June 18, 2018, 01:46:56 PM

Author Topic: Ethics of a photograph containing a baited animal  (Read 20651 times)

snoke

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
Re: Ethics of a photograph containing a baited animal
« Reply #45 on: December 21, 2017, 09:10:50 AM »
So far, my belief is that this photo, should never go into my portfolio because the animal was baited.

Like model situation. Man made construct. Many portfolio with model picture.

You must frame, expose, process. Picture cannot make itself.

If you honest when talk about it, what problem?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Ethics of a photograph containing a baited animal
« Reply #45 on: December 21, 2017, 09:10:50 AM »

Orangutan

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2110
Re: Ethics of a photograph containing a baited animal
« Reply #46 on: December 21, 2017, 09:22:22 AM »
So far, my belief is that this photo, should never go into my portfolio because the animal was baited.
Like model situation. Man made construct. Many portfolio with model picture.

100% wrong.  Human models are able to decide for themselves whether the modeling contract is a fair bargain, wild animals are not. 

You don't feed a Labrador Retriever all the food it wants because it can't see the long-term effects of excess consumption.

Graphic.Artifacts

  • EOS Rebel 300D
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
Re: Ethics of a photograph containing a baited animal
« Reply #47 on: December 21, 2017, 10:05:52 AM »
As a poster previously alluded to; the entire U.S. National Wildlife Refuge complex (millions of acres) operates as a giant bird feeding and baiting system. If I have to drop all of those photo's that's going to leave a big hole in my portfolio. Should I feel guilty now for all of the Duck Stamps I've bought over the years? If poster's think the Audubon Society isn't just as complicit in baiting birds for their own purposes they are kidding themselves.

There is no absolute right or wrong here and ignore anybody who says that there is. Find a middle path you can live with and then go out and take some photo's.

Orangutan

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2110
Re: Ethics of a photograph containing a baited animal
« Reply #48 on: December 21, 2017, 10:19:54 AM »
As a poster previously alluded to; the entire U.S. National Wildlife Refuge complex (millions of acres) operates as a giant bird feeding and baiting system. If I have to drop all of those photo's that's going to leave a big hole in my portfolio. Should I feel guilty now for all of the Duck Stamps I've bought over the years? If poster's think the Audubon Society isn't just as complicit in baiting birds for their own purposes they are kidding themselves.

There is no absolute right or wrong here and ignore anybody who says that there is. Find a middle path you can live with and then go out and take some photo's.

As I keep trying to say, the question is who decides to provide food to the critters, and why.  If the decision is made by qualified biologists, and if it's done for the benefit of the animals, then it's fine.  What is not OK is for a photographer to decide on his own to bait an elusive animal because he covets the shot like a 2-year old covets sweets.  "Because I really really want it" lost its value when you turned 5.

Graphic.Artifacts

  • EOS Rebel 300D
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
Re: Ethics of a photograph containing a baited animal
« Reply #49 on: December 21, 2017, 10:58:24 AM »
As a poster previously alluded to; the entire U.S. National Wildlife Refuge complex (millions of acres) operates as a giant bird feeding and baiting system. If I have to drop all of those photo's that's going to leave a big hole in my portfolio. Should I feel guilty now for all of the Duck Stamps I've bought over the years? If poster's think the Audubon Society isn't just as complicit in baiting birds for their own purposes they are kidding themselves.

There is no absolute right or wrong here and ignore anybody who says that there is. Find a middle path you can live with and then go out and take some photo's.

As I keep trying to say, the question is who decides to provide food to the critters, and why.  If the decision is made by qualified biologists, and if it's done for the benefit of the animals, then it's fine.  What is not OK is for a photographer to decide on his own to bait an elusive animal because he covets the shot like a 2-year old covets sweets.  "Because I really really want it" lost its value when you turned 5.

Of course that sounds reasonable. I think we all get that. No one is saying it's OK to be a selfish jerk. But that applies to any number of behaviors and certainly not just baiting.

