Have you ever been to a wildlife model ranch?

[philg]

I'm intrigued by these wildlife model ranches in Montana.

You know, the ones where you pay $1000 for a few days and

they bring out the Mountain Lions and say "sit!" and then

you can blast away with a 70-200/2.8 lens.

 

<p>

 

This seems like a good way to save money (since one doesn't

have to buy a 600/4) and also a lot of aggravation.

What's your opinion of this concept?

[bob_atkins]

First let me say I've never been to a wildlife model ranch. I don't like the concept much. They remind me of a circus, where the animals are made to

perform for entertainment. Sure, you can get good shots. In fact many of the "wildlife" pictures you see published are taken of these captive animals. I

have heard that some ranches are not very well run and the animals not too well cared for, but I can't say this for

sure from 1st hand experience.

 

<p>

 

What these places have done in some instances is to make real shots of truely wild animals in their natural habitat unsellable. It's very, very, very hard

(perhaps impossible) to get wild images that are as good as those of tame animals for some species (big cats, wolves, raptors etc.). If all you want is the

image, then I guess it doesn't matter. If you want an image that tells a story, then perhaps it does.

 

<p>

 

Whatever your personal feelings on the issue, it's very

important not to try to pass off shots of captive animals

as "wild". Good photo editors don't like this practice,

and rightly so. Some magazines (Nature Photographer for

one) will not print images of captive subjects.

[don_baccus4]

First, it's good to see Bob Atkins on this group.

 

<p>

 

Second, we've disagreed over this topic before, no reason to stop now :)

 

<p>

 

Like Bob, I've never been to a game ranch, but in part that's due to my focus on bird photography. I have photographed birds in places like the Sonoran Desert Museum, where they've become acclimatized to people, though they aren't captive. Sorta like elk & Yellowstone.

 

<p>

 

Most of the photos published from wild game parks are of animals like wolves and cougar, which are very difficult to photograph in the wild. Techniques to do so are often very intrusive, i.e. the hounding of cougar. When I consider the moral issue of a game park providing a cougar or two for dozens or hundreds of professional, semi-professional, or wannabee photographers vs. the alternative (hounding by dozens or hundreds of whatevers), I must say that captivity and modeling seem the lesser of two evils.

 

<p>

 

I say this from the perspective of one active in biology-based conservation, rather than animal rights.

 

<p>

 

I fully agree with Bob that such photographs must be fully disclosed. Natural History magazine a year or so ago ran an article on cougar and identified captive shots as such, a welcome trend for two reasons, IMO - 1) truth in advertising, in a sense and 2) opening of the market for such shots as opposed to "wild shots" which often encourage unwarranted intervention into the lives of sensitive (in the biological sense) species. They ran a sidebar, as I recall, explaining their acceptance of captive shots as being less harmful than such intervention.

 

<p>

 

Many of these captive animals aren't releasable anyway. I've shot many a photo of Portland Audubon's 20 year old barn owl (two appear on my web page). "Owen" (a girl, actually) is so imprinted on people that she actively hangs out with them. Sees a person, comes a beggin'. She came to us that way. What were our choices? Release her to a certain death? Or give her the human companionship she desired - this bird loved kids (past tense because she's so elderly she can't travel anymore)? Actually, loves people

altogether. For years, she didn't even have a cage, just a roost, where she could sit and watch the scene, or participate. Caging only came with old age and health issues (she can barely stand).

 

<p>

 

A major ethical issue, though, is how these folks come by their critters. Some are very ethical, such as Wildlife Images in southern Oregon, run for years by Dave Sidden (who unfortunately died recently). He didn't run a game ranch, but rather was a cinemaphotographer himself. He only kept unreleasable critters, and used the funds from his shooting to rehab those that could later be released.

 

<p>

 

Some game ranches, though, are very unethical, right down with liger farms.

[paul_wilson2]

If it were a ranch that was started solely for profit and had animals that could otherwise survive in the wild, than I wouldn't give them my money.

