Not everyone loves us...

For anyone who visited Homer this winter I heard something interesting. Jean was driving her old tan pickup truck and I was very surprised to find out that this year, in addition to getting a new home, her Lifetime Meritorious Service Award from the American Bald Eagle Foundation provided her with a new truck! She is not driving the truck though, still using her old one because I heard she doesn't want to ruin the new one.

Lifetime Meritorious Service Award

Just another thought - perhaps our tendancies toward overfishing are countered by replacing some of that food they would normally find on their own?? It's all such a complicated, inter-weaving cycle, I really doubt anyone would be able to prove or disprove the impacts on the eagles. There will always be some factor someone hasn't considered in their study, or incorrectly labeled it as insignificant. It would be really nice to see some conclusive information, but the more I think about it, the more I think it will ultimately be a personal decision of the majority vote.

Cliff, everything is apart of the plan Even this thread

robert........

Robert, take me with you.

Joseph Kayne wrote:. . . I have seen articles argue "how many eagle images are really needed. . . There are so many already..." The bottom line is that some of the feeding is done for the purpose of photography. As wildlife photographers, you have to recognize the fact that there is some self-service in this fact. I realize that you are trying to justify your photography but you must believe that the scene gets a little outrageous. . . .

Unfortunately, the same argument--that we already have all the photos we will ever need--has been applied to all wildlife photography, not just eagles. You could easily make the same argument (perhaps someone has) about large-format landscape photography--why waste the resources when there are already so many great photos? Does this cut a little closer to home?

All of us, including the opponents of eagle feeding, are self-serving. One opponent wants to protect his captive geese and other birds that he feeds, another says well maybe we should take over the eagle feeding, make sure it's done right. Self-interest is never restricted to one side, in this case, or any other. One side may be right, one side may be wrong, or both sides might be wrong, but all sides are self-interested.

P.S. I just remembered the case of the large-format shooter who charred Delicate Arch. Clearly, landscape shooting has gone to outrageous extremes; it's a zoo. Large-format cameras are the SUV's of the photography world. Their owners are irresponsible. If banning large-format photography saved only one national landmark, who could argue against it? Ban them while there's still time!

Mark wrote:It would be really nice to see some conclusive information, but the more I think about it, the more I think it will ultimately be a personal decision of the majority vote.

Mark, this is true. Unfortunately there haven't been any objective, conclusive, scientifc studies done. And, unfortunately, the Board is likely to vote based on the information they receive. Right now the only ones doing the talking to the Board are the eagle-feeding opponents, who are putting information out there that is misleading as ammo.

Who wouldn't be against feeding eagles if they saw a photo of a boy "being attacked"? (The photo of the boy with the rehab bird that was in no way harmed.) Or heard of the massive effect on nesting kittiwakes and other nesting birds? (Without having the info that the eagles aren't even around Homer in summer to affect the local populations.) Etc...

We will be continuing to work with folks in Homer and other parts of Alaska to stay posted on this topic, including the results when the board hears the proposal this fall, and will be including updates as available in Greg's newsletter.

Joseph Kayne wrote:Boy, it sounds like a real zoo there. Almost like catching fish in a barrel. I have seen articles argue "how many eagle images are really needed..There are so many already..." The bottom line is that some of the feeding is done for the purpose of photography. As wildlife photographers, you have to recognize the fact that there is some self-service in this fact. I realize that you are trying to justify your photography but you must believe that the scene gets a little outrageous. I do no know if there is a real answer.

Joseph, it's difficult to argue with your general point. It's difficult if not impossible to separate the self-serving component from the legitimate defense of a position, whether it is photographers arguing for continuing the feeding practice or the goose "owner" who wants fewer eagles in the vicinity.

At the same time, I would argue that it is very, very far from a zoo. Jean's place is far, far off the beaten path in terms of winter traffic and residential areas. On a typical weekday, there may not be more than a dozen photographers and generally everyone is in their vehicle and it is remarkably quiet. Yes, eagles are sitting everywhere, reminding me of gulls elsewhere. However, much like gulls, they generally just sit and wait their turn for fish. The photographers generally play by Jean's rules - or get yelled at - and most of the eagles play by Jean's rules as well.

As I said in a prior post, there are issues and concerns. However, the anti-feeding folks IMO have grossly misrepresented their case and have given the impression that there is a "zoo" while such an impression is far from the reality.

