Wildlife Gallery Guidelines Change

A reminder that a change in the posting guidelines has been implemented in the Wildlife Gallery. The gallery is for photos of Wildlife Only, photographs depicting baited or "CAPTIVE" animals are NOT accepted. As before, photos of domestic animals may be posted to the Man and Nature Gallery. The change was made in response to concerns of some members in consultation with the Wildlife Gallery Moderators and the Publisher. We hope that the change will raise the bar a little and make for a stronger Nature Photography Website.

I can not agree with this change. I do wish I had been contacted for my thoughts on this change. As it is time for my renewal of membership, I am going to have to give some thought to continuing my participation in NPN. How does this impact photos of feral animals such as the miss named wild horse of North America? I would like to see this change delayed to give time for more comments from members.

I also question this move and wonder why it was not brought up for members to discuss before a decision was made. I have seen many extremely good photos posted of animals taken at a zoo and have appreciated how difficult it is to take a good zoo photo. Will the next change be to remove all bird photos that are captive/rehab birds, or birds that were baited, taken at/near bird feeders or called in with recordings? Do we really want to start limiting the posting of photos on NPN at a time when NPN is trying to increase activity? It's not like there's a hundred photos posted in the Wildlife Gallery every week and we need to keep the volume down. Quite the opposite. As long as a photo is denoted as captive, as perhaps it should be in the title with a (c), then what's the harm???

Ditto. My reaction to this change was much like John's and Carol's. I understand the debate about "wild" vs "captive" but I think both previous posts have illustrated where the debate can become never ending.

I'm curious to know what problem this was trying to solve. As much as some members may have commented about the viability of captive posts, those of us who are in favour of seeing them (or even posting them), would have never said anything - one way or the other - because we weren't aware there was even a problem or a discussion taking place.

I know the debate can go on and on and on forever and no one will win, but I appreciate the chance to view (or share) really cool images of species like snow leopards or Siberian tigers, captive or not - as most of us will never have the privilege of seeing one in the wild.

As per Carol - I agree that images of captive animals should be CLEARLY marked or disclosed as such.

I also assume this applies ONLY to the wildlife gallery - and that photos of captive animals are still allowed in all other galleries (as appropriate)?

Thanks

I just checked out Karen's gallery. The fifth and sixth photos in her gallery are both of captive animals and both won Weekly Picks. I distinctly remember both of those photos and am glad she was able to post them.

Although I don't photograph wildlife, I also question this guideline change. NPN cannot afford to lose members due to what, in my mind, is an overly restrictive rule. I think that as long as the photographer/poster discloses the conditions (captive and/or baited) in their post, this should be sufficient.

NPN was designed and marketed as a place where photographers could post their work for critique and receive helpful ways to make their images better. That should be our guiding principle. So, I think we should see images and critique them for what they are, rather than from philosophical standpoint.

--P

I just checked out Karen's gallery. The fifth and sixth photos in her gallery are both of captive animals and both won Weekly Picks. I distinctly remember both of those photos and am glad she was able to post them.

Just to clarify, both of those images were posted in the Weekly Challenge Gallery, not Wildlife.

While I can't say that I disagree with this change, I think that NPN could still allow the posting of captive animals in the Man and Nature Gallery, not just domestic animals. As it is man that has placed the animals in such an environment, it would seem to me that this is that logical place for them to go. As others have said, there have been some very nice images of captive animals. On the other hand there have, also, been images of wildlife that clearly were the worse for wear due to their captivity. This is not the fault of the photographer but of the facility holding the animal. I can think of a number of possible exceptions (many would be judgment calls) but including them would make for an overly complicated guideline.

"Will the next change be to remove all bird photos that are captive/rehab birds, or birds that were baited, taken at/near bird feeders or called in with recordings"

I really hope so but I doubt it will happen!!

Personally I don't photograph captive animals or animal models and there are none, nada, zero on my website. It doesn't give me the satisfaction I get from shooting animals that are free roaming and therefore I would support this change BUT I am not really hardcore about it as long as people inform the viewers that the animals are captive which I believe they usually do. What irritates me more than allowing captive animal photos are the bird photos taken at setups where the photographer picks a spot where the light is perfect and the BG is clean (usually very OOF for the bokeh effect), sets up a faux perch often with color coordinated blooms to match the bird species they are photographing, sets out food and water and uses calls to attract the bird. Then when a bird flies in they get a perfect shot with no or few flaws. You don't even have to do it yourself as there are plenty of commercial ranches etc. where everything is set up for you if you want to fork over the bucks. I could set up my camera in one of these places and my elderly aunt, who knows nothing about photography, could sit comfortably in a shaded blind sipping iced tea until a bird appeared and then she could get her "cover" shot which she could take back home to show her friends who would be greatly impressed with her wonderful nature photography skills. I have been a photographer for over thirty years (news and journalism) and in recent years I have done only nature (mostly birds and animals) and I very rarely have gotten photos as "clean" and "perfect" as these type of photos. I would like to understand how anyone can get a sense of satisfaction or pride in taking these kind of photos. It is taking the easy way or the shortcut, nature photography on steroids so to speak.

So, I am fine with leaving wildlife as it is and continuing to allow captive animals but how about a MANDATORY DISCLOSURE policy for all bird (and other wildlife) photos taken by staging or setting up the shot. If a photographer can find a NATURAL site with great light and BG and a perch with red berries for cardinal shots thats great, that requires effort and work but staging and setups are a different story. Unless things have changed recently most prestigious contests don't allow manipulation by mans hand or photoshop so why should NPN? I haven't posted any photos in a long time and I have seriously considered letting my membership lapse but so far I haven't. Personally I consider this a major flaw with NPN and would like to see it addressed.

Thank you NPN, I applaud this change completely. Were talking about a Nature and Wildlife forum, where do captive animals fit in? If it's not wild - it's not wildlife, if it's not natural - it's not nature. No doubt, their are plenty of talented photographers making compelling captive animal images, but they in no way equal the spirit and accomplishment of those taken in the wild. The absolute best captive animal images miss out on everything wonderful about true wildlife. Moreover, their is no substitute for the experience nature photographers are rewarded with, by simply being in nature.

Of course, I can see where the well intentioned and accomplished photographers here may feel slighted if they feel shooting captives is their only opportunity. I would submit though, that Wild is all around us - a photo safari can take place anywhere...in your own backyard. Please consider: the animal trade and display industry is booming around the world - offering up their captives for a buck wherever they can make it ....the vile canned hunt killings are just the final exploitation of the animal...that's often preceded by seemingly wild animal photo-ops. Often, very often, these operations are masquerading as a conservation effort - when the truth is, most are driven purely by profit, with zero regard for the animal. Zoos have a purpose, I understand that, they offer an opportunity to see the great arc of species many would otherwise never witness. But these animals are not wild...most never were, and those that were captured in the wild and then caged have suffered the worst turn of events. The comical and entertaining Lion King play, along with the hilarious animated Madagascar movie, are playing out in real life...but it is not a belly laugh.

I am not a tree hugging activist, or overwrought sympathizer, hell, I was a professional hunter for 20 some years before cameras replaced my guns...and I really have nothing against images of captive animals. However, as a wildlife photographer who's passionate about preserving and depicting wild animals in their natural habitat, I see no place for captive and wild images to be mixed - as if they are even remotely similar. I understand that the demarcation between wild and captive can get a little fuzzy at times....and I'm cool with most all interpretations. I think the intent of this forum guideline change is to eliminate the most egregious forms of captivity....those that live behind chain-linked fences, in fake habitats, or are highly trained captive bred animals fluffed and paraded in front of photographers, like a wilderness version of 'project runway'.

Regards, and please ...keep the wild in wildlife.

James Blue

FWIW, I also disagree with the change. My very few wildlife postings have been about 50% or more zoo shots, and i think theyre fine in that gallery so long as 'captive' is made clear. As others have pointed out, the rule change will cut down participation--not a good thing.

A couple of people have indicated that they believe this change in policy will cut down participation. If your images are captive, you can still post them in Man and Nature. Help me understand why this will "cut down participation". It may cut down the entries in the Wildlife gallery, but not overall if folks just post them in a different gallery.

Keith, it is my understanding (and I may be wrong) that captive animals would not be allowed in the Man and Nature Gallery - Gary said that domestic animals may be posted in the Man and Nature Gallery. We are not talking about domestic animals here - these are wild animals (lions, tigers, bears, etc.) that are captive. It doesn't seem that captive wild animals will be welcome in any gallery, but perhaps this needs some clarification.

