Is wildlife photgraphy easier in the US compared to the rest of the world?

[StefanSC]

Ok, this might sound silly, but bear with me for a minute here.

I live in Romania, in central Europe and we have quite a lot of wildlife here, especially birds. I like photographing these birds and as such, I've been trying to improve my skills. In this process I've followed a number of US based photographers and, in doing so, I've came to the impression that wildlife photography in the US is easier than in my part of the world.

What do I mean by this?

• I've seen photographers get silly close up to herons in open water via boats (while around here, if it is in open water, a heron will fly away at the least intention of somebody getting close to it).
• I've often seen photographers have random encounters with deer while driving and being able to get out of the car to shoot without the deer scattering (almost impossible to do around here)
• I've often seen the rows of tripods and 500/600mm lenses on the edge of the water where birds congregate (if you would do that around here, they would go in another place, even during migration/mating season).

So, my questions would be: is wildlife photography easier in the US? are the animals more used to human presence? do they feel less threatened?

P.S:
I've also seen a lot of animals in shots with tags on them (ear/leg).

 

[Oztours]

The old expression is especially true in this forum, the only silly question is the unasked one.

I can't answer the first part of your question, but the tags play an extremely important role in collecting data from birds and animals. They help in establishing patterns for various things such as migration, social behaviour, identifying individual birds, etc.. Tags are colour and number coded for identification. It's now more common to use the patches on the backs of birds as it makes it easier to see the information when the birds are on the ground where their feet may be hidden by grass. They are also starting to use GPS tracking more often now. These methods of tagging are all very lightweight and do not impact on the animals in any way.

Should you ever take photos where the tags are clearly visible, it may be a good idea for you to record information about the sighting and report it to a relevant society in your area that deals with this stuff.

 

[gordon_g]

As someone that has only shot wildlife in North America I would say no... But I have no first hand knowledge either way. I've seen a lot of Images from a lot of places (Singapore, South Africa, Australia, etc and they seem to get just as close as we do. I can say that is certain area animals are more sensitive to humans in NA, but with different techniques, not not just trying to walk up on something you can still get to a reasonable distance. Just my 2 cents . Should be interesting what others have to say.

 

[Warren D]

The USA covers a lot of area and there are more than a few areas I have been to where the animals act as the OP describes. It comes down to acclimation but also the variations in individuals. I know osprey better than any other bird or animal and I can say with certainty that how close you can get depends more on the individual than the location. I've approached birds that all but ignore me to within 100 feet and other exhibit stress at 300 plus feet. I may have to do with Federal and local hunting regulations, most species of wild birds in the US are protected and even common animals such as deer have protection (though there are limited hunting seasons). Some osprey I study are fine with me, but if someone else is with me, they take exception. One nesting pair built their nest atop a utility pole along the driveway for a trucking company that saw a steady stream of vehicles all day and into the night. They never flinched. If I was in my car, they were fine but as soon as I got out, they went into stress mode.

 

[Jschulze]

I've seen it both ways here in the US. Even in my small area there are spots that the animals get used to the human presence and you can easily get a lot closer, but in other areas even 10 miles away the same species will be very skittish, so I guess it really depends. Like I know one spot in particular on a trail leading to a fishing spot where people clean their fish and there's always golden eagles sitting around waiting to clean up the scraps and they'll sit in a tree 20 feet away from me, even if I'm just standing in plain sight. Then there's another area like 5 miles away where I like to shoot blue herons and I can't get within 150 feet of a golden eagle without it flying away even trying to sneak around in full camo.

 

[Cristobal]

Ok, this might sound silly, but bear with me for a minute here.

I live in Romania, in central Europe and we have quite a lot of wildlife here, especially birds. I like photographing these birds and as such, I've been trying to improve my skills. In this process I've followed a number of US based photographers and, in doing so, I've came to the impression that wildlife photography in the US is easier than in my part of the world.

What do I mean by this?

