Not everyone loves us...

http://www.homernews.com/stories/031005 ... e004.shtml

good to read but very biased, see the tag line at the bottom

"Lee Mayhan is coordinator of the Alaska Eagle Watch Network, an organization dedicated to keeping Alaska's wildlife wild."

Hummm... 81 views and only one answer. This topic has a danger sign "Potentially lethal hot topic" written all over, and something tell's me I should avoid it, but heck, I have a reputation to defend...

I agree this text his highly biased, and I wouldn't call it a journalistic text, (maybe an opinion column). In a journalistic text, both parts should be heard (it be though to hear the eagles, I know)...

To make a long story short, I would love to be al least once in Homer during this phenomenon to do my best with this incredibly beautiful creatures, but I admit that there are several touchy ethic topics involved.
As we discussed in several other topics, baiting wildlife can have sometimes negative effects, and most photographers aren't prepared to access this risks.
That being said, I don't know witch are the rules in US about this, but in several countries one needs a special permit to bait wild creatures. Obviously some of this rules aren't applied to garden birds and other small and not threatened creatures, but as you all know, super predators in the top of the food chane are often more sensitive and therefore more threatened.

If I was planing on running workshops or tours to Homer, using baiting techniques, I would try not to answer emotionally to this critics and I would certainly try to figure out how valid are their points. Probably I would ask an independent Ornithological Society/University an opinion about what should and shouldn't be done.

My decision to go the homer this year is based on this exact problem. It has been said this could/may be the last year for Jean's feeding and I want to experience it just once. Most of the workshops, according to my limited knowledge, are not baiting, just photographing the birds that are attracted to the baiting by Jean.

Interesting article and the author draws attention to some valid concerns. I wish they would haved written a less confrontational article, which considered positive solutions, instead of just ranting about photographers 'with their rented SUVs and huge telephotos". They failed to mention that if managed properly, eagle photography could be an excellent economic opportunity for Homer.

This kind of article creates a reaction... it made me defensive and I wanted to send a response off right away (and I haven't even been to Homer yet). I hope we'll all be cautious to not be react rashly by sending flaming responses. They won't help the situation, in fact they'll make it worse for future photographers to Homer. This is the time to take the high road, to take responsibility for our actions and find positive solutions for the future - in the best interest of nature photographers.

If it were not for Jean Keene and her years of feeding the eagles there would be far fewer eagles in the area. Certainly far fewer than there are now. The bald eagle has made a strong come back since the 1970's and is now a common breeder in many parts of it's former range.
As with bird feeders for song birds, supplemental feeding of eagles represents a small portion of the food that they consume during the day. The birds that one sees in the morning at a feeding area are not necessarily the same birds seen later in the morning or afternoon. Wild birds are far more adept at finding food in the wild even when there is supplement foods available. Banding studies have shown that a small portion of a song birds daily consumption comes from feeding stations.
While the number of eagles in and around Homer is most definitely artificially high dew to supplemental feeding, there are still natural food sources available to the eagles of which they certainly make use.
From the stories and images it is certainly clear that the eagles do not feel threatened by people/photographers, at least the ones that behave themselves.
It would be very interesting to see what the local economy receives from these visiting photographers; I'll bet that it is an amazing amount.

One juvenile eagle, missing a seagull, crashed into the water. The juvenile eagle, bobbed in the water staring at the group of eight photographers on the water's edge. The eagle, not being a duck, is not able to fly out of the water with his wet wings and body.

I didn't go to Homer this year because of other commitments. However, two years ago, I witnessed a similar event during Jean's feeding in the morning. The eagle in question made a questionable aerial move trying to steal a fish from an Adult about 1/2 mile out into the bay and landed with a splash on the water. About a minute later, it took off with no problems at all. Birds that get their main source of food in water wouldn't survive if they couldn't get out of the water because they misjudged their position. I'd love to hear from a real expert on Eagles as to whether a dunk can prevent an eagle from flying.

The other annoying thing about the article is that it seems to be the photographers fault that it is cold and the eagles are shivering. Or that the eagles, which are savagers take advantage of any opportunity to feed. Maybe he should spend some time across the road from the fish house where in the afternoon the scraps are tossed and the eagles gather in a tight little pen for some of those scraps.