I don't post much (if ever) in the wildlife gallery but I would like to know if 'captive' includes the habituated, often fed by man animals in places such as Yellowstone and the Elk Refuge in Jackson Hole and other similar wildlife refuges. I also would like clarification on "urban" wildlife as many towns and cities have large populations of wildlife. Are they wild or domesticated? Thanks for the clarifications.

I'm so offended by NPN right now that I have to comment.
Not all captive animals are distressed! The photo that John Jeeveratnam posed of a captive lion looked very healthy and happy. If you want to see a very stressed out lion with cubs, take a look at NPNs Weekly Pic named "See My Baby."
That's right, if you take a great photo of a healthy happy captive lion you can't post it. If you take a photo from twenty yards of a very angry stressed out mother lion with cubs and feed everyone with some BS story about how you saved it from the hunters and you did it with the Montana Director of Audubon, you'll get the pic of the week.

The most natural photographs of wildlife come from animals that are habituated to humans because they are not distracted by people and will be more likely act natural around them. I don't really think we're talking about animals that have been mistreated. I believe there is a lot of people out there that have devoted there whole lives and life saving to rehabilitating the wildlife they love. So the fact NPN has included baiting, tells me they have decided to draw some ethical line. I think we can all agree that not all penned animals or batted animals are unethically treated or unethically photographed, but the fact is we can not tell ones have or have not, so it only makes sense to not allow them in the wildlife forum. Having said that, I think it's obvious in the picture "See My Baby" that NPN can not tell when the ethical boundary for photographing wildlife has been crossed either; this can only lead us to one solution " it would not be ethical to allow wildlife photographs in the NPN Wildlife Gallery!!!!!!!!"

As nature photographers, the welfare of our photographic subjects always deserves consideration. While “captives” make getting that superb shot much easier than trying the same in the wild, we would not be honest with ourselves if we did not acknowledge the exploitation aspect of such activity. The game farms make money, photo tour guides make money, and their patrons are afforded the opportunity of a convenient and well-orchestrated “wildlife model shoot” – all made possible by the enslavement of the wildlife subjects. I suspect that if the gates to their cages/pens were opened, few of those “wildlife models” would willingly stick around for the next shoot.

So for the purposes of this discussion, how do we define “captive”?

1. Certainly, animals confined in cages and pens fit the description.
2. Animals confined to fenced-in areas (natural habitat or not) and are under the direct daily care and control of humans for food and general welfare.

How about animals in a local/state/national park that are accustomed to the presence of humans, are subject to wildlife management policies but are otherwise free to roam and feed themselves in their natural habitat? I think this is where we make the transition to animals that can be considered wild.

So what if you have a shot from a game farm where you paid money to get that awesome photo of a captive animal, where do you post it? From this point forward, not in the NPN Wildlife Gallery.

How about a shot of an animal that is being temporarily held at a rehabilitation center that will be released when ready? Post it in the Wildlife Gallery with full disclosure. Paying money to those folks helping wildlife recover from injury is something we can feel good about and should publicize.

How about a photo from a zoo? Again, these are captive animals, even if the intent of the enslavement may be a noble one. Suggestion - save them for when we run our regular “Zoo Shots” theme in the Weekly Challenge gallery.

Man & Nature Gallery – not intended for shots of captive wildlife as defined above.

Got a boa constrictor or a parrot for a pet? Post photos of it in the POP Gallery.

How about photos of birds? These are addressed in the Avian Gallery guidelines, which are consistent with the Wildlife Gallery guidelines in regards to captives.

Regular evaluation of our Posting Guidelines and how they reflect on us is something we will always do. As NPN nature photographers, “nature” comes before “photographer” - we appreciate your help maintaining that distinction.

Harlan, I suspect we are not as far apart on this as you think.

Are we drawing an “ethical line”? In the case of wildlife enslavement for photographic profit, yes.

Do we depend on the honesty of the photographer that they have adhered to our guidelines? Indeed we do.

Do some post photos that are in conflict with our guidelines that we cannot readily discern that conflict? I think that happens on occassion.

Are there large grey areas between what is ethical and what is not? No doubt about it.

All we can do is set what we believe is an honorable/ethical tone and hope all follow in the same spirit. In that regard, I think the vast majority comply.

Thanks to all for your contribution to this discussion.

BTW, be sure to read Bill Silliker Archives (Instruction > Bill Silliker Archives). His views on wildlife photography and ethics are truly timeless.

Note - it appears Bill's camerahunter.com domain name has been acquired by someone selling camera accessories.

First, for those who feel animals in zoos are enslaved I have no comments for. I don't agree but this is not the place for this topic. However, I do not understand the rational for eliminating captive animal photographs. I agree they need to be IDed as such, no problem there. But why deny ourselves the chance to see photos of rare or seldom seen animals? I have posted photos of such animals as New Guinea singing dogs, red wolves, genets, Amur leopard and other creatures that most of us will never see in the wild. Judge the photos on their merit not their location. Are there any areas in North America where animals are not managed by some means or agency. Look how many photographers go to New Mexico to photograph wildfowl at a place that is, as I understand it, very managed and controlled by man. I would even volunteer to moderate a captive wildlife gallery if I knew how to manage it. I will renew my membership, as I have enjoyed being a member, but, I do hope this last change can be modified. I would even suggest allowing current members to be grandfathered in, allowing them to continue posting captive animal photos as this was allowed when they joined. I do believe this topic needs more input before changes are made.

I am back again!!! I prefer not to photograph captive animals or animal models but I don't care if others do so as long as they are prominently identified as captive/animal model/trained animal etc. If NPN is going to allow captive animals to be photographed, with proper disclosure, in the wildlife gallery then how about also mandating prominent disclosure of the use of set-ups, faux perches, prearranged lighting, clean BGs, baiting and calls in the avian gallery. Talk about UN nature photograhy!!! It is far easier and requires far less effort and skill, especially when everything but releasing the shutter is all set up and arranged for you, to get beautiful bird photos when you have nearly total control over the environment.

If NPN doesn't allow baiting of other animals then why is baiting of birds allowed. I know some people like to set up feeders and photograph birds in their backyards, personally I choose not to do that but If you want to do that fine but disclose the photos as baited. I fail to see how anyone who goes to a seminar or whatever where everything is set up for the perfect photo gets any satisfaction out of the pictures they get. I mean what have they done except pay their money, sit in a blind and release the shutter at the appropriate moment. If you work on your skills, spend time in the field and learn about your subjects you can get great photos without using set-ups, captive or rehabed birds or baiting. I really enjoy the time spent in the field searching for, finding (sometimes), photographing and learning about the animals. Personally I feel disclosure is important when I am deciding on the merits of the photo, how hard it was to get the photo and what comments to make. I guess it is needless to say at this point but set up shots carry zero weight with me.

I suspect baiting, setups etc.may be a sacred cow on this site since quite a few photographers here do it. I am not disparaging the skills of these photographers, some of whom are quite accomplished, but some of the pratices they employ and teach to others seem very loosely related to nature (as in not influenced or extremely minorly influenced by man) photography.

A lot of people may not appreciate my opinion but this has bugged me for quite awhile. I would like to hear what others think and what the moderators and Jim Erhardt have to say about it.

Thank you.

Another consideration that this new policy impacts: Many of us learned to shoot wildlife by going to zoos and game parks to improve our skills. In the past, when the posting of these images was allowed, we could get feedback from the membership to better hone skills for those times we get into the wild to make images. I really hate to lose out on the opportunity to learn from others. I don't think waiting for the zoo shot weekly challenge is much of an answer.

I have to echo Preston's feelings about NPN's mission and would hate to see it become a place where a few people's philosophical stances adversely impact the overall experience for many of its members. Too late now, but I do wish this issue had been handled in a more open manner through the discussion forums.

My thoughts are pretty much the same as Preston Birdwell's on this issue (although I do photograph wildlife)

I completely agree with the change. Too many people don't disclose the fact the the subject is captive (sometimes they do so only after someone asks).
I don't think that a bird at a feeder can be considered as cative, but in general I prefer if the poster tells that the photo was taken at a feeder.
Daniel

Just as an FYI, I searched the following words/phrases in the wildlife gallery;

zoo
captive
game farm

Out of 2,870 photos currently listed in the gallery, there were a total of 58 photos for all three searches combined.

I'd like to propose that the Man & Nature Gallery be expanded to include wildlife that due to man and his activities has been placed in a captive environment. I really would hate to see a body of photos be eliminated because we couldn't find a place for them. This gallery would be a natural and allow members to post those kinds of photos. I, personally, have enjoyed many photos of this type but have been less than enthusiastic about others. But that has been true of other galleries as well.

