Pay and display photography

[Gaz J]

There has been quite a lot of discussion on various forums and social media lately about pay and display hides and workshops. Some have become quite abusive as you would expect.

So for those who don't agree with it what is the problem. Is it welfare of the animal/bird, the fact that money is being made from it, a preference to find your own way of obtaining the images, too tight to pay someone. I'm sure their are others.

I've paid for the chance to take photographs of certain species, some that I would never be able to get if I didn't and I've just used a hide to get others and sometimes just stood in a field or sat in a hedge for others. Probably no different from a lot of photographers.

Is their a difference between paying to use someone's hide and being invited to use that hide for free, when you're essentially using someone else's work to your benefit or would those who not pay not use a hide that was being provided under these circumstances.

One thing that I have noticed is that certain people seem to be targeted in these discussions so whether there is a personal issue at work here also I don't know.

I'm fairly relaxed on the whole subject, with the proviso that no harm gets done to any animal or bird by the set up.

 

[gramps]

As I see it Gary there seems to be two or three different attitudes coming out from those who speak against the use of hired hides etc:-

1. I am a Pro Wildlife Photographer and all of these 'staged' wildlife shots are affecting my ability to have exclusivity to sell my wildlife shots.
2. I spend hours out in the wild trying to find wildlife, when I do I stake out the location for days and take my time to get the best opportunity to photograph what I have spent time and energy finding ... everyone should have to do it the way I do it, or it isn't proper wildlife photography.
3. I object to anything being baited, whether it is minnows/sticklebacks for Kingfishers or dead (hopefully) mice for Raptors, I believe it upsets the natural behaviour of the birds being baited.

The fact is...

1.) Ignores the fact that paid wildlife photography for the most part is dead, so much so that most who now provide hides/workshops/whatever are wildlife/ex-wildlife photographers who realise that times have changed and they are never going to make a living from wildlife photography alone.
2) Ignores the fact that everyone is different and has different circumstances, availability of wildlife and time ... if it works for you fine ... it doesn't for everyone.
3) May be from a genuine motive, however it ignores the fact that so many things are 'baited' ... birds in the garden, Red Kites at the feeding stations, RSPB & WWT Reserves providing food/habitat and so on. Where do you draw the line ... and if you do what happens to the species that rely on these 'handouts', do they continue to prosper or do they eventually die out through the lack of a preserved habitat ... should the Great Crane Project or similar species reintroductions never take place?

I regularly visit the WWT Slimbridge and have many hours of enjoyment capturing photographs of migratory and resident species of birds that chose to visit and feed there. I visit RSPB Reserves which cater for birdlife and encourage them to stop by ... I've been several times to Gigrin Farm for the Red Kites.
In addition to these I've been on paid workshops and been to the Farne Islands & Skomer Island to photograph the Puffins etc, both of which are maintained and partially financed by regular visitors (who also help support the local economies).

There will always be those who are of the view that their way is the only way to do things but such an attitude is impractical ... for me, I will continue to use all of the facilities I have in the past UNLESS someone can prove to me that by doing so I am harming the species. Wildlife will go where it wants to go, no matter how I try I could never persuade a Kingfisher to take residence in my garden but if I can find an area where it does like to be and make its surroundings more attractive by supplying additional food and in the process make a few bob by renting it out for others to take photographs of it when it stops on the perch I supply, what big wrong has been done?

That's my take Gary

 

[Pitvar]

I think this is a really interesting topic - I work full time and have a young family so the days I get to enjoy photography are few and far between - maybe 8 decent days a year if I take some leave from work for the odd day and take odd days at weekends. Now of course I try and get the odd hour here and there too but I don't have the time to dedicate to working with a particular species on a day by day basis - which is what I think you need to do to produce some of the shots you see the pros on here take. I'd love to retire early and worry that by the time my pension allows me to retire [67] I wont be able to lift a decent prime... so when I do get a day to focus on trying to improve my skills 90% of the time I choose a subject that I hope I can do justice of in a day - say climbing a cairngorm mountain for Ptarmigan, focusing on Cresties in the pine forest, climbing in the Peak District for Mountain Hare, spending time on the beach for waders, but just less than once a year I save up to pay to use a hide or go out for a day or half a day's guiding.

