Wildlife photographer pleads guilty to violating Endangered Species Act

BirdPhotographers.net

Help Support BirdPhotographers.net:

What is appropriate behavior and who gets to define it outside of federal and state regulation. The only reason Jim was charged was do to the special status of the Kites if he was next to an Osprey nest there would have been no issues. The Ospreys on Blue Cypress are routinely approached on their nest and they are thriving with last years nesting population being the largest ever counted on the lake. Now when I was on lake Toho my guide being a Florida wildlife biologist was well aware of the 500 yard rule for the nest so we set up within 25 yards of a feeding platform and had Kites fly right by the boat all legal. So were we to close according to you or some birder without a clue.

Despite Osprey being routinely approached and insensitive to such approaches, that is not allowed under the letter of the law for birds of Special Concern. Jim's experience has me rethinking a past practice of visiting some nests and simply staying outside the Osprey's "comfort range" (well under 500-ft.). Instead, I'll probably visit some hunting perches that routinely have human traffic. Also, I know an Osprey nesting platform right on the side of a golf course, that'll be my preferred site. Same goes for burrowing owls. I follow the ones near public walking paths instead of those in more isolated areas.

Just something to consider.
 
I have never met or photographed with Jim Neiger, and I am not going to sit here in judgment when I don't know the facts of the case. However, I would like to address a few things that really tick me off.

Most of these researchers are doing far more harm to birds than any nature photographer ALL IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE. Sometimes when I am photographing bandings, I am actually wincing. I don't like the way the birds are struggling when trapped in mist nets or removed from nest cavities when they are only days old to be poked, prodded and banded...not to mention the GPS devices now being placed on a # of species. Remind me why we as nature photographers are being vilified?

Everyone knows that the media likes to put a slant on almost all stories in an attempt to sensationalize them and make more money. The real facts of the case one way or the other are never going to be known b/c the case is being plea bargained and speculating, just like ***uming, will only make you look like one.

Don't folks on FB have anything better to do that kick people while they are down and rush to judgment when they don't know the man or the facts and probably never will??? I suspect that many of them are living in glass houses, and the hypocrisy is baffling!!! It seems some photographers are posting stories simply to bring attention to themselves rather than to bring about a healthy debate on an important topic. Doesn't anybody have better things to do than trash people they don't even know on social networks?

Nature photographers are not the root cause of issues with endangered species...loss of habitat is. Maybe folks need to be more focused on how they can leave less of a foot print in their own lives rather than talking trash about others. I am just so sick and tired of all of the negativity and hypocrisy out there.

Stepping down off of my soapbox now!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
David I was using the Ospreys as an example that being close to a animal will not automatically cause then to die of shock as some will have us believe.
 
What is appropriate behavior and who gets to define it outside of federal and state regulation. The only reason Jim was charged was do to the special status of the Kites if he was next to an Osprey nest there would have been no issues. The Ospreys on Blue Cypress are routinely approached on their nest and they are thriving with last years nesting population being the largest ever counted on the lake. Now when I was on lake Toho my guide being a Florida wildlife biologist was well aware of the 500 yard rule for the nest so we set up within 25 yards of a feeding platform and had Kites fly right by the boat all legal. So were we to close according to you or some birder without a clue.

I'm not sure what points you're trying to make. There are federal and state regulations restricting human access to various categories of wildlife, and these restrictions can change depending on location and season. As an example, in one of the wildlife sanctuaries I photograph in, a trail with an osprey nesting platform is open to people most of the year, but that trail is closed off every spring as the ospreys begin their nesting activity. This is completely appropriate - no one could sensibly argue with it.

As far as our general behavior as bird photographers is concerned, we should at the very least follow the ethical guidelines established by the American Birding Association: http://www.aba.org/about/ethics.html

Most of these researchers are doing far more harm to birds than any nature photographer ALL IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE.
Marina, I agree with you that some of the activities wildlife biologists engage in (particularly banding) seem excessive and potentially harmful to the animals. I'm a biologist myself, but I still question some of the things being done for scientific purposes. However, the fact of the matter is that those scientists have permits to engage in those activities, so they are well within the law, regardless of how we feel about it.

