Whilst trying to fill a few holes in my brown bear coverage last week, I pondered on how quickly the contemporary nature photography community tires of a particular subject or location. 10 years ago this shot (or any shot of a European bear) would have caused a stir - today it's just...another bear (or gannet or squirrel or kite...).
What has changed is that time - more than money - has become a premium commodity. The result is that photographers (like me) put their cash on the table and are put in front of guaranteed subjects in return.
Great for nature tourism operators like those in Finland but does this have a downside? Paul Hobson's articles in this month's OP alludes to one potential problem but I think a more insidious threat is that of the subject becoming exactly that - just a subject.
Perhaps to avoid the inevitable groans about 'just another bear', we should be pushing ourselves more to not only find our own subjects but being more imaginative about how we portray them? Just a thought.
Hello Peter
I totaly agreed with what you are saying.I remember when we were going in Finland 15 years ago. The Hides were empty . Now, Everybody is doing it. The fact that "digital photography" make it easy for everyone does not help. My view is that everybody start to have the same pictures.Look at the hide of Matte Bence in Hongria. I am also on French forum and the number of French who went there this year is just incredible!! The picture of birds at the pool has been done to death....same with the bear mind. They are plenty of honey pot photographer out there. Pay, and you should get the pictures.....Actually, I know some photographers who ONLY do that kind of photography and probably would not know how to place peanuts in a peanuts feeder!! But hey, everyone is free to do what they want....But surely the rewards cannot be the same.The feel good factor I have when I photograph one of "my" water rail,or one of "my" hare,or one of "my" fox will be greater then to photograph a bear in a pay, point and shoot hide....I am sure of that.
Best wishes everyone
Its funny though how the more unsual shots are perceived on this forum,I don't think they get the credit they deserve whilst the honey pot shots get the praise and attention,it used to be time and fieldwork to get the shot now its the dollar/pound/euro that gets the shot,completely agree with you!
"Its funny though how the more unsual shots are perceived on this forum,I don't think they get the credit they deserve whilst the honey pot shots get the praise and attention,it used to be time and fieldwork to get the shot now its the dollar/pound/euro that gets the shot,completely agree with you!"
I totaly agreed with you too Craig
Best wishes
Frederic
'Fast' culture Pete. Yes, time is a scarce commodity in modern society.
Fast food at McDonalds, Quick, safe, easy, comfortable.
Fast photo's at a Honeypot, Quick, safe, easy, comfortable (in varying measures).
The same cultural conditioning comes into play for both things. Modern society programs it's members for a quick fix, and it gets even worse by the year... now blogs are too slow with things like facebook & twitter taking over.
Not getting at you or your shot in particular here Pete, but unfortunately the shot is becoming commodetised too, and too familiar to us. Bear peering round trunk.. substitute wildcat, owl, etc - the shots are similar & we've seen it/them before. The viewer starts to become indifferent to the image, and the subject. It happens with a lot of subjects and images. Familiarity breeds contempt. I don't look at Osprey images and think 'wow' any longer, I don't look at Sea-Eagle images and think 'wow' any longer. Irrespective of the skill or time taken on them, they're too familiar now. Some of the few images I do look at and think 'wow' of these days are of the macro world - it's less familiar and that sense of wonder & intrigue can still be fired up.
Fine enough shot Pete, but you can do better... just gotta work out where, what & how . No real critique on this shot, other than a cloning of the couple of flies/midges at the top of the frame, and I'd like to see what it looks like with the RHS cropped in to use the far trunk as a frame edging.
Nice shot Pete.
Couldn't agree more. You know this is quite an interesting topic and it is one that crops up in many areas apart from photography. I am a keen angler and over the years, different methods of fishing have made fish easier to catch, but guess what - the best anglers still do best. I think that is probably true of nature (whoops - nearly wrote wildlife there!) photography. I have seen some great shots of brown bears and many other once exotic subjects on here, but once the guy with the vision has posted it or had it published it becomes the next must-have shot.
How many of us say to ourselves (me included) " next year I am going to get the rutting stag roaring against the light" or the "puffin coming in with a beak-full of sandeels". For some that is all they want, they collect cliche shots, for others they are a step on the road to good camera control and enabling them to get what they really want. True artists already have their own vision and it is something that others haven't seen. I know which one I would like to be, but unfortunately you are either born with an artistic eye or you aren't. Making these species available to everyone with the cash doesn't stop the truly innovative photographer coming up with something different, but I would agree that it not always appreciated for what it is. 'New' shots aren't always great either, so I would expect more of them to be disliked or under-appreciated anyway after all cliche become cliches because they are essentially true or nice.
