WIRED: Shooting Nature: Cameras Gain Popularity, Guns Lose

[jsrockit]

Just in case someone was interested:

http://www.wired.com/playbook/2012/0...tivity-survey/

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Just in case someone was interested:

http://www.wired.com/playbook/2012/0...tivity-survey/

Not that there's anything wrong with photographing wildlife, but I laughed reading through those comments at the bottom of the article. In the US the vast majority of conservation funds come from hunting - one figure was something like $40million worth of funds going directly to conservation from one years worth of hunting in one state (wisconsin?) alone. I don't think people realize how much wildlife conservation actually rests on hunting!

[Corto]

here in Pa and in NJ as well the numbers of hunters has declined to the point that deer have become a pest. Not to mention all the Housing developments that have pushed out whatever remaining few natural predators there were....

[boomguy57]

Thanks for posting. Interesting.

[benlees]

I've always wanted to try shooting those clay pigeon thingamajigs. Haven't done it because I get the feeling I would get addicted to it! I'd rather have couple of cameras than a couple of guns and shooting pictures is pleasantly lo-key and when you're done there's is more than a bunch of empty shells- sometimes.

[Nikkor AIS]

I have been documenting the destruction of the habitat for several years in a long term project. In Aidrie alberta Canada. \

So much wetland and native prarie grass land has been detroyed it makes me sick.


THe destruation of habbitat is the single greatest threat to wildlife in my opinion.

As distastefull as It may seem to some. Every hunter I have ever met understands the concept of sustainability .

Not true with Developers building shopping malls and single story houses.

Anything that protects habbitat also protects wildlife.
sustainability
Even if those sames folks at one point in the season, want shoot the wildlife they are protecting.

Which seems messed up but the fact is unless the do gooders /anti hunters are willing to put there money where there mouth is and buy land and leave it alone for wildlife to there thing, exsist.

But I really think for the most part hunters get a bad rap and are painted by an unfair brush.

There real killers are what I call the yellow death.



this is shot taken on what used to be a local marsh in Airdrie.

There is just such a huge presure from humans on wild animals exsistance from not just habbitat destruction , but getting run down by cars and being trapped, and poisioned and...OO . Not to mention just finding enough food fresh water to suvive and stay warm enough not to feeze to death is a miracle. It really is.


Anyways, ya pick up a camera instead of a gun.

In the end, what is needed is cash to buy land, so that animals can have wild places to live safe from the intrusion of man.























rogaltacdesign.smugmug

[Mackinaw]

Hardly surprising. At least for the U.S., about 80% of the population lives in urban areas and their exposure to nature is limited to parks and TV programs. Hunting is, by and large, a rural past time. Having lived in both urban and rural areas, the cultural differences are very real.

Jim B.

[rxmd]

Yeah well if more people are watching nature, this is a good thing both for the people and for nature... so all the defense mode comments about hunting and sustainability largely seem like a straw man argument.

[Mackinaw]

This is hardy the place for a philosophical argument, but after working 34 years in Natural Resources management, I can tell you that the great majority of urban dwellers in the U.S. have virtually no understanding of basic ecology. Their disconnect with nature is very real and is also very disheartening.

Jim B.

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by Mackinaw

This is hardy the place for a philosophical argument, but after working 34 years in Natural Resources management, I can tell you that the great majority of urban dwellers in the U.S. have virtually no understanding of basic ecology. Their disconnect with nature is very real and is also very disheartening.

So much the better if they now go out more.

[Bobbo]

I am a crazy rural gun owner... and I've never gone hunting. I don't really feel the need, but when I move to a new place this year, I may need to get a chest freezer for film and deer meat, though . Good corn-fed deer is almost as good as the organic, free-range Angus raised over the hill from me in a nearby college town.

In a rural area, I've noticed guns can be a necessity. When I was in high school, I lived on a "retired" farm -- it had been used for farming for 150 years, but was then home to just a horse, some barn cats and the occasional SPCA chicken. One day, we found a coyote in the barn. It was covered in mange, it was injured by a car and, as far as we could tell, quite possibly rabid. We did not own a gun, so we called a neighbor who came up with a shotgun and took care of the problem. Shortly thereafter, we bought a gun.

Besides, hunters are some of the best environmentalists I can think of. The members of my rod and gun club are constantly collaborating with Ducks Unlimited and Trout Unlimited to clear streams, rebuild ponds, etc., and every time I buy anything for one of my guns, there's a federal excise tax going directly to wildlife preservation. It doesn't surprise me people who want to get rid of the EPA often are not hunters (cough, Mitt Romney, cough). You would be surprised how many waterfowl hunters supported the lead shot ban, having seen the effects of lead poisoning on waterfowl.

