Recently I went on a boat tour to see eagles, and the guide lured several in by throwing fish in the water. The eagles would then swoop down and catch the fish not far from our boat. Below is one shot from this trip. Note that the lighting was terrible, so I'm aware of issues in this shot.
So far, my belief is that this photo (or a better retake, since it's easy to take the tour again), should never go into my portfolio because the animal was baited. Also, the fish used is not native to this river and it was floating on the surface, so the splash pattern is not natural. I'm sure, though, that many photographers have similar shots that they pass off as completely natural.
Therefore I'd like to ask your opinions. Is it ethical to include such as such in a portfolio of wildlife photography, or does it taint my ability as a photographer to find and display truly natural phenomena at minimum impact to my subjects?
Note that I'd like to focus the discussion solely on the act of including it in my portfolio, and not on the boat operator doing this in the first place.
Baited Eagle by Joseph Calev, on Flickr
So far, my belief is that this photo (or a better retake, since it's easy to take the tour again), should never go into my portfolio because the animal was baited. Also, the fish used is not native to this river and it was floating on the surface, so the splash pattern is not natural. I'm sure, though, that many photographers have similar shots that they pass off as completely natural.
Therefore I'd like to ask your opinions. Is it ethical to include such as such in a portfolio of wildlife photography, or does it taint my ability as a photographer to find and display truly natural phenomena at minimum impact to my subjects?
Note that I'd like to focus the discussion solely on the act of including it in my portfolio, and not on the boat operator doing this in the first place.
Baited Eagle by Joseph Calev, on Flickr