Is this wildlife photography or not?

[FerristheK]

[Photo] shooting fish in a barrel still requires the right knowledge & equipment to do it properly. It may not be "in the wild" but preserves, zoos, and aquariums are sometimes all ya got. I don't think it's any less noble photographing food when using mashed potatoes for ice cream. To me, photography is understanding the "art" of how to capture a scene, AND the "science" of being able to do it. Whether wild in a tree or put on a perch by a handler, I still have to consider lighting, lens, ISO, aperture, shutter speed, angle, closeness, and more. Keeps me challenged!

 

[Rick S]

I shoot Bald Eagles below the Conowingo Dam on the Susquehanna River in MD. I've heard a few complaints that folks who shoot there are being unethical because a lot of the fish they eat there have been stunned coming through the generator intakes from the reservoir above. Of course I disagree with that as the Eagles are wild and free and just taking advantage of a situation. They are not intentionally being baited as such.

That said, I did hear of but not see an event quite a few years ago where a tour bus with photographers from NYC came down and the "guide" brought a "bait canon" to artificially enhance the activity and fired frozen fish out over the river. It upset enough folks and brought enough bad publicity that I believe it was the only time that happened.

 

[Doug Herr]

[Photo] shooting fish in a barrel still requires the right knowledge & equipment to do it properly. It may not be "in the wild" but preserves, zoos, and aquariums are sometimes all ya got. I don't think it's any less noble photographing food when using mashed potatoes for ice cream. To me, photography is understanding the "art" of how to capture a scene, AND the "science" of being able to do it. Whether wild in a tree or put on a perch by a handler, I still have to consider lighting, lens, ISO, aperture, shutter speed, angle, closeness, and more. Keeps me challenged!

I don't think any of us are challenging the "photography" part of the question, it's the "wildlife" part that has the most indistinct boundaries. I feel that an understanding of the animal is important as well: what it looks like is part of understanding the animal. How & where it chooses to live, what it chooses to eat, all contribute to our understanding of it.

What the animal looks like can be conveyed in a captive or controlled setting though there are limits to this because captivity often alters the animal's appearance in ways that are subtle to the untrained observer but obvious to those who have studied the animal in the wild. A photo of the animal in the wild will enhance our understanding of it and often requires of the photographer some knowledge of the animal's habits and habitat requirements in addition to the photographic skills.

 

[FerristheK]

I don't think any of us are challenging the "photography" part of the question, it's the "wildlife" part that has the most indistinct boundaries. I feel that an understanding of the animal is important as well: what it looks like is part of understanding the animal. How & where it chooses to live, what it chooses to eat, all contribute to our understanding of it.

What the animal looks like can be conveyed in a captive or controlled setting though there are limits to this because captivity often alters the animal's appearance in ways that are subtle to the untrained observer but obvious to those who have studied the animal in the wild. A photo of the animal in the wild will enhance our understanding of it and often requires of the photographer some knowledge of the animal's habits and habitat requirements in addition to the photographic skills.

Doug: Totally agree with you. But, even if in a van on a photo safari in Kenya, that hyena looks right at you and you snap the photo, haven't you already "contaminated" its natural environment? Its reaction to the van, the people popping out the top, aiming lenses, shutters fluttering...might elicit a different reaction/expression from the animal. Maybe Jane Goodall could get gorillas to "relax" but the rest of us are intruders.

 

[Ed Erkes]

I haven't bothered to read all the posts, but my response to the question posed by the original poster is of course it is wildlife photography. Just read any article or book on the history of wildlife photography and the methods used by early photographers.

 

[NorthernFocus]

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.

That's one perspective. Now let's say my home backs onto a wilderness area with thousands of acres of natural habitat. If I'm in that wilderness area and take a photo of one of the same animals that visits my back yard is it then wildlife? How far must I be away from the house for the animal to cross the threshold from backyard varmit to wildlife? For that matter if I'm half a mile into the woods and find a racoon how do I know whether it is/isn't one of the ones that visits my back yard?

