Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 19 posts | 
by DarkSide on Tue Apr 15, 2014 10:35 am
User avatar
DarkSide
Forum Contributor
Posts: 203
Joined: 20 May 2012
Location: South Texas
Unlike a zoo which has small pens and cages, I'm curious if the folks here feel that wildlife refuges are considered captive or not.

I know most game seen in Africa is on some type of refuge. Here in Texas there are ranches that around thousands and thousands of acres.

The main reason I ask is for the purpose of labeling photos either captive or not.

Your thoughts?
Life is short - shoot good glass!
 

by John Guastella on Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:02 am
John Guastella
Forum Contributor
Posts: 340
Joined: 23 Oct 2010
If you use the formal definition of "captive" (via Google: "a person who has been taken prisoner or an animal that has been confined"), then I suppose if the animal is behind a fence or barrier of any kind -- regardless of the size of the area in which it is free to roam -- it would be considered captive.


John
 

by E.J. Peiker on Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:08 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
In the US, there are no fences pens or anything on National Wildlife Refuges. Animals come and go as they please and are not captive.
 

by DarkSide on Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:41 am
User avatar
DarkSide
Forum Contributor
Posts: 203
Joined: 20 May 2012
Location: South Texas
But what about wildlife ranches let say, that are thousands of miles around?
Life is short - shoot good glass!
 

by SantaFeJoe on Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:29 pm
User avatar
SantaFeJoe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 8622
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere Out In The Wilds
I have been on ranches and private lands where wild turkeys and deer (free-roaming) can be hand fed, but I have also been to forest lands where people hand feed wild, free-roaming deer, turkeys, squirrels and raccoons. These wild animals are not confined by fences or enclosures and can leave anytime. They are not in confinement, in my opinion, even though they are tame. On game ranches as large as you are talking about, they are not truly confined, in my opinion. Captive, to me, means that an animal or bird is dependent on humans for sustenance to survive within it's confines and/or cannot freely leave human presence.

Joe
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.  -Pablo Picasso
 

by dougc on Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:14 pm
User avatar
dougc
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1567
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Texas
I would consider animals on a high fenced ranch (quite common in Texas) that cannot escape the fence to be captive. Obviously birds, reptiles etc. that can clear the fences would be considered wild. A lot depends on your definition of "captive". The deer are confined yet go about their natural behavior in a completely normal way. It is easier to photograph deer on a high fenced ranch than it is in say, a national forest, but there is no guarantee of success.
 

by baldsparrow on Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:55 pm
User avatar
baldsparrow
Forum Contributor
Posts: 415
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
If the animals are living freely, feeding and reproducing in a natural habitat similar to that they would be living in were people not around then worrying about whether they are wild or captive seems to me to be hair-splitting.
 

by dougc on Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:52 pm
User avatar
dougc
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1567
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Texas
Agreed.
 

by photoman4343 on Tue Apr 15, 2014 5:36 pm
photoman4343
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1952
Joined: 1 Feb 2004
Location: Houston, TX
I agree with Baldsparrrow's and Sante Fe Joe's comments. I have photographed wildlife on fenced ranches in Texas and have rarely gotten a deer photo because these animals live in the wild. They take care of themselves, have to avoid predators, etc. In no way are they tame or used to humans. Captive is the last word I would use to describe them as that term is usually used.

Joe Smith
Joe Smith
 

by John Guastella on Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:20 pm
John Guastella
Forum Contributor
Posts: 340
Joined: 23 Oct 2010
The states define "captive wildlife" in various laws, rule and regulations.

From the Arizona Game and Fish Department:

"Captive live wildlife" means live wildlife that is held in captivity, physically restrained, confined, impaired, or deterred to prevent it from escaping to the wild or moving freely in the wild.

From the Nebraska Administrative Code (Keeping Wildlife in Captivity)

Captivity - Means a condition which limits or restricts the free egress or free range of wild birds, wild mammals or wildlife by the use of fences, barriers or restraints.

