Subject Provenance

I never cease to be amazed at the importance that some potential print purchasers attach to the question “where did you take it?”. The question is often posed in an almost accusatory and belligerent manner as if, merely by offering wildlife pictures for sale, you are a potential conman. I suppose, in reality, that people want to think that you hung over a cliff on the end of a rope for three days, surrounded by killer bees, in order to get the shot. You just know that if your answer is that you simply walked up to it in a field, or that it was a pet one in the back of Joe’s Diner and you bribed it with a cheeseburger to pose for you, then you are not going to make a sale. I can appreciate that some people acquire a second hand feeling of derring-do by association with a photographer, or his work, but have never been able to understand why the original location and circumstances of a subject should determine whether the picture should be bought or not.

If the image contains some scenic content beyond the inside of a bramble bush then, of course, the “location” of a “location” can have some bearing, but with many wildlife photos, and certainly many of mine as I specialise in close-up photography be it a grasshopper or a lion, the subject occupies the bulk of the overall image area and, quite often, the background has been deliberately blurred by camera setting to further highlight the subject. In cases such as this there can be no sense of location derived from within the image and so why does the “where” of it apparently seem so important as to mean the difference between making a sale or not?

No doubt stating this will bring a flurry of correspondence pointing out the error of my thought processes in far from dulcet tones. However I would reiterate that I, personally, cannot see what difference it makes where a photograph was taken as, surely, it should stand on its own merits and for what it is a picture of and not for where the “of” came from.

Like it or not the whole world has become a zoo and the only qualifying difference between establishments is the distance between, and the nature of, the boundaries. Much of the world’s wildlife is, these days, contained within some kind of barrier be it physical, as in the form of bars or fences, or merely delineated by boundaries of human tolerance. Outside both of these restraining influences an animal will inevitably be shot if it is dangerous, eaten if it is palatable or turned into cash if some part of it constitutes a trophy.

“Living in the wild” is, to a large extent, often something of a myth. Procreation and the “survival of the species” is frequently a carefully monitored rather than random process and consequent population levels are strictly controlled and maintained by the myriad of owners, rangers, administrators and officials involved and are normally subject to specific, long-term, development plans and not the haphazard vagaries of nature. Practically all constrained, and many ostensibly free ranging wildlife populations, are subject to strict culling regimes either by so called “sport” shooting interests or by some form of “cropping”.

Wildlife populations occupying less constrained habitats can normally only lead an unfettered existence while ever they toe the local party line. Once they step over this then outside control quickly takes over as evidenced by the rapid retaliation exacted by man in the case of stock eaters, crop raiders, knockers down of fences or even just what are deemed to be perpetual or even occasional nuisances. Even wildlife that becomes a so called nuisance, menace or threat through no fault of its own is often rigorously dealt with.

I well remember the case of a “wild” Bull Elephant in an African country with which I have enjoyed a lengthy relationship. This Bull took to “loitering”, initially seemingly “without intent”, around a campsite provided as a facility to accommodate those who came to view the wildlife. What prompted his original interest I have no idea. Perhaps to him it was the equivalent of going to the Zoo for the day as the view of such establishments is often more entertaining for those on the outside looking in than it is for those on the inside looking out. I do not doubt that his original intentions were fairly honourable as he caused no trouble other than a sharply increased metabolic rate in those who nearly bumped into him on their way to the loo after dark. However in the fullness of time, and because he didn’t seem to be much of a threat, certain of the visitors, in their wisdom and understanding, took to throwing him fruit and veg in much the same way as people both insist and persist in feeding New Forest Ponies and the like. Despite the alien nature of these offerings he developed a marked predilection for oranges and any other product flavoured by them. Juice, yoghurts, trifles, jellies, the fruit itself, anything with even the slightest whiff of orange ranked very highly on his “wish list”. Rapidly, and with great and original thought, nicknamed “Oranges”, he became something of a celebrity and a firm favourite with the visitors. Such was the strength of his craving and such was his ingenuity that he ultimately worked out a way to use his tusks as “car openers”. I expect he’d always wondered what they were for! His preferred method of entry was via the roof which he quickly learnt could be neatly ripped open and peeled back, much like the top of a sardine can, thus granting free and easy access to whatever delights lay therein. Both oranges and the feeding of “Oranges” were quickly banned and, though the latter continued surreptitiously by ill advised but no doubt well intentioned visitors, the orange ban was generally accepted, if only from the point of view of personal safety. However, in a country where oranges are almost a staple, there are not many vehicles which will not have had oranges or one of their by-products in them, if not at the time of visiting, then certainly at some time in the preceding few days. The super sensitivity of an elephant’s olfactory system does not seem to be able to differentiate between “now” and “recently” where lingering smells are concerned and so his depredations continued. He was shot dead by a ranger.