• I've seen photographers get silly close up to herons in open water via boats (while around here, if it is in open water, a heron will fly away at the least intention of somebody getting close to it).
• I've often seen photographers have random encounters with deer while driving and being able to get out of the car to shoot without the deer scattering (almost impossible to do around here)
• I've often seen the rows of tripods and 500/600mm lenses on the edge of the water where birds congregate (if you would do that around here, they would go in another place, even during migration/mating season).

So, my questions would be: is wildlife photography easier in the US? are the animals more used to human presence? do they feel less threatened?

P.S:
I've also seen a lot of animals in shots with tags on them (ear/leg).

Very interesting purpose! I agree with you! Before living in Canada, I was living in France, trying to make observations of nature in the wild and yes, it,s very difficult to approach birds or mammals; North America is a paradise for wildlife observation and photography; when I travel in the US or in Canada, I love staying in states, provincial or national parks when we can encounter a lot of animals very easily; animals seem to be more accustomated to human presence; In France for example, it's impossible to stay most of the time in natural areas (domanial forests and national parks) in campgrounds where, very early in the morning and late in the afternoon, you can leave your camground to be on the best spots for animal photography or observations. I think also that in Europe, nature photographers have to deploy more tactics to be able to approach animals and make close-ups. But, there is many possibilies to make photographies of animals in their environment as I saw on some publications of well known european wildlife photographers.

 

[Rassie]

Having photographed wildlife in different places, North America, Central America, Africa, I have reached a couple of conclusions.
Animals, including birds, want to feel that they control what's going on in their environment, especially as far as what impacts or threatens them. I've seen many times that wildlife will approach relatively close to a person who is stationary in one position. The main take-away here is that you don't approach them because then you control what's going on and they don't. If the person stays put without moving around too much the animals will be more willing to get closer because they are in control of how close they are comfortable getting to you. We camped in an unfenced camp in Savuti in the Okavango area of Botswana once. There was a lone elephant bull that used to hang around the camp. So many folks arriving to camp there didn't regard it as a wild animal, and then they approached the elephant. Every time the elephant charged at them and chased them away. One evening at dusk I was standing under a large tree, talking to another camper. After some time I looked around and found the same elephant had approached to within about 25 feet. He completely ignored us and kept feeding on the seed pods from the same tree. The elephant knew we were there, and I'm sure it kept an eye on us the whole time. This illustrates my point. We walked away from him and he just carried on with his business.

Animals in African wildlife parks are so used to vehicles that I believe they regard a vehicle as just another strange animal that moves around the area just like they do. But when you look at the wild animals one notices that they all tend to respect one another's physical space when on the move. Things are obviously different at a water hole. Apart from predator/prey interactions they all tend to practice physical distancing from other species when moving around the bush. I was on a safari jeep where a highly agitated rhinoceros approached right next to the stationary jeep and acted as if the jeep wasn't there. He was reacting to a smell, either a female in heat or another male that was encroaching into his territory. Another time I was on a jeep where we saw a herd of elephants. The guide drove around the elephants and then parked the jeep right in the way of where the herd was moving to. They approached, grazing as they moved, and then passed the jeep, going on their way. In neither of these cases would it have been safe to approach those animals with the jeep.

There are areas where birds hang out to hunt for fish around where I live. One such spot is the western end of Lake Ontario. There are always photographers at the water's edge lined up with their gear on tripods. Cormorants, kingfishers, osprey, terns and bald eagles all fish there. I'm pretty sure the birds are so used to photographers by now that they just keep fishing while ignoring the humans. We also have a variety of hawks in my neighborhood, and those tend to be skittish. When they see you pay attention to them they take off. They will allow a car to approach up to a point, but when one stops the car they're off. Forget about opening doors or windows to get a shot.

The general advice I've seen on photography forums is if you need to approach the wildlife, do it very slowly, don't approach in a direct straight line and don't make eye contact. Pretend you don't even see the animal. Best scenario is if you can park yourself where you need to be and allow the animals to approach. If you get there while animals or birds are around they may move away, but if you remain stationary they will slowly come closer again. This is especially true if the area is one where they regularly feed.

