fcotterill
Well-known member
Fyi
Are you an ethical wildlife photographer?
Spread the word about ecologically ethical photography by sharing this post with your friends.
www.ontarioparks.com
Is this wildlife photography or not?
- Thread starter Manglo
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Oosty
Well-known member
Very interesting topic.
In South Africa, vultures have become endangered for various reasons, (poisons, traditional medicine, superstition and the like). As a result several feeding staions have been established both inside and outside reserves where cartcasses of stock that have died a natural death are placed to sustain the population. One well known spot is at Giant's Castle Game Reserve in the Drakensberg Mountains where there are very few Lammergeiers (Bearded Vultures) and a number of embattled Cape Vultures. They have established a hide which is very popular with photographers and where the majority of the Bearded Vulture images are captured. Clearly they are wild as they are not habituated to people who are hidden but they augment their diet by visiting the feeding station.
I have not been there but it is probably my only chance of seeing one of these birds which are spiralling towards extinction in Africa. I would have no hesitation in taking pictures and, if good enough, entering them in competitions as "Wildlife".
To each his own.
In South Africa, vultures have become endangered for various reasons, (poisons, traditional medicine, superstition and the like). As a result several feeding staions have been established both inside and outside reserves where cartcasses of stock that have died a natural death are placed to sustain the population. One well known spot is at Giant's Castle Game Reserve in the Drakensberg Mountains where there are very few Lammergeiers (Bearded Vultures) and a number of embattled Cape Vultures. They have established a hide which is very popular with photographers and where the majority of the Bearded Vulture images are captured. Clearly they are wild as they are not habituated to people who are hidden but they augment their diet by visiting the feeding station.
I have not been there but it is probably my only chance of seeing one of these birds which are spiralling towards extinction in Africa. I would have no hesitation in taking pictures and, if good enough, entering them in competitions as "Wildlife".
To each his own.
Backdoor Arts
Well-known member
I think this is a great example of the difference between "baiting" and providing a place that will help a species survive. The feeding stations exist for the birds' betterment, not the photographer's. The joy for the photographer is that - if they travel to the location - they get to benefit from the location by almost guaranteeing that they will have an opportunity to photograph the endangered bird. And that's the difference. The feeding stations are placed in the Vulture's natural habitat, whereas baiting brings the bird to yours.
I'm on the Board of NANPA - the North American Nature Photography Association. It was founded by Roger Tory Peterson and others including Franz Lanting, Galen Rowell, Art Wolfe, etc.
Ethics is always a hot topic. The position NANPA has taken is that disclosure is important, but only owl baiting is strictly prohibited. Other subjects have a lot of gray area and there is limited real research on the subject. For example, there was a proposal to prohibit baiting bears for photography in Minnesota, but baiting is allowed by hunters so that did not go very far.
The idea of disclosure is expanding into several different levels for control. At one extreme you have "captive" subjects - animals in a zoo. But you may have subjects that are captured temporarily for a photo, and they are described as "controlled". You also have free and wild subjects in a natural habitat.
Food and bait have a range of possible disclosures. Bird feeders are not considered to be a problem if they are normally used to provide food whether or not a photo is being made. But birds at feeders or eating obviously commercial food (mealworms, hulled sunflowers, suet, etc.) can be less desirable and have a lower degree of effort. Fish & Wildlife in the US made a determination that locally caught bait fish were fine, but bait fish from other areas was artificial attraction - even if the fish were frozen in both cases. But in both cases, the food would be considered baiting. Owl baiting is specifically singled out because of abuse as being unethical.
Some photographers are beginning to use keywords to designate free, wild, unbaited subjects. Some companies are beginning to require specific disclosure for images they use in advertising. In general though, the stock industry is largely indifferent to ethical considerations.
Game farms are another problem area. That's probably the hot topic today. There are some photographers that are strongly opposed to the existence of game farms, and are militant in their opposition. There are others that see game farms that are professionally operated provide a good way to support animals that cannot be released to the wild, and may never have lived in the wild. Nature centers often receive authorization to maintain captive wild subjects because of the educational value.