With wildlife photography "habituated" is almost a dirty word to many people. But in reality the VAST majority of wildlife photos that we see are of animals that to some degree or other are habituated to human contact. Virtually all animals in local, state, and national parks are habituated to human presence. Bear viewing in North America has been promoted both commercially and in state/national parks for decades now. I'd wager that 99.9 percent of photos of brown bears that are published are of habituated bears. African safaris? Animals are habituated to vehicles. Sea/shore birds? Most are heavily habituated. Even if one is shooting in a remote location the birds are likely habituated to humans somewhere along their migration route. Many wildlife photography guides recommend shooting from vehicles precisely because anywhere that there are roads the wildlife is habituated to vehicles. The same Canada geese that swim in public parks all over North America will be nesting in the arctic tundra a couple months from now. Are they only wild if one travels to ANWR to photograph them? Animals in Denali National Park are habituated to a steady stream of tour buses traveling through their home every day. Over the years I've seen hundreds of photos of grizzly bears behaving naturally in Denali NP. But living 21 years in Alaska the only thing I've seen of grizzlies while driving outside of parks are bears' back sides disappearing over the horizon.

Don't get me wrong, like most people I much prefer the goose photographed in ANWR versus in Central Park. But if a photographer is skilled enough to take a photo that presents "wildlife" in what appears to be its "natural environment", why should anyone care where it was shot? A good photo is a good photo.

That said, I'm one of those guys who enjoys the journey as much as the destination. I enjoy wildlife photography for the time spent in remote locations as much as(maybe more than) the capture. So for me personally I place a lot of value on images that I've captured in tough conditions. Every wildlife print that hangs in my home or is on the screensaver on my laptop is such a photo. That's because they bring back those memories for me. On the other hand some of my images that people like the most were literally shot in ditches, small patches of woods, etc, and have no emotional connection for me personally. That's my personal preference and NOT a judgement on how/where anyone else shoots. As I said, a good photo is a good photo.

If there was a right or wrong answer to this topic we wouldn't be discussing it. Best/most realistic outcome of a thread like this is that we all come away realizing how many different perspectives there are and hopefully are wiser/more understanding with that knowledge.

 

[gKhan]

'Does it fit in the definition' questions are often very difficult to answer. I think this is a hard one that is open to interpretation.
I don't have a fixed opinion about what can and can't be considered widlife photography. A good starting point for this discussion might be to look at the exact meaning of the words, so I shared it. I wasn't trying to suggest there is a simple answer. Sorry if it came across that way.

I have worn out many pairs of boots, pants, gear and cameras hiking and scrambling through the backcountry to get pix of wild animals. More than one camera has drowned or fallen to its death taking what I call "wildlife photos".

Animal pictures are taken in zoos, game parks or preserves etc and I do not belittle these shots but they are pictures of captive or partially tame animals. I enjoy viewing them but they are not pictures of "wild" animals because they do not live in the wild. (Migratory bird parks are different situation entirely)

i enjoy pix of animals and if bait is used I enjoy the pix but that is a different form of wildlife photography, in my opinion. The main reason that I do not own a lens greater than 300mm is because I do not want to carry it on my jaunts thru the mountains looking for game (or scenic views) but I do not criticize those who shoot from blinds or use bait. Those are separate and distinct activities and I have never considered the question of wildlife photography til the original question was posed---so I guess I am both a wildlife photographer who on rare occasions takes animal pictures in a game park and wishes he had a 600mm lens on those occasions. God bless all who photograph and appreciate wlldlife regardless of the circumstances and tools used.

 

[Karl]

How about skip the "wildlife photographer" and go with something like nature photographer or bird photographer? Anything goes with me as long as the subject is not harmed (based on SCIENCE not OPINION). Personally, my "business" card reads: bird geek, bird photographer, bird watcher.

 

[EricBowles]

A couple of additional comments to provide "food for thought and discussion":

NANPA's Facebook page had to go the additional step of banning posts of images from game farms as well as photos of animals where there is clear interaction with people. Game Farms are a controversial area because of both the basic idea of captive wild animals and because of the trade and commercialization of wild animals. Some are well run and avoid these practices, but it's impossible to tell the difference in a photo. NANPA has long banned advertising any activity involving game farms. NANPA also had to ban posts of people feeding deer, foxes or approaching them to very close distances. These areas always evolved into arguments rather than calm discussions.