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.

 

[BillW]

I have have only been two places where birds and other animals show relatively little fear of humans -- the Galapagos Islands and the Antarctic Peninsula. Presumably this has to do with the remoteness of the two locations and the relative lack of land-based preditors.

I do a lot of photography in North America, particularly in Minnesota where I live. Birds and mammals (e.g., deer, beavers, mink, otters, red foxes, bears). Animals here are often quite skittish, depending on the circumstances. There are also lots of differences by individual animal. I have been following two loon families with chicks on a relatvely large lake where we have a cabin. I check on them periodically by kayak. One family is quite skittish and swims away as I approach. The other family seems not to mind me, if I approach slowly and then stop paddling. After 5 minutes or so, they go back to feeding or whatever else they were doing and do not seem to worry much about me (although I am sure they remain aware) allowing me to get very nice photos.

Herons on the lake are often skittish too. But I saw one last month on a narrow channel. I stopped my kayak well short of the heron and watched. The heron walked toward me, fishing along the way. And it walked by me on the other side of the channel. Closest I have ever been to a heron. Had to switch from my 500 mm PF on my Z7 to my 70-300 AF-P FX lens on my Z6.

For water birds, wading birds, shorebirds and other birds near water, I find a kayak is great for photography. It is low, giving good angles for photos and it is quiet, seeming to allow approaching birds better than my other options. Canoes work well too, although for me that requires s second paddler, so I more often go by kayak.

 

[DRwyoming]

Having photographed wildlife in different places, north America, Central America, Africa, I have reached a couple of conclusions.

Great post Rassie!

You should cut and paste this into the Field Techniques thread as it's full of some very valuable observations on how animals might react to photographers in their environment.

 

[luckmurph]

I too have also wondered this when i watch you tube videos on photography including Steves i think to my self how they get the shots when dressed in casual clothing?
I live in the UK and photograph our wildlife fox, deer, badger birds etc & have to either put up my hide or dress up in full cammo, sitting in one place downwind from what im taking pictures of for at least 3-4 hours without moving! to stand any chance of getting close!

 

[Woody Meristem]

Having never been out of North America I can't speak to what wildlife is like elsewhere,but ... Wildlife that's hunted or harassed becomes quite afraid of humans and will not tolerate our presence if they're aware of us. On the other hand, many species of wildlife become quite habituated to humans or vehicles and allow great opportunities for photography if they're not pursued or hunted. As others have said, it also greatly depends on the individual animal or bird.
Throughout much of Europe it may be that the calmer individual animals and birds were killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years ago. That left the ones with a more wary nature as the only ones to pass on their genes to future generations. Dogs are descended from wolves, but their personalities are very different because the genes for "wild" were bred out- there's no reason to believe wild species would react differently to such pressures in reverse.

 

[gordon_g]

I too have also wondered this when i watch you tube videos on photography including Steves i think to my self how they get the shots when dressed in casual clothing?
I live in the UK and photograph our wildlife fox, deer, badger birds etc & have to either put up my hide or dress up in full cammo, sitting in one place downwind from what im taking pictures of for at least 3-4 hours without moving! to stand any chance of getting close!

This actually bring up a good point we don't know if Steve uses Como for some of his shooting or not... it would be total speculation on my part if he does or not... I know that if Im in the woods I generally do but depends on the time of year as well... (being in Como during haunting season is not something I want to test)

 

[Rassie]

Having never been out of North America I can't speak to what wildlife is like elsewhere,but ... Wildlife that's hunted or harassed becomes quite afraid of humans and will not tolerate our presence if they're aware of us. On the other hand, many species of wildlife become quite habituated to humans or vehicles and allow great opportunities for photography if they're not pursued or hunted. As others have said, it also greatly depends on the individual animal or bird.
Throughout much of Europe it may be that the calmer individual animals and birds were killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years ago. That left the ones with a more wary nature as the only ones to pass on their genes to future generations. Dogs are descended from wolves, but their personalities are very different because the genes for "wild" were bred out- there's no reason to believe wild species would react differently to such pressures in reverse.

