My first paid hide - I feel conflicted on using the images

I'm of two minds. Nice to have the photos you got so easily, but also more rewarding when you are out in the field and get something that frankly takes luck and perseverance to get the shot.

For me, who shoots underwater, the equivalent might be going to a local aquarium and basically shooting fish in a barrel.
 
I'm of two minds. Nice to have the photos you got so easily, but also more rewarding when you are out in the field and get something that frankly takes luck and perseverance to get the shot.

For me, who shoots underwater, the equivalent might be going to a local aquarium and basically shooting fish in a barrel.
 
Re. feeding birds locally, say in your garden, RSPB or another org. stated that birds will still take 85-90% of their food from the food chain or whatever regardless of the seeds you might put out. I feed the jackdaws and sparrows here every few days, with either seeds or cashews that might be leftover from a stir fry. It's the wood pigeons I get annoyed at as one will eat all of what I put out given a chance. But hey, that's life. Re. hides, there's a place in mid-Wales where you can stay over for a few days and use the hide, all on private land. I think I learnt about it from A Hewitt over on the Fuji pages, but don't quote me on that. I don't expect they shoot squirrels there.

Finally, interesting that you recognise the dichotomy of being a nature lover and photographer and find yourself wrestling about hides and (completely understandably) that feller's attitude to squirrels whilst eating meat yourself. I went vegan 7yrs back. Consider it.

Edited for spelling and to add - public hides are fun, and you meet all sorts there. Seeds are always left out at these places, perches are in place too. It's a great way for kids to learn about nature and a safe space for those who wish to photograph fauna. A private hide isn't much different, and as some others have said above, just be honest about where you took the photos when you post them, if you do post them at all. I'm in a similar place to you having just recently visited Slimbridge for the first time. I was expecting something more akin to an RSPB site but what I found was effectively a zoo. I have this far only shared photos of rooks and jackdaws that populate the site as they are free to come and go. I have some images of flamingos that are quite nice but have the same dilemma as you and I'll probably never share them. I do have a nice duck shot though, which I'll probably put out there. I expect they can move about a bit.
Yes the same dilemma! It is a curious one. Even RSPB and wildlife trust places have feeders out. I guess it comes down to how you/we feel more comfortable getting shots.
 
This has some comments about Slimbridge as mentioned by the previous poster. I am a member of the WWT (Wildlife and Wetlands Trust) and visit Slimbridge fairly regularly. I will start with some information for US forum member

Slimbridge was set up in the 1950s by Peter Scott who was possibly the world's first conservationist. As well as providing a protected area for migratory birds in winter, it has been involved in some major conservation projects. Since the 1950s Slimbridge has had a on-going breeding program for Hawaiian geese (nenes), return them to Hawaii at regular intervals to boosting the local population. I think that it has 50+ resident birds and has returned more than 2000 to Hawaii. It is affiliated with other similar breeding centres in North America. In more recent years it has been involved in the breeding of cranes for a successful re-introduction into a local wetlands area, the Somerset Levels. It is now the headquarters of the WWT which owns a string of wetland sites in other crucial areas of the U.K.

To Antique Eruption: you are right, Slimbridge does currently look like a zoo. However, for birders Slimbridge is not about the zoo like centre, it is about the hides, (Tower, Zeiss, Lakeview, etc.) around the periphery of the site which look out over the wetlands along the river Severn and to the north of the site. During the winter about 20,000 migratory birds occupy these wetlands and that is what birders come for. Unfortunately, the birds are too far away for good photography - Slimbridge is not a good location for bird photography although I use it for trying out new gear and keeping my hand in for BIF.

Until 2-3 years ago, the central area of Slimbridge was occupied by a resident population of wetland birds arranged geographically :Europe, North America, Arctic, Asia, etc. All of these birds had clipped wings which always made me uncomfortable, and now the WWT seems to have become uncomfortable as well.

During covid these clipped wing birds have disappeared except for the flamingoes. The Hawaiian geese are still around but away from the public area. The whole central area appears to be being transformed into an educational area for children, which is at least better than clipped wings. Some of the lakes and ponds previously used by the clipped wing birds have been taken by local birds.