Now I think I've usually declared when any shots I've posted have been from a hide [I'm sure I've written "lucky enough to use Alan's hide and..." at least once] and I have had some success in a national competition and again told the organisers the shot had been taken from a paid hide [they weren't concerned]. Do I always feel totally comfortable with some of the hide set ups I've used - no, and I haven't been back to those - would I use them if I thought they were endangering the subjects - no. So my point would be that as I'm time poor and want to take half decent photos I have a choice of either choosing a subject which wont take weeks or work/access to private land/permanent hides [which I do 90% of the time] or occasionally paying for the privilege [and I do regard it as a privilege unlike some I've shared hides with] of say seeing a Black Grouse lek or watching a woodland feeding station.

At the end of the day if you have the time and land to set up a good photographic setting, with subjects common or rare, then good luck to you - and I'm jealous. If you choose to pay to use a hide or workshop then on occasion I might see you there - and for me I'd think about letting people know where the photos came from - out of courtesy to whomever has taken the time end effort to set up that hide, provide all that feeding. To hide owners I'd say please think about the impact supplemental feeding has on the birds/mammals - which I'm sure most do for the sake of the wildlife and their businesses and otherwise thank you for your efforts to let amateurs like me share your set ups!

 

[Gaz J]

Although I get 3 weeks off when it comes to my photography it generally is a couple of hours when I can. I usually go on a couple of trips a year and sometimes as part of those trips I use a paid for hide. I have used the osprey hides at Aviemore several times and that has formed the backbone of my trips to that part of the UK. This year I went to Norfolk and used the hides made available at the reserves. Do I think that anything that I photographed there is somehow tainted by the use of a hide, certainly not.

A number of pro photographers are using these paid hides to get images and some of them run hides themselves. Good luck to them, we are all trying to earn a living here and there are many extremely good wildlife photographers all over the country that, in terms of image quality can rival the pros.

There seems to be a core of criticism that using hides, whether paid or unpaid, and baiting wildlife is somehow unethical and the only true wildlife photography is that which is achieved by walking around with a camera and happening on something. Great images from that type of haphazard approach are few and far between.

I'm sure we would all like to be able to find some great wildlife and photograph but for many that isn't a viable option due to family and/or work constraints or simply the lack of certain species in their area. In Pembrokeshire we have barn owls and shorties but the only barnowls I've ever seen have been at night and the shorties are few and far between to the point where time becomes the obstacle. Same with little owls. I know we're some are but don't have the time to devote to them at the moment. In Norfolk barnowls are flying in the mid afternoon and right past you just standing in a field.

This isn't a simple issue and there will always be a difference of opinion. What does irritate me however is people criticising one form of species photography as being unethical while happily doing something similar with another species.

 

[markyboy.1967]

I have used hides in the past and will do so in the future. As mentioned its a great way of getting the images you always wanted and allowing you close encounters with various species.I have used hides where seed is put out to attract small birds etc and used a hide where roadkill was used to attract birds of prey.This i have no issue with. If the pro togs can't adapt to things changing then they are in the wrong game.Its not an easy life for the pros especially in wildlife photography but as mentioned some or even most have adapted to using or setting up hides--after all time is money to these guys so f they can get a stunning shot which a magazine etc are happy to use and get that image in an hour of work then so be it, if they spend days out trying to get something half as good then thats their perogative as well.Their decision at the end of the day and it will effect the work they manage to get.

