NikonGear'23

Travelogues => Future NG Events - and Location Reveries => Topic started by: simato73 on November 23, 2016, 22:18:52

Title: Wildlife in Finland
Post by: simato73 on November 23, 2016, 22:18:52
I have always dreamed of a trip to photograph bears and wolves in Finland since hearing of the business owned by Lassi Rautiainen:

http://www.wildfinland.org/

Maybe one day... hopefully in the company of Nikongear friends!

PS: Has any of our Northern friends ever done this trip/met Lassi Rautiainen?

Title: Re: Wildlife in Finland
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on November 23, 2016, 23:27:04
I have met him several times.

He is an interesting character in many ways. However, these bear/wolves/wolverine set ups have become very hackneyed.
Title: Re: Wildlife in Finland
Post by: simato73 on November 23, 2016, 23:38:41
I have met him several times.

He is an interesting character in many ways. However, these bear/wolves/wolverine set ups have become very hackneyed.

I thought you might have met him... no idea how I got this impression, maybe you mentioned it some time.
Do you refer to his hides specifically or the concept in general?
Title: Re: Wildlife in Finland
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on November 23, 2016, 23:44:58
Both. Never participated although being invited,  but many friends and nature photographer colleagues have.

In fact, one can buy into pre-packed "wildlife safaris"  for sea eagles, whales, bears, wolves,  etc. these days. Such arrangements have become a cliché circuit and a lot of people with plenty of money follow every step. Not that this ensures their photography benefits though, on the contrary, from what I see when they apply for membership in the professional nature photographer's association, it'll do them more harm than being a benefit.
Title: Re: Wildlife in Finland
Post by: simato73 on November 23, 2016, 23:59:10
Both. Never participated although being invited,  but many friends and nature photographer colleagues have.

In fact, one can buy into pre-packed "wildlife safaris"  for sea eagles, whales, bears, wolves,  etc. these days. Such arrangements have become a cliché circuit and a lot of people with plenty of money follow every step. Not that this ensures their photography benefits though, on the contrary, from what I see when they apply for membership in the professional nature photographer's association, it'll do them more harm than being a benefit.

Never thought about it this way but you have a point.
I guess similar considerations can apply to African photo safaris (another thing I've never had the opportunity to do).
Title: Re: Wildlife in Finland
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on November 24, 2016, 00:00:01
There is an undeniable similarity at play here.
Title: Re: Wildlife in Finland
Post by: MFloyd on November 24, 2016, 05:47:05
I have never done any "wildlife safari", nor had a close look at what the "market" has to offer.  I guess it is like with everything, there are good and less good ones. At least I learned a new word: "hackneyed".... 😎
Title: Re: Wildlife in Finland
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on November 24, 2016, 10:15:13
You're welcome
.... At least I learned a new word: "hackneyed".... 😎

You are entirely welcome. Glad to be of help :D

In my country (Norway), these wildlife shoots have become so trite clichés that attending them is bound to create suspicion about the photographer's creativity. Thirty years ago perhaps these motifs were fresh, now they are hackneyed. It has gone so far as creating a virtual lack of genuine wildlife shots, as everything is staged, controlled, and managed. The Norwegian Mail ordered wildlife portraits for a new series of stamps of Norwegian predators (bear, wolf, wolverine, lynx) only to find that most photographs had been obtained in Finland under what nature photographers, if honest, label as "controlled conditions".

There are a lot of dubious biological ramifications and disturbances to the ecosystem as well. For example, one can get massive concentrations of bears in a small area because these animals are fed carcasses on a regular basis. In turn, the animals exhibit a deviating behaviour by becoming aggressive towards each other. Good for action scenes, of course, but not for behavioural biologists. Thus, even though they are "wild" as in not being penned in, their behaviour cannot be used as any reliable documentation of the species and its normal pattern of interactions. Plus on occasion, a photographer makes a shot of a bear with tags or radio transmitter !! (a friend of mine did that and removed the transmitter in the image edit, causing a lot of problems for him later when the facts emerged).
Title: Re: Wildlife in Finland
Post by: BW on November 24, 2016, 11:19:29
This is an interesting topic in it self. I have friends that run these kind of businesses and I have never used them, claiming that making the animals habituated and dependent to feeding sites has no positive impact on wildlife in it self. The only one who benefit from these kind of ventures are those who run it. Pictures taken at this kind of sites has no creative or photographic value for me. It is no surprise that I am not a popular person among other wildlife photographers :)   
Title: Re: Wildlife in Finland
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on November 24, 2016, 11:40:21
Count me in as well :D

The worst set ups are those arrangements for sea eagle and bears. The animals are pre-conditioned to find food in a given place, and (as for the bears in Finland, where carcass is deposited on a bog opposite the hides, with a small lake in between)  simply associate clicking sounds of shutters with a juicy carcass ... Sea eagles are conditioned on the appearance of certain small vessels etc.