So, if you visit Slimbridge again, go in winter and visit the hides around the periphery. Ignore the central areas although you will have to walk through some of them to get to the hides. Get there early - the cafe does quite a good breakfast. :-(
 
This has some comments about Slimbridge as mentioned by the previous poster. I am a member of the WWT (Wildlife and Wetlands Trust) and visit Slimbridge fairly regularly. I will start with some information for US forum member

Slimbridge was set up in the 1950s by Peter Scott who was possibly the world's first conservationist. As well as providing a protected area for migratory birds in winter, it has been involved in some major conservation projects. Since the 1950s Slimbridge has had a on-going breeding program for Hawaiian geese (nenes), return them to Hawaii at regular intervals to boosting the local population. I think that it has 50+ resident birds and has returned more than 2000 to Hawaii. It is affiliated with other similar breeding centres in North America. In more recent years it has been involved in the breeding of cranes for a successful re-introduction into a local wetlands area, the Somerset Levels. It is now the headquarters of the WWT which owns a string of wetland sites in other crucial areas of the U.K.

To Antique Eruption: you are right, Slimbridge does currently look like a zoo. However, for birders Slimbridge is not about the zoo like centre, it is about the hides, (Tower, Zeiss, Lakeview, etc.) around the periphery of the site which look out over the wetlands along the river Severn and to the north of the site. During the winter about 20,000 migratory birds occupy these wetlands and that is what birders come for. Unfortunately, the birds are too far away for good photography - Slimbridge is not a good location for bird photography although I use it for trying out new gear and keeping my hand in for BIF.

Until 2-3 years ago, the central area of Slimbridge was occupied by a resident population of wetland birds arranged geographically :Europe, North America, Arctic, Asia, etc. All of these birds had clipped wings which always made me uncomfortable, and now the WWT seems to have become uncomfortable as well.

During covid these clipped wing birds have disappeared except for the flamingoes. The Hawaiian geese are still around but away from the public area. The whole central area appears to be being transformed into an educational area for children, which is at least better than clipped wings. Some of the lakes and ponds previously used by the clipped wing birds have been taken by local birds.

So, if you visit Slimbridge again, go in winter and visit the hides around the periphery. Ignore the central areas although you will have to walk through some of them to get to the hides. Get there early - the cafe does quite a good breakfast. :-(
 
Hello

I wanted to avoid going to the pub saturday PM, so booked a hide sunday early. It was a bit of land someone had put some nicely placed trees and branches and such. As I arrived the owner then put food stealthily in various places to not be in shot, but be attractive to the birds.

As a result, I got some breathtakingly amazing photographs. The thing is, I feel conflicted. The idea of manufacturing an environment and using food to attract birds, felt quite easy, without effort and work from my side, and I also wondered if it leads to habituation of the species. I felt the goal was photographs and not necessarily an enjoyment of nature. I also was very uncomfortable with the suggested idea to use an air rifle on squirrels if they get in the way.... it didn't feel aligned with my values. But then I realised, if I were to have a large garden and take photographs in that - this is also manufactured and people do often use bird feed..so is that any different (I have an apartment so not an issue yet!). It feels different to me but not sure
I would also feel uncomfortable using the images. In my mind this sort of setup is too disrespectful towards nature (especially the air rifle - sick). I wouldn't use them. There's a line somewhere and this crosses it.
 
Hello

I wanted to avoid going to the pub saturday PM, so booked a hide sunday early. It was a bit of land someone had put some nicely placed trees and branches and such. As I arrived the owner then put food stealthily in various places to not be in shot, but be attractive to the birds.

As a result, I got some breathtakingly amazing photographs. The thing is, I feel conflicted. The idea of manufacturing an environment and using food to attract birds, felt quite easy, without effort and work from my side, and I also wondered if it leads to habituation of the species. I felt the goal was photographs and not necessarily an enjoyment of nature. I also was very uncomfortable with the suggested idea to use an air rifle on squirrels if they get in the way.... it didn't feel aligned with my values. But then I realised, if I were to have a large garden and take photographs in that - this is also manufactured and people do often use bird feed..so is that any different (I have an apartment so not an issue yet!). It feels different to me but not sure
I would also feel uncomfortable using the images. In my mind this sort of setup is too disrespectful towards nature (especially the air rifle - sick). I wouldn't use them. There's a line somewhere and this crosses it.
 
99% of my wildlife photos come from being outdoors and exploring and completely wild and natural.