Where i draw the line though is using live baits to get the image you want..Seed, roadkill etc i have no issue at all with but i just think that i would be happier if live animals weren't used which had no means of escape. It was mentioned in another thread about using minnows, well thats for you to decide if your happy with this or not and only you can make that decision.Another mentioned its no different from using live meal worms, well thats your decision again not something i can argue against but where do we go with this--remember wildlife togs in the past have tied live goats to sticks to get that picture of a tiger and this was deemed unethical. You could also put things like the Osprey pools into this as bait fish are put into a small area in a pool(the only deep part where the fish can live about 2-3ft long) again to me this is live baiting but i know others won't think so and i respect their opinions.I see things like Gigrin mentioned( although not live baiting) again i deem this as overfeeding going by the images i see and the amount of food many have mentioned has been put out( never been myself though). They help with conservation of a bird which was once extinct from the uk however I'm sure a smaller quantity of food being put out would have done a similar job sand allowed the birds to act normally and disperse more freely to find their own areas rather than sticking to the area around Gigrin most of the time where they are handed piles of food- is this changing the birds natural habits?.

I love photography but i also love wildlife and things recently made me think about both and how they can be combined and there isn't a simple answer. Are photohides here to stay--yip you bet they are, should the serious togs/pros adapt--yip you bet they should. Should we be ok with the few who will stop at nothing to get that picture--nope we shouldn't as there is always that one who will do it all unethically.

 

[gramps]

I see things like Gigrin mentioned( although not live baiting) again i deem this as overfeeding going by the images i see and the amount of food many have mentioned has been put out( never been myself though). They help with conservation of a bird which was once extinct from the uk however I'm sure a smaller quantity of food being put out would have done a similar job sand allowed the birds to act normally and disperse more freely to find their own areas rather than sticking to the area around Gigrin most of the time where they are handed piles of food- is this changing the birds natural habits?

From their site Mark, I am not equipped to confirm or deny but I guess someone 'in the know' would have by now if it was incorrect

Gigrin became the Official Red Kite Feeding Station in the winter 1992/93 following a request from the RSPB who had witnessed the late Mr Powell feeding the kites as and when food (rabbit) was available.
The RSPB had noted this spectacle and came to the farm with a proposal – that we should open to the public as the red kite feeding station as it would have an impact on the young kites that were being lost over the winter and would also draw people away from nesting sites where losses occurred due to the disturbance.
This was a major step into the unknown for what was a very successful livestock farm but Mr Powell had the foresight to take on the challenge and the farm is now far better known for the red kites than anything else. Around 6 red kites were roosting on the farm at that time but by the winter of 2006 over 400 were coming in for food in the winter.
Red kites, being hungry when they awake, will hunt for food during the morning and early afternoon, so Gigrin is here as a top up or emergency ration.
The kites you see visiting are unlikely to have been here the day before as there is a rolling population of red kites during the week.

 

[markyboy.1967]

Gramps-that doesn't say anything to go against what i said in my post.They have done well with introducing and increasing the numbers in that area although it says if you read between the lines that the kites are being drawn to an area due to the feed offered to them...Great to help in winter when its tough on the birds and there is much less natural food around but they are fed all year round and again going by the images on the internet its vast amounts of food.Up near me is another site and there was apron only 20-30 birds in the winter months and we can get some hard winters but during the spring/summer and autumn there was apron 6 birds in the area, this i think is much more natural.. They feed a very minimal about of food and often the birds just don't come to it as they are feeding elsewhere when the food goes out--much more natural behaviour i would have thought

 

[gramps]

Gramps-that doesn't say anything to go against what i said in my post.They have done well with introducing and increasing the numbers in that area although it says if you read between the lines that the kites are being drawn to an area due to the feed offered to them...Great to help in winter when its tough on the birds and there is much less natural food around but they are fed all year round and again going by the images on the internet its vast amounts of food.Up near me is another site and there was apron only 20-30 birds in the winter months and we can get some hard winters but during the spring/summer and autumn there was apron 6 birds in the area, this i think is much more natural.. They feed a very minimal about of food and often the birds just don't come to it as they are feeding elsewhere when the food goes out--much more natural behaviour i would have thought

Possibly Mark, I was going on the comment about them being primarily early feeders and the 'handout' being a top-up.
TBH in the times I've visited I've never thought the food excessive for the number of birds turning up (which also includes many Rooks and a few Buzzards who always feed first.
IIRC the RSPB have another feeding centre on their site near Aberdovey, would they do it if it was harmful for the birds?

