Have you ever been to a wildlife model ranch?

[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. a

[william_sides]

What a great forum, its good to just have a �pot� we can stir in.

 

<p>

 

We already have copyright ) symbols and patents to protect our original thinking. What I would like to see is a mark or symbol developed that protects and distinguishes our original wild, natural images from those �wild animals� that are caged, captive, or set up - and/or digitally altered; manipulated, improved, changed, or fixed.

 

I�m not a wildlife photographer, I do mostly landscapes. (For some of us we also face our own set of moral and ethical problems) But when I�m in the field and an animal is near, or walking into my scene, I�ll try to go with it for an environmental shot.

 

<p>

 

There is an interaction! For the moment we share the same space. And I might for a time become like a hunter and carefully pursue it. But I do care about its welfare. So I try to pay attention to its stress level. Do you remember when we were children? Our approach then was - will it be my friend? I can now assume that from the animal�s past experiences its probably thinking - Will I be eaten! or So what's your business here, and are you trust worthy?

 

<p>

 

Those are also two different world views, ethos and perspectives. I respect and admire that person who can, and takes the time to develop that interactive trust. They should be honored.

 

<p>

 

Why do, we do our photography? For some of us, its a great form of recreational interaction with our natural world. We love it, it�s fun, or whatever.

 

<p>

 

After a time we think we might make a business of it. A dream for going after something we love doing. Then we enter into the BUSINESS of making the living. We take our love into a society/culture that has develop a different ethos. Time becomes money. Without any sense of morality or developed ethical balance, if taken to the extreme, we become like the exploitive paparazzi in pursuit of the wild beautiful princess Di - for the money, the fame, self ego aggrandizement or sport. We take advantage of the current fad or whatever the public�s need may be at the time and sell to the highest bidder. To the tabloids. Do what ever it takes to get that shot! It was the values of our society that made the photographers try to cage her - yes they got the kill - but this time they didn�t eat it, they themselves got eaten.

 

For me the recent death of princess Di (and mother Teresa) made me stop and look in the mirror, these were two caring and sharing people. I think there�s some timely insight to be had here. Can we as photographers see and feel it? Uncontrolled exploitation leads to death or in the very least a loss or damage to the wild spirit of the place or thing.

 

<p>

 

The same holds true whether it be for wildlife or �our public� lands. We now live in a world culture of exploitation. The view that embraces industrialism and technology has conquered our earth and won. Originally our country was a beautiful virgin land filled with all sorts of life. Most of the native peoples that were here called themselves �the human beings�. It was world filled with other clans, tribes and nations. Their world view embraced a respect to take only what they - needed. When the Europeans settlers came they took what they wanted - and whatever was in the way they killed or made into a sport of killing. Bounties were offered on any animal (or Indian) that threaten their ways.

 

<p>

 

Today our free enterprise system tries to sell you everything that you could ever think or hope to want! So now it comes down to this - whether to use - or not to use - game farms and/or zoos? Our divorce from the natural world, our cities and its urban sprawls, has turned our saved �most beautiful� places (and animals) into a commodity for the madness of exploitive, commercial tourism. Our Yosemite valleys have now become like the caged animals. Yes its still there, but when you see into its heart - the center of its soul is gone. In quiet times, and if your lucky, your may even get a glimpse of its passing spirit.

 

<p>

 

Where we each decide to draw the line for our own actions is from are own sense of awareness and respondablity we feel. It�s our level of learning. It�s the love, the respect and the caring - we bring to the situation. As we �take� our images, we should also be trying to promote a deeper view of ecologic awareness and understanding.

 

<p>

 

As in the discussion of �More of Ethics: Did I do wrong?� The next time you see a turtle cross the road, it�s Ok to help it. At the very least - respect it, don�t hurt it - you don�t need to eat it! Right? You might even end up wanting to help protect the many other clans, tribes and nations that share the earth.

 

<p>

 

 

And so, we�re certainly not like the paparazzi�s - - are we ?

[lyn_lord]

>>For me the recent death of princess Di (and mother Teresa) made me stop and look in the mirror, these were two caring and sharing people. I think there�s some timely insight to be had here. Can we as photographers see and feel it? Uncontrolled exploitation leads to death or in the very least a loss or damage to the wild spirit of the place or thing.<<

 

<p>

 

...As does the advocation of uncontrolled human reproduction (Mother T) and claiming Union Carbide's spill was the "will of God (SORRY...I'm cranky). It all boils down to the issue of power and control, two concepts humans can't do without. God forbid we take a laissez-faire attitude toward wilderness--that would involve death, rebirth, evolution, all those unnatural things... I highly recommend Jack Turner's book, "The Abstract Wild," for a passionate, clear picture of what America, and the world, has mutated "wildness" into.