Just a little house keeping note: The word " Animals" includes birds, herps, reptiles, creepy crawlies, fish, invertebrates and others. Too often the word animals is used to denote mammals only. While I am at it most animals in zoos are not "domesticated". Domestic animals are those whose breeding and use has been altered, developed, modified, to suit man. Feral animals are domestic animals that have returned to a wild or wild like life style. Sorry to lecture if that is what it seems.

I’ve stayed out of this discussion until now mostly because I felt I’ve covered this topic many times in the past.

Captive and Baited Subjects in Wildlife Gallery

I believe that wildlife photos should be of wild subjects, and that nature photos should be natural. So, I’m in favor of the rules change for the Wildlife Gallery. I don’t think that captive subjects have any place in a Wildlife Gallery. Nor do I think that baited subjects belong there, either.

What About Avian?

"Will the next change be to remove all bird photos that are captive/rehab birds, or birds that were baited, taken at/near bird feeders or called in with recordings"

I really hope so but I doubt it will happen!!

- Robert Bunch

I’d also like to see this change applied to the Avian Gallery.

Robert supports his position well and expresses my feelings on the topic.

What Is Nature Photography?

I can appreciate the quality results that one can obtain with a carefully controlled set-up (an outdoor “Studio” in many ways), but I don’t think this style of photography shares all that much in common with what I see as actual nature photography.

There’s a different set of skills involved in avian set-ups: find or modify a perch; put the perch where it will be illuminated by nice light; place the camera where it frames the perch and interchangeable avian subject against a clean non-distracting background; lure the subject to the provided perch with carefully placed food or water or playback of its call from an iPod or iPhone. A number of people are very good at this, and anyone who wants hands-on training in How To Do It can sign up for a variety of workshops or purchase ebooks covering it.

Like Robert, I much prefer to be out somewhere searching for subjects and using my “field” skills to get close to them. I need to know where to look if I’m going to have any hope of coming home with any usable images. I have to know something about the habitat preferences of my subjects. I need to understand their behavior so I can anticipate their actions. I need to have the patience to find a subject and stay with it hoping it will move into a suitable spot for a photo (light and background). Finally, I need to have the equipment knowledge to get focused on my subject with ISO, aperture, and shutter speed set appropriately for the situation.

This is a topic I’ve written about many times before at NPN. A good example is this thread from 2008: What do Nature Photographers Have Against Nature?

What Next?

As many have pointed out there are gray areas in any classification we use. Complete disclosure about the circumstances of how an image was created can go a long way to dealing with any tricky labels. Tolerance from others always helps in such situations.

And what about the people who still want to shoot and post and discuss photos of captive, zoo, baited, etc. subjects? Perhaps it is time to create a new Gallery just for them as John Tobias has suggested.

Robert Bunch, you requested moderators to reply to your posts. First of all it is required for avian (bird) photographers to disclose if a shot has been baited (either with food or called in) and shots of birds with live bait are prohibited. I find your statement that quite a photographers (I assume you mean in the avian gallery) a bit odd because when I look at the avian gallery I just don't see many images that I think are the product of baiting or setups anymore. Just look at the last few pages of the avian gallery and tell me how many you think were setups. I think most of the bird photographers who do a lot of that kind of work have moved on to other sites where they feel their work is more welcomed at this point. As far as setups there is no requirement that you disclose a setup (perch) but the fact that you are supposed to disclose baiting or calling a bird would include most setups I think. I don't have a problem with it being added to the guidelines that if you set up a perch you have to disclose it. Certainly there are always going to be photographers who aren't going to disclose baiting or something else that is required either because they aren't paying attention to the guidelines or they simply don't want to. We can't control that.

As far as to the reason for baiting being allowed in avian and not in wildlife, I believe the primary reason it is not allowed in the wildlife forum, is that baiting of mammals in particular can be quite dangerous to both the humans doing the baiting and to the animals involved. Predators in particular can become very dangerous and once they associate humans with food often have to be killed because they have become dangerous to humans. With birds there isn't the same concern. Also people feeding birds for their own enjoyment is very common. Why shouldn't they also be able to photograph those birds and post them for critique and evaluation as well as to share the images? I think they should be able to.

As far as nature photography contests etc I don't think you are correct when you say that most contests do not allow baited or setup images. For example the BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year (probably the most prestigious wildlife photography contest) allows baited, but not live baited images. Like the NPN avian gallery you are required to disclose if bait was used. The NANPA photo contest doesn't have any prohibition against baiting, but it does prohibit images of animals or birds from for profit game farms. I just competed in the Coastal Bend Wildlife Photography Contest in Texas. Each photographer is assigned a ranch that they can photograph on for 3 months. It's a large contest with a fair amount of prize money involved. In this contest you are allowed to bait and set up images and you are also allowed to catch reptiles, amphibians and insects and place them (set them up for photography). National Geographic's yearly nature photography contest picked former NPN member Ashley Vincent's image of a captive tiger photographed shaking as it's grand prize winner in it's contest. These are a few examples, they include all the contests that I regularly enter.

I would also disagree with your contention that your elderly aunt who knows nothing about photography would come away with "cover shots" that would rival the images that you or I would take on the same setups. Yes, I agree setups like the Texas photography ranches or the hummingbird photography we do on our Ecuador tours make it easier to take beautiful images. BUT what I find when I work with photographers on workshops and photo tours is that even at the setups the better photographers come away with the better images for the most part. The reason is that even in a set up situation you still have to compose the image correctly, choose the correct iso, aperture, shutter speed etc, keep the camera steady. It's also a good environment for learning and improving as you get a lot of opportunities in a short period of time. That being said, the majority of the photography on our tours and workshops is not set up so my students are exposed to both types of bird photography.

The Texas photo ranches provide a great deal of habitat for wildlife and birds just as public parks and government refuges provide habitat for wildlife. We could argue whether or not there should be habitat management at all. But I don't think we would argue about whether or not these areas increase the amount of wildlife in those areas - whether it's a large photo ranch in Texas, or for example Bosque del Apache Refuge or the Gilbert Water Ranch.

The fact that you bring up your elderly aunt leads me to another point, fairly regularly I have elderly or disabled photographers come on our photo tours and workshops. One gentlemen who is 85 years old and has been photographing wildlife for 40+ years has been on 3 of our Ecuador tours. He can't move around well enough or see well enough to chase birds through the bushes at this point in his life, but he enjoys greatly photographing these birds up close and his next trip to do so is part of what keeps him going. I would also say why shouldn't he be able to share his photos on a critique site if he wants - I think he has earned that right.

In my posts on NPN I disclose the situation of each shot and I encourage other members to do the same. In my own bird photography more than half of it is done without any baiting or setups and in general I prefer this type of photography but I do also enjoy sitting in a photo blind at a Texas ranch where I know there is going to be a lot of activity and sometimes setting up shots there or setting up the hummingbird photography flash studios on our Ecuador trips.

To conclude as I said I agree with Preston's statement that we shouldn't be overly restrictive as to what photographers are allowed to post. Preston said "NPN was designed and marketed as a place where photographers could post their work for critique and receive helpful ways to make their images better. That should be our guiding principle. So, I think we should see images and critique them for what they are, rather than from philosophical standpoint." If as you and Richard suggested we become more restrictive as to what can be posted in avian we will have less participation than we currently have and participation has been going down for a while. Different photographers are going to have different opinions about what constitutes nature photography (as can partially be seen above by what is allowed in different nature photography contests) and we should be fairly tolerant of others opinions of what constitutes nature photography.

FYI - 15 of the last 100 posts to wildlife have been captive subjects. Those images, (while many can be attributed to 1 individual) have been contributed by 5 photographers.

It is a very recent trend, normally there are not a lot of captive shots in that gallery, but in the last month captive posts have suddenly been significant.

I'm still rather unclear about "what problem is this change trying to solve". If it's about the exploitative nature of for-profit game farms, then maybe the restriction should be only to game farm photos? Or should it? Not all game farms are created equal, but do the responsible ones get banned due to less responsible ones?

I also don't understand how zoos were included (or rather, excluded) but only from the wildlife gallery?

