nightdog_barks: (Hunting Stag)
nightdog_barks ([personal profile] nightdog_barks) wrote2014-04-07 07:25 pm
Entry tags:
silverjackal: (Default)

[personal profile] silverjackal 2014-04-08 01:00 am (UTC)(link)
Heh, thank you for sharing that. :D That said, allow me please the rant, and excuse the colourful language required. It is *necessary*:

... from a safe and respectful distance...

Bullshit. Judging from the start of the shoot the man had ventured *far* *far* too close. It's October, it's the rut, you do not go within 10 m of elk. You do not get out of your vehicle and sit on the road like an idiot, looking for a "good angle" because your "good angle" is going to be upwards, for the people retrieving your corpse to find assuming your camera has not been smashed when an incensed bull elk dances a farruca on your pulped remains.

A young bull elk decided to start some trouble

No. The human was entirely to blame. The elk actually isn't looking for a real fight, he's challenging the human for a test spar like he would another young male elk because he is badly habituated, doubtless because of all of the morons going too close to him all his life. The other humans around the photographer on the ground are equally idiotic are also to blame. What asshole sits in their vehicle and photographs while someone is potentially being trampled? One real blow, just one, could have blinded, maimed, or killed the man on the ground. I count at least two people who were culpable -- whoever took those photos and the morons on the other side. You're in a vehicle -- drive forward *slowly* blowing your horn. The elk *will* back of.

... and then at 6:11 they employ that measure to chase off the elk to save camera gear. Not the actual human. Do I have words adequate for this stupidity? No. If I had my way they'd be charged with harassing the wildlife, fined, and banned for life from that park (because unfortunately they can not be banned from everywhere with wildlife ever).
silverjackal: (Default)

[personal profile] silverjackal 2014-04-08 01:33 am (UTC)(link)
The carefully worded spin at the beginning tells me that whoever put the sequence together *knew* they were in the wrong, and were trying to shift the blame, too. The whole thing is asinine in the extreme. Here, have some macros that sum up my feelings. ;D
Edited 2014-04-08 01:35 (UTC)
silverjackal: (Default)

[personal profile] silverjackal 2014-04-08 01:54 am (UTC)(link)
Respectful distance in this case is 10 m, minimum. *Minimum*. Fifteen or 20 is better. Thirty better still. Telephoto lenses were invented for a reason.
taiga13: by indigo_art (Wilson's face in hands pose)

[personal profile] taiga13 2014-04-08 01:48 am (UTC)(link)
I'm no expert but I had the same reaction as silverjackal. The wapiti clearly didn't think it was a "safe and respectful distance", and (I admit this is where my thoughts usually go in such things) who the hell was standing there recording it?
I also wondered why the photographer was so concerned about keeping his hat on.
silverjackal: (Default)

[personal profile] silverjackal 2014-04-08 01:53 am (UTC)(link)
I also wondered why the photographer was so concerned about keeping his hat on.

To shield his eyes from making direct contact with the elk. In that he was correct, as it really could have provoked an aggressive reaction. While he was avoiding eye contact he also should have refrained from pointing that giant black mechanical eye (camera) at the elk. Cameras are mostly hostile, staring eyes to animals who haven't been carefully habituated to them.
taiga13: (aurora borealis)

[personal profile] taiga13 2014-04-08 01:58 am (UTC)(link)
Oh that makes sense! Pretty much the only thing he did that makes sense.
silverjackal: (Default)

[personal profile] silverjackal 2014-04-08 02:01 am (UTC)(link)
When he was shooting up at an acute angle at the elk standing over him I almost expected the animal to slam its' head down and gore him in the torso, aiming for the camera. Now wouldn't *that* have made for interesting video! Man disemboweled by elk!
silverjackal: (Default)

[personal profile] silverjackal 2014-04-08 02:31 am (UTC)(link)
Yes. Accompanied by much weeping and wailing in the press about DANGEROUS WILDLIFE, and SOMETHING MUST BE DONE ABOUT THE AGGRESSIVE ANIMALS.
silverjackal: (Default)

[personal profile] silverjackal 2014-04-08 02:51 am (UTC)(link)
Oh gods! Can no one save that poor woman? Get it *off* her! Right now! D:



Hahahaha. Oh dear. Coyotes with mange, and now a raccoon with mange. Curiously most of these "Chupacabra" reports seem to come from Texas. Do you have any insight as to why your countrymen (and women) are so determined to make a mythical beast out of ordinary wildlife?
silverjackal: (Default)

[personal profile] silverjackal 2014-04-08 03:03 am (UTC)(link)
I knew you'd get a kick out of that. :D

The raccoon is amusing, the hair terrifying. Only think the damage she has done to the ozone layer over the course of her life...

Oh, and also the news services aid and abet this nonsense by playing up the "chupacabra" angle.

It never ceases to baffle me because one would think that people had never seen a coyote or a raccoon before, and that is patently not so. Especially in these days of television and the internet but I suppose people are people and this is just something they love to play at.