I'm about to go and see family for a BBQ. They do enjoy using bird feeders, and I do occasionally grab some opportunistic shots. I wonder how this is different to the hide I went to. Aside from the idiot with the air rifle idea, ignoring that - is that hide any different to the bird feeders back home? Hmmm. It feels different to me - one if consistently placed year round, not within my control. The hide, I paid for, and the food was placed with the intention to get shots. It's a funny fine line this one isn't it!

I guess it just comes to personal values and honesty about decisions taken.
 
Several thoughts if I may after 40 years of photographing and widely published bird images:

1. in my vicinity there are upwards of 400 different species possible, add differentiation of males/females/various plumages, feeding, singing, flying. and within a variety of habitats, and you have an inexhaustible source of images.

2. The % of all such species that can be baited is relatively low.

3. Baiting in many if not most public lands is illegal, certainly in my area in US. Baiting to manipulate behavior is clearly unethical (ie 2 unscrupulous photogs who waded illegally, and illegally baited birds with corn, back and forth, to cause the species to fly to and fro, all along cursing the birds for not acting according to their expectations - horrible individuals who should have been fined - but they had to obtain results at any cost to rationalize their investment in $25k of new Sony gear (A1, 400 2.8, 200-600! Etc). Beyond the pale.

4. Feeding birds with seed/suet is encouraged by environmental groups from one’s back yard, and feeding stations are established on public lands ironically where baiting is not allowed. There are indeed circumstances, particularly with the recent radical drop in insect numbers and diversity, that humans may actually contribute to the survival of some species by feeding. I had an unusual event last spring where during a severe spring cold snap with much rain, my sunflower feeder had 6 migrating Rose Breasted Grosbeaks (5 males in breeding plumage) all at the same time. The adverse weather lasted 4 days and my sense was that without my feeder the birds had a lower chance of survival given the conditions (no insects).

5. Drawing birds towards one has been a pesky business for many years and includes birders using tapes, or mimicking the call of owls or birds in distress. Seems unethical to me, but I invariably find birders (mostly) employing these techniques to get a better view. Having said this, when birds were more abundant these techniques were less frowned upon - since the commencement of the next great extinction (human causation) many have recognized the stress such techniques are causing to birds and have ceased such activity. I am one of those.



6. I have fortuitously a rather vast collection of wild grape vines adorning my trees adjacent to my deck. In Sept, the grapes have ripened and in the last several years I have been able to photograph a couple dozen species feeding on them without a blind but in some cases from my deck door. Full frame images with D800/D850. Just great. By my passive allowance of these grapes in my yard (however, being badly impacted by infestation of Lantern Bugs) am I baiting these birds?

7. In the 70s, some photographers created floating blinds that they used to obtain images of water associated species. Is this unethical if the birds are comfortable with the setup?

8. Last but not least, over the years I have become very familiar with species songs, calls, habitats and habits, and I have found that often enough birds are focused on feeding etc and if one is patient, quiet, and with little to no motion, and well situated, gear preset for optimum results, perhaps with appropriate clothes and head gear, birds will go about their business without alarm to one’s presence. I have many experiences of birds coming too close (closer than minimum focus) because they were so comfortable with my presence. Indeed some of my best work is where I acted like a fixture in the landscape (frequently in a prone position: sitting, belly flopping, kneeling, standing erect avoiding quick motion or noise). The results have been astonishing but very hard on the body, particularly as I have aged. The challenge is that we all want the best results with the least amount of time/effort expended. My own experience says that there is a direct correlation between best images and time spent.



Fyi, some well published US bird photogs have used feeders in combination with a variety of indigenous fruit trees and bushes to create spectacular images of birds in flowering plants, and feeding on berries. Perhaps my best thought is to ask the questions: are you enhancing the birds chance of survival, alternatively, are you stressing the birds which may contribute to their demise. Make a considered decision based upon the answer.
 
I'm of two minds. Nice to have the photos you got so easily, but also more rewarding when you are out in the field and get something that frankly takes luck and perseverance to get the shot.

For me, who shoots underwater, the equivalent might be going to a local aquarium and basically shooting fish in a barrel.
Indeed!

I had posted two of the images but since removed them. I do not feel its aligned with my photography values if such a thing exists. Its a shame as the shots are wonderful, but I think I really value seeing things in their natural environment as far as I can. They were wild birds for sure, but the placement of food i don't know….. feels unsporting. Hmmm.
Does it count against wildlife photography when you go to Bosque del Apache and see vast numbers of cranes present in an area because each day some part of a field of corn is knocked down to feed the cranes?
 