With these new guidelines, I can go to the Calgary zoo - see the penguins and (since that's avian) I can post an image if I choose. Walk 30 yards down the path to elk and deer - oops, can't post. Walk another 50 feet - hawks. Oh yes, that's avian too, it's OK to post. 10 feet more, porcupine - nope. Continuing through the "Canadian Wilds" I will find whooping cranes (with a breeding program used to supplement wild populations), sand hill cranes and bald eagles, all eligible for avian posts. I will also find wolves, moose and caribou - none of them eligible for posting anymore. Then there's the Vancouver Island marmots (one of Canada's most endangered species) also being bred and reintroduced into wild populations, well can't post those.

Expanding my journey around the grounds... Flamingos and the Eurasian ducks (kept in a pond that is completely fenced so they don't fly away) - yep, avian - good. 30 feet one direction are the red pandas, 50 yards in the other direction are gorillas - can't post. Going through the conservatory - there are burrowing owls, butterflies and flowers. Indoors, and certainly captive - but good to post in avian, macro or flora.

The different standards across the galleries simply strikes me as odd. Makes me wonder where the line between ethics and politics lies.

I think there has been some really good feedback in this thread. I see some members prefer to exclude captive shots, others would prefer to include them. Clearly there are differing opinions about what is "nature" photography. I see a lot of really good points about the fact this is a non-political site to post images for critique and learn from. I see how valuable it is for to maintain a variety of opportunities for photographers with different skill-levels, or limited mobility levels, and how this type of restriction might impact on them, particularly if expanded to other galleries.

Finally, I really wish this discussion had been allowed AS PART OF the process/solution, rather than after-the-fact venting. There are many valuable considerations that I'm not sure were taken into account.

Nate Chappell,

I will attempt to address all of your points.

I looked at some recent posts on NPN and I will concede that I haven’t seen to many identified set ups and only a few that were questionable. It’s also true that there would really be no way to know for sure whether a set up is being used. I have been a member of NPN for nine years and my participation has waxed and waned and recently I haven’t been visiting regularly. I haven’t kept statistics on the subject of set ups but I know that in the past I have seen enough to get my attention. There are a couple of other nature photo websites that are way worse than NPN when it comes to baiting, calling, setups etc. as well as super use of the cloning, blurring and other features in Photoshop but I probably shouldn’t mention them by name. As to disclosure of baiting and set ups this was all I could find. Perhaps I overlooked or misinterpreted something:

“If the image is from a game farm, zoo or any other controlled (non-wild) situation, you must state so in your post!”

Maybe controlled situations includes set ups but my interpretation is that birds coming to a set up are actually wild birds and not wild as per “controlled (non wild) situations.”

“Photos of captive birds must be stated as such”

Nothing about baiting or set ups here.

Moving right along here!

I am not suggesting people should not be allowed to photograph birds at their feeders and post them for critique. If people want to put bird feeders in their backyards and shoot photos of the visitors that’s fine with me. I am just saying it is a step down from natural behavior. I choose not to do it because to me it is influencing or manipulating the subject and I prefer to refrain from that since I think nature photographers should document natural behavior. Feeding birds to induce them to come to a set up where everything is staged to be absolutely perfect is about as far from natural as you can get.

I will concede your point on the contests but I feel it is also possible that they have “evolved” over time and maybe loosened the rules a bit. I entered the Nature conservancy contest last year and other than that I haven’t entered any contests in a long time so I am probably wrong

Sorry but I disagree with you about my aunts photographic capabilities. If she is sitting in a blind in front of a nice perch and BG with sweet light coming from just the right angle, prefocused on the perch using a five frames per second motor drive camera on a tripod she is going to get some good shots. She is a fast learner! As for exposure, ISO etc. she could ask the tour leader what settings he recommends, after all that is why you guys get the big bucks. Now she is all set. When a bird lands and she puts the hammer down she is gonna get some nice shots of that painted bunting sitting on a flowery perch and they will be better than any painted bunting shots that I have. Yeah, she probably won’t have shots as good as you will get but she will have some good ones and she might even get lucky and get one as good as yours.

As for the Texas photo ranches it’s great that they preserve good wildlife habitat but they could do that without all the catering to photographers who want great photos with minimal effort that is provided by the set ups and artificial water holes just by leaving things alone. It all suggests to me a “canned hunt” scenario where animals are hunted inside an enclosure with a guarantee of success, in this case photographic success. Not at all like a ‘fair chase” hunt. It’s my opinion, (and feel free to correct or contest me here if I am wrong and I don’t believe I am wrong - wrong but maybe partially wrong, either way it would be interesting to know more about these ranches) that equally as much as saving wildlife habitat they are interested in making moolah. They need the bait stations, blinds, waterholes etc. so they can consistently produce wildlife for their photo customers who bring in the moolah.

I have no problem with an 85 yr-old guy shooting at a set up since, as you describe him, he can’t run through the bushes chasing birds anymore and no problem with him posting as much as he wants on NPN or anywhere else. I hope he keeps going for a long time and enjoys his golden years but I still think the photos should be prominently disclosed as captive, set up whatever.

Your quote--“Different photographers are going to have different opinions about what constitutes nature photography (as can partially be seen above by what is allowed in different nature photography contests) and we should be fairly tolerant of others opinions of what constitutes nature photography.”

Maybe I am coming off as intolerant but to me it’s clear what nature photography is--documenting the activities and behaviors of wildlife without manipulating, influencing, changing or modifying those activities and behaviors. That’s the best def I can come up with right now. If you disagree with me I am not suggesting that you be sent off to re-education camps but please explain why you disagree. Maybe I will change my mind. (Not really, and I doubt that I will change yours, but I am iinterested in your reasons for disagreeing.)

Just a little background on the influences that formed my opinions on this subject:

I was a newspaper staff photographer and then a freelancer for many years and it was a big no-no to pose, set-up or stage shots unless you were posing someone for a portrait. You would generally be fired for faking or staging a photo. It had to do with maintaining credibility and accuracy reporting the news. Because of my newspaper background to me it just feels wrong to exercise control and influence over my subjects. Obviously it’s OK for advertising or photo illustration but when you are trying to document nature to me that is pure photojournalism and there shouldn’t be any manipulation.

It seems to me that with the advent of digital photography and programs like photoshop that photographers just got carried away with all the possibilities. Cloning out a distracting leaf or twig or blurring the background to remove the “flaws” in nature may make the photo “better” but it is also a misrepresentation of reality. Same thing with baiting the birds in to a set up carefully staged to get a perfect photo. Not natural. Not really nature photography. THAT IS ONLY MY OPINION! Others may disagree and that is cool but I am interested in what your def of nature photography is so please at least defend your position and explain to me why you consider set ups, baiting etc. to be nature photography.

To sum up I am saying that IN MY OPINION all of the feeding, the use of set ups and calling, the use of captive and rehabbed animals and all of the cloning, blurring BGs and other photoshop manipulations is a really a distortion of nature where the photographer is trying to “fix” the flaws to make his own idealized version of what he thinks nature should be and to make it easier to accomplish that goal.

And I admit that it is also annoying to me when some photographers can sit in a blind on a three day seminar and get dozens (I don’t really know how many great shots they can get in a three day seminar but under the conditions provided I would expect quite a few) of shots of fabulous birds on neat perches in great light while I am out doing it the old fashioned way. You know, earning it with patience, persistence and effort.

Finally, unless I missed something when I checked the posting guidelines the disclosure of baiting live or otherwise is not made clear in said guidelines. (See the first paragraph of my post) I didn't find anywhere in the guidelines that said baiting must be disclosed. I believe that it should be made crystal clear that baiting must be disclosed.and I think disclosures would be more noticeable if placed in the headline with perhaps (C) for captive, (SU) for set up, and (B) for baited.

And that's all I got to say about that! (at least for now)

Thank you

OK, Robert. In your last post you want to eliminate old ladies (didn't mention young ones or men who do photo tours or sit in bird blinds), zoos, photo tours, bird sanctuaries, ranches, preserves, seminars, bird feeders, baiting, bird songs, domestic animals, game farms, perches, setups, use of photoshop, cloning, better images, artistic license, imagination, great light, etc. etc., and that's all in one post. I think you should leave your aunt out of this discussion because I am most insulted by your opinion that old women can't take a decent image. Possibly a little prejudice there? Wow!

Most of us are completely honest when posting about where and how the image was captured. Why not just leave it at that. The only valid suggestion in Robert's post is the C, SU and B use.

Some of us are artists and prefer to have something worthy of viewing as well as showing off the subject to its best advantage. We do not capture an animal and place it and say "sit" and then photograph it. Not all of us can afford expensive photo safaris or we do not live in our beautiful wilderness areas. So we should not dare to take a photograph that might be better than a person who does?