The other plus side to hunting -- especially deer -- is fewer car accidents. I've hit four deer myself since I got my license 8 years ago. Deer are now more populous in New York than they were before white people showed up and virtually exterminated them (most deer you see in my area are actually related to deer brought from Michigan to repopulate). To top it off, there are few predators other than the occasional Ford Taurus.

[bean_counter]

40 years ago when I was a kid, my family moved out to a rural area in the midwest. New subdivision, multi-acre lots on what had been VERY poor farmland. In 1972, wildlife was actually relatively scarce; I rarely saw anything "interesting". A century of farming, modern pesticides, and a real problem with ferral dogs had driven it all off.

Fast-forward to today; I am living there again, with my family. 40 years of gradual conservation work have paid off HUGE. Sure, lots of development has occurred, but good conservation principals have allowed the local wildlife to return - and flourish.

Now, I see wildlife on a near daily basis that I rarely, or never saw in the '70's; fox, turkey, bobcat, heron, owls, turtles, tree frogs, wood ducks, and a herd of deer - not just the one or two of the past.

It may be easy to make hunters and development the target, but things are MUCH better than they used to be. Paid for in large part by these very targets.

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by bean_counter

It may be easy to make hunters and development the target

Except that nobody here is doing it. Nobody in this thread has made hunters the target, at all. Nor has the article.

Are you guys all going into defensive mode just because of a few people writing the usual stuff in the comments section on a different website?

[filmtwit]

While hunting and fishing does pay for conservation work, the vast majority of funds for conservation comes from the sale of lumber.

Originally Posted by gavinlg

Not that there's anything wrong with photographing wildlife, but I laughed reading through those comments at the bottom of the article. In the US the vast majority of conservation funds come from hunting - one figure was something like $40million worth of funds going directly to conservation from one years worth of hunting in one state (wisconsin?) alone. I don't think people realize how much wildlife conservation actually rests on hunting!

[Nikkor AIS]

Bean Counter,

how are things MUCH better than they used to be.?


In the last three years , Iv seen more land swallowed up, and wild animals dead on the road , and marshes turned to pavement than ever before. At least around these parts.







Just took this image this morning.

On the other side of the hill is huge area that is getting "yellowed deathed" out of exsistance. At least as far as wild habitat and animals.

[bean_counter]

you can't stop progress; but we can manage the "big picture" much better and ensure that GOOD habitat is provided

I'll wager that if the lands in the photo above were in or near long-established farming or industry, they were probably nearly dead to full food chain wildlife by the early '70's. There might be less habitat now, but we have come a long way on quality.

[Nikkor AIS]

Bean Counter,

Sorry to say, this land was native prairie soil. Which has the good grass that is good eats, for deer and Richardson ground squirrels. Or as I like to call them. The protein of the praires.


Im confussed with you assertion on less habitat, but more quaility ?



The things is about critters is there sense of space is differnt than yours.

Trying to get close wild animals in the alberta praire and so find out that unless your working from a blind, you need long glass. Why because they wont toleralte us humans getting close.



And the way we build and spread out these new subdivisions and mall is nothing short of disgusting.

First off they level every last inch of nature on the surface. Literrally not single blade of grass remains. Secondly , they have never left a marsh sitting in the middle of a subdivsion. Even though it would increase the land values and leave a little for nature.

As other's have noted in this thread. There is a disconnnect in how we feel about nature.


From my prespecitvie . It's part of use and we of it.

Digging it up, and poising the rivers is like cutting off are own legs and drinking poision.
It's make no sense.


The thing is around theses parts. It's all about money and jobs . God forbib anyone saying differnt.

IF there is an endangered species in land that ear marked to be developed.
Than the saying "Shoot, shovel, and shut up comes to mind"


It's like the idiots in the minature train place next to my condo.
Over the years I have documented poisoning the ground squirrles(and called the police). When it first happened and I went over there and asked them to stop a couple of years ago. They seemed shocked when I informed them that the haxks and the foxes and the coyotee's that would eat the dead goffer's would also die.

It's not just that poision without proper permits. It's just a lack of respect for nature.

There answer was to shrug there shoulder's . Saying they didnt like goffer holes.



Someone mentioned managing nature. From my experience that is code for some small furry animal, or some bird , or some liitle frog, to get the short end of the stick.


The only answer is to set some land aside for wild animals. Period.
How much land. I don't know. What ever we think they need and times it by four. Sounds about right.


