“Bait or Wait?” - The moral fine line between attraction and exploitation.

It is one of the most widely talked about subjects by wildlife groups and wildlife photographers on social media globally!

Before I even get into this, let me make a few things clear - firstly, there is little to no ‘actual’ scientific evidence to back either the side for defence or prosecution, so the debate is, as much as most would hate to admit, based on little more than opinion!

I am also going to cover as much discussion as possible, both in and out of favour of baiting, to provide a level playing field when it comes to discussing what is an incredibly divisive subject.

Transparency is key! I am happy to admit, that I have used baited hides, been on organised trips/tours that bait subjects and also have very close friends that own both commercial, and individually used hides/wildlife areas not for profit, and at no point, have I felt like my ethics have been called into question. I have however, seen images and footage from hides, setups and pesonal situations through social media, that have left me feeling nothing short of aghast at some of the behaviours that so called ‘wildlife enthusiasts’ are willing to associate themselves with, both in hides, on their own in the field, and even when the use of bait isnt even part of the conversation.

May I also state, that this doesn’t just relate to wildlife photography. I have equally been in situations with birders and ‘twitchers’ that have excessively used tape lures to attract wildlife/birds into view, without even the desire to take an image.

This blog also doesn’t account for the unethical behaviour that I have witnessed countless times, by birders and photographers causing more disturbance and stress to wildlife by ‘flushing’ at locations that they are viewing/photographing species at, without the use of bait!

It’s a minefield - and one of our own doing!

Most of the awareness of this, is down to the ‘realtime picture of life’ that is often shared through social media - I wonder how many of these habits have been going on for years, but previously without the window to the world that social media gives, completely unknown to the wider wildlife community and therefore, not up for debate.

Often, throw away comments are made in response to photographic posts on both Facebook and Instagram, calling people out (me being on the receiving end in the case of the below) for using baited hides and the use of ‘bait’ to capture their desired images. Hiding behind the cape of disguise that social media gives - some may even call it trolling!

“That’s not skill, that’s easy”

“It’s not magic, it’s exploiting nature”

“That’s lazy photography, for lazy photographers”

Who are we, to suggest that we have the knowledge, power and authority to tell people what they can and can’t do?

I said in a recent episode of The WildX Podcast, it is almost like the royal ‘we’ have subliminally made an extensive rule book for the ‘do’s and donts’ of wildlife photography, that we should all now be adhering to!

As a result of my own interest in this subject, I reached out to friends, fellow wildlife photographers, hide owners and social media networks, both in the UK and overseas.

The views and opinions were, as you would expect, mixed - here are some quotes:

“No, no, no, no, no, don’t do it!”

“I wouldn’t call garden birdfeeders luring.”

“Supplementary feeding is fine.”

“I think baiting is unethical but have birdfeeders and I sometimes struggle with that!”

“Baiting in the field as an individual is a no no, the use of monitored commercial hides is fine”

“It’s fine as long as they don’t become reliant on it”

“Here in Canada a fed animal, becomes a dead animal. If a bear or wolf associates food with humans, its not long before its relocated. After 3 unsuccessful relocations, they are shot by the authorities.”

“What an absolute can of worms! Literally!”

It got me thinking. . . and researching, and thinking some more! Here are my musings.

Baiting in wildlife photography refers to the practice of using food or other attractants to lure animals to a specific location in order to photograph them.

These technique can include:

1. Placing food in a strategic spot to attract animals

2. Using scent lures or pheromones

3. Playing recorded bird/mammal calls to draw in certain species

While baiting can lead to striking, close-up images of wildlife, it's also deemed by many as a controversial practice for several reasons:

1. Ethical concerns: It can alter natural animal behavior and create dependency on human-provided food.

2. Ecological impact: Regular baiting may disrupt local ecosystems and food chains.

3. Safety issues: It can habituate animals to human presence, potentially leading to dangerous human-wildlife interactions.

4. Legal considerations: Baiting is illegal in some protected areas and for certain species.

5. Authenticity debate: Some argue that baited photos don't represent true wildlife behavior.

Many wildlife photography competitions have strict rules against baiting and therefore as an alternative, ‘ethical’ wildlife photographers often use techniques like:

- Researching animal behavior and habitats

- Using camouflage and hides/blinds

- Employing long lenses to capture animals from a distance

- Spending weeks/months/years with species to invest the required time to capture natural behaviors

Ultimately, the ethics often depend on the specific situation, species, and methods used. Many wildlife organizations have developed ethical guidelines around baiting, particularly around commercial hides. These often emphasize minimizing impact, using natural foods, and avoiding dependency.

Surely there are ‘levels’?

The obvious no’s for me are pretty clear cut and some of those reasons make it very hard to make a universal rule for ‘all things baiting’!