Perhaps one answer is to turn inward and start appreciating what we have here that nobody bothers with much. You don't see many innovative shots of sparrows, starlings, woodpigeons, rats or rabbits; perhaps that is because they would require some application rather than just handing over the cash. Whatever you want to get from your photography, as long as you are happy with it and your subject isn't suffering because of you, I guess it doesn't matter.
Sorry to waffle, I get (should be) carried away.
Some very good points raised on this one.
Like Frederic has said, if I do a bird or anything, and have done all the work of setting things up, building hides, pools etc then its mine and no body can take that away.That's one reason why no one else uses my pool hides. Sounds selfish but it would take away the uniquness of my own stuff.
I could make money by hiring out three hides in my garden but what's the point.?
If any one comes hear they have to set things up their own way. (I even hide my perches ! )
JohnR
The first thing to establish is the reason for taking the shot. I'm not exactly sure what the "contemporary nature photography community" is. I have huge admiration for professionals who have to make a living from photography by supplying images that will please the vast majority of the public. At the same time, they make an invaluable contribution to the understanding and appreciation of natural history. I have no problem at all with the setups to which you refer, because they have a specific purpose. On the other hand, everyone takes photographs for personal enjoyment and challenge, perhaps to learn from others too (as in this forum). As an amateur, I have taken shots at other people’s setups and it has been hugely enjoyable at the time. But I rarely look at the images a few days later. I might occasionally show them to someone else, but I usually get a slight twinge of guilt in doing so, because I don’t have the same sense of attachment to them in the way I do to “my own” shots, such as the slightly imperfect osprey shots, the blue tits etc. There’s a place for both approaches. I know full well that this isn’t the only approach and that a huge amount of planning and personal resources go into getting the shots that you really hope will impress your photographic peers. I don’t doubt that there is huge enjoyment in what you do.
It analogous to woodwork, another of my hobbies. I went to classes and, one night, spent forever lovingly planing a piece of mahogany into a work of art. My instructor came along and put the rest of the pieces through a planer machine and, with a broad smile, produced several others which were indistinguishable from mine in milliseconds! I expressed dissatisfaction in that the human touch was missing. He seemed not to fully understand initially, but later he came back to me to suggest that the more you get into your hobby/profession, the more the things you appreciate change. Now I am happy to use machines where appropriate. Cutting some corners opens up more avenues of enjoyment (such as design, finish etc). The same applies to photography – I look at the vast image galleries from time to time, the fantastic books in the shops etc and you guys should take immense pride in what you do. It wouldn’t be possible without some corner-cutting.
Keep it up please – for me and millions of others!
..... "Photographers of Wildlife" and "Wildlife Photographers".
IMO those that spend their time and patronage on honey spots and photo-tourism fall into the former; it should be noted that in this 'mode' no understanding of the subjects ecology and behaviour is needed to capture an image - unfortunately this is where quite a lot of issues occur. A 'Photographer of Wildlife' can be a destination by itself (as it is to many) or a stage on the way to a 'Wildlife Photographer'.
Those that spend their time and effort on creating, cultivating and capturing a wiildlife image fall into the latter, a Wildlife Photographer, as they must know the subjects ecology and behaviour to succeed, and also how to use light, composition and camera to produce an image that will leave an memory imprint in the recepient .
It all depends upon your ethics and aspirations and what you motivation is. That said either can produce a similar quality image at a hotspot.
As for the image subject becoming mundane. Well there have been plently of shots of Puffins but I keep seeing better ones as time passes; I see them because they are published hence I assume somebody got paid for it and in being published it brought whatever cause to the fore; both outcomes being good reasons to take the image. If you can make a good case/reason for more shots of Puffins then, within conservation boundaries, you can make a case of more shots of anything!
The only decision you have to make is; do you want to do it all yourself, or, pay for the work of another (hence a different experience) and potentially a produce a 'common' image for the setup is common and open to many.
FYIY, The best puffin shots I have seen recently have all been taken far from the Puffin hot spots and all in inclement weather.
