Real cameras with telephoto lenses could have avoided this

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
jcharding Senior Member • Posts: 2,477
Re: Some people don't have enough sense to avoid a dangerous situation
4

I have a bit of a different view.  Particularly with respect to the elk you showed.  That is absolutely normal. Those elk are in those exact spots virtually year-round.  I've stayed at that hotel 5 times.  And those elk were there in those exact spots all 5 times.  There is frequently no way to get out of buildings, particularly in a cabin. Speaking of cabins, during the rut (in particular) the NPS and/or Xanterra posts guards during the night to warn people stumbling out of their cabins to not go to a certain bathroom (because many cabins don't have bathrooms) because a bull elk is near said bathroom and is grumpy.

So when I see people saying "person X is an idiot, they should have stayed away" I personally think that this is mostly self-righteous behavior.  Avoid the animals?  Are you kidding?  How? It is frequently totally impossible. Detour so as to avoid them?  Where? Through that thermal feature that will literally melt the flesh off my bones?

Now my view does not extend to abject stupidity, like a crowd surrounding a buffalo.  Trying to pat it's head or something. But honestly the opposite view espousing the "distance rule" is darned near as brain damaged as surrounding a buffalo.  You cannot go to Yellowstone without coming into close proximity to animals. In your car.  On foot.  Whatever. But you must teach yourself about the risks and pay attention to the animal. It's not a petting zoo, but there is also assumed risk at all times. It is fundamentally not a safe place. It's not supposed to be. But you can manage your risks simply by not being brain damaged. The NPS distance rule isn't written on some stone tablet as some sort of Commandment.  It is a proxy which simply tries to get people to educate themselves and pay attention.

-- hide signature --
 jcharding's gear list:jcharding's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +6 more
nopix
nopix Senior Member • Posts: 1,642
Re: Some people don't have enough sense to avoid a dangerous situation
1

It is actually easy for people to stay away. Look at the people at the picnic table, for example, do they have to be there? No, they don’t. They have other options. The people that were near the elk were, as I said, were chased away shortly after I took the pics by the rangers. Yes, the people could have stayed away, if they wanted to.

The elks are not “always there”. They come down from the hills around sunset looking for food.

 nopix's gear list:nopix's gear list
Panasonic ZS100 Sony RX10 III Nikon 1 V2 Canon EOS 70D Sony a6000 +18 more
jcharding Senior Member • Posts: 2,477
Re: Some people don't have enough sense to avoid a dangerous situation

They stay there year round staying away from wolves. I've seen them in the middle of the night, dawn, breakfast, mid-day, evening, dinner, and sunset. I've seen/heard them there bugling, rutting, attacking cars and cement trucks, mating in front of the NPS headquarters (literally - fully engorged and out), and eating out of the flowers the NPS places wire around. They are always there.

Last year was the densest amount yet (in my 5 Mammoth stays over the past 12 years). They were there when we checked in at 3. We drove around them. There were half a dozen in the courtyard among our set of cabins. We skirted by them by 3 feet away to get into our cabin. They were on the hillside next to the cabins (with little elk). They were still there when we ate dinner. They were still there when we came back around 9 (after a 2 year old grizzly ignored the NPS rule and wandered within 3 feet of us -darned bear). At no point in our most stay at Mammoth were they not there, and at pretty much at all points in time could I see people and elk closer than the rules mandated. Now all of a sudden a buffalo (also a common sight at Mammoth and elsewhere) unfortunately and sadly charges and tosses 9 year old and people are up in arms about stupid humans breaking the rules?

Now could people, as you said, not use a specific picnic table? Sure.  But when it is a constant presence people and elk eventually ignore the rules/barriers. And frequently crossing paths is completely unavoidable anyway.

Look, I brought my 8 year old with me last time. I get it.  I feel for the kid and her family. If they made a mistake, and we don't know enough about what they (not others) specifically did, it was not moving along faster (assuming that opportunity  existed at all) when other people got too damned close and started doing stupid things. Some human/animal interaction at close range at Yellowstone is inevitable. Rules be damned. The problem is when people don't try to minimize that inevitable interaction and push boundaries when they don't need to. That likely applies to the group of morons who apparently surrounded the buffalo.