99% of my wildlife photos come from being outdoors and exploring and completely wild and natural.

I'm about to go and see family for a BBQ. They do enjoy using bird feeders, and I do occasionally grab some opportunistic shots. I wonder how this is different to the hide I went to. Aside from the idiot with the air rifle idea, ignoring that - is that hide any different to the bird feeders back home? Hmmm. It feels different to me - one if consistently placed year round, not within my control. The hide, I paid for, and the food was placed with the intention to get shots. It's a funny fine line this one isn't it!

I guess it just comes to personal values and honesty about decisions taken.
FWIW

We provide water all year round and very much enjoy watching and listening to the visitors.

We put out food in the winter.....plus occasionally mealworms in the spring. We do not feed in the summer/autumn.

The one thing I have not put out are 'approach perches ' which a lot guides suggest is a good idea based on birds behaviour when visiting feeders.

Our garden is not a pristine manicured one and we have berry bearing shrubs and ivy on the wall. These give the birds natural winter food. Also we have two nest boxes, one of which is used by the Blue Tits most years.

Have I taken pictures of the garden birds, yes but never now on the actual feeders.
 
Last edited:
Several thoughts if I may after 40 years of photographing and widely published bird images:

1. in my vicinity there are upwards of 400 different species possible, add differentiation of males/females/various plumages, feeding, singing, flying. and within a variety of habitats, and you have an inexhaustible source of images.

2. The % of all such species that can be baited is relatively low.

3. Baiting in many if not most public lands is illegal, certainly in my area in US. Baiting to manipulate behavior is clearly unethical (ie 2 unscrupulous photogs who waded illegally, and illegally baited birds with corn, back and forth, to cause the species to fly to and fro, all along cursing the birds for not acting according to their expectations - horrible individuals who should have been fined - but they had to obtain results at any cost to rationalize their investment in $25k of new Sony gear (A1, 400 2.8, 200-600! Etc). Beyond the pale.
4. Feeding birds with seed/suet is encouraged by environmental groups from one’s back yard, and feeding stations are established on public lands ironically where baiting is not allowed. There are indeed circumstances, particularly with the recent radical drop in insect numbers and diversity, that humans may actually contribute to the survival of some species by feeding. I had an unusual event last spring where during a severe spring cold snap with much rain, my sunflower feeder had 6 migrating Rose Breasted Grosbeaks (5 males in breeding plumage) all at the same time. The adverse weather lasted 4 days and my sense was that without my feeder the birds had a lower chance of survival given the conditions (no insects).

5. Drawing birds towards one has been a pesky business for many years and includes birders using tapes, or mimicking the call of owls or birds in distress. Seems unethical to me, but I invariably find birders (mostly) employing these techniques to get a better view. Having said this, when birds were more abundant these techniques were less frowned upon - since the commencement of the next great extinction (human causation) many have recognized the stress such techniques are causing to birds and have ceased such activity. I am one of those.

6. I have fortuitously a rather vast collection of wild grape vines adorning my trees adjacent to my deck. In Sept, the grapes have ripened and in the last several years I have been able to photograph a couple dozen species feeding on them without a blind but in some cases from my deck door. Full frame images with D800/D850. Just great. By my passive allowance of these grapes in my yard (however, being badly impacted by infestation of Lantern Bugs) am I baiting these birds?
7. In the 70s, some photographers created floating blinds that they used to obtain images of water associated species. Is this unethical if the birds are comfortable with the setup?

8. Last but not least, over the years I have become very familiar with species songs, calls, habitats and habits, and I have found that often enough birds are focused on feeding etc and if one is patient, quiet, and with little to no motion, and well situated, gear preset for optimum results, perhaps with appropriate clothes and head gear, birds will go about their business without alarm to one’s presence. I have many experiences of birds coming too close (closer than minimum focus) because they were so comfortable with my presence. Indeed some of my best work is where I acted like a fixture in the landscape (frequently in a prone position: sitting, belly flopping, kneeling, standing erect avoiding quick motion or noise). The results have been astonishing but very hard on the body, particularly as I have aged. The challenge is that we all want the best results with the least amount of time/effort expended. My own experience says that there is a direct correlation between best images and time spent.