That is certainly a compelling theory. It could potentially explain the differences between the New World versus the old world where humans have been around and have impacted animals for much longer through history.

 

[Cristobal]

That is certainly a compelling theory. It could potentially explain the differences between the New World versus the old world where humans have been around and have impacted animals for much longer through history.

I totally agree with you...in Europe, population growth began around the eleventh century, resulting in forest clearing and an expansion of the rural world, impacting on wildlife for sure!

 

[Whiskeyman]

For me, it's much easier in the US. It's where I live, and I don't get to travel ouside the country much anymore. I have heard that in some countries, access to places where photography is allowed is more restricted than in the US.

W

 

[pochito]

This actually bring up a good point we don't know if Steve uses Como for some of his shooting or not... it would be total speculation on my part if he does or not... I know that if Im in the woods I generally do but depends on the time of year as well... (being in Como during haunting season is not something I want to test)

I was wondering about that. .
I'm told that animals are pretty well aware of what's happening around them and use other senses as well.
Sight is just one of them.
So, while camo IS something, how important can it really be?
Just curious

 

[BLev65]

I am a former wildlife ecologist turned biology educator. I've been photographing wildlife throughout North America and abroad for about 35 years. There are many places on the planet where wildlife is approachable. Countries like Costa Rica have reduced hunting pressure and enhanced wildlife habitat restoration projects in and around lodges where humans live &/or stay. Because there is little hunting pressure and abundant food, the animals tolerate humans. In Tanzania and Kenya wildlife photography is about as easy to photograph as it gets. Stay in a vehicle, drive throughout national parks, and one will produce wildlife images that might otherwise seem impossible.
In North America there are many places where wildlife tolerate humans. These areas tend to be where there is little to no hunting pressure, abundant food, and competition for space. Food availability reduces the energy budget limits that make animals skittish, and large populations force individuals to the edges of habitats where humans live. In addition, there are key spots in places like Florida and California where breeding habitats and human developments overlap. These are the places where a lot of heron and shorebird photography occurs. Finally, wetland restoration projects have created spaces where wildlife (birds like cranes, geese, swans, etc...) congregate. These areas often have systems of dikes and roads that allow for relatively easy wildlife viewing. This type of wildlife photography is relatively easy in N.A. If you put in your hours, learn the rhythms of a landscape, and have decent long glass (like the relatively inexpensive tele superzoom), and have strong sense for composition, you can come aways with some amazingly artistic wildlife images.
Now if one does not live near a national park, wildlife refuge, or habitat frequented by wildlife due to urbanization, nature photography in the US can be a challenge. Like someone else on the board, I live in Minnesota. For those non-US residents, MN is in the middle of the US and borders Canada. We probably have some of the highest diversity of exciting wildlife species. This diversity includes lynx, bobcat, cougar, fisher, wolverine, wolf, and Moose to state just a few. While I have photographed all of these species in other locations, I have only spotted a MN moose twice, seen a MN bobcat once, photographed MN lynx tracks in the snow, seen and heard wolves at a distance, and photographed a roadkill fisher. I have spent countless hours hiking our woods, driving our back roads, and sitting in camouflaged blinds waiting for MN predators near known corridors. In fact, MN has the largest wolf population in the continental US, and it continues to be among the hardest animals to photograph here.
Our state has a strong wildlife conservation program because of its hunting culture. As such, there are large swaths of forested land that are isolated from much of our relatively small human population. Predators like these are rarely forced to edge habitats and have been prey to trapping, as such they are weary of our scent and are far more difficult to photograph than some of the animals that Europeans look to photograph on their home turf.
So... I'd say, for some species, wildlife photography in the US offers more opportunity to get close, but for some of the most desirable subjects, one needs to pay their dues in time, resilience, and discomfort to make compelling images.
I am attaching a few images of a river otter that I photographed this year. The photo is 4 years in the making. I worked from a blind to photograph the beaver lodge in this area, and spent nearly every weekend morning from 4:00 am to 8:00 am shooting this area during the last 4 summers. I knew otters visited and crossed my path at night and during my work week... the hours of investment were the key to finally photographing this animal who resides within 20 miles of my home.