Individual contests are all over the map. Many contests have categories for zoo animals or simply require disclosure. Other contests require wild, unbaited subjects only.
One final comment. There are different perspectives. Ethical standards are shifting. Photographers like Tom Mangleson built their reputation on images that were often of captive and controlled subjects. But today, those images are still being sold, but he is one of the biggest supporters of ethical photography. You can't weight every article and opinion as fact or policy - in many cases statements in nature publications are part of an effort to influence policy. I've seen some of the biggest debates involving birders and birding photography. Often "researchers" have no limits on handling or capturing subjects in spite of the inevitable injuries, but photographers are held to a tight standard and subject to penalties. If a birder spooks a subject, it was a mistake, but if a photographer gets to close and spooks a subject, they are unethical. National parks and public lands often have very tight standards for photographers because of the potential for abuse and because the general public often lacks good judgement.
Thus - NANPA's policy is simply to promote disclosure of the relevant conditions around a photo that might spark a question about ethics.
www.nanpa.org
Ethics is always a hot topic. The position NANPA has taken is that disclosure is important, but only owl baiting is strictly prohibited. Other subjects have a lot of gray area and there is limited real research on the subject. For example, there was a proposal to prohibit baiting bears for photography in Minnesota, but baiting is allowed by hunters so that did not go very far.
The idea of disclosure is expanding into several different levels for control. At one extreme you have "captive" subjects - animals in a zoo. But you may have subjects that are captured temporarily for a photo, and they are described as "controlled". You also have free and wild subjects in a natural habitat.
Food and bait have a range of possible disclosures. Bird feeders are not considered to be a problem if they are normally used to provide food whether or not a photo is being made. But birds at feeders or eating obviously commercial food (mealworms, hulled sunflowers, suet, etc.) can be less desirable and have a lower degree of effort. Fish & Wildlife in the US made a determination that locally caught bait fish were fine, but bait fish from other areas was artificial attraction - even if the fish were frozen in both cases. But in both cases, the food would be considered baiting. Owl baiting is specifically singled out because of abuse as being unethical.
Some photographers are beginning to use keywords to designate free, wild, unbaited subjects. Some companies are beginning to require specific disclosure for images they use in advertising. In general though, the stock industry is largely indifferent to ethical considerations.
Game farms are another problem area. That's probably the hot topic today. There are some photographers that are strongly opposed to the existence of game farms, and are militant in their opposition. There are others that see game farms that are professionally operated provide a good way to support animals that cannot be released to the wild, and may never have lived in the wild. Nature centers often receive authorization to maintain captive wild subjects because of the educational value.
Individual contests are all over the map. Many contests have categories for zoo animals or simply require disclosure. Other contests require wild, unbaited subjects only.
One final comment. There are different perspectives. Ethical standards are shifting. Photographers like Tom Mangleson built their reputation on images that were often of captive and controlled subjects. But today, those images are still being sold, but he is one of the biggest supporters of ethical photography. You can't weight every article and opinion as fact or policy - in many cases statements in nature publications are part of an effort to influence policy. I've seen some of the biggest debates involving birders and birding photography. Often "researchers" have no limits on handling or capturing subjects in spite of the inevitable injuries, but photographers are held to a tight standard and subject to penalties. If a birder spooks a subject, it was a mistake, but if a photographer gets to close and spooks a subject, they are unethical. National parks and public lands often have very tight standards for photographers because of the potential for abuse and because the general public often lacks good judgement.
Thus - NANPA's policy is simply to promote disclosure of the relevant conditions around a photo that might spark a question about ethics.
Ethics - NANPA
www.nanpa.org
I wouldn’t lie if asked...but if I took a nice shot of a tiger or whatever I would try to keep fence or cage or whatever out of the shot anyway...but if not asked where it was there’s no need to disclose it is my view. Only difference would be a contest that said no zoo shots. Follow the rules in that case.
LL4D500
Active member
Agree - going to Phoenix Zoo tomorrow and if I get a shot or two I’d like to post, I am definitely going to reference the zoo. Don’t want to have people think I put myself in danger by doing something stupid!