Fyi, some well published US bird photogs have used feeders in combination with a variety of indigenous fruit trees and bushes to create spectacular images of birds in flowering plants, and feeding on berries. Perhaps my best thought is to ask the questions: are you enhancing the birds chance of survival, alternatively, are you stressing the birds which may contribute to their demise. Make a considered decision based upon the answer.
You are very fortunate indeed to be able to see and enjoy such diversity.

Sadly, the UK is badly nature depleted with staggering drops in bird species numbers over the past 80 years.

As in my post above, we try to do our small part to aid the survival and success of the birds.

The use of food as an attractant (bait) in the wider (depleted) landscape is perhaps controversial. But without encouragement comes the risk that numbers will continue to drop.

As you may be aware, there are various land management projects in the UK to re-wild areas. The aim as I understand it is rebalance the damage & losses caused by man's activity over the past decades if not centuries.

Inaction IMO is not an option. We are but custodians for the future.
 
You are very fortunate indeed to be able to see and enjoy such diversity.
indeed! But this spring has been the most silent on record for me as to singing species. The Canadian fires will have a noticeable detrimental affect as they occurred during breeding season. I fear further declines in the near term.
Sadly, the UK is badly nature depleted with staggering drops in bird species numbers over the past 80 years.
if I may say this with a request for impunity, we are our own worst enemy as we insist to continue perpetuate our species without consideration to the impact. We find having and raising children as essential to our emotional happiness. The concept of having an intrinsic right to as many children as one wants may be in jeopardy. But as you state, we have become a blight on the natural world. A topic for other than this forum.
As in my post above, we try to do our small part to aid the survival and success of the birds.
Commendable and appreciated.
The use of food as an attractant (bait) in the wider (depleted) landscape is perhaps controversial. But without encouragement comes the risk that numbers will continue to drop.
Perhaps difficult to know the positive impact we can make with feeding.
As you may be aware, there are various land management projects in the UK to re-wild areas. The aim as I understand it is rebalance the damage & losses caused by man's activity over the past decades if not centuries.

Inaction IMO is not an option.
Absolutely agree. But aging is not a kindness bestowed upon our ability to make a difference. Conversion groups won’t even consider my participation in field work due to my age, and not withstanding my stable health and rather comprehensive knowledge and experience. Perhaps there is an inherent bias?
We are but custodians for the future.

May I offer a variant which perhaps slightly raises the bar further: steward? I believe there may be some biblical reference here.
Best,

Flip
 
Last edited:
At times I think I should shelve the cameras and just focus on conservation. Probably a bit more satisfying.



Additionally, and I will remain oblique here to avoid any backlash, when one considers the actions of an affiliate of a major camera mfr which harvests thousand of harmless, indigenous creatures for the sake a human serum, there is even greater motivation to cease photo efforts. For what purpose is taking images but a form of self gratification? At least that is my own divisive conclusion.
 
I also was very uncomfortable with the suggested idea to use an air rifle on squirrels if they get in the way.... it didn't feel aligned with my values.
If you are saying the land owner uses and recommended usage of (an available to you?) air gun. I would not have stayed there and likely/sadly lost my money.
My thoughts exactly.
Me also. Being a photographer means appreciating nature as much as it means getting "the shot". People or exploiters need to learn to be respectful to creatures that have every bit as much right to being on the planet as we do.
Agree with all these things. I intend not to use a paid hide again. After waking at 5am, paying up front and a long drive i didnt leave, but wont return. Perhaps i should have left. A point for reflection.
IMO there are many (UK and EU) hides that are properly managed with the welfare of the wildlife being paramount.

The ethics of the owners is of utmost importance and IMO must be determined before considering going to them.

Where questionable practices are occurring and the knowledge of the location is in public domain e.g. wildlife watching/photography discussion forum (such as here!) then user reviews that are not under the control of the owner might be appropriate.......but perhaps presented in, as you have done, a YMMV manner?

