Wildlife in Finland

[David H. Hartman]

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. 

[BW]

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..

[Erik Lund]

This thread is getting more and more scary.

[simato73]

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.

[Anthony]

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.

[David H. Hartman]

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

[PedroS]

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...

[Øivind Tøien]

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. 


 

(Compact camera snapshots)

[basker]

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.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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?

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/

[simato73]

Where would Finland be going?

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!