AvianScott wrote:
I've talked to two wardens this year and one last year during the Huxman incident, and all 3 stated that feeding mice to owls is not illegal in Wisconsin. One of them stated that at best it's a gray area as there is an exemption for feeding birds.
Huxman was cited because he was teasing and poking the owl with sticks and making other physical contact with it, not because he was baiting. He was baiting the owl for 3 days (with the DNR watching two of those days) before the stick poking incident happened.
He was poking the owl with a stick?! Do you have a link to that story? I did a search and didn't come up with anything. I know he's local to me.
It was posted on the Wisconsin birding email list. The wisbirbn archives should be online.
VinnieJ wrote:
He was poking the owl with a stick?! Do you have a link to that story? I did a search and didn't come up with anything. I know he's local to me.
People keep proving they need laws as there's always that portion of the population who are abusers.
Baiting seems harmless until you start researching the practice, and doing it for the sake of photography is selfish. It cheapens the grandness of nature. I have much respect for those who don't do it.
Photographing birds and animals already in captivity deserves more respect than it gets. These photographers are not disturbing the balance of the wilderness. Wild animals don't often need us, and when they do, it's usually our fault.
To take a photo would you rather approach an animal and probably stress it or bait it in a safe area and let it come to you on it's own and not so stressed. I've seen this in yellowstone where baiting is not allowed and most photographers and vacationers will approach the wildlife and more likely than not stress the wildlife. If the law was changed to prevent baiting many photographers and (birders with their P&S cameras) would still want a decent photo, so witch is better for the animal?
This is a hot button subject-people really get worked up over it for some reason. I'm interested in both sides. I've talked to photogs in remote areas who hike to back country and bait where no roads or other people are present so as not to stress the subjects with traffic, etc. I've also interviewed baiters who'll toss out mice anywhere regardless of where and when.They won't let a photographic opportunity pass, I guess.
And, I've talked with those vehemently opposed to it any form-other photogs (although, I'm not a photographer, per se) to DNR officials to general birders. This is a subject that needs to be met with reason and facts and not emotion. Obviously, if a state legislature is working on a bill to ban raptor baiting it will be interesting to find out why.
Lastly, I was communicating with a magazine editor the other day and he told me they wouldn't accept baited or apparently baited images. That conversation is what prompted me to construct an article dealing with all sides of the issue. I've only been in on 2 baited outings so my experience is a little short.
However, as a traditional bowhunter I see the Hotel's point of using woodcraft to garner great images.
MercuryPhotog wrote:
This is a hot button subject-people really get worked up over it for some reason. I'm interested in both sides. I've talked to photogs in remote areas who hike to back country and bait where no roads or other people are present so as not to stress the subjects with traffic, etc. I've also interviewed baiters who'll toss out mice anywhere regardless of where and when.They won't let a photographic opportunity pass, I guess.
And, I've talked with those vehemently opposed to it any form-other photogs (although, I'm not a photographer, per se) to DNR officials to general birders. This is a subject that needs to be met with reason and facts and not emotion. Obviously, if a state legislature is working on a bill to ban raptor baiting it will be interesting to find out why.
Lastly, I was communicating with a magazine editor the other day and he told me they wouldn't accept baited or apparently baited images. That conversation is what prompted me to construct an article dealing with all sides of the issue. I've only been in on 2 baited outings so my experience is a little short.
However, as a traditional bowhunter I see the Hotel's point of using woodcraft to garner great images.
I agree with much or maybe all of what you say in this posting. I'm against baiting of owls and other birds of prey because of the dangers it can end up creating for the bird when they become too habituated to roadside areas. However, I agree that if one was to hike into a remote area and bait for a day or a couple days and then leave that really I don't see it doing much or any harm to the bird. The type of situations that get me emotional are the ones like what happened last year with the GGO in Ottawa Canada where the owl was visited by so many people for months on end and therefore it created a likely more dangerous and harmful situation for the bird. The climax was the Youtube video posted by an FM member of him taunting the owl in the middle of the road. I'm not sure if that thread is still accessible or was deleted but I know the Youtube video was pulled fairly quickly.
I'm really interested in reading your article and really hope you will be able to share it with us when it was ready. I agree that people seem to get really emotional/crazy over this issue on both sides and it gets really silly and stupid very fast when this topic comes up. Here on FM, it usually stays fairly calm and civilized but almost anywhere else on the internet it is ridiculous. This is why FM continues to be the only photography forum that I regularly participate in.
All for now but will follow this thread with interest....got a flight to catch to do some non-baited birding in whats left of the Borneo rainforest
An old friend said "Never try to referee a skunk fight" so I'll not take sides here but...
Are they being harmed in any way or do they look forward to a mob of silly, rodent toting humans each year?
Is there a danger to their social order? Is their lack of hunting natural prey affecting the rodent population?
Down here many of us forward the the regular deliveries of hundreds of pounds of fresh trout... so that we can photograph the ensuing carnage by Osprey, herons, egrets, cormis and pelicans. The populations of some of these species seem to be growing. Is this because of the State of California deliveries? And, interestingly, it is illegal for any of us to even toss a sardine out for them.
From the photographers POV It's hard to not see this as a rather massive baiting activity.
google "steve shinn a day at the zoo" (sorry, posting the link didn't seem to work)
Have a look at this show, right click on the image and select "Original", and you might recognize some of the people.
Our behavior, laws and ethics seem to be conflicted.
In thinking about this question I realise that I have some pretty major inconsistencies in my own views here. My gut reaction is that I wouldn't personally want to photograph an owl baited with a live mouse. However I have photographed owls and kestrels when already dead mice and chicks were used as bait. The only difference here is the timing and manner of the death of the mice. That seems a pretty dubious way to decide that the use of live and dead bait are ethically different from one another - assuming that we don't think one of the forms of death is substantially more distressing for the bait than the other.
I do see a big difference between baiting birds with animals and feeding them with non-animal matter like seeds. The RSPB, the UK's leading bird conservation charity and operator of many bird reserves around the country, regularly have bird feeders setup at their reserves. Interestingly they also provide at least implicit endorsement of Red Kite feeding stations which use beef, pork and other farm produced meat to feed the kites. They clearly see no issue for the birds in sustained and appropriate levels of feeding.