 

[markyboy.1967]

Its not an immediate concern, more of a long term issue with changing habbits. Raptors etc usually disperse to find an area they can sustain themselves in which isn't full of similar birds each fighting/competing for food--all very natural..Have a look online as i remember seeing a thread elsewhere showing the amount of food put out for the birds..Would that area naturally sustain that quantity of birds naturally?

 

[gramps]

According to the RSPB site it could be argued that the feeding is a safeguard?

Illegal poison baits set for foxes or crows are indiscriminate and kill protected birds and other animals. It is estimated that at least half of our native Welsh kites die through this deliberate abuse of agricultural chemicals.
In Scotland the survival of juvenile birds is especially low due to poisoning. This is limiting the growth of the kite population in Scotland. It is estimated that over a third of the released and wild bred Scottish kites were illegally poisoned between 1989 and 2001.
Poisoning is also the most frequent cause of death of kites in England. Red kites are especially vulnerable to the modern rodenticides used to control rats, since they are skilled in finding the corpses of poisoned rats.

 

[den]

Baiting is the only way pay per view workshops will survive ,no bait no bird and while there is a big market for it then it will continue to thrive ,after all I would bet be there are good few members on here that have contributed to keeping the market busy ..to keep things simple i have no issue with pay per view and what i can say through experience is that there are pro wildlife photographers who are only to happy to also visit baited sites , not sure were to stand on live bait as i have used it in the past and will be doing again in summer...Ps when i say live bait i don't mean mice

 

[markyboy.1967]

Or looking at it a different way- are they by giving so much easy food leading the birds to take the poisoned food left out for them as it all looks similar? Its easy to argue a point for either side of this. On one hand they are safe guarding the kites future but at what cost? Anyway this thread is a lot more about other places than just Gigrin so maybe others care to comment!

 

[markyboy.1967]

Baiting is the only way pay per view workshops will survive ,no bait no bird and while there is a big market for it then it will continue to thrive ,after all I would bet be there are good few members on here that have contributed to keeping the market busy ..to keep things simple i have no issue with pay per view and what i can say through experience is that there are pro wildlife photographers who are only to happy to also visit baited sites , not sure were to stand on live bait as i have used it in the past and will be doing again in summer...Ps when i say live bait i don't mean mice

So what live bait then Den?

 

[den]

So what live bait then Den?

a variation of a mealworm (live) i would have thought you had an idea what i would have used Mark

 

[markyboy.1967]

I do Den but i cant read minds or look into the future hence asking. For all i knew you could be doing something different.

 

[den]

I do Den but i cant read minds or look into the future hence asking. For all i knew you could be doing something different.

If i am going to reply on this thread then i can only be open and honest because to me to me a Morio or a mealworm is still live bait and i cant argue against the fact that to some people i use live bait...one thing i don't agree with and i have seen this at a least two workshop sites is were they nail a mouse to the perch ,making it difficult for the bird to remove it in one go ,giving the photographer more time with the bird to get shots ,that i wouldn't do

 

[markyboy.1967]

As said Den thats your choice to use it and i for one cant say your wrong however its not for me.

 

[Gaz J]

I think our viewpoints are broadly similar Mark with the exception of live baiting. To be honest it's only something that I have began to give some thought on over the last 3 weeks or so after seeing the negative comments on it on FB mainly. At the moment I stick with my view that it's ok.

