Canadian Geographic baiting in wildlife photography poll

Canadian Geographic asks "How do you feel about baiting in wildlife photography?"  Have your say.

http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/poll/?poll=35

Should be in the ethics forum.

Apparently 38% thinks it's OK.And I thought that only we americans are stupid.

Andrew_5488Apparently 38% thinks it's OK.And I thought that only we americans are stupid.
Actually, the percentage of people who say it is OK is 66% (when the ones who say in moderation) is factored in.  34% are not for it.  Ahem, take these numbers only for what it's worth .  It can be skewed depending on the demographic voting.  Still, it's interesting to see what groups feel the strongest about making their views known.  

Baiting (not live) is acceptable in the WPOTY contest as long as you make them aware of it.  You can see in some of the winning images or porfolios where this is so.  To me, feeding wildlife is a personal thing.  To each their own.  One group should not dictate to another group what they should do as long aw what they are doing is legal.  You are entitled to an opinion and to feel however you want but have crossed the line when you try and force your belief down someone else's throat.  Sure, in some countries everyone needs to fall in line, think the same way or else.

When a photo is not part of a contest or site that forbids it, then it is up to each person to make a decision as to whether to state it up front or not.  It's really nobody's business.  The only thing that irks me is if someone misrepresnts an image.  If an owl is clearly coming in for bait and the person captions it as on the hunt, that's obviously not true.  In that case, it's better not to say anything.  I see one image posted on a website that I would say looks like 90% it was baited (it is in the typical flight position low to the ground at a great ideal angle) and the caption says, "good timing to have the owl fly by me on the hunt".  Sure there is a 10% probability that may have happened but I have seen enough of those images to make an educated guess as to what likely transpired.  These are just my thoughts.

Something being legal doesn't  mean it's right.

Andrew_5488 wrote:Something being legal doesn't  mean it's right.

Abortion is legal.  Freedom of expression in France is legal.  Not stating how I feel about each but it is legal.

OntPhoto wrote:

Andrew_5488 wrote:Something being legal doesn't  mean it's right.

Abortion is legal.  Freedom of expression in France is legal.  Not stating how I feel about each but it is legal.

Incorrect,freedom of expression is not legal in France.

Andrew_5488 wrote:Apparently 38% thinks it's OK.And I thought that only we americans are stupid.

I can only offer you a small piece of advice.  It going to be difficult for you to convince someone else of your viewpoint if you start off the argument that they are stupid.  In my life up until now, I've realized if I want to bring folks around to my viewpoint, I usually need to find a more polite way of doing it.

If you think baiting is wrong, I think you need to express your viewpoint, present your evidence, and convince other people why they maybe ought to stop doing it.

Calling them stupid usually results in people simply ignoring you.

Just my 2 cents.

Bird feeders are an unnatural food situation.  If you are waiting near a bird feeder with a lens, it can be argued that you are baiting. 

So where is the line drawn ?

It is all subjective.  Your opinion is as good as the next guy's opinion.  

My opinion:  "Baiting", as you are calling it here, might be allowed as long as it is closely regulated.  This is because people (the public) CANNOT be trusted to not do something that would be interpreted by anyone with a lick of common sense….as unethical.  There is ALWAYS someone to ruin a situation for the rest……ALWAYS.  People are desperate for recognition and photography is a source of recognition. 

Again, if you are going to allow "baiting", you must draw up a set of laws that must be enforced.  

  

Robert King
http://itsaboutnature.net

keyofd wrote:

Andrew_5488 wrote:Apparently 38% thinks it's OK.And I thought that only we americans are stupid.

I can only offer you a small piece of advice.  It going to be difficult for you to convince someone else of your viewpoint if you start off the argument that they are stupid.  In my life up until now, I've realized if I want to bring folks around to my viewpoint, I usually need to find a more polite way of doing it.

If you think baiting is wrong, I think you need to express your viewpoint, present your evidence, and convince other people why they maybe ought to stop doing it.

