More about 'truthful' photographers...
In light of the previous discussions on the subject of full disclosure by both the media and by wildlife photographers I thought that you might be interested to read this article that was sent to me today.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/826116-incredible-pictures-of-big-cats-up-close
Shocking isn't it!! I was sent that very article today as well!
This is almost funny, he must have looked a long time for a Snow Leopard in Montana, and that "Snow Lion" is a pretty rare find, too. :) It makes you wonder why people think they can get away with this kind of nonsense.
It seems that at least the location is correct. There is a game preserve in Montana with these species.
Last edited by Axel Hildebrandt; 05-16-2010 at 02:43 PM.
Just amazing! And he probably got paid for the story! Geez!!
Although the photographer appears to play along with this, they may not be his words and he could be hugely embarassed. The source is "metro.co.uk" which seems to be a tabloid of some sort, and as we know these are not known for their truthfulness.
I don't know abouit the rest of you, but I would really like to see a "Montana Snow Leopard" :D
Dave
That would be quite a hike for the Snow Leopard. :)Originally Posted by Dave S
They posted the same article in other papers, too. I think it was the Telegraph or something like that.
This story and photos are about a real place in Montana where the big cats shown are allowed to roam free, and photographers are able to pay for the privilege of taking their photographs.
It's called Animals of Montana, Inc.
Here's a link to their web site: http://www.animalsofmontana.com/meet_animals.html
I just re-read the article verbatim, and there doesn't seem to be any inaccuracies at all.
These are not caged cats, they roam free and one must take to the field to find and photograph them.
Yes, it was posted in the Daily Telegraph as well.
Bill, I understand that the animals are taken out into the wild to be photographed but surely they are kept in captivity the rest of the time. I'm sure we'd know about it if there really were snow leopards (and lions) roaming about in Montata - it wouldn't be safe for hikers for a start...
Best,
Nicki
From their website:
Meet the Animals - You will not find better trained animal talent and such a large variety of species to shoot than at Animals of Montana. This is your chance to capture those cover shots that you would have had to travel and wait for in the wild day after day.
Not what i would call "very wild animals" as described in the article
Proves you can sell just about anything to the Brits :)
As per the bit I quoted from their website in my blog article...
Whole list of animals in there, Lions etc etc. So no taking to the field to find them. I'm not sure they let you just 'take to the field' when there are Lions about anyway :eek:Animals with Individual Rates for Single Sessions
Photo sessions are one hour long. These animals are trained to perform behavior-on-command. Additional time is pro-rated.
Individual Rate Species**:
Grizzly Bear. . . . . . . . . . . . . . $500/session
Only to the ones that don't know better. The smart ones caught on to this straight away, all three of us :D
This is turning into quite the Quibble Contest ... perhaps the Quibble Olympics. :D
The Telegraph, perhaps more respectable than the "Metro" site, thusly described the photographer's experience:
"He would wake up at 5.30am each day, trekking off mountain trails in search of snow leopards, wolves and black leopards.
A guide would stand by his side as he came face to face with some of nature's most dangerous animals and captured them in intimate detail."
"Trekking off mountain trails" sure sounds to me like "taking to the field."
The whole article is here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wil...with-lion.html
I have not photographed at this particular game farm but I have been to Triple D, not very far up the road. One winter, we photographed the Siberian (Amur) Tiger. He was indeed a caged "wild" animal. They transported him in a horse trailer into a one acre fenced enclosure. The fence was about four foot high and was electrified. The tiger could have jumped the fence with little effort. Furthermore, a handler was inside the enclosure with a rifle and another handler stood beside the photographers with a rifle.
The cat was allowed to roam free within the enclosure, he was not posed but he was indeed an animal kept in a cage most of the time.
Now lets look at the quote provided above. Yes, these game farms are near Glacier National Park and the mountains but we did no real hikin; except from the car to the enclosure. Snow leopards are best photographed during the winter. There is not light enough till around 9:30 in morning to get photos, at 5:30-the photographer would have been sound asleep at the game farm cabin.
I have been to Far East Russia (returning in a month for a five year assignment), the home of the Snow Leopards and Amur Tigers. They are exceedingly hard to get on film. I will spend a year in Primorski and Amur Region attempting to photograph them; this excursion is planned for 2011.
For any photographer to imply that these animals were photographed in the wild is dishonest. I agree the big animals from game farms are not posed but they are not wild. It (animal farms) is more challenging than zoo photography but not the same as shooting in the wild.
Richard Peters hit the nail on the head with this quote from the Animals of Montana website: "These animals are trained to perform behavior-on-command." Having a guide elicit desired behavior by offering food treats is not the same thing as having a guide by your side as you stalk wild animals. I haven't photographed at AOM, but I have at another game farm. At that operation, animals--including wolves and mountain lions--were shot outside of any enclosure, totally unrestrained. But the idea that animals imprinted on a handler from birth and trained to perform for treats are "wild" as long as they are photographed in a one-acre enclosure is just silly.
Doing photography at game farms is fun. it allows you to photograph species that you may never otherwise be able to BUT tell it like it is. I have been to Montana to Triple D many years ago photographing wolves and have a picture of me with a young wolf with its nose into my short lens. It definitely was fun but not the same as tracking the animals down in the wild in their own habitat. Always let it be known that these were "animal models"
Perhaps its just semantics, but I would submit that many of these animals are closer to being wild than to being tame. I've seen a handler attacked and bitten in the head by cougar, another photographer bowled over by a black bear and watched a wolf grab a $5K lens by the strap and drag it around an enclosure. I've also talked to a handler who had been partially hamstrung by a wolf the day before. These places make their customers sign release forms for a reason.
I agree that representing images of them as "wild and free" is deceptive, mainly because they are not free. As for the wild part.... I'm inclined to believe it.
I had earlier read about the montana park. Initially only a few "wild" life photographers knew about this and had their images from these places published in reputed magazines. I am surprised that this could be published in The Telegraph.
As far as Snow Leopards are concerned, it is very difficult to sight them in the wild. Steve Winter never got to see the snow leopards for his National Geographic story. He could capture images with his camera traps. Rajesh Bedi and Naresh Bedi had spent two winters filming snow leopards and were successful on the last day of their assignment. It is extremely tough.
I think publishing such stories and images from such game farms trivialises the hardships and planning that one undertakes to find a wild animal.
Cheers,
Sabyasachi
I spent three weeks this winter in Yellowstone; only saw wolves two times and only at a considerable distance. At Triple D, I can spend an hour less than 100 ft from a wolf. This is not what I term wild and free or even wild. Granted there is danger but just not the same as finding and filming animals in the wild. I spent a year in Far East Russia and never got close enough to get acceptable images of Red Fox-even though they were relatively common. At a game farm, I can get hundreds of images in an hour. In Russia, I walked hundreds of kilometers carrying equipment and sat hundreds of hours in a blind with intense cold or intense heat and intense bugs. At a game farm, I rise to eat breakfast at a decent hour, ride in a car to an enclosure, photograph a released animal for one hour then return to the comfort of my car then cabin to process my images. It is not even close to similar experience.
Last edited by john j. henderson; 05-20-2010 at 09:39 AM.
Not sure any animal that has "handler" can be considered wild. Anyone who attempted to "handle" a wild lion in Africa would end up as lunch sooner rather than later.
Tony Whitehead
Visit my blog at WildLight Photography for latest news and images.
I've been scratched by house cats, but that doesn't make them wild. It's true that game farm handlers get bites and scratches. It's true that a game farm cougar is quite capable of killing you. I was once warned to keep my chin down when posing for a photo with a cougar ("if he gets into your neck, you're dead"). But how would you arrange to have your photo taken with a cougar that isn't well trained? My understanding is that this particular cougar lived in the handler's house, with his kids, as a kitten. This animal performed routinely totally unrestrained, no fences of any kind. He if decided to run off, he could. But when a photo session is over, the handler gives the right command along with a piece of meet, and the cougar comes to be collared and leashed. Similarly, I've seen game farm lynxes leap into their cat carriers when told to do so at the end of a photo session, whereas many pet owners have a tough time getting their house cats into a carrier for a trip to the vet.
For someone who hasn't seen a game farm operation, it might be hard to believe how manageable the animals are. One of my favorite shoots involved lying in eight inches of fresh, untracked snow and having a wolf run repeatedly toward me for ground level shots with a 70-200 f2.8 on a full-frame camera. All it required was the handler to throw a piece of meat close by. Every couple of passes, we'd move a bit, so as to again have untracked snow for perfect photos. Again, this was in a totally unfenced field. These animals are highly trained. If they some times nip a handler, it only means that their training is not perfect, which is hardly the same thing as being wild.
Last edited by Cliff Beittel; 05-23-2010 at 09:08 AM.
Interesting responses to my post. Perhaps my definition of "wild" is different than yours. In each of the cases I mentioned, the animals behaved in a manner I interpreted as dangerous to the people in the enclosures with them.
My comments were not intended to describe the photgraphic experience as "in the wild", but to describe these habituated animals as "wild" in the sense that they are unpredictable. Whether or not a cougar or wolf has been raised in a home around people is immaterial to me - its still a cougar or a wolf and I will not let my guard down around it.
These and any other habituated animals may behave as expected for years, only to injure a person seemingly without provocation. The lady who lost her face to a chimpanzee and the woman who was killed by the Orca at SeaWorld are some of the most publicized examples.
I've worked at several game farms and my experience has been different at each. Jay Deist has a different philosophy than Troy Hyde and they're both different from Lee Greenly when it comes to working with and training their animals. I can assure you that each of them have animals they're less confident in than others, and they feel that way for a reason. Sometimes its the species (ask them about wolverines) and sometimes its the particular animal itself. To assume dangerous behavior is solely the result of suboptimal training is naive.
Every time you step in an enclosure, you increase your risk of injury. The risk may be mitigated by the animal's habituation to humans and the presence of other humans to around you to assist you. It may also be heightened in a sense due to the diminished working distance between you and the subject you achieve by working in this setting.
Ultimately I guess I believe I could end up just as injured or dead from a game farm animal as I could from a wild one in Yellowstone, Russia or Africa, but hey.. that's just me. :D
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