However, the basic fact is that anyone who thinks that they can photograph wildlife without exploiting it in some way is living in a fantasy world. It's childish not to accept that simple fact and hiding behind the "we're doing science" facade doesn't change anything. Everyone has an agenda.

That's pretty much all I have to say on it. Everyone has to find a space they can live with on this topic. I'm always working to define mine. I'm sure that most people who don't agree with me come by their position honestly and they are entitled to them.

Orangutan

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2110
Re: Ethics of a photograph containing a baited animal
« Reply #50 on: December 21, 2017, 11:17:54 AM »
As a poster previously alluded to; the entire U.S. National Wildlife Refuge complex (millions of acres) operates as a giant bird feeding and baiting system. If I have to drop all of those photo's that's going to leave a big hole in my portfolio. Should I feel guilty now for all of the Duck Stamps I've bought over the years? If poster's think the Audubon Society isn't just as complicit in baiting birds for their own purposes they are kidding themselves.

There is no absolute right or wrong here and ignore anybody who says that there is. Find a middle path you can live with and then go out and take some photo's.

As I keep trying to say, the question is who decides to provide food to the critters, and why.  If the decision is made by qualified biologists, and if it's done for the benefit of the animals, then it's fine.  What is not OK is for a photographer to decide on his own to bait an elusive animal because he covets the shot like a 2-year old covets sweets.  "Because I really really want it" lost its value when you turned 5.

No one is saying it's OK to be a selfish jerk.

Unfortunately, I think some were saying that.


Quote
But that applies to any number of behaviors and certainly not just baiting.
Yup.

swkitt

  • PowerShot G7 X Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 14
Re: Ethics of a photograph containing a baited animal
« Reply #51 on: December 21, 2017, 11:38:39 AM »
In my opinion, if you wonder whether you should put it in your portfolio or not, then the reply is NO.
You were there, you saw how the guy feed the eagle, and it didn't satisfy you, unless you wouldn't ask. So just don't put it, a portfolio is not a stamp collection, and having a sea eagle in it don't make you a better photographer.

Also, some of you may not know, but sometimes, the fish that the boat guys send to the eagles are filled with styrofoam bits, so that they will float longer... even if the eagle is able to take it apart when he eats, that's not very good for environment and ethical, hmm ?

Apart of that, if some people are happy with their photos they made with baits, good for them. Some kind of baiting is harmless, but some is not.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Ethics of a photograph containing a baited animal
« Reply #51 on: December 21, 2017, 11:38:39 AM »

CanonFanBoy

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2144
  • Bipolar. When it is happening I don't realize it.
Re: Ethics of a photograph containing a baited animal
« Reply #52 on: December 21, 2017, 11:52:11 AM »
As a poster previously alluded to; the entire U.S. National Wildlife Refuge complex (millions of acres) operates as a giant bird feeding and baiting system. If I have to drop all of those photo's that's going to leave a big hole in my portfolio. Should I feel guilty now for all of the Duck Stamps I've bought over the years? If poster's think the Audubon Society isn't just as complicit in baiting birds for their own purposes they are kidding themselves.

There is no absolute right or wrong here and ignore anybody who says that there is. Find a middle path you can live with and then go out and take some photo's.

As I keep trying to say, the question is who decides to provide food to the critters, and why.  If the decision is made by qualified biologists, and if it's done for the benefit of the animals, then it's fine.  What is not OK is for a photographer to decide on his own to bait an elusive animal because he covets the shot like a 2-year old covets sweets.  "Because I really really want it" lost its value when you turned 5.

No one is saying it's OK to be a selfish jerk.

Unfortunately, I think some were saying that.


Quote
But that applies to any number of behaviors and certainly not just baiting.
Yup.

