Gaz interesting thread,this is something I've been musing a little while since the recent kingfisher debate. I'm new to this togging lark but have hung about wildlife in blighty for years,you have actually outlined one of my questions in the post above,I'll do my point of view in a mo,but the questions first.
Is there any scientific base, any scientific studies ie papers that says feeding predators/raptors is or can be harmful?
It's much bandied about that by feeding predators has the potential to disrupt their natural behaviours and become reliant on us providing food,but I'm really curious as to whether this is purely a point of view or whether it has grounding in HARD scientific fact? I'm very confused here I don't really know how to differentiate between helping the garden birds being a good thing and suddenly if it's a raptor it becomes frowned upon so an actual paper being linked would add some clarity as to why and how this point of view arises. I'll go further with a couple of examples. Let's start with the red kite,I'm lead to believe in the old days when kites were numerous in blightly they were to be seen scavaging rubbish tips in number,it almost seems to me that they now do what previous generations did way back,sure now maybe we bung food at them in the past they found our rubbish,but it seems that almost symbiotic relationship betwixt man and kite as been resumed. I for my sins have to work every now and again in the chilterns in a town that has a cafe that feeds kites,but the kites are just checking out every house even the building site for food,they seem to have naturally gone back to what they used to do,previous to their numbers being in deathly decline.
I know of some barn owls,the farmer watches their back a bit bungs some mice out if times are hard,puts up owl boxes,leaves areas of long grass,the owls are doing all right probably better than the big picture displayed across their population here. So if any of these above tactics are used to gain a better pic and if no actual cold hard fact study is backing the concerns we all muse,because we all care about the well being of said birds(taken as given),then why does it matter if someones work means he can charge a tog to stop by and hopefully get some snaps?
Gaz I know i've drifted a bit from topic,but it's all interlinked for me as is my next big question. Do we photographers really think Joe public asks the question was this taken in a hide was it baited was it paid for when he or she sees a spell binding image? I guess I'll outline my thoughts on this as someone who is slowly trying to cross over from being Joe public, to being a wildlife photographer but I'd welcome all to air their views and answer this one,i'm interested in what you all think. Personally I think togs are deluded in thinking joe public cares for the most part),I think this is something we hold dear not the viewer so much . There is a caviat though the public cares if any form of cruelty might be involved in getting the image. Togs need disclosure it's for us I feel it means something to us . When money becomes involved both in the value of a picture and the more fortunate tog being able to get to hot spots paid hides passion arises and I think this has lead to where we are now.
Gary I have no problem with someone paying to use a hide. I have no problem with that hide being baited i'm unsure on how one differentiates between one life form and another if that bait is live and struggle with live bait anyway full stop. If someone grafts hard and has little time and can afford to use a paid hide ,good for them,my one caviat is that due care is given for the subjects well being and as already outlined I'd love some hard core science to come forth behind the points of view I so oft see expressed
I am in an unusual position I suppose,I can go not so far and take pics of deer from a baited hide,I can also take pics of the same population on land where we have permission,for me personally the two are chalk and cheese. The hide images being somewhat hollow,but by and large they are easier and as someone learning,they are often of a higher quality than the wild pics. I think we togs are passionate and need to judge an image by more than the image it's self ie we take into account how that pic was actually made. I read a landscape thread recently very thought provoking. a debate over should an image that was preplanned, waited for, tried for on several attempts, be judged,(maybe prized) more highly than an image someone just stopped a car and nabbed the shot.
It might seem that this last bit is miles away from pay to shoot in a hide ,but for me at least at this stage in my learning not so much,as far as I can see. Togs naturally take in to account the expertise and conditions that made the image possible,they take pictures too it's natural to want to evaluate everything. To me how the image has been made is fundamental to the opinions expressed over paid for hides I have clear feelings on what I want to try and achieve,that is taking pictures of wild animals in the wild that I have learnt about and got close to, I guess the hard way,but have no wish to judge or bare no ill will to someone else who wants something different. I'm actually now in the position where I leave for work in the dark and come home in the dark I see nowt wrong with someone getting out to shoot at least something by paying for it,I really can see why they might want to !!!!! I also feel that there might be huge scope to learn at such a place and be guided by the more experienced individual whom made the hide happen . This will never be clear cut for me Gaz,so many areas of grey,but I feel it would be good for photography as a whole if folks were a bit more openminded,as long as the beastie of desire isn't harmed.
take care all
Stu
im going before I upset someone