Using live bait for nature Photography?

robert hasty wrote:. . . next time your up in homer throwing fish for a picture you might wanta ask yourself whos business are you really in? Just a thought! The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. . . .

Interesting that Homer (where feeding is done with frozen fish) gets inserted in a discussion of live bait, along with an apparent assertion of wickedness. John 8:7?

Good point Cliff! Let's hand the guy that FROZE the poor fishies!

best and love to all, artie

To photograph a wild animal you first need a wild animal… by bating/feeding (live or dead food) a wild animal you turn it in to a "controled" animal, no longer fully wild… so your photo does not represent a wild animal displaying wild animal behaviour and the caption should reflect that.

Then we can go on about cruelty, dangers to the subject caused by non-natural food sourses (if I don't eat GM crops why would I feed a wild owl petshop mice), disruption of migratory paterns in order to adapt to new (and not natural or regular) food sources, behavioural changes in respect of feedeing/hunting, etc....................

I just don't think it is really worth it, I don't do it (have thought about doing it) and I don't think I will in the future.

Disclaimer: I am only human and entittled to change my mind in the future due to divine intervention, proffessional need, peer preasure, degradation of character, or by any other means

I don't buy this hoopla that if a human feeds a wild animal the animal suddenly becomes un-wild. We all coexist on this place called earth. Since we as a species have pretty much successfully raped much of this earth wild animals have no choice but to coexist with us, and sometimes even depend on us in subtle or even direct ways, but IMO they are still wild.

And Robert, don't insert scripture into your posts. This is not the place for it.

Greg, yes, we have done enough to this planet and it's inhabitants, we don't need to do any more, we should leave them be as much as possible, and there IS a big difference between interacting (observing, stuying, photographing, sharing a location, etc) and providing substinece (live, dead, etc).
The work with eagles/owls could be easily done with blinds/hides as with feeding, granted the hide work would take longer but it would also have much less impact on the birds.
The truth is that as soon as an animal starts taking hand-outs from humans it is one small step closer to becoming pets or livestock and one large step further away from being wild.
There's no make a wild population dependant on food hand-outs just for the sake of photography or the fancy of an old lady in Homer, or any other place.

Enrique, please understand that feeding any owls does not make it dependant! As soon as this eruption is over, these owls will leave - probably never to see a human again! This will all be forgotten soon enough, as there has not been an eruption like this since records have been kept.
Chris
I will not and do not want to force this opinion on you, just something to consider!

I am sure a lot of animals become "dependent" on our many garbage dumps. Does that take away their 'wildness?' I would call them opportunists. Just as an anteater would tend to hang out near the largest anthill. But just the general act of feeding is not the topic of this thread.

Most if not all animals are opportunistic. When it comes to a meal they take what ever expends the least amount of energy. I'd really be interested in seeing data that supports either side of this discussion. I have a science degree and am a big believer in having data to support a hypothesis. How do you measure "impact" on an animal? They get food in tough times that sustains them. Is this negative in their mind?

My plan is to see if any ecologists/biologists/scientist have done studies and published paper regarding this.

Time to log off and hit the library.

Regards,

Terry