So from a legal standpoint, it appears that the amount of land within the confined area, the behavior of the animal, its dependence or lack thereof on humans, etc. are irrelevant: if it's behind a fence or other human-made barrier, it's captive.

John
 

by rnclark on Wed Apr 16, 2014 9:45 am
rnclark
Lifetime Member
Posts: 864
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Member #:01978
John Guastella wrote:The states define "captive wildlife" in various laws, rule and regulations.

From the Arizona Game and Fish Department:

"Captive live wildlife" means live wildlife that is held in captivity, physically restrained, confined, impaired, or deterred to prevent it from escaping to the wild or moving freely in the wild.

From the Nebraska Administrative Code (Keeping Wildlife in Captivity)

Captivity - Means a condition which limits or restricts the free egress or free range of wild birds, wild mammals or wildlife by the use of fences, barriers or restraints.

So from a legal standpoint, it appears that the amount of land within the confined area, the behavior of the animal, its dependence or lack thereof on humans, etc. are irrelevant: if it's behind a fence or other human-made barrier, it's captive.

John
So, by this definition, the bison in Yellowstone are captive.

In much of the US and probably Europe and most developed countries, wildlife is effectively captive in parks and refuges, surrounded by development.

Roger
 

by dbostedo on Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:54 am
User avatar
dbostedo
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1593
Joined: 24 May 2007
Location: Fairfax, VA, USA
rnclark wrote:
John Guastella wrote:The states define "captive wildlife" in various laws, rule and regulations.

From the Arizona Game and Fish Department:

"Captive live wildlife" means live wildlife that is held in captivity, physically restrained, confined, impaired, or deterred to prevent it from escaping to the wild or moving freely in the wild.

From the Nebraska Administrative Code (Keeping Wildlife in Captivity)

Captivity - Means a condition which limits or restricts the free egress or free range of wild birds, wild mammals or wildlife by the use of fences, barriers or restraints.

So from a legal standpoint, it appears that the amount of land within the confined area, the behavior of the animal, its dependence or lack thereof on humans, etc. are irrelevant: if it's behind a fence or other human-made barrier, it's captive.

John
So, by this definition, the bison in Yellowstone are captive.

In much of the US and probably Europe and most developed countries, wildlife is effectively captive in parks and refuges, surrounded by development.

Roger
Even in South Africa, most of the wildlife is confined to certain areas. Some of those areas are the size of entire US states though, so defining captive purely by having a "confined area" doesn't seem to be productive.

Kruger, for instance, is almost the size of New Jersey, and the animals behavior, territory, and life cycles are the same as if the park fence wasn't there. So I think that has to factor in.
David Bostedo
Vienna, VA, USA
 

by Tombenson on Wed Apr 16, 2014 11:52 am
User avatar
Tombenson
Forum Contributor
Posts: 175
Joined: 17 Jan 2013
Location: Durham NC
By most definitions North America is a captive area. Right?

I go to 5 Federal Refuges every year here on the East Coast. I never feel there is any restriction of the wildlifes movement.
 

by Joel Eade on Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:27 pm
Joel Eade
Forum Contributor
Posts: 151
Joined: 27 Sep 2011
I think labeling an image as "captive" gives the reader the impression that the subject was caged and it was very easy to get the image compared to a "non-captive" animal. Regardless of the strict definition, if an animal is in an enclosure that is many times the size of its normal range then I would not say it is captive for the purposes of photography. Such an animal has such a large area in which to roam that it can easily avoid being seen and photographed just like a wild animal. In some cases those animals may never see the edges of their enclosures. Getting a special image of an animal in such a situation will be just as challenging as getting an image of the same animal without such an enclosure.
 

by neverspook on Wed Apr 16, 2014 9:42 pm
neverspook
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1228
Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Why not just label it giving the location where you photographed it and let whoever views the image then decide for themselves whether they consider it captive or not. They could easily google a Texas ranch, for example, and find out the situation there and come to their own conclusions.

