Birding ethics: feeding (1 Viewer)

Greetings-
A question about birding ethics. I will preface by saying that I am relatively new to birding, but have a fair amount of outdoor experience. My general outdoor philosophy is to Leave No Trace, and observe instead of interact (stole this one from a website on birding ethics).
So I was a bit taken aback the other day as a birder friend in Taiwan was telling me about a place he knows of where the chance of seeing a Mikado Pheasant (I believe it was Mikado, but to be honest, there's a chance it was Swinhoe's) was 100%, because the owner of the inn, who is described as an eco-friendly birding type, leaves food out for the pheasants. He has set up blinds where you can wait and watch as this otherwise shy and difficult to find bird comes out of the woods, nibbles the food, and then leaves.

When I heard the story, my initial reaction was that it didn't sound "right." Its encouraging unnatural behavior, dependency, etc. And where's the challenge for the birder? It almost seems like going to a backyard zoo.

But, then, on the other hand, my parents have bird feeders, as do many if not most birders. And "the Big Year" film shows several instances of luring birds with dead fish, both on land and at sea. So maybe my outdoor ethics are not in line with the birding community, or just not well-evolved?

As a last few thoughts, one of the things that made me think of this was coming across this page on the website of the Chinese Wild Bird Federation (http://www.bird.org.tw/index.php/component/content/article/16-2011-09-09-00-25-54/885-a). The writing says "I love Wild Birds." (All birding groups here explicitly mention wild birds because caged birds are so popular in Chinese culture) Although it is of a Swinhoe's, it certainly seems to be alluding to the same practice.

Secondly, as I was researching birding ethics online, all I came across in terms of feeding were making sure you didn't introduce disease to the birds, weren't luring them towards predation, continued feeding during winter, and unsaid but assumed, that you fed them appropriate food (all of which I assume to be true about the pheasant feeder).
Thoughts?

Hi brd,

This has been discussed on here before but maybe it's time for another debate:

Firstly, I think the bird in question may be Swinhoe's (Mikado is shyer) but I could be wrong. I didn't feel uncomfortable at the stake-out where we saw Swinhoe's for a few reasons: The area is very wild and didn't feel at all like a zoo. Myself and the other tour members, plus a handful of Taiwanese photographers sat very quietly waiting for the pheasants to appear. This wasn't at the inn btw; I'm not even sure where that is. The birds don't always come in and by all accounts are not dependent on this food source for much of the year (in winter I imagine it could be different). Having said that, if birds do become dependent on artificial feeding, I don't necessarily always have a problem with that either.

I take the position that as humans we actively (willingly or otherwise) interfere with nature. We are part of it and have the power to affect whole wild populations and ecosystems for better or for worse. We don't always know what the ultimate effect may be in the longer term but then ecosystems can be complex. There are many places around the world where 'feeding stations' are set up to bring in various sorts of animals for humans to experience up close. There is a whole industry built around this as well as the well established routine of feeding birds in the winter in many places.

I can understand your position, but I would argue that in situations where birds and other wildlife do become dependent on us feeding them, this may often be due to a lack of natural food sources. Sometimes here, interference is essential however: after Cyclone Yasi tore through my neighbourhood last year, feeding stations were set up for Cassowaries to prevent the mass starvation of these birds that resulted after Cyclone Larry. There is no doubt in my mind that a number were saved this way, not only from starvation, but from coming into town looking for food and getting run over or killed by dogs.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. Like I said, I am not saying that my view is right, just that it was my natural inclination. In all of my time outdoors, feeding any sort of wildlife has been frowned upon, but that is usually more geared towards people that dont know anything about animals trying to feed bologna to a buffalo, or letting bears into their food, the drawbacks of which are clear.

Particularly for birds that are endangered because of human interaction, such as the pheasants, I can see the value of feeding if that can help their population.

Maybe a part of it for me is that I think I like birding for the hunting instinct parts of it, and i'm not as much of a lister, and the biggest thrill for me is to be somewhere remote and come across a bird in a totally wild setting, like i just snuck into its world, and not vice versa. But now I may be getting a little too psychoanalytical.

Anyways, just a curiosity for me, certainly not staking sides, just interested what the rest of the community thinks.

brd said:

Maybe a part of it for me is that I think I like birding for the hunting instinct parts of it, and i'm not as much of a lister, and the biggest thrill for me is to be somewhere remote and come across a bird in a totally wild setting, like i just snuck into its world, and not vice versa. But now I may be getting a little too psychoanalytical.

Click to expand...

I'm very much in agreement with you that finding your own birds is more fun. I've never really been a twitcher and I only did my first ever tour this year. I'm doing another (to Thailand) next month because I enjoyed it so much, so maybe I'm a late convert!

That's not to say that I didn't have a brilliant time finding my own birds in other parts of the world.:t:

I don't necessarily see a problem with the situation you describe, and would be fine counting the pheasants. Their wild birds, so they are still making the choice of whether they are going to visit or not. And anyone who has visited situations like these knows that it's quite quite possible to miss guaranteed feeder-habituated birds

What does counting feeder birds have to do with "ethics"?

As long as the birds are free to roam I really don't see a problem otherwise where could you draw the line? If deliberately feeding birds to attract them is not OK then what about birds attracted to food not put out for them (fruit to attract insects or mammals, say). And what of food distributed as an incidental part of human activities? No ticking gulls on rubbish tips then. No listing those iconic Kestrels feeding along motorway verges either. Managed farmland is out too for the same reason .... and similarly managed woodlands. In fact, if you were hyper-purist about it you might be left with a handful of island species, those found in the wildest regions and seabirds - if that, bearing in mind the human inspired spread of Fulmar.

John Cantelo said:

As long as the birds are free to roam I really don't see a problem otherwise where could you draw the line? If deliberately feeding birds to attract them is not OK then what about birds attracted to food not put out for them (fruit to attract insects or mammals, say). And what of food distributed as an incidental part of human activities? No ticking gulls on rubbish tips then. No listing those iconic Kestrels feeding along motorway verges either. Managed farmland is out too for the same reason .... and similarly managed woodlands. In fact, if you were hyper-purist about it you might be left with a handful of island species, those found in the wildest regions and seabirds - if that, bearing in mind the human inspired spread of Fulmar.

Click to expand...

Here in Thailand there is a major interest in putting out food (typically meal worms or cooked rice) for birds to attract them to a particular location for photography. I rarely participate in this, but I can see it has some merits.

Whilst birding in The UK last month I could not help but wonder what the reaction of British birders would be if I bowled up at a Siberian Blue Robin twitch and put out some meal worms in the area the bird had been frequenting and told the crowd to stand well back...

For a tired migrant such an easy meal would probably be very welcome and surely more ethical than an "organized flush"!

gandytron said:

Whilst birding in The UK last month I could not help but wonder what the reaction of British birders would be if I bowled up at a Siberian Blue Robin twitch and put out some meal worms in the area the bird had been frequenting and told the crowd to stand well back...

For a tired migrant such an easy meal would probably be very welcome and surely more ethical than an "organized flush"!

Click to expand...

This is sometimes done. My first Red-flanked Bluetail at Muckleburgh Hill was moving in a rough circuit through the trees. When it was located on the day I was there, a local advised me that rather than go to where the bird was currently, I would be better to wait at a clearing nearby as some mealworms had been put down for it. Sure enough it found and ate some, but then carried on its circuit. I don't remember any controversy about this being done.

John Cantelo said:

As long as the birds are free to roam I really don't see a problem otherwise where could you draw the line? If deliberately feeding birds to attract them is not OK then what about birds attracted to food not put out for them (fruit to attract insects or mammals, say). And what of food distributed as an incidental part of human activities? No ticking gulls on rubbish tips then. No listing those iconic Kestrels feeding along motorway verges either. Managed farmland is out too for the same reason .... and similarly managed woodlands. In fact, if you were hyper-purist about it you might be left with a handful of island species, those found in the wildest regions and seabirds - if that, bearing in mind the human inspired spread of Fulmar.

Click to expand...

well, as fugl said, im not saying those birds don't "count", obviously its a wild bird that you saw. the question is more along the lines of our interaction with wild birds. on a philosophical level, if you are putting out food, birdwatching has become a pursuit of seeing birds by any means necessary to tick them, rather than the pursuit of being in nature and observing birds in a more "natural way." of course there are all sorts of exceptions when it comes to interaction. in cases where the interaction is really in the benefit of the bird, and that is the motivation for the interaction (feeding starving birds, creating sanctuaries, helping injured birds) that seems different.

I suppose I still feel that the natural world is the most important thing we have, and that considering how much damage we have already done to it, an overriding ethic of observation over interaction is what i gravitate towards, and so might try other ways of seeing that pheasant than supporting that interaction.

of course, if im at the beach tomorrow and a saunders gull swoops down and grabs the ice cream out of my hand, you better belive i'm putting it on the life list.

in my opinion, feeding is just another tool in the birder's kit, alongside pishing and call playback.

A thought that nobody has mentioned is how nature would deal with all those people wanting to see/photograph the pheasant from the original post tramping around looking for one. It sounds potentially a lot more disruptive to me.

I certainly share the thrill of being out in a wild environment and coming across something, but not everybody who's into seeing/photographing wildlife gets their kicks that way. If feeding stations can give these people what they want without being detrimental to the creatures being fed it seems like a win-win situation to me.

Andrea

Birding watching, twitching, photographing is obviously getting too complicated for me to understand.....

The Pheasants arnt dragged to the feeding station, they are wild birds, it gives people a chance to enjoy them..... whats the problem.

More time and effort should be spent discussing how to stop the needless killing of 1000s of birds in countrys such as Malta.

Put all this into perspective please.

grebefeet9 said:

in my opinion, feeding is just another tool in the birder's kit, alongside pishing and call playback.

Click to expand...

I wouldnt see plenty of birds in my garden without feeding ....... and what a boring garden it would be without them

They eat while I get to watch them (I would find it much harder to get such stunning views of Sparrowhawks without garden feeding)

Win win :t:

And some birds of the world would never be seen by anyone without playback - now wouldnt that be a sad state of affairs

brd said:

..... i'm not as much of a lister, and the biggest thrill for me is to be somewhere remote and come across a bird in a totally wild setting, like i just snuck into its world, and not vice versa ....

Click to expand...

brd said:

..... the question is more along the lines of our interaction with wild birds. on a philosophical level, if you are putting out food, birdwatching has become a pursuit of seeing birds by any means necessary to tick them, rather than the pursuit of being in nature and observing birds in a more "natural way." of course there are all sorts of exceptions when it comes to interaction. in cases where the interaction is really in the benefit of the bird, and that is the motivation for the interaction (feeding starving birds, creating sanctuaries, helping injured birds) that seems different.

I suppose I still feel that the natural world is the most important thing we have, and that considering how much damage we have already done to it, an overriding ethic of observation over interaction is what i gravitate towards, and so might try other ways of seeing that pheasant than supporting that interaction .....

Click to expand...

Brd,

Similar to you, I much prefer the natural way, and I really "hate" such artificial interactions.
Now you could get lost in the semantics of observation effects in the quantum mechanics sense, but we have destroyed, or modified, and degraded so much, that I don't care in any way to add more artificialness.
Each to their own, but I really don't like, or go in for bird feeders and such, nor the use of 'baiting' for viewing, or photography etc. If I were to witness such a scene, I would find no joy in it at all, and in fact would feel more than just a little sad, if not sickened.

I posted the below elsewhere, and I think it's relevant here too:

There's nothing more beautiful than wild things being wild ....

With a bit of intervention by (us) humans, it's possible (through work), to take degraded lands, and rehabilitate them, so that not only are they a reasonable facsimilie of the original indigenous state (this requires quite a bit of accelerated old-growth mimmickry), but also a more diverse than natural, compression of many different habitat types. For example, at a farm scale, taking derived natural grasslands, and restoring not only the original woodlands in places, but also combining wetlands, terrain rockeries, forests, dams, flowering / seeding plants, range extension, (preparation for climate change), shrub corridors, aspect diversity, and gardens, etc.

This can also be applied on rural / residential lot, or garden scale.

This is always my preference - provide food, habitat, shelter, and water, through natural means, paying careful attention to restoring / augmenting all the layers, and connectivity with remnant patches of indigenous habitat (old-growth if your lucky enough to have some nearby).

You could say that throwing different vegetation types and ecosystems together is somewhat artificial, and the results are certainly chaotic (in the scientific sense of the word), but I think that as long as things like potential weeds or pest species are not introduced, and do not cross the boundaries, that somehow nature sorts it out, even if not apparent to us. I have seen areas of typically less than a dozen narky 'increaser' species in degraded areas, transformed into areas that have seen over 150 species visit / reside.

I think anyone can make beneficial contributions in this way.

I don't necessarily agree with BFB (above post), in that if we start to look at gardens through birds eyes, we can have our colourful prettyness, and birds too. Rather than 'artificially' provide food - provide a whole 'space', or 'life' for them (by the methods I listed above) ..... food, shelter, somewhere to drink, to bathe, habitat to chill in, to snuggle in, somewhere to hide, somewhere for showing off, somewhere to meet playmates, and/or lovers, somewhere for lovin', and materials to build a place of their own to raise the littleun's in, etc .....

I've done many such projects on normal suburban lots (1/5th acre or so), and seen the species increase from just 2 or 3 (magpies, noisy miners, rosellas) to 50 or more. How the bejaysus! they find the oasis in reams of suburban desert has me stuffed - but it's a welcome miracle indeed!

Give it a crack - you'll be amazed by what you can do .....


Chosun :gh: