# Game Ranches for photography



## sanjosedave (Nov 18, 2014)

Only recently I've become aware of game ranches for photography in the US.

I watched a dpreview of the 7dII at a game ranch in Montana, DD, I think. When I looked at the fees, it was like $350 for 90 minute experience photographing a prime animal such as a snow leopard.

In the Bay Area, there is a safari place near Santa Rosa, and I think San Diego Zoo has a wildlife park.

What game ranches have you photographed at? Prices? Positive/Negatives?

Note to Admins: please consider a section such as, Where to photograph

Thx


----------



## DominoDude (Nov 18, 2014)

I'm not out to piddle in anyones pond, but I prefer to shoot in *Mother nature*. *No* additional *costs*, and *availability* is second to none - it's there when I'm ready. Positive: If I see and shoot any wildlife, it's either because I outsmarted them, or that they accepted me on their turf. Choice, not force.

I've had discussions with a few that has worked in places similar to game ranches, and on more than one occasion been proven that it's not always done in the best interest of the animals there. (Nope, I can't/won't give any sources or names for this.)
The general thought of presenting wild animals to those who can't get to see them in their natural habitat is good as an idea, but money can turn anything ugly.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 19, 2014)

http://petapixel.com/2014/11/18/magical-wildlife-sanctuary-lets-photographers-get-within-arms-reach-giant-bears/#more-151505

I don't know if this article spured this thread or not.


----------



## zim (Nov 19, 2014)

Never heard of them. Sounds like just another name for a zoo/safari park (UK)?


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 19, 2014)

If you are in Eastern Ontario, Canada..... I suggest "the crazy cat lady's cat ranch" where you can photograph cats in their natural environment and doing such exciting things as sleeping, bringing down prey (the wiley cat kibble), and stalking the elusive red dot.... And outside you can photograph the rare chickadee eating sunflower seeds from the wooden boxes that hang from trees and the squirrels that sit below waiting for seeds to fall off.

It's the same thing as photographing animals in captivity, just taken to a bit more ridiculous of a level.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 19, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> I'm not out to piddle in anyones pond, but I prefer to shoot in *Mother nature*. *No* additional *costs*, and *availability* is second to none - it's there when I'm ready.



I suppose. But, I'm increasingly wondering about the real differences. Really, if you spend $8,000 a person to take a "safari" in Africa, where the guides know exactly where the animals are likely to be and can pretty much guarantee that you'll get shots of the "big four" is that so much different than going to a ranch where they keep herds of bison, antelope, etc.?

Or, for that matter, what about traveling to Alaska to a known site where eagles and grizzlies gather to gorge on Salmon during the spawning season? Or spending several thousand dollars to take a snowcrawler out among the polar bears in Canada? 

Yes, for me, I really enjoy seeing a red tail hawk circling overhead or a great blue heron fishing in the local lake, and I enjoy the challenge of capturing these animals on film. But, I also know that if I really want to get close up shots of herons or red tails, I'm better off traveling somewhere where there are a lot of them and they are more predictable. 

I'm not out to piddle in anyone's pond either – but I don't hold it against those who can't afford the more exotic locales and have to rely on what they have at hand and can afford in order to pursue their passion.

It seems as though in many cases, we are talking about small degrees of difference.


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 19, 2014)

unfocused said:


> DominoDude said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not out to piddle in anyones pond, but I prefer to shoot in *Mother nature*. *No* additional *costs*, and *availability* is second to none - it's there when I'm ready.
> ...



It depends on why you're photographing, and what you intend for your photographs. If it's for your own pleasure and benefit then it's up to you. If it's for sale then my ethics would require full disclosure. There's a *HUGE* difference between an up-close photo of a tiger in a game park vs. an up-close photo of a tiger from the back of an elephant in India vs. an up-close photo of a tiger when you've stalked the critter on foot, and there's nothing between you but a telephoto lens and a can of bear spray.

When selling photos, the TRUE STORY of how the photo was made is essential to an ethical transaction. When photographing for yourself you're not fooling anyone, so go have fun.


----------



## DominoDude (Nov 19, 2014)

I think we can go back to giving SanJoseDave a few good and usable options; I'm on the wrong continent for that. Our conscious and awareness of what is good is the best guide for all that we do.


----------



## kubelik (Nov 19, 2014)

I'm curious about these game ranches- are they the same ones that you would go to for actually hunting said animals? 