PS in regard to the owners use of an airgun to kill squirrels, one has to ask what else might he be shooting at that location or elsewhere? IMO if you photograph wildlife then that is the only type of shooting i.e. if, as in some places, legal hunting is permitted the two practices are not compatible. NB no doubt some might say they enjoy both.......and the shooting keeps some species controlled. Well, if the wilder areas were still ecological balanced..... no shooting would be required and it is man that screwed it up!
I just did a bit of a google actually. In the UK whilst undue suffering of animals is illegal, it is not in fact illegal to kill or trap and kill grey squirrels. I believe this is because they are an invasive species which have contributed to the decline of the native red squirrels.
Yes, in the UK grey (American) squirrels are classed as pests. They not only out compete the native reds but carry squirrel pox that is deadly to reds but which doesnt affect greys. Squirrel pox seems to be the root cause of the decline of the reds and they are now only found in very isolated areas (islands or geographically isolated coniferous forests). Whilst you can trap greys, its illegal to release them from a (e.g. humane) trap. Consequently, trapping greys is effectively a death sentence.
I don't tend to kill insects, so I don't approve of the above approach, but it's certainly not against the law which is surprising. The air gun approach though I don't believe would class as not causing undue suffering so it's bad regardless, but I'm no expert. As I say, personally it's a tricky one. I hate the idea of killing things, but I do eat meat regularly and the species is invasive. Tricky!

I guess there are two aspects here troubling me. 1: Nature welfare, and 2: Photography enjoyment / lack of a challenge. I may look for very well thought out ecologically sound hides as you suggest and see how that looks, as I did enjoy the species I managed to see. Though I do feel it takes the challenge away from photographing wildlife and becomes an easy task.
The effective approach in gardens to feeding birds not squirrels in the UK is to use squirrel proof feeders. That’s what I use and they work really well and no harm to birds or squirrels!

(Another bit of folklore I saw proven last week is that “squirrels don’t die if they fall out of a tree”. I was walking the dog in our local woods last week and a grey squirrel did just that. Dropped out of a tree above onto a hardpacked path about 2’ in front of us. Picked itself up and returned to the canopy very fast before dog or I had really registered it!)
 
Last edited:
About 15 years ago my camera club organised a day trip to a wildlife centre in the south of England that had only British wild animals and birds - deer, foxes, otters, red squirrels, polecats, rodents, raptors, etc. It catered for school and camera club visits like ours but especially for professional photographers who wanted shots for advertisements. Most of the animals were vert accustomed to humans and the foxes, for example, would sit and pose for long periods and come right up to you for food. You could go into the enclosures in small groups with a keeper to take your photographs.

They had 4-5 Scottish wildcats, one of whom was very accustomed to humans and had been trained to snarl to order. Scottish wildcats are nearly extinct because they interbreed with domestic cats. They are the same size and have very similar colouring to domestic cats, and can only really be distinguished by different patterns on their tail.

Four of us at a time and the keeper went into quite a small enclosure with a cat which was quite friendly and sat on a large branch. The keeper then told us to get our cameras ready, he gave the signal, the cat snarled and bared it's teeth and was rewarded with a treat afterwards. It did this as many times as we wanted, and then the next group came in.

Apart from the fact that the images were pretty boring and I could probably have got one of our own cats to pose in an equally threatening manner, the whole experience really have very little to do with photography and was quite disturbing. I would never go back.
 
Human fashioned environments have influenced animal behaviour for centuries but IMO the damage done and in the case of bird numbers decline they need all the help with food sources they can get. A healthy song bird population will naturally draw in raptors and some semblance of balance will be kept.
Guess it would depend on where you are and what you are calling a decline. I doubt there is any decline in common birds like the Blue Jay, Robins, Mockingbirds, Thrashers, etc. In fact I think they are on the increase.

Birds have a plenty of food sources, mostly from what I can tell locally. Each day when they go out, they have an Entire Grocery Store at their disposal as opposed to many humans. So humanity is at far more at risk then the General Bird Population. Life after the people is what we should be talking about at the rate we are going downhill.

Birds can Fly on their own, Humans can't.
 
I also was very uncomfortable with the suggested idea to use an air rifle on squirrels if they get in the way.... it didn't feel aligned with my values.
If you are saying the land owner uses and recommended usage of (an available to you?) air gun. I would not have stayed there and likely/sadly lost my money.
My thoughts exactly.
Me also. Being a photographer means appreciating nature as much as it means getting "the shot". People or exploiters need to learn to be respectful to creatures that have every bit as much right to being on the planet as we do.
Agree with all these things. I intend not to use a paid hide again. After waking at 5am, paying up front and a long drive i didnt leave, but wont return. Perhaps i should have left. A point for reflection.
IMO there are many (UK and EU) hides that are properly managed with the welfare of the wildlife being paramount.