Also, the man should spend some time on the New Jersey shore. Yes, even the spit is the "wild" compared to the highly develop areas on the east coast of the US. Yes, the spit is one big dock now but you still get fews of mountain scapes with no sign of human habitation at all.

An extremely biased and un-professional article.
Quoting text from Greg's website is hardly fair and so out of context. I assume Greg wasn't contacted by this guy for comment on the article before publishing?

It does, however, leave me with two questions:

If the feeding stops, what would happen to a) the population of eagles and b) the economy of Homer ?

I suspect both would crash to some degree.

I was inclined not to respond, but I'll admit the article got under my skin. Something about the line photographers as stormtroopers crawling along the beach. (Don't know about anyone else, but my view of storm troopers does not have them crawling ever so slowly over rocks and sand! )

There are real issues, and there are real issues even with Jean feeding the eagles. It may well be that if we could rewind the clock to 1970 that Jean shouldn't have started feeding the eagles and all this would be irrelevant. However, we can't do that and any discussion has to be at least marginally based on reality.

The eagles are there now and they are there specifically because there is a ready food source, whether it's Jean or a photographer or scraps from the cannery. Perhaps if the fishing harvest had been better managed over the years there would be more fish scraps at the cannery and even more eagles. But I digress.

Are the eagles better or worse off for having Jean and others feed them? There isn't an unambiguous answer to that question. Certainly, Jean believes very strongly that they are; otherwise I believe she would stop feeding immediately. There is some mortality of eagles there and there is the potential to have illness tranmitted much more rapidly through the eagle population given the close proximity of many eagles. However, a very large fraction of the population that Jean feeds are immature eagles, those most likely not to make it through the winter on their own. The bottom line appears to be no consensus even among the experts, of which I am not one.

The author works hard to convey an air of reasonability, but uses language designed to disparage those with whom he disagrees. It is difficult for me to have any respect those who attempt to make their case in that fashion.

Rich

...supplemental feeding of eagles represents a small portion of the food that they consume during the day.

Wil, I would be very interested in any scientific study going trough this subject, do you have any info about this?

I for one would not think for one second that Greg would endanger any animal he photographs; never the less, no doubt some photographers do go too far, as Artie describes in The Art of bird Photography.

As for the eagle's shivering - that's just being silly. No doubt they shiver when perching at the top of a rock as well

Okay... hands up, anyone who sided with the author of this thread about baiting owls:

http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/view ... hp?t=33750

The responses seem quite different, depending on whether we're the accusers or the accused...

The piece appears in the editorial section labeled "Point of View" - so I don't think this was meant to be some sort of balanced analysis of the situation. Yes, it could have been written better (ie. less provocative), he could have provided a little more hard information rather than colorful adjectives. I am sure a lot more photographers would take notice if concrete facts were presented on the impacts. Instead, it's rather easy to dismiss the article all together.

Ethan's advice is good, take the high road. I think it is important for photographers that visit Homer to not react with defensiveness, but with genuine concern about the perceptions of the community about them. (Isn't that one of the keys to conflict resolution - addressing the perceptions vs. your own thoughts & opinions?) This guy (woman?) is probably not alone in his thinking, right or wrong. Making Homer some type of battleground isn't good for anyone. I think it is reasonable to ask if the population is artificially inflated, because we humans tend to mess a lot of things up when tampering with nature. Let's just see some good analysis from a biologist that lives up there that doesn't belong to one of the action groups.

Also, if photographers are stormtroopers, does he think Jean is Vader?

profotos wrote:As for the eagle's shivering - that's just being silly. No doubt they shiver when perching at the top of a rock as well

Maybe the author thinks that the eagles would have been in Florida if not for the photographers. :roll:

Wow! What a response this drew -- and rightfully so.

I posted this for another reason in addition to providing general information.

The People's Republic of Homer is not entirely a visitor friendly area. There are, of course, exceptions and we should honor them. But we need to be aware of the local issues and do our best to avoid them.

I feel particularly bad that Greg is singled out in this article. In order to earn Jean's confidence, you have to stick by the rules.

I think its a shame Greg was singled out also. That said, id like to hear his side on this. And who is this Jeanne? I dont know how you all shoot these eagles during these workshops but it sounds like to me you might be going to a feeding area directed by this Jeanne for close ups or is that a wrong assumption? If so i see nothing wrong with that.

Just my opinion, but if anyone or group is really sitting in a parking lot feeding eagles just for picture op's i think thats wrong.

Robert............

I think the biggest problem with this article is that it paints the situation as black and white instead of looking at from a realistic perspective. Very few situations in nature are this discreet. Most animals, including birds are opportunistic. If a new food source arrives they are programmed to take advantage of it but they don't necessarily throw out generations of evolution for finding food simply because a new source happens into the mix. A good example is road kills. Many birds take advantage of this food source and the only documented danger for the animal is the risk of becoming road kill themselves. If the road kill disappears they don't starve. This happens often in areas where mountain roads are closed for months due to weather and yet reopen in the warmer months and the road kill reappears. It also happened in the rice farming area in Arkansas and Lousiana where I grew up. An abundant food source (spilled rice from the harvesting) appeared in a one or two month window in the fall but disappeared the other months. The birds were quick to take advantage of it but seemed to do fine in the other months. I personally have not seen any definitive scientific studies that document in detail what all the effects of feeding wildlife are. I have seen a lot of emotional comments but not much fact. The effects I most often see published is that it creates less fear of humans (which can be dangerous for the animal due to hunting and etc.) and it encourages some predators to take advantage of domestic animals for food because the domestic animal is easier prey (which can also be dangerous to the animal due to being shot or poisioned). There may be studies I am not aware of that describe all the issues but I have not seen them. Just my two cents worth.

Without making any judgements as to whether it's right or wrong, I see little difference between feeding eagles and owls..... other than the fish being killed by someone else first. I'm curious why the reaction is so different.

As far as the eagles being fed only at Jeans that's not the case at all. Jean feeds in the morning and the photographers offer about as much fish on the beach in the afternoon. I've tossed fish there myself so I'm not pointing any fingers.

One last point. The locals don't seem to care too much about the photographers business from what I could tell. The spit is fairly empty in the winter and I'm sure our business fills a few holes but in the summer there are over 10,000 people crammed onto the spit so a few hundred or whatever doesn't make too much of an impact.

I thought of going back to Homer myself this winter but it didn't work out. From what I understand the Fish and Wildlife people would love to stop the feeding but it has become a tradition with Jean... but when she stops it may be over for everyone.

robert hasty wrote:. And who is this Jeanne?

Robert............

A legend and an institution.

http://www.baldeagleinfo.com/eagle/JeanKeene.html

http://www.jsonline.com/dd/destnat/dec9 ... 122999.asp

http://www.kaz-photography.com/memories ... eagle.html

http://www.alaska.com/places/cities/oth ... 3391c.html

http://www.homernews.com/stories/022405 ... w002.shtml

http://www.sportsmansguide.com/article/ ... 3Fsid%3D95

http://www.eaglelady.com/

http://www.photosafaris.com/Articles/Al ... leLady.asp

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm ... zoom4.html

<sigh>

These images (forgive the quality) were taken from my suv with it's rear tailgate open from the first parking spot at Jean's place. I was amazed at the level of fighting going on - non stop scrums for crumbs. I am totally amazed at the thought of Jean's being the only place feeding should be allowed. Although the beach area in front of Jean's place is a wide open place, the fish are thrown within feet of her little patio area - a small cramped area for the many eagles vying for her hand-outs. As for those un-caring photographers, I rarely saw such fierce interaction between the eagles on the wide open fly-way of a beach where Greg and Artie were throwing the fish. As a side note, the article fails to mention the fish factory that throws fish heads everyday, simply to avoid paying for their disposal. As for the freezing eagles who have been tricked - they'll have no problem getting food at Jean's - zero impact, save the fighting they'll have to endure!
Fell free to judge me, these are my thoughts, and my thoughts only! I am not trying to impose them on you.
Best,
Chris