T
PS I would love to do the 'Bears' but, as I have said to many, for the experience of seeing them rather than the photography; that said there is no way I would leave the camera behind for I could use these images to offet the trip cost.
I agree with almost everything which has been said so I don't want to waste time repeating much of the above other than to add to Craig's point that all too often common species that we are all familiar with, when photographed well, don't appear to get the appreciation they deserve.
I do travel a little from time to time to get a number of my images but you only have to look at John Robinson's work to see what can be done within a few miles radius of your home!
That said I accept many keen photographers lead very busy lives and do not have the time to work on pools and feeding stations and for them these 'honey pots' are a great source of enjoyment and relaxation.
To add to Tom's point "Photographers of Wildlife" and "Wildlife Photographers" I have always felt that the 'Wildlife Photographer of the Year' competition should be called 'Wildlife Photograph of the Year' as all too often the image has been taken at a 'paid for set-up' or a photographer has arrived at an overseas destination where all or much of the research has already been done for them.
Eric sums it up quite well when he said "Whatever you want to get from your photography, as long as you are happy with it and your subject isn't suffering because of you, I guess it doesn't matter".
I find the most interesting posts on here are the ones that have a little context to them. I can appreciate a nice picture but if there is nothing to indicate why it's interesting then it fails.
When you know why the photographer has wanted to produce a particular photograph, we get a little insight into what's going on and then everything opens up.
House Sparrows - everywhere. 90% decline in 30 years.
Flycatchers/Woodland Migrants - summer visitors. Have their interval between arrival and laying shortened by several weeks as an evolutionary response to our earlier springs and summers.
All of a sudden I want to know more about these ubiquitous species.
I was told that researching your subject is hugely important. It's true. But not just where to find it, how to compose it, what gear to use but the natural history of it and the little quirks that would then produce interesting images. Best of all, all this stuff is incredibly interesting and it is here that, at least, my interest lies. To me wildlife photography and biology (or being a naturalist or whatever) go hand in hand.
Good shot. I know it can be very difficult to get something different over there. It's a wonderful place and to see the bears in the wild is an experience I will never forget.
I think most on here would agree that this is a fine shot.
I agree with most of the points raised, and the ones I don't entirely agree with, I can understand.
Peter I think that the only folks who get tired of seeing the same subjects portrayed in nature books/magazines/forums like this, are nature photographers themselves, most of the viewing public can stand a lot more, because they are not embroiled in it in the same way as you are. Try seeing your photos as non photographers see them and you will soon realise that what you have is pretty special, however you got it.
Let the photo desk editors be the ones who decide on whether or not one type of shot is dead or not, after all it is their profession to know what the public are wanting, just as it is yours to go out and get what they want.
As to all this guff about knowing your subject and whether you are a wildlife photographer or photographer of wildlife, well to me it's pretty tedious.
Too many like to see themselves as the David Attenborough type who knows all there is to know about their subject, great, but don't let me burst their bubble by being the one to tell them he doesn't point the camera too. Most of the time it is done by those who know a lot less about the subject, but have a great eye for how to get the right shot.
Thanks for your interesting comments - all very valid.
John's point is one worthy of discussion. I hear and speak to lots of photographers who are critical of this or that shot, this or that project, this or that photographer. I patiently listen (usually) and then point out that nature photographers themselves are a very small (and it could be argued insignificant) sector of the audience. The largest audience as John says, is the wider public who know nothing and care not about where the image was taken. This to me is the audience we should all be exposing our work to (in whatever capacity) and using it to make them care just a little bit more than they did before they saw the image. It works - a global advertising industry proves it.
" Too many like to see themselves as the David Attenborough type who knows all there is to know about their subject, great, but don't let me burst their bubble by being the one to tell them he doesn't point the camera too. Most of the time it is done by those who know a lot less about the subject, but have a great eye for how to get the right shot".
Many of those cameramen/women do know their subjects extensively including those such as Jonathan Scott and Hugh Miles and Mitsauki Iwago etc.. They have studied there subjects for a good number of years and in one documentary Hugh Miles spent about 7 years filming just one cat to give us an intimate look into her life, later narrated by the great DA..
Behind every other cameraman/woman there is also a team of scientific researchers and field assistants that get them to their subjects in many of those 'Honey-pot' places like the great plains of Kenya etc.. Without the knowledge and know-how of those researchers the camera people would be lost if they were just out to bag a picture..