Wolves and wolverines are more random in their appearance as they cover large areas and won't stay put waiting to be fed. If they are in the vicinity, they might strike for easy food, otherwise they are roaming elsewhere. A hungry wolf pack or wolverine will chase even an adult bear away. However, that is an unlikely setting in the wild as animal density are many orders of magnitude lower than at these feeding sites.
Title: Re: Wildlife in Finland
Post by: Ethan on November 24, 2016, 14:23:16
Unfortunately, this is a very sad situation to have animals subjugated to the whims of humans.

I do not condone animals in Zoos or in Reserves or even in controlled environments. Unfortunately. such measures are sometime necessary to protect the animals from human behaviour.

It is the eternal human greed and such photographers are no better. Whether it is the Pizza Bear or the poor Dolphins lined up for a stroke and a picture.

These are not toys for children or adults but living creatures. They are part of us.

Killing an Elephant or a Lion for a picture or a trophy on the wall. Recently an award for wildlife photography was withdrawn from the recipient as it was discovered that the picture was shot in a reserve,

It just reminds me of the people in India or China or other similar countries where a couple of dollars will get the kids in any scene or composition you like. And they call it photography!

Shame!
Title: Re: Wildlife in Finland
Post by: Erik Lund on November 24, 2016, 14:25:33
What a sad turn of events,,, I would love to go on a Safari again - Especially remembering how much fun we had shooting back in 2009 in South Africa,,,
Title: Re: Wildlife in Finland
Post by: elsa hoffmann on November 24, 2016, 14:52:56
South Africa is still here :)
Title: Re: Wildlife in Finland
Post by: Erik Lund on November 24, 2016, 15:20:51
Thank you for the confirmation Elsa, they had me worried there for a minute,,, What about Finland, still there as well?

Next NikonGear event,,, Wildlife friendly shooting anyone? ;)
Title: Re: Wildlife in Finland
Post by: simato73 on November 24, 2016, 21:08:33
Even though I am aware that others seem to view the matter very differently, I'd like to say what I think about the business of guided wildlife photography (and about funding it as a customer).

What Bjørn said at the beginning is certainly true.
There are obviously a wide range of offerings, some more "natural" than others, to the point that some almost guarantee to deliver whatever they promised, but in general it is fair to say that "aided" hide photography and photo safaris have lost their originality long ago.

For many of these activities the customers should not fool themselves that they are experiencing the real deal, they are not. Also for those who would like to use the images professionally, care should be taken in presenting them; the ethical position should be that the photographer does not claim what these images are not, nor, by omitting information, let people/customers draw erroneous conclusions wrt the conditions under which the images were acquired.

However, most people taking these trips are not professionals and they don't have time or skills to immerse themselves in truly wild natural environment to acquire these images (and experiences) "the hard way". But they still would like to have something as close as practically possible to the real deal, and I see nothing particularly wrong in that.
At least, no more wrong than wanting to buy expensive glass that will not make their photography improve, or fast, expensive and polluting cars that are not 10 times better than cars that cost 1/10 the price (the list of examples could go on... expensive wines, and all sorts of status symbols).
With the years I have become less excited about images of wildlife (including my own) but I would still feel the thrill of being able to see and photograph macrofauna about their business (and especially apex predators), even if I am aware that the experience is somehow manufactured.

Regarding those that offer varying forms of wildlife photography as their business, I would think twice before casting sweeping negative moral judgements.
I agree that times have moved on and zoos are questionable in terms of ethics. People in favour may still have valid arguments in their support, but I think the general sensibility is shifting against them. Personally I don't find interesting shooting animals behind bars, but YMMV.

However this conversation is not about zoos, it is about businesses that offer clients the opportunity to see wildlife in their environment.
These businesses are certainly bringing humans closer to relatively intact wild places and doing so they are perturbing them.
But what are the alternatives? There are essentially no more truly wild, pristine places in the world. Even places that don't see wildlife tourists aren't truly free from Humanity, just think about all those remote places in Northern Canada and Siberia, or the Amazon, devastated by huge mining operations. Humans are growing in numbers enormously and many wildlife-rich places (Southern and Eastern Africa are prime examples) are under enormous human pressure (including man-made climate change, which affects profoundly places that hardly see any humans). In these places wildlife and the environment in general are under more pressure from other human activities and lucrative businesses like wildlife photography can actually have a net positive role in conservation, for example taking an active role against poaching and providing economic alternatives to more unsustainable exploitation of the territory.

Going back to what Erik said last, I would not mind some wildlife friendly NG event in the future, if I can fit it with my work and family.
Europe is better for me simply on the grounds that I have to travel less far.
Title: Re: Wildlife in Finland
Post by: David H. Hartman on November 24, 2016, 21:58:42
It find it sad that these wild life experiences are causing negative changes in wild life behavior. All my life I read, "Please don't feed the bears."

