« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 34 posts | 
by OntPhoto on Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:02 pm
User avatar
OntPhoto
Forum Contributor
Posts: 7039
Joined: 9 Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario. Canada.
Apparently a photo of a snowy owl won the  Assignment #347:  Birds in Flight.  While some cloning was detected, mouse foot prints were still visible in the snow indicating a store bought mouse was used as wild mice tend to not run on top of the snow.  Survival instincts mean wild mice run underneath snow for cover.

Magazine takes stand against baited wildlife images


Last edited by OntPhoto on Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
 

by WDCarrier on Wed Nov 28, 2018 1:39 am
User avatar
WDCarrier
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1652
Joined: 15 Mar 2012
Location: Eureka, California
I'm in general agreement on the use of tame mouse (even captured wild mice) on owls or putting out carcasses for large predators but I can't really tell you why because I wonder where and who gets to draw the line between aspects of "baiting." Isn't a simple bird feeder baiting? How about placing flowers on raised holders for hummingbird to come in for shots? Most of the well known locations for birds photography in the Arizona, Texas, Florida, Central and South America put out chicken parts, fruit feeders, seed feeders, water drips, etc. to attract birds close to blinds or lodges. Many of our better submissions are from such sites; many of our members regularly use them. As none of these are natural, aren't they all some form of baiting?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning them, I regularly use them myself. But, I can't help but asking...who gets to determine what is "okay" baiting and what is not? If OP follows their published policy as it is written they'd better be ready to eliminate a good portion of the images they formerly published (and a good many of our better bird photographers).
[font=Helvetica, sans-serif]“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” MLK[/font]
 

by OntPhoto on Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:48 am
User avatar
OntPhoto
Forum Contributor
Posts: 7039
Joined: 9 Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario. Canada.
WDCarrier wrote:I'm in general agreement on the use of tame mouse (even captured wild mice) on owls or putting out carcasses for large predators but I can't really tell you why because I wonder where and who gets to draw the line between aspects of "baiting."  Isn't a simple bird feeder baiting?  How about placing flowers on raised holders for hummingbird to come in for shots?  Most of the well known locations for birds photography in the Arizona, Texas, Florida, Central and South America put out chicken parts, fruit feeders, seed feeders, water drips, etc. to attract birds close to blinds or lodges.  Many of our better submissions are from such sites; many of our members regularly use them.  As none of these are natural, aren't they all some form of baiting?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning them, I regularly use them myself.  But, I can't help but asking...who gets to determine what is "okay" baiting and what is not?  If OP follows their published policy as it is written they'd better be ready to eliminate a good portion of the images they formerly published (and a good many of our better bird photographers).
I take no sides on this.  The magazine in question is kind of late to the game.  There has been a push or trend over the past several years toward more naturally occurring images especially with respects to owl photography as baited images have become so commonplace.  The subject of ethics has come up in various articles and debates numerous times.  It didn't help that a well-known photographer was charged with the harassment of an endangered bird species.  That and public pressure toward more ethically obtained images have pushed well-known publications to take a more public stand on the matter.  

PS.  In Ontario you need a permit to capture wild mice in the wild.  
 

by Andrew_5488 on Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:37 am
Andrew_5488
Forum Contributor
Posts: 390
Joined: 15 Feb 2012
Location: NY
OntPhoto wrote:Apparently a photo of a snowy owl won the  Assignment #347:  Birds in Flight.  While some cloning was detected, mouse foot prints were still visible in the snow indicating a store bought mouse was used as wild mice tend to not run on top of the snow.  Survival instincts mean wild mice run underneath snow for cover.

Magazine takes stand against baited wildlife images
About time.
 

by Craig Lipski on Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:52 am
User avatar
Craig Lipski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4792
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Location: The bustling metropolis of Fowlerville, Michigan, and the Texas Lower Rio Grande Valley
Member #:00495
This is an old controversy that we won’t solve here, (not that it’s not worth thinking about or discussing.). I remember a very similar discussion from my earliest days here, probably close to 15 years ago.  It’s a slippery slope.  Store-bought mice -> store bought bird food / feeders -> flowers or trees I planted -> in a yard that used to be a corn / bean field -> that used to be wooded. . . .  Man-made lakes or impoundments?  “Restored” or managed habitats?  Are “we” part of the natural world, making our impact and actions “nature”?  The slopes gets mighty slippery.

