Shortcuts That Shortchange Wildlife Photography

Put the welfare of your wildlife photo subjects first by avoiding practices that endanger and exploit them
Coyote in Yellowstone by Melissa Groo
Coyote crossing a busy road in Yellowstone National Park.

Photography of wild animals is challenging. My own statistics depress me sometimes; roughly 90 percent of the time I head out to photograph wildlife, I end up with nothing. Mostly it’s because I just don’t find any. If I do, they’re beating a hasty retreat before I can even raise my camera, or the light’s bad or coming from the wrong angle. Maybe the animal’s head is turned away, a twig covers her eye, or my camera settings were off for those two seconds she stayed still.

When things do work out and I successfully capture the image that I had imagined and planned for, the satisfaction is particularly intense. The hard-won success makes all those efforts seem worth it. I’ve come to realize that the frustration is simply part and parcel of wildlife photography, which often involves significant time, expense and effort. We are, after all, trying to encounter wild animals who have an instinctive sense of self-preservation, and a well-deserved fear of us humans.

After we repeatedly try and fail to photograph a target species, it’s natural to want to think of a way to persuade it to approach us. As one of animals’ primary concerns is food, one thing we do is offer seed to birds at our feeders. The research is clear: as long as we properly place, clean and provision feeders, the only risk to songbirds is perhaps making them an easier target for roving Cooper’s or sharp-shinned hawks. (At that point, it’s best to stop feeding the birds until the predator has left the area.)

Risks multiply when we offer food to a different sort of animal: predators. News stories and anecdotal reports of wildlife watchers and photographers capitalizing on the hunger of foxes, coyotes, owls and wolves in order to lure them closer seem to be increasing. What many people may not realize is that predators habituate readily to food rewards. Once one human proves a source, all humans start to look like possible sources. The problem is that for every one of us who cherishes these animals, there are dozens of people who don’t understand or like them. And once something like a coyote begins to directly approach humans looking for handouts, it’s often labeled a “nuisance animal” and killed. Sometimes they are killed by cars (especially foxes and owls) as fed animals will frequent roadways, knowing cars may mean humans with food.

Looking to make the perfect wildlife photo without disturbing the natural environment?
Head over to the Outdoor Photographer Gear Store on B&H for the best wildlife cameras, lenses, and accessories.

Do we want to expose animals to these risks by rewarding them with food to come near us? As nature lovers and photographers, I don’t think any of us do. But unwittingly we may be ushering them to a sad fate when we believe feeding them is OK.

Steve Cain, recently retired as senior wildlife biologist for Grand Teton National Park after more than 25 years, shared his thoughts with me on feeding wildlife in parks. “First, feeding wildlife in any way, shape or form is against federal regulations in national parks,” Cain explains. “These are places where natural ecological processes are emphasized. They are fragile and precious systems. Feeding of wildlife has no place in the mix. Second, and most importantly, the pattern of getting more and more aggressive seeking handouts is the same with all animals, and it can and usually does end with the animals being killed as a result.”

Yellowstone National Park’s web site shares a story about a fox “trapped and relocated three times from the Tower Fall parking area because visitors fed it human food. It was relocated between 10 to 60 miles away from Tower, but twice it returned. Finally, the fox came to Mammoth, where it was fed again and as a result was destroyed.” The park goes on to emphasize, “A fed animal is a dead animal—good or bad, the park service will destroy animals that are habituated to human contact and food.”

Owl by Melissa Groo
While baiting wildlife for photo opportunities may seem harmless, it can be very detrimental to the animal. Predators habituate readily to food rewards, which can lead to tragic interactions as fed animals will frequent roadways and other areas where humans are present. Feeding wildlife is against federal regulations in national parks.

This deadly outcome is often the case not just in our national parks but anywhere that humans and predators overlap. Animal control and state wildlife agencies are tasked with euthanizing predators that have lost their wariness of people due to food conditioning.

Some photographers seek out captive animals, as they offer a convenient way to practice technical skills and to photograph species difficult if not impossible to see in the wild. The term “captive” includes a vast range of situations, from zoos to rehabilitation centers to game farms. Quality of life and care is also widely divergent, as strict standards exist for some kinds of places and not at all for others. For instance, zoos that are members of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) are governed by a code of professional ethics; game farms, on the other hand, are not governed by any standard of care by an overseeing entity.

