Even just using the term "trap" instead of their more correct name of wildlife camera shows the total lack of understanding the author has of being in the wild. Harming animals by having their picture taken? My goodness - all the animals in Yellowstone (not wilderness, but using it to make a point) should be extinct by now - I mean they must be totally destroyed by ll those camera flashes by now. I live in Northern Minnesota where there are many places that are truly wild, and I use a wildlife camera. I have even placed it along my driveway to capture images of all the deer that cross my driveway - and funniest thing - even after having their picture taken, they are alive and well and still coming back to the same area where they were violated by my camera. Yes, they noticed the camera and were curious the first time the flash went off, but on future visits by the same animals - they did not even bother to look at the camera. In the case of the author even suggesting that the bear mentioned was "infuriated" by the camera is ridiculous. People who actually live in reality (not in the concrete, asphalt, noisy, light-polluted cities) know that a bear will not be infuriated easily - they are curious. If the camera was destroyed, it was because the bear was checking it out and they are not exactly the most knowledgeable of how to use the thumbscrews to open the camera ...... People like this author need to quit trying to pretend they know a single damn thing about animals and their behaviors. These are the same people who like to impose rules on those of us who actually not only enjoy watching animals - but feeding them when the winters are extremely harsh, keeping our land in the best possible condition to help support wildlife ( and YES - that means cutting down trees to keep it healthy - oh my goodness!!!!), and harvesting - ok, killing them - for the delicious, healthy meat they provide just as they have for thousands of years before people grew so out of touch with the fact that killing things to eat is even where those delicious steaks you order up in a supper club really come from. Come on.

I couldn't agree with you more. I guess I need to leave the camera at home anytime I go camping, fishing and hunting. I better stop taking pictures of the fish that I catch and release. Just imagine how my poor dog feels. Oh my, the poor elk I photograph in Estes Park. Wow! Is this author for real? This topic will eventually turn towards hunting and how awful it is. I just hope that if it does, everyone is reminded that the majority of money that is used for wildlife and habitat conservation, comes from hunters. No, not the cost of licenses, although a portion of that is used. I am talking about outright donations. The burning question is, what is the difference between a game trail camera and a wildlife photographer? In my opinion, not one darn thing. This article is a joke!

Ridiculous? Saying that the author "shows the total lack of understanding ... of being in the wild" because of the use of the name "camera trap" instead of your preferred term "wildlife camera" is what is truly ridiculous. A recent copy of National Geographic had an article about Snow Leopards in which the term "camera trap" was used several times. Oh, the World Wildlife Fund also calls them camera traps. Get over it.

You also insist that it is impossible for animals to be harmed by these cameras, yet fail to refute any of the arguments put forth in the article. You say, "In the case of the author even suggesting that the bear mentioned was 'infuriated' by the camera is ridiculous." What the author actually said was, "It's hard to know whether these animals were angry or simply curious; most researchers believe it's the latter." (Italics mine).

Now I'm going to give you the argument set forth in the article for how these animals can be harmed by these cameras. Read slowly, and start over if you get confused, for your reading comrehension is clearly below average and I want to make sure you really get this. "What's undeniable is that they were, in one way or another, provoked. If such provocation were consistent and widespread—and the increasing popularity of camera traps means that it is rapidly becoming both—it could lead endangered animals to waste energy or avoid fruitful areas for foraging or hunting. ... Unfortunately, no one has systematically studied the impact of camera traps on wildlife." The author admits that there is no data to support one view over another, so why would you categorically deny the fact that these animals can be harmed this way? Did you watch the embedded video of the rhino attacking the camera? Do you not think the animal could have injured itself doing this?

The author is a metropolitan man/woman with a liberal bias towards sensitive, politically correct stances. Weenies can be offended by anything these days.

Leonzo:

Did you watch the embedded video of the rhino attacking the camera? Do you not think the animal could have injured itself doing this?

You are SOOO right. We should bubble-wrap every animal in the world to prevent one of them from getting scratched. The fact is that humans aren't going anywhere. Animals that can't coexist must die. It's nature. To keep an unfit animal alive is an affront to Mrs. Nature. A five-pound box that flashes light once in a while might cause psychological damage to the animals, except that they don't have psyches.

Sadly, America is a bunch of vajayjays.

People need to stop treating animals like humans. Animals are just that, animals and should be treated appropriately. The arguments that this article puts for are laughable at best. What if that box that the rhino attacked was another animal? Then you would all be "oh that poor little animal being attacked by a rhino." I am sure that rhino expended massive amounts of its energy to move over from where it was standing five feet away and push over a little camera box. There is no way a rhino could be harmed from attacking a camera box, seriously, well maybe if the tree in return fell on it, but knocking a camera off a tree could not possibly cause harm it. It makes me angry to see people caring so much about something as trivial as this when they could be putting that energy into things that actually matter, like trying to get homeless people off of the streets or trying to get children out of abusive homes.