I like that most (or at least some,) magazines and contests stipulate some sort of rules.  For my peace of mind, I usually give most photogs the benefit of the doubt re: ethics, although I’m more skeptical when it comes to those just seeking “fame”, glory, or monetary rewards. I’m an amateur just having fun, I’m not using photos to feed and house my family - it’s easy for me to pontificate, but I sure do have my Pollyanna views re: ethics and integrity.
 

by Andrew_5488 on Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:59 am
Andrew_5488
Forum Contributor
Posts: 390
Joined: 15 Feb 2012
Location: NY
WDCarrier wrote:How about placing flowers on raised holders for hummingbird to come in for shots?  Most of the well known locations for birds photography in the Arizona, Texas, Florida, Central and South America put out chicken parts, fruit feeders, seed feeders, water drips, etc. to attract birds close to blinds or lodges.  Many of our better submissions are from such sites; many of our members regularly use them.  As none of these are natural, aren't they all some form of baiting?
Of course they are. Do you think all those businesses and workshops would attract people if they didn't do it ?
No,because it would be impossible (slight generalization since you could always choose an area where
there's a large congregation of subjects) to ensure a group of people would have opportunity to take
pictures of particular subjects. Taking a good picture in natural settings is hard. Some people like to take an easy way out.
 

by Andrew_5488 on Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:05 am
Andrew_5488
Forum Contributor
Posts: 390
Joined: 15 Feb 2012
Location: NY
Craig Lipski wrote:  It’s a slippery slope.  Store-bought mice -> store bought bird food / feeders -> flowers or trees I planted -> in a yard that used to be a corn / bean field -> that used to be wooded. . . .  Man-made lakes or impoundments?  “Restored” or managed habitats?  Are “we” part of the natural world, making our impact and actions “nature”?  The slopes gets mighty slippery.
Slippery slope ? Sounds like a lot of excuses to me.
 

by Craig Lipski on Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:20 am
User avatar
Craig Lipski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4792
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Location: The bustling metropolis of Fowlerville, Michigan, and the Texas Lower Rio Grande Valley
Member #:00495
Andrew_5488 wrote:
Craig Lipski wrote:  It’s a slippery slope.  Store-bought mice -> store bought bird food / feeders -> flowers or trees I planted -> in a yard that used to be a corn / bean field -> that used to be wooded. . . .  Man-made lakes or impoundments?  “Restored” or managed habitats?  Are “we” part of the natural world, making our impact and actions “nature”?  The slopes gets mighty slippery.
Slippery slope ? Sounds like a lot of excuses to me.
OK - I somewhat agree - but where in my “chain” of “for instances” do we / you / I draw the line?  And who gets to decide?  To me, it’s like that quotation about porn; something to the effect of “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.”  Except that we don’t see it unless the photographer has the ethics / morals to disclose.  Like I said, we’re not going to solve this here - and I hope my observations and thoughts aren’t seen as defending the originally referenced actions - they’re most definitely not!
 

by Andrew_5488 on Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:38 am
Andrew_5488
Forum Contributor
Posts: 390
Joined: 15 Feb 2012
Location: NY
Craig Lipski wrote:
Andrew_5488 wrote:
Craig Lipski wrote:  It’s a slippery slope.  Store-bought mice -> store bought bird food / feeders -> flowers or trees I planted -> in a yard that used to be a corn / bean field -> that used to be wooded. . . .  Man-made lakes or impoundments?  “Restored” or managed habitats?  Are “we” part of the natural world, making our impact and actions “nature”?  The slopes gets mighty slippery.
Slippery slope ? Sounds like a lot of excuses to me.
OK - I somewhat agree - but where in my “chain” of “for instances” do we / you / I draw the line?  And who gets to decide?  To me, it’s like that quotation about porn; something to the effect of “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.”  Except that we don’t, unless the photographer has the ethics / morals to disclose.  Like I said, we’re not going to solve this here - and I hope my observations and thoughts aren’t seen as defending the originally referenced actions - they’re most definitely not!
Well,ultimately you, the photographer decides. And we  the viewers of your photos decide
about your judgement. There's another side to the problem;giving example to other people.

It's not a question of solving it in my opinion (well,ultimately it is) but rather discussing it.
I'm glad you were not defending it because usually when you see so many words in a sentence it's usually
used for muddling the issue ;-)
 

by Craig Lipski on Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:43 am
User avatar
Craig Lipski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4792
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Location: The bustling metropolis of Fowlerville, Michigan, and the Texas Lower Rio Grande Valley
Member #:00495
Andrew_5488 wrote:
Craig Lipski wrote:
Andrew_5488 wrote:
Craig Lipski wrote:  It’s a slippery slope.  Store-bought mice -> store bought bird food / feeders -> flowers or trees I planted -> in a yard that used to be a corn / bean field -> that used to be wooded. . . .  Man-made lakes or impoundments?  “Restored” or managed habitats?  Are “we” part of the natural world, making our impact and actions “nature”?  The slopes gets mighty slippery.
Slippery slope ? Sounds like a lot of excuses to me.
OK - I somewhat agree - but where in my “chain” of “for instances” do we / you / I draw the line?  And who gets to decide?  To me, it’s like that quotation about porn; something to the effect of “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.”  Except that we don’t, unless the photographer has the ethics / morals to disclose.  Like I said, we’re not going to solve this here - and I hope my observations and thoughts aren’t seen as defending the originally referenced actions - they’re most definitely not!
Well,ultimately you, the photographer decides. And we  the viewers of your photos decide
about your judgement. There's another side to the problem;giving example to other people.