Rich

Heather Forcier wrote: Mark, this is true. Unfortunately there haven't been any objective, conclusive, scientifc studies done. And, unfortunately, the Board is likely to vote based on the information they receive. Right now the only ones doing the talking to the Board are the eagle-feeding opponents, who are putting information out there that is misleading as ammo.

Yep, and unfortunately this is how many decisions on wildlife are made across the country. Whoever comes to the decision makers with the most evidence wins - whether it is legit or not. Politics - can't ignore it, can't take it out in the back of the shed and get rid of it.

It will indeed be interesting to see the end result of all this in due time. I spent the better part of the day reading articles from numerous sources and from what ive read, this eagle feeding has become a real problem in many areas of Alaska. Homer seemed to be the main target in a few. I didnt see any mention of anyone being attacked in the articles i read. Though i guess that could also be a problem.

These anti feeding the eagles and wildlife groups (U.S fish and wildlife just to name one) mentioned and to an extent frowned upon in this thread, know more about the real issues then myself and many here. U.S tax dollars are at work!

robert.............

Cliff Beittel wrote:

Joseph Kayne wrote:. . . I have seen articles argue "how many eagle images are really needed. . . There are so many already..." The bottom line is that some of the feeding is done for the purpose of photography. As wildlife photographers, you have to recognize the fact that there is some self-service in this fact. I realize that you are trying to justify your photography but you must believe that the scene gets a little outrageous. . . .

Unfortunately, the same argument--that we already have all the photos we will ever need--has been applied to all wildlife photography, not just eagles. You could easily make the same argument (perhaps someone has) about large-format landscape photography--why waste the resources when there are already so many great photos? Does this cut a little closer to home?


It does not cut too close to home. I do not water the tallgrass prairie so I can get better photographs of it. I would also agree that there are too many images of cetain icons, like Delicate Arch. If I am not mistaken, that photographer was found guilty in a court of law and was punished by the park service for his unethical acts.
All of us, including the opponents of eagle feeding, are self-serving. One opponent wants to protect his captive geese and other birds that he feeds, another says well maybe we should take over the eagle feeding, make sure it's done right. Self-interest is never restricted to one side, in this case, or any other. One side may be right, one side may be wrong, or both sides might be wrong, but all sides are self-interested.

What if the feeding did not occur. The eagles would certainly survive and nature would take its course.

Look, I do not know the answer and I am not blaming all photographers for the zoo like atmosphere that sometimes occurs, however, it must be ackowledged that the situation is certainly altered. I did not mean to turn this into a landscape v. avian photography war. If you want to do that, find someone else. I am trying to logically work out this process and bring some staightforward and, hopefully, honest perspective.

This topic has moved to the point that it seems as though a line is being drawn in the dirt. Maybe we all need to step back for a moment and ask why it is that we would travel to Ak and shoot a bird that is lured to an area? I don't have an answer for that question but it does seem that a moral question could be raised and might suggest that "nature photographers" sould evaluate their true connection with the enviornment and their personel needs to get the "shot". I hope this is not the photographic version of trophy hunting. I would still like to hear from our Ak folk. My personal connections with AK folk would see this as much to do about nothing. Another point,Ak natives are alowed to hunt whales but they must hunt in the traditional method,ie harpon. That they do and then the rifel is used.
Jim

I myself would prefer the Franz Lanting approach. I wouldnt want to shoot anything lured to an area. Going into their enviroment and hoping they accept me in time. Slowly creeping in and quietly studying them until i get into a safe position for both subject and self. When they do accept me if seen, shoot the photos of my subject in its natural setting and behavior without interupting its time and place in nature. Enjoy the time spent and the photos will likely be better and more natural looking also. My eyes have now changed to a degree here and elsewhere when viewing images. One things for sure, these threads have taught me more then a couple of things.

Robert........

Joseph Kayne wrote: Look, I do not know the answer and I am not blaming all photographers for the zoo like atmosphere that sometimes occurs, however, it must be ackowledged that the situation is certainly altered. I did not mean to turn this into a landscape v. avian photography war. . . .

I'm not looking for a landscape vs avian war; my tongue-in-cheek comments about large-format photographers were only intended to show how almost any activity can be denigrated, how the bad actions of a few can be used against all. Remember, one of your comments was that no more eagle photos are needed. Again, the same thing can be said about scenics, especially pretty ones--remember the article and talk a few years ago about eco-porn? I don't want to limit your photography for no good reason any more than I want mine limited.