-- hide signature --
 jcharding's gear list:jcharding's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +6 more
OP LoneTree1 Senior Member • Posts: 1,327
Re: Really?

Montana Floozie wrote:

The short focal length in most phone cameras contributes to the problem by drawing visitors into unsafe distances, but the problem is the general public perception of the risk -- despite all the signs. If people were as wary of bison as they are of rattlesnakes there would be fewer incidents.

Fear of snakes is endemic, probably good because most people can't tell a constrictor from a venomous snake.  But plant eaters kill more people every year than carnivores do every 10 years.

greenmanphoto Senior Member • Posts: 2,934
Re: Really?

LoneTree1 wrote:

Montana Floozie wrote:

The short focal length in most phone cameras contributes to the problem by drawing visitors into unsafe distances, but the problem is the general public perception of the risk -- despite all the signs. If people were as wary of bison as they are of rattlesnakes there would be fewer incidents.

Fear of snakes is endemic, probably good because most people can't tell a constrictor from a venomous snake. But plant eaters kill more people every year than carnivores do every 10 years.

LoneTree,

Got something to back up that statement? I am...skeptical, at best.

Sam

-- hide signature --

Sam B.
D300, D700, D500, and D850; 16-80mm, 85mm f1.8, 24-85mm, 24-120mm; Sigma 10-20 f3.5, 150mm f2.8 Macro, 17-50mm f2.8; Tamron 70-300mm, 70-200mm f2.8 VC; 24-70mm f2.8 VC G2; Gitzo 2531 Mountaineer tripod; RRS BH-55 ball head; Monostat RS-16 Pro monopod; Various odds and ends.
Certified Texas Master Naturalist
Proud WSSA Member #260!
www.flickr.com/photos/sibeardjr
www.doormouse-editions.com

 greenmanphoto's gear list:greenmanphoto's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D500 Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +13 more
greenmanphoto Senior Member • Posts: 2,934
Re: Real cameras/lenses can't mitigate stupidity /nt

Tex,

Not necessarily, no. But they CAN mitigate some of the effects of said stupidity.

Sam

-- hide signature --

Sam B.
D300, D700, D500, and D850; 16-80mm, 85mm f1.8, 24-85mm, 24-120mm; Sigma 10-20 f3.5, 150mm f2.8 Macro, 17-50mm f2.8; Tamron 70-300mm, 70-200mm f2.8 VC; 24-70mm f2.8 VC G2; Gitzo 2531 Mountaineer tripod; RRS BH-55 ball head; Monostat RS-16 Pro monopod; Various odds and ends.
Certified Texas Master Naturalist
Proud WSSA Member #260!
www.flickr.com/photos/sibeardjr
www.doormouse-editions.com

 greenmanphoto's gear list:greenmanphoto's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D500 Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +13 more
FrancoD Forum Pro • Posts: 10,965
Re: Idiocy
1

HRC2016 wrote:

There was a group of people standing 5-10 feet from the animal before it charged.

Not just one idiot. An entire collection of idiots. It's nice when idiots stick together.

Not sure about some of the comments in this thread but I am thinking that we need a collective noun for idiots.

One suggestion was thicket, a thicket of idiots.

( like a Rash of Dermatologist or a Disappearance of Bartenders)

OP LoneTree1 Senior Member • Posts: 1,327
Re: Really?
1

greenmanphoto wrote:

LoneTree1 wrote:

Montana Floozie wrote:

The short focal length in most phone cameras contributes to the problem by drawing visitors into unsafe distances, but the problem is the general public perception of the risk -- despite all the signs. If people were as wary of bison as they are of rattlesnakes there would be fewer incidents.

Fear of snakes is endemic, probably good because most people can't tell a constrictor from a venomous snake. But plant eaters kill more people every year than carnivores do every 10 years.

LoneTree,

Got something to back up that statement? I am...skeptical, at best.