As to the question of whether we've become paparazzi... we always have been. Inside even the most well-intentioned naturalist there is the edge of obsession, the bloodlust for getting the best image, and you can't fault us for it...we're all helpless. But what we can do, other than feed money into such a ridiculous operation as a "wildlife" ranch (the aniamls are no more than husks, far removed from their wild brethren's spirit and determination...I'm so surprised by these duped people who think wolves "love" us...that's because we battered every instinct they have with "syphilization," as EA would say, and they've been, somehow, transformed), is support efforts to keep what still IS wild alive. And as for photography, it remains a passive capture of an animal/place: going to a ranch rather than backpacking 12 miles out will get you the better image, but there's no dignity, integrity, or respect in FURTHER promoting injustices. And, BLAH BLAH... you've heard it all before (but I have HOPE: Vancouver shut down their zoo). Jeeze, so many issues here...I'll shut up now.

[howard_moon]

The amount of discussion on this subject is amazing and interesting. Much of it, being subjective, seems to be for the sake of argument.

 

<p>

 

In remote college days I invited a young lady in nurse's training to visit the Cincinnati Zoo with me on a pleasant Sunday afternoon. To my surprise she enthusiastically declined, saying that she didn't believe in Zoos! After the initial shock, (doesn't everbody "believe" in zoos?) I was able to accept her response as a legitimate point of view without giving up my interest in viewing captive exotics within a controlled environment.

 

<p>

 

In regard to animal photography I think that a zoo setting can provide terrific photos of animals that we may never see in the wild. Zoos (short for "Zoological Garden" - Webster)come in different levels of human "interference" with nature, each with it's own degree of compromise as to the "wildness" and ethical treatment of the animals involved. Are any of the African preserves truly wild when actively managed? Is a close up shot of Felis leo or elephantus from a smelly Land Rover or Vanagon any different from the image of an animal in a wildlife model ranch . . . or in a zoo? Maybe. But to some of us, acquiring or displaying an image of a wild thing, while exciting and personally satisfying, tends to disregard the importance of the intrinisic quality of photography. Perhaps the sense of "wildness" can inspire what, to the casual unsophisticated or "citified" viewer seems to be a "great" image. Photos of dangerous animals particularly excite the viewer. But cannot a photo of a domestic duck, cow, horse or dog be as good or better . . . intrinsically? For that matter, the skilled and talented photographer can take an equally "good" photo of a teddy bear or a milk carton as he can of a charging warthog.

 

<p>

 

We give great "excitement" value to the "exotic" nature of the wild animal subject. Perhaps a "poorly" lit, "poorly" composed, out of focus shot of a protected African beast will interest the taker, because of his experience, and the viewer because of the implied "danger" or difficulty, not to mention the expense, of getting the shot.

 

<p>

 

To a real extent, photography, like everything else in life and, for that matter, the universe, is a matter of compromise. Few indeed, have the bravery, time, patience or resources to spend on the Serengeti blending in with the wildlife, getting to know their ways, letting them get accustomed to us, so that we can get some "great" animal shots, as do the select few professional and dedicated wildlife photographers. We'd rather pay somebody to intrude us into the environment, perhaps bait the animals so we can impress our friends or sponsors with our great "wild" shots. If we, in honesty, include the zebra painted vehicle and it's bored driver in the photo it belies the "wildness" of the environment and the event. If we enclose the environment and the subject within a cyclone fence it is just more tightly controlling the situation and, as long as our photo credit states ALL the conditions, not just the location, the hardware and film we are being (brutally)honest with the viewer and he can respond as is appropriate to ALL the conditions of the shoot.

 

<p>

 

It seems to be man's nature to explore the unknown, unfamiliar or exotic for satisfaction ranging from curisoity to gaining knowledge to thrills.

Each person has to be honest with himself as to what level he is willing to compromise artistic as well as animal treatment ethics and to recognize the point at which his motivation borders on prostitution and his photographic efforts on "wildlife" pornography.

 

<p>

 

Let's not let our excitement of the moment or our dreams of big bucks pollute our sense of ethics toward our animal subjects or our defenseless audience.

 

<p>

 

P.S. I never saw the young lady again.

[stanley_mcmanus]

I am curious. Did this lady eat meat? Did she wear leather clothes?

Does she hear the screams of the vegitables when they are sliced and diced?

 

<p>

 

What about people who have pets that are allowed to reproduce with no thought as to who takes care of the young?

 

<p>

 

Zoos are among the most responsible animals organizations around.