The use of a shallow glass tank filled with fish to photograph underwater shots of diving Kingfishers, is surely very different to a Kingfisher perch over a ‘stocked’ pond/lake, viewied/photographed from a hide on the bank? Even if that hide is commercial rather than a ‘pop up hide’.

Is the use of live bait in a small bucket, different to stocking a pond with fish to attract a Kingfisher?

How about the use of naturally occuring roadkill when photographing carrion feeding raptors such as Eagles and Buzzards. Does the placing of such roadkill strategically in front of a photo hide, not create a safer environment for the raptor to feed at than the side of a road? Some such species have territories stretching hundreds of square kilometers and will therefore only feed on an ‘easy meal’ if they feel the need to (harsh winters, snow etc).

A Case for Baiting in Wildlife Photography

Wildlife photography is an art form that requires patience, skill, and sometimes, a bit of controversy. One such controversial technique is baiting. While this method has its critics, there are compelling arguments in favour of responsible baiting in wildlife photography.

Increased opportunities for ‘rare shots’ - many elusive species are difficult to photograph in their natural habitat. Baiting can provide rare opportunities to capture images of these animals, offering viewers a chance to see and appreciate creatures they might never encounter otherwise. These photographs can be invaluable for education, conservation awareness, and scientific documentation.

Control over composition - by strategically placing bait, photographers can influence where an animal will appear in the frame. This control allows for more artistically composed shots, showcasing the animal's beauty in relation to its environment. The result is often stunning imagery that can captivate audiences and draw attention to wildlife conservation efforts.

Time efficiency - wildlife photographers often spend days or weeks waiting for the perfect shot. Baiting can significantly reduce this wait time, making wildlife photography more accessible to those with limited resources or time constraints. This efficiency can lead to a greater diversity of wildlife images and photographers. It also makes certain wildlife more accessible to groups of less mobile individuals, such as the elderly and people with disabilities, health conditions or impairments.

Safer distance for both photographer and subject - when done correctly, baiting allows photographers to maintain a safe distance from potentially dangerous animals and vice versa. This technique can reduce stress on the animal and minimize the risk of human-wildlife conflict, ultimately creating a safer environment for both parties.

Controlled environmental impact - contrary to some beliefs, responsible baiting can have minimal environmental impact - case in point, Mull Charters. By using natural foods in appropriate quantities and locations, photographers can avoid disrupting the ecosystem or altering animal behavior long-term. In fact, many animals naturally encounter temporary food sources regularly in nature.

Educational value - baiting techniques, when used ethically, can provide unique insights into animal behavior. These close-up, detailed images can be invaluable for researchers, conservationists, and educators in understanding and promoting wildlife preservation.

Conclusion

While the debate around baiting in wildlife photography continues, it's clear that when practiced responsibly and ethically, this technique can yield significant benefits. From creating breathtaking images that inspire conservation efforts to providing valuable data for scientific research, baiting has its place in the toolkit of wildlife photographers. As with any powerful tool, the key lies in education, using it wisely and with the utmost respect for the animals and their habitats.

Why Baiting in Wildlife Photography can be harmful.

Wildlife photography allows us to witness the beauty and majesty of nature up close. However, the increasing use of baiting techniques to capture that ‘perfect shot’ raises serious ethical concerns. This practice, while producing stunning images, can come at a great cost to the animals and ecosystems involved.

The Problems with Baiting

1. Altering Natural Behaviors

When photographers use bait, they can fundamentally change the natural behavior of wild animals. This can disrupt feeding patterns, migration routes, and other crucial aspects of an animal's life cycle.

2. Habituation to Human Presence

Regular baiting can cause animals to associate humans with food. This habituation can lead to dangerous human-wildlife conflicts, especially in areas where animals may encounter humans who are not providing food, case in point Red Kites in the Chilterns.

3. Nutritional Issues

Baits can often consist of foods that are not part of an animal's natural diet. This can lead to health problems and nutritional imbalances, particularly if baiting becomes a regular occurrence.

4. Increased Predation Risk

Concentrating animals in one area for baiting can make them more vulnerable to predators. This artificial gathering can upset the delicate balance of predator-prey relationships in an ecosystem. Case in point - Sparrowhawks at woodland hides.

5. Ethical Concerns

Many argue that baiting is a form of exploitation, prioritizing human desires for a photograph over the welfare and natural behavior of wild animals.

“the true art of wildlife photography lies not just in capturing a beautiful image”

Alternatives to Baiting

Fortunately, there are ethical alternatives that wildlife photographers can employ:

1. Patience and Persistence: Waiting for natural animal behaviors often yields more authentic and rewarding results.

2. Knowledge and study of animal behavior: Understanding animal habits and habitats can help photographers anticipate and capture natural moments.