So let it be known that good knowledge of your subject goes a long way to getting the great images portrayed in both film and stills photography media. Even some of the great photographers of today still rely on the knowledge and hard work of others so that they can turn up and take their pics..
I do not, for one moment, dismiss the fact that they are not operating the equipment, but share your knowledge with them, give them a camera and descent lens and over time they will produce all the goods and probably better because they spend more time with their subjects and get the very different images we all strive for..
I agree with Peter - Use your images to increase the knowledge and understanding of others in the hope that they will learn to gain a greater respect for the world around us. Sounds very cliche, but that little knowledge can go a long way.. Someone once helped me and now I have made a career out of studying wildlife and helping people to better understand it..
Discussion
15 repliesWhat has changed is that time - more than money - has become a premium commodity. The result is that photographers (like me) put their cash on the table and are put in front of guaranteed subjects in return.
Great for nature tourism operators like those in Finland but does this have a downside? Paul Hobson's articles in this month's OP alludes to one potential problem but I think a more insidious threat is that of the subject becoming exactly that - just a subject.
Perhaps to avoid the inevitable groans about 'just another bear', we should be pushing ourselves more to not only find our own subjects but being more imaginative about how we portray them? Just a thought.
Peter Cairns
www.northshots.com
Canon 1dIIn, 500mm, ISO250, hot hide.
I totaly agreed with what you are saying.I remember when we were going in Finland 15 years ago. The Hides were empty
Best wishes everyone
Frederic
www.fredericdesmette.com
Its funny though how the more unsual shots are perceived on this forum,I don't think they get the credit they deserve whilst the honey pot shots get the praise and attention,it used to be time and fieldwork to get the shot now its the dollar/pound/euro that gets the shot,completely agree with you!
Nice shot by the way!
Craig
www.craigchurchill.co.uk
I totaly agreed with you too Craig
Best wishes
Frederic
Fast food at McDonalds, Quick, safe, easy, comfortable.
Fast photo's at a Honeypot, Quick, safe, easy, comfortable (in varying measures).
The same cultural conditioning comes into play for both things. Modern society programs it's members for a quick fix, and it gets even worse by the year... now blogs are too slow with things like facebook & twitter taking over.
Not getting at you or your shot in particular here Pete, but unfortunately the shot is becoming commodetised too, and too familiar to us. Bear peering round trunk.. substitute wildcat, owl, etc - the shots are similar & we've seen it/them before. The viewer starts to become indifferent to the image, and the subject. It happens with a lot of subjects and images. Familiarity breeds contempt. I don't look at Osprey images and think 'wow' any longer, I don't look at Sea-Eagle images and think 'wow' any longer. Irrespective of the skill or time taken on them, they're too familiar now. Some of the few images I do look at and think 'wow' of these days are of the macro world - it's less familiar and that sense of wonder & intrigue can still be fired up.
Fine enough shot Pete, but you can do better... just gotta work out where, what & how
Couldn't agree more. You know this is quite an interesting topic and it is one that crops up in many areas apart from photography. I am a keen angler and over the years, different methods of fishing have made fish easier to catch, but guess what - the best anglers still do best. I think that is probably true of nature (whoops - nearly wrote wildlife there!) photography. I have seen some great shots of brown bears and many other once exotic subjects on here, but once the guy with the vision has posted it or had it published it becomes the next must-have shot.
How many of us say to ourselves (me included) " next year I am going to get the rutting stag roaring against the light" or the "puffin coming in with a beak-full of sandeels". For some that is all they want, they collect cliche shots, for others they are a step on the road to good camera control and enabling them to get what they really want. True artists already have their own vision and it is something that others haven't seen. I know which one I would like to be, but unfortunately you are either born with an artistic eye or you aren't. Making these species available to everyone with the cash doesn't stop the truly innovative photographer coming up with something different, but I would agree that it not always appreciated for what it is. 'New' shots aren't always great either, so I would expect more of them to be disliked or under-appreciated anyway after all cliche become cliches because they are essentially true or nice.
Perhaps one answer is to turn inward and start appreciating what we have here that nobody bothers with much. You don't see many innovative shots of sparrows, starlings, woodpigeons, rats or rabbits; perhaps that is because they would require some application rather than just handing over the cash. Whatever you want to get from your photography, as long as you are happy with it and your subject isn't suffering because of you, I guess it doesn't matter.