While we're at it, why allow hybrid flowers, water in man-made reservoirs, leaves from hybrid trees? Where does it end.

Yes, I'm mad and very disappointed in NPN. We have already chased many talented photographers away because of mean, accusatory statements in the forums. How about emailing the person directly with your complaint instead of putting it in a forum for the world to see. A real shame. Can understand baiting being banned from NPN if it is injurious to the animal or bird, but if NPN only wants purists then you will lose many of your active members. After all, the word Photographer is also in the web-site name. And that's my opinion.

Hi Robert,

If you click NPN Posting Guidelines it's under number 4 which is where the guidelines are for the various galleries. Avian is the first gallery listed and the guidelines are clearly stated there. I have copied it for you below.

Avian Gallery - All images with birds as the main subject. Images of birds baited with seed, other non-live bait or recordings must be disclosed as such. Photos of captive birds or photos taken using live bait are prohibited. Photos taken at wildlife rehabilitation centers are permitted with full dislcosure (please include information about the facility).

I think it would be reasonable to add the posting guidelines to the "About this gallery" link in each gallery, but I will leave it up to Jim Erhardt to make that decision.

I will address the Texas photo ranches and your question of what I consider to be nature photography later this evening when I have time to do so.

Patricia,

Whoa!! Calm down. You seem a little overwrought.

I did not say any of the things that you claim I said. If you think I did please show me where I said them with exact quotes please.

YOU said--" OK, Robert. In your last post you want to eliminate old ladies (didn't mention young ones or men who do photo tours or sit in bird blinds), zoos, photo tours, bird sanctuaries, ranches, preserves, seminars, bird feeders, baiting, bird songs, domestic animals, game farms, perches, setups, use of photoshop, cloning, better images, artistic license, imagination, great light, etc. etc., and that's all in one post. I think you should leave your aunt out of this discussion because I am most insulted by your opinion that old women can't take a decent image. Possibly a little prejudice there? Wow! "

I want to eliminate great light!! Yeah, right. I'm a photographer. I LOVE great light. Artistic license!!! What!! I never even mentioned it.

Where did I say anything about old women can't take a decent image?

What I said was that my elderly aunt who knows nothing about photography could get a great photo in a photoblind set up because all the elements of a good picture are already there for her and all she has to do is patiently wait for the birds to arrive and she will be rewarded, the point being that it is much easier and much more of a sure thing to get good photos in this situation than to go out in the field using skills and knowledge about your subjects to find and photograph them successfully.

I dang sure didn't advocate eliminating any ranches, bird feeders, zoos, seminars blah, blah, blah etc. Anybody that wants to make use of any of the above, including you, has my blessing. If I prefer not to use these methods and advocate for my way of doing things thats my right. Just because I advocate a certain purist definition of nature photography and the clear labeling of captive, baited etc. subjects doesn't mean I want to "eliminate" anyone or anything.

Furthermore I have never been on an "expensive photo safari" anywhere. About 80% per cent of the photos on my website were taken 5 minutes from my house at White Rock lake park in Dallas, Texas, a great place for shooting birds which is probably 80% or more of my subject matter. I don't live within 500-600 miles of any beautiful wilderness areas. I do manage to make the 3000 mile round trip it to Yellowstone once a year for 2-3 weeks. I go on my own and shoot on my own and I don't hire guides or tour leaders to get the job done.

You have my blessing to shoot all of the dad-gummed hybrid flowers, man made reservoirs etc. that you want.

Yes I am a purist! Again that doesn't mean that I want to "eliminate" the non-purists. I just want to be able to advocate for my point of view on a subject I feel strongly about and request that the non-purists disclose their methods when using baiting, captive animals etc..

Robert. As you requested, here is why I objected to your post.

Your Statement:

"There are a couple of other nature photo websites that are way worse than NPN when it comes to baiting, calling, setups etc. as well as super use of the cloning, blurring and other features in Photoshop but I probably shouldn’t mention them by name."

My interpretation: The words "way worse" imply that all of the following are negatives: baiting, calling, setups, etc. as well as use of cloning, blurring, Photoshop.

Your quote: ".I could set up my camera in one of these places and my elderly aunt, who knows nothing about photography, could sit comfortably in a shaded blind sipping iced tea until a bird appeared and then she could get her "cover" shot which she could take back home to show her friends who would be greatly impressed with her wonderful nature photography skills"

My interpretation: Elderly = old; aunt = female. Bird Blind = negative.

Your quote: If she is sitting in a blind in front of a nice perch and BG with sweet light coming from just the right angle, prefocused on the perch using a five frames per second motor drive camera on a tripod she is going to get some good shots. She is a fast learner! As for exposure, ISO etc. she could ask the tour leader what settings he recommends, after all that is why you guys get the big bucks.

My interpretation: Here is where the sweet light comes into play.

Your quote: IN MY OPINION all of the feeding, the use of set ups and calling, the use of captive and rehabbed animals and all of the cloning, blurring BGs and other photoshop manipulations is a really a distortion of nature where the photographer is trying to “fix” the flaws to make his own idealized version of what he thinks nature should be and to make it easier to accomplish that goal.

My interpretation: Negatives = feeding, setups, calling, captive and rehabbed animals, cloning, blurring bgs and Photoshop. Captive animals at zoos and rehabilitation centers are usually there because of some misdeed of humans, but they are wild animals... not domestic, and it still takes time and effort as well as photographic skills to get a clean or unusual image.

Your quote :As for the Texas photo ranches it’s great that they preserve good wildlife habitat but they could do that without all the catering to photographers who want great photos with minimal effort that is provided by the set ups and artificial water holes just by leaving things alone.

My interpretation: Ranches (and the like) i.e. bird sanctuaries, zoos, preserves are a negative and they charge money. Must admit you did not use the words "zoos", "preserves" or "sanctuaries." They were just quotes within the post..

Enough said.

Personally I don't use anything but a bird feeder and I occasionally post an image from a trip to the zoo. When posting the image I tell exacting where it was taken if it is a captive animal or even if it was taken at a national park, local garden, etc. In addition to flowers, I also shoot mainly local birds, don't live near any wilderness areas and get a vacation once every twenty years, also without guides or tour leaders to get the job done. I also feel I should be able to advocate for my point of view on a subject I feel strongly about. without being called "overwrought." So we have a lot in common.

Pat

Wow! A heated discussion indeed. I just want to add that while I have had the opportunity to make 2 trips to Africa to get images of classic African wildlife many do not have the same opportunities. Photographing in zoos offers a viable alternative for many who do not have the time or resources to make the trip half a world away. I believe that this does not make the images any less "photogenic". In one respect they are a bit easier to capture, but none the less a photographic documentation of the animal's behavior or character.

I believe that proper labeling of captive and or zoo conditions is all that is necessary.

I am against live baiting and agree it should not encouraged or allowed.

These thoughts are just my opinions and your are all entitled to yours.

Robert,
My first thought regarding your reply to me is regarding the Texas photo ranches and their existence. You state "As for the Texas photo ranches it’s great that they preserve good wildlife habitat but they could do that without all the catering to photographers who want great photos with minimal effort that is provided by the set ups and artificial water holes just by leaving things alone". Well they might not well exist if they weren't able to attract photographers. Sorry but money is needed to preserve and maintain land. It's my understanding that a lof of the funding for our National Wildlife Refuges and state wildlife management areas come from fees that hunters pay. Most of the ranches that I know are not making loads of money catering to photographers, but it does help them get by. Most of the people who I have met who own these ranches are passionate about conserving wildlife, they aren't in it to make a lot of money, but certainly the modest fees (most of them charge $100 per day) help them preserve and maintain the land. It's not like the hunting ranches where people are paying thousands of dollars to shoot an exotic animal. If they weren't able to afford to keep the lands as wildlife photography ranches, they would most likely be put to other uses such as farming and ranching and a lot of valuable habitat would be lost. So the ranches give many people an opportunity to enjoy and photograph a wealth of birds and wildlife at close range and they preserve a great deal of natural habitat that would probably be destroyed otherwise. If this rankles a few "purist" photographers like yourself I think that is a very modest price to pay for the good they do.

You said your definition of nature photography is "it’s clear what nature photography is--documenting the activities and behaviors of wildlife without manipulating, influencing, changing or modifying those activities and behaviors.". To me all of what we are discussing is nature photography, they are just somewhat different types of nature photography. There are a lot of different definitions of nature photography. Wikipedia defines it as "Nature photography refers to a WIDE RANGE of photography taken outdoors and devoted to displaying natural elements such as landscapes, wildlife, plants, and close-ups of natural scenes and textures. Nature photography tends to put a stronger emphasis on the AESTHETIC VALUE value of the photo than other photography genres, such as photojournalism and documentary photography." That definition emphasizes the aesthetic value of the photography where as you seem to put a premium on documentary photography.