John
 
Last edited:
I have never met or photographed with Jim Neiger, and I am not going to sit here in judgment when I don't know the facts of the case. However, I would like to address a few things that really tick me off.

Most of these researchers are doing far more harm to birds than any nature photographer ALL IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE. Sometimes when I am photographing bandings, I am actually wincing. I don't like the way the birds are struggling when trapped in mist nets or removed from nest cavities when they are only days old to be poked, prodded and banded...not to mention the GPS devices now being placed on a # of species. Remind me why we as nature photographers are being vilified?

Everyone knows that the media likes to put a slant on almost all stories in an attempt to sensationalize them and make more money. The real facts of the case one way or the other are never going to be known b/c the case is being plea bargained and speculating, just like ***uming, will only make you look like one.

Don't folks on FB have anything better to do that kick people while they are down and rush to judgment when they don't know the man or the facts and probably never will??? I suspect that many of them are living in glass houses, and the hypocrisy is baffling!!! It seems some photographers are posting stories simply to bring attention to themselves rather than to bring about a healthy debate on an important topic. Doesn't anybody have better things to do than trash people they don't even know on social networks?

Nature photographers are not the root cause of issues with endangered species...loss of habitat is. Maybe folks need to be more focused on how they can leave less of a foot print in their own lives rather than talking trash about others. I am just so sick and tired of all of the negativity and hypocrisy out there.

Stepping down off of my soapbox now!
There is No way anyone could have worded my thoughts any better than this ! Thank You Marina !
 
I have never met or photographed with Jim Neiger, and I am not going to sit here in judgment when I don't know the facts of the case. However, I would like to address a few things that really tick me off.

Most of these researchers are doing far more harm to birds than any nature photographer ALL IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE. Sometimes when I am photographing bandings, I am actually wincing. I don't like the way the birds are struggling when trapped in mist nets or removed from nest cavities when they are only days old to be poked, prodded and banded...not to mention the GPS devices now being placed on a # of species. Remind me why we as nature photographers are being vilified?

Everyone knows that the media likes to put a slant on almost all stories in an attempt to sensationalize them and make more money. The real facts of the case one way or the other are never going to be known b/c the case is being plea bargained and speculating, just like ***uming, will only make you look like one.

Don't folks on FB have anything better to do that kick people while they are down and rush to judgment when they don't know the man or the facts and probably never will??? I suspect that many of them are living in glass houses, and the hypocrisy is baffling!!! It seems some photographers are posting stories simply to bring attention to themselves rather than to bring about a healthy debate on an important topic. Doesn't anybody have better things to do than trash people they don't even know on social networks?

Nature photographers are not the root cause of issues with endangered species...loss of habitat is. Maybe folks need to be more focused on how they can leave less of a foot print in their own lives rather than talking trash about others. I am just so sick and tired of all of the negativity and hypocrisy out there.

Stepping down off of my soapbox now!

Very well said.

IMHO there is so much hypocrisy and irrationality in federal law, it is hard not to look at incidents like this with a very jaundiced eye. In the USA at least, it has come to the point that if you know what Federal, State, City or County regulatory code to look in, by the letter of the law almost everything is illegal. I am not just talking about wildlife photography, but life in general. It is how the law is enforced, which is in no way consistent or predictable, that the politics of the moment rears its ugly head.

I have no opinion on what this photographer did or didn't do, since I have no firsthand knowledge of the incident. I do know the federal authorities will eagerly hang him out to dry and do all they can to ruin him and "make an example". But a local developer with the right political connections who sends money to the right people will be given gleeful federal, state, and local blessing to bulldoze and develop the very same sort of nesting habitat of the birds that this photographer may or may not have in some way "disturbed".

