I love drawing, and I think at times that can actually get in the way of my paintings - I get caught up in clean, precise edges and other type-A (stands for “anal retentive”) fussiness. Yet I thoroughly admire the passion in Nicolai Fechin’s paintings - as his modern doppelganger, Jeffrey Watts, says of Fechin’s work: “the perfect blend of chaos and control”. And I am intrigued by the paint and surface textures in Oleg Stavrowsky’s work.
So I took a chance on my latest piece and textured the hell out of the panel, thinking that might free me from having to “color inside the lines”. The entire work can be seen on my website homepage, but below is a small area - about 8″ x 8″ on the actual painting - showing the results. I’m pretty damn pleased.
Entries (RSS)
June 11th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Julie,
I left the message below in response to one of your earlier blogs last winter. Here it is, in case you missed it. You and Susan both have great sites. I congratulate you.
Todd
June 11th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Hey everyone,
Thanks to Susan and Julie for helping to let people know that Wildlife Art Journal officially launched in early June 2009. We had been working for several months behind the scenes to build the architecture for the site and give it its own independent identity away from Western Art and Architecture. We hope you like it. Besides the regular feature well (intended to be image rich) and a few other elements of the magazine that will be emerging during the coming weeks, I just want to mention the section that we call Gallery of the Commons. It was born with the idea that artists will have a place to post works they’re excited about in front of their peers and collectors. Maybe you have a painting fresh off the easel or a piece freshly patinaed back from the foundry and you want to let people know about it. Send us a digital image and we’ll post it the next month. Include the url of your own website or the gallery representing your work. When readers click on your name, they’ll be taken to whatever destination you want. The point is that we want WAJ to be inclusionary and we want to foster a lively discussion. Very promising is the response we’ve also been getting from artists outside of North America. The link to WAJ is http://www.wildlifeartjournal.com.
One more thing: If any of you want to sound off and write guest essays on a subject of your choosing, we welcome it. They will of course be subject to some editing (only slight tweaking promised!) and I pledge not to spoil anyone’s sterling prose. I hope you’re having a fine summer, so far.
Todd Wilkinson, Editor of Wildlife Art Journal
June 15th, 2009 at 7:37 am
Todd - THANK YOU for posting and letting everyone know about the wonderful opportunity to be part of “Gallery of the Commons”. I’m going to have to subscribe and take advantage of that feature myself! I noticed that the NMWA (National Museum of Wildlife Art) email newsletter just announced your site as well.
And yes, for some reason I missed your post last winter. Now and then the spam-checker gives me a false positive, but there are so many spam messages that I can’t check them all - so, my apologies for missing your post the first time around.
I always enjoy reading your articles in the various print pubs - your research and prose are terrific.
June 15th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Here’s an interesting topic for discussion from wildlife art journaland timely with Julie’s workshop coming up (I’m not trying to drive away Juile’s customers, honest): canned “nature photography” Susan Fox already started the discussion below the article.
http://www.wildlifeartjournal.com./articles/wildlife-art-journal-premium-content/summer-2009/31/my-problems-with-canned-nature-photography.html
After taking photos at a game farm (as part of Julie’s workshop), I now have a completely different reaction to photos I see of wildlife in post cards, magazines, etc.
Where my first reaction used to be “Wow, how in the world did the photographer get that amazing photo?”, it is now “I wonder if that photo was taken at the game farm I went to.”
It’s kind of like learning that there is no Santa Claus.
June 16th, 2009 at 6:52 am
I skimmed Tom Mangelsen’s article; he’s been quoted on this topic elsewhere. While he speaks out against the use of game farms and has derided artists for using them, there’s a double standard here - when asked why he considered Bob Kuhn a friend though BK also used game farms for reference material, he excused BK as “old school”. So it’s OK for a great artist like Kuhn to use them, but not everyone else? Hmm.
Although Mangelsen believes all the animals at a game farm can be photographed in the wild, what would the cost to the wild animals be to have hundreds of artists and photographers out trying to chase down predators that are often easily disturbed by the presence of people? The only photograph I have of a wild cougar was one given to me by a hunter who treed the cat with hounds.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
“it’s OK for a great artist like Kuhn to use them, but not everyone else? Hmm.”