 

<p>

 

I have heard of one ranch owned by a woman who takes in big cats who wouldn't otherwise survive. She takes cats from circuses, zoos, idiots who want them as pets, etc. Some have been declawed or have other conditions. She has one full grown tiger that sucks on her thumb. For all I know this place raises some sort of moral issue but the report I saw painted it in a pretty good light.

[bob_atkins]

In response to Don, I think there is a difference

between photographing captive animals at a rehab center

and photographing animals in a place where they are

held captive for no reason other than to make money

for the owners. Zoos come somewhere in between. If

the animals are being exploited for profit, then I

would not support such a venture. Many "game farms"

fall into this catagory. I've photographed at rehab

centers and at zoos, but the one time I went to take

a look at a "game farm" (it was somewhere on the

Olympic Penisula in WA state), I turned right around

and headed off to find better things to do.

 

<p>

 

I have no objection to the publication of captive

animal images, provided they are labelled as such.

Personally though, I'd rather see images taken in

the wild (by ethical means only of course) even if

their technical quality is a little lower.

 

<p>

 

Game farms and wildlife model ranches treat animals

as a comodity. They deserve better than that.

[jboucher___]

Well at least most of you are admitting you have never actually been to one of the game ranches before you gave your opinions. I have utilized a couple of them in Montana, and can say first hand these animals are loved by their handlers. As far as cougars 'sitting', the most I have ever seen one of the animals 'trained' was a small piece of meat would be tossed in a certain direction so you could get the wolf, cougar, etc. to look in a certain direction - preferably into some wonderful light. If you saw the handlers with these animals, its as if they are with their own kids. these animals can not be returned to the wild, they are very well taken care of, and sure they are hired out to make someone money, but without that money coming in, they couldn't be taken care of and probably would be put down. I strongly believe if an animal is captive, the credit should state that. It could be true that 'wild' image sales have taken a beating because of the huge quanity of wonderful 'captive' images out there, but I have yet to see a captive image that didn't reflect wild behavior, and many reflect wild behavior you might spend 20 years, long freezing days, and thousands of dollars trying to capture in the wild - maybe.... Its basically beautiful animals in beautiful scenery - and its enjoyable to see. I believe Tom mangelson is one of the few who will absolutely NOT use captives, and I respect that even though he wouldn't respect my actions. I've hoofed for hours and weeks in Denali park trying to capture 'the moment' - sometimes you do, useally you don't. Tom's images are wonderful, and I really appreciate the effort he puts in to capture his images. I too prefer the 'experience' of being in the wild and and at least seeing if not actually capturing a wonderous moment. It means much more in my heart, HOWEVER, I also need to keep paying the bills and can be much much more productive, with quality images of rarely seen animals and birds that happen to be captives for hire. Its a personal choice - I'm definitly OK with it. Thanks!

[walter_willis]

You should do it Phil. I have been to Wild Eyes, and Triple-D. There are certain animals that you will almost certainly ** NEVER ** get photographs of in the wild. It is the only way to get photos of certain species.

 

<p>

 

Jay Diest, who runs Triple-D dearly loves the animals that he has. He and his family work hard to ensure that each animal has the best of treatment and care. His wolves are beautiful. His Mt. Lion has appeared in many National Geographic specials. Many of his animals are 3rd and 4th generation where Jay raised the parents and grandparents.

 

<p>

 

I know that there are ethical considerations. But, many of these animals would likely be dead in the wild by now (some of his wolves are 8-10 years old). His Mt. Lion is over 15.

 

<p>

 

You really need to go and give it a try to see for yourself.

[paul_di_biase]

It seems to be that the difference between a captive animal and a wild animal is the same as photographing an actor dressed up like an firefighter and a real firefighter fighting a real fire. If you simply want an image of a person dressed up and looking like a fireman then the actor is OK. But, if you want to photograph a firefighter doing real work, then you must do it the hard way. Which photograph would a daily newspaper want to cover a story? Which brings more satisfaction to you?