Sorry to waffle, I get (should be) carried away.
Like Frederic has said, if I do a bird or anything, and have done all the work of setting things up, building hides, pools etc then its mine and no body can take that away.That's one reason why no one else uses my pool hides. Sounds selfish but it would take away the uniquness of my own stuff.
I could make money by hiring out three hides in my garden but what's the point.?
If any one comes hear they have to set things up their own way. (I even hide my perches ! )
JohnR
The first thing to establish is the reason for taking the shot. I'm not exactly sure what the "contemporary nature photography community" is. I have huge admiration for professionals who have to make a living from photography by supplying images that will please the vast majority of the public. At the same time, they make an invaluable contribution to the understanding and appreciation of natural history. I have no problem at all with the setups to which you refer, because they have a specific purpose. On the other hand, everyone takes photographs for personal enjoyment and challenge, perhaps to learn from others too (as in this forum). As an amateur, I have taken shots at other people’s setups and it has been hugely enjoyable at the time. But I rarely look at the images a few days later. I might occasionally show them to someone else, but I usually get a slight twinge of guilt in doing so, because I don’t have the same sense of attachment to them in the way I do to “my own” shots, such as the slightly imperfect osprey shots, the blue tits etc. There’s a place for both approaches. I know full well that this isn’t the only approach and that a huge amount of planning and personal resources go into getting the shots that you really hope will impress your photographic peers. I don’t doubt that there is huge enjoyment in what you do.
It analogous to woodwork, another of my hobbies. I went to classes and, one night, spent forever lovingly planing a piece of mahogany into a work of art. My instructor came along and put the rest of the pieces through a planer machine and, with a broad smile, produced several others which were indistinguishable from mine in milliseconds! I expressed dissatisfaction in that the human touch was missing. He seemed not to fully understand initially, but later he came back to me to suggest that the more you get into your hobby/profession, the more the things you appreciate change. Now I am happy to use machines where appropriate. Cutting some corners opens up more avenues of enjoyment (such as design, finish etc). The same applies to photography – I look at the vast image galleries from time to time, the fantastic books in the shops etc and you guys should take immense pride in what you do. It wouldn’t be possible without some corner-cutting.
Keep it up please – for me and millions of others!
(by the way, the shot is really, really good!)
IMO those that spend their time and patronage on honey spots and photo-tourism fall into the former; it should be noted that in this 'mode' no understanding of the subjects ecology and behaviour is needed to capture an image - unfortunately this is where quite a lot of issues occur. A 'Photographer of Wildlife' can be a destination by itself (as it is to many) or a stage on the way to a 'Wildlife Photographer'.
Those that spend their time and effort on creating, cultivating and capturing a wiildlife image fall into the latter, a Wildlife Photographer, as they must know the subjects ecology and behaviour to succeed, and also how to use light, composition and camera to produce an image that will leave an memory imprint in the recepient .
It all depends upon your ethics and aspirations and what you motivation is. That said either can produce a similar quality image at a hotspot.
As for the image subject becoming mundane. Well there have been plently of shots of Puffins but I keep seeing better ones as time passes; I see them because they are published hence I assume somebody got paid for it and in being published it brought whatever cause to the fore; both outcomes being good reasons to take the image. If you can make a good case/reason for more shots of Puffins then, within conservation boundaries, you can make a case of more shots of anything!
The only decision you have to make is; do you want to do it all yourself, or, pay for the work of another (hence a different experience) and potentially a produce a 'common' image for the setup is common and open to many.
FYIY, The best puffin shots I have seen recently have all been taken far from the Puffin hot spots and all in inclement weather.
T
PS I would love to do the 'Bears' but, as I have said to many, for the experience of seeing them rather than the photography; that said there is no way I would leave the camera behind for I could use these images to offet the trip cost.
I agree with almost everything which has been said so I don't want to waste time repeating much of the above other than to add to Craig's point that all too often common species that we are all familiar with, when photographed well, don't appear to get the appreciation they deserve.
I do travel a little from time to time to get a number of my images but you only have to look at John Robinson's work to see what can be done within a few miles radius of your home!
That said I accept many keen photographers lead very busy lives and do not have the time to work on pools and feeding stations and for them these 'honey pots' are a great source of enjoyment and relaxation.