I have always thought that Point Reyes National Seashore in California illustrates this hypocrisy quite well. The area is managed by the National Park System, so I am sure all you know what that means. It is patrolled by National Park Service rangers, who typically enforce the "letter" of the law without any interpretation, discretion, or injection of common sense. If the ranger interprets that you have "disturbed" any creatures, or damaged any feature of the park in any way, you can usually count on formal enforcement action being taken against you. I guess that would be "OK", as long as we all know and are all bound by the same rules, right? But here is the hypocrisy...cattle ranching is allowed within most of the open terrain in the seashore. So nearly everywhere you go, you are confronted with herds of cattle grazing and trampling the "protected" terrain into a morass of mud and cow manure, ranchers driving their pick-up trucks through the meadows, etc.

This is why I take incidents like this with a grain of salt. Federal law is "political" law, and its long arm is generally only wielded against those without the money or political connections to be "above" it. Photographers typically make easy targets, despite the fact that whatever environmental "damage" they do is usually minimal or non-existent.

End of rant.
 
Last edited:
Somebody help me out here...when it says:

'in lieu of turning over his boat, motor and camera, Nieger has also agreed to pay $9000 in fines'

Does that mean he can still lose his property?

It also sounds like the prosecution could still change their minds in regards to prison time and
fines?

Doug



In plea deals with federal cases, typically the US Attorney makes a "recommendation" to the judge that they would be satisfied with the penalties agreed upon in the deal. But it is not binding...the judge can still disregard the recommendation and impose a stiffer penalty, as judges often do when they are "grandstanding" in cases they know will receive media attention.

Regarding the penalties in this case....are most of you aware that those penalties/potential penalties are significantly more severe than first offenders in most jurisdictions would receive for residential burglary or felonius (unarmed) assault? Does that seems "imbalanced" to anyone besides me?
 
Please get back on your soap box Marina...that was awesome!!!! I appreciate the members of this forum and the participants in this thread who are not waiting in line...or trying to be first(!), to cast the first stones. Thank you also to Arthur Morris and others who have brought some clarity to the situation, with preponderant real life experiences with Mr. Neiger, and not suspicions, innuendos, and judgements....
 
I'm not sure I agree with the tone of this thread. What I hear is an understandable defense of Jim - which sounds warranted to a point. Clearly he is an excellent photographer and individual who respects wildlife and unintentionally got tied up in a prosecution for violating the Endangered Species Act.

But this kind of case is an opportunity to talk about ethics. Dave's comment about pushing the window is on the money. Many of us have pushed the window with bird photography. I'm not sure any top bird photographer can state that they don't push the window. And when is pushing the window going too far? Could we push the window a little less and teach others to avoid these situations. Are techniques to push the window okay for professionals but not for amateurs? One photographer pushing a nesting bird off the nest is a minor problem - but the same action by twenty photographers a day is a problem. High traffic areas put the spotlight on photographers to do the right thing.

It's also not fair to completely blame researchers and enforcement officers for this. I understand they are over zealous. "Barney with a badge" has been a problem for all of us.

Perhaps sharing the lessons we have learned and how we have modified behavior to push the envelop less often or more lightly would add value and demonstrate photographers are not the problem. There are a lot of people who believe the issue is with photographers - not researchers. And none of us need that fire to be fed with more flaming here.
 
There is lots more to consider here. First off, the ABA code of ethics is all common sense. Next, as Steve Holt mentioned on the Facebook lynching, why were no warnings given? It surely sounds as if Jim were set up as an example. If every fisherman and hunter who approached a kite nest were jailed the prisons in Osceola County would be over-crowded. I have personally seen Jim caution fisherman as to the presence of various kite nests. In fact,it is pretty clear that t the local fisherman who incorrectly assumed that it was Jim who turned them in to the authorities (it was not Jim) vandalized his motor to the tune of about $10K by cutting all the wires while the boat was parked in his driveway overnight.