Sam

Hippos are the worst.

https://www.tripsavvy.com/africas-most-dangerous-animals-1454125

greenmanphoto Senior Member • Posts: 2,934
Re: Really?

LoneTree1 wrote:

greenmanphoto wrote:

LoneTree1 wrote:

Montana Floozie wrote:

The short focal length in most phone cameras contributes to the problem by drawing visitors into unsafe distances, but the problem is the general public perception of the risk -- despite all the signs. If people were as wary of bison as they are of rattlesnakes there would be fewer incidents.

Fear of snakes is endemic, probably good because most people can't tell a constrictor from a venomous snake. But plant eaters kill more people every year than carnivores do every 10 years.

LoneTree,

Got something to back up that statement? I am...skeptical, at best.

Sam

Hippos are the worst.

https://www.tripsavvy.com/africas-most-dangerous-animals-1454125

LT,

Ah. I was thinking you were making a DIFFERENT sort of statement regarding dietary choices of some folks. My mistake.

Yes, hippos are VERY aggressive, and VERY deadly! FAR more so than people realize. Rhinos can be pretty deadly, as well, largely due to their poor eyesight, compounded by a grumpy nature, as I understand it.

Sam

-- hide signature --

Sam B.
D300, D700, D500, and D850; 16-80mm, 85mm f1.8, 24-85mm, 24-120mm; Sigma 10-20 f3.5, 150mm f2.8 Macro, 17-50mm f2.8; Tamron 70-300mm, 70-200mm f2.8 VC; 24-70mm f2.8 VC G2; Gitzo 2531 Mountaineer tripod; RRS BH-55 ball head; Monostat RS-16 Pro monopod; Various odds and ends.
Certified Texas Master Naturalist
Proud WSSA Member #260!
www.flickr.com/photos/sibeardjr
www.doormouse-editions.com

 greenmanphoto's gear list:greenmanphoto's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D500 Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +13 more
TheBlackGrouse
TheBlackGrouse Senior Member • Posts: 2,958
Re: Really?

greenmanphoto wrote:

LoneTree1 wrote:

Montana Floozie wrote:

The short focal length in most phone cameras contributes to the problem by drawing visitors into unsafe distances, but the problem is the general public perception of the risk -- despite all the signs. If people were as wary of bison as they are of rattlesnakes there would be fewer incidents.

Fear of snakes is endemic, probably good because most people can't tell a constrictor from a venomous snake. But plant eaters kill more people every year than carnivores do every 10 years.

LoneTree,

Got something to back up that statement? I am...skeptical, at best.

Sam

He is probably right. Cows kill lots of farmers every year. Elephants, Hippos and Cape Buffalo's are serious man killers.

In some regions in India Tigers are chasing humans but that's an exception. In the Sundarbans Tigers kill 20-25 people every year (on average). They even attack fishermen in small boats. No one knows why, it may have to do with the salty water, high tides, lack of normal prey etc. But as said before, this is an exception.

-- hide signature --

TheBlackGrouse
Active Outdoor Photographer

Teila Day
Teila Day Veteran Member • Posts: 4,870
most effective would’ve been...
1

araudan wrote:

LoneTree1 wrote:

So you wouldn't have to try to cozy up to a wild animal to get a photo with a phone.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49101874

Common sense would have been even more effective.

If the 9 year old received a painful compound fracture and permanent scar on her face as a reminder and as a way to bolster her stunted common sense on into her adulthood after making a full recovery.

If the adults would’ve gotten stomped and gored nearly to death and the stomping filmed in 4K brilliant, with brilliant color and perfect natural lighting and the parent(s) / guardian of the 9 year old charged with a felony.

I’m always rooting for the bison.  It’s stupid people who make parks put up ugly signs and fencing ruining the world’s natural beauty for the lot of us.

Nothing reiterates a sign’s warning like a really good old fashioned multi-hoof ash stomping courtesy of a 2,000 pound beast.

.. just be sure to send me a text or email alert minutes prior so I can pop some corn and a open a cold pop, and curl up on the couch in anticipation of a great show... and a jog controller if you please... so I may rewind and frame-by-frame the good parts while pointing at the screen, telling the grandchildren that “such is a text-book illustration of “stupid people” French kissing karma...”