Yes, just like the Nat Geo biologist/photographer that baited eagles in the Aleutian Islands to get his shots. He's a biologist, so that's okay. http://proof.nationalgeographic.com/2014/12/15/everyday-eagles-the-flip-side-of-a-national-symbol/
5D Mark III, Canon EF 24-70 F/2.8L II, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 35 f/1.4L II, 135 f/2L, Streaklight 360ws, Flashpoint XPLOR 600PRO, 26x m42 screw mount lenses adapted to my DSLR. Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II, Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

Orangutan

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2110
Re: Ethics of a photograph containing a baited animal
« Reply #53 on: December 21, 2017, 12:12:38 PM »
As a poster previously alluded to; the entire U.S. National Wildlife Refuge complex (millions of acres) operates as a giant bird feeding and baiting system. If I have to drop all of those photo's that's going to leave a big hole in my portfolio. Should I feel guilty now for all of the Duck Stamps I've bought over the years? If poster's think the Audubon Society isn't just as complicit in baiting birds for their own purposes they are kidding themselves.

There is no absolute right or wrong here and ignore anybody who says that there is. Find a middle path you can live with and then go out and take some photo's.

As I keep trying to say, the question is who decides to provide food to the critters, and why.  If the decision is made by qualified biologists, and if it's done for the benefit of the animals, then it's fine.  What is not OK is for a photographer to decide on his own to bait an elusive animal because he covets the shot like a 2-year old covets sweets.  "Because I really really want it" lost its value when you turned 5.

No one is saying it's OK to be a selfish jerk.

Unfortunately, I think some were saying that.


Quote
But that applies to any number of behaviors and certainly not just baiting.
Yup.

Yes, just like the Nat Geo biologist/photographer that baited eagles in the Aleutian Islands to get his shots. He's a biologist, so that's okay. http://proof.nationalgeographic.com/2014/12/15/everyday-eagles-the-flip-side-of-a-national-symbol/

I don't know this guy, but the article doesn't appear to say that he baited them.  Rather, that he hung out with fisherman, and the fish business attracted them.

You are clearly missing an important point: there's a difference between photographing an existing relationship between wild animals and human activity versus actively baiting wild animals for the purpose of getting photos.  the first is an unfortunate side-effect of human society; the second is mischief or worse.

Intent is important.

CanonFanBoy

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2144
  • Bipolar. When it is happening I don't realize it.
Re: Ethics of a photograph containing a baited animal
« Reply #54 on: December 21, 2017, 12:28:42 PM »
As a poster previously alluded to; the entire U.S. National Wildlife Refuge complex (millions of acres) operates as a giant bird feeding and baiting system. If I have to drop all of those photo's that's going to leave a big hole in my portfolio. Should I feel guilty now for all of the Duck Stamps I've bought over the years? If poster's think the Audubon Society isn't just as complicit in baiting birds for their own purposes they are kidding themselves.

There is no absolute right or wrong here and ignore anybody who says that there is. Find a middle path you can live with and then go out and take some photo's.

As I keep trying to say, the question is who decides to provide food to the critters, and why.  If the decision is made by qualified biologists, and if it's done for the benefit of the animals, then it's fine.  What is not OK is for a photographer to decide on his own to bait an elusive animal because he covets the shot like a 2-year old covets sweets.  "Because I really really want it" lost its value when you turned 5.

No one is saying it's OK to be a selfish jerk.

Unfortunately, I think some were saying that.


Quote
But that applies to any number of behaviors and certainly not just baiting.
Yup.

Yes, just like the Nat Geo biologist/photographer that baited eagles in the Aleutian Islands to get his shots. He's a biologist, so that's okay. http://proof.nationalgeographic.com/2014/12/15/everyday-eagles-the-flip-side-of-a-national-symbol/

I don't know this guy, but the article doesn't appear to say that he baited them.  Rather, that he hung out with fisherman, and the fish business attracted them.