Because the ways where going now, around there parts. In one generation , it will all be gone.
And what will we have in it's place.
Ugly houses with no communtiy center's in there neiborhoods, and shopping malls.








This is telling in that this lone tree's day are numbered as the city's next subdivision looms near.

[paulfish4570]

hunting and fishing taxes and conservation efforts brought back wildlife, NOT the timber industry. if the timber industry had its way, every stick of hardwood would be cut down, and pines planted in their place. timber monoculture is deadly to wildlife. every rifle cartridge and shotgun shell i buy helps provide land and water and management for wildlife. big timber interests do lease much of their lands to hunting clubs, which, in turn, improve the land for wildlife. when big timber is a good neighbor, it is a big help, as in leaving hardwood hollows alone, and select cutting instead of clear cutting. cutting in small doses helps wildlfie, too, as important forbs freshen things up.
i like to photograph and i like to hunt. these two interests mesh well in my book.

[dave lackey]

Originally Posted by paulfish4570

hunting and fishing taxes and conservation efforts brought back wildlife, NOT the timber industry. if the timber industry had its way, every stick of hardwood would be cut down, and pines planted in their place. timber monoculture is deadly to wildlife. every rifle cartridge and shotgun shell i buy helps provide land and water and management for wildlife. big timber interests do lease much of their lands to hunting clubs, which, in turn, improve the land for wildlife. when big timber is a good neighbor, it is a big help, as in leaving hardwood hollows alone, and select cutting instead of clear cutting. cutting in small doses helps wildlfie, too, as important forbs freshen things up.
i like to photograph and i like to hunt. these two interests mesh well in my book.

+1... Environmental changes are a huge problem, not only for natural habitats, but for a balance between sustainable growth of a region and environmental protection. And no one has a clue what sustainable growth in balance really is...not a clue.

Now that I am retired from all of that rat race (the rats won), I follow the same path that Paul just mentioned. Balance. What better for wildlife management than managed hunts and what better appreciation for wildlife than to photograph them?

Of course, others do not necessarily appreciate hunting but my son and his family have enjoyed the year's supply of elk meat in the freezer. I reckon I taught him well when he was young but I regret not instilling a joy of photography along with it. Me thinks it will come along in time.

[paulfish4570]

the article did NOT back up the headline and lede paragraph. the article DID say the surveys showed more people are getting outside and activities are far more varied than just hunting and/or fishing.
i do agree that fewer parents nowadays are teaching their kids to hunt and fish. you know what? hunting and fishing success are not necessarily easy. one has to work at it. gear costs money, upkeep costs money, membership in a hunting club costs money, fuel costs money, as do guides, etc. one can put the cost of a good rifle and scope into a good dslr and long lens, and not have to buy ammo or a license to hunt game. hey, i am all for more photographers getting into the woods. just make sure you wear orange and don't trespass during hunting season. i do wonder if nature photographers would mind paying a wildlife excise tax on their gear ...

[TXForester]

Originally Posted by gavinlg

In the US the vast majority of conservation funds come from hunting - one figure was something like $40million worth of funds going directly to conservation from one years worth of hunting in one state (wisconsin?) alone. I don't think people realize how much wildlife conservation actually rests on hunting!

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration act, better known as the Pittman-Robertson act taxes ammunition and firearms and archery equipment. About 62% of the funds go to states for buying, maintaining and managing wildlife management areas. About 26% goes to states for research in wildlife management.

This isn't limited to game animals. Non-game animals also use the same habitats. Non-hunters benefit too. Most land where game and non-game animals are managed are multiple use. You can boat, picnic, bird watch, swim, hike and shoot photos.

And, I'd bet people would b***h if they had to pay a tax on camera equipment and binoculars that goes to wildlife management and conservation.

[bean_counter]

Nikor AIS,

better quality habitat = more livable natural habitat for wildlife. Cleared agricultural land is not natural habitat. Your pictures look like farmland to me. Looks like my neighborhood before folks got involved and worked to set aside and improve the land. It has taken more than a generation, but species have returned, and are thriving.

Development and conservation can compliment each other well.

You describe Alberta as the 1870's-1960's America, raping nature for profit, poisoning waters and killing wildlife. Pitty, I hope your point of reference is skewed.

[Nikkor AIS]

Bean Counter,


Not farm land. Native soil.

As far as point of view being skewed. Like we say in these parts. It isnt lying if you can back it up. And despite my horrible spelling. I am trained journalist and I documented everything.

Sue me if I am lying




This on the fringes of Calgary right beisde nose creek.