Maybe if the bears just sat around having a few beers and telling jokes while waiting for another carcass it would not be so bad. Increasing the density and spanning hostile behavior is simply wrong in my view. I'd rather look a photographs taken by real professionals taking photographs of natural behavior that pretend to be a professional for a few days.

Dave Hartman

I don't see a time where I'll be a professional wildlife photographer. I'd like to try my hand at producing high quality wild life photographs in my local environment, the Chaparral of Southern California. I would not want to modify the behavior of the animals I photograph. I don't see how I could bait a rattle snake. I could bait a skunk I suppose. The pioneers shot all the bears and wolfs in this valley. 
Title: Re: Wildlife in Finland
Post by: BW on November 24, 2016, 22:07:51
I think you bring some valid input to this debate, but regarding casting negative moral judgement, I feel that nature/wildlife photographers might be the worst to do so. As a hunter I am often judged by fellow photographers, being cruel to animals or being responsible for the decline or extinction of some species. But they are the first to ask for "natural bait" to their feeding sites. Who would want to photograph an eagle on a dead cat or a dog? They also use their high moral standards and their love of nature as selling point for their work, but the fact is that the "big pros" are the first ones to visit commercial feeding sites and hides. And they stay there for free because the operator want to use their visit for advertisement. After the hide has gotten popular, it is of no interest to them anymore. Double standards seem to be a skill set you have to master as a wildlife pro. I was appaled, when I first learned how they get their fantastic pictures of owls diving down to catch mice. At first I thought they were extremely lucky to find a mice leaving the comfort of the snowblanket, in -20 below, but as the sucker I am the obvious reason never dawned on me. Until I was told they use live bait :-\ For this reason only I am no longer a member of  any nature photography association. In fact I wrote a letter to my association explaining the reason why I no longer wanted to be a member and asked them to publish the letter in their magazine. The next publication contained an article written by one of the most profiled wildlife photographer in norway (which admitted to taking photos using live bait in his blog), condemning a photographer for disturbing a crane nest. So in my view, the most profiled wildlife photographers, literally step over dead bodies to get their pictures. And the crowds follow in their footsteps..

If it is one lesson that have learned so far, it is that the most successful people (in any area of life) are the most ruthless. They will get their picture no matter what. And they get away with it. For a while..
Title: Re: Wildlife in Finland
Post by: Erik Lund on November 24, 2016, 23:20:43
This thread is getting more and more scary.
Title: Re: Wildlife in Finland
Post by: simato73 on November 24, 2016, 23:27:27
I think you bring some valid input to this debate, but regarding casting negative moral judgement, I feel that nature/wildlife photographers might be the worst to do so. As a hunter I am often judged by fellow photographers, being cruel to animals or being responsible for the decline or extinction of some species. But they are the first to ask for "natural bait" to their feeding sites. Who would want to photograph an eagle on a dead cat or a dog? They also use their high moral standards and their love of nature as selling point for their work, but the fact is that the "big pros" are the first ones to visit commercial feeding sites and hides. And they stay there for free because the operator want to use their visit for advertisement. After the hide has gotten popular, it is of no interest to them anymore. Double standards seem to be a skill set you have to master as a wildlife pro. I was appaled, when I first learned how they get their fantastic pictures of owls diving down to catch mice. At first I thought they were extremely lucky to find a mice leaving the comfort of the snowblanket, in -20 below, but as the sucker I am the obvious reason never dawned on me. Until I was told they use live bait :-\ For this reason only I am no longer a member of  any nature photography association. In fact I wrote a letter to my association explaining the reason why I no longer wanted to be a member and asked them to publish the letter in their magazine. The next publication contained an article written by one of the most profiled wildlife photographer in norway (which admitted to taking photos using live bait in his blog), condemning a photographer for disturbing a crane nest. So in my view, the most profiled wildlife photographers, literally step over dead bodies to get their pictures. And the crowds follow in their footsteps..

If it is one lesson that have learned so far, it is that the most successful people (in any area of life) are the most ruthless. They will get their picture no matter what. And they get away with it. For a while..

Many good points here, even though my position on hunting is different to yours. I know others opinions may be different and also there are many different ways to hunt (legally, poaching is in no way acceptable) and some are more acceptable than others.

I guess a line has to be drawn in terms of what is acceptable in terms of wildlife photography, and in most cases this can only be a personal decision.
From what I have heard a personal line can be drawn somewhere involving bait (dead or alive), but if I ever get to know better the business practices that could change.
I was not aware that at the site mentioned initially in the thread baiting is common practice, this is a pity.
Title: Re: Wildlife in Finland
Post by: Anthony on November 24, 2016, 23:30:50
It is quite possible to do wildlife photography without baiting animals to appear.