Imagine a place where you can photograph Siberian tigers, snow leopards or lynx kittens free from the confines of a cage, in settings that resemble their native habitats—this is the allure of a game farm. Though longstanding businesses in states like Montana and Minnesota remain destinations for some photographers who seek willing animal models, they have fallen out of favor with many pros. Some see them as little more than “wildlife brothels,” ethically compromised places where animals confined to lifelong imprisonment in small enclosures are trotted out—or driven long distances in a trailer—only to run through their paces for paying customers. Treatment of the animals is a contentious issue. One pro photographer who used to conduct workshops at a popular game farm witnessed a grizzly bear being “handled” with a cattle prod so it would stand and curl its lip in a growl for dramatic photos.

Game farm photos once had a decent chance of adding value to a portfolio: Mountain lions captured mid-leap between boulders; bobcat kittens posed perfectly on a log; a wolf peering out from a stand of trees. The models are always perfectly coiffed, devoid of unsightly scars or injuries. For years, wildlife and hunting magazines were ready and willing markets, and stock agencies supplied them with a steady stream of these images.

Times have changed. Stock photography is, for the most part, moribund. Photos of charismatic, elusive animals posed perfectly in pristine settings are a dime a dozen and have saturated the market. Many magazine editors and photo contests now prohibit game farm photo submissions. Attitudes among photographers have also changed, with many viewing these staged photos of captive animals as a gut-punch to the integrity of wildlife photography. Imagine a photographer who spends months working from a blind to ethically capture images of wild wolves. How can their photos compete with a perfect one achieved in two days by photographers who aren’t willing or able to spend the time, effort or expense to get those shots in the wild? The photographs of truly wild animals that are the counterpart to these captive animal shots get lost in the shuffle of perfect photos. The result is a loss of credibility and integrity to the profession.

Some game farm proponents argue that photographing these animals in captivity means less pressure and intrusion on these animals in the wild. That argument doesn’t hold water in these days of camera traps, increasingly used to capture elusive animals and as non-intrusive as you can get when thoughtfully set up. One pro photographer argues that game farms may actually be increasing stress on animals in the wild. Jess Lee used to take photography clients to game farms but is now a vocal opponent. He maintains that these images may be influencing the way photographers behave in the field. In a quest to compete with these photos that depict a rare animal close-up in an ideal setting, photographers may be pushing the limits of ethical practices. Lee believes that many photographers don’t know enough about wildlife behavior to understand the consequences of trying to recreate game farm scenes in the wild, and that as these unethical actions become more pronounced, all wildlife photographers will become more restricted due to changes in regulations.

In sum, no image is worth more than the subject and its welfare. I firmly believe that fantastic photographs of wildlife are possible without making choices that compromise animals or the integrity of our work, and I am grateful that most wildlife photographers I know operate this way, too.

If you agree, and want to know what you can do to support a more ethical culture in wildlife photography, here are some things to consider. Thinking about a workshop that promises close-up photos of an elusive wild wolf or owl? Ask before enrolling: “How can you guarantee getting near these subjects? Is food being offered?” One workshop leader offers wolf photography workshops from blinds, baiting them with food nearby. What if this leads them to associate people with food? The wolves are safe in the non-hunting area where the workshops occur, but once they wander outside of this area, they are fair game for the many hunters who target them.

Red fox by Melissa Groo
Red fox approaches a vehicle, possibly hoping for a handout.

Keep in mind that game farm photos and baited shots are ineligible for many photo contests and magazines. If interested in conservation photography, organizations like the International League of Conservation Photographers (ILCP) are deeply concerned with ethics in photography and have taken strong stands against game farms as well.

If the workshop is focused on captive animals, ask questions. Are they rescued animals? Are they being bred? Do they have any connection to canned hunting operations? Do they belong to any organization that holds them to high standards? If you’re going to a zoo, for instance, make sure it holds AZA membership.

Label your photos of captive animals appropriately, even on social media. Truth in captioning is critical. Value your own honesty and integrity, and others will, too.

Melissa Groo is a wildlife photographer, writer and conservationist. She believes that photography can be both fine art and a powerful vehicle for storytelling and education, and considers herself a “wildlife biographer” as much as a wildlife photographer. Passionate about ethics in nature photography, Groo is represented by Nat Geo Creative, a contributing editor to Audubon magazine and an Associate Fellow with the International League of Conservation Photographers. She advises the National Audubon Society on ethical photography, and has also counseled National Wildlife magazine and NANPA (North American Nature Photography) on guidelines for ethical wildlife photography. She also serves as a member of NANPA’s Ethics Committee. In 2017, Melissa received the Katie O'Brien Lifetime Achievement Award from Audubon Connecticut, for demonstrating exceptional leadership and commitment to the conservation of birds, other wildlife and their habitats. She also received the NANPA 2017 Vision Award, given to a photographer every two years in recognition of early career excellence, vision and inspiration to others in nature photography, conservation and education.