Yes, just as it is OK for Barry Bonds to use steroids, but not anyone else after he broke the home run record
Mangelsen is a type of purist, which is fine, but when it comes down to it, all art is very subjective.
Ironically, the world of artists seems to have more than its share of people who believe that their art is the only “pure” art.
It’s actually pretty humorous.
June 16th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
I guess since my name has come up, I ought to show up and comment here, although I suspect that my comments on the Wildlife Art Journal article make my feelings about the subject pretty clear. I have thought a lot about game ranches since my two experiences at them and have come to feel that they are not a place that I choose to go, for the reasons that I and Mangelsen enumerate.
So, FWIW:
I don’t believe that for him, and I agree, the issue is being a purist, but of being honest about how and where one collects images of genetically wild animals. If the photo is not labeled “captive”, then people are free to assume, as most do, that the image was taken in the wild, as Larry, and I at one time, believed. Truth in advertising, I guess. That’s not at all the game ranch’s fault or responsibility.
Painters don’t have the same issue of attribution that a photographer has, since a good artist generally uses multiple reference, or brings a unique point of view, for a painting and doesn’t simply copy a single photograph, theirs or anyone else’s.
I think as we live our lives we all end up in the position of having friends, sometimes quite good friends, who do things or have beliefs that we don’t agree with. The choice is either to accept that or end the friendship. Mangelsen chose to stay friends with Bob Kuhn.
By “old school”, I think that he may have been referring more to a way of thinking about animals that has changed dramatically in the last twenty years. We have gone from Descartes’ view that they are “machines”, driven by instinct, feeling no pain and having no souls to a recognition that we share the world with many sentient species. Year by year, the definition of what separates homo sapiens from animals has to be modified. Oh, they use tools. Oh, they recognize themselves in a mirror. Oh, they have culture. Oh, they have a sense of fairness. Oh, they lie and cheat. And the list goes on.
I have found that in order to reconcile, and be personally ethically consistent with, what I have learned over the years about animals and from my involvement in animal welfare (definitely not PETA-type animal rights, a whole different deal) and dog and cat rescue, I can’t justify going to game ranches.
I can, with reluctance, accept zoos that are heavily involved with education, conservation and the preservation of endangered species. I’ve pretty much reached the point where I choose not to support activities in which animals are used for human entertainment where there is a significant risk of abuse, either physical, emotional or psychological. I await the day when animals are no longer needed in any kind of research because computer models are superior.
My thinking is constantly evolving in this area as I add to my knowledge. My husband and I decided last year to no longer eat meat that we cannot source and that we do not know to have come from animals who have been treated humanely. This includes eggs. We refuse to support industrial animal agriculture, with its battery cages, feedlots and cruel confinement.
I wish to emphasize that these are all personal choices. I have no wish to dictate what other artists, photographers or people, in general, choose to do.
I think you can see that my decision about game ranches is just one part of a larger question that I’ve been thinking about for years- What is the appropriate relationship between humans and the fellow creatures we share this planet with?
PS, Larry- Barry Bonds- Being a Giants fan, I watched the whole thing play out. My opinion, and it is just my opinion, is that he probably used something in the 1980s at a time when many players did, so maybe the playing field was effectively re-leveled during The Steroid Era. Maybe he should be prosecuted (he’s charged with perjury, not substance use per se), but then there’s quite a few other ball players who used stuff and lied about it. How come they’re not on trial? His biggest problem has maybe been his attitude, which alienated the sports media, who often seem to feel an amazing sense of entitlement in what they feel they are owed by pro athletes. I’m not pro or anti Barry, by the way. It is what it is. Giants fans have moved on.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
In 2000, during a wildlife art workshop in Montana, a group of artists participating in the workshop did, for a fee, go to Animals of Montana for a photoshoot. I was one of them. While there, I did not see any “physical” abuse of the animals, i.e., no cattle prods etc. However, the cougar was on a heavy chain, as was the adult black bear. The grizzly sow was doing little tricks for marshmallows. This is not natural behavior and I question the affect on the animals that are performing these “unnatural” tricks. The best photos I got while there were of the animals who were simply allowed to do what they do - not posed, not asked to do tricks, etc. I have a photo of a coyote who had pups - brand new pups. I got a close up photo of her face as she was being held by the handler. She was terrified. I have not been to a “game farm” since.