 

<p>

 

I wonder if this question goes farther than just captive animals. How about digital techniques that create images that never existed in real life? If I use electronic means to add a comet flying in the sky over Half-Dome in Yosemite, is that the same as getting a handler to pose a couger or wolf for me?

[bob_atkins]

In answer to Paul, yes, the debate extends to digital manipulation

too. In some ways digital manipulation is a worse "sin" than

captive images, at least when the nature of the image is not

disclosed. When it is disclosed, the image can be art, but it

cannot, in my opinion, be called a "Nature" image.

 

<p>

 

I would probably refer to "captive wildlife" shots as "animal

portraiture" rather than nature, but at least they are real

shots of real events, not digital simulations of things that

might or might not ever have existed.

[dan_smith]

Ever try to photograph a wolverine or black footed ferret in the wild? How about a mountain lion? Many professional wildlife biologists have never even seen these animals and othes have only had a rapid glimpse as the animal was fleeing. "Natural photos?" Not likely without the 2 years or so like Jim Brandenberg & the wolves. But not all species are so tolerant.

Thus, the game farm. Like Triple D & others & people who work with, live with and care for the animals.

It isn't unethical & fills a real need. It allows images that cannot be taken in the wild. It is a hell of a lot better than many zoos out there with their concrete moats, barbed wire fencing and crowds of idiots throwing popcorn & hotdogs at depressed animals.

And NO, not all zoos are bad either. But a zoo animal is often a descendant of other zoo animals, never to see a day of life in other than a cage. A life bounded by barriers & a zoo employee or three and crowds & noise and dirt and smog. A mountain lion in LA or a mountain lion at Triple D game farm. Which has the better life if neither can be released into the wild again because they don't have the skills to live?

I'll take the game farm & enjoy the images shot there any day because by their ease they assure many other animals won't be harrassed.

And, speaking of wild animals, many editors will tell you when you go to Florida or Yellowstone or a few other major locations, "we do not want any more images of XXX animal". We see this specific animal too often. Everyone photographs it & we know its name, where it sits & everything else.

Wild animals? Only in semantics as many of these animals are no better off than the ones in zoos or game parks. They are only a different iteration of the same thing.

Since ethics are a personal thing we can only generalize. Mine won't allow me to like Richard Nixon & my kid does like the slimeball. Mine doesn't allow me to take birds from the nest to photograph while the next guy will do so. I am not better or worse, I just have my way of doing things. I'll save the 'wilderness' debate for later on these pages. Just know that one of these days every 'nature' shooter will come face to face with his personal ethics. Not big, not dramatic, but the question will be there & you will have to decide, with no one else to see, and live with your decision. Good luck

[anthonty_debase]

A fellow photonetian wrote;

"Mine doesn't allow me to take birds from the nest to photograph while the next guy will do so. I am not better or worse, I just have my way of doing things."

 

<p>

 

I disagree. Taking wild birds from their nest to photgraph them is not ethical and should not be done by a photographer. You are are on better moral and ethical ground if you do not distrub the birds. If we don't start making these judgments, then we will leave the fate of nature and wild areas to people whose ways of doing things are not ethical or moral. Need I remind all of us that at least one person on photo net has stated he would knowingly pass a counterfit bill to others? We need and have a right to make moral judgments on issues that effect our photographic activies and our subjects. By the way, this dicussion sets this forum far above many of photo newsgroups. Great Stuff!

[bob_atkins]

I think these ethical and moral decisions are much easier for those

of us who aren't trying to make a living at nature photography.

If it's the choice between going hungry or shooting at a wildlife

modeling ranch then the decision has to be made on more then just

"ethical" grounds, especially if the ranch is well run. I would

assume that a professional wildlife photographer who didn't shoot

at a wildlife ranch would be at a serious disadvantage when it

comes to stock sales, for example.