Some contests have banned owl photos in general because baiting was so common. NANPA has seriously looked at this - particularly involving owls in Minnesota or other areas where there are workshops and professionals are baiting owls.

There are birders who intentionally use long lenses to compress perspective and make it look like photographers are too close to sensitive areas. This is probably done with other wildlife as well. Photographers with long lenses are often a target, and photos are used as evidence.

Stock agencies and advertisers have a major role in the problems. Next time you see a commercial with a wild animal, consider the issue of game farms. Next time you see an ad or commercial with a healthy, well fed wild animal with a rich thick coat, compare that to the wild animals you've actually seen.

Finally - it's easy to wrongly accuse someone. A few years ago NANPA had a question about a finalist image of an owl holding a mouse and the mouse was perfectly posed - catchlight in the eyes, two eyes open, and two nice ears. It seemed too good to be possible. But then the photographer shared a half dozen images of the same owl and mouse, as well as an explanation that they had photographed the same owl on a daily basis for three weeks as it raised owlets in a nest. The image was just a great photo - and the result of hundreds of hours of work.

 

[Walter Baliero]

That's one perspective. Now let's say my home backs onto a wilderness area with thousands of acres of natural habitat. If I'm in that wilderness area and take a photo of one of the same animals that visits my back yard is it then wildlife? How far must I be away from the house for the animal to cross the threshold from backyard varmit to wildlife? For that matter if I'm half a mile into the woods and find a racoon how do I know whether it is/isn't one of the ones that visits my back yard?

With wildlife photography "habituated" is almost a dirty word to many people. But in reality the VAST majority of wildlife photos that we see are of animals that to some degree or other are habituated to human contact. Virtually all animals in local, state, and national parks are habituated to human presence. Bear viewing in North America has been promoted both commercially and in state/national parks for decades now. I'd wager that 99.9 percent of photos of brown bears that are published are of habituated bears. African safaris? Animals are habituated to vehicles. Sea/shore birds? Most are heavily habituated. Even if one is shooting in a remote location the birds are likely habituated to humans somewhere along their migration route. Many wildlife photography guides recommend shooting from vehicles precisely because anywhere that there are roads the wildlife is habituated to vehicles. The same Canada geese that swim in public parks all over North America will be nesting in the arctic tundra a couple months from now. Are they only wild if one travels to ANWR to photograph them? Animals in Denali National Park are habituated to a steady stream of tour buses traveling through their home every day. Over the years I've seen hundreds of photos of grizzly bears behaving naturally in Denali NP. But living 21 years in Alaska the only thing I've seen of grizzlies while driving outside of parks are bears' back sides disappearing over the horizon.

Don't get me wrong, like most people I much prefer the goose photographed in ANWR versus in Central Park. But if a photographer is skilled enough to take a photo that presents "wildlife" in what appears to be its "natural environment", why should anyone care where it was shot? A good photo is a good photo.

That said, I'm one of those guys who enjoys the journey as much as the destination. I enjoy wildlife photography for the time spent in remote locations as much as(maybe more than) the capture. So for me personally I place a lot of value on images that I've captured in tough conditions. Every wildlife print that hangs in my home or is on the screensaver on my laptop is such a photo. That's because they bring back those memories for me. On the other hand some of my images that people like the most were literally shot in ditches, small patches of woods, etc, and have no emotional connection for me personally. That's my personal preference and NOT a judgement on how/where anyone else shoots. As I said, a good photo is a good photo.

If there was a right or wrong answer to this topic we wouldn't be discussing it. Best/most realistic outcome of a thread like this is that we all come away realizing how many different perspectives there are and hopefully are wiser/more understanding with that knowledge.

Unfortunately you did not know how to interpret the background of my comment, when I say "environment" of wildlife it is involved whether or not there is contact with humans, so how do you respond if you have a half mile backyard and a raccoon appears it is obvious that be wild, unless he has physical contact with you or through feeding and comes every day for his ration of food. I completely disagree that a photo is good no matter in what conditions it is taken, in any case, the issue here is not about the quality of a photo but whether it falls into the category of wildlife.