The subjects of set up and baited shots are natural, they are wild birds, the settings that they are in are natural, they are plants. The behaviors captured are at least to some extent natural. After all they are coming in to eat the bait and drink the water, those are certainly natural behaviors. And often when they are doing that they will display other natural behaviors such as courtship, nest building, gathering food for young, mating, bathing etc. If a set up perch is used, the vast majority of the time, it's something which is already naturally growing in the area, it has just been moved. As far as coming in to the water that is very natural, the food isn't going to be the exact food they would be eating, I would say that set up, staged or baited images are not 100% natural but they are certainly still nature photography - the subjects are natural and they are photographed in nature even if it has been modified a bit. Some photographers would say that they are creating natural art by setting up these shots so they have beautiful perches and backgrounds etc. Certainly setting up a situation well for photography, whether it is working with a lot of flashes with the hummingbirds or designing blinds etc for photography takes a lot of skill and work. It's just a different set of skills than photographing birds naturally as you find them by stalking them etc.

You talk about how this is all part of digital photography etc getting out of control, but it's my understanding that this sort of staging of some shots has been practiced by some professional photographers for a long time, certainly well into the film days, especially with bird photography. I rarely see professional wildlife and nature photographers complaining about other nature photographers using set ups etc. I think the reason is that most professional wildlife photographers realize 1) how difficult wildlife and nature photography is and that sometimes to get the image they need to have published or to be able to sell as a fine art print to the public or to document some new species of salamander for example - some manipulation is necessary and 2) They understand how difficult it is to make a living as professional wildlife photographer. The people I most often see complaining about set ups are amateur nature photographers, often good photographers like yourself, who spend most of their time photographing in city parks. I haven't been to the particular park that you spend most of your time photographing in but from my experience with photographing in these types of environments, I don't find them either particularly natural or particularly demanding in terms of photographic skill. Many times the birds and animals are fairly habituated to humans, often times the lakes are as artificial as the water holes at a Texas ranch. I guess I would have more respect for the photographer's position that everything should be natural and wild if they were spending their time tracking down rare species like Eared Quetzals and Jaguarundi in the wilds of the Chiracahua Mountains rather than spending most of their time at the local city park. But again, most of the people who I meet that actually do photograph things in the wilds professionally have some respect for other types of wildlife photography such as set ups and many of them do it at least occasionally also.

The argument often raised that set ups aren't nature photography as you did here that "it's not a fair hunt" etc. It seems that you and some of the others I have seen complain about set ups view nature photography as a sport of some sort rather than both art and documentation. The photographers who are using set ups "aren't playing fair" - not your words but I think that is the sentiment. I guess this is why it bothers you that someone like your aunt would be able to go and get a lot of fairly good photos without working really hard at it. In your view they are somehow breaking the rules. You could certainly go and photograph the same species at these ranches and as long as you didn't add in set up perches or sprinkle food in strategic locations, you would get a lot of very good photos of the birds coming into the water and landing in the natural trees and foliage which is around the water hole and I think what you would be doing is as natural as photographing birds at your local city park. Certainly you shouldn't object to a blind placed in a strategic location. The blind allows you to photograph the birds and allow them to behave undisturbed and naturally while you record their behaviors. If you are walking around photographing you are still bringing yourself (and thereby man) into the equation by flushing birds and having them react to you. I agree with you that you are adding another element when you add a perch or bait to this situation and that it should be disclosed in that case. But to say that it's not even nature photography while someone photographing water fowl in a city park where they may be quite habituated to humans and the lake may be man made etc that that is somehow totally wild nature photography doesn't make much sense to me.

In fact I think you should go down to one of the ranches pay your $100 and photograph Painted Buntings or Green Jays or whatever species you would like to have better images of. You wouldn't have to put any seed out or put any perches up, so you wouldn't be compromising your values. If you went in with an open mind, I think you would probably enjoy it. You could also feel good in that your nominal fees were going to help maintain and preserve wild habitat. If you would like any advice or help in booking a date at one, send me an email, I would be happy to help.

By the way, I do agree with you more on the image manipulation front but this is a different issue in my opinion. I rarely do any cloning in my images, in fact I think it's probably been more than a year since I have cloned anything out other than a dust spot or some dirt on a hummingbird background out. The stock and news agencies I work with don't allow cloning, just like your newspapers didn't. However, they have never had any problem with my baited hummingbird shots or any other set up type shots which I have disclosed to them, it doesn't seem to be an issue for them. A lot of photographers would disagree with me on this but I think once you start cloning or adding elements in an image, it's not pure photography at that point, it's photo art. Additionally, most of those photo contests have very strict rules regarding cloning, it's not allowed in any of the ones that I mentioned, except for maybe in a limited photo art type of category. So that seems to be consistent that for news and for nature photography contests cloning isn't allowed. I think it's fine that it is allowed in the forums but that it should definitely be disclosed.

I think we can gather a lot from what the most prestigious contests do - for the most part they allow baiting but they don't allow live baiting. However, most of them require that the baiting or set ups are disclosed. The reason is they want to know the situation in which the photograph was taken in order to judge it. An image that is baited would generally have to be quite a bit more spectacular to win than an image that wasn't. It's the same here on NPN, when I judge an image I take into account whether it was baited or set up, if that is disclosed. Even, if it's not disclosed and I believe that it was probably baited I will take that into consideration when I am judging it. So certainly all of those prestigious nature photography contests believe that those baited shots qualify as nature photography.

So those are some of my thoughts on the topic, in conclusion I agree with you that there should be disclosure on the methods used to get the shot. But I don't agree with you that it's not nature photography.

Thanks to all for your contributions to this discussion. Based on your input, here are the revised guidelines;

Avian Gallery - All images with birds as the main subject. Images of birds baited with seed, other non-live bait or recordings must be disclosed as such. Photos of captive birds taken at commercial game farms or photos taken using live bait are prohibited. Photos taken of captive birds at zoos and wildlife rehabilitation centers may be posted in the POP Gallery - please disclose the name of the facility where the photo was taken.

Wildlife Gallery - Wildlife other than birds. Images that include domesticated animals in a rural scene should be posted in the Man & Nature Gallery. Photos of captive wildlife taken at commercial game farms or photos taken using bait of any kind are prohibited. Photos taken of captive wildlife at zoos and wildlife rehabilitation centers may be posted in the POP Gallery - please disclose the name of the facility where the photo was taken.

Note that we are prohibiting photos from commercial game farms where wildlife is held in captivity for the sole purpose of exploiting it as photographic "wildlife models" for profit..

Note that photos from zoos (because "zoos" generally offer some educational and wildlife conservation value) and wildlife rehabilitation facilities (because of their dedication to wildlife conservation) are acceptable and may be posted in the People, Objects & Places (POP) gallery. Please be sure to include the name of the zoo or facility (the "place") when posting the photo, as well as any other information that would be of value to those interested in wildlife conservation or education.

Also, we will update the "About This Gallery" pages to include these descriptions.

Our thanks again to all for your thoughts and input!

Nate,

Thanks very much for your detailed reply. You make a lot of good points and I respect your opinions and your right to hold them. We can just agree to disagree about what is nature photography and that's OK.

If animals weren't at least somewhat used to being around humans the type of photography we enjoy would not be possible or at least extremely difficult, I expect it would be nearly impossible to remove all human influence on nature photography and still be able to practice the craft. I just believe the influence should be extremely limited.

Perhaps my definition should be "to me it’s clear what nature photography is--documenting the activities and behaviors of wildlife while manipulating, influencing, changing or modifying those activities and behaviors AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE!!"

Deciding where to draw the line is where the disagreements come. If the amount of human influence could be placed on a scale of one to ten I prefer to be as close to zero as I can get. The harder I have to work and the greater the challenge the more satisfaction I get from my photography. I know there will be people all up and down the scale.

You are right about your not playing fair quote. It rankles me when photographers with far less experience go the easy way and get photos that are as good or better than mine. Any time I go out to shoot I am competing with other photographers and also competing with myself to get better and better images. Yes, to me photography is a competitive activity and having been in the business for a long time I can tell you that most professionals and a heck of a lot of amateurs are seriously competitive. I can't think of many disciplines that have as many contests, awards etc. as photography. If you work in a large media market everyday you compete like crazy to make sure a photographer from another paper doesn't have a better shot from last nights game splashed across the front page.