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.

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

 

[luckmurph]

I was wondering about that. .
I'm told that animals are pretty well aware of what's happening around them and use other senses as well.
Sight is just one of them.
So, while camo IS something, how important can it really be?
Just curious

I’m currently photographing King fishers & foxes in the uk, I go out most late afternoons, if I’m in just sat there in normal casual clothes the king fisher won’t even stop on the perch I have put in! But if I’m in full cammo he will nearly always stop and do a bit of fishing and keep coming back to that perch throughout the evening!
I wear a 3D cammo outfit including face coverage I think it’s more to do with breaking up of your body shape more than anything!
same with the foxes they are more than likely to approach you if I’m sat still in cammo!

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

 

[Ken Miracle]

I live in Boise, Idaho one of the fastest growing cities in the country. Boise River and its greenbelt run through the middle of town. I have noticed that in town birds, especially, are more skittish when I am in full camo and out in the Idaho wilds (we have a lot of that) they are more skittish when I am in casual clothes. I think it relates to what they are used to seeing on many people in the city which is the casual clothing and we are easier to see. So for me it is casual in the city and camo outside.

 

[Deleted member 115]

For the most part I'm a country boy and I hate crowds. You will never see me lined up shoulder to shoulder with a tripod. I like to be in remote areas when I can. This year I basically stayed within a 5 mile circle of our residence. Out here, the birds like Herons or Mallards will usually fly if they see any movement within half mile or more away.
The Mule deer in this particular location are pretty tame as there is very little hunting pressure on them. Thanks mostly to the conservation efforts of the state fish and wildlife department. In winter as their food source goes away they move in and find other sources like willow branches, bird feeders and arborvitae trees in people's yards. Small game is like everywhere else, quick to take cover with just a little curiosity and always looking for food, from what I have found.
When the Eagles are in our area for winter they will fly away if bothered by anyone. When fishing in open waters fisherman don't seem to bother them as badly as people on shore.
As wild critters natural habitat is encroached by more and more humans, the more confrontations. So you will see more photos of Elk, or Mtn. Lions in yards etc....

How is it easier than being driven right up to the animals like they do in Africa?

That's how I see it anyway.

 

[Deleted member 115]

