Is “Pursuing” Wildlife for a Photo a Form of “Take”?

August 18, 2011

Question: California Fish and Game defines “take” as to “hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill” or attempt to do so. Much discussion and conjecture has been generated amongst wildlife photographers regarding use of the term “pursue” in this definition and how it may apply to them. Some photography and wildlife watching groups have recently gone so far as to recommend their members obtain sporting licenses due to uncertainty surrounding interpretation of the word “pursue.” However, this is of little use if a picture is taken of something that can not be “taken” under the authority of a sporting license. For example, if a photographer informs a warden they are searching for the endangered Southern Mountain Yellow Legged Frog to capture on film with their telephoto lens, could this person be cited for “take” by “attempting to pursue?”

For the sake of discussion, please assume photography is for recreation, habitat is not altered and that wildlife is never touched, possessed or otherwise under the control of the individual behind the lens.

The wildlife watching and photography community would greatly appreciate clarification on this point. (Mason Y.)

Answer: Although the most literal interpretation of “take” could apply to a wildlife photographer looking for and/or pursuing wildlife during photographic opportunities, the pursuit as listed within the “take” definition includes only pursuits that result in take or attempted take of the animal. According to Department of Fish and Game (DFG) Lt. Todd Tognazzini, a hunting of fishing license is not required for a wildlife photographer.

Hojo, I know a little place in Tahoe with lunker trout in a no fishing zone below the dam. Its fun to toss fish food to them but what I'd really like to do is cut the hook off a fly and lay it out there, just to watch them smash it.  Not barbless... hookless... so at best they could mouth the the feather an spit it out.

Does that violate the "no fishing" rules?