Before I am taken to task I would say that I fully realise that there are some truly wonderful “wild Places” (well – almost wild anyway!) because I spend a great deal of time visiting them but they are few and far between, dwindling in both size and number and often lacking the amount of financial support needed to secure their future size and number. It is almost impossible to find areas capable of sustaining decent wildlife populations that do not also have to sustain, or help support in some way shape or form, a human population as well. This invariably leads to conflict, with farm stock and crops being the most common catalyst.

Many of the world’s leading wildlife viewing destinations are, in fact, reserves and controlled and administered accordingly. Human activity around these “Parks” is normally constrained to some extent or other, at least on the surface, but intrusion and encroachment are all too frequent. Increasing human population levels, local wars, poaching and eco-tourism are all adding to the pressure. Even the time honoured pastime of game viewing is taking its toll. In many of the better known locations species such as Big Cats are finding it increasingly difficult to find the opportunity to hunt, eat, mate and successfully rear young surrounded as they constantly are by a circle of zebra striped mini buses. Don’t think that your unexpected safari encounters with rare and exotic animals are the result of skill on the part of your driver. Normally spotters will have been out, often all night, keeping track of the better known “must see” list and locations are radioed in long before your dawn game drive sets out. Truly random sightings are quickly passed on from one driver to another and this is what leads to a convergence of vehicles where you will be lucky to take a photograph that doesn’t include at least one, and often several, other Game Drive Vehicles. Add to this the fact that even as far back as the 50’s and 60’s it was not uncommon for various species to be lured to certain areas either by regular feeding (especially Big Cats) or by provision of salt licks, water holes and other attractants in pre-determined and selected areas suitable to maximise game viewing encounters. Don’t get me wrong. None of this is necessarily a bad thing as eco-tourism is probably one of the least damaging guarantees for the future of wildlife but we need to see the picture for what it really is and not kid ourselves with over emotional delusions. Wildlife is exploited at almost every level and the areas most likely to thrive are those where the benefits to mankind, either pecuniary or otherwise, are the greatest.

One of the effects of human encroachment has been to convert many reserves into virtual “islands” or “oases” in a hostile environment simply by surrounding them with cultivation. By our European concepts of open spaces some of these “islands” can seem vast, or even constitute “the wild”, but when you consider that to an Elephant anything smaller than a continent represents confinement you will realise that it is a question of degree. If you live on an island then whatever constitutes the shoreline is as much a barrier as a fence or set of bars.

In evolutionary terms the creation and isolation of many reserves has occurred so quickly that wildlife levels within them have become cut off from the invigorating effects of new bloodlines moving in to expand what can quickly become a very limited gene pool. Most wildlife, (even many species of birds that can fly), will not move from one area to another, even if not that far apart, unless it can do so along a corridor providing both food and cover. A busy road or track across these corridors can often become, in effect, the most efficient of barriers.

This is why, at risk of committing a faux pas along the lines of a leading Wildlife Presenter’s recent comments on the future of Pandas, I have to admit that I view most “return to the wild” schemes with a great degree of scepticism. This is especially so with animals that are the product of several generations of close captive breeding. As with the island reserves mentioned above many captive populations often have a limited gene pool to draw on with the result of an increase in the rate of mutational factors creeping into the species. Most mutational factors have a deleterious effect on the species and in a truly wild situation they would normally be quickly weeded out in the battle for life and the survival of the fittest. Some mutations are obvious such as Albinism, melanism, five legs or two heads. Many, however, are of a far more insidious and less apparent nature. These, combined with complacency from the absence of threat and atrophying of senses no longer required for survival in a captive environment, can have a serious effect on the chances of a species regaining its original abilities even if released into the most ideal of locations.

Factors such as the albinism mentioned above can often have secondary effects far less obvious than the primary one which, in this case, is colour. One of the more critical secondary effects with albinism is how badly eyesight, particularly in bright light, is affected. In the wild this would seriously hamper the ability of a predatory species to see and catch its prey and would severely restrict the ability of prey species to escape their predators.

Unfortunately some of the more startling mutations attract a greatly enhanced financial or trade value due to their uniqueness and exclusivity and this can often be the road to ruin for the species. Controlled breeding programmes select partners based on an unnatural selection of features deemed desirable from no other than a financial point of view. Add to this the fact that to establish or “fix” certain factors it is initially often necessary to breed from very close relatives, with all the inherent risks that this implies, and you will see that within a very few generations an animal can be irrevocably changed from its original “wild” forbear.