On the Ospreys, the pool is obviously designed to attract them but i have spent more time sitting in the hides and getting only one or two dives in 3-4 hours than I have watching 10-15 dives in the same time frame. On days when the birds don't come they are obviously fishing elsewhere so to me it's a reasonable compromise, just bloody expensive.

Osprey photography has become very popular. Just 4 years ago I didn't even book until a couple of months before I wanted to go. Then the following year the pro workshops seemed to start up with a vengeance and getting in now can be difficult especially if you're trying to fit it in around work.

It's ironic that pro photographers should complain about this type of photography as you don't have to try very hard to find one offering workshops for all sorts of species and it's a fair bet that they will bait to ensure customer satisfaction and return business.

Finally I, like most of us, would never compromise the animal or bird to get a shot. Neither would I frequent any hide that I felt or got to know about was compromising the welfare of the animal/bird.

 

[den]

As said Den thats your choice to use it and i for one cant say your wrong however its not for me.

Not wishing to cause argument about live mealworms Mark but I get them from the RSPB website ,just interesting to hear what the views are on this ,because some would say its OK to give it to the Redstart at a certain farm in order to get good shots but not for a little owl in breeding season in order to try and get good shots , as said Mark not aiming this at you just intrested to hear other members views

 

[rob-nikon]

I have no issue with the idea of pay and display photography or public hides in general if there is no harm to wildlife. I think it depends on the user what they are happy with doing and deciding which hides they feel happy using. I personally have used pay and display hides/workshops, afterwards I've not always felt good about it, it's sometimes a bit of a let down when you look through the images and see you ended up with exactly what others have taken. There are times when it feels you are 'bagging' images rather than trying to get something original. Of course pay and display can be broken down into different types, some you are sat down, told to look a certain way and wait so you can get 'this' image, others it is just access to wildlife you wouldn't easily be able to get close to without private access and time. One thing that puts me off pay and display is when you see images and know exactly where it was taken as everyone walks away with exactly the same image. I've been on several days now but I'm more selective now as to whether I get something I can't get without harming wildlife. One recent photography day was photographing hedgehogs. It was being run by a pro photographer and a rescue centre. I couldn't get similar wild images without causing harm to a hedgehog (if I saw a hedgehog out in daylight I would help it rather than taking photos) and as the money was also going to help the rescue centre help wild hedgehogs I personally felt ok with it. Kingfishers and adder workshops are ones I've stayed away from because of personal feelings/doubts. I probably now only go to a pay and display hide/photography day once a year. I much prefer trying to get images where I feel I've worked to get them but I won't completely rule out photography hides/days.

To be honest I see some pay and display photography as similar to captive photography. I know some don't like the idea of captive photography but I try to research captive places before going to them. I do similar with pay and display hides too. There are some captive falconry centres I will never go to but others that I will go to. Those are usually ones where they are also helping and rehabilitating BoP and only keeping them if they can't be released. By going to their photography days is helping them help wild BoP.

One thing that does annoy me slightly is when people go to pay and display sites then don't acknowledge they went there and try to past it off as there own work. The same thing goes with captive wildlife.

 

[markyboy.1967]

Im only here to hear others views, if that stops then i will stop responding. Mealworms are mealworms and some would say they are tge bottom of the food chain etc etc so its ok- you have your view and i have mine. I have a friend who has used live vait but it doesnt nake him a bad person its just not my thing. Where are all your viwes on the tethering a live goat to get pics of a tiger?

 

[den]

Tethering a live goat to get pics of a tiger ...well that to me is bordering on animal cruelty and something I would not like to see in fact I would get rather upset at seeing such image ,don't call me soft because I have served in the forces were I have seen things that would bring a grown man to cry but were animals are concerned that's a different matter to me...

 

[rob-nikon]

Osprey hides is an interesting thing. In the last few years photography hides have been built at two trout farms near rutland water. It was done in response to the osprey naturally taking the free, easy trout on offer. The photography hides were built in conjunction with the rutland osprey trust as a way to compensate the trout owners for their losses.

