[Naturenut]

(This is an off shoot of another thread):

How do you guys feel about these game farms that photographers can pay to go to in order to shoot pictures? I read something by Tom Mangelsen and I have to say, at the risk of 'ruffling some feathers' if you will, that I pretty much agree with what he has to say. I would not personally go to or support such a place. But again, that is my personal stance on it for a myriad of reasons, most of which are unrelated to photography. Anyway, just wondered how you guys feel as a different thread reminded me of what Mr. Mangelsen wrote.

Btw, here's the link to what he wrote. Direct link is: http://naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/conservation-and-ethics/40-conservati...rm-photography

If that doesn't work go to http://www.mangelsen.com/ Under "About Tom", click on "News". Then from there look under 2009 for "Point of View: Game Farm photography" for a link.

[RioRico]

My first impulse was to bring up issues like: Wild animals likely aren't happy about being enclosed. But enclosed animals generally live much longer. What's the ethical problem with a long unhappy life? Or: People kill and eat and otherwise exploit and mistreat animals (and each other). Animals eat people (and each other). Who has the moral high ground?

Instead, I'll take a systems analysis approach, which is: 1) Define your desired outputs; 2) Discern the available inputs; 3) Figure how to get from the latter to the former -- design the transformation process(es).

So, what are the desired outputs? Opportunities to photograph animals; avoiding mistreatment (or worse) of the subject animals. Can you think of any others?

And the available inputs? Animals. People. Cameras. Transportation. What else?

So what are possible processes? Travel to where the animals are. Bring the animals to where the photographers are. Ban animal photography (that's the null solution). Can you think of anything else?

What are the spin-offs here? Travel/transportation involves pollution, transfers of wealth, risk, entertainment, disease transmission, etc. What else?

I don't have any good answers yet. Now it's your turn.

On the one hand I disagree with them but on the other hand, if the kills are going to be eaten, then I would say that the animals are a lot happier than cows in a feedlot. In that case, extending the same principles to domestic food animals would be something I would be in favour of. If people wanted to eat meat, they would first have to kill it. Obviously they could have someone dressing their kills so they don't get their hands dirty but at least they would have to do the dirty deed and take a life. The animals would still be dead but at least their lives would be more comfortable and stress free. Staff would be on call to administer the coup de grace whenever a clean kill wasn't achieved by the 'hunter'.

I know, pretty extreme, just thinking out loud.

[RioRico]

If people wanted to eat meat, they would first have to kill it.

"Kill what you eat and eat what you kill."

Tell it to the Marines.

Would this end war?

Or: I can see it now -- only cannibals are allowed to join any military force.

Apply it to the justice system: cops, judges, juries, anyone imposing death.

The penalty for murder or manslaughter? Eat the victim's remains.

Would this (mostly) end homicide?

But I digress. Tofu doesn't scream.

"Kill what you eat and eat what you kill."

Tell it to the Marines.

Would this end war?

They get special dispensation. Only after the four legged creatures run out though.

[MRRiley]

Game Farm Animal = Zoo Animal

Thus photos of Game Farm Animals, should be disclosed just as you would disclose that a shot was taken in a zoo.

p.s. where was hunting mentioned?

I can't believe they have these farms just for photographers, therefore, there must be some killing going on.

If they were strictly for photographers, I don't see the point in them, the only difference from a zoo would be that the photographer has to walk more.

[wildlifephotog]

Actually the photog can get closer, and with less crowd problems. Many zoos keep folks back too far, and the crowds don't cooperate.
Many of the "farm" animals have been conditioned to working with photographers. Though the methods sometimes leaves much to be desired.

My attitude is, it's not just 'getting the picture, it's 'getting to get the picture'. If travelling to the wilds to attempt to photograph the animals in their native environments isn't possible, I'd rather sit at home with a couple of beers and read National Geographic.

Despite what we as photographers think about zoo animals as subjects, at least zoos (ostensibly) have conservationist intentions. These game farms are just 'for profit'.

[wildlifephotog]

Yep, profit driven. Most of the animals they get for free. They are discards from nutcase pet owners. I have two of these near me. One specializes in big cats and bears. He has got the animals from defunct circuses and screwy animal lovers. His fee is low, or bring him a dead cow or horse.

Perhaps, an acceptable form of these game farms would be one set up on a charitable, conservationist basis.
Income over and above that required for the upkeep of the facility used for funding of research and education that might be beneficial to the species concerned.
I might consider that kind of set up to be an acceptable compromise.

[wildlifephotog]

The gentleman with the cats and bears makes no profit. He only wants to feed the animals.
He only asks for donations of money, or as I said food for the animals. I've taken him a few roadkill deer in the past. He doesn't make the cats perform.
It's a blast to get that close though.

[wildman]

I just couldn't objectify other creatures this way.

I take pictures not for the sake of the pictures but to try and share a little bit of the other creatures life and habitat.

To take pictures this way would take the heart out of it for me and would show in my pictures.

I just couldn't objectify other creatures this way.

I take pictures not for the sake of the pictures but to try and share a little bit of the other creatures life and habitat.

To take pictures this way would take the heart out of it for me and would show in my pictures.

I'm in total agreement with you. My previous post was merely to suggest how I would find the existence of these establishments to be acceptable.

[wjt]

Mabye the people running them wouldn't mind being caged, poked and prodded and had photos taken of them... the photo's in the article made me sad, they could at least have nice sized enclosures. I think the guy was right and they should disclose that they essentially cheated in the photo's. 42 days and 500 rolls of film is dedication but you can tell he enjoyed every second of it.

On a side note, i had 15 minutes till an ebay auction for a super tak 50mm 1.4 ended, thought i'd read a thread or two, got to this one and read the article... missed the auction went really cheap too. Ah well, teach me for getting sidetracked.