Quote: Just my opinion - Don't feed animals in the wild, don't touch animals in the wild, don't throw things at animals in the wild; if you want to get the perfect shot, wait for it to come naturally!
And accept it if you never get it?
After 35 years spending an average of 3 weeks a year in the bush...that's the equivalent of 2 years, I have maybe 5 images of un-habiuated animals. none of them of any quality, I don't feed them, but others do, and that makes it easier for me.
It often seems to me when people say this, they are in denial of the role played by the people in making their pictures possible. I'm not going to go advocating people habituate wild animals, but folks just might want to acknowledge that when they do get pictures of animals in the wild, part of it is they are used to and not alarmed by the presence of people.
A few years ago guy harangued me for posting images of the Arrowhon fox here in Algonquin. When I asked him if he had any pictures of un-habiuated foxes, he said " well I took a picture in almost the same spot, but 20 years ago before everyone went there." The guests at Arrowhon Lodge have been feeding these foxes for 60 years. He was totally full of it.
I have read accounts of people doing it the "right way". It can take them months to get an image, and they have unusual skill sets when it comes to understanding where the animals will be and tracking them. If I have noticed anytime about the "don't feed" folks it's that most of them are complete phonies. They don't acknowledge the fact that they have taken images of habituated animals. If an animal knows you are there and doesn't care, it's habituated. Simple as that. According to some, all photographs should be taken from blinds with really long lenses so the animal is actually not aware of your presence. That's just nonsense.
If you want to get images of any quality at all, find habituated animals, you don't have to feed them or do any of that yourself, but just being used to human presence and car noise is detrimental to wild life. Not just feeding. I you are there, and they are aware of you, you are part of the "problem".
Or, you can take a less extreme approach, and admit there are places where just because of their proximity to roads and human population the wild life have become desensitized to the presence of humans, and go to those places. It's happening whether you are there or not. Those are the places to get wildlife images.
Say you go off into the wilds of grizzly country and find a bear who will actually tolerate you and ignore your presences long enough for a few shots. The next human to approach him may kill him with a weapon. Lulling a wild animal into thinking he can stay put safely with a human around is also extremely dangerous to wildlife. The only way to protect wildlife, is to stay away from them. Completely. And lobby for legislation that makes sure others do as well, and that they are able to have enough wilderness to survive in.
But from a photographer's perspective, do you want pictures or don't you?
The dudes who go out there and kill them bait them. I don't see anyone getting on their case. But there is apparently something terribly morally wrong if someone who wants a picture does it. That's just backwards.
Sorry for the rant... but the "Holier than thou" attitude of the "don't feed" crowd, I find really irritating. I know of maybe two photographers in the world who could pull that off. And their attitude translates to, "no one but me should take wildlife images."