You are clearly missing an important point: there's a difference between photographing an existing relationship between wild animals and human activity versus actively baiting wild animals for the purpose of getting photos.  the first is an unfortunate side-effect of human society; the second is mischief or worse.

Intent is important.

It specifically says he baited using frozen fish.
5D Mark III, Canon EF 24-70 F/2.8L II, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 35 f/1.4L II, 135 f/2L, Streaklight 360ws, Flashpoint XPLOR 600PRO, 26x m42 screw mount lenses adapted to my DSLR. Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II, Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6847
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: Ethics of a photograph containing a baited animal
« Reply #55 on: December 21, 2017, 12:32:35 PM »

You are clearly missing an important point: there's a difference between photographing an existing relationship between wild animals and human activity versus actively baiting wild animals for the purpose of getting photos.  the first is an unfortunate side-effect of human society; the second is mischief or worse.

Intent is important.

Exactly!

For example, I live on the edge of the Ottawa river. There is about 50 square kilometers of corn fields in the local area.... The farmers harvest the corn, some is spilled as part of the process, and as a result there are HUGE flocks of Canada geese in the fields every fall during the day, and they spend the nights on the river. This has been going on for quite a long time, to the point where the stop here to fill up on corn has become an important part of the migration route. There is another spot, about 50K to the east of Ottawa, that has the same thing happen with snow geese. This is no longer "convenience" for the birds, it is now a solid part of the migration. This is not baiting, it is now part of the natural cycle....

I can take their picture and it is not baiting....
The best camera is the one in your hands

Orangutan

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2110
Re: Ethics of a photograph containing a baited animal
« Reply #56 on: December 21, 2017, 12:35:50 PM »
As a poster previously alluded to; the entire U.S. National Wildlife Refuge complex (millions of acres) operates as a giant bird feeding and baiting system. If I have to drop all of those photo's that's going to leave a big hole in my portfolio. Should I feel guilty now for all of the Duck Stamps I've bought over the years? If poster's think the Audubon Society isn't just as complicit in baiting birds for their own purposes they are kidding themselves.

There is no absolute right or wrong here and ignore anybody who says that there is. Find a middle path you can live with and then go out and take some photo's.

As I keep trying to say, the question is who decides to provide food to the critters, and why.  If the decision is made by qualified biologists, and if it's done for the benefit of the animals, then it's fine.  What is not OK is for a photographer to decide on his own to bait an elusive animal because he covets the shot like a 2-year old covets sweets.  "Because I really really want it" lost its value when you turned 5.

No one is saying it's OK to be a selfish jerk.

Unfortunately, I think some were saying that.


Quote
But that applies to any number of behaviors and certainly not just baiting.
Yup.

Yes, just like the Nat Geo biologist/photographer that baited eagles in the Aleutian Islands to get his shots. He's a biologist, so that's okay. http://proof.nationalgeographic.com/2014/12/15/everyday-eagles-the-flip-side-of-a-national-symbol/

I don't know this guy, but the article doesn't appear to say that he baited them.  Rather, that he hung out with fisherman, and the fish business attracted them.

You are clearly missing an important point: there's a difference between photographing an existing relationship between wild animals and human activity versus actively baiting wild animals for the purpose of getting photos.  the first is an unfortunate side-effect of human society; the second is mischief or worse.

Intent is important.

It specifically says he baited using frozen fish.
I re-read, and you are correct.  That was not ethical, regardless of his professional training.

CanonFanBoy

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2144
  • Bipolar. When it is happening I don't realize it.
Re: Ethics of a photograph containing a baited animal
« Reply #57 on: December 21, 2017, 12:46:36 PM »
As a poster previously alluded to; the entire U.S. National Wildlife Refuge complex (millions of acres) operates as a giant bird feeding and baiting system. If I have to drop all of those photo's that's going to leave a big hole in my portfolio. Should I feel guilty now for all of the Duck Stamps I've bought over the years? If poster's think the Audubon Society isn't just as complicit in baiting birds for their own purposes they are kidding themselves.