Wherever we go to take photos we have some form of impact.

By far the greatest threat to wildlife is habitat encroachment from ordinary people.  Properly managed wildlife photography can protect wild animals by giving them value to local people, who then have an incentive to cease encroachment.

Please do not become too sanctimonious about the subject of wildlife photography.  We are all part of nature, and are entitled to be there, provided we take reasonable steps to minimise damage.
Title: Re: Wildlife in Finland
Post by: David H. Hartman on November 25, 2016, 00:34:00
Though I'm not a hunter I consider hunting more honorable than other ways of obtaining meat but since I'm a timid leaf eater I'll shut up.

Dave
Title: Re: Wildlife in Finland
Post by: PedroS on November 25, 2016, 10:17:02
One thing that disturbs me even more... is there any more wildlife out there? On earth I mean?
Because the deep ocean still not known.

If you look closely to photos, documentaries, and the such, how some images have been taken? And those behaviors are they natural?
One thing is for sure, if those photos or documentaries don't show anything striking they won't sell...
Title: Re: Wildlife in Finland
Post by: Øivind Tøien on November 25, 2016, 13:15:55
In an episode of the National Geographic "Life Below Zero" series that I watched because I know one of the trappers who participate in the series (a week by foot off Chandalar Shelf, Northern Alaska), I spotted a European brown bear scene shot by a Norwegian friend of mine at the site in Northern Finland. It was from one of the early tours, and I could confirm the origin of the shot as he has given me a copy of some of his videos. He is selling micro stock, and was not aware of this particular use when I brought it to his attention. One could even see part of the pig carcass that was used as bait! He was rather flabbergasted the first time he went up there, pig being hauled into the marsh land behind a snow machine... I understand they have moved to more natural bait and gentler transport now. Considering the large bear population in Alaska, and the amount of video capture being done here, seeing the European brown bear in that series almost made me fall off my chair.

As researchers we have often worked with freelancers up on the North Slope, and many of them are patient and doing a very careful job. They do often go by scripts from the major nature film outlets detailing exactly what scenes and behavior that is wanted.

Feeding any kind of wildlife in Alaska except small birds is strictly forbidden (there are some exceptions that require permit), and also forbidden in general on US public federal lands. Here in Alaska you can even be fined if you have a bird feeder out when there are bears around. Unsecured garbage is an even bigger problem in urban areas. Bears get very quickly addicted to these food sources and end up having to be killed by wildlife officials when the situation gets too risky. We have been able to use these bears for research, studying them for a while and extending their life a little, but it is anyway a one way trip and not a solution for the bear, as they cannot be released into the wild again.

Here is an example of how bad it can get - a former crazy neighbor feeding one the largest moose I have seen aorund here though the window up on a tall porch. My initial reaction: Help, the moose is breaking into the cabin! Both might have been drunk - the moose by eating fermented pumkins - plenty of this around Haloween time (not good for the microorganisms in her rumen). I heard she was taken not long after - probably became a too easy target for someone who wanted to fill their freezers. 

(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s5/v116/p45837830.jpg)
 
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s6/v145/p28893235.jpg)
(Compact camera snapshots)
Title: Re: Wildlife in Finland
Post by: basker on November 25, 2016, 15:13:21
Reminds me of the ominous boast in Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian, "If it eats, I can man it."

Now I wonder how many of the "heroic wildlife photographers in their natural habitat" documentaries are industry promos.
Title: Re: Wildlife in Finland
Post by: Ilkka Nissilä on November 28, 2016, 17:58:57
Thank you for the confirmation Elsa, they had me worried there for a minute,,, What about Finland, still there as well?

Where would Finland be going? :o

Although I think the bear photography business in Finland generally results in highly repetitive images, its impact on the bears is likely to be quite small compared to natural parks elsewhere with millions of visitors.

I'm rubbish at wildlife photography but even a blind chicken sometimes finds a grain. This shot is from Lauttasaari, an island in Helsinki, in January 2016. In the cold, many birds tend to congregate in remaining areas of open water before it freezes over. One of the swans actually got stuck in the ice for a while until it was able to free itself.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/29886990273/in/dateposted-public/
Title: Re: Wildlife in Finland
Post by: simato73 on November 28, 2016, 18:15:09
Where would Finland be going? :o

Although I think the bear photography business in Finland generally results in highly repetitive images, its impact on the bears is likely to be quite small compared to natural parks elsewhere with millions of visitors.

I'm rubbish at wildlife photography but even a blind chicken sometimes finds a grain. This shot is from Lauttasaari, an island in Helsinki, in January 2016. In the cold, many birds tend to congregate in remaining areas of open water before it freezes over. One of the swans actually got stuck in the ice for a while until it was able to free itself.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/29886990273/in/dateposted-public/

I hope the one that got frozen is was not the one with the head under!  ;) ;D