    Thank You Melissa! So glad to see someone speak up about Game Farms too! It’s about Time and I’m happy to hear that Jess has come around to realizing that they are just Animals for Hire and can be treated in much the same way…. I always wondered just what they do with all the Babies that they seem to have every year??? Ugh!

    It has been 4 years since we visited Animals of Montana. The captive animals there were well treated and appeared amazingly happy. While I much prefer to shoot in the wild and have not returned, I think that the setting and way the animals were treated was far more humane than the restricted environment of a Zoo.

    Richard, I’m afraid I have to disagree that the captive animals at Animals of Montana are humanely treated. In fact, you may have picked the worst of the bunch, and that’s saying something. Perhaps you aren’t aware of the recent scandal that ensued after the following article was published. A few minutes worth of research revealed that these animals were captive, belonging to Troy Hyde, owner of Animals of Montana. Wolves and a bear set up to fight over food, risking injury, even death, for the sake of photos. If that’s not inhumane, I don’t know what is.
    You can also click on this google search to learn all about how Troy has been cited for violating the Lacey Act and the Endangered Species Act:*

    Hello Melissa,

    Your written articles and insight into wildlife behaviours and lives is incredible and so inspiring to me. Your photography of the animals is just as good, and I envy it. I live a little north of you and the magazine, just up in southern Ontario. I just finally figured out that doing wildlife photography would be something I’d be so passionate about. Your articles and images helped me to decide to start pursuing my passion. I try to buy the Outdoor Photographer magazine every chance I get when I see it on the shelf. So I finally gave in to the temptation and bought a decent Canon dslr camera meant for wildlife. Now, learning how to actually use it well, is a completely different story. That’ll take some practice. I also find that I share a lot of the same views about wildlife as you do. Respect for wild animals is first and foremost. Sometimes it’s just not the right time and you have to back away and leave them be. It’s a privilege to actually get the chance to photograph them in the wild. And to me there honestly isn’t anything more thrilling and exciting. It’s like a secret world that’s fascinating, yet seldom discovered. Feeding wild animals is never a good idea. It breaks my heart every time I hear on the news that they had to kill an animal because of human error. And the answer is always just to kill it with no questions asked by people. Animals have a hard enough time in the wild surviving without us intervening. I am very happy to learn from your article that photo contests and magazines are no longer accepting entries from game farms and baited traps. It’s nice to have the integrity of the industry coming back and the photographers skill, time and effort allowed to be shown through. Do you happen to know if using traditional wooden calls for attracting animals is allowed? Are scents prohibited?

    Your articles are a great fresh take on the lives of animals. I always look forward to reading them and seeing the matching photographs. You have my compliments on the work that you do. I try to get out of my urban area as much as possible. It’s so peaceful and exciting to get out in the wilderness and try to capture a piece of it.

    Enjoy your night!

    Daniel, thank you for taking the time to write, and to share your thoughts. I’m so glad to hear I have helped to inspire your nature photography, and that you feel as I do that the safety of our wild subjects come first. I wish you the very best with your photography!

    Thank you, Melissa Groo! As someone who does in fact work in the animal industry field and has an (obvious) passion for wildlife photography in particular, I absolutely loved the points you put forth in your article so much I registered an account on the website just so I could comment:) You are absolutely right, in taking shortcuts we actually do more harm to animal subjects since their most successful survival trait is staying AWAY from people. In fact, while I was reading the February 2017 issue, one of the ads had a caption that said it was taken out in the wild but, taking a closer look, I was able to tell this was not true and the animal in the picture was a hired animal for a photo shoot.
    Easier is not always better. We do ourselves, and photography, a greater service when wild shots are truly wild. Human impact unfortunately makes a very big difference. Take only pictures, leave only footprints.
    Have a great day everyone ?

    Great article, as always. Glad to see that contests and publishers are moving away from photos that involve game farms and/or feeding, as this helps remove some of the incentive to use these unethical approaches. It seems to me another factor that could help is zoom capability. The greater the zoom capability of one’s camera/lens, the further from the animal the photographer can be and still “get the shot.” I’ve actually gotten in the practice of using a good bridge camera with a built-in telephoto lens for wildlife photos. There’s obviously some decrease in overall image quality versus an SLR, but it’s hard to beat the price for the amount of optical zoom one gets (a few hundred dollars for a decent bridge camera versus many thousands of dollars for a good telephoto lens). The one I’m currently using offers up to “65X” (1325mm) optical zoom, so I can be 25+ yards away from an animal and yet it looks I took the photo from right beside it. If more photographers included similar cameras in their “bag,” perhaps they’d feel less compelled to get too close to wildlife or engage in unethical practices?

Leave a Reply

Main Menu