I agree with what was said earlier, about having to be honest about the pedigree of a photo when it is a photo for sale. I suspect, however, that sanjosedave is in a similar situation as myself: a hobbyist with limited time and budget. photography isn't and likely never will be how I make a living, so I can't exactly pop off into the wild for days at a time stalking elusive wildlife.

my wife and I drove through the Virginia Safari Zoo last fall, which is pretty much a drive-through park with a somewhat random assortment of animals, from those normally found in the wild to those normally found on slightly-more-exotic farms: llamas, deer, antelope, giraffes, shaggy oxen of some sort, camels, elk, etc (I make it sound boring, I know, but they had some unique subspecies of each of these standard animal types). it was pretty cheap and you pay a little extra to get these feed buckets so that you can feed the animals. if I were to go back, I'd skip the feed buckets. the llamas are intelligent and aggressive, and once they realize you have food they will mob your car and box you in, until they've had their fill or get tired of licking your windows. other than the llamas it was an enjoyable experience. I didn't realize how close the animals would come up to your car (you stay in the vehicle at all times) and quickly had to swap out my 70-200 for my 24-70. not so many of those creamy-bokeh isolation shots, but some neat ones where the animal is literally a foot away from your face and curiously eyeing you. it's a nice way to get really close to some interesting creatures in a way that is safe for them and safe for you. from a technical standpoint: you have to think about your framing and background to minimize the intrusion of man-made elements (the paved road, farm sheds, etc.) in the images, and occasionally it's jarring to see a species that is typically found in sub-saharan climates framed by deciduous forest. but at least there weren't cage bars or chain link fences like you see at your typical city zoo.

all in all, my wife told me that this was pretty much the exact same experience she had at a drive-thru safari zoo in South Africa (so these seem to exist on more than just one continent), except that ostriches took the place of the llamas, with very similar behavior.

I'd be curious to learn of other places in the US that allow for pseudo-safari animal photography experiences. especially for a photography that's got kids, this is probably a much more realistic photographic option than questing through the woods for a week in search of pure, unadulterated wildlife.


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 19, 2014)

I've never shot at one (other than wild animal parks and zoo's), but i have talked to many who have, including many who have shot advertisements for national parks, zoo's and national geographic. Here's the deal, there are key shots that many photographers are trying to get that frankly are difficult if not impossible to get without using the biggest telephoto lenses money can buy, and camping out for days on end hoping to get lucky. And as one National Geographic photographer put it, some shots, frankly, if captured in the wild, means that you would have had to be close enough to the animal, and in some instances and animals, means that you would have seconds to get out of there before you become lunch. The rest of the time, it's all about luck and patience... something many photographers dont have, especially if they are renting gear or on a deadline... Does it take away from the purist POV? perhaps... If shot and framed properly, would the average viewer know if the scene was taken at a certain park or ranch vs out in the wild... nope.


----------



## tculotta (Nov 19, 2014)

I think there is a huge difference between a safari park and going to Kodiak, the Yukon, Botswana, South Georgia, etc. The animals in these locales are living as nature intended. The animals in parks, even under ideal circumstances, are still captive and when push comes to shove, are beholden to their keepers for their survival. Whether real or even perceived, that creates a difference. Getting the shot is the challenge. If it's handed to you on a silver platter, where's the challenge or the fun? I think of photos captured in this way the same as hunters who bait bears with donuts and pastries and then blow 'em away. Real sporting, wouldn't you say?


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 19, 2014)

This is the difference between a "WILDlife photographer and someone who takes pictures at the zoo.

There is nothing wrong with taking pictures at a Zoo.
There is nothing wrong with taking pictures at the back yard feeder.
What is unethical is when you present your pictures as real "wildlife" taken in a natural setting.


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 19, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> If you are in Eastern Ontario, Canada..... I suggest "the crazy cat lady's cat ranch".



I think they may have one of those in Nevada to. Photography will probably cost you extra above the door charge.


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 19, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> This is the difference between a "WILDlife photographer and someone who takes pictures at the zoo.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with taking pictures at a Zoo.
> There is nothing wrong with taking pictures at the back yard feeder.
> What is unethical is when you present your pictures as real "wildlife" taken in a natural setting.



Well that's just the thing... most wildlife photographers wont go to a sanctuary take an award winning photograph, and then submit to national geo and say they are in the middle of yellowstone... But, in the end of the day, if a commercial photographer is assigned a task of getting a specific shot that an advertising or marketing manager wants of a leopard or wildcat stalking a prey and it has to be to ready for press on friday, there's little difference if they risk their lives and livelyhood in the wilderness hoping to get a shot vs going to a sanctuary and nailing the shot. National Geo allows for many photographers to spend weeks if not months on assignment, but others dont get that luxury as a working photographer, a professional photographer.


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 19, 2014)

awinphoto said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > This is the difference between a "WILDlife photographer and someone who takes pictures at the zoo.
> ...



It is true most amateurs do not have that luxury to put in the time.
Lack of time shouldn't mean dishonesty is ok.
Nothing wrong with a staged wilderness pictures, I could see where it would have its uses.
In todays photoshopped world it is hard to find the real thing anymore.


----------



## Famateur (Nov 19, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> And outside you can photograph the rare chickadee eating sunflower seeds from the wooden boxes that hang from trees and the squirrels that sit below waiting for seeds to fall off.



Those must be some _lazy _squirrels (or you have some really effective baffles).  I was always amazed at how determined, resourceful and _successful _the squirrels were in getting to the jackpot when I was a kid watching our feeders...


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 19, 2014)

sanjosedave said:


> I watched a dpreview of the 7dII at a game ranch in Montana, DD, I think. When I looked at the fees, it was like $350 for 90 minute experience photographing a prime animal such as a snow leopard.



Is this the same place that Canon held one of the Explorers of Light seminars a few years ago?


----------



## kirispupis (Nov 19, 2014)

One thing to note is most zoos, wildlife parks, and captive habitats have copyrights on their animals and strictly prohibit commercial photography without their permission.

I photograph at both zoos and in "the wild" and I use them for different reasons. My zoo shots are just for playing around - to get used to equipment and to practice in a controlled environment. In the wild I will typically have very little time to react, so it is very wise to be familiar with my equipment ahead of time.

Getting photographs in the wild is difficult, but it's also very rewarding. I am not a full time wildlife photographer, but I do spend at least an hour a day on it. Many days I only "get" a few ducks or sparrows, but once in awhile I get something very nice. Last week (while on my first walk with my 7D2) I found a coyote. Over the weekend I found a family of river otters.

Animals are very different when in their own element vs. when they depend on people for food and care. There is a different look to the animal's eyes.

Also keep in mind that a number of famous photographers have had their reputations ruined because they passed off a wild animal park photo as a truly wild one.


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 19, 2014)

kirispupis said:


> One thing to note is most zoos, wildlife parks, and captive habitats have copyrights on their animals and strictly prohibit commercial photography without their permission.
> 
> I photograph at both zoos and in "the wild" and I use them for different reasons. My zoo shots are just for playing around - to get used to equipment and to practice in a controlled environment. In the wild I will typically have very little time to react, so it is very wise to be familiar with my equipment ahead of time.
> 
> ...



The ranches and parks we are talking about are pay per use places... They know you are using them for commercial use... They typically have more authentic enclosures so they look good photographically...


----------



## Freddie (Nov 19, 2014)

*Are they captive animals?*

The operative word is "Captive" animals. If they are captive it's a very good idea to 'fess up and note that in your metadata. No, these game ranches for photographers are NOT the same as the game ranches that provide a hunting environment including exotics.
I photographed in south Texas at several of the photographic ranches which are very reasonable in the way of fees. Animals range from tiny birds to White-tailed Deer. Snakes, javelina, bobcats, coyotes, foxes, armadillos, and many bird species are available up close and personal. The ranches provide blinds (or hides to our Brit friends), water holes and a limited amount of bird food to bring the animals in close to the blinds. Only the birds are fed. All of the animals are always wild and free. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you don't, no guarantees.
I haven't been to any of the Game Ranches that provide captive exotic animals and handlers. These are, by necessity, expensive because of the enormous upkeep costs for such animals. I would love to see and photograph these animals but, as I wrote earlier, disclosure would be the best idea when dealing with any resulting images.
I have been to Animal Sanctuaries where the animals are either rehabilitated or kept indefinitely for their own good when necessary. The Sanctuaries really don't cater to photographers in any way although they do not generally restrict them either. In the Sanctuaries, you are basically in a vary large zoo environment with lots of chainlink fencing and sight lines are almost always compromised with obstacles.


----------



## kirispupis (Nov 19, 2014)

awinphoto said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > One thing to note is most zoos, wildlife parks, and captive habitats have copyrights on their animals and strictly prohibit commercial photography without their permission.
> ...