To add to Tom's point "Photographers of Wildlife" and "Wildlife Photographers" I have always felt that the 'Wildlife Photographer of the Year' competition should be called 'Wildlife Photograph of the Year' as all too often the image has been taken at a 'paid for set-up' or a photographer has arrived at an overseas destination where all or much of the research has already been done for them.
Eric sums it up quite well when he said "Whatever you want to get from your photography, as long as you are happy with it and your subject isn't suffering because of you, I guess it doesn't matter".
Nice image Pete!
David
When you know why the photographer has wanted to produce a particular photograph, we get a little insight into what's going on and then everything opens up.
House Sparrows - everywhere. 90% decline in 30 years.
Flycatchers/Woodland Migrants - summer visitors. Have their interval between arrival and laying shortened by several weeks as an evolutionary response to our earlier springs and summers.
All of a sudden I want to know more about these ubiquitous species.
I was told that researching your subject is hugely important. It's true. But not just where to find it, how to compose it, what gear to use but the natural history of it and the little quirks that would then produce interesting images. Best of all, all this stuff is incredibly interesting and it is here that, at least, my interest lies. To me wildlife photography and biology (or being a naturalist or whatever) go hand in hand.
Chris
Some good things said and an interesting read.
Edwin Kats
I agree with most of the points raised, and the ones I don't entirely agree with, I can understand.
Peter I think that the only folks who get tired of seeing the same subjects portrayed in nature books/magazines/forums like this, are nature photographers themselves, most of the viewing public can stand a lot more, because they are not embroiled in it in the same way as you are. Try seeing your photos as non photographers see them and you will soon realise that what you have is pretty special, however you got it.
Let the photo desk editors be the ones who decide on whether or not one type of shot is dead or not, after all it is their profession to know what the public are wanting, just as it is yours to go out and get what they want.
As to all this guff about knowing your subject and whether you are a wildlife photographer or photographer of wildlife, well to me it's pretty tedious.
Too many like to see themselves as the David Attenborough type who knows all there is to know about their subject, great, but don't let me burst their bubble by being the one to tell them he doesn't point the camera too. Most of the time it is done by those who know a lot less about the subject, but have a great eye for how to get the right shot.
Thanks for your interesting comments - all very valid.
John's point is one worthy of discussion. I hear and speak to lots of photographers who are critical of this or that shot, this or that project, this or that photographer. I patiently listen (usually) and then point out that nature photographers themselves are a very small (and it could be argued insignificant) sector of the audience. The largest audience as John says, is the wider public who know nothing and care not about where the image was taken. This to me is the audience we should all be exposing our work to (in whatever capacity) and using it to make them care just a little bit more than they did before they saw the image. It works - a global advertising industry proves it.
It's good to talk!
Pete
" Too many like to see themselves as the David Attenborough type who knows all there is to know about their subject, great, but don't let me burst their bubble by being the one to tell them he doesn't point the camera too. Most of the time it is done by those who know a lot less about the subject, but have a great eye for how to get the right shot".
Many of those cameramen/women do know their subjects extensively including those such as Jonathan Scott and Hugh Miles and Mitsauki Iwago etc.. They have studied there subjects for a good number of years and in one documentary Hugh Miles spent about 7 years filming just one cat to give us an intimate look into her life, later narrated by the great DA..
Behind every other cameraman/woman there is also a team of scientific researchers and field assistants that get them to their subjects in many of those 'Honey-pot' places like the great plains of Kenya etc.. Without the knowledge and know-how of those researchers the camera people would be lost if they were just out to bag a picture..
So let it be known that good knowledge of your subject goes a long way to getting the great images portrayed in both film and stills photography media. Even some of the great photographers of today still rely on the knowledge and hard work of others so that they can turn up and take their pics..
I do not, for one moment, dismiss the fact that they are not operating the equipment, but share your knowledge with them, give them a camera and descent lens and over time they will produce all the goods and probably better because they spend more time with their subjects and get the very different images we all strive for..
I agree with Peter - Use your images to increase the knowledge and understanding of others in the hope that they will learn to gain a greater respect for the world around us. Sounds very cliche, but that little knowledge can go a long way.. Someone once helped me and now I have made a career out of studying wildlife and helping people to better understand it..
A big sigh..
Brett