 

<p>

 

I personally don't think animals should be expolited for

entertainment or commerce. Zoos fall into something of a grey

area between conservation and exploitation. Wildlife ranches

usually fall further into the exploitation camp, though some

may do some rehabilitation work.

 

<p>

 

An important question is just why we are taking the pictures

(see the "Why nature photography" thread). Shooting at a wildlife

ranch is like the proverbial "shooting fish in a barrel" (or

a captive "hunt" - though no where near as disgusting as <em>

that</em> activity!).

[mark_graf]

I don't think it should make a difference whether you are making a living from your images or not. Hunger for money in itself is what leads to the exploitation and compromise of our ethics. Rod Planck for instance is a very well respected nature photographer that makes a good living from his craft, and manages to stay away from the captive shots.

 

<p>

 

I have mixed views on game farms and captive wildlife. I will admit that I have a hard time staying on either side of the fence. In places that have a primary or secondary function as a rehabilitation center, who is to say that the animal isn't better off? That animal may never be able to return to the wild. I know many homo sapiens that would enjoy a lifestyle of being catered to, food brought to your table, with a nice habitat to play in without the stresses of predators and everyday life. Are we that in tune with the psyche's of the animals to know whether they are happier or not? This is just one of the questions to think about...

 

<p>

 

Unfortunately, the opposite situation happens far too often as well. This is where an animal is stalked and captured in its native environment, and brought half-way around the globe for the sake of profit. I cannot believe that this is NOT affecting the welfare of the subject. It is this situation where I take a stand against any captivity whatsoever.

 

<p>

 

Then...you have to consider the big picture...is it better overall to have a herd of photographers rumaging through our diminishing wilderness to get that shot, or to have them minimize the impact by getting the image from a setup situation. I tend to think that even if every animal in the world was available at a game farm, there would still be photographers, pro and amateur, that would opt for getting the image in the wild.

 

<p>

 

Obviously this is a multi-faceted issue that has been discussed over and over in many forums. I personally don't think I will ever end up at a game farm, but reserve judgement as I do not know their true motives, and respect the intentions of some that exist.

[bob_atkins]

I'm certainly not arguing in favor of game farms, far from it.

I'm sure that big name photographers (Plank, Wolfe, Shaw etc.)

could easily make a living without game farm shots, but I'm not

so sure that someone trying to break into the business could.

More power to them if their ethics are strong enough that they

can resist the temptation. They do probably lock themselves out of

some markets though. I don't think there are many wild cougar

images that can compete with the game farm shots in most markets. Ditto for quite a few other species. It must be a tough choice.

It's hard enough to make a living at wildlife photography without

handicaping youself with strong ethical concerns that others

ignore. I'm not talking about obviously unethical practices which

harm wildlife or break laws, but more about the grey areas of zoo

and captive shots where they animals are perhaps bred in captivity

or are rehabilitated from injury and are kept in good, natural,

conditions.

[mark_graf]

I tend to agree with the above. It is a VERY grey area. I guess it is a very personal decision on where you draw the line. I have often wondered about what percentage of the shots by the big guys (Wolfe/Lepp/Shaw/Lanting, etc) are captive images. I also tend to think that game farm images can be a bit misleading. Most of the time when I see greeting cards with a full frame face shot, I question whether it is captive or not. But I am sure the general public just thinks "what a cute photo, he must have been really close." Little do they know that that animal was put on a pedestal and told to "sit." I don't think there will ever be a settlement to the debate. I don't think I can personally sway completely one way over the other as their are folks that handle these animals that have the animal's best interest in mind.

[ric_raymond]

There are currently two different markets for nature/wildlife pictures. There is the "nature market" with its associated magazines, cards, calendars, etc. and there is the commercial market. Some parts of the nature market are currently into discriminating between wild and captive shots for large animals (there doesn't seem to be the same requirement on insects, fish, small animals, etc which are often captured and photographed in tanks before release). Then there is the commercial market. They want the best shot of the best looking subjec t to work with their product. Most animals in the wild do not look as well as captive animals. Wild animals are often less well fed, their coats are scruffy, they have that run down look of animals trying to make it. Captive animals have an appearance that art directors are willing to pay for. This is one of the major lessons when a nature photographer tries to move into the commercial space with their stock.