The ethics of the owners is of utmost importance and IMO must be determined before considering going to them.

Where questionable practices are occurring and the knowledge of the location is in public domain e.g. wildlife watching/photography discussion forum (such as here!) then user reviews that are not under the control of the owner might be appropriate.......but perhaps presented in, as you have done, a YMMV manner?

PS in regard to the owners use of an airgun to kill squirrels, one has to ask what else might he be shooting at that location or elsewhere? IMO if you photograph wildlife then that is the only type of shooting i.e. if, as in some places, legal hunting is permitted the two practices are not compatible. NB no doubt some might say they enjoy both.......and the shooting keeps some species controlled. Well, if the wilder areas were still ecological balanced..... no shooting would be required and it is man that screwed it up!
I just did a bit of a google actually. In the UK whilst undue suffering of animals is illegal, it is not in fact illegal to kill or trap and kill grey squirrels. I believe this is because they are an invasive species which have contributed to the decline of the native red squirrels.
Yes, in the UK grey (American) squirrels are classed as pests. They not only out compete the native reds but carry squirrel pox that is deadly to reds but which doesnt affect greys. Squirrel pox seems to be the root cause of the decline of the reds and they are now only found in very isolated areas (islands or geographically isolated coniferous forests). Whilst you can trap greys, its illegal to release them from a (e.g. humane) trap. Consequently, trapping greys is effectively a death sentence.
I don't tend to kill insects, so I don't approve of the above approach, but it's certainly not against the law which is surprising. The air gun approach though I don't believe would class as not causing undue suffering so it's bad regardless, but I'm no expert. As I say, personally it's a tricky one. I hate the idea of killing things, but I do eat meat regularly and the species is invasive. Tricky!

I guess there are two aspects here troubling me. 1: Nature welfare, and 2: Photography enjoyment / lack of a challenge. I may look for very well thought out ecologically sound hides as you suggest and see how that looks, as I did enjoy the species I managed to see. Though I do feel it takes the challenge away from photographing wildlife and becomes an easy task.
The effective approach in gardens to feeding birds not squirrels in the UK is to use squirrel proof feeders. That’s what I use and they work really well and no harm to birds or squirrels!

(Another bit of folklore I saw proven last week is that “squirrels don’t die if they fall out of a tree”. I was walking the dog in our local woods last week and a grey squirrel did just that. Dropped out of a tree above onto a hardpacked path about 2’ in front of us. Picked itself up and returned to the canopy very fast before dog or I had really registered it!)
It is also worth noting that in areas where the native Reds have for years been holding their own/in decline, there have been some positive improvements in population.

This is due the the increase in numbers of their top predator, the Pine Marten. Yes it sounds counter intuitive but the Pine Marten will preferentially predate Greys because they are easier to catch!

Apparently, as the reds are smaller and lighter they can go to the smaller branches in the trees compared to the greys who also spend more time on the ground.

The conclusion has been that the Marten, in predating the Greys, has suppressed that population and as such Red numbers are increasing....... leading to population spread into the slowly growing wider areas.
 
Last edited:
Human fashioned environments have influenced animal behaviour for centuries but IMO the damage done and in the case of bird numbers decline they need all the help with food sources they can get. A healthy song bird population will naturally draw in raptors and some semblance of balance will be kept.
Guess it would depend on where you are and what you are calling a decline. I doubt there is any decline in common birds like the Blue Jay, Robins, Mockingbirds, Thrashers, etc. In fact I think they are on the increase.

Birds have a plenty of food sources, mostly from what I can tell locally. Each day when they go out, they have an Entire Grocery Store at their disposal as opposed to many humans. So humanity is at far more at risk then the General Bird Population. Life after the people is what we should be talking about at the rate we are going downhill.

Birds can Fly on their own, Humans can't.
I can only reflect on my understanding of the UK and to a lesser extent the EU.

The birds you mention, I surmise you are in the US and does the Audobon have any actual data about the bird populations like the RSPB does in the UK


It seems there is concern for various species!
 
If you are talking of the BWC......I have been on a photography day......IIRC approx 10-12 years ago.

The one enclosure that was off limits was the Scottish Wildcat one because of the sensitivity around the cats more natural behaviour.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top