That gets around the release paperwork, but submitting one of these photos to a wildlife contest is unethical + will have severe repercussions for your reputation if discovered. Of course, using such a photo for an advertisement for insurance, etc is fine. It all comes down to your use.


----------



## DominoDude (Nov 20, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



If one stages ones photos or manipulate them too much, there is a chance the community will invent a new verb for the actions one has taken due to lack of honesty. Search the web for "Terje Hellesø" and you will find a verb called _to terje_ (_att terja_ in Swedish). Terje had the habit of borrowing lynx and other wild animals taken by other photographers and then photoshop them into his own photos. He did so without asking for permission, and even entered a photo into a contest without telling...


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 20, 2014)

kirispupis said:


> One thing to note is most zoos, wildlife parks, and captive habitats have copyrights on their animals and strictly prohibit commercial photography without their permission.



At least in the United States, it is not possible to copyright an animal. Copyright is exclusively limited to creative works. Those locations may *claim* that they have such protection, but they don’t.

They might ostensibly have trademark protection, which would make certain specific uses (such as use in advertising) illegal, but that’s a different issue, and is pretty expensive on an ongoing basis, so it is unlikely you’ll run into it.

As always, the usual caveats apply: Although I have an extensive background in intellectual property law, I am not a lawyer, and more importantly, I am not *your* lawyer, so get legal advice before doing anything that might violate any agreement that you’ve entered into with such a zoo or park.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 20, 2014)

kirispupis said:


> Also keep in mind that a number of famous photographers have had their reputations ruined because they passed off a wild animal park photo as a truly wild one.



I never knew that. Do you have some examples?


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 16, 2015)

tculotta said:


> I think there is a huge difference between a safari park and going to Kodiak, the Yukon, Botswana, South Georgia, etc. The animals in these locales are living as nature intended. The animals in parks, even under ideal circumstances, are still captive and when push comes to shove, are beholden to their keepers for their survival. Whether real or even perceived, that creates a difference. Getting the shot is the challenge. If it's handed to you on a silver platter, where's the challenge or the fun? I think of photos captured in this way the same as hunters who bait bears with donuts and pastries and then blow 'em away. Real sporting, wouldn't you say?



There's quite a difference between shooting a baited animal with a firearm and shooting a captive animal with a 70D. Many times the animals at these places are being rehabilitated (after an injury, or rescued from someone who thought they could be pets) or can no longer survive in the wild on their own. A perfect example of this are birds of prey that have been rescued, bears, big cats, etc. If allowing photographers to pay a fee for a chance at photos helps to support this kind of work, then I support it 100%.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 16, 2015)

As others have said, there are a number of ethical considerations, and each person has to decide how they feel about going to these places.

One thing I don't think should be up for debate is honest captioning of your work. If it's a captive animal, that should be called out in the caption. If it's at a open area that attracts animals in some way, e.g., a watering hole in dry area or as they do here in Florida, a gator infested swamp with nice trees, you should label where the photo was taken.

The people that routinely post (on 500px, Flickr) photos of Snow Leopards up close (from Wyoming) or Lynx and Elephants, etc. (from the park in Spain) and don't label their photos as such really irritate me. It's still a spectacular photo, but the viewer deserves to know it wasn't shot in the Himalaya, high Alps, or Serengeti.

The North American Nature Photography Association (NANPA) requires its members to comply with something they call Truth in Captioning.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 23, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> As others have said, there are a number of ethical considerations, and each person has to decide how they feel about going to these places.
> 
> One thing I don't think should be up for debate is honest captioning of your work. If it's a captive animal, that should be called out in the caption. If it's at a open area that attracts animals in some way, e.g., a watering hole in dry area or as they do here in Florida, a gator infested swamp with nice trees, you should label where the photo was taken.
> 
> ...



Agreed.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 23, 2015)

In the local birding community there is a big controversy going on about baiting owls. People will pay a lot to get Snowy Owl pictures, so "photography guides" take them to an area where the local birds have gotten used to handouts from the humans. They wait until the owl notices them, then release a live mouse for the owl to swoop down, capture, and eat.... all within a few feet of the photographers.... and of course, these pictures are passed off as snowy owls in the wild....