 

[Walter Baliero]

Unfortunately you did not know how to interpret the background of my comment, when I say "environment" of wildlife it is involved whether or not there is contact with humans, so how do you respond if you have a half mile backyard and a raccoon appears it is obvious that be wild, unless he has physical contact with you or through feeding and comes every day for his ration of food. I completely disagree that a photo is good no matter in what conditions it is taken, in any case, the issue here is not about the quality of a photo but whether it falls into the category of wildlife.

 

[EricBowles]

Come on guys - the thread will be closed if it becomes an argument or debate.

It's okay if people have different perspectives.

I disagree with the "anything goes" approach, but also have found that defining rules for someone else is not productive. It's interesting to have a discussion and understand the different perspective - not to convince someone of anything.

 

[Steve]

Come on guys - the thread will be closed if it becomes an argument or debate.

It's okay if people have different perspectives.

I disagree with the "anything goes" approach, but also have found that defining rules for someone else is not productive. It's interesting to have a discussion and understand the different perspective - not to convince someone of anything.

100% accurate. I'm actually amazed I haven't had to shut it down yet. I keep checking though

 

[Doug Herr]

Doug: Totally agree with you. But, even if in a van on a photo safari in Kenya, that hyena looks right at you and you snap the photo, haven't you already "contaminated" its natural environment? Its reaction to the van, the people popping out the top, aiming lenses, shutters fluttering...might elicit a different reaction/expression from the animal. Maybe Jane Goodall could get gorillas to "relax" but the rest of us are intruders.

This is a gray area that is subject to personal preferences, etc. I'm not interested in this style of photography no matter what it's called. It's just not my style.

 

[markymark]

I found this comments under a YouTube video and would like to hear your opinions.

View attachment 16135.

Does it be wildlife photography if you take pictures from a hide where the owner placed food for the birds of prey? Does it be wildlife photography, if you take pictures in a local park, where a part of the park between ponds and the islands is a bird protection area, but the animals are used to people? If the heron can fly away any time he wants and you could also take pictures of him then, in a nearby field outside the park? But does it be wildlife photography then, if you travel to a national park in, let's say Africa, hire a local ranger who knows where lies a dead zebra from the day before and lions can be exspected. It's just a bigger park. ;-)
I'ld really like to hear your opinions.

Greetings
Manuel

One of the biggest issues I have with baiting is that the subject can sometimes get to rely on that bait depending on the time of year only for it’s food source to stop once the photographer has the image.

 

[Anjin San]

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.

Exactly...

 

[LL4D500]

Exactly...

Appreciate your support! To expand on my thoughts, I am planning a four day trip to the SD Black Hills (Custer State Park, Badlands, Needles Highway and Mt Rushmore) this Fall. This summer my wife, granddaughter and another couple are also planning a three day trip to fish in Ontario (if the border opens). Two years ago we caught/released 58 walleye between 18-28 inches, plus saw several eagles and a couple black bear! In addition, a friend of mine has invited my two Sons and I to spend a few days at his home in Costa Rica within the next year and take wildlife pictures and fish!
Let me give this some thought!
Do I want to go with my new D500PF and 70-200 2.8 and practice in those places, or do I want to improve my skills as much as I can before I go - hence the trip to the zoo. Also mention the fact that I still have a lot to learn about my D500! Now let me think!
For me, the answer is obvious - I want to improve my skills as much as I can before I go, to enhance the experience and create life long memories!

 

[BLev65]

Appreciate your support! To expand on my thoughts, I am planning a four day trip to the SD Black Hills (Custer State Park, Badlands, Needles Highway and Mt Rushmore) this Fall. This summer my wife, granddaughter and another couple are also planning a three day trip to fish in Ontario (if the border opens). Two years ago we caught/released 58 walleye between 18-28 inches, plus saw several eagles and a couple black bear! In addition, a friend of mine has invited my two Sons and I to spend a few days at his home in Costa Rica within the next year and take wildlife pictures and fish!
Let me give this some thought!
Do I want to go with my new D500PF and 70-200 2.8 and practice in those places, or do I want to improve my skills as much as I can before I go - hence the trip to the zoo. Also mention the fact that I still have a lot to learn about my D500! Now let me think!
For me, the answer is obvious - I want to improve my skills as much as I can before I go, to enhance the experience and create life long memories!