-- hide signature --
C Sean Senior Member • Posts: 2,084
Re: most effective would’ve been...
1

I been to Africa several times for safari and to be honest I had done some silly things. While it's known tourist do die or get attack by animals on an African safari, I haven't seen this amount of stupidity when compared to Yellowstone Park.

The other thing animals do seek sanctuary in safari camps. While these camps can be a safe area to get photos of birds or small critters like lizards, you also get larger herbivores hiding in the camp from leopards and lions. Again I never seen an animal get surrounded except maybe the rarer animals like the smaller cats in the camps.

OP LoneTree1 Senior Member • Posts: 1,327
Re: most effective would’ve been...
1

Teila Day wrote:

araudan wrote:

LoneTree1 wrote:

So you wouldn't have to try to cozy up to a wild animal to get a photo with a phone.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49101874

Common sense would have been even more effective.

If the 9 year old received a painful compound fracture and permanent scar on her face as a reminder and as a way to bolster her stunted common sense on into her adulthood after making a full recovery.

If the adults would’ve gotten stomped and gored nearly to death and the stomping filmed in 4K brilliant, with brilliant color and perfect natural lighting and the parent(s) / guardian of the 9 year old charged with a felony.

I’m always rooting for the bison. It’s stupid people who make parks put up ugly signs and fencing ruining the world’s natural beauty for the lot of us.

The civil majority always suffer because of minorities and inability to confine their actions to lawful (or sane) ones.

Miike Dougherty
Miike Dougherty Contributing Member • Posts: 807
Re: Real cameras with telephoto lenses could have avoided this
1

araudan wrote:

LoneTree1 wrote:

So you wouldn't have to try to cozy up to a wild animal to get a photo with a phone.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49101874

Common sense would have been even more effective.

It looks like the video has been taken down.  Too bad.  People respond a lot more positively to video than just signs and being told what not to do.  This video should be required watching (on line) before entering the park.

 Miike Dougherty's gear list:Miike Dougherty's gear list
Nikon D500 Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 Tamron SP 150-600mm F5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 Tamron 17-35mm F2.8-4 +1 more
OP LoneTree1 Senior Member • Posts: 1,327
Re: Real cameras with telephoto lenses could have avoided this

Miike Dougherty wrote:

araudan wrote:

LoneTree1 wrote:

So you wouldn't have to try to cozy up to a wild animal to get a photo with a phone.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49101874

Common sense would have been even more effective.

It looks like the video has been taken down. Too bad. People respond a lot more positively to video than just signs and being told what not to do. This video should be required watching (on line) before entering the park.

Alaskan police spend a lot of time shooing people away from getting too close to animals.  Watching an orientation view might help.  Maybe.

donaldsc Veteran Member • Posts: 3,524
Re: I saw it in person

Smaug01 wrote:

I was at Yellowstone two years ago with my family. There are signs EVERYWHERE saying to stay away from the animals.

...but a few stupid people look around, see that there is no ranger watching them, and decide to do it anyway. Then, others watching see this guy "get away with it" and they want close pictures too. So they all get close.

I'm amazed it doesn't happen MORE often.

To your humorous point: yes, a proper camera and telephoto lens could have helped avoid that. But people like to think their phones do everything, and they don't wan't to hear otherwise. Another example? People see I wear a watch and ask me the time. I tell them "time to get a watch." Then, they angrily pull out their phone and berate me for my comment. They're convinced that the phone is all they need. I tell them they've gone back to the 19th century where all people had were pocket watches. It falls on deaf ears.

I do the same thing.  Good for you.

Also, on this board and on some of the others that I am on, if someone asks a question that can be answered by typing 2 or 3 words into Google, I tell the questioner to look it up in Google.  I am not going to participate in supporting stupidity or laziness.