Almost everything in the commercial space is "captive". Models, food shots with fake ice, lighting, etc.

Of course, one can decide not to sell to the commercial market. That is one of the business decisions the photographer has to make. But, if photography is your business then you have to consider it.

[frank_brabec]

I have not yet shot at a "wildlife ranch". I will, however. I am scheduled for a shoot in Oct with a mountain lion, ringtailed cat, bobcat, badger and grizzly bear. The animals are being brought from Montana into Utah�s redrock country. These animals are to the handlers the same as family. This I know from other photographers that have shot with this organization. I also know from my discussions with photographers that have used other places that the animals are treated extremely well. They have to be to get the kind of response that can be gotten from them. There has to be an excellent rapport between the handler and the animal. That is not to say that there are not places that are schlock�s.

 

<p>

 

Why am I booking this shoot? Simple -- to get the images of animals that otherwise would be next to impossible to get. I don�t care how long you spend in the field, some of the naturalness that is conveyed by this kind of shooting can not be gotten. It gives me a chance to photograph these animals in an environment that is identical to their native habitat. My images will be noted as captive animals. I will not market them unless this is adhered to.

 

<p>

 

Should animals be used (read exploited) in this manner? If it can convey to the general public through the images how wonderful and beautiful our natural world is � is it exploitation ?? Does the general public go beyond seeing just a pretty picture and really see the natural world ?? I sometimes have my doubts�. Most of these animals are obtained/bred from other captive animals. The same way as the majority of zoos now get their animals. Can these animals be returned to the wild? NO, they are usually from several generations of captive breeding and obviously very acclimated to man.

 

<p>

 

Actually this discussion could turn into a hellava donnybrook.. My dictionary definition of exploit is ---

1 a: turn to economic account(~a mine) b: to take advantage of: UTILIZE(~ing the qualities of the material) 2: to make use of meanly or unjustly for one�s own advantage (~s his friends). Are the animals being turned to economic account. Yes, in that they provide a means of livelihood for the owners/trainers/handlers. And hopefully I can sell some of my images. Is the quality of the materials being utilized? Yes, in the quality of the images that can be obtained. Are the animals being used meanly or unjustly? Obviously I do not think so, if I did I would not book the shoot. Does the animal live a quality live? Hell yes, in that it does not have take the daily risk of life and limb to get dinner. It is provided with a good shelter and water and care. Does it know what it is missing? Life as a wild and free thing, that, in my never to be humble opinion I doubt.

 

<p>

 

Is it like "shooting fish in a barrel"? I don�t know how to respond to that. Are we now critiquing images by how difficult it is to get them? Shooting Elk in Yellowstone in the fall (rut) is easy too, does this somehow make the images lack something? It is a lot easier than spending long hours in the field with no images to show for it. The lack of images does not however detract from my enjoyment of time in the field. The return on the time and dollar investment that I have spent in the field if I had to make a living at it is not there. I have spent days on a pond acclimating a pair of bluewing teal to my presence. I did get some nice images. I am glad I do not have to rely on my current return to keep a roof over my head. Of course, my marketing efforts at this time are minimal also. I talk a lot about wildlife photo ethics when I give slide presentations. Ethics is a very personal thing. That is where part of this discussion is. Will I judge someone else by my ethics? Yes, but I will also not insist that they adhere to my set of ethics.

 

<p>

 

Please be careful about portraying Brandenberg as a very good ethical example. Some of the images in Brother Wolf are digitally manipulated and some are of captive animals. One thing he does well is make beautiful images, captive or otherwise. Tom Mangelson is a better example than Brandenberg (IMNHO).

 

<p>

 

Like Don Baccus, I have shot raptors at rehab centers and many of these are not releasable back to wild. Does it detract from the image? No, but once again the image needs to labeled as captive. I have also shot birds that were taken from the nest and then returned, these were part of a research project on Peregrines.