 

[markyboy.1967]

I have no issue with the idea of pay and display photography or public hides in general if there is no harm to wildlife. I think it depends on the user what they are happy with doing and deciding which hides they feel happy using. I personally have used pay and display hides/workshops, afterwards I've not always felt good about it, it's sometimes a bit of a let down when you look through the images and see you ended up with exactly what others have taken. There are times when it feels you are 'bagging' images rather than trying to get something original. Of course pay and display can be broken down into different types, some you are sat down, told to look a certain way and wait so you can get 'this' image, others it is just access to wildlife you wouldn't easily be able to get close to without private access and time. One thing that puts me off pay and display is when you see images and know exactly where it was taken as everyone walks away with exactly the same image. I've been on several days now but I'm more selective now as to whether I get something I can't get without harming wildlife. One recent photography day was photographing hedgehogs. It was being run by a pro photographer and a rescue centre. I couldn't get similar wild images without causing harm to a hedgehog (if I saw a hedgehog out in daylight I would help it rather than taking photos) and as the money was also going to help the rescue centre help wild hedgehogs I personally felt ok with it. Kingfishers and adder workshops are ones I've stayed away from because of personal feelings/doubts. I probably now only go to a pay and display hide/photography day once a year. I much prefer trying to get images where I feel I've worked to get them but I won't completely rule out photography hides/days.

To be honest I see some pay and display photography as similar to captive photography. I know some don't like the idea of captive photography but I try to research captive places before going to them. I do similar with pay and display hides too. There are some captive falconry centres I will never go to but others that I will go to. Those are usually ones where they are also helping and rehabilitating BoP and only keeping them if they can't be released. By going to their photography days is helping them help wild BoP.

One thing that does annoy me slightly is when people go to pay and display sites then don't acknowledge they went there and try to past it off as there own work. The same thing goes with captive wildlife.

I have no issue with the idea of pay and display photography or public hides in general if there is no harm to wildlife. I think it depends on the user what they are happy with doing and deciding which hides they feel happy using. I personally have used pay and display hides/workshops, afterwards I've not always felt good about it, it's sometimes a bit of a let down when you look through the images and see you ended up with exactly what others have taken. There are times when it feels you are 'bagging' images rather than trying to get something original. Of course pay and display can be broken down into different types, some you are sat down, told to look a certain way and wait so you can get 'this' image, others it is just access to wildlife you wouldn't easily be able to get close to without private access and time. One thing that puts me off pay and display is when you see images and know exactly where it was taken as everyone walks away with exactly the same image. I've been on several days now but I'm more selective now as to whether I get something I can't get without harming wildlife. One recent photography day was photographing hedgehogs. It was being run by a pro photographer and a rescue centre. I couldn't get similar wild images without causing harm to a hedgehog (if I saw a hedgehog out in daylight I would help it rather than taking photos) and as the money was also going to help the rescue centre help wild hedgehogs I personally felt ok with it. Kingfishers and adder workshops are ones I've stayed away from because of personal feelings/doubts. I probably now only go to a pay and display hide/photography day once a year. I much prefer trying to get images where I feel I've worked to get them but I won't completely rule out photography hides/days.

To be honest I see some pay and display photography as similar to captive photography. I know some don't like the idea of captive photography but I try to research captive places before going to them. I do similar with pay and display hides too. There are some captive falconry centres I will never go to but others that I will go to. Those are usually ones where they are also helping and rehabilitating BoP and only keeping them if they can't be released. By going to their photography days is helping them help wild BoP.

One thing that does annoy me slightly is when people go to pay and display sites then don't acknowledge they went there and try to past it off as there own work. The same thing goes with captive wildlife.

.