Near where I live in Illinois is a place called Wildlife Prairie State Park, a 2000 acre zoological park. The animals in the park are all native to Illinois - black bear, wolves, coyote, fox, bobcat, cougar, elk, bison, whitetail deer, badgers, otters, etc. They are left to roam their GENEROUS natural habitat enclosures. Understand, this is NOT a “game farm” nor is it a “zoo” - it is a park like Yellowstone (albeit smaller) with one difference - the public and the animals are separated by fencing and there are walking paths (not driving) through the park. The animals are never asked to perform/pose/do tricks etc. for photo ops. In fact, they are NEVER brought out of their habitat and the public is NEVER invited in. The park and the individual animals’ areas are far too large to even consider something like that. The animals are fed at certain times each day and they come closer to the designated viewing areas - however, most of the time you will need a super telephoto lens to photograph them. The park has a staff vet to address any medical issues and trained, knowledgeable curators who care for the animals and birds (all of which are rescued birds and cannot be released back into the wild).
I believe game farms are popular because of the accessibility of the animals - they are already there - there is little doubt you will get to photograph the animal you want to photograph. Drive to a game farm, pay the fee - shoot photos - drive home. Its about the $$$ - and time - as they say - is money, both on the part of the game farm owner and the artist/photographer. Spend 4 hours at a game farm or 4 weeks (and a lot MORE money) traveling to remote areas to get photos of a specific animal in the wild.
At an art fair in Michigan in April, across from me was a “nature photographer”. He had some photos of wolves and I knew immediately when I saw them, where he photographed those wolves. But he told his customers he photographed them in Alaska. If you know anything about wolves, and could see the poses - three wolves - perfect shiny coats - all lined up in a perfect side view - you would have to question his response to his customer.
I take my own reference photos and currently have over 10,000 photos of habitat and wildlife taken at various national parks, preserves and even close to where I live which I use for my paintings. I have yet to photograph bighorn sheep - or pronghorns and they will be my quest this summer - in Colorado. I went to Wichita last month - and had time to go down to the river. Great photos of Wood Ducks! A spotted sandpiper! And a Kildeer!
It takes a lot of time , sitting (sometimes in the cold/rain/snow/wind/mud etc - I have been called “crazy”), waiting for that magical moment (being in the right place at the right time is sheer luck)- and it takes a great deal of patience - a GREAT, GREAT deal of patience - to get good photos. But - to me - its worth it.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:43 am
I’m not so sure the real issue with Mangelsen is not “purity” of the art form.
Statements like the following really make me wonder which is his primary motivating factor: the concern for animal welfare or the concern for the “integrity” (his word) of wildlife photography.
“Where are the craft, knowledge, challenge, experience, art, serendipity, luck and magic in a game farm photograph? Where is the pride and personal satisfaction for the photographer?”
—Thomas D. Mangelsen
The proliferation of game farm photography has, for many, taken away the passion, initiative, sacrifice and motivation that would otherwise drive someone to spend long periods of time making that perfect image of a rare animal in the wild.”
—Thomas D. Mangelsen
Having been to a game farm that does not (from my admittedly limited exposure) mistreat their animals or make them do tricks (Triple D), I have to say that there is at least one aspect of the Mangelsen article that really bothers me: He seems to lump all game farms together when it comes to animal treatment.
For example, he says this:
Maybe they only do it on days when I’m not around, but I saw no indication that Triple D was making animals “perform contrary to the animals’ normal behavior.” Quite the contrary.
Mangelsen is also keen to point out abuses
But certainly not all game farms engage in such practices . I certainly witnessed none of that at Triple D and in fact, find it hard to imagine the folks at Triple D doing any of that stuff.
Finally, just a comment about actually being within 20 feet or so of wolves and mountain lions with no intervening fence or cage. That is something that you simply can not get at a zoo or anywhere else (for obvious liability reasons).