Would the eagles do OK without feeding? Sure. I've never argued otherwise. The important thing is I don't think feeding harms them in any way. I know of no studies on eagles, but the few on backyard bird feeding seem to show no harm and possibly a small benefit. If there's no harm to the birds, I don't see a problem with a dozen or two people feeding eagles, either for their own enjoyment or for photos, on a largely uninhabited, four-mile long spit. The whole thing started with Jean feeding finches in her backyard and one day seeing a pair of hungry-looking eagles on the beach outside her yard. Her motive for feeding the eagles was the same one that motivates many of us to feed cardinals and chickadees in our backyards--a little pleasure for ourselves (including photographs a few times a year), a little help for the birds. Just as activity at my feeder picks up during cold weather and snow, the eagles visit Jean most during the harshest weather, when they may be having trouble finding food elsewhere. This year, she said, with a warm, dry winter in Homer, eagle numbers were down.

The atmosphere on the spit in winter is hardly zoo-like. I didn't see anything like the incidents Heather mentioned. For a zoo-like atmosphere, with Manhattan-type traffic, I'd suggest the big, popular national parks in season. (Closest I've come was Rocky Mountain NP during the elk rut--the road nearly gridlocked near sunset.) For a zoo-like atmosphere on the Homer Spit, you need to go in the summer, when I'm told the spit is wall-to-wall with the RVs of fishermen--RVs literally parked all along the roadside and all over the beach, float planes buzzing in and out, hundreds of little shops offering bait, tours, trinkets, food, etc. In the winter, all that's closed down, replaced by a few birders and photographers. I wonder which is harder on the environment?

Joseph Kayne wrote:Look, I do not know the answer and I am not blaming all photographers for the zoo like atmosphere that sometimes occurs, however, it must be ackowledged that the situation is certainly altered. I did not mean to turn this into a landscape v. avian photography war. If you want to do that, find someone else. I am trying to logically work out this process and bring some staightforward and, hopefully, honest perspective.

I'm not sure how this is different from throwing chum into the sea to attract sharks. The only difference in my mind is that the guys at sea are out of the public eye until they release the photos or the videos. I'm reasonably sure the only animals on the planet that haven't been baited are whales and that's only because it would be too expensive, there are too few left and what would you bait them with anyway

As for Homer, I can go to the spit, not throw a single fish (or be part of a group that throws a single fish since I'd be by myself) and still walk away with 1000 images a day. I would still attract attention since I would drive an SUV (because renting a front wheel drive car is harder to guarantee) and using either a 200-400 or 600 lens, which makes me VERY visible. Not going to Homer is just plain stupid. The eagles are there. They get fed anyway by Jeane or the cannery. All you need is a camera.

It's the same reason I go to Denali. Because it's there.

Joseph Kayne wrote:Boy, it sounds like a real zoo there.

Joseph, you should visit Homer in the winter. I was just there about a month ago and the Spit looked like it had been deserted. Almost all the shops and restaurants are closed, many stores were boarded-up, and the marinas were vitually uninhabited. At best there were a few groups of photographers around Jean's yard in the morning and a few scattered groups around the Spit later in the day. I've also been to Homer in the summer and it's a completely different story when the spit is full tourists and halibut and salmon fisherman--that's when it's a zoo.

Steve

One thing to keep in mind is that Eagles (and hawks too) attack pets here in central Florida elsewhere on a regular basis. In the more rural parts of my county I have seen cats pursued on several occasions--including one time I saw a decent size kitten lifted at least 6 feet off the ground. I have heard of similar things happenning to small dogs.

I'm not sure how this is different from throwing chum into the sea to attract sharks. The only difference in my mind is that the guys at sea are out of the public eye until they release the photos or the videos.

Ahhh - not so true Tony, there was a recent ban placed on shark feeding in Florida's coastal waters because of all the commotion caused by it. (Also a common practice for entertaining divers) People were using the infrequent shark attacks to justify how feeding caused them to associate humans with food. Surfers/swimmers were also concerned that it was drawing more of them in than normal. It still remains highly controversial in the diving community. Very much like the situation in Homer. Eagles are just a little more discriminating in what they eat.

chez wrote:. . . Eagles in homer have been attacking pets ( dogs and cats ). There was a reported case of a lab being attacked by an eagle. Labs are bigger than small children. Some locals fear an attack on a child is not too far off. . . .