Rob, i have no issue at all with captive animal photography seeing as most or at least many are bred in captivity anyway- my BIG issue is people putting them up as wild or when asked if captive they just suddenly forget how to use a keyboard to reply. I have visited bird of prey centres to see the birds and teach my kids but i wouldnt try and oass pics as wild ones.

 

[den]

.

Rob, i have no issue at all with captive animal photography seeing as most or at least many are bred in captivity anyway- my BIG issue is people putting them up as wild or when asked if captive they just suddenly forget how to use a keyboard to reply. I have visited bird of prey centres to see the birds and teach my kids but i wouldnt try and oass pics as wild ones.

This I agree with ,some captive bird are needed to keep the gene pool alive as well

 

[rob-nikon]

.

Rob, i have no issue at all with captive animal photography seeing as most or at least many are bred in captivity anyway- my BIG issue is people putting them up as wild or when asked if captive they just suddenly forget how to use a keyboard to reply. I have visited bird of prey centres to see the birds and teach my kids but i wouldnt try and oass pics as wild ones.

I feel exactly the same on that. Anything I photo that's captive gets a big captive tag and where it was taken in the description. It amazes me how some people try passing off the BWC foxes as wild yet they are the most recognisable foxes in the uk! The BWPA competitions confuses me on this as they allow captive wildlife to be entered. I find strange as the competition is called British WILDLIFE Photography Awards.

 

[gramps]

Where are all your viwes on the tethering a live goat to get pics of a tiger?

For me that would be totally unacceptable ... why not a mealworm or a minnow then?
For a start, for me, worms (of whatever sort) are the natural food of a bird, (though personally I only feed dried) ... if I went somewhere where live mealworms were being used it would not concern me overly ... just because they are small? Maybe.
Kingfishers naturally feed on minnows, that is their mainstay and whether the river or the workshop supplies them makes little difference ... the bird always quickly despatches the fish ... and again it's small (should that matter? I don't know).
I eat meat and fish and it has to be killed for me ... would I be a hypocrite in not accepting that birds and animals can have the same? Again I don't know.
Some people always take things too far, like the injecting fish with polystyrene to make it a floating bait fish ... such things are unacceptable.


and what actually constitutes 'passing something off as wild'?

 

[markyboy.1967]

I feel exactly the same on that. Anything I photo that's captive gets a big captive tag and where it was taken in the description. It amazes me how some people try passing off the BWC foxes as wild yet they are the most recognisable foxes in the uk! The BWPA competitions confuses me on this as they allow captive wildlife to be entered. I find strange as the competition is called British WILDLIFE Photography Awards.

Its not just a UK thing as i know a very very famous tog of wildlife who live baits and has stunning images of various species and is a world class photographer. The major comps he wins never seem to have issues with live baiting which some smaller comps do- at least he doesnt do captive.

 

[markyboy.1967]

For me that would be totally unacceptable ... why not a mealworm or a minnow then?
For a start, for me, worms (of whatever sort) are the natural food of a bird, (though personally I only feed dried) ... if I went somewhere where live mealworms were being used it would not concern me overly ... just because they are small? Maybe.
Kingfishers naturally feed on minnows, that is their mainstay and whether the river or the workshop supplies them makes little difference ... the bird always quickly despatches the fish ... and again it's small (should that matter? I don't know).
I eat meat and fish and it has to be killed for me ... would I be a hypocrite in not accepting that birds and animals can have the same? Again I don't know.
Some people always take things too far, like the injecting fish with polystyrene to make it a floating bait fish ... such things are unacceptable.


and what actually constitutes 'passing something off as wild'?

To me wild is just that- free to go and roam where it wants. Not dependant on humans and able to sustain its own life in the wild.

 

[Gaz J]

Fair point Mark on the goat tethering. I guess I'm a bit of a hypocrit as that would be too far for me. I really cannot see how anyone can object to the use of hides though. Here I just mean the ones at the local nature reserve not paid ones. They are not doing anything other than allowing people to view wildlife. They, at least all the ones I've ever sat in, don't intrude into the animals space and just give an opportunity to see something that you would not ordinarily get close to.