Saying that World Wildlife Fund calls them traps as justification explains a lot about you - so sorry that your real life comprehension is below average (the word trap is being used to put the negative connotation toward the cameras as "trap" implies capture - which these are not - can you comprehend that?) Also - I have yet to be able to find a Wikpedia - or other - definition of a "camera trap".

What the author actually said was, "It's hard to know whether these animals were angry or simply curious; most researchers believe it's the latter." .......

along with ...

Unfortunately, no one has systematically studied the impact of camera traps on wildlife." The author admits that there is no data to support one view over another,

is showing the hypocrisy of even writing the article - which was the point I was trying to make.

"What's undeniable is that they were, in one way or another, provoked."

Good God - provoked - and undeniable! Animal psychology at it's finest - and you buy into it. The reason I titled my post "Ridiculous" is because I was trying to express how ridiculous it was to even put this article out there. Along with that i was putting forth my observations through my use of a wildlife camera - which, by the way, is what you would search for if you wanted to buy one - not camera trap which is why I use the term rather than trying to put a negative connotation on something that even by the authors admission has NOT proven to have negative effects.

I am curious what your experience in the wild really is. I don't mean going to National Parks (which are so not wild). I mean spending days or weeks in areas where there are no people, no tracks left by people, no nice little trails to follow except those the other animals are using. Places where when an animal sees a person, it is actually curious yet cautious. I don't mean watching national Geographic from your leather couch (do you comprehend the fact that leather comes from an animal that has been killed?). Sorry about the sarcasm, but you really did not comprehend that I was making the point that the whole article was ridiculous.

Ah, yes, ad hominems. Fortunately, attacking the substance of my character as opposed to the substance of my argument means that you are unable to formulate even the most rudimentary logical response. I would much rather be a "weenie" or a "vajayjay" than a reactionary simpleton who lashes out at anyone perceived to have a differing opinion by lumping them with whatever particular political group you hate the most.

But hey, keep trying. Who knows, maybe one day you'll win an argument by name calling.

Saying that World Wildlife Fund calls them traps as justification explains a lot about you - so sorry that your real life comprehension is below average (the word trap is being used to put the negative connotation toward the cameras as "trap" implies capture - which these are not - can you comprehend that?) Also - I have yet to be able to find a Wikpedia - or other - definition of a "camera trap".

I'm sorry, what exactly does it explain about me? I googled "camera trap" and the WWF page on camera traps was the fifth result down. The word is not being used by the WWF in a negative connotation. Read their page and you will see that they refer to camera traps as such, "In landscapes around the world WWF scientists and field staff are using cameras equipped with infrared triggers, called camera traps, to obtain critical data about wildlife and their habitats." Negative connotation? I don't think so.

Oh what a shame that the collective fucking genius that is wikipedia has no article on camera traps. Interesting that I didn't find an article there about "wildlife cameras" either.

As for the rest of your post, if science has shown us anything, it's that anecdotal evidence is the one form of evidence that we cannot trust. My "experience" in the wild is of no relevance to this argument, nor are your days of lying motionless under a tree trying to catch a picture of a deer like you're Marty fucking Stouffer.

Sorry - I apologize for stooping to your level - after all I believe you started the character assassination when you attacked my reading comprehension. And, as we are animals, I guess I was "provoked" by it. thank you for pointing out what it means when you attack a person's character.

Well, you either have poor reading comprehension or you were intentionally misrepresenting the author's words to suit your own ends. So, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by questioning how well you had actually read the article, rather than just outright calling you a liar.

Most humans are better than animals. We allow them to live in our space. If they want to countermand our wishes, we kill them. God/natural order evidently LOVES this, because it caused this to come into being. This argument defeats other arguments. Notably that argument which I have named "Leonzo's Poor Reading Comprehension". (LPRC is not an honest philosophical or logical argument, but I can oppose only him opposes me.)

A counter example to the truth of 'God's love of Man>Beast whereby enduring existence' may be that Incest, Murder, and Communism have endured.

A rebuttal from the GLM>BWEE camp would be that these things are all accepted by Man as being intrinsically evil. Where as the dominance of Man over Beast is not intrinsically evil.

A more astute reader may observe that everything I have posited comes from a Man's value system, and in fairness nothing has been put forward from the Beast's value system.

The Beast has no value system and can conceive of no value system. (Eating your own feces and lacking written/intelligent communication are put forward as evidence.)

A Man may point out that GLM<BWEE is, through many inferances, a circular argument. I hereby challenge Leonzo to prove himself a Man and provide some argument other than LPRC.

^^^Good luck with this^^^

Simplified version: We've always dominated animals. God doesn't object to this.

The counterargument goes "but d00d, there are other things have always existed: murder, incest, idiots."

These things are intrinsically bad. God doesn't object? Man does. Man must be God?

@jmcfarl3

Leaving your concept of "God" out of this, just because Man is "better" than beast does not mean that we do not have a moral obligation to behave in certain ways toward beast. In fact, I would argue that it is Man's ability to make such moral distinctions that is the core of what separates us from beasts (your examples of animals "Eating [their] own feces and lacking written/intelligent communication are put forward as evidence," are behaviors that are also seen in Man).

