3 ms·

I don't really see the issue. It's not like wolves don't walk through snow in packs. Or that mountain lions don't jump over rocks.

by socrates1998 9y ago

ahartman00 9y ago
At a previous job, we talked a lot about managing the expectations of clients. If you promise someone an operating system delivered in two weeks, with a budget of $10k, they will be very upset when you don't deliver. It doesnt matter that it was an unrealistic promise. This is why engineers should double their estimates, and be proactive about communicating delays. People do not like to be disappointed when their expectations are not met. I think that's what is happening here. People are expecting wildlife photos to be shot in the wild. A studio, or feeding the animals feels like a 'cheaper' or fake product. So they are upset. It doesn't matter if the footage is representative, or if the photos were of a better quality than what could be obtained in nature. It doesn't matter if baiting the animals reduces the cost of making the documentary, potentially increasing the amount of footage we can view. Their expectations were not met. I've said it before, and probably will have to say it again. We are not logical creatures. We can expect people to behave logically, but we will be disappointed. Then we get upset ;) EDIT: not saying you were upset EDIT 2: this is why people don't want to pay for things on the internet. Their expectations have been set.
longerthoughts 9y ago
I think you'll find that a lot of people who enjoy wildlife photography are also those who stand for the preservation of all things wild. If demand for wildlife photography creates a profitable market for raising animals in captivity, it's a bit of a contradiction. There are of course sanctuaries that responsibly protect wildlife, but profitability is likely to breed some not-so-responsible organizations as well. It's not like orcas don't swim and eat fish, and yet public opinion has turned against SeaWorld because of the circumstances that came with commercialization.
Paul-ish 9y ago
Agreed, and it sounds like the federal government is doing its job and monitoring this stuff to minimize abuse. Its not clear how harassing wildlife living on the edge of survival is better than caring for animals, and taking pictures in return.

I don't really see the issue. It's not like wolves don't walk through snow in packs. Or that mountain lions don't jump over rocks.

ahartman00 9y ago

At a previous job, we talked a lot about managing the expectations of clients. If you promise someone an operating system delivered in two weeks, with a budget of $10k, they will be very upset when you don't deliver. It doesnt matter that it was an unrealistic promise. This is why engineers should double their estimates, and be proactive about communicating delays. People do not like to be disappointed when their expectations are not met. I think that's what is happening here. People are expecting wildlife photos to be shot in the wild. A studio, or feeding the animals feels like a 'cheaper' or fake product. So they are upset. It doesn't matter if the footage is representative, or if the photos were of a better quality than what could be obtained in nature. It doesn't matter if baiting the animals reduces the cost of making the documentary, potentially increasing the amount of footage we can view. Their expectations were not met. I've said it before, and probably will have to say it again. We are not logical creatures. We can expect people to behave logically, but we will be disappointed. Then we get upset ;) EDIT: not saying you were upset EDIT 2: this is why people don't want to pay for things on the internet. Their expectations have been set.

longerthoughts 9y ago

I think you'll find that a lot of people who enjoy wildlife photography are also those who stand for the preservation of all things wild. If demand for wildlife photography creates a profitable market for raising animals in captivity, it's a bit of a contradiction. There are of course sanctuaries that responsibly protect wildlife, but profitability is likely to breed some not-so-responsible organizations as well. It's not like orcas don't swim and eat fish, and yet public opinion has turned against SeaWorld because of the circumstances that came with commercialization.

Paul-ish 9y ago

Agreed, and it sounds like the federal government is doing its job and monitoring this stuff to minimize abuse. Its not clear how harassing wildlife living on the edge of survival is better than caring for animals, and taking pictures in return.