There is no absolute right or wrong here and ignore anybody who says that there is. Find a middle path you can live with and then go out and take some photo's.

As I keep trying to say, the question is who decides to provide food to the critters, and why.  If the decision is made by qualified biologists, and if it's done for the benefit of the animals, then it's fine.  What is not OK is for a photographer to decide on his own to bait an elusive animal because he covets the shot like a 2-year old covets sweets.  "Because I really really want it" lost its value when you turned 5.

No one is saying it's OK to be a selfish jerk.

Unfortunately, I think some were saying that.


Quote
But that applies to any number of behaviors and certainly not just baiting.
Yup.

Yes, just like the Nat Geo biologist/photographer that baited eagles in the Aleutian Islands to get his shots. He's a biologist, so that's okay. http://proof.nationalgeographic.com/2014/12/15/everyday-eagles-the-flip-side-of-a-national-symbol/

I don't know this guy, but the article doesn't appear to say that he baited them.  Rather, that he hung out with fisherman, and the fish business attracted them.

You are clearly missing an important point: there's a difference between photographing an existing relationship between wild animals and human activity versus actively baiting wild animals for the purpose of getting photos.  the first is an unfortunate side-effect of human society; the second is mischief or worse.

Intent is important.

It specifically says he baited using frozen fish.
I re-read, and you are correct.  That was not ethical, regardless of his professional training.

Says you. I think it is. Like I said to the OP, "Follow your own conscience." Those birds have a healthy population thanks to man's activity in the area.
5D Mark III, Canon EF 24-70 F/2.8L II, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 35 f/1.4L II, 135 f/2L, Streaklight 360ws, Flashpoint XPLOR 600PRO, 26x m42 screw mount lenses adapted to my DSLR. Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II, Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Ethics of a photograph containing a baited animal
« Reply #57 on: December 21, 2017, 12:46:36 PM »

AlanF

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3553
Re: Ethics of a photograph containing a baited animal
« Reply #58 on: December 21, 2017, 12:53:47 PM »
The OP asked whether it is ethical from the photographic point of view not conservation. Here are two photos I took on a trip to Baddeck in Canada two years ago.  The bald eagle was from a cruise where the crew were throwing fish into the sea and tourist cameras were clicking like mad. The osprey was a chance encounter as it flew overhead and I happened to have my camera at the ready as I was leaving my car in a car park. Which one do I prefer? The osprey by a country mile. It was totally unexpected and the flounder is either still alive or only just deceased. I still am pleased with the bald eagle but it gives me only a fraction of the satisfaction.
5D IV, 5DS R, 400mm DO II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM,  EF 24-105, 100-400 II, EF-S 15-85, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M5 15-45, f/2 22, 11-22, Samyang 8mm f/2.8 fisheye: sold 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X,  Sigma 10-20, EF 300/2.8 II, 70-200/4 IS.

aceflibble

  • EOS 80D
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
Re: Ethics of a photograph containing a baited animal
« Reply #59 on: December 21, 2017, 01:00:50 PM »
There's a big difference between "we know where the animals are, and will go to them; if we toss out a little food we'll probably see them better" and "we're gonna put an irresistible pile of food in a place the animals would not usually go and set up camera traps all around".

If the animal is wild and doing what it would usually do in the place it would usually do it, snap away and use whatever good photographs you get. In the case of OP's image, the fact the fish was throw into the water by a person or picked out by the bird itself doesn't really make a difference one way or another to the bird itself; as long as you don't lie and claim it was a random fish the bird hunted on its own, it's fine.

If the animal is either becoming tame (relatively or entirely) by routine baiting, tricked into doing something it would not usually do in its daily routine, or has been tricked into coming to a location it would not usually come to, put the camera away and don't encourage whoever is interfering.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Ethics of a photograph containing a baited animal
« Reply #59 on: December 21, 2017, 01:00:50 PM »