It's not a question of solving it in my opinion (well,ultimately it is) but rather discussing it.
I'm glad you were not defending it because usually when you see so many words in a sentence it's usually
used for muddling the issue ;-)
Lots of words because I really am trying to DISCUSS - not blast off a 140 character proclamation.  I sure as hell don’t claim to have the be-all and end-all answer, but I think you, I, and (I like to believe,) most people here are in general agreement.
 

by WDCarrier on Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:31 pm
User avatar
WDCarrier
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1652
Joined: 15 Mar 2012
Location: Eureka, California
Craig Lipski wrote:
Andrew_5488 wrote:
Craig Lipski wrote:
Andrew_5488 wrote:
Craig Lipski wrote:  It’s a slippery slope.  Store-bought mice -> store bought bird food / feeders -> flowers or trees I planted -> in a yard that used to be a corn / bean field -> that used to be wooded. . . .  Man-made lakes or impoundments?  “Restored” or managed habitats?  Are “we” part of the natural world, making our impact and actions “nature”?  The slopes gets mighty slippery.
Slippery slope ? Sounds like a lot of excuses to me.
OK - I somewhat agree - but where in my “chain” of “for instances” do we / you / I draw the line?  And who gets to decide?  To me, it’s like that quotation about porn; something to the effect of “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.”  Except that we don’t, unless the photographer has the ethics / morals to disclose.  Like I said, we’re not going to solve this here - and I hope my observations and thoughts aren’t seen as defending the originally referenced actions - they’re most definitely not!
Well,ultimately you, the photographer decides. And we  the viewers of your photos decide
about your judgement. There's another side to the problem;giving example to other people.

It's not a question of solving it in my opinion (well,ultimately it is) but rather discussing it.
I'm glad you were not defending it because usually when you see so many words in a sentence it's usually
used for muddling the issue ;-)
Lots of words because I really am trying to DISCUSS - not blast off a 140 character proclamation.  I sure as hell don’t claim to have the be-all and end-all answer, but I think you, I, and (I like to believe,) most people here are in general agreemen
Maybe t would be best if we just threw away all our technological equipment and wandered naked into the field carrying a burnt stick and a piece of birch bark on which to capture our images.
[font=Helvetica, sans-serif]“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” MLK[/font]
 

by Andrew_5488 on Wed Nov 28, 2018 3:35 pm
Andrew_5488
Forum Contributor
Posts: 390
Joined: 15 Feb 2012
Location: NY
WDCarrier wrote: Maybe t would be best if we just threw away all our technological equipment and wandered naked into the field carrying a burnt stick and a piece of birch bark on which to capture our images.
I fail to see any correlation between hardware we use to capture images and the way we behave.
 

by jrhoffman75 on Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:01 pm
jrhoffman75
Forum Contributor
Posts: 71
Joined: 21 Nov 2003
Location: Conway, NH
In the body of the magazine article the thrust of the concern was towards baiting of predators and the potential for habituation to humans.
 

by SantaFeJoe on Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:35 pm
User avatar
SantaFeJoe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 8622
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere Out In The Wilds
IMO, there is too much ethical insanity out there right now. Do we not walk over the ground because we are killing ants, bugs and microscopic creatures? When I hear people claim that we should never cause an animal or bird move by our actions, it makes me cringe!!! What do they think they do all day??? Should we never use the trails around a pond at a city park because the ducks and geese will be made to move into the water by our approach? I know when my actions cause stress and when they don’t. We can’t walk through life thinking we can always do everything in a way that won’t disturb some critter. And when do we intervene with an animal or bird in trouble? My brothers and I once found a coot tangled in a barbed wire fence. We freed it. Should a person cut fishing line off a sea lion or whale that is being strangled or just let them suffer and die??? When feeding owls causes them to get hit by cars or draw a crowd, is it time to stop(yes!!!)? Should we stop feeding birds(no!!!)? Does creating a pond in a desert situation alter the lives of animals(yes)? Is it a bad thing(no)? An ethical nature photographer should use his or her better judgement regarding acceptable behavior, but don’t tell me ridiculous things if you don’t even know nature! A perfect example of people saying(wrongly) that nature should not be intervened with is this:

https://fstoppers.com/animal/filmmakers ... ica-311457

How can people find fault with this??? How can they say that a whale should not be freed from a fishing net??? And who is the genius that claims wild mice almost never run on top of the snow, therefore the mouse has to be store bought or planted? And should we do things like this:

https://fstoppers.com/animal/photographer-documents-mice-living-his-garden-after-constructing-miniature-home-312050

Why not???? It brings joy to me seeing things like this, despite the fact that it is not natural.