Calling them stupid usually results in people simply ignoring you.

Just my 2 cents.

That's fine because I'm not trying to convince anyone nor I asked for an advice.
Commenting is still allowed on this continent,right ?

Andrew_5488 wrote:

OntPhoto wrote:

Andrew_5488 wrote:Something being legal doesn't  mean it's right.

Abortion is legal.  Freedom of expression in France is legal.  Not stating how I feel about each but it is legal.

Incorrect,freedom of expression is not legal in France.

Of course everyone knows that many countries that allow freedom of expression will still have laws against libel, hatred, etc.  But you can certainly have the freedom of expression in France to draw up satirical cartoons etc. (I am not saying it is right or wrong). 

Blck-shouldered Kite wrote:Bird feeders are an unnatural food situation.  If you are waiting near a bird feeder with a lens, it can be argued that you are baiting. 

So where is the line drawn ?

It is all subjective.  Your opinion is as good as the next guy's opinion.  

My opinion:  "Baiting", as you are calling it here, might be allowed as long as it is closely regulated.  This is because people (the public) CANNOT be trusted to not do something that would be interpreted by anyone with a lick of common sense….as unethical.  There is ALWAYS someone to ruin a situation for the rest……ALWAYS.  People are desperate for recognition and photography is a source of recognition. 

Again, if you are going to allow "baiting", you must draw up a set of laws that must be enforced.  

  

Robert King
http://itsaboutnature.net

I do not think that will happen anytime soon.  Here in Ontario, the MNR has told folks that "baiting", I prefer the word "feeding" is a non-issue.  Even if they did put in regulations of some sort....unlikely to happen anytime soon, there just wouldn't be enough people to police or enforce it (there are way more important things for them to do than someone feeding an owl such as people who are poaching, etc...which is fairly easy to understand from a common sense point of view....in the one hand, the bird is being fed and in the other case, something is being killed....now which do you think a conservation officer wants to spend time on enforcing, besides the fact that feeding or baiting is perfectly legal...?).  

I am not for or against feeding of owls.  This is a personal decision to make.  If it is illegal then that's one thing but it is legal. There is a time and place for everything (safety and responsibility should be exercised).  

OntPhoto wrote:

Blck-shouldered Kite wrote:Bird feeders are an unnatural food situation.  If you are waiting near a bird feeder with a lens, it can be argued that you are baiting. 

So where is the line drawn ?

It is all subjective.  Your opinion is as good as the next guy's opinion.  

My opinion:  "Baiting", as you are calling it here, might be allowed as long as it is closely regulated.  This is because people (the public) CANNOT be trusted to not do something that would be interpreted by anyone with a lick of common sense….as unethical.  There is ALWAYS someone to ruin a situation for the rest……ALWAYS.  People are desperate for recognition and photography is a source of recognition. 

Again, if you are going to allow "baiting", you must draw up a set of laws that must be enforced.  

  

Robert King
http://itsaboutnature.net

I do not think that will happen anytime soon.  Here in Ontario, the MNR has told folks that "baiting", I prefer the word "feeding" is a non-issue.  Even if they did put in regulations of some sort....unlikely to happen anytime soon, there just wouldn't be enough people to police or enforce it (there are way more important things for them to do than someone feeding an owl such as people who are poaching, etc...which is fairly easy to understand from a common sense point of view....in the one hand, the bird is being fed and in the other case, something is being killed....now which do you think a conservation officer wants to spend time on enforcing, besides the fact that feeding or baiting is perfectly legal...?).  

I am not for or against feeding of owls.  This is a personal decision to make.  If it is illegal then that's one thing but it is legal. There is a time and place for everything (safety and responsibility should be exercised).  

I completely agree with you Ontphoto….  I was playing some devils advocate on that one (except the part about someone ruining it for the rest) .  Glad you stepped up to it.  

