrast are acceptable, as is minimal cropping. HDR and focus stacking are permitted as long as all manipulation is disclosed upon entry. No watermarks or text on photos. Entrants must not infringe on the rights of any other photographer or person, or submit images that involve the willful harassment of wildlife or damage to the environment by the photographer. Failure to comply with all of the contest provisions will lead to the disqualification of your entry.

Texas—Coastal Bend Wildlife Photo Contest

http://www.wildlifeinfocus.org/pdf/2015 ... sFINAL.pdf

16. ETHIC STATEMENT:
The first priority of the contest is conservation of wildlife and its critical habitat. Contestants must minimize disturbance of wildlife and habitat. Welfare of the subject is the foremost consideration.
17. ETHICS:
A. TREATMENT OF ANIMALS
No photographs of tame or caged animals will be allowed. No animal may be trapped, restrained, or controlled using methods that could potentially injure or cause undue stress. Reptile, amphibian, insect, and arachnid subjects may be carefully restrained but must be released where they were found unless there is a danger to people. If the subject is dangerous to humans, it may be released where risk is minimized. The subject must be released unharmed. (Birds cannot be trapped or restrained.) No animal may be transported from outside the entered property to be photographed on that property during the contest period, even if it might be found in the wild on that property. Judges will be asked to severely reduce the score or disqualify photographs of animals that appear to be stressed.

Texas-Images for Conservation Fund

http://imagesforconservation.org/pro-am ... -am-rules/

ICF requires all Participants to use extreme caution to protect the health and survival of the subjects being photographed. Under no circumstance is any animal to be harmed in any way for the purposes of photography. All participants are specifically prohibited from handling any dangerous animals including but not limited to poisonous snakes, spiders, carnivores, or any animal that might be capable of harming any person.

Any images of wildlife species that all judges agree look stressed will be disqualified.

Images of animals subjected to restraint of any kind shall be labeled as controlled subjects as part of the submission. This will not reduce any scores unless the subject is obviously stressed.

Small Mammals, Reptiles, Amphibians, Fish and Invertebrates may be carefully restrained for purposes of taking the photograph, provided the subjects are released unharmed and where they were found. Birds and larger (larger than rats) Mammals may not be trapped or restrained.

Reptiles and Amphibians must be maintained at ambient (between 70 & 85 degrees) temperatures. No artificial freezing of any animal is allowed. Cooling is allowed to a low temperature of 70 degrees only.

All restrained subjects must be released. All local, state, and federal laws pertaining to wildlife must be observed at all times and take precedent over tournament rules.

British National History Museum:

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/wpy/compe ... index.html

2. CONDITIONS OF ENTRY TO THE COMPETITION
5) Entrants are not permitted to submit stills and/or moving images that:
(i) feature farm animals, family pets, and/or cultivated plants;
(ii) portray captive or restrained animals, animal models, and/or any other animal being exploited for profit unless for the purposes of reporting on a specific issue regarding the treatment of animals by a third party;
(iii) have been captured using live bait;
(iv) have been awarded any prize, recommendation or other award in any national or international competition at the time of entry.

4. ETHICS
(1) Any breach of the Competition’s Ethics below will constitute a breach of the Rules.
(2) Entrants are required to report on the natural world in a way that is both creative and honest:
(i) entries must not deceive the viewer or attempt to disguise and/or misrepresent
the reality of nature;
(ii) caption information supplied must be complete, true and accurate.
(3) Entrants must not do anything to injure or distress any animals or destroy their habitat in an attempt to secure an image.
(4) Entrants are responsible for ensuring full compliance with any applicable national or international legislation and for securing any relevant permits that may be required (which, in the case of human portraits and recordings, will include the subject’s permission) and which must be made available on request by the Owners.
(5) If the Owners suspect that an entry has been achieved through cruel or unethical practices, including the use of live bait, the entry will be disqualified and the Owners reserve the right to report the entrant to the applicable authorities.

Bobjb wrote:     I would like to hear your opinions regarding competition scoring of nature images when they are captured in baited situations. I belong to a photo club that has a lot of nature photographers. Our members have captured some wonderful wildlife images however it is known that many of the better images were taken in a baited situation where wildlife was attracted to the photo location by the placement of food.  Food is strategically placed to attract wildlife to come to specific locations. These locations are selected to optimize the likely position of an animal in a setting that provides ideal background conditions absent of distracting features.I realize that people offering wildlife photo courses often use this technique so their customers will have better opportunities to get some ouitstanding shots.  The question is should these 'set-up' nature shots be regarded on an even scoring field as nature shots captured in a non-baited or truly natural environment? 

Going back to the OP, there is another slant on this.  As a past chairman of a local camera club, and a past Sussex Photographic Chairman, albeit circa 1994, (not (1904!), there was an element in clubs that eventually caused me to drift away.

That is the "handicap " club.   There was and probably remains always, an element in groups or society that mutter about  "unfairness" and improper advantages, and rather bring their standards upwards, prefer to strive to bring others down.  Is that the case here?  no idea..  Just throwing a pebble in the pond.  

Me, I shamelessly bait birds.  Well, actually, the proper description is feed birds in my garden all year round. I enjoy seeing them and occasionally take photos of them.  End of story there.  I have iBird which I use as a research tool, long ago understanding it can potentially stress the local birds, so stopped playing their songs.   Will not support or condone that element in society that compromises the welfare of our wildlife, but recognise they are there:  

I  DO however, condone and support Antoni's first two posts....  (the following posts start to get convoluted and for me, make me want to lose the will to live).