[bobatkins]

Continuing "the thread which wouldn't die..."

 

<p>

 

The disregard of many people for the procreation of their pets

(and possibly themselves?) is no reason to ignore the fact that

exploitation of animals in zoos (or elsewhere) may not be something

we should think about or act on.

 

<p>

 

Sure, most zoos don't directly abuse animals, but then, to take

one example, most "open air, low security" prisons don't abuse

prisoners, but I'm in no hurry to be in one! Similarly, though

zoos may maintain threatened species and pubicize their cause,

I wouldn't want to see threatened Amazonian indians in a zoo either.

 

<p>

 

There are Zoos, then there are zoos, then there are sideshows and

then there are game farms. Maybe the best of the best do some

overall good. Many are out to make a profit (ask them what they

do with the animals when they are too sick or old to exhibit, or

when they have more then they need). Look into cases where zoos

have sold their "excess inventory" to canned hunts, where they

are shot and killed for profit. Abuses happen, all too often I'm

afraid.

 

<p>

 

Look even more closely at "Seaworld" type exhibits, especially those

with captive killer whales. Ask how the whales were obtained and

ask about the survival statistics of the captured whales. It's not

a pretty picture. Ask about the facilities built in Iceland to

get around the US laws on capture of wild killer whales. There's

a lot more to this story than the owners of the "marine wildlife

parks" want the public to know.

 

<p>

 

This isn't photography of course, but I'd hope it's something any

resposible nature photographer would be concerned about.

[stanley_mcmanus]

OK, Bob, I certainly won't argue in favor of mistreating animals or putting them in a cruel captivity. Still, a proper zoo that educates people about the animals, the environment they need to survive and so on, can do a big service and promote awareness of the need to preserve animal habitat. This may be similar to letting the masses drive through Yosemite on a one day car tour so as to get enough support to preserve the other 95% of the park that is wilderness.

[mark___1]

Hey, I think we should stretch this thread so it can have its one year anniversary! I am glad its here, definitely one of the more interesting discussions to be found anywhere on the net about this topic.

 

<p>

 

I tend to think that some zoos start with the best of intentions and intend to keep the welfare of the animals priority number one. However, as the zoo grows, more people visit, they need more staff, and in turn need more money and the whole operation caves in to the politics and bureaucracy hungered by alterior motives. It becomes a business and the bottom line is going to be profit. I am sure many zookeepers are sickened by the whole matter but don't have many choices if they want to work that closely with animals.

 

<p>

 

I have come to admire some of the wildlife rehabilitation organizations in my area. They work on a shoestring budget and bend over backwards to help wildlife. They truly seem to have that as their foremost concern.

 

<p>

 

Bob stated some good questions to pose to these organizations about when less than ideal conditions arise. I think they all need to be challenged, but not abolished.

 

<p>

 

Mark

[jana_mullerova]

Was the original question rather a practical or an ethical one? Anyway, I welcome more talk on ethics.

 

<p>

 

As a former spokeswoman of an environmental lobby, and being deeply emotionally involved in wildlife protection, I would like to highlight the point of not DISTURBING animals in their natural habitat.

I think that a reasonable animal-loving photographer, or even a handful of staff, behaving sensibly and sensitively (BTW, how else would you achieve a good wildlife photo?), do NOT disturb wild animals. (E.g. David Attenborough or National Geographic staff. There have been articles on wildlife photo in NG. I say, "Hat off".) What DOES disturb are poachers, hunters, loggers, logging companies, builders of trans-forest highways etc. Packs of tourists, eventually (not neccesarilly - see some mountain gorilla observation spots in Africa).

So, if you feel like shooting wildlife, do it. If you feel a bit guilty (I don't think you have to), you may anytime (if you like the idea) make for it by contributing to stop the REAL disturbance to the animals.

 

<p>

 

As for the wildlife ranches, I would say it's the same with zoos: some are run with love for animals and some are run with love for money. I wouldn't reject the ranches as such. They satisfy picture-wanting tourists, who would in the wild rather disturb animals than succeed in taking pictures. (I think this need for pictures should be satisfied, because it helps people to develop the feeling of familiarity, knowing, and perhaps responsibility, respect and love for nature.)

Also, some of the ranches cure wounded animals or care for disabled ones.

Of course, the animals are likely to behave slightly differently (be less on alert, etc.), so it's a good idea to add a note about the origin of the pictures.

 

<p>

 

Whatever you do, I wish you fun and success.

 

<p>

 

Jana Mullerova

[waikit_lau]

Pls ignore, trial msg from photo.net team - testing for new site launch.