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 23, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> In the local birding community there is a big controversy going on about baiting owls. People will pay a lot to get Snowy Owl pictures, so "photography guides" take them to an area where the local birds have gotten used to handouts from the humans. They wait until the owl notices them, then release a live mouse for the owl to swoop down, capture, and eat.... all within a few feet of the photographers.... and of course, these pictures are passed off as snowy owls in the wild....


Some even use fishing poles and reel a mouse (dead, I hope) across the snow/ice to entice the owl...


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 23, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> As others have said, there are a number of ethical considerations, and each person has to decide how they feel about going to these places.
> 
> One thing I don't think should be up for debate is honest captioning of your work. If it's a captive animal, that should be called out in the caption. If it's at a open area that attracts animals in some way, e.g., a watering hole in dry area or as they do here in Florida, a gator infested swamp with nice trees, you should label where the photo was taken.
> 
> ...



+10

Thanks for posting this link. A year or two ago we had a similar debate here, I believe it centered on the famous "impossible" Peter Lik photo. There were several people who argued vehemently that a photo stands on its own, that its origin is irrelevant. They argued that aesthetic value was the only thing that mattered, and that origin, whether it was a composite, fauxtoshopped, etc, were irrelevant unless a person explicitly claimed the photo was a work of journalism or science. Bollocks to that!


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 23, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > In the local birding community there is a big controversy going on about baiting owls. People will pay a lot to get Snowy Owl pictures, so "photography guides" take them to an area where the local birds have gotten used to handouts from the humans. They wait until the owl notices them, then release a live mouse for the owl to swoop down, capture, and eat.... all within a few feet of the photographers.... and of course, these pictures are passed off as snowy owls in the wild....
> ...


I found out how well that works by accident. I was in the back yard playing with the cat... I had a catnip mouse on a fishing line and I would cast it and the cat would chase it. A barred owl took the catnip mouse.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 23, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Another scam to watch for: "owl nip" mislabeled as "cat nip!" Someone alert CNN!


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 23, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


That's too funny! Thanks, I needed that on a Monday morning


----------



## RGF (Feb 27, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > As others have said, there are a number of ethical considerations, and each person has to decide how they feel about going to these places.
> ...



Key question in my mind is what is claimed. If nothing is claimed and the viewer assumes something, then the viewer needs to own their own bias. One could say that by not labeling the photographer is leaving out critical information but how much labeling is required.

Game farm and zoo / wild park animals are clear. Their own food source is their handler. What about habituated animals - wild animals that come to our feeders? Should they be labeled?

In the end IMO the photographer should not lie but also the viewer should ask if the issue is important to them. If the picture is "art" or simply illustrative then it probably does not matter.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 27, 2015)

RGF said:


> Key question in my mind is what is claimed. If nothing is claimed and the viewer assumes something, then the viewer needs to own their own bias. One could say that by not labeling the photographer is leaving out critical information but how much labeling is required.
> 
> Game farm and zoo / wild park animals are clear. Their own food source is their handler. What about habituated animals - wild animals that come to our feeders? Should they be labeled?
> 
> In the end IMO the photographer should not lie but also the viewer should ask if the issue is important to them. If the picture is "art" or simply illustrative then it probably does not matter.


I think that "attracted" animals should be labelled as such, but there's more to it. If it's a simple portrait, then I don't think it matters much to the average viewer. Wildlife photographers may view it as cheating in terms of getting the shot, but the average person won't care. 

If the shot is of the animal's behavior, however, I think the ethics are much more serious. If you see action shots of a animal doing something really interesting and think it's a natural, wild animal behavior, when it's actually been trained or enticed that's not right. A wild wolf won't sit or stand on its hind legs, but a trained one will. If someone sees a wolf doing that and thinks it's a natural behavior, that is a distortion of the truth.

On some levels, it may seem innocent (say an exciting photo of a jumping tiger), but consider what Walt Disney did for lemmings. Me and just about everyone I know grew up believing that they all commit suicide by throwing themselves off cliffs. This is not true, it was staged and edited to appear that way (see here), but ask 100 people and I bet 95-99 of them would say that they commit suicide. There are many other examples of this kind of distortion and some of it has been very harmful to the animals that are depicted. Fiction can be bad enough (consider the number of sharks killed senselessly after Jaws came out), but when fiction is presented as the truth, it's far more damaging.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 27, 2015)

RGF said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for posting this link. A year or two ago we had a similar debate here, I believe it centered on the famous "impossible" Peter Lik photo. There were several people who argued vehemently that a photo stands on its own, that its origin is irrelevant. They argued that aesthetic value was the only thing that mattered, and that origin, whether it was a composite, fauxtoshopped, etc, were irrelevant unless a person explicitly claimed the photo was a work of journalism or science. Bollocks to that!
> ...