In fact, I was in the process of drawing up a long response and realized that I do not have time to complete it right now.  Saved it as a draft .  I agree with every aspect of what you wrote.  Why use the word "baiting"?  Why not just use the word "feeding."?  

Hey, its rough out there….even in the good times.  So why not give wildlife a chance whenever we can?   Talk to you later .

I really do not understand what problem people have with baiting animals for observation or photography. Unless it's live animals being fed to owls and the welfare of the bait is what is upsetting.

Bird feeders are baiting. I don't know about other states, but in Texas baiting deer to KILL them is big business.

Blck-shouldered Kite wrote:

OntPhoto wrote:

Blck-shouldered Kite wrote:Bird feeders are an unnatural food situation.  If you are waiting near a bird feeder with a lens, it can be argued that you are baiting. 

So where is the line drawn ?

It is all subjective.  Your opinion is as good as the next guy's opinion.  

My opinion:  "Baiting", as you are calling it here, might be allowed as long as it is closely regulated.  This is because people (the public) CANNOT be trusted to not do something that would be interpreted by anyone with a lick of common sense….as unethical.  There is ALWAYS someone to ruin a situation for the rest……ALWAYS.  People are desperate for recognition and photography is a source of recognition. 

Again, if you are going to allow "baiting", you must draw up a set of laws that must be enforced.  

  

Robert King
http://itsaboutnature.net

I do not think that will happen anytime soon.  Here in Ontario, the MNR has told folks that "baiting", I prefer the word "feeding" is a non-issue.  Even if they did put in regulations of some sort....unlikely to happen anytime soon, there just wouldn't be enough people to police or enforce it (there are way more important things for them to do than someone feeding an owl such as people who are poaching, etc...which is fairly easy to understand from a common sense point of view....in the one hand, the bird is being fed and in the other case, something is being killed....now which do you think a conservation officer wants to spend time on enforcing, besides the fact that feeding or baiting is perfectly legal...?).  

I am not for or against feeding of owls.  This is a personal decision to make.  If it is illegal then that's one thing but it is legal. There is a time and place for everything (safety and responsibility should be exercised).  

I completely agree with you Ontphoto….  I was playing some devils advocate on that one (except the part about someone ruining it for the rest) .  Glad you stepped up to it.  

In fact, I was in the process of drawing up a long response and realized that I do not have time to complete it right now.  Saved it as a draft .  I agree with every aspect of what you wrote.  Why use the word "baiting"?  Why not just use the word "feeding."?  

Hey, its rough out there….even in the good times.  So why not give wildlife a chance whenever we can?   Talk to you later .

Words can be used to serve an authors bias or agenda or for propaganda.  I hear the word "circus" used to describe places where many photographers are gathered around photographing owls (maybe one or two are feeding the owls).  The word "circus" here is used to paint a situation that they do not like, in a negative light.  If you ask the photographers, they will mostly say it was an awesome experience to see such a majestic bird up close flying around etc. 

Let's take Pont Pelee in the Spring.  The place is packed!  Birders are running around from location to location.  If it is a rare bird such as a Kirtland's Warbler, there will be no room to move around as birders and photographers are shoulder to shoulder.  Birders will not call that a circus nor will photographers.  Why?  Because they both are enjoying the experience.  If some do use the word "circus", it is likely in a nice way such as "some great birds we saw today but it was a circus there today.  Back for more tomorrow". But if you have someone who enjoys Point Pelee as a place to go hiking or biking or camping and are not really into birds (they like birds but are not birders or photographers),,,,to these folks that scene in the Spring likely will be viewed as a "circus" in a negative sense.  So, it all depends on the perspective of the viewer/author.   

With owls, people are not baiting it in to capture or kill it. The owl is free to go. Hunters as one person mentioned, sometimes do bait wildlife in to KILL them.  Fishermen (not the catch and release folks) do use "bait" to catch fish to KILL them for food. 