Further thoughts about pets and children. First, rather than pets, it seems so far only an "attack" on one pet is involved (if that--as Heather's posts demonstrate, the antis seem quite willing to make things up in furtherance of their cause). Second, while a lab is far too big for an eagle to kill and eat, the BONA species account I referenced before does mention that eagles, being pirates, will try to drive mammals like foxes and coyotes away from kills or carrion. Was the lab possibly eating something? Or was the lab chasing eagles or other birds on the beach? When the eagles try to steal food or perches from each other, they strike with their talons, but I believe with the talons balled like a fist. I saw lots of strikes by eagles against other eagles, but no blood or other damage inflicted. I think it is far more likely that an eagle struck a dog in this way than that it sank its talons in hopes of killing and eating a dog. Third, dogs and cats shouldn't be roaming free anyway. I love cats, but only indoor cats; outdoor cats kill hundreds of thousand of birds a year. An eagle attack on a leashed dog must be a very rare thing indeed. Fourth, while I don't know of any eagles attacking people (apart from nest raiders) anywhere, let alone in Homer, and the "what's next, our children" line sounds like nothing more than demagoguery, I certainly wouldn't let a small child of mine wander around the spit (or any other 35-degree surf) unsupervised. But the crowds of eagles are almost entirely confined to the end of the spit, which is largely an industrial area where almost no one lives. Off the spit, I saw only a lone eagle perched on a high spruce near our motel. And I never saw an eagle acting aggressively toward a person; even when I slowly moved a 17mm lens to within a foot or 15 inches of an eagle sitting on Jean's fence (after Jean had finished her feeding), it never showed any sign of aggression.

A further thought on truth and evidence. The attitude of some here seems to be that, well, the complaints of the antis must have some basis in fact. After all, photographers want pictures and are self-serving (as if the antis aren't). But again, consider what Heather has written. As I recall, she says Lee told her she had Greg and Heather on videotape watching an eagle drown. When it turned out Greg and Heather had left Homer before the alleged drowning, Lee says, well, it was some other group. How can one take the word of someone already caught spreading lies about someone, balance that against the word of someone with no record of dishonesty, and conclude, well, it's a toss up?

I've seen folks in Homer let their dogs run unleashed almost every day we were there. This happens on beaches everywhere when people are trying to photograph birds and I can tell you they disturb them more than I do "sticking my lens up their noses". The dogs in Homer not only scared eagles away when we were trying to photograph them (I am talking small dogs) but also scared the rare emperor geese that were sleeping peacefully on the beach in front of a half-dozen photographers. Note that these geese are much more venerable than any dog, yet they were able to spend weeks sleeping on the beach without being harassed by eagles, only by dogs and joggers who nearly stepped on them in ignorance.

The simple fact of the matter is that all these behaviors that people are referring to regarding Eagles are totally natural and there is no evidence to link them to being fed. Any attempt to do so has been pure speculation and I might add a huge stretch of the imagination. I plan to demonstrate that to Fish and Game prior to this fall when they meet. As for being biased sure I'm biased but I'm not the one twisting facts.

Cliff Beittel wrote: A further thought on truth and evidence. The attitude of some here seems to be that, well, the complaints of the antis must have some basis in fact. After all, photographers want pictures and are self-serving (as if the antis aren't). But again, consider what Heather has written. As I recall, she says Lee told her she had Greg and Heather on videotape watching an eagle drown. When it turned out Greg and Heather had left Homer before the alleged drowning, Lee says, well, it was some other group. How can one take the word of someone already caught spreading lies about someone, balance that against the word of someone with no record of dishonesty, and conclude, well, it's a toss up?

Cliff, surely you are wise enough to know that the issue goes beyond this Lee and a few workshop leaders. You are narrowing it down between the words of one limited faction and another limited faction. The issue is more gray, than black and white and should be researched further. If you read my posts you will see that I did not pit one side against the other. Legitimate independent scientific research could be conducted in the area to study the effect more closely.

I'm not looking for a landscape vs avian war; my tongue-in-cheek comments about large-format photographers were only intended to show how almost any activity can be denigrated, how the bad actions of a few can be used against all. Remember, one of your comments was that no more eagle photos are needed. Again, the same thing can be said about scenics, especially pretty ones--remember the article and talk a few years ago about eco-porn? I don't want to limit your photography for no good reason any more than I want mine limited.

I did not state that there were too many eagle images. I stated that I saw some articles to that effect.

Thanks all. I will withhold any further comments.

Joe.