-- hide signature --

Don

jnd Regular Member • Posts: 145
Re: Real cameras with telephoto lenses could have avoided this

LoneTree1 wrote:

So you wouldn't have to try to cozy up to a wild animal to get a photo with a phone.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49101874

You don't have to go next to wild animal and you don't have to get a photo either. It's 100% fault of the person, not a phone or camera. Also telephoto lens won't help because I think there are two reason to come up close: 1) They want to pet it like a dog or just touch it so they can tell other they did it, and 2) They want to make selfie to show others their adventurous nature. No amount of large sensors and telephotos won't help you with such motivations.

Other people mention that sometimes you can't help it but go through or close by some wild animals. That's true, however this doesn't look like it's the case where you have large group of people getting close to the animal on purpose, staying there for a long time (was it 20 minutes?) while examining and annoying the animal in general with their presence and obnoxious sounds. If I were the bison in such situation I would kick some asses too. If you want to pass them you go quietly and are gone as soon as possible, preferably not stopping for a selfie with them, even if it's just a wild hog and not a bison.

 jnd's gear list:jnd's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art Sigma 50-100mm F1.8 DC HSM Art Canon PowerShot G7 X +13 more
OP LoneTree1 Senior Member • Posts: 1,327
Re: I saw it in person

donaldsc wrote:

Smaug01 wrote:

I was at Yellowstone two years ago with my family. There are signs EVERYWHERE saying to stay away from the animals.

...but a few stupid people look around, see that there is no ranger watching them, and decide to do it anyway. Then, others watching see this guy "get away with it" and they want close pictures too. So they all get close.

I'm amazed it doesn't happen MORE often.

To your humorous point: yes, a proper camera and telephoto lens could have helped avoid that. But people like to think their phones do everything, and they don't wan't to hear otherwise. Another example? People see I wear a watch and ask me the time. I tell them "time to get a watch." Then, they angrily pull out their phone and berate me for my comment. They're convinced that the phone is all they need. I tell them they've gone back to the 19th century where all people had were pocket watches. It falls on deaf ears.

I do the same thing. Good for you.

Also, on this board and on some of the others that I am on, if someone asks a question that can be answered by typing 2 or 3 words into Google, I tell the questioner to look it up in Google. I am not going to participate in supporting stupidity or laziness.

Never sell anything on Ebay.  If you want questions from lazy, stupid people, it's the place.

Teila Day
Teila Day Veteran Member • Posts: 4,870
Re: I saw it in person

LoneTree1 wrote:

donaldsc wrote:

Smaug01 wrote:

I was at Yellowstone two years ago with my family. There are signs EVERYWHERE saying to stay away from the animals.

...but a few stupid people look around, see that there is no ranger watching them, and decide to do it anyway. Then, others watching see this guy "get away with it" and they want close pictures too. So they all get close.

I'm amazed it doesn't happen MORE often.

To your humorous point: yes, a proper camera and telephoto lens could have helped avoid that. But people like to think their phones do everything, and they don't wan't to hear otherwise. Another example? People see I wear a watch and ask me the time. I tell them "time to get a watch." Then, they angrily pull out their phone and berate me for my comment. They're convinced that the phone is all they need. I tell them they've gone back to the 19th century where all people had were pocket watches. It falls on deaf ears.

I do the same thing. Good for you.

Also, on this board and on some of the others that I am on, if someone asks a question that can be answered by typing 2 or 3 words into Google, I tell the questioner to look it up in Google. I am not going to participate in supporting stupidity or laziness.

Never sell anything on Ebay. If you want questions from lazy, stupid people, it's the place.

You might also miss a sale from well grounded people looking for that very lens.

-- hide signature --
FRANCISQUAN Forum Member • Posts: 79
Re: Idiocy
2

FrancoD wrote:

HRC2016 wrote:

There was a group of people standing 5-10 feet from the animal before it charged.

Not just one idiot. An entire collection of idiots. It's nice when idiots stick together.

Not sure about some of the comments in this thread but I am thinking that we need a collective noun for idiots.

One suggestion was thicket, a thicket of idiots.

( like a Rash of Dermatologist or a Disappearance of Bartenders)

A collection of idiots in this situation would be better known as a target!

 FRANCISQUAN's gear list:FRANCISQUAN's gear list
Canon PowerShot A620
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads