Baited/set up shots - ethical?

[Ukwildlifeo]

A look around the net since Springwatch last Wednesday night when Springwatch showed a green woodpecker set up to get them posing on a tree and placing food for badgers to get them to look up has shown a lot of people attacking the photographer for doing it. Some saying it is unethical in terms of what is portrayed in the photo and others saying it was cruel to make the badger 'do tricks.' Am I the only one that thinks these arm chair experts are out of line?

[Tobyh]

No.

Not got time to discuss fully right now but how is it unethical? The bird is getting a meal, it comes by choice and benefits. The photographer takes an image and doesn't pretend it has been taken any other way...what's the issue?

Perhaps these comments come from people that don't want to put in the effort to get the shots? Perhaps they think that feeding the birds in any way is unethical? who knows

TobyH

[david156]

How is it unethical if no harm or disturbance is done.
I can't see any difference from feeding a bird from a feeder or a bird table or from feeding it from a log to give a more natural appearance.
You just have to look on this site at some recent examples Bryan (kentyeti) and his log (sorry thats Traceys log isn't Bryan), and Snake with his superb Buzzard and Harrier pictures baited near his hide. I can't see any harm done in these situations.
And whats the difference between one person feeding an animal to gain a photograph and, say, a place like Gigrin feeding the red kites.
As long as the animals well being is put first, I don't have a problem with it.

David

[pressld2]

Not unethical in the least. The programme was very clear about the steps taken to ensure that the animals were not affected, even to the extent of making sure that they did not become reliant on the feeding. As far as I can see, there was no harm to the subjects and there was no dishonesty about how the shots were obtained. How can that be considered unethical?

Originally Posted by Tobyh

Perhaps these comments come from people that don't want to put in the effort to get the shots?

That's my suspicion too Toby. That or they're simply jealous of his stunning results.

Dave P.

[Kayleigh]

Springwatch would not put anything on if it was unethical or disturbed animals just to get a decent shot.
I watched it and didn't even give it a second thought..

[Ukwildlifeo]

One of the reasons Ive posted I because Ive had someone on Twitter ranting at me since I accused the folks moaning on the BBC messageboard of being numpties.

He tweeted me today saying what Phil is doing is as bad as the guy who won WPOTY with captive wolf potrayed as wild. I have of course told him he's talk nonsense but he reckons that lots of folks agree with him. Its all a bit disturbing.

[Farplace]

Don't let him get at you. Theres nothing unethical about set-up shots providing the animals are not disturbed.
The WPOTY captive wolf shot was portrayed as a wild wolf by someone trying to deceive. Whole different ball game.

[Kayleigh]

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

One of the reasons Ive posted I because Ive had someone on Twitter ranting at me since I accused the folks moaning on the BBC messageboard of being numpties.

He tweeted me today saying what Phil is doing is as bad as the guy who won WPOTY with captive wolf potrayed as wild. I have of course told him he's talk nonsense but he reckons that lots of folks agree with him. Its all a bit disturbing.

Block him...I would..
we are all entitled to our opinions but this sounds like harassment send him a link to this site see how many agree with him here..

[nutmeg]

If animals are not disturbed or harmed then no problem at all as far as I'm concerned - but always appreciate it when photographers explain that the shot was baited/set up.

[Hedera]

I am quite happy with what they did on the programme. The birds and animals enjoyed their treats, and we learnt how agile a badger can be!