> viewer needs to own their own bias



It's more important that the photographer own her/his own bias: the photographer has access to information about the construction of the image that's simply not available to the viewer. While I agree that humans should be skeptical, critical and thoughtful about everything, not just photographs, it's better for the photographic community to label honestly than to expect _caveat videtor_ to rule. Otherwise we descend into a situation as has happened with Internet forums: you just assume it's all false unless proven otherwise.

An honestly labeled photograph will stand out in today's environment; the days of a presumed tacit agreement between photographer and viewer are going away.


----------



## candc (Feb 27, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> http://petapixel.com/2014/11/18/magical-wildlife-sanctuary-lets-photographers-get-within-arms-reach-giant-bears/#more-151505
> 
> I don't know if this article spured this thread or not.



that is a wildlife sanctuary not a game farm so the bears are wild but acclimated to humans.


----------



## RGF (Feb 27, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Key question in my mind is what is claimed. If nothing is claimed and the viewer assumes something, then the viewer needs to own their own bias. One could say that by not labeling the photographer is leaving out critical information but how much labeling is required.
> ...



If you label a show "wild life kingdom" or such, then you are claiming something. 

I tell people that I have been licked by a wolf, which is true, but also quickly add it was habituated and use to being around people. 

If a publisher / forum has rules about labeling then of course they need to be followed. If I show someone a picture of a xxx I let them enjoy it. If they ask, I tell the back story.

Game farms have a real use. I don't want 100s or 1000s of people out in the wilds stressing animals, perhaps causing them to abandon their young. No picture is worth the animal's life (or yours - but you can control the latter in most cases).

There is a fine line between game farms and animals that are free but are regularly feed/protected or baited. How do you honestly label the latter?


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 27, 2015)

RGF said:


> If a publisher / forum has rules about labeling then of course they need to be followed.


Forums which impose strict rules will lose traffic, unless all forums impose these rules. It's a perverse incentive.



> If they ask, I tell the back story.


Why do you wait for them to ask?



> I don't want 100s or 1000s of people out in the wilds stressing animals, perhaps causing them to abandon their young. No picture is worth the animal's life (or yours - but you can control the latter in most cases).


Absolutely agree with this statement, but not your conclusion. My conclusion is that photographers should neither stress wild animals nor fail to label their photographs. In general, photographers should not value their own photography over the health/safety/well-being of their subjects. For animals that are stressed by close proximity to humans, close-up photos should be taken by the scientists studying them, not by photographers.



> There is a fine line between game farms and animals that are free but are regularly feed/protected or baited. How do you honestly label the latter?



Label: "Photo of habituated grizzly bear near xxx river in Alaska."


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 27, 2015)

RGF said:


> Game farms have a real use. I don't want 100s or 1000s of people out in the wilds stressing animals, perhaps causing them to abandon their young. No picture is worth the animal's life (or yours - but you can control the latter in most cases).
> 
> There is a fine line between game farms and animals that are free but are regularly feed/protected or baited. How do you honestly label the latter?


I agree and unless they are abusing the animals, its gives far more people the opportunity to see/photograph animals than would be possible or responsible to do in the wild. It's the captioning that is important, at least to me. I don't think people would think any less of a photo if they knew it was at a game farm upfront, but I think they would be very disappointed if I tried to pass one off as wild and they found out I was lying.

The whole attractant thing is another matter. If it's a man-made watering hole or a bird feeder that supplements natural food and water sources, I don't think that's a huge deal, but if people use bait, or game calls, that's going too far, IMHO. It may take animals away from doing activities they need to survive, teach them to become dependent on humans, or in the case of large predators, teach them associate humans with food. Note, that is humans=food, not humans=creatures who feed us. 

Finally, if it were me, I would caption a photo of a bird, even if the feeder wasn't in the frame, something like "Blue jay visiting my backyard bird feeder".


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 27, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Game farms have a real use. I don't want 100s or 1000s of people out in the wilds stressing animals, perhaps causing them to abandon their young. No picture is worth the animal's life (or yours - but you can control the latter in most cases).
> ...



++Agree


----------



## Northstar (Feb 27, 2015)

awinphoto said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > This is the difference between a "WILDlife photographer and someone who takes pictures at the zoo.
> ...