R.Philip
Well-known member
Like saying the shot was taken at a zoo... Hahaha!Don’t want to have people think I put myself in danger by doing something stupid!
Joking, of course.
Last edited:
LL4D500
Active member
Like I said, it is a good place to practice (many more opportunities than taking off someplace by myself, not knowing if I am going to get any opportunities or not). Not trying to get a wall hanger or sell anything. Still getting acquainted with my D500 and my new 70-200 2.8 and 500PF. Sure beats sitting in our back yard taking pictures of occasional rabbits and morning doves! Leaving AZ and heading back to MN in a couple of days,Like saying the shot was taken at a zoo... Hahaha!
I have to say kudos to @Steve creating/maintaining a forum where this hot topic could have this much discussion and remain civil. And thanks to @EricBowles for chiming in with a detailed and informative post.
This is something that I don't think very many people realize. In spite of official policies, local laws, published interviews with "experts", etc, there is in fact very little actual data on the impact of feeding/baiting wildlife. Plenty of opinions and rhetoric but very little factual information.
As with most topics there is a lot of noise at the two extremes and very little in the middle where the reality is. There is also very little application of common sense on the topic. In the absence of hard data we should recognize that regardless of whatever credentials someone may have or how strongly we feel about our opinions they are just that i.e. opinions.
The shot and final image is what is important...I have no real opinion on bating or natural habitat or any of that malarkey. As long as the final image pleases me...or in the case of paid work the client...how I got it and where it was isn’t relevant. The remainder is just minituia and only of interest to those with strong opinions either way. One of the best shots I’ve ever gotten of a puffin was alongside the trail to t)e top of Skellig Michael in Ireland...it was literally 3 feet from me at waist level and didn’t give a darn about me. I certainly consider it wildlife photography...and make no bones about it. As I said...zoo shots I would crop or frame the cage/fence/whatever out anyway...and if it’s a good image it’s a good image no matter what the location is.Agree - going to Phoenix Zoo tomorrow and if I get a shot or two I’d like to post, I am definitely going to reference the zoo. Don’t want to have people think I put myself in danger by doing something stupid!
LL4D500
Active member
Here are two of the pictures I took at the Phoenix Zoo with my Nikon D500 and new 70-200 2.8 Had a great day and took 100+ pictures.
Capturingtheunseen.com
Well-known member
Baiting? Not for me, personally. From a blind? Of course, even the Birder's Code of Ethics endorses this.
These 2 wolves were photographed at a rehab facility. They will never be released to the wild. They are captive animals but I don't think I'd want to walk in their pen with them. The pen where these 2 live is about 3 acres. I clearly call out they were in a sanctuary and for those who are in my area I'll gladly say which one it was and suggest they send a donation to help support them.
I could never get either of these photos of a truly wild wolf. Are they wildlife photography? Not in the same sense as my other wildlife photos. I've never tried to pass these photos off as anything other than what they are. These images were shot with a Sony RX10-iv. bridge camera.
I really like @LL4D500's tigers.
I could never get either of these photos of a truly wild wolf. Are they wildlife photography? Not in the same sense as my other wildlife photos. I've never tried to pass these photos off as anything other than what they are. These images were shot with a Sony RX10-iv. bridge camera.
I really like @LL4D500's tigers.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
LL4D500
Active member
The closeup of the wolf is awesome! What Lens was that taken with?
Thank you. It was shot with a Sony RX10-iv which is a fixed lens bridge camera. On this camera, it's a 24-600mm (equivalent) Zeiss lens.
The back story is we usually make a gift to the sanctuary and rehab facility around Christmas. We had a bunch of cleaning supplies, dog food, the type of milk bones they requested (I forget the flavor, but would ask them again this year before buying anything) and my wife made a big batch of brownies for the staff.
With all the stuff we were hauling over there I just grabbed the bridge camera which is quick and easy. I hesitate to call this a "point and shoot" because it is a lot better than that connotation.
Anyway, long story to your question. It was with the Sony.
Hope this helps.