Ethics are personal. The law is the law. In my 30 years plus of doing this I have found that those who scream the loudest about ethics are the ones raping the birds and wildlife when nobody is looking.... If I do not consider it a danger to do so I always open my mouth when I see photographers doing the wrong thing. And/or take photos of a license plate and take appropriate action. There is no one to police us but us.
 
Regarding the penalties in this case....are most of you aware that those penalties/potential penalties are significantly more severe than first offenders in most jurisdictions would receive for residential burglary or felonius (unarmed) assault? Does that seems "imbalanced" to anyone besides me?

Me too. Contrast that with an old case in NYC. They caught some guy shooting Snowy Owls and Peregrines to stuff them. He has some ridiculously high number of skins in his possession. He was fined $5 per bird. Maybe Jim will get that judge.....
 
I would like to share here what Michael Pancier, an attorney practicing in Miami (and I believe still a BPN member), wrote in response to someone's Facebook post on this issue. It's nice to have a legal opinion.

You can't go simply by what is in a plea agreement. Folks dealing with the feds usually have no choice but to take a plea. The cost of taking even a misdemeanor case to trial in federal court can cost someone in excess of $50K. Secondly, the common practice with the feds is to overcharge defendants in a way to strongarm them into a plea. The penalties of being found guilty in a multi count misdemeanor case in federal court could cost someone hundreds of thousands of dollars. Remember, this is a misdemeanor; not a felony. Furthermore, the regulations in the ESA are not clear cut; are not approved by congress; and are enforced haphazard especially under the harassment provision of the act. This is a strict liability statute where the issue of intent need not be proven. Likewise, more distress is caused to these birds by the capture and tagging and placement of radio transmitters on these birds. Yet, because this is done by someone with a license, it's ok. So think about it.


Let's say one day you're out with your group taking pictures of endangered birds. Some pissed off birder thinks you're harassing the birds and claims you're within an arbitrary number of feet of a nest which is buried somewhere in the code of federal regulations. You are notified by the Department of Justice that you're going to be charged. You take the position that you were not within this area and are innocent. Given the choices of taking this case to trial to vindicate you, which is going to cost you at least %50K and the risk of being found guilty of a non felony which entails fines of up to $100K; I posit that unless you have a bank account with Trump money; you will try to negotiate a plea and pay some fine similar to what is being paid here. It's not a felony. And this is what happens on this level.

It gets worse when the feds start strong arming folks with Lacey Act violations (See Gibson guitars); or with felony charges. In the federal system there is no discovery and you get penalized by harsher sentences if you fight the charges and go to trial and lose. Most folks who are not involved in the system have these naive notions that the federal justice system seeks justice and always does what's right; and that folks get fair trials. That's far from the truth. It's very political.

So something to think about every time you see these plea agreements .... there are far too many innocent people who plea guilty cause they have no choice; they either don't have the funds to get the best lawyer to fight the case all the way through; or the risks of taking it to trial substantially outweigh the benefits.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I read this horror story and are coming down to Fort Desoto and a maybe other places in a couple of weeks, for the first time, and was wondering if other than obeying the signs posted within an area if I should be afraid of violating any laws. I sure don't need any fine or my equipment taken away. I was hoping for a very great vacation time photographing birds.
 
David I was using the Ospreys as an example that being close to a animal will not automatically cause then to die of shock as some will have us believe.

Exactly, but because of their Special Concern status, you can be well within the 500' radius (or is it 1/4-mile), not stressing the birds, and be in violation of the letter of the law. Most of us consider whether we're stressing the birds, and I'd be willing to bet that Jim was within that kind of logical guideline, but the letter of the law does not allow for using logic.

I was within 200-ft of a bald eagle hunting perch and roosting site last evening. I was the only one there last night, but a few days earlier, people were literally standing under the perch and taking pictures with their P&S cameras. Historically, people have used the picnic tables under the roost, but I wouldn't be surprised if one of my raptor rescue friends didn't approach me and give me a ration of crap for putting myself in position to get a good fishing shot (didn't happen, alas). BTW, when I walked up, eagles were on the perch and I went away, eagles were still on the perch and an additional one or two had joined. I'm very clear that I wasn't stressing the birds, but that might not be good enough, if charges were brought.
 