Roberta Olenick
www.neverspook.com
 

by Mike in O on Wed Apr 16, 2014 9:47 pm
Mike in O
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2673
Joined: 22 Dec 2013
USF&ws is a creature from our European past. Many were set up for conservation of threatened species (Egrets, Malheur National Refuge, our nations oldest) but have evolved to allow hunting for the non-aristocratic public sportsman. Right now, there is a fun to shoot and kill and no consumption for the shooter at Kalmath NWR to protect leased property (farmers) on the refuge. These refuges are definitely not captive animals nor are they refuges.
 

by Dizzy on Tue Apr 22, 2014 3:54 pm
User avatar
Dizzy
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1887
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Location: Hanover, Pennsylvania
I think it is crazy to even consider a wildlife refuge a "captive environment"!!! And whoever might would be considered "two tacos short of a combination plate in my book! Birds and mammals come and go as they please. Yes there may be food plots or the simple attraction of a "safe" place to roost or rest!  I think there is too much concern over how and where a photograph is taken and a lot of the folks that exhibit this concern are on the "nutty" side anyway!!! If you really want to be critical you could pick on the people that use "set-ups" for capturing images of their birds with those "clean backgrounds" everyone seems so concerned with today and especially on Nature Scapes! Many of us would much rather see a bird or mammal image captured in a natural environment or their actual habitat! instead of a sterile, forensic and faked image with an added "pretty perch",,,, Now, I have nothing again'st this and I am just using this as an example of say a "semi captive environment" created by the human form...  Its the SAME thing basically in my thoughts! However a wild bird or animal is just that as long as it has freedom to come and go where ever it might be photographed!

I think we all have much more important things to worry about!
National Geographic Society (Retired)

Arts N Images ---- Bird and Blooms Blog

"You don't take a photograph, you make it." Ansel Adams
 

by SantaFeJoe on Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:01 pm
User avatar
SantaFeJoe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 8622
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere Out In The Wilds
Well said, Dizzy.

Joe
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.  -Pablo Picasso
 

by ronzie on Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:17 am
User avatar
ronzie
Forum Contributor
Posts: 459
Joined: 26 May 2011
Location: 40 miles North of Minneapolis, MN, US
The fences I've seen in some parts of my federal usual wildlife refuge are more to keep people out than ground wildlife in. They only border in part certain well traveled roads and not all of them. In one location, a photographer jumped a fence at an observation point along a highway to get closer to an eagle's nest in early spring. The eagles abandoned the nest, one of twelve on the refuge. The rangers were unhappy and asked trail patrolling volunteers to pass the word on about following rules regarding restricted areas.

Rangers there are fairly relaxed even allowing mature types to leave their car for quiet viewing/photography from observation roads during visiting hours when visitors are sparse. This is in an area where the road (wildlife drive) passes a few hundred feet from an eagle's nest and signs are posted for viewers to remain in their cars. I asked a passing volunteer about this and she stated it was OK for mature people to stay near their vehicle without causing noise or rapid movements to disturb the eagles. I do the same on other roads during sparse times insuring I am not blocking this single lane area and shoot from very near my vehicle sometimes from under the rear hatch/tailgate of my SUV. There are no wildlife containing fences in these areas.

As one volunteer stated a wildlife refuge has as its primary concern the welfare of wildlife which includes the resources they use such as plants, ponds, lakes, etc.

Outside of scheduled closings of specific public trails and sightseeing roads through it to protect nesting seasons, they are open late spring through early fall, the latter determined by snow conditions (roads are not plowed).

Wildlife are not controlled although in certain areas and with respect to state defined seasons hunting is allowed to control animal population to guard against over crowding and keep environment resources sustainable.

Nothing is captive there.
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
19 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group