For these reasons I view many avowed declarations of intent to return certain captive species to “the wild” as, at best, well intentioned nonsense such as would, in the past, have expressed itself in the building of those “rich man’s follies” that can still be found littering the landscape, or, at worst, a cheap publicity or fund raising stunt geared more to the benefit of the scheme’s promoters than the creature concerned.

I do not deny that there are many well funded and scientifically serious release and reintroduction schemes taking place and these I applaud soundly and loudly - PROVIDED - that they are geared towards, and can be practically expected to, safeguarding a species in perpetuity. There needs to be a relatively low “post release” requirement for financial and manpower input. Future generations, particularly in developing countries, may not be so altruistically inclined to maintain such schemes. I accept that these laudable conservation efforts should not be curtailed merely as a result of negativity in forecasting the longterm future but neither, I would submit, can they be justified as “saving the species in the wild” if all they can reasonably be expected to achieve is to merely “delay the evil day” just a little longer.

Better to devote the efforts and resources to providing a secure captive environment under optimum conditions where an ongoing chance of serious and scientific control is a real possibility. Undoubtedly these captive populations will undergo changes in the coming generations that will be different from those that they would have undergone had they been able to survive in a truly wild environment but who is to say which set of changes would be for the best? Wild populations change too due to the ongoing process of evolution which basically means that to survive a species needs to adapt to the constantly changing conditions and circumstances under which they live. However we argue it, if the world’s biodiversity is to survive, it must adapt to coexist with mankind (for the time being, at least, until we manage to wipe ourselves out!), and I would submit that those species and habitats that fail to do so will, one day soon, cease to be whether we like it or not.

I wonder what would have been the situation today had, say, a wealthy foundation, philanthropist or conservation project been around to secure the future of the dinosaurs all those millennia ago? How many of them would still be here and what degree of change would circumstance have forced on them? I suspect that their numbers and gene pool would have been so small that they would have been unable to maintain the vim and vigour necessary to survive in even an ideal environment. In addition how many countries in today’s world would have had either the will or the financial resources to secure their future for posterity? Will the future be any different for our own endangered species?

I seem to digress slightly from the original question of subject provenance but I would reiterate that I see no problem with, and attach no stigma to, photos of “wildlife” subjects taken in some kind of constrained area as outlined above. In fact it is often more difficult to come up with a good shot of a subject in captivity than it would be in what we still refer to euphemistically as the “wild”. First you have to locate your subject and make sure that it conforms to common acceptance of normal and is not displaying adverse acquired behavioural or morphological characteristics – unless your photographic purpose is to illustrate these. Secondly, to be aesthetically pleasing, you need a composition devoid of bars, fences or railings, which rules out many conventional zoos and safari parks, or at least severely limits your chances within them. Thirdly you need more than a little luck with the light since there is not likely to be too big a choice of position and, furthermore, you need no red anoraks in the background and no kids behind you bombarding your subject with handfuls of peanuts. If, however, you can satisfy these criteria then there is a chance of photos such as you could probably not achieve in practical terms within the normal parameters of time and expense associated with travel to “the wild”. Frame filling, closeup full body, or head shots, of many species, are simply, for many people, not realistically achievable in the wild, other than by great good luck, massive cropping or a protracted and often expensive stay in the location to allow time for careful planning and study.

Before you inundate me with counter arguments and criticisms please remember I am speaking here of closeups. For habitat, intra-species or inter-species action of course you have to go where, hopefully, not too many feet have trod before to get shots unaffected by the hand of man.

Sometimes, of course, there are very sound and valid reasons for not disclosing the location of a picture. I have often photographed in private collections or on privately owned reserves holding vulnerable and valuable species the whereabouts of which it would not be prudent to disclose. Additionally there are ecologically sensitive sites where a gang of careless, or even just unaware, size 10 boots could completely destroy a population of such as the diminutive Bog Orchid in a matter of seconds. There is also, of course, the question of commercial competition to consider since many other photographers and conservation bodies offer courses, workshops, field trips and the like and I, not unnaturally, would prefer that clients should have to come on the trips that I offer in order to find out these little secrets!

Perhaps I am naïve in hoping to change the world on the subject of “where did you take it?” and rather I should give in graciously and learn to counter what I fear will continue to be the inevitable question with prevarication and as many polite versions of “mind your own business” as I can muster!

Brian Pettit