Would I do it were it not part of research, NO. I have some wonderful images of redwolves. Once again captive. These animals are part of the SSP (Species Survival Program). They are currently nonbreeding animals and can only be breed with permission from the SSP. These images do portray what the animal does look like in the wild. The enclosure that they are in adds to that. Without my labeling these images as captive there is absolutely no way tell that they are captive. Can someone explain to me the difference between images obtained in some of the games parks in Africa (very acclimated to human presence) where they are feed by humans and wildlife ranches? Is the quality of life for the animal better in the wild? Darn�d if I know as I do not have an insight into the animals psyche. I do have a problem with people who attempt to put human feelings to animals.

 

<p>

 

This whole discussion is a wonderful question actually. It makes those reading think about what is said (I hope) and those who participate give some thought to their feelings. Is there a right and wrong to the wildlife ranches?? Is it that black and white?? I think varying shades of gray. I respect those who will not use the ranches, but do not impose on me their set of moralities. I have very little respect for those whose try to impose their moralities on me or others.

[bob_atkins]

Frank writes:

 

<p>

 

<em> "Does the animal live a quality live? Hell yes, in that it does

not have take the daily risk of life and limb to get dinner. It is provided with a good shelter

and water and care. Does it know what it is missing? Life as a wild and free thing, that, in my

never to be humble opinion I doubt" </em>

 

<p>

 

 

This is an old arguement. Animals as automatants, having only

instincts. They don't mind being kept in captivity, in fact they

are better off. If you believe that, then you have no reason to

avoid photography of captive animals. In fact you are doing them

a favor.

 

<p>

 

However, there is another view, expressed by Henry Beston many

years ago. He wrote:

 

<p>

 

<em>"We need another and perhaps more mystical concept of the animals... We

patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tradgic fate of

having taken form so far below ourselves. And therein we err, and

greatly err. In a world older and more complete than ours they move

finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost

or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not

our brethren; they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught

with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisioners of the

splendor and travail of the earth."</em>

 

<p>

 

 

If you don't agree with this, that's fine.

However, there's one thing to consider. Suppose you are wrong.

[frank_brabec]

Bob,

I do not have a problem with Henry Beston�s statement. There is no evidence that I am aware of that shows either one of us is right or wrong. I do think animals (some anyway) go beyond just instincts, particularly in the primate family and also in whales. Having spent a good many hours with captive wolves and my own companion canine it may apply here also. They (the wolves) establish in captivity the same relationships/hierarchy as they do in the wild. With humans they will also share that pack relationship, different than with each other but still a pack relationship. The question "suppose I am wrong" is rhetorical or circular. "Suppose I am right".. Do the animals know there may something better than being captive?? You are right, both sides of this is an old argument and you and I will not answer it to the others satisfaction.

 

<p>

 

But it is good to stir the pot and see what bubbles up. At this point I would say that we (you and I) agree to disagree. I will also refrain from continuing the disagreement with further dialog, it becomes too much like arguing religion or politics.

[bob_atkins]

Frank says "Suppose I am right". Good question. Here's the answer:

 

<p>

 

Suppose animals have no emotions, no feelings and are nothing

more than automatants acting on pure instainct. Suppose that to

then captivity means nothing. Suppose we then keep

them captive and exploit them for our own benefit. Suppose we

take their pictures at wildlife ranches. Then we have done no

harm. If we <b>don't</b> keep them captive, they lose nothing,

and we lose a few images. We have still done no harm.

 

<p>

 

Suppose on the other hand that animals <b>do</b> have emotions and feelings

and are reasoning creatures (and there is a mounatin of evidence that

this <em> is </em> the case for many species - though it can

probably never be proven on an absolute level). Let's suppose that

captivity is the equivalent to imprisonment. Let's suppose we

<b>don't</b> keep them captive or expoit them in other ways. We have done

no harm. Let's suppose, on the other hand, we <b>do</b> keep them captive. Now we have done great harm. In fact the <em>ultimate</em>

<b>punishment</em> in our society is to keep someome captive and the worse their crime, the longer we keep them captive.