Is sitting in a hide really any different to lying in a hedge dressed in camo gear. The object is to conceal yourself to get closer to the objective.

I never photograph captive animals/birds. It's just not my thing. To me they should be free. I know that many do great work and provide a home for injured and orphaned birds etc and without them those animals would not survive. I do however give to charities that support some of these efforts. Go figure!!

 

[gramps]

How could you ever know whether or not the Red Kite you are photographing in the field goes off to visit the feeding centre every afternoon, or that the Kingfisher you stalk doesn't take the minnows from the hide down the river from where you are?

But my point is ... is it a requirement for every image posted here to have a description incorporating where, how and under what circumstances it was taken?
If so for what purpose, other than for some to say maybe to class it as a '2nd class image', just because it wasn't stalked up a mountain somewhere?

 

[markyboy.1967]

Gaz, Bence Mate has a few hides in the forrest where he regularily gets Buzzard, Sparrowhawk and Goshawk to within 5meters and often to within 1meter from the photographers but he doesnt bait it with any food at all. All im saying is there are always alternatives methods in getting the shots you want. All has has is a shallow pool where he knows the birds frequent and the majority of birds and wildlife need water to sustain life. The tethering of goats is bad in most peoples opinions but in other countries and climates its a common thing and who are we to say they are wring- all we can say is that we find it wrong.

 

[markyboy.1967]

How could you ever know whether or not the Red Kite you are photographing in the field goes off to visit the feeding centre every afternoon, or that the Kingfisher you stalk doesn't take the minnows from the hide down the river from where you are?

But my point is ... is it a requirement for every image posted here to have a description incorporating where, how and under what circumstances it was taken?
If so for what purpose, other than for some to say maybe to class it as a '2nd class image', just because it wasn't stalked up a mountain somewhere?

Not at all, but i would expect someone to reply when asked how/ where it was taken

 

[markyboy.1967]

Over 30 replies and the toys are still in the prams- could be a first for this section.

 

[gramps]

Not at all, but i would expect someone to reply when asked how/ where it was taken

Absolutely, I'm surprised that anyone wouldn't

 

[Gaz J]

You're right Mark there are alternative methods but let's be honest if everyone tried to use that chaps idea then the pages of this forum would be bereft of images.

It's a good idea though as I've sat and watched birds coming to a reflection pool without any food being out.

I hope that they stay in the pram Mark. I wanted a sensible discussion where people put forward their reasons for their views.

 

[gramps]

Gaz, Bence Mate has a few hides in the forrest where he regularily gets Buzzard, Sparrowhawk and Goshawk to within 5meters and often to within 1meter from the photographers but he doesnt bait it with any food at all. All im saying is there are always alternatives methods in getting the shots you want. All has has is a shallow pool where he knows the birds frequent and the majority of birds and wildlife need water to sustain life. The tethering of goats is bad in most peoples opinions but in other countries and climates its a common thing and who are we to say they are wring- all we can say is that we find it wrong.

So isn't the water the bait?
Doesn't it discourage the birds from finding natural sources of water?

 

[den]

You're right Mark there are alternative methods but let's be honest if everyone tried to use that chaps idea then the pages of this forum would be bereft of images.

It's a good idea though as I've sat and watched birds coming to a reflection pool without any food being out.

There certainly is alternative methods...its just knowing them but that's the side that people don't see,

 

[markyboy.1967]

Gramps, it is natural water which runs off the roof of the hide into the pool and sustains itself.lol.

 

[gramps]

Gramps, it is natural water which runs off the roof of the hide into the pool and sustains itself.lol.

But if the hide wasn't there would there be a pool?
Was the pool created by the hide owner or is it a natural pool?
Not trying to be a twit here Mark but trying to establish the differences in beliefs being expressed here.