The sad thing about your example is that images of wildlife have become such a basic commodity. Currently on Getty, if you search for a lion image, there are 17,701 results...and they are mostly fantastic shots. 

I'm not criticizing you or your comment, I'm just lamenting the fact that there's a lot of "been there done that" in photography now days as a result of the digital camera revolution.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 27, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Game farms have a real use. I don't want 100s or 1000s of people out in the wilds stressing animals, perhaps causing them to abandon their young. No picture is worth the animal's life (or yours - but you can control the latter in most cases).
> ...


Personally, I do not think that I have to explain that these chickadees have been baited into a spot where it is possible to take a reasonably close picture of them.....


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 27, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Personally, I do not think that I have to explain that these chickadees have been baited into a spot where it is possible to take a reasonably close picture of them.....



Nor do you have to apologize for tampering with their natural life cycle because neither the species nor the individuals are in appreciably greater danger, and there are plenty of them in the wild.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 27, 2015)

Northstar said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



Couldn't agree more. The digital camera revolution changed everything, many good changed, many very bad changes... A lot of bad changes for the working photographers, especially with the rise of millions of amateur photographers popping up that weren't there before, many with pocketbooks and equipment greater than the average working pro. That being said, agencies and business's aren't helping either... It's all about cheaper, quicker, faster... Much like newspapers firing their pro photographers because of the plethora of other cheaper or in some cases free photos being submitted to them from their stories... Istock and getty are great resources, but in some instances, but depending on usage, licensing CAN become issue, and if they have in house photographers, if they can get the same shot, fraction of the price, most will go that route... Sucks, but it's the photography business as we know it.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 27, 2015)

awinphoto said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...


This is why wildlife (and landscape) photography is 99% hobby, 1% sales for me. I get the occasional print sale, but I rely on the work that amateurs can't easily do to make money.


----------



## RGF (Feb 27, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Northstar said:
> ...



Of the 17,701 lion shots, the ones that are "ugly" with scares, with flies, etc are shot in the wild. Zoo, wild animal park animals are pristine, much more attractive.

On a similar vein, if the chef at a fancy restaurant used prepared food would he / she be cheating. How close to the basic ingredients do they need to get? Can they buy a sauce, a desert?


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 14, 2015)

Here's a good example of an excellent photo that would be very difficult to get in the wild - but in this case, the photographer captioned the photo truthfully. It's no less of a photo, but it helps us understand how the photographer got so close without disturbing the bird and alerts us that this may or may not be natural behavior that would be seen in the wild.

National Geo's Photo of the Day:
Top Shot: Air Dry


----------



## RGF (Mar 16, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Here's a good example of an excellent photo that would be very difficult to get in the wild - but in this case, the photographer captioned the photo truthfully. It's no less of a photo, but it helps us understand how the photographer got so close without disturbing the bird and alerts us that this may or may not be natural behavior that would be seen in the wild.
> 
> National Geo's Photo of the Day:
> Top Shot: Air Dry



Behavior is totally natural. Only how close the photographer was able to get to the eagle was different.

BTW - remember the Dove advertisement for supermodel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4tOPheG8g0). Show pictures like these be label as not "real women". Food photography is similar - how often does a home cooked meal look as good as the package.

Why require wildlife photographs to be labeled and all the other "fake" pictures not to be?


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 16, 2015)

RGF said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a good example of an excellent photo that would be very difficult to get in the wild - but in this case, the photographer captioned the photo truthfully. It's no less of a photo, but it helps us understand how the photographer got so close without disturbing the bird and alerts us that this may or may not be natural behavior that would be seen in the wild.
> ...


I'm not saying it isn't natural behavior, just that you can question it - some behavior I've seen in zoo photos would never happen in the wild. Also, you're right, fake photography is everywhere (and yes, very disappointing at the fast food restaurants!). I'm not saying anything is required, but I think it says more about the photographer when they are honest about the circumstances surrounding their work.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 16, 2015)

I had a reservation for the photo tour at Northwest Trek, a Wildlife Park near Tacoma last summer but never made it. My son and his smart phone went, but photos were as you might expect. He had his tram break down, and saw few animals.

Its a park owned by The city of Tacoma, they also own a conventional Zoo.