Well enough of this rant, but I had to get that out, even though I tried really hard to refrain from opining on this subject.

Joe
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.  -Pablo Picasso
 

by WDCarrier on Wed Nov 28, 2018 11:27 pm
User avatar
WDCarrier
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1652
Joined: 15 Mar 2012
Location: Eureka, California
Hey Joe, you and I always seem to be on the same page.
[font=Helvetica, sans-serif]“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” MLK[/font]
 

by Andrew_5488 on Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:18 am
Andrew_5488
Forum Contributor
Posts: 390
Joined: 15 Feb 2012
Location: NY
SantaFeJoe wrote: And who is the genius that claims wild mice almost never run on top of the snow, therefore the mouse has to be store bought or planted? And should we do things like this:

https://fstoppers.com/animal/photographer-documents-mice-living-his-garden-after-constructing-miniature-home-312050

Why not???? It brings joy to me seeing things like this, despite the fact that it is not natural.
I have not seen original photo so can't really comment. THe person who made the original comment has a column in outdoor photographer magazine so she can be addressed over there I guess.
https://www.outdoorphotographer.com/pro ... otography/

What I can comment on or have opinion is general practice; using bait for stupid photos, most of the time
hoping for some kind of gratification or social recognition or monetary gain. Pathetic.

Will this bring joy to you too ?
https://petapixel.com/2015/03/05/a-frog ... nch-of-bs/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/wh ... isnt-seems

To me it seems idiotic at best and cruel at worst (making pictures like that).
 

by SantaFeJoe on Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:08 am
User avatar
SantaFeJoe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 8622
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere Out In The Wilds
Andrew_5488 wrote: What I can comment on or have opinion is general practice; using bait for stupid photos, most of the time
hoping for some kind of gratification or social recognition or monetary gain. Pathetic.
As you say, opinion. 

Joe
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.  -Pablo Picasso
 

by Andrew_5488 on Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:39 am
Andrew_5488
Forum Contributor
Posts: 390
Joined: 15 Feb 2012
Location: NY
SantaFeJoe wrote:
Andrew_5488 wrote: What I can comment on or have opinion is general practice; using bait for stupid photos, most of the time
hoping for some kind of gratification or social recognition or monetary gain. Pathetic.
As you say, opinion. 

Joe
Right,we all live by different rules. Sad but true.
 

by SantaFeJoe on Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:01 pm
User avatar
SantaFeJoe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 8622
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere Out In The Wilds
Here’s a link to a similar thread about ethics from the old ECE forums. They become endless with no consensus.

viewtopic.php?f=37&t=254471&hilit=Audobon

Many of us on this thread posted to that thread as well.

Joe
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.  -Pablo Picasso
 

by Scott B on Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:08 pm
Scott B
Forum Contributor
Posts: 64
Joined: 30 Mar 2016
WDCarrier wrote:I'm in general agreement on the use of tame mouse (even captured wild mice) on owls or putting out carcasses for large predators but I can't really tell you why because I wonder where and who gets to draw the line between aspects of "baiting."  Isn't a simple bird feeder baiting?  How about placing flowers on raised holders for hummingbird to come in for shots?  Most of the well known locations for birds photography in the Arizona, Texas, Florida, Central and South America put out chicken parts, fruit feeders, seed feeders, water drips, etc. to attract birds close to blinds or lodges.  Many of our better submissions are from such sites; many of our members regularly use them.  As none of these are natural, aren't they all some form of baiting?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning them, I regularly use them myself.  But, I can't help but asking...who gets to determine what is "okay" baiting and what is not?  If OP follows their published policy as it is written they'd better be ready to eliminate a good portion of the images they formerly published (and a good many of our better bird photographers).
I agree with everything you said.  I really don't do any of the things you mentioned but I don't have an issue if people do, I should include that if they do use any of the above it should be disclosed.  For me it is about the outdoor experience first and photography is something to do when you are out there.  If a magazine wants to say they won't publish such pictures captured by use of baits or feeders more power to them.  I have a hunch that the animals that come into the baits at  for profit photography places may experience less stress than the animals I find far from other people when I photograph them.
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
34 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group