 

<p>

 

Now I'm not saying that Frank's wrong and I'm right. I freely

admit to occasionally visiting zoos and taking pictures there.

It's just that I'm a bit more uneasy about the whole thing than

some people are. I'm not even sure that "saturation bombing" of

the public with wildlife images and TV programs is a good thing

in the long run - somthing about familiarity breeding contempt

comes to mind, but that's another issue.

 

<p>

 

BTW even worse then "wildlife ranches", I was reading the Joe Van O

wildlife trip brochure and I see they have a mult-day trip with

"Bart the Bear" in which Bart will be taken to and placed in many natural

surrounding enabling photographers to get otherwise impossible

shots. Great, Just what we need. More captive Grizzy shots.

Guess we can stick them on the wall next to the captive Cougar

shots.

[frank_brabec]

I know I said I would refrain from further comments. The best laid plans of men and aft gang aglee.

 

<p>

 

Part of Bob�s comments were

 

<p>

 

Suppose on the other hand that animals do have emotions and feelings and are reasoning creatures (and there is a mountain of evidence that this is the case for many species - though it can probably never be proven on an absolute level). Let's suppose that captivity is the equivalent to imprisonment. Let's suppose we don't keep them captive or exploit them in other ways. We have done no harm. Let's suppose, on the other hand, we do keep them captive. Now we have done great harm. In fact the ultimate punishment in our society is to keep someone captive and the worse their crime, the longer we keep them captive.

 

<p>

 

I do not have a problem with any of Bob�s suppositions. I would, however, like to know where the mountain of evidence is that supports the emotions and feelings. I am aware of number of studies where the human researchers have stated that it appears that emotions are there. But no factual empirical evidence, only our interpretation on human terms of what the animals actions/reactions appear to be.

 

<p>

 

In photographing captive wolves for a two years at an education/research center, I have witnessed what appears to be affection between the wolves and what appears to be affection toward some humans. I have been greeted very joyously (after not seeing them for 6 months) by a pack that accepted me as a member. This was the same type of greeting after not seeing them for a couple of days only more so. It was quite emotional for me to have been greeted this way by 700 pounds of 14 month old wolves. They respond the same way to one of their own if the returning individual is a high ranking pack member. The response to a low ranking member is different there is some "glad to see you back" with a re-enforcement of the low ranking status. The re-enforcement is very mild compared to a transgression response but a reminder none the less. Is this an emotional response for the animal?? I honestly do not know. Is it part of the gene pass down? Don�t know that either. These animals are pulled from the parents at 14 days old and raised/bottle feed and associated with humans from then on. The researchers are then pack. At about 6 months the window closes on who is accepted as pack. Do they know they know they are wolves? I would have to say so. The behavior is identical to wild wolves except that they will tolerate some humans where a wild raised wolf won�t. Why are they pulled at 14 days? So that the researcher can handle them, draw blood and that type thing without being forced to anesthetize them every time the animal is handled. Unfortunately in order to do research some of this has to done. A piece of the research that has been done here is testing a male contraceptive for wolves and verifying that is reversible.

 

<p>

 

Part of the above transgresses from Bob�s suppositions. But I feel that I have had a very unique opportunity to study/photograph a wonderful animal and have spent a lot of time just with them. This does not by any means make me an expert. I don�t have any concrete answer for "are we harming the animals we keep captive in some manner". I do feel the "SPP" (species survival program) is necessary. The reintroduction of the California Condor is a part of this program. This does require some be held captive.

The Red Wolf is also a part of the SSP. If Bob�s comments are related to zoos and game farms then there is probably some relativity to them. Although there are a good number of zoos that participate in SPP. Where do we draw the line in trying to protect a species? Let�s face it, man is the prime eliminator of species primarily because of habitat destruction. Is it then wrong for some men to want to return something?