Commercial photgraphers, advertising photgraphers, even wedding photographers have many contests and of course there is the everyday effort to compete for business and income. So yeah, I am competitive and make no apologies for that and maybe it is like a competitive sport for me. Doing set ups and baiting etc. unlevels the playing field as far as I am concerned. I know I could do it to but I don't want to compete by using the same tactics because that conflicts with my personal photo philosophy. That's why I support prominent and manditory disclosure policies.

From what I have seen on NPN and your website you are obviously a very good photographer and I hope you don't take my position on baiting, set ups etc. personally.

Patricia,

I still disagree with your interpretation of what I said.

Other than saying that It is my personal opinion that in nature photography as in the avian and wildlife galleries I disagree with set ups, baiting, cloning and all the things we have been discussing, etc. If you want to post in the photart gallery, weekly challenge, POP then clone,blur,manipulate colors, and BGs to your hearts content but I and many others feel it is inappropriate in Avian and Wildlife.

Hi Robert,
You're welcome and thanks for your last post, if I took it a little bit personally before, I certainly don't take it personally at all now.
Cheers,
Nate

Nate,

I am very glad we are on good terms. When I believe strongly in something I can get kind of overbearing sometimes. Thanks for tolerating me.

I definitely got food for thought and a new appreciation for your POV from your posts and I hope you got some good from mine.

Thanks,

Robert

Robert. I also agree that photos should be put in the appropriate category and that baiting and caging healthy animals should be banned. And I do post in POP, Photo Art and the Weekly Challenge quite often but that should not restrict me from also posting in all the other categories as long as I stay within the rules of each forum and everyone is on a level playing field. I do object to negative generalizations about post processing. Nature photography should be beautiful as well as an accurate representation of the animal and its habitat. Now, as to your elderly aunt...

Pat

I enthusiastically support the revised guidelines

I believe these changes are long overdue. Some have suggested that more restrictive guidelines may limit participation by some and that may (or may not) be true to some small degree. But on the other hand, believe me when I say that lack of such guidelines (and lack of enforcement of existing guidelines) in the past has also significantly reduced and/or curtailed NPN participation.

I have a suggested addition to the new guidelines - make it clear that images that do not follow guidelines are ineligible for Weekly Picks. And enforce it! In the past, some members have repeatedly (and I do mean repeatedly) thumbed their noses at the guidelines and still been awarded multiple Weekly Picks. I know of one case where a moderator admonished the member for not disclosing baiting and that image was later awarded a Weekly Pick.

What does that say about NPN guidelines...?

Jim - Thank you for being receptive to this discussion. I think the new guidelines reflect a good synopsis of both sides of this discussion, provide the same standard and expectations for both the avian and wildlife galleries, and also provide those of us with captive shots a venue to participate.

Only as an FYI.... for anyone who might be interested - a few years ago I entered a nature-based photo contest which had a "zoo" category, but it specifically only accepted images from accredited zoos (turns out, not all zoos are created equal).

To find out whether or not the Calgary zoo was accredited I did some Google searching and found these two sites helpful, first to learn the Calgary Zoo is accredited and then for locating zoos outside my own home area that I could "trust":
Canada's Accredited Zoos and Aquariums: CAZA
Association of Zoos and Aquariums: AZA

Karen, thanks for the links! Indeed, not all "zoos" are created equal....

Jim, I hope you don't mind one last suggestion to clarify the gallery guidelines. I believe a sentence should be added to the Weekly Challenge guideline something to the effect: Only images that could be posted in one of the other galleries may be posted in the Weekly Challenge gallery. For example: As it stands now, a baited bear photograph could be posted in the Weekly Challenge Gallery if the subject was "Bears" and that is not something you would want.

Carol, a great suggestion - I will make the revision this weekend!

Hi all,

Sorry I'm jumping into this one so late in the game, but I've been away on vacation for the last 10 days or so and have had only spotty internet access. Much has already been said in this debate, so I'll attempt to stick mostly to points that have not already been made (tho' a few rebuttals to points raised above are likely to rear their ugly head!). These are my personal views and I've had no conversation with the rationale behind the changes with Jim or any of the Wildlife Gallery moderators.

I totally agree with and support the prohibition of posting images of captive animals in the wildlife gallery. I AM pleased that Jim showed flexibility and allowed the inclusion of zoo shots in the POP gallery as I believe those images DO deserve a home - but it just isn't in the Wildlife Gallery.

Here's my thinking on the matter:

1. Wildlife Gallery vs. Animal Photos Gallery: I think the name of the gallery - which we very intentionally switched from the "Fauna Gallery" a few years back - says a lot about what the content of the gallery should be. To me, wildlife implies the subject is wild, including the concept of free-ranging and not intentionally constrained by humans. Take a bear, wolf, or cougar out of the wild and put it in a zoo and while it remains the same species, it is no longer wildlife - it is a captive animal. The term "wildlife" doesn't simply denote some list or group of non-domesticated species (and it certainly has no inherent taxonomic value), it also touches on their state of being and their existence outside the direct influence and control of man. That's what makes wildlife so special, and photographs of them so incredibly special - and inherently different than photographs of captive animals.

Personally, I would take the prohibition even further - if it were up to me, I would exclude any feral animals as well from the wildlife gallery. Why? Because in my world any animal that has previously been domesticated and had its physical, physiological, and/or behavioural traits intentionally modified through selective breeding by humans is in no way "natural" and definitely not wildlife. To me it is illogical to allow feral horses (even if they have been feral for several generations) in the wildlife gallery and not also allow feral house cats, feral ex-pet dogs, etc. I'd exclude them all. Before anyone gets up and starts yelling at me for hating feral horses…note that I didn't say that. Feel free to love them all you want, but you'll never convince me that a previously domesticated species gone feral qualifies as wildlife. There is a world of difference between a wild wolf and a feral French Poodle, even if they are actually conspecific in virtually all ways. Seems to me that no grouping of animals is better suited to the Man & Nature Gallery than feral ones.

2. Different Photographic Challenges, Different Photographic Problems: While the subject matter (of a mule deer, bear or what have you) is the same if you photograph it in a wild state or in captivity, the issues faced while capturing images in "the wild" vs. in a captive situation are totally different. The first issue a wildlife photographer faces is how to find and safely (and hopefully ethically) approach their subject matter. This problem can be HUGE with some species. As an example, I've been trying for years and years to find a way to get a photograph of a wolverine in the wild - and I still have had zero success with this species (note that I have received offers from game farms and outfitters prepared to bait the wolverines in for me, but I chose to turn down those offers). While I acknowledge that sometimes you have to wait a while in a zoo or game-farm for the animal to pose the way you want, the entire stalking process is removed from the equation. Often the biggest challenge one has in a captive situation is finding a way to remove the "hand of man" from the scene. This may be challenging in its own right (either in the field or behind the computer during post-processing), but it's a different type of challenge than that faced when shooting most images of wildlife in the field.

So what you say? Well, in including wildlife photography and captive animal photography in the same gallery, you are largely negating the reality of the different challenges faced while capturing the images. And, while of lesser importance to some, how do you compare and judge the two very different types of photographs (whether it's for the Weekly Pick or for "Image of the Year")? If the exact same criteria are used (and they theoretically should be), then you're REALLY handicapping those that shoot only images of true (i.e., non-captive) wildlife.

3. Rebuttal to the "slippery slope" and other arguments: When I read the comments above I saw a lot of arguments that seemed almost "alarmist" - as though there was some conspiracy to eventually exclude almost any photo taken of an animal. One type of argument was the "what's captive?" argument (e.g., comments wondering if "captive" includes habituated animals or urban wildlife). Perhaps I'm a bit thick but I just don't get how the concept of "captive" falls on a slippery slope - we all know what captive means. Urban wildlife? I know of no one - and there's certainly nothing in the change of guidelines - suggesting that urban wildlife should be excluded.

On the "OK with complete disclosure" argument: Sorry, in my years of moderating the wildlife gallery it became abundantly clear that this just doesn't work. There will be some who ALWAYS disclose where the image was shot. And, there are some who - intentionally or otherwise - are less open in their disclosure (even last week I had to directly ask someone if a certain shot was of a captive animal - only because if it was a wild capture it would have been an amazing capture). Like with taking performance enhancing drugs in sports, cheaters on this policy of "just disclose" benefit from their actions - so there will always be some who will do it. Unfortunately, we can do nothing about it…and there will be images that continue to appear in the Wildlife Gallery that are shots of captive animals but the photographer simply won't own up to it. Sigh...