If you really step back and look at it, all of Bosque del Apache is baiting. Corn is planted for the birds and ponds are flooded for the birds. Neither situation is natural. Same for winter feeding on the National Elk Refuge. What about hummingbird feeders? This is all baiting.

There are many issues I don't agree with but I can usually at least see where the other side is coming from. The uproar over baiting completely puzzles me.

jeff Parker wrote:I really do not understand what problem people have with baiting animals for observation or photography.  Unless it's live animals being fed to owls and the welfare of the bait is what is upsetting.

Bird feeders are baiting.  I don't know about other states, but in Texas baiting deer to KILL them is big business.

Robert said:
"Hey, its rough out there….even in the good times.  So why not give wildlife a chance whenever we can? 

Many people feed deer thinking they are doing the deer a favor. I've done it myself occasionally when I had a cabin in the northern NM forest. Here are some things to think about when it comes to feeding deer and other animals:

http://www.maine.gov/ifw/wildlife/speci ... _deer.html

http://www.maine.gov/ifw/hunting_trappi ... eeding.pdf

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/site/html/reflect/jan11.htm

http://www.farmanddairy.com/columns/fee ... 14293.html

http://www.farmanddairy.com/columns/fee ... 14324.html

Is It Good to Feed Wild Animals

This last link is a Google search about feeding wild animals.
Feeding alters the habits of birds and animals, sometimes in negative ways. It changes their natural feeding habits and migratory patterns, at times. Just ask anyone who has hummingbird feeders. In the spring when the hummers arrive, they go straight to where the feeders were the previous season. Many people don't even research what kind of feed is best for the health and well-being of the animals and birds. When it comes down to owls, are the mice and other critters native to the area? If not, is it possible that a live mouse can cause a negative effect on the native species if it escapes and survives?
I don't offer my own opinions, but rather, the opinions of those who have more experience and knowledge. My own personal feelings are mixed and I don't deny I do sometimes feed birds and mammals. This part is only about feeding and not baiting. I know some ranches feed deer, birds (raptors especially) and other animals at their photography blinds. This is a permanent, year round thing, not just a one time deal.

Joe

I personally would not try and feed potentially dangerous animals such as coyotes which can then become a nuisance leading to their demise. I saw this first hand on the Cabot Trail where a moose hunting guide was throwing pieces of a sandwich to a coyote. Next morning I see the trail where the coyote was fed closed and the warden looking for it. Apparently, the coyote started to follow hikers on the trail that morning.

However, people do feed red foxes. Not much danger from them. From what I hear, that is one reason why some red foxes up in Algonquin Park are so tame. People feed them. People feed deer too. But of course do NOT feed wild black bears or you will have a problem on your hands. So, it really depends on the behaviour of the species.

Birds, owls will not pester people because someone fed them. However, snowy owls if fed over time will become less skittish of people but will STILL keep their distance (mostly). But they do allow people to go closer than if they were not fed. Other owls like great gray, northern hawk owl will allow people to get close to them even if not fed. It all depends on the species.

OntPhoto wrote:

Andrew_5488 wrote:

OntPhoto wrote:

Andrew_5488 wrote:Something being legal doesn't  mean it's right.

Abortion is legal.  Freedom of expression in France is legal.  Not stating how I feel about each but it is legal.

Incorrect,freedom of expression is not legal in France.

Of course everyone knows that many countries that allow freedom of expression will still have laws against libel, hatred, etc.  But you can certainly have the freedom of expression in France to draw up satirical cartoons etc. (I am not saying it is right or wrong). 

Right,and the guy from Charlie Hebdo who made fun of Sarkozy was fired for freedom of expression ?
I guess different freedom for different people ?

Blck-shouldered Kite wrote:Bird feeders are an unnatural food situation.  If you are waiting near a bird feeder with a lens, it can be argued that you are baiting. 

So where is the line drawn ?

It is all subjective.  Your opinion is as good as the next guy's opinion.  

Bird feeders are for helping birds in coldest days of winter.I don't see how someone would argue it's baiting.