As far the wildlife coming back. Not going to happen around here. How could it when it's all dead? And even if it wasnt. Where would it live?


And what's left of the rabbits and the odd porcupine get run over on the road. And I am not so sure some folks don't run it down just for sport.

I mean how fast can a porcupine move?




this is a shot of Canada goose , flying off my roof . Hoonking clearly pissed off at the fact the marsh they nested at last year is now gone




Or one day you see a nice rabbit




And the next day you see this. Both images taken right outside my condo.

The other day my mom was talking to me about my work and she love the those CSI programs. And she says that my work is forenisc photographer.

And I told her, ya it is . It.s a crime scene .

It really is. And some one should go to jail for what they have done.













Here is a pretty good picture of the location of the marsh and the "devolpment" that threatens it.




one with 8mm




I am glad some of the hunter's are making some good points. Personally I don't hunter's bullets doing much good around here.

Ducks unlimited is joke.

The fact is this whole area was once some of the best wetland in the whole world.

Non of it should have ever been "yellow deathed".

Now so much has been lost... it's just sad.


As far as huters being the great protectors of the wildlife. Personally I would have a lot more love for them if they would aim there rifels at the yellow beast that tearing the land I grew up on. (Kidding) Kind of sort of .




This land was all native soil, that a horses used to graze on.



The scarry thing is four years ago there flocks of like 150 Canadain geese, and every year the numbers get less and less.

This year I didnt harldy see any. And if I did , It was one or two.



Yes sir , when the yellow death comes rolling. Not a single stone is left unturned.



I often go in after the neiborhoodnis built and document.

And what I see is a lot of wasted building material being thrown in the land fill.

The amount of garbage from a single house is mind blowing





Not even considering when stairs get made wrong. What do you do with a custum stair.. Well , I guess it can become partical board.







How about a little soil erroison. This native grass land. And it also had tree's and little ponds I fished near nose I fished in when I was a kid.


The fact is when my book comes out and the I expose what we let happen I will so hated, I will have to leave.

At this point I could a less.

All my long glass is gone. Nothing to shoot.

And whats funny the local wont print a word against the development becacue ... where do you think all big money advertising comes from

ding ding ding

the big shot developers selling there ugly cheaply made houses.

We wouldnt want upset them.

Up set them I would like to shove my size shoe up there asses.

And personally having seen and been shown first hand, how house are supoposed to be built by father years ago. I wouldnt pay ten cents for the peices of **** they are pumping out now. Five feet from one another.

Is it any wonder , when one burns, the ones beisde it always go in flames to . I think not.



The running joke around these parts is the subdivsions are named for what used to be there. "Foxhollow"

The whole the business makes me sick




here is a shot of native soil running down the storm drain.





The thing that just burns is how stupid we are thinking what we are destroying isn so much more important than ...





this.


In the years to come when it's all gone. And we got nothing but memories of the animals and places they lived. And my documentary photo's of crime. How are going to be able to look at are childern's, childern in the eye.

A couple of years ago I made sit in the car at local march and just watch as Took photo's with Nikkor 800 AIS sticking out the window. They where cranky being stuck in the car with nothing to see (sarcasam) but like I told them . Have a look around because next years this marsh is gone.. And it was.


The thing is unless close attention you don't miss a thing that is gone. Like a bird, or little pond where frogs lived and used to croak on summer nights.

As I am typing this I notice the night is very quite.






Gregory


rogaltacdesign.smugmug.

[bigeye]

It's an affront to hunters because we're spending a lot more effectively on conservation than those with cameras. The title should be, "Shooting Nature: Cameras Gain Popularity, Guns Lose, Animals Lose"

One of the oldest and best models for conservation is Ducks Unlimited They are, by far, more aggressive and agile than the Federal government and effective than other conservancy orgs. 12 million acres of habitat under their control and this does not include the 95 million acres they 'influence' the government to protect.

-Charlie

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by bigeye

It's an affront to hunters because we're spending a lot more effectively on conservation than those with cameras. The title should be, "Shooting Nature: Cameras Gain Popularity, Guns Lose, Animals Lose"

I thought the article has made it pretty clear on what the reason for that is, namely the economic downturn. No wonder that during an economic downturn, the amount of money available for conservation decreases. No, this is not an affront to hunters, unless maybe to the habitually affronted.

Hunting is an expensive hobby. Looking at animals isn't. And even though it has "cameras" in the title, the article doesn't talk about people buying more 600mm lenses for wildlife photography, it talks about ordinary people getting out more. Remember, that's a good thing!