CanonFanBoy said:
Nobody is going to walk in lock step with you on everything.
I said nothing of the kind, read my posts. I said you should refer to experts to help make the call, rather than rely on flawed personal experience. The same goes for me.
Classing those who do not along with "scoundrels" from history
I did not classify anyone that way, I simply pointed out that it's easy to talk ourselves into believing our personal needs justify potential harm to others.
You should not feel threatened by disagreement. Without disagreement, there would be no science.
I don't, and true. The trouble is that you offered no real discussion, only the pablum of "follow your conscience."
There wouldn't be any without imagination or fantasy either. Today's realities in science are yesterday's fantasies and imaginings.
Very true! How does that relate to the question?
Again, my point is simple: non-specialists simply do not have the expertise to judge how our actions affect wild animals. It's not an insult or disparagement, just a fact, and it applies to me as well. Scientists who study specific species or ecosystems full-time for 10+ years know more than we do, and we should defer to their judgement. I agree you should not take my word on which species can be baited without harm, ask an expert! I avoid the problem by assuming that I shouldn't -- about all I do is hang up a few bird feeders in my urban yard. I'm also careful not to play bird calls during the nesting season.
When you consider baiting a wild animal for a photo, ask yourself how it benefits and harms the animal. Then ask an expert for their opinion.