I am a former wildlife ecologist turned biology educator. I've been photographing wildlife throughout North America and abroad for about 35 years. There are many places on the planet where wildlife is approachable. Countries like Costa Rica have reduced hunting pressure and enhanced wildlife habitat restoration projects in and around lodges where humans live &/or stay. Because there is little hunting pressure and abundant food, the animals tolerate humans. In Tanzania and Kenya wildlife photography is about as easy to photograph as it gets. Stay in a vehicle, drive throughout national parks, and one will produce wildlife images that might otherwise seem impossible.
In North America there are many places where wildlife tolerate humans. These areas tend to be where there is little to no hunting pressure, abundant food, and competition for space. Food availability reduces the energy budget limits that make animals skittish, and large populations force individuals to the edges of habitats where humans live. In addition, there are key spots in places like Florida and California where breeding habitats and human developments overlap. These are the places where a lot of heron and shorebird photography occurs. Finally, wetland restoration projects have created spaces where wildlife (birds like cranes, geese, swans, etc...) congregate. These areas often have systems of dikes and roads that allow for relatively easy wildlife viewing. This type of wildlife photography is relatively easy in N.A. If you put in your hours, learn the rhythms of a landscape, and have decent long glass (like the relatively inexpensive tele superzoom), and have strong sense for composition, you can come aways with some amazingly artistic wildlife images.
Now if one does not live near a national park, wildlife refuge, or habitat frequented by wildlife due to urbanization, nature photography in the US can be a challenge. Like someone else on the board, I live in Minnesota. For those non-US residents, MN is in the middle of the US and borders Canada. We probably have some of the highest diversity of exciting wildlife species. This diversity includes lynx, bobcat, cougar, fisher, wolverine, wolf, and Moose to state just a few. While I have photographed all of these species in other locations, I have only spotted a MN moose twice, seen a MN bobcat once, photographed MN lynx tracks in the snow, seen and heard wolves at a distance, and photographed a roadkill fisher. I have spent countless hours hiking our woods, driving our back roads, and sitting in camouflaged blinds waiting for MN predators near known corridors. In fact, MN has the largest wolf population in the continental US, and it continues to be among the hardest animals to photograph here.
Our state has a strong wildlife conservation program because of its hunting culture. As such, there are large swaths of forested land that are isolated from much of our relatively small human population. Predators like these are rarely forced to edge habitats and have been prey to trapping, as such they are weary of our scent and are far more difficult to photograph than some of the animals that Europeans look to photograph on their home turf.
So... I'd say, for some species, wildlife photography in the US offers more opportunity to get close, but for some of the most desirable subjects, one needs to pay their dues in time, resilience, and discomfort to make compelling images.
I am attaching a few images of a river otter that I photographed this year. The photo is 4 years in the making. I worked from a blind to photograph the beaver lodge in this area, and spent nearly every weekend morning from 4:00 am to 8:00 am shooting this area during the last 4 summers. I knew otters visited and crossed my path at night and during my work week... the hours of investment were the key to finally photographing this animal who resides within 20 miles of my home.View attachment 6549
View attachment 6550
View attachment 6551

Excellent post, I should have read it before posting my comments. Paying your dues is the big take away and all that entails. Nice river otter. I have a few photos of them here as well.
FWIW we have spent a few years on the range and love Northern Minnesota.

 

[BLev65]

Excellent post, I should have read it before posting my comments. Paying your dues is the big take away and all that entails. Nice river otter. I have a few photos of them here as well.
FWIW we have spent a few years on the range and love Northern Minnesota.

I liked your post as well. Like you, I hunkered down from March until now. With the exception of an 18 day camping trip to the Badlands and Tetons in June, all of my photography has been within a 20 mile radius of my home. While I tend to travel a lot, I had a wonderful time working my home turf... 20 miles NE or St. Paul, MN.
I see you live in Central WA (checked out your Flikr)... I'm two years from retirement and am planning to move to Port Angeles to live out my creative life on a piece of land in the Olympic Peninsula... I absolutely love the Pacific Northwest. Having grown up in CA, miss having mountains and ocean near my home turf.

 

[Calson]

The only places in the USA that I have found to be easy for wildlife photography overall is Wyoming and Florida and it helps when there are large mammals and less need for super telephoto lenses. I do wish that there was more use of hides as one can rent in Europe. In the western U.S. most of the blinds/hides are put in place for the hunters and prime locations to photograph waterfowl are open only to people with a hunting license. I have thought about our buying a hunting licenses to be able to photograph the waterfowl in these areas.

 

[pochito]

Sounds crazy but we used to keep our clothes in a bag of sagebrush and wash in unscented soaps.

With due respect, isn't that some kind of urban legend?
FWIW, I worked with trailing dogs and it is very difficult if not impossible to fool them.
Maybe if you are in a plastic bubble and using a rebreather or so
I assume that animals whose food or safety depends on their scenting abilities will detect any human approaching even in very clean clothes. That, like the hounds do, they DISCRIMINATE the different scents.
Just curious

 

[pochito]

Thanks very much to all who answered my question on using camo.
Very interesting