Avoid Bad Photography Ethics With Your Wildlife Shots!
.
Is that beautiful picture of a tiger really so beautiful?
Were you aware that there are animal farms across the world where ‘wild’ animal are bred specifically for wildlife photography?
Did you know that there are places across America and Europe where tigers, pumas, wolves and foxes are kept in small cages specifically to look ‘wild’ for a paying customer?
It happens all the time apparently to ‘get a great close up shot’ for a magazine or website – but is it infact just a lie?
Is the shot ‘perfect’ because it is of a beautiful animal regardless of where the animal was just 10 minutes before the image was created – or should the best shots only be of wild animals?
The Problem:
There has only really recently been a heavy discussion about this ‘canned’ photography since the winner of the BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2009 was proved to be a caged wolf that had been hired by the photographer and ‘made’ to jump the gate for the winning shot!
People were in uproar when it was discovered as it exposed the dark side of wildlife photography – and the lies of the photographer.
How many times he had made the wolf jump the gate to to get the right shot we will never know – but is the fact that he resorted to a captive animal good ethics anyway?
The Facts:
If you want to use caged animals for your photos that is your prerogative – and there are some really well maintained establishments that do this – but it really isn’t the way to get a ‘true picture of wildlife’ is it?
Knowing that the animals are caged – most of the time in sub-standard environments – should be enough to put nearly all true wildlife lovers off immediately. But as these places still exist, we know that people have been using them an awful lot of the time and all over the world.
How many photos have you thought were amazing – but will never know that they were filmed in a ‘set up’ location with a totally unwild animal? Shouldn’t these images be clearly marked when published?
Baited Scenes:
However, where do you stand on actual wild animals being lured in to a ‘shot’ with food? Basically leaving out food to attract the animals to exactly where you want them to be.
We do it all the time for our pleasure with bird feeders and certain reintroduced species – but does it infringe on ethical photography?
Should you sit around animal nests knowing that there are young inside – but potentially stressing the parents with your presence?
It all starts to get a bit confusing when you analyse the role a photographer plays in the landscape – as animals don’t just live where we see them – they live in the surrounding countryside, so you traipsing through it day after day to get a ‘good picture’ could actually be making different species move out of the area! And feeding them could actually attract even more to the area.
But surely all wildlife photography isn’t that bad?
Well I say: stick to footpaths - and get a camera with an excellent zoom!