On the "all galleries should have the same rules" argument. I disagree. Why? Consider baiting (and for those who are looking for a fall guy on THAT rule change - that was ME who drove that). Those who like black-and-white rules might say "why can you allow baiting in one gallery (avian) and not another?". Simple. Different animals are different behaviourally, and that difference can (and usually does) translate into a huge difference in the harmfulness of baiting in some taxa and/or functional groupings than others. Responsibly feed songbirds (or hummingbirds) and you do no harm to the subject. Attempt to "responsibly" feed almost any wild mammalian carnivore and you quickly end up with a food-associated predator that soon ends up dead. While we could have developed an incredibly lengthy, convoluted (and unwieldly) rule which allowed baiting with some species of animals found in the Wildlife Gallery and prohibited it in others, the list of species where it was harmful was far longer than those it was neutral to. So, for brevity, it became "No photographs of baited animals" in the Wildlife Gallery. And I think it's totally logically that the Avian Gallery has their own set of rules (that happen to differ from those in the Wildlife Gallery).

On the "don't impose your ethics on me" argument: Sorry, I totally disagree with this. I applaud Jim and the moderators for having the courage to take a stance that - based on what Jim has said above - appeared to be driven by a desire to take an ethical stance against animal abuse. I wish more businesses and organizations would do the same. The consumer can always choose to not buy the product if they disagree with the ethical stance of the company making the product.

Finally, I read above that several folks seemed a bit unhappy about the process that drove this guideline change. I think the process (at least how it appears from the outside) was fine - one or more of the moderators thought it was important to exclude captive animals from the Wildlife Gallery (for what appears to be ethical reasons), Jim apparently agreed and put together a new guideline, one of the moderators posted it here, then - based on feedback in this forum - Jim amended the rule to take into account some of the concerns of the members. Seems pretty fair to me!

Anyway…that's my 2 cents worth - that it for what you consider it's worth…

Cheers…

Brad

PS to Karen; Interesting comments about the zoos and the Calgary Zoo in particular. I'm originally from Calgary and had some interesting discussions with them about photographs taken on their premises. Not sure if you're aware of this, but they hold (or they did when I chatted with them about it) the rights to all photos taken on their grounds - so you actually can't don't have the right (legally) to use images captured there for many things, including commercially or even in contests! I'm not sure if they ever enforced this rule (or if it's still in existence), but just thought you might like to know...

Brad, my sincere thanks for weighing in on this.

I would like to address one other point mentioned in this thread - how rules (or change of rules) can effect the level of participation on this site. I will admit that in its heyday (when NPN was one of a few nature photography sites on the Internet), growth of membership was one of the primary decision drivers. Sure, ethics have always been important, but we erred on the side of keeping participation on the site as high as possible.

As I have stated many times before, much has changed since April of 2000 when NPN went live. Today, there are photography sites that dwarf NPN in the number of photos posted. Simply put, it is no longer NPN's place to embrace the "more photos, the better" philosophy. Rather we should be setting the standard on issues like this one, and to place ethics and quality of participation above all else. To me, this is the natural progression/maturation of NPN and is an important responsibility not only to our members, but also to the tens-of-thousands who visit this site every month to view the photos and read the commentary.

The level of professionalism (from wildlife ethics to quality of feedback on photos) has always been high on NPN and it remains our primary focus. My sincere thanks again to all for your input!

Thanks Jim. That last post clarifies even further "what problem this was trying to solve". Always healthy to have a philosophical discussion with multiple perspectives.

Brad - Thanks! Yes, I am aware of the restriction for commercial use of photos at the Calgary Zoo. Other zoos, aquariums and even some botanical gardens have similar commercial use restrictions (i.e. San Diego zoo, all Sea World locations, Longwood Gardens, etc...). But I don't think that posting to a site like NPN would be considered as "commercial use".

Not sure if the policy extends to contests though, as that is not specifically mentioned. But they do offer photography courses, host special events to provide different photographic opportunities, encourage photography for enjoyment and specifically allow personal use of images (like posting to Facebook) from those events.

I, too disagree with the change. Unlike some, I cannot afford to go on an African safari or other remote location. So, the only way I can photograph those animals is in a zoo setting. And I would like to note, that zoos have come a very long way from only having caged animals. Some zoos look like a scaled down preserve!

I, too disagree with the change. Unlike some, I cannot afford to go on an African safari or other remote location. So, the only way I can photograph those animals is in a zoo setting. And I would like to note, that zoos have come a very long way from only having caged animals. Some zoos look like a scaled down preserve!

I don't understand, would it be to hard to make a category for this subject. I mean you have a anonymous section I believe It would be used, it sounds like a lot of people would post to it make it a trial period first and see how it goes

A real shame to read the new guidelines and they are the reason I don't post anymore. I don't photograph any captive animals but I do bait wildlife to lure them to a certain spot where the background and sun direction is good. Often the animal don't even know I'm there, so no harm done but still it's baited. One thing I do understand is banning images taken on game farms. Of course I know there have to be rules but banning baited wildlife shots is a step to far for me.

As a biologist, I'd like to comment on a couple of points made by Brad Hill. These points were somehow loosely grounded in a biological argument, which I question.

First, on the definition of wildlife. Definitions are necessary to create rules but they must be grounded in some clear AND applicable standards or at least agreed upon by the majority (which still doesn't make them less arbitrary). The definition offered by Brad Hill is the following:

On the one hand he suggests that wildlife "implies the subject is wild, including the concept of free-ranging and not intentionally constrained by humans". On the other hand, "any animal that has previously been domesticated and had its physical, physiological, and/or behavioural traits intentionally modified through selective breeding by humans is in no way "natural" and definitely not wildlife".

Overall, i think its a nice definition but its definitely too restrictive to be strictly applicable. At least in Europe, behavioral(and underlying physiological) traits of most larger mammals have been intentionally modified through hunting AND conservation practices. These include but are not limited to large scale feeding during winter months (talking of baiting...) and reintroduction programs. Further, on the question of feral animals. If strictly applied, this should exclude hybrids, which are rather common (wild boar/pig, wolf/dog, bison/cattle). However, at least on this question one could argue that the resulting animals are not "directly intentionally" modified.

Second, the question of behavioral differences resulting in different impact of baiting in different taxa . This is certainly true, but its also certain that relevant behavioral differences are not addressed by differential rules to "avian" vs "other" (from mollusks to mammals?) nor to "avian" vs "mammalian". Put aside the fact, that "Wildlife" gallery includes every other animal group than birds, there are bird groups that are behaviorally more similar to certain mammal groups and these convergent similarities/differences can be even on species level.

Finally, could I ask once again for a clarification on the fenced areas? How to treat large fenced areas where animal live with no more human intervention than what would be considered completely "free-ranging" animal. I guess, once again, this issue is more relevant in europe where the forested areas are often small and it makes little difference for the "wildness" of animals whether they are fenced or not. Additionally, most hunted species such as deer and wild boards are fed during the winter, regardless whether the area is fenced or not. Ultimately, its always human influence that defines, how far animals can go. Isn't that also the case in some protected areas in Africa or the US?

I don't have a categorical stance on the issue but it bothers me when I feel that the categories in question are arbitrary.
I'd really appreciate your thoughts!

WOW, that was intense reading.
I personally am not in favour of baiting animals just to get a better photo. I feel that baiting animals does change their behaviour and can lead to a degradation of their own hunting/foraging skills which in turn can lead to problems for them in their natural environment.
Once an animal becomes used to having bait set for it, that has the potential to be abused by someone with a purpose entirely different from photography.

Hi Andrius,

I'm away leading a photo tour right now and only have very spotty internet access. I will respond to your points (in detail) - hopefully in the next day or so - but if I can't get it done by then then unfortunately it will have to sit until I get back to the virtual world on or about October 22...

Cheers...

Brad

I think there should be a gallery where photographs of captive animals can be posted. Unless I've missed something (which is entirely possible as there's a lot to read here) it seems absurd that photos of pets can be posted but not photos of wild animals held in captivity.

I think there should be a gallery where photographs of captive animals can be posted. Unless I've missed something (which is entirely possible as there's a lot to read here) it seems absurd that photos of pets can be posted but not photos of wild animals held in captivity.

Hi Martin,
Images of captive animals from zoos can now be posted in the POP photos gallery.

Thanks Nate. I won't be posting any myself but it does make sense to allow it.