Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

I was not going to weigh in, but enough is enough. The combination of belligerence and ignorance in your posts just should not go without being challenged. This topic has been exhaustively studied and before you shoot your mouth off you should do a little research. This discussion is just too important to be trashed by your ill-informed and mean-spirited commentary.

Song birds are in decline everywhere because of environmental degradation and the threats from automobiles, window collisions and house cats. Oil and fat rich seeds are important for birds, especially in the fall and winter, but the natural sources for those have largely disappeared due to development, competition from alien plants, and ever-increasing use of herbicides. More and more bird lovers are doing more than merely putting out feeders, and there is a growing movement to restore native plant communities and make other changes to public and private property to increase and improve habitat for endangered songbirds. Notably, the Audubon society, the Cornell bird lab, and many native plant societies and nature preservation organizations have led the way on this critical work.This is congruent with and complementary to efforts to save Lepidoptera species (butterflies and moths) - see the Xerxes society - as well as efforts to maintain the natural world for the benefit of those who enjoy hunting and fishing - see Ducks Unlimited.

Bird feeders are an important component in the ongoing desperate effort to save hundreds of songbird species that are at risk. Yes, the birds are to some extent dependent upon feeders. That is because there is often nothing else for them to depend upon. Your idea that people with bird feeders are not aware of the complexity of this issue is to some extent true, but many are working to make people more aware of the problems and the opportunities for being part of the solution to songbird survival. You say that if people stopped feeding birds they would perish. Well, yes, that is true, if everyone stopped feeding birds many birds would perish. Right. Put your thinking cap on now and ponder that for a moment. Birds would perish should everyone cease putting feeders out, but not because they have been made "dependent" (is there some sort of ersatz simple-minded political argument lurking behind that comment?) but rather because they are dependent.

Restoration of native plant communities is critical for successful songbird nesting, because the nestlings need the high protein diet found in insects and robust insect populations depend upon diverse native plant communities. Birds can survive on fruit and seeds, but most birds must have a massive abundance of insects - in the right place at the right time for migratory birds - in order to successfully raise their young. That means the native plants upon which the insects are dependent.

Bird feeders have become an emergency stopgap measure. Not an ideal solution, of course. Ideal would be a massive environmental restoration effort, which would of course benefit all wildlife - all of life, including human life. But somehow, based on your "waco environmentalists" crack, I suspect that you would oppose anything like that.

Mike

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Somehow it has always seemed to me that if we appreciate wildlife, or in my case wild plants, enough that we take photographs of them, does it not follow that we respect them and exercise caution and consideration about our interactions with them? If it is interesting enough to photograph is it not interesting enough to protect? Should we not at least consider the possibility that some of our actions, such as baiting, might negatively affect the objects of our interest?

It would be much easier for me to get the shots I want if I broke the rules - tromped off the marked trail, picked flowers or dug up plants. There are people who do that. There are photographers who pull up and kill a rare plant after photographing it so no one else can get a photo of it! I don't do any of that, anymore that I would vandalize a building or trespass for the sake of a photograph or put a person in harm's way for the sake of a photograph. Now, that said, I will clean debris out of the way of a shot on occasion, so there is no hard and fast set of rules that applies to all actions in all situations. "Man leaves a footprint" as the saying goes. Exactly what sort of footprint we leave is the question. It requires attention, knowledge, thought and respect, and it is an ongoing dynamic issue.

I say that if a subject gains our interest as an object for our photography - especially living things - that subject also deserves our respect and consideration, too. As a general rule, let's err on the side of caution and let's encourage thoughtful discussion about this issue.

Mike

CLF Loc: Raleigh, NC

GED Loc: North central Pa

You are quite accurate, I've seen examples of this behavior too many times. Anyone can buy a camera and selection of lenses, a small percentage actually take the time to learn about the subjects they photograph.
We have seen photographers trample rare orchids and other plants, nests of young birds die because photographers either don't know any better or are to lazy to put up a blind if they want to photograph them. There are many people who cause undue stress on wildlife because they just don't know any better and others will do anything to justify getting their shot. It does not take many of these folks to ruin opportunities for others. Sometimes the photographers themselves are injured or killed such as when photographing bears or elk and crowding the animal. If you want to be a natural history photographer you should spend some time learning about the things your photographing. Knowing how to operate a camera and then a computer is only part of the equation.