I have found that those who scream the loudest about ethics are the ones raping the birds and wildlife when nobody is looking.
That has not been my experience at all. In fact, I rarely hear anyone talking about ethical behavior in the context of birding or bird photography. Very few people seem to care about the issue.

John
 
I read this horror story and are coming down to Fort Desoto and a maybe other places in a couple of weeks, for the first time, and was wondering if other than obeying the signs posted within an area if I should be afraid of violating any laws. I sure don't need any fine or my equipment taken away. I was hoping for a very great vacation time photographing birds.

I decided many years ago to simply avoid national parks, national monuments, or any other areas under the control of the national park service when doing wildlife photography. Under the letter of the law, almost anything done while taking wildlife photos can be construed as a "violation" by an overzealous park ranger....and a large percentage of them enforce the letter of the law, completely indifferent or ignorant of the "intent".

Many years ago I was contacted by a national park service ranger driving through a desert park in the southwest. He saw that I had a flashlight in my car, and started browbeating me, stating it was illegal to possess an "artificial illumination device" in a national park. He said this was because poachers illegally hunt by spotlight at night. Well, I had no firearms in the car, no bow, no weapons of any kind. But the flashlight was enough for this guy to sternly lecture me for 20 minutes and threaten to cite me for having an "artificial illumination device". Again, I wasn't even using the light....I just had it in the car. Who would drive through a remote desert at night without one?

That experience was an eye opener for me....I wonder what the penalty would have been had he cited me....for having a flashlight in my car at night.

And I agree with Art. From what I have seen "talking the talk" about ethics and actually behaving ethically are two completely different things. And I have never really seen much of a connection between the two.
 
Last edited:
I don't know Jim, but by all accounts here, he is an honorable man, with nothing but regards for the wildlife he loves to photograph. Without turning this into a political debate, I do know that it wouldn't take much of a search to find many examples of what to me seems to be an out of control government, particularly at the federal level. It wouldn't take much to convince me that this another example.
 
Without turning this into a political debate...
The phraseology used by several people in this thread has already turned the discussion into a political debate. Examples: "an out of control government"; "government gone amok"; "the feds start strong arming folks". These are overtly political phrases, and they reflect belief in a very specific ideology.

John
 
Thanks John,
The issue is Jim Neiger, and I am all for the defense of his actions for those who know the facts.
Turning this into an anti -government rant is pretty disheartening for someone who enjoys this website.
Sorry all you anti-government regulation "conservationists", Bald Eagles and the like don't recognize state lines and
without bills like the Endangered Species act and federal enforcement through the years, we would not be photographing them…...

I hope Jim gets his reputation back and gets back into the business he is good at.
I also will continue to support laws that have worked to keep what species we have left in the world protected
as well as possible.

Unlike some I guess, my experience with federal wildlife officers has been positive and especially the National Park service employees.
If yours differ, feel free to stay away, they are crowded enough.
 
Last edited:
That has not been my experience at all. In fact, I rarely hear anyone talking about ethical behavior in the context of birding or bird photography. Very few people seem to care about the issue.

John


Hey John,

Perhaps I have a bit more experience than you. I have seen it happen very often in the past 30+ years.

As for nobody caring about the issue of field ethics in bird and nature photography, you need to subscribe to my blog and to the Bulletins. Most recently see this post: Jumping Monkeys; There's More to It Than Meets the Eye. See "Common Sense Photographic Ethics" in BAA Bulletin #305 here. See also Digital Manipulation and Nature Photography Competitions. And most importantly, you need to check out If You Photograph Nature, You Gotta Read This! (Field Etiquette for Nature Photographers). The latter article was published in Nature Photography Magazine a few years back.

As I said above, we need to police ourselves and those who we see doing bad things in the field.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top