You talk about value systems. Man has one (many), beast does not. We agree on this.

So, we're back where we started. Man's value system, according to you, allows us to dominate beast. Very well; I eat meat and wear leather jackets. I have a dog that I have trained to respond to my command. Why, then, will I be arrested if I fail to feed my dog or otherwise attend to her basic needs? Why do I have to obtain a license to hunt animals, and am prohibited altogether from hunting other animals? It wasn't always this way. Many species have been driven to extinction this way. It was only recently that we (developed countries) began to consider what effects our actions will have on beast. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Should we interfere with "developing" countries who do not share our views? (There is an interesting Nat'l Geog. article about scientists attempting to stop the slaughter and sale of bush meat - read: monkeys - on an African island. Many of these monkey species are "endangered." Is this right? Or should man be allowed to exterminate species as He sees fit? I ask these questions seriously, not rhetorically). Should I be able to starve my dog as a punishment? After all, my dog is my property, and what I do with my property is nobody else's business (again, this is not rhetoric, I do firmly believe that what I do with my property is nobody else's business. Although I would never starve my dog...) Or do I, as a human, have a moral obligation to this animal, and any other animal who is affected by my actions?

Now to the central question of the argument: Do we have a moral obligation to ensure that the methods we use to study animals in the wild do not negatively affect them? My moral compass points to yes, although it may not even be a purely moral question. Consider: camera traps may cause animals that respond to them to act in ways that they otherwise would not. In other words, the very fact that the animals notice and interact with the cameras interferes with the notion of studying them in their "natural habitat." Making the cameras less noticable and intrusive is a positive thing for both the animals and the scientific data we are trying to collect.

So, why the vitriolic criticism of the notion that these cameras may harm the animals they are intended to study? Surely improving our methods benefits both Man and beast. Is this not a good thing?

How about the point that you can't go hiking and camping without the irritation and of being snapped by some random camera? Wow I can't wait until I end up on some schmuck's blog because he caught me taking a whiz.

This is a combination response to several posts-

@jmetzer–

You, despite your claim of living with wildlife are, completely, clueless. No, the camera doesn't kill the animals outright. It puts stress on the animals. Stressed animals die more easily. So what is more important - that you have a picture of the deer that cross your driveway or that the deer can cross your driveway without suffering additional stress? Why is your having a picture of the deer crossing your driveway for your amusement more important than not stressing animals?

"These are the same people who like to impose rules on those of us who actually not only enjoy watching animals - but feeding them when the winters are extremely harsh..."

Feeding wildlife is illegal for a reason - it reduces their ability to stay alive with natural food sources. It prevents the normal, healthy die off of animals that the land cannot support.

Oh, and by the way, I live in a very small town, (500 people), in the Rocky Mountains, up on the continental divide in Montana. Nowhere near a national park. I harvest animals to eat. Killing animals for food is one thing, killing them by putting unnecessary stress on them, because we want to take their picture, is quite another.

@ Royjax

"The burning question is, what is the difference between a game trail camera and a wildlife photographer? In my opinion, not one darn thing."

An ethical wildlife photograph tries to photograph wildlife in a way that doesn't stress them. Otherwise, the true nature of the animal being photographed is lost. Camera traps just flash away at the slightest bit of movement. Huge difference.

"I was trying to express how ridiculous it was to even put this article out there."

Not surprisingly, you are not acquainted with the scientific method. You know the part where someone puts forth a hypothesis and then tests it?

@jmcfarl3

"Animals that can't coexist must die. It's nature. To keep an unfit animal alive is an affront to Mrs. Nature."

"Animals that can't exist must die." Interesting posit. I guess you are willing to accept that very few animals can adapt and live in the concrete ghettos humans build. Since they can't adapt, just let them die off or kill them at our convenience,right? The problem is with humans, not wildlife - we keep invading their habitat and killing them. Thereby reducing species diversity. I, for one, don't want to live in a world where the only animals are humans and their pets.

"A five-pound box that flashes light once in a while might cause psychological damage to the animals, except that they don't have psyches."

And, you should have read the article. The damage to the animals is not "psychological," [It is arguable that animals do have psyches, because they do feel emotional stress.] It is physiological stress. Stress in animals can kill them.

@ jmcfarl3

"Most humans are better than animals."

Please define by what measure humans are better than animals? Humans are animals. So, where does that put us?

"We allow them to live in our space. If they want to countermand our wishes, we kill them. God/natural order evidently LOVES this, because it caused this to come into being."

Being biblical, God gave man dominion over animals. He didn't say, go out and kill everything and I will make sure your world is still livable. "Dominion" entails some degree of stewardship and preservation of the status quo. [Why else, being biblical, would he have told Noah to put two of every species in the ark?] God help us when there are no animals other than humans on the earth, because nitwits think it is okay to hunt to extinction anything that they decide they want to.

In these posts, most seem to be mistaking what the author said. He was concerned about stress placed on the animal by something that should not be in their environment. Do a little research - stress can kill animals.