Jeff
LL4D500
Active member
Going to have to check that out! 24-600 is very interesting, as it would sure be a lot more convenient (age 73) than carrying a case with 2 D500’s, a16-80, a 20-200 E 2.8, a 80-400 and a 500PF on trips! Do you also have a conventional DSLR with multiple lenses?
Imtiaz
Member
This has been a touchy topic among many photographers I have met and heard here in India too.
I feel 'wildlife photographer' term should be used rather carefully as that commands much more respect (depends on how one perceives it to be) because for me wildlife photographers are those who venture into the natural habitat of the wildlife, take great pains to reach such places, spend longtime in the wild, document the animals with their pictures and finally bring knowledge of the wildlife (not just the pictures) to the world to learn. These are wildlife photographers in my perception.
Others are either urban-wildlife photographers or safari photographers.
These are my personal views and I mean no disrespect to any one with my comments.
I feel 'wildlife photographer' term should be used rather carefully as that commands much more respect (depends on how one perceives it to be) because for me wildlife photographers are those who venture into the natural habitat of the wildlife, take great pains to reach such places, spend longtime in the wild, document the animals with their pictures and finally bring knowledge of the wildlife (not just the pictures) to the world to learn. These are wildlife photographers in my perception.
Others are either urban-wildlife photographers or safari photographers.
These are my personal views and I mean no disrespect to any one with my comments.
Yes. I have a D500 and a D7200 with a host of glass. 200-500, 105 macro, 18-400 Tamron (rarely used), 11-20 tokina, 85mm. I use the RX10-iv mostly for video. My wife shoots only the Sony RX10-iv and she is quite the accomplished photographer. 95% of the shots I would challenge anyone to say which camera shot which image.
LL4D500
Active member
How do you like your 105 macro? See most like the lens, some think it is too big/heavy and most reference they don’t like having to refocus after recomposing.
I use the lens a lot. In springtime and summer about 50% of my photography is with this lens. I like the lens a lot. It is light compared to my 200-500.
Doug Herr
Well-known member
My personal opinion is that wildlife is inseparable from its habitat. Without the habitat a photo of the animal is incomplete; it describes what the animal looks like and not how it lives. YMMV.
I have watched this thread grow and have read most of the posts, as it seems to be going well with my pre-shoot morning coffee.
#1... I think that blinds are a no brainer as long as they are used in an ethical manner. Here, by ethics, I refer to leaving adequate space between you and the subject such that the blind is not a threat or could disrupt the safety and survival of your intended target. I use blinds, kayaks, and canoes to establish an eye to eye point of view and to approach aquatic mammals and birds. My watercraft often drifts about and the animals can choose to move in or ignore my presence. This allows for choice by the wildlife species and provides an opportunity to flea if it feels threatened.
#2... First, to be clear... many pre-eminent wildlife shooting locations either bait their subjects or create "bait-like" environments to optimize shooting conditions. If you enjoy seeing perfect images of toucans and tanagers in Costa Rican forests on a "perfect" mossy perch, you need to realize that there are banana platforms right by the perch. If you like looking at red-crowned cranes in Japan doing their mating dance, you need to know that people planted corn and in some cases dropped fish for their consumption. The Japanese macaques in thermal pools are surrounded by people in a habitat where the pools were created by people. The most amazing images of Stellar Sea Eagles on floating ice are on the ice because the ship hand baited the water with frozen fish. In my own state, MN, we have one of the pre-eminent locations to photograph bear cubs. These cubs are treed in a forest by their mothers while the mothers feed on food scattered by naturalists who have been feeding these bears since the 1960's. The bears are free to come and go, but they are responding to a "cultural" tradition that began innocently in a logging camp. In Southwest TX you can photograph groups of caracaras and other hawks from a blind. These hawks congregate because meat is used as bait... the list of human developed practices for photographing wildlife is endless.
We are left with two questions... what defines the "wildlife" in photography? Was your photograph due to a purely serendipitous encounter or was the encounter planned? Is a planned encounter with an animal subject any less wild than a serendipitous one?... This is an interesting intellectual debate, but I think we can agree that if the subject exhibits "free will," we can label either encounter as "wildlife photography."
Question two focuses more on the ethics of baiting... Is the altering of habitat, be it a manmade pond, crop field, or perch and/or the use of food as bait an ethical practice? I doubt that many have a clear line in which they can declare a definite yes or no. On the other hand, I do think we all agree that there is a point where one might say... "hmm, what I am seeing here is a "cringe" worthy practice".
regards,
bruce
#1... I think that blinds are a no brainer as long as they are used in an ethical manner. Here, by ethics, I refer to leaving adequate space between you and the subject such that the blind is not a threat or could disrupt the safety and survival of your intended target. I use blinds, kayaks, and canoes to establish an eye to eye point of view and to approach aquatic mammals and birds. My watercraft often drifts about and the animals can choose to move in or ignore my presence. This allows for choice by the wildlife species and provides an opportunity to flea if it feels threatened.
#2... First, to be clear... many pre-eminent wildlife shooting locations either bait their subjects or create "bait-like" environments to optimize shooting conditions. If you enjoy seeing perfect images of toucans and tanagers in Costa Rican forests on a "perfect" mossy perch, you need to realize that there are banana platforms right by the perch. If you like looking at red-crowned cranes in Japan doing their mating dance, you need to know that people planted corn and in some cases dropped fish for their consumption. The Japanese macaques in thermal pools are surrounded by people in a habitat where the pools were created by people. The most amazing images of Stellar Sea Eagles on floating ice are on the ice because the ship hand baited the water with frozen fish. In my own state, MN, we have one of the pre-eminent locations to photograph bear cubs. These cubs are treed in a forest by their mothers while the mothers feed on food scattered by naturalists who have been feeding these bears since the 1960's. The bears are free to come and go, but they are responding to a "cultural" tradition that began innocently in a logging camp. In Southwest TX you can photograph groups of caracaras and other hawks from a blind. These hawks congregate because meat is used as bait... the list of human developed practices for photographing wildlife is endless.
We are left with two questions... what defines the "wildlife" in photography? Was your photograph due to a purely serendipitous encounter or was the encounter planned? Is a planned encounter with an animal subject any less wild than a serendipitous one?... This is an interesting intellectual debate, but I think we can agree that if the subject exhibits "free will," we can label either encounter as "wildlife photography."
Question two focuses more on the ethics of baiting... Is the altering of habitat, be it a manmade pond, crop field, or perch and/or the use of food as bait an ethical practice? I doubt that many have a clear line in which they can declare a definite yes or no. On the other hand, I do think we all agree that there is a point where one might say... "hmm, what I am seeing here is a "cringe" worthy practice".
regards,
bruce
Last edited:
This post and the one by @EricBowles are the most informative and practical of the lot. Thanks to you both for taking the time to provide thoughtful, articulate input.
Walter Baliero
Member
What makes photography so called is precisely about the environment and not about the species. Suppose you have a raccoon or deer in your backyard that you feed and your children play with, could you say that these animals are wild? ... the species probably are, but in the state in which they live is not, instead, a herd of mustangs or bulls that have escaped and live in the prairies or the forest are wild, although it can be said that they are domestic. However, I believe that using an element such a blind, playback or food to attract the species, as long as it is within its habitat, would not be contradictory with wildlife photography, I insist, always within its habitat. I would never fish in an aquarium, but I would fish in the sea and with bait.
BruceJ
Member
This topic begs the definition of photography. I am told often enough I am not a photographer because I edit my photographs. If I take photographs of animals in a zoo why is that not wildlife photography (it is mot landscape, portrait or macro)? I do not have health or funds for a trip to Africa to photograph animals in their natural habitat, providing my pictures are perfect of my subject does it really matter. I spent 2 years photographing birds coming to my bird feeder, they say that is bating, what difference does that make, hunters bait game, at least my game lives afterwards. My feeling is like in the film days we did editing in a dark room today we do it on the computer and if we chose to photograph flowers on our table instead of the garden it still is flower photography.