Good wildlife photography oppurtunities this winter?

I basically have until march off. I would like to travel a bit and take some stellar wildlife photos.

Things I am into: Snakes, Eagles, Owls, Bears, Moose, Bison, Puma, etc. anything exciting.

Snakes i would have to head to south. Not sure about everything else.

Any one have any suggestions on where to go and take some awesome photos?

Thanks!

jason

I know this is a controversial topic, but have you ever considered doing a wildlife model shoot at a place like Animals of Montana, or Triple D Game Farm, both in Montana?

They offer a variety of subjects, i.e. snow leopards, tigers, cougars, Canadian Lynx, bobcats, grizzly & black bears, wolves, foxes, deer, martens, mink, raccoons, etc.

Some workshops offer a "package" deal where for 3-5 days you get a variety of subjects, a "group" leader, review sessions etc.

You can check out what both places have to offer, and see if it's something you may be interested.

I know it's not the same as photographing the animals in the wild, but truthfully, how often does a person see ANY of the above mentioned animals in the wild, esp in "ideal" shooting conditions/parameters?

Also good to note, that most magazine/calendar/gree​ting card photos of most of those animals shot under "perfect" or near "perfect" conditions have probably 90% been taken under "controlled" conditions. i.e. a game farm/wildlife model shoot.

Just a suggestion.

wow..I live just an hrs drive away from TripleD Game Farm.
Awesome!!
Thanks..glad I opened this thread.

funny you mention triple d. I was just looking at their website. i am seriously thinking about it....

Yellowstone for wolves and bison in winter (bears are hibernating).

Eagles are just now arriving and will generally be around North Idaho until early January.

For moose and elk in a natural setting, go to Walden, CO (Jackson County, aka North Park). Arapaho NWR is a good place to start. Should be loads of elk coming down from the hills soon and you should be able to catch a moose or two in the Illinois River.

Might be able to catch some RM Bighorn in the Poudre Canyon (Rt. 14 from Walden to Ft. Collins).

Interesting topic. I don't like going anywhere that it is "controlled" to photograph wildlife because I think it is cheating for some reason. I haven't been to any zoos yet for that reason and I usually don't read any topics that are from zoos. I guess I just feel like you should work for (or sometimes get lucky with) photos of wildlife because it makes it much more real when it is really a wild animal. Anyway, just my .02 opinion.

Montana does offer a lot of opportunities, although as previously mentioned the bears are in hibernation now so the chances of seeing one is extremely remote. Lions (Pumas) are difficult to find and photograph in the wild without using hounds. Elk, whitetail and mule deer, bison, mountain sheep opportunities are good, and depending on the factors moose and mountain goats can be found too.

I agree with Morlow, it seems like cheating to me as well. Wildlife photography should be going out with your camera into the wilderness and using your skills as a photographer to come up with that perfect shot. I totally understand that some of us have more opportunity to photograph certain wildlife that others do not, but all of us have certain type of wildlife in our areas we live in. I don't mind seeing photography from workshops since most are not in game farms or refuge areas where things are not staged, and you have no control over the wild animals. I would like to see that people would post that their images were taken at a zoo, game farm or refuge because to me 50% of the photo is in knowing that these were taken in the wild, and the photographers actually went through the time and trouble to get the photographs. Just my .02 cents worth.

bigcountry wrote in post #9060201
Any one have any suggestions on where to go and take some awesome photos?

How about the Southern hemisphere Jase ??!!! It's summer down here !!!

(Sorry, couldn't resist ...... )

Matt.

Like I said in my previous post, shooting at a game farm, or under controlled conditions is controversial. Some may look at it as "cheating", while others may view it as the ONLY opportunity they may ever have to photograph certain animals.

One thing to keep in mind though, when they are photographed under "controlled" conditions, you put a LOT LESS stress on the animal than you would if one were to STALK it in the wild, esp if it had young with it, and the animal would also be a lot more "nervous", and not as relaxed as it was if it was used to humans being around, and esp being photographed.

Yes it takes a lot more work to FIND the animal in the wild, and get a probably once in a lifetime photo of certain species, and it would definitely be more rewarding on a "I conquered nature" level, but if one wishes to increase their portfolio, then at least they have the option to photograph at a game farm, or a zoo.

Some of the top nature/wildlife photographers in the world, such as George Lepp, Joe McDonald, John Shaw, the Late Erwin & Peggy Bauer, Thomas Kitchin & Victoria Hurst etc all have photographed at game farms.

Again, it's a personal choice, there is no "right" or "wrong", I'm just saying that it's an option, and esp for "skittish" animals such as cougars etc, it allows them to be photographed without the stress that they would face if being stalked etc by a photographer in the wild.

Also, in the spring and early summer, most wolves, cougars, bobcat, lynx etc usually have their babies, and to have the opportunity to photograph the parents interacting with their babies is something that would be hard to forget.

But again, it's up to each individual person's own feelings, and needs.

So, because I will never see a tiger in it's natural habitat, I should never photograph a captive example?

guess what, yellowstone is a controlled habitat. there is very little "wild" lands left, especially in the united states.

Morlow wrote in post #9065490
Interesting topic. I don't like going anywhere that it is "controlled" to photograph wildlife because I think it is cheating for some reason. I haven't been to any zoos yet for that reason and I usually don't read any topics that are from zoos. I guess I just feel like you should work for (or sometimes get lucky with) photos of wildlife because it makes it much more real when it is really a wild animal. Anyway, just my .02 opinion.

Good points, digicdiva and bigcountry.

Also, I look at it this way...what's the difference between photographing a WILDLIFE "model", and a HUMAN "model"? Nothing in my books. You PAY a HUMAN "model" to POSE for you, to be able to SET UP the shot EXACTLY how you want it, for him/her to wear the exact clothes (or no clothes if that's your desire) that you want, etc. Because that way the photographer CONTROLS the photo session.

So what's the difference if the "model" happens to be a cougar, or a grizzly bear, or a snow leopard, or a Canadian Lynx, or a wolf?

In regards to those who say a photographer should have to work and FIND an animal in the wild, in order to photograph it, why not say the same thing about a person? Let's see them FIND a nude man/woman in an "uncontrolled" situation, i.e. on the street etc, or for that matter one dressed in EXACTLY the items they want them to be in when they photograph them. Of course all this WITHOUT having any contact with the person. I'd like to see how successful they'd be. Same difference.