3. Use of Blinds and Camouflage: These techniques allow photographers to observe animals without disturbing them.

4. Remote Cameras and camera trap photography: These can capture images of shy or nocturnal animals without human presence.

So, what about garden bird feeders?

Feeding garden birds with bird feeders and baiting are not the same, although they may appear similar on the surface.

Let’s explore some of the key differences:

1. Intent:

- Bird feeding: The primary intent is to support, supplementary feed and observe wild birds, often for enjoyment or conservation.

- Baiting: Usually refers to luring animals, often for personal photographic gain.

2. Target species:

- Bird feeding: Aimed at attracting a variety of wild bird species.

- Baiting: Often targets specific animals, which may include birds but also mammals or other wildlife.

3. Legality and regulation:

- Bird feeding: Generally legal and often encouraged in residential areas.

- Baiting: Often regulated or restricted, especially in the context of hunting or pest control.

4. Food type and placement:

- Bird feeding: Uses specially designed feeders and bird-appropriate foods.

- Baiting: May use a wider variety of unsuitable foods or lures, often placed directly on the ground.

5. Ecological impact:

- Bird feeding: When done responsibly, can support bird populations, especially during harsh weather.

- Baiting: Can disrupt natural foraging behaviors and potentially lead to habituation or dependency.

6. Duration:

- Bird feeding: Often a continuous, long-term activity.

- Baiting: Potentially when unmonitored, a short-term activity with a specific goal in mind.

While both practices involve providing food to attract animals, the context, intent, and potential consequences differ significantly. It's important to follow local regulations and guidelines for both activities to ensure they're done responsibly and legally.

One thing that is also worth mentioning when relating to bird feeders, is the potential spread of disease.

The use of garden bird feeders, when not used and cleaned correctly, can lead to significant disease in bird species and has directly lead to the decline in species such as Greenfinch and Goldfinch due to Trichomonosis - a parasitic disease that can be transmitted through contaminated food or water, Avian pox - a disease that can cause wart-like growths on the skin of un-feathered parts of the body and Aspergillosis - a fungal infection that causes respiratory disease. 

It is now scientifically proven, that Trichomonosis has directly contributed to the decline of Greenfinches and Chaffinches in the UK.

The BTO writes:

“Wild birds are at risk of a number of serious diseases at our garden bird feeders, according to a collaborative study led by scientists from international conservation charity ZSL (Zoological Society of London) and published in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.
 
The study found that while there are multiple benefits of additional food resources for wild birds, particularly during the harsher winter months, garden feeding can also promote the transmission of some diseases – not least by encouraging birds to repeatedly congregate in the same location, often bringing them into regular contact with other species they wouldn’t otherwise interact with so closely in the wider environment. Risks can be increased if hygiene at feeding stations is poor, allowing stale food, food waste and droppings to accumulate.
 
The research, conducted in partnership with the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) and Fera Science Ltd, analysed more than 25 years’ worth of data on the occurrence of wild bird health threats, focusing on protozoal (finch trichomonosis), viral (Paridae pox) and bacterial (passerine salmonellosis) diseases. Members of the public contributed their observations via national ‘citizen science’ projects, highlighting the ongoing importance of these surveys in helping scientists track the evolving health threats facing garden wildlife.
 
Commenting on the study, lead author Dr Becki Lawson from ZSL’s Institute of Zoology said, “Our study shows how three of the most common diseases that affect British garden birds have changed both dramatically and unpredictably over the past decade, both in terms of the species they affect and their patterns of occurrence."
 
“Both finch trichomonosis and Paridae pox have emerged recently, causing disease epidemics affecting large numbers of birds.”

Conclusion

Clearly, this blog leaves me with extremely deep lying splinters in my a*se! I have, in very intentional fashion, sat on the proverbial fence so far!

So here it is.

While baiting may produce visually striking images, it can sometimes come at a cost to wildlife and ecosystems, when not implemented responsibly and this is something that we all have a moral obligation to be aware of.

The reality of my research is, that there is no black and white answer and there will always be exceptions - each specific case has to be treated with individual merit - species type, geographic location, baiting method used, regularity of baiting are all things that need to be considered. The use of commercial hides, when ran responsibly and ethically, and tours that are adhering to strict standards and working in partnership with wildlife bodies, can have little or no long term detrimental impact on wildlife from what I have found. In certain cases, can infact provide huge benefit to the reintroduction of near extinct, or under threat species, case in points Red Kites in Wales - Gigrin Farm and White-tailed Eagles on Mull, Mull Charters. That said, invividual luring of species, is very much where the deeper lying issues can occur, due to there being no strict monitoring.

Regardless of your thoughts on the use of luring and baiting, the true art of wildlife photography lies not just in capturing a beautiful image, but in doing so in a way that respects and preserves the natural world - after all as humans, we are directly responsible for changing over 70% of our planet already!