Baiting
Hello dear readers!!
Last week, we had a look at the community’s opinion towards some of the practices in wildlife photography. This week we’ll cover one of the practice in wildlife photography, baiting. The use of bait for photography is viewed rather negatively in Singapore, with strict laws to deter any offenders. In fact, this year on March 25, the amended Wildlife Act was passed in parliament. The new law has made the feeding of wildlife illegal islandwide, whereas in the past it was only illegal in nature parks and reserves.
Why bait?
Wildlife photography is a game of patience, luck and skill. Even with the best of skills, if the wildlife decides not to show up, the photographer will still have to leave empty handed. Baiting attracts the wildlife and draw it out into the open, making photographing it easier. Furthermore, having a “FIM” (Food in Mouth) shot is more compelling and is often perceived as a better photo, hence making the use of baits very attractive to some photographers.
Tiger Shrike with Mealworm
Impacts?
With reference to an article written by David Tan, a researcher at NUS’s department of biological science who studies evolution of birds and urban ecology, he explains some of the impacts of baiting. One of the well known impacts of baiting is that animals get used to human contact and associate us with food. Some wildlife may get bolder and more aggressive which inevitably leads to the human-wildlife conflict.
Certain baits also have the potential to transmit diseases. A study conducted in Singapore in 2012, found that frogs from local aquarium shops were harbouring a fungus lethal to numerous frog species. David also mentioned that these frogs were used to bait the Ruddy Kingfisher and Black-backed Kingfisher in Singapore. There is also a chance of these “baits” escaping predation and entering the ecosystem, in which case they might end up as a new invasive species.
Left: Black-backed Kingfisher / Right: Ruddy Kingfisher
But, not all feeding is considered detrimental. David also gave an example of farmland birds that are in decline in Britain, benefiting from the feeding during the food scarce winter as it helps them to survive . This example however, cannot be applied to areas in South-east Asia, as food is available throughout the year due to the absence of winter.
The last point illustrates on how the impacts of baiting can vary in different region. In Singapore, the negative impact of the use of baits is clear. Unless you want to risk being fined, we should start learning more about our wildlife instead to increase the chance of finding them. We also have to keep in mind that the impacts of any practice used here can be magnified due to our larger/denser population. Remember, wildlife photography is all about patience!! Cheers!! =)
*All images belong to me unless otherwise stated*
Hi Benjamin,
If you don’t mind publishing this comment…
You’ve relied exclusively on a single source – a biased news article, whose lone source of information is hardly a knowledgeable person when it comes to animal husbandry (e.g., avian nutrition).
I have no idea where David got his info from, but there are actual scientific data showing that mealworms are adequately nutritional for birds. Like this article, for example, but there are many others. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/zoo.21246
I’m not saying baiting is fine, but does it make a lot of sense to allege that a subsidised food source that a wild animal receives for a small proportion of its total time spent foraging is going to have any real impact on its overall health ? I’m doubtful.
This is a good illustration of how, if we only look at one source, we may not get an objective view of the situation. Especially when we take the word of people who aren’t experts in the subject matter they’re presenting. So always question what you read.
jc
Hi Dr. Coleman!! Thanks for reading my blog and the input.
At the time of writing this blog, I couldn’t find any articles in Google Scholar or Scopus relating to the use of baiting in photography, so I resorted to using this news article. Maybe I should have used a more specific word in the search? I’m thinking of addressing these issues in this week’s blog and to find more articles relating to it too. Hope it will answer any uncertainties found in this blog.
It was reported on the news article that the Pitta ate 27 mealworms over a period of 8 hours for at least 3 weeks. Although I can’t prove if this statement is true, if baiting is not regulated and the bait forms the main component of the animal’s diet for a prolong period of time, won’t you agree that it may have some form of effect on the wildlife?