I don't think anyone is questioning the value of zoos to photographers. Zoos are a great place to see and photograph local and exotic animals in a controlled setting. They are a wonderful location to learn how cameras and lenses function, a great way to learn the limits of gear, and practice everything from composition to exposure. The question posted queries if photographs of zoo / captive animals falls under the category of wildlife photography. Of course, this is subject to interpretation. Clearly the animals are not what we'd consider to be "wild," yet they are what we'd colloquially refer to as wildlife as opposed to domesticated species. I suppose street photographers debate similar topics... Is it street photography if one introduces themselves to a stranger and asks them to pose for a portrait on the "street?"...
For the record, some amazing work can be done at zoos. While I have not visited a zoo in 5 years (or so) I do follow a French zoo photographer, Guillaume Mordacq on Instagram, as his work is amazing.

regards,
bruce

 

[EricBowles]

I don't think anyone is questioning the value of zoos to photographers. Zoos are a great place to see and photography local and exotic animals in a controlled setting. They are a wonderful location to learn how cameras and lenses function, a great way to learn the limits of gear, and practice everything from composition to exposure. The question posted queries if photographs of zoo / captive animals falls under the category of wildlife photography. Of course, this is subject to interpretation. Clearly the animals are not what we'd consider to be "wild," yet they are what we'd colloquially refer to as wildlife as opposed to domesticated species. I suppose street photographers debate similar topics... Is it street photography still "street photography" if one introduces themselves to a stranger and asks them to pose for a portrait on the "street"?...
For the record, some amazing work can be done at zoos. While I have not visited a zoo in 5 years (or so) I do follow a French zoo photographer, Guillaume Mordacq on Instagram, as his work is amazing.

regards,
bruce

Actually, there are people on the conservation side that lump zoos in the same category as game farms, and are against animals being raised or held for display in spite of the numerous benefits. That's why it's best to look at different perspectives, and understand the differences. The arguments about bird feeders being a form of baiting is a similar topic - and Audubon believes bird feeders are fine.

I think captive animals in accredited zoos are a terrific way to develop photography skills. Zoo photos are usually part of a portfolio because the animals are readily accessible, healthy, and well cared for. Zoo animals live longer, and with successful breeding programs, can help with preservation of threatened or endangered species. And Zoo photos are perfectly fine in most photo competitions.

 

[R.Philip]

Should there be a category for Non-Wildlife Wildlife in addition to Wildlife, Landscape, Macro?

In reading this thread and fashioning this post, I never realized the complexity of this topic and how sensitive it could be. I never gave it much thought before as I am very new to my ventures into capturing wildlife imagery.

I would have to say I am in the camp that certainly wouldn't want to see any actions by a photographer that would upset the wild natural behavior of the subject. Where does the fine line get drawn? Any time food is put out to attract wildlife, is that baiting? Does that include bird feeders? Are bird feeders adverse to the food gathering natural behavior of those that feed off the bird feeder? I just watched a video from the local nature preserve about setting up feeders and what to place in them to attract a particular bird. Are they actually hurting the wildlife they believe they are helping? I was actually planning on putting feeders out to photograph birds, but know I'm reconsidering. I question now whether that is good for the survival of the wildlife. I guess I'd have to say I would be averse to any type of feeding of wildlife.

I love nature and would not wish to upset it in any way. I'm thinking back to some of the images I have captured. Did I get too close to the Mallard ducks causing them stress and to flee my presence? I plead guilty. It wasn't intentional, but it happened. Was that bad for the animal? With regard to the Hawks and Owls I've photographed, did my presence change their behavior or raise their stress level. I couldn't get close to them so I'm thinking not. For all the other mammals I've photographed, I'm not sure.

As to the integrity of the presentation of the images I've taken. I would never represent them as being taken in an environment other than where they were actually taken. If in the zoo, I usually title it or certainly keyword it that way. I've shot images in the zoo. I've also shot images in the wildest of areas I could find around the suburbs of Chicago. Hahaha! I've never presented them in any fashion other than in the environment/location they were taken. I could see how integrity could come into play.

I want to thank everyone for their input into this thread. My awareness has certainly been heightened on several aspects of wildlife photography. I definitely will be putting more thought into all future attempts at capturing the beauty of nature.

 

[EricBowles]

Should there be a category for Non-Wildlife Wildlife in addition to Wildlife, Landscape, Macro?

In reading this thread and fashioning this post, I never realized the complexity of this topic and how sensitive it could be. I never gave it much thought before as I am very new to my ventures into capturing wildlife imagery.

I would have to say I am in the camp that certainly wouldn't want to see any actions by a photographer that would upset the wild natural behavior of the subject. Where does the fine line get drawn? Any time food is put out to attract wildlife, is that baiting? Does that include bird feeders? Are bird feeders adverse to the food gathering natural behavior of those that feed off the bird feeder? I just watched a video from the local nature preserve about setting up feeders and what to place in them to attract a particular bird. Are they actually hurting the wildlife they believe they are helping? I was actually planning on putting feeders out to photograph birds, but know I'm reconsidering. I question now whether that is good for the survival of the wildlife. I guess I'd have to say I would be averse to any type of feeding of wildlife.

I love nature and would not wish to upset it in any way. I'm thinking back to some of the images I have captured. Did I get too close to the Mallard ducks causing them stress and to flee my presence? I plead guilty. It wasn't intentional, but it happened. Was that bad for the animal? With regard to the Hawks and Owls I've photographed, did my presence change their behavior or raise their stress level. I couldn't get close to them so I'm thinking not. For all the other mammals I've photographed, I'm not sure.

As to the integrity of the presentation of the images I've taken. I would never represent them as being taken in an environment other than where they were actually taken. If in the zoo, I usually title it or certainly keyword it that way. I've shot images in the zoo. I've also shot images in the wildest of areas I could find around the suburbs of Chicago. Hahaha! I've never presented them in any fashion other than in the environment/location they were taken. I could see how integrity could come into play.

I want to thank everyone for their input into this thread. My awareness has certainly been heightened on several aspects of wildlife photography. I definitely will be putting more thought into all future attempts at capturing the beauty of nature.

You've captured the essence of why rules and guidelines are so difficult.

There are very few research studies that examine the issues. When it comes to bird feeders, they are terrific at providing supplemental food that can help some species survive and grow - like the bluebirds in my area. But the waste seed under the feeders leads to a proliferation of squirrels and rats. Feeders are great, but can lead to both increased transmission of illness and increases in natural populations in the same area (according to a study about finches). Feeding raptors can lead to habituation and comfort near roads and around people. But food can also help animals survive a tough winter.

The coyote project has some great work around coyotes found in urban areas. Adapting to man is part of survival. We have campaigns to provide nesting boxes for birds threatened by habitat loss. But we also have peregrine falcons nesting in light fixtures on high rise office buildings in order to take advantage of the safe environment and have access to plenty of food - pigeons are slow and tasty.

I would encourage you to simply use good judgement, and understand the gray areas. That's why NANPA simply opted for disclosure and education.

It's very easy to be against something or in favor of more restrictions, but it's harder to be "for something" or to encourage positive actions. The conservation community probably does not spend enough time talking about how to safely attract and feed wildlife, how to approach skittish subjects, and how to avoid rare or uncommon species while still seeing them and reporting them for research.

A couple of years ago while leading a workshop we had a chance to photograph bird capture and banding at Cape May. They have more than 20 years of data from capturing and banding red knots and other birds during migration. These species are threatened by commercial harvest of horseshoe crabs by the pharmaceutical industry to test drugs like vaccines. The red knots rely on horseshoe crab eggs for food after a long migration.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[PhilcTx]

IMO concern over baiting and feeders creating an overdependence by critters/birds on them as a food source isn't warranted. I've had bird feeders out for years but only fill them with food in the winter. The birds are quick to leave and search for other sources when the feeders are not refilled.

Critters/birds are natural opportunistic feeders. They'll take advantage of any feeding opportunity presented to them - the easier the better. If an easy food source is available even long term and then disappears the critters/birds will not have lost their inherent ability programmed into their DNA to hunt for other food sources.

 

[pochito]

This is a little off topic, I apologize in advance- Just anecdotic
Zoos explain that the captive animals are NOT tame, even those raised by hand. They are wild.

In the Zurich Zoo an experienced keeper failed to close the fence completely ... the dangers of having much routine. The tigress was able to reach the area, found that she (the guard) was invading her territory and killed her. Even though they had known each other for years .
One lady in the Zoo Berlin found the polar bears so cute that she wanted to swim with them (!!). She skipped the obstacles and dived in the pool.
She was immediately attacked and got away with her life but severely wounded.

BTW, no animal was punished or transferred.

 

[BillW]

This has been an interesting discussion and I have learned from the posts and links. I am also glad that it has been a civil discussion, even as there are a variety of views. That is one of the things I most like about this forum. Kudos to Steve and the members.

As I have been thinking about it, for me, at least, the issues fall into two or three categories.

Is the animal free to come and go, if so, it’s generally wild. (I’m ignoring domesticated animals here, even free to roam.) Captive and controlled animals are different. Here it seems important to accurately describe the photo, subject and circumstances (and comply with any rules related to posting on a particular forum or a contest.)

Where was the photo taken? I love to see photos from wild and exotic locations and have even been to a few of them. But I also enjoy wildlife closer to home. I have recently been going to a great blue heron rookery on the Mississippis River in Minneapolis. It’s on two islands in the river in an area that is industrial, other than a small park nearby. Over 120 herons there this weekend. The herons are free to come and go and seem to ignore people. The park is onshore and far enough away that it looks to me that the herons don’t notice the people watching and photographing them from shore. The herons moved the rookery to these islands about 10 years ago, after a tornado destroyed their rookery further north on the river. Yesterday afternoon, there was a barred owl in a tree in our next door neighbor’s yard that was fun to watch and photograph. (We live in St. Paul, but are only about 2 1/2 blocks from the Mississippi River, so there are often birds and other critters around.) In the summer, we spend a lot of time on a lake in northern Minnesota, where I love to photograph waterbirds, wading birds and other birds and mammals from a kayak. It’s not wilderness, but it is fairly wild. All of this seems to be wildlife photography to me, although some may prefer photos from the more wild and exotic settings. Again, accurate descriptions seem important.

The final and most important question to me is whether any of the actions I might take could have a negative impact on the wildlife I am watching or photographing. As others have noticed, this is complicated and may depend on circumstances. Breeding and nesting birds and animals need space. Movement that might cause a bird to fly in the relatively benign conditions of summer, with good weather and lots of food around, may be very different from movement that causes a bison to move in the winter in Yellowstone, where survival is much tougher. I don’t go in for baiting, but have come across eagles or other birds attracted by fish left by fisherman (not me) and have taken photos. (I don’t think of backyard birdfeeders as baiting, but it sounds like one ought to be careful to do them in the healthiest way.) Sometimes I think a good way is to take cues from the animals. I followed two loon families this last summer in northern Minnesota from my kayak. One family did not seem to mind my being nearby and would continue feeding if I was around, sometimes surfacing fairly close to me. The other family was much more skittish and would swim away as I approached, so I tried to stay much farther back. I was using a Z7 + 500 mm PF + 1.4x TCIII, so I could get nice photos from a reasonable distance, including cropping in some cases. Certainly this is an area I need to keep thinking about and adjust my practice accordingly.

Anyway, I appreciate the discuss.

 

[Jim Goodwin]

Oh good, I’m going to wade in on the subject...I think anything is fair game....except possibly a cat or dog, they probably should be in another forum. I personally like to shoot my backyard song birds and I have had to do that from inside the house through the window...guess that would be a blind...this is a great discussion. Yes I too like the civil way we write to each other.