 

<p>

 

Yes, I will shoot at a wildlife ranch as stated earlier, I have already got reservations. This is not any easy question for a lot of people and I hope will continue with others jumping in.

[bob_atkins]

I'm no expert on animal behavior and I don't know all the literature.

However one book, which itself contains references is "When

Elephants Weep" by Mason and McCarthy. It's a popular rather than

scientific book, but the research is sound. You may or may not

agree with the conclusions of the authors.

 

<p>

 

You can't <em>prove</em> anything about animal emotions unless and

utill they develop the capacity for speech. In fact you equally

well can't prove anything about human emotions. If you act as

though you are pleased to see me, for all I know it may just be

a conditioned response. Ditto for a wolf. I can't get inside

either of your heads. The only difference is you can tell me you

are pleased to see me as well as show me. The wolf can't. You can

assume it's a conditioned response for the wolf if you want to, and

the wolf has no "feelings". Nothing can ever really be <em>proven</em>.

 

<p>

 

It's not a black and white issue of course. I don't know the answer.

Some people think bullfighting is an appropriate "sport". Some

people like elephants performing in a circus. Some people like

lions in cages at the zoo and some people think nothing of

photography at a wildlife ranch. I suppose we could have

"landscape" photography at the "Nature Mall" described in another

thread here. It's all shades of grey.

[jeff_hallett]

all of this reminds me of the abortion/pro-lifer debates. bob gets

my vote for his thoughts.

i would love to find a wildlife ranch here in florida not only to

photograph but to see the condition of the place and observe the

animals. the resulting shots would be for me, for my living room

instead of a mounted head or a pair of antlers.

i see no reason for not publishing these animals as long as they

are labled as such and i also feel that a digitized image should also

be labled as such.

the habitats of of many of these animals are rapidly diminishing and these ranches would do well to captive breed as well as provide photographic subjects. certainly with some of take, the rancher could help support these types of programs.

here in florida there are shrinking habitats everywhere, the

developers are out of control and our legislature bows to their

lobbyists. our wildlife is in deep trouble and until greed takes

a back seat to concern, we must convince people, somehow, that

this planet cannot go another 30 years without changes in attitude

toward our fragile ecosystems.

jeff hallett

[bob_atkins]

I believe the battle may already be lost. Images may already be

replacing the "real thing". I'd guess that more people want

"images" of mountain lions than actually want mountain lions.

 

<p>

 

In her book "On Photography", Susan Sontag has a section in which

she puts forward the idea that the photograph has, in some cases,

replaced the actual subject as the ultimate test of reality. She

has a line about sunsets not impressing us anymore, since they

now look too much like photographs.

 

<p>

 

I'm starting to wonder if the massive volume of nature images

hitting us every day (there are 24hr/day animal channels on cable

now) are not replacing nature and wildlife in the mass

conciousness. "Virtual" nature is becoming "real", it's what we

want and what we will pay for. Ultimately it maybe what we will get.

 

<p>

 

Just a thought.

[dan_smith]

Reality & shooting mountain lions are both ephemeral. I have been in position to shoot a Mountain Lion exactly One time in the wild. I got a number of excellent shots, all used by CA Fish & Game in prosecuting the Jerks that were poaching the lion-their gunshots screwed up my images & I photographed them, their rifles, their trucks & registrations & turned it all over to fish & game.

It is possible to photograph a lion in the wild, but then it is also possible to get a date with Lady Di. Both have about the same rate of success, tho a lot sure get a chance at Di.

Game farms exist & many use them & a lot of species get photographed as well as cared for without some idiot screwing up an entire prarie dog town in trying to photograph the elusive black footed ferret. I do think those who photograph captive or manipulated animals need to label them as such for nature mags. Ads are a different game. I label regardless & most do.

As to digital manipulation, it isn't needed often. Good Jackalope images are made regularly without it. Tho with it maybe they would have a more impressive rack.