I lived out in Utah and Arizona for most of the 80’s and 90’s and spent most of my weekends wandering around the canyons and mountains of those states and the surrounding states as well — Wyoming, Colorado, NM, Nevada, (Las Vegas), Monatana, CA.
Despite all the time I spent “out there” (I saw lots of sign) I never once saw a mountain lion in the wild (even though I was in areas they inhabited) . I was actually followed ( stalked?) by one once down near Torrey, Utah (some friends who were following me said they saw large cat prints on top of my boot prints in the sand), but did not see it!
I have seen (the tail end of) a bobcat once in the wild and had one close encounter (a few feet) of a black bear on a trail in the Wind Rivers: i was going one way, he. the other and we “met’ as we rounded a bend.
Many of the predators (particularly mountain lion) are extremely secretive and nearly impossible to see in the wilds (Mengelsen noted as much as well) — unless one is hunting them with dogs, as Julie noted. Talk about inhumane garbage! That’s not even hunting, in my opinion and a blog topic of its own.
Being able to see and photograph a mountain lion and bobcat up close is basically an experience of a lifetime for me. I’ve seen them in zoos — ge, Sonoran Desert Museum and it’s simply not the same.
Disclaimer: I have no connection whatsoever with triple D game farm and as i indicated above, my experience observing them and their animals is very limited (i attended one of Julie’s workshop’s there). But based on what I saw, I have to say that I have a great deal of respect for the people who run the farm (Jay and Kim Deist) and for the people they have attending to and training the animals (Kathleen and others). If there is a good way of running a game farm– where the animals are given respect and good treatment (considering the fact that they are in captivity), I suspect that theirs may well be the model.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Susan, I respect your decisions and the consistency of your choices. I also applaud your statement that these are personal choices. BTW, I would call you an animal welfarist, not an animal rightist. (PETA and HSUS are a whole ‘nother topic that make my tail very bushy). I will also clarify that Mangelsen’s comment about Kuhn was made when he was presented with the inconsistency of his attitude about game farm patronage - he excused Kuhn, but not everyone else.
I find a lot more shades of gray in the world than Mangelsen does. Do I wish I could get all my reference material in the wild? You bet! But there are cougar researchers who have spent 10 years studying their subject in the wild, yet haven’t seen one. After all my months (years?) in sum spent out in the wilderness, I have one sequence of photographs of a wild bobcat. I treasure them, but they are unusable for reference material.
Some of the endangered species that Triple D keeps are also part of the tiny worldwide gene pool for that species, and Triple D helps keep that gene pool vital with breeding and trading animals to other captive institutions (such as zoos) - snow leopards being a good example. Is this ideal? Hardly. But their wild existence is precarious due to poaching and being killed for livestock depradation.
Marti, I haven’t been to the establishment you mentioned; I’ve talked to friends and fellow artists who have, and would never patronize them. I could say much more but will stop there.
As Marti notes, there is also a time/money tradeoff. When Mangelsen goes off to track down his wild subjects, he emerges with a nearly finished product. When artists go into the field, we still have days/weeks/months of work ahead of us to turn our reference material into our finished product. That being said, I LOVE getting good photographs in the wild! I have, conservatively, 30,000+ photos taken over the course of 15+ years (mostly slides, unfortunately - snort). I love the thrill of finding animal+light at a magical juxtaposition.
Larry, it’s also my impression that Mangelsen lumps all (two?) game farms into the same bag. Triple D relies on operant conditioning to work with their animals (like Doug Seuss does with his grizzlies), not nooses or chains or other horrors.
And finally, back to the “shades of gray”…if we eat meat, wear clothes, drive a car - these things all have highly detrimental effects on the world. Huge tracts of land cleared and sprayed for cotton or crops results in the deaths of countless flora and fauna; our cars are contributing to global warming and the decline of countless more species (polar bears and amphibians being two notable examples). In the U.S., our grain consumption is far higher per capita than elsewhere - whether to feed our meat animals or to fuel our cars - and is contributing to global price rises and shortages of grain, and the resultant failure of governments in places like Somalia. (A recent Scientific American went into great detail on this).
It’s not ideal, but perhaps it is justifiable to have a handful of animals in captivity at Triple D so artists and photographers can create images that stimulate appreciation and the desire to conserve those species in others.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:49 am
I have only been to one game farm - Animals of Montana - and have not witnessed any of the “physical” abuse Mangelsen and others have reported at game farms. My objection to game farms is the “training” of the animals. I have not seen a cougar in the wild - have seen a bobcat. What I like about Wildlife Prairie State Park is that the animals that live there are not “trained.” Granted, they are in captivity, but their enclosures are HUGE and they go about being animals and doing what animals do - without intervention from “trainers.” It is not a place to go to take photographs with the intention of selling them as “wildlife/nature photography” because the animals just don’t cooperate and “pose” as would be necessary for a saleable photo. While some may consider the Park to be a “zoo”, it is nothing close to what you would see at a typical city zoo, where most enclosures are less than a half acre or even pitifully smaller. It is a natural, HUGE, prairie setting.
Larry - I agree - I think Mangelsen’s biggest complaint is not about the treatment of the animals as it is about the competition from photographers who photograph at game farms and sell their “wildife” photos as photos of non-captive animals. The public is more or less oblivious as to where a good deal of those photos are taken.
I have never been to Triple D but I know artists who have been there and they have nothing but positive comments about the care of the animals and the knowledge of the handlers. As I said - my biggest objection is that “training” thing. What are they “trained” to do? If left “untrained” would the photos still be as good - or does the “training” produce better poses and ultimately, better images? Are they moved from one place to a more “suitable” location - or simply allowed to run about their enclosure? I suspect Triple D is much like Animals of Montana when it comes to how the animals are presented for photo shoots. At AoM, some of the animals (grizzly, black bear) are “trained” to respond a certain way with a certain command and having done so are rewarded with treats. Others (tiger, bobcat, lynx) at AoM are brought to the “photo arena” and allowed to move about - without intervention from the handlers. And yes - it is a HUGE rush to be THAT close to animals like that.
The decision to photograph at game farms is an individual one. If ever I were to consider photographing at one again, it would only be after I was assured that the “training” is not contrary to their normal, wild behavior and that the care of the animals is above reproach.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Marti, I’ll comment specifically on training. My observations at Triple D are that the animals are moved about in the compounds (some of which are very large) mostly by thrown treats. They’re also left to run around, sniff, investigate, etc. They’re called back towards the trainer (and photographers) with treats regularly during their time in the compound, which gives a variety of photographic opportunities.
I’ve also seen Triple D capitalize on “caught” behaviors; in operant terms, this is a behavior the animal offers that the trainer then rewards and continues to shape. Sometimes one of their animals will do something that’s not saleable as a photograph, but the trainers go along with it and reward it and perhaps shape it further. I train dogs for agility, and part of the fun for the animal is improvisation (what happens if I try this? or this? or this?)…so I’ve seen Triple D staff occasionally use those improvisations.
I have no objection to training, done thoughtfully (and hopefully in operant mode). My own dogs have shown me that this kind of training is stimulating and enjoyable for them - why wouldn’t it also be so for Triple D’s animals? There are plenty of zoo staff who also use operant conditioning to stimulate their captive charges mentally.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
I have a question for those who claim that game farm animals like mountain lion are made to “perform for photographers and to do things that are totally contrary to the animals’ normal behavior.”
I would agree that if an animal is “sitting up and begging”, that’s probably not “natural” behavior, but hey, even in that case, how do we know?
Few people have actually witnessed mountain lion behavior in the wild. As anyone who owns a domestic cat knows, cat’s are very playful and it is not unreasonable to expect that at least some of their behavior is genetically inspired and has nothing whatsoever to do with domestication. Like their domestic counterparts, I suspect that wild cats spend a lot of time lounging about and sunning themselves (eg, on rocks) so I see nothing at all “unnatural” about the images I have of mountain lions and bobcats that I obtained at triple D. I also have images of a mountain lion “slinking about”, as i would expect it would do in hunting mode in the wild.
I actually think it is rather ridiculous to think that game farm animals have someone had all the wild behaviors trained out of them and somehow replaced with “canned” behavior.
I’m actually sorry I used the word training above for what triple D is doing. Given the normally accepted meaning of the word (eg, training of animals to do tricks, run through courses, sit up, speak, etc), I doubt it is really an accurate way to describe what is being done to get animals to stay in one location (on a rock, for example) for people to get pictures.
June 17th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
I would like to point out that painting any particular species is a choice. One might reasonably suggest that the question is not between wild cougars that are rarely seen and captive animals kept in conditions I consider questionable by definition, but that one has the choice to do other subjects instead. I might wish to paint a lot of things, but chose not to until and unless I can get the reference I need in a humane manner.
I find it interesting that the comments have quickly become about comparisons of how the the animals are trained, not whether or not the training methods applicable to domestic dogs should be used with genetically wild animals. Or whether they should be forced or selectively bred to associate with humans this way at all.
Yes, zoos use operant conditioning to work with their animals. See my previous comment about zoos. It’s fine that some game ranches are involved in the preservation of endangered species, but they should then have to provide the same level of “accommodation” as zoos. Can’t do that and make a profit, I suspect. The cages that I have seen at both Triple D and Wild Animals of Montana are at a level that I associate with roadside zoos. The kind that get busted and show up on Animal Cops. IMHO.
On my blog is a photo, since we’re naming names, of a baby bear at Triple D licking itself after being allowed to repeatedly contact a hot wire. It cried in pain every time. The keeper also hit, although he called it “cuffed”, the cub two or three times. I don’t consider either of these things to be within the realm of acceptable “training” methods for any animal.
In other words, for me, the debate is not over “how”, but “if at all”. And that is an ethical and moral animal welfare issue, not one of training.
The fact that we currently, as a species, leave an unsustainable footprint on the planet, does not, in my mind, excuse us from examining our personal choices. Everyone does the best they can. Some things are currently more optional than others. Like going to game ranches.
Anyone interested in dog training ought to check out The Pet Connection blog. There’s a current comment thread in which the commenters are debating whether or not e-collars and ear pinches are acceptable or necessary in training working dogs. In that context, I think you can understand why I have problems with what I saw at Triple D.
June 17th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Susan, that particular trainer is no longer at Triple D - let go for his treatment of the animals.
The rest of this can become a religious war. I respect your position and Mangelsen’s, and the thought you’ve given your choices.
As for training, e-collars, etc: those are also often religious war issues (I belong to several dog training lists related to obedience and agility, and I’ve seen the wars happen). Since I train high-energy, high-prey-drive working dogs - with mostly operant conditioning - I believe that most training tools are just that: tools. Any can be used well. Any can be misused horribly.
June 17th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Glad to hear it. I think he had real issues that the animals didn’t need to be exposed to. I will note that on my blog post right away.
Training: that “war” is going on right now over at Pet Connnection big time. 50+ comments and counting (we should be so lucky). One of the commenters I most respect, HHoulahan, says the same thing you do for the same reasons. And I agree with both of you.
June 17th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
just found your blogsite thru surfing so I’m not a familiar ‘voice’ in your blog, but would love to comment.
I have my thoughts on the game farms also, but I think it was pretty well discussed and I agree with the majority of the thought on this topic.
I wanted to comment on the original blog statement - that of your loose painting “Bareback Paint”. I checked out the full size image. I love your work. My style is very controlled, but I admire loose painters when done well, and yours of course, is.
You can feel the emotion and the movement thru your brushstrokes and color. I love color also. I have always been an admirer of your art.
One of my other favorites of yours is “Wet Bear #5″.
I think you should be pretty damned pleased. well done!
June 17th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Susan, I checked out the Pet Connection site (very nice! didn’t know about it - plus my minimal browsing showed me the folks running it are experienced and level-headed) but haven’t found the training discussion, despite a little searching. Topic title is…?
Kathy, thank you for bringing us back around to the original post - and for your very kind words! I can so easily fall into too much control of my brushwork, and when I do I’m usually unhappy with the results…hence this experiment. There’s another in the same vein on my easel right now - also very satisfying. Again - your positive comments are much appreciated!
June 18th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Susan said:
Susan, I would agree that that is not acceptable.
As I indicated above, my exposure to triple D was very limited and I certainly saw none of that while i was there.
But given what Julie posted in rersponse (”that particular trainer is no longer at Triple D - let go for his treatment of the animals.”), I still think my first impression of Triple D is probably pretty accurate: that they are concerned for the welfare of the animals.
I think this actually points out one of the problems with what amounts to broad brush characterization of game farm treatment of animals based on a few samples. Not only might they not be representative, but worse, they miss the context: eg, that that trainer was let go by Triple D.
Regardless of where one stands on the issue of the “morality” to keep “wild” animals in captivity, I think one has to be very careful about selectively representation. It is really not fair to those running these farms who do have a concern for the animals in their care.
Julie, ironically, the title of your post “control” applies to the sidetracked discussion as well.
June 18th, 2009 at 9:36 am
> the title of your post “control” applies to the sidetracked discussion as well.
…LOL…yep. But hey - a good lively discussion can provide excellent food for thought. Better that than standing on either side of a divide and hurling vitriol at each other, and never actually engaging in civil discourse that might offer fresh perspective for all parties. Those who engage in black-and-white thinking and name-calling (PETA, terrorists, etc.) seem unable to do this.
June 18th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Pet Connection post with training comment thread:
http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2009/06/16/theyll-always-be-my-babies-but-theyre-happy-in-their-new-homes/#comment-459668
They’re at 95 comments and counting. It will probably go over 100. Those guys really know how to turn a topic inside out and upside down.
Re your comment about black and white thinking- a favorite quote from Churchill: “A fanatic is someone who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”
Civil discourse in this country. Now there’s a concept. I like it. Let’s try it. Can’t hurt too much.
Oh, yeah ;-), the painting. Crazy cool work with the edges while still holding the form of the horse. I like the color shifts too.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
GREAT quote from Churchill!!! So perfect and true.
And when I have time I’ll go check out the training thread. Right now, I’m busy getting my 5 year old GSD girl ready to show in Open obedience this weekend…then back to agility. And even busier with my new puppy - so much foundation to teach!
I’m pretty sure civil discourse hurts a lot less than name-calling…unless actually thinking about all perspectives on a topic hurts one’s brain. In which case, name-calling is definitely easier.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Hello Julie
I really like the change in the background, the texture is second to the Chocolate browns and more….great break from the Purples and Oranges.I miss the wildlife but understand the need in new ideas.
I have been making Native American flutes for a year or so, a new wood inspires me when I have been doing to many Cedar flutes. You are still the best , say hello to Paul.
jimmie Y.
October 26th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
I’ve been recently wondering about the exact same matter myself lately. Pleased to see another person on the same wavelength! Nice article.
November 6th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
You could definitely see your expertise in the work you write. The arena hopes for even more passionate writers like you who are not afraid to say how they believe. Always follow your heart.
November 14th, 2011 at 5:28 am
Hiya very nice website!! Guy .. Excellent .. Superb .. I will bookmark your website and take the feeds also?KI’m glad to seek out numerous useful info here within the publish, we want work out extra techniques in this regard, thanks for sharing. . . . . .
November 18th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Exceptional study. I just handed down this kind of on to a buddy who has been a little bit of exploration with of which. He / she in fact obtained everyone lunch as I think it is with regard to him or her! Therefore allow me to rephrase: Thanks for lunch time!
November 18th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Hello, i think that i saw you visited my blog thus i came to “return the favor”.I am trying to find things to improve my web site!I suppose its ok to use some of your ideas!!
December 25th, 2011 at 6:03 am
UltimateDemon is definitely a strong Website seo automation tool with regards to your website content submitting campaigns. Along with UltimateDemon, you no longer need to get an array of tools. It’s like a “one-stop shop” that offers an individual a number of web pages you may upload your content and articles to. Not like a number of other tools, UltimateDemon supplies a incredibly user-friendly interface that’s never been seen any where else. With UltimateDemon’s smooth distribution system, you may now construct a limiteless number of back-links and increase traffic without the need to babysit the applications. Generally there are simply just no other software that are available that complete task that have the same level of simplicity and automation like UltimateDemon.