Personally, I would like to see images remembered for their effectiveness as an image, such as Jim Brandenburg's Wolf peeping behind a tree.   

Thinking of Wolves, I know a place where I can get a shot of one jumping over a gate.   That might do well... 

david fletcher wrote:

Personally, I would like to see images remembered for their effectiveness as an image, such as Jim Brandenburg's Wolf peeping behind a tree.   

Thinking of Wolves, I know a place where I can get a shot of one jumping over a gate.   That might do well... 

Ouch. That seemed like yesterday even though it happened many years ago.  But speaking about wolves, there is a very good location 40 minutes east of Ottawa that just about everybody locally goes to photograph wolves.  If you know any local photographers from Ottawa or nearby and they're photographing wolves, there is a 99 % certainty it was taken at Parc Omega in Montebello, Quebec.  They have Artic and Grey wolves here in captivity.

Although it's a nature preserve, the wolves do run freely behind a fence, breed there in the open behind that fence and are fed by the owners on a regular basis.

The great thing is you get to photograph wolves (adults and young) up close and interacting with each other with a 4 season (open 12 months of the year) environment and background.  Some do throw pieces of hotdogs and chicken over the fence to get the wolves to react and go after the food, which works well from what I have heard.  Some who post such photos leave out that it was taken in captivity.  A lot of publications (books, calendars, etc.) just want a photo of a wolf to illustrate something and do not ask so no need to tell in such instances.

One can always call the park staff to find out when the wolves are in their best coat or when they have new young to time your visit.

http://www.parcomega.ca/en/

photoman4343 wrote:Each of us is entitled to our own opinions on this subject. IMO some posters' logic, carried forward, would require that all zoos in the world be closed, and all man made items that animals now use in their habitats, like power lines, barb wire, dock posts, man made lakes, etc be removed from any habitat they now use or wish wish to use.  The natural order includes both man and animals. Coexistence is possible and required.
Joe

Joe you don't think there are some things we  do that are absolutely essential for survival and a lot of others that are frivolous, selfish, self grandizing and the two are very much quite different because of the motivation behind them?? Should we allow off roaders to chew up everything ? Should we put power lines, barb wire, dock posts, man made lakes every where? Obviously your taking the argument to  the extreme where really the argument is about the unnecessary exploitation and over kill on certain actions or endeavors and the damage caused by those who don't  care  about  anything but  their own way.

Let’s face it, wildlife “photography” has come a long way since Erwin and Peggy Bauer were publishing their photos in Outdoor Life and Field and Stream (and I’m old enough to remember wishing I could do that!)  So has everything else.  Technology has outpaced us all.
In 1981 I went to Denali National Park with my son for two weeks.  I had a Canon F-1 and a Canon 400mm f6.3 lens.  People stopped me to ask about the lens, amazed at its length.  Today the tour busses bristle with teen-agers with 600mm Canons and Nikons.  No one looks twice.  
My first trip to Yellowstone in 1977  I was virtually alone in most parts of the park.  Recollections of photographing a bull moose in a meadow off the road with no one in sight.  Today you find the animals by the number of cars lined up and the line of 500, 600 and 800mm lenses trained on them.  And there’s no going back.
In 1993 I went to the Serengeti on a photo tour.  There were 8 photographers in 3 vehicles and it was rare to come across another vehicle except at the lodges or where there was a known kill.  In 2012 I went to Kruger National Park and it looked like Yellowstone.
There are 46 million birders in the U.S. who spend $2.2 billion just on bird food for their home feeders.  Obviously it’s increased bird populations, especially in urban areas, but it also promotes the passage of disease through crowding at feeding sites.  Bad or good?   Should I not take photos at my feeders?  You decide.
Many failing cattle ranches, especially in SE Texas, have remained open lands by converting from predominately cattle ranching to promoting bird photography through installation of watering sites and blinds.  The birds are wild…but certainly attracted (and partially dependent) on the feeding and water (but so were the cattle!)  Unethical?  Not in my book as the lands remain in a semi-natural state.
I have a long-time colleague with whom I began my photographic hobby with.  He HATES digital and, having lost his film equipment in a fire, has been forced to now use it.  But, he refuses to use any processing software --says it’s unethical-- and his images show it.  I wonder if Ansel Adams would have used photoshop?  He certainly didn’t mind using the available processing equipment available at that time.
To argue if photography of birds at feeders is ethical seems to be like arguing if air bags in cars are ethical or should people be allowed to use freeze-dried food while climbing M.t. Everest.  We know there’s a both positive and negative aspects of each but it is today’s world and we’re unlikely to go backwards until global warming persists and the water reaches our knees.
As a biologist I hate the way our natural world has changed in my lifetime.  I’m lucky enough to have lived during the good times when being alone in the wilds was the rule, not the exception.  But, my back and knees won’t let me ride a horse or climb a cliff anymore so I’m content to get my images of birds at the sites where they are attracted.
Dean Carrier
P.S.  This is not to advocate photography of captive animals…I do find that to be unethical.

Dean a lot of what you say is true, the people population is expanding and we have an obligation to our fellow critters to make as little impact as we can. There are ways to help, you were at one of those sites recently where ECAS put in and maintain the guzzler where no water exists which allows for critters to thrive. Many things can be done that can benefit wildlife and at the same further our hobby. Just don't expect others to do your work for you (not personally), pick a project and have a positive impact.