I think it would be fun, but I'm not interested in selling photos, just taking them for my own use.

https://www.nwtrek.org/events/?cid=1363


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 16, 2015)

RGF said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a good example of an excellent photo that would be very difficult to get in the wild - but in this case, the photographer captioned the photo truthfully. It's no less of a photo, but it helps us understand how the photographer got so close without disturbing the bird and alerts us that this may or may not be natural behavior that would be seen in the wild.
> ...



Because it is a requirement when you submit your image to National Geographic;

"CAPTION: We insist on truth in captioning and expect full disclosure in the story behind the photo. The description should be complete and accurate. Not only does this establish trust and lend greater credibility to your photo, but it also increases the engagement of the viewer."

http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/photo-guidelines/


----------



## RGF (Mar 19, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



So NG requires that captive animals be labeled as such, but what about all the fancy tricks and $100,000s of specialized equipment, travel, etc that their photographers use. If an NG photo got a pix of a lion use a ground drone (perhaps costing $10,000 or more in order to survive a lion attack) that they had special license to use, which us mere mortals can not get (the special license), why isn't that labelled?

If you talking about honesty in photography, let's require everything to be disclosed.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Apr 19, 2015)

I am an avid zoo photographer for over 20 years, a former zoo docent over 10 years, and an author and photographer of a zoo book (Zoos of the Southwest, 2014). Here are my thoughts.

The original post is comparing (as an honest question) two very different types of facilities: a commercial game farm (DDD) and an accredited wildlife park (San Diego Safari Park). Unless you are in the tiny minority who are opposed to ALL captive wildlife, I think most would agree that places like SD Safari Park are beneficial. They coordinate breeding programs for endangered species, adhere to high standards of care, and contribute both staff and finances to protect animals in the wild. I have photographed at many such facilities, mostly as a regular visitor but occasionally on a special photo program. I feel good about supporting facilities such as this (Northwest Trek mentioned earlier is another excellent example).

A commercial game farm (as far as I know) has animals that are not pedigreed or part of professional breeding programs. They do not contribute staff time or resources to any conservation programs. They are a business, pure and simple. That does not automatically make them bad, per se, if the animals are well cared for. In fact I think the training may make their lives more interesting than many of their zoo counterparts. Still, if you like the idea of your animal photography supporting conservation, you may want to steer away from these places and go for places like the Safari Park.

I will not discuss the captioning issue, as I think we more or less agree. I also think a good case was already made about the service captive facilities serve in relieving pressure from the wild (both casual visitors and photographers).

As for those who prefer their animal photographs strictly in the wild, that is fine if you are content photographing deer and birds. If you want a photo like this recent one of a snow leopard (from Zoo Zurich), good luck. You could buy the most expensive telephoto made, spend months in a hide in Kashmir or wherever, and never get it. Some animals simply cannot be photographed well in the wild (and some not at all). There are some exciting new images (including snow leopards) coming from remote camera traps, but unless you are part of a recognized scientific study this is beyond your reach.


----------



## Click (Apr 19, 2015)

That's a lovely shot. 8)


----------



## kirispupis (Apr 27, 2015)

Not sure why there is really a debate on this.

I photograph animals both in zoos and in the wild. I like zoos. I like wildlife parks like the one near Tacoma. However, as a serious wildlife photographer I do not include any images taken of "non-wild" animals in my portfolio, nor do I submit them to contests that require animals to be wild.

When I photograph in zoos I mostly do so for practice. Often I'll get a cute shot, so I'll share the photo with a caption indicating I took it at a zoo. Very often I send the image to the zoo and offer them free use of it - since I appreciate the efforts zoos make toward conserving wildlife and I am glad to offer my photos if they can make use of them.

Photographing animals in the wild is considerably tougher. It requires great deals of time, a lot of learning about your target subjects, and a lot of perseverance. Often thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars in travel costs are necessary, not to mention equipment expenses. I photograph wildlife nearly every day of the year, and the majority of those days I come back with nothing special. However, during the few days where everything comes together it is a truly magical experience.

I do not have the drones and camera traps that many more dedicated wildlife photographers have, but I can certainly appreciate their efforts. Wildlife photography is _difficult_ but is, in my opinion, the most rewarding type of photography when you succeed.

I feel that I am a very good wildlife photographer in skill, but I recognize that the very best wildlife photographers spend far more time and budget than I do, and I have no qualms in giving them their due for their efforts. I do not whine and complain that my photo of a jaguar taken at a zoo should equally as someone's photo who spent thousands to travel to the Pantanal, then waited days for that perfect pose.


----------

