Animal Welfare So grossed out -- photographers

Ummmm isn't this a little extreme? From what I understood of the post you don't know the person or the situation. It could be a person photographing her children with their animals.

I'm not sure I know what you are asking or why you were "grossed out" by it. There's nothing inherently illegal about kids posing with ducks. As for if the ducks or rabbits scratch the kids, the parents probably just wash the scratch (if it requires it) and they go on their merry way.

I'm inclined to agree with the replies rather than the OP - I'm really not seeing the big deal here. Frankly, I've been bitten by a full-grown duck, and it was literally a squeeze, no pain at all. Some things just really aren't worth getting worked up over.

When I was growing up, we would always love staying at my grandparents farm. Of course spring was the best time because of all the babies. Grandpa would let us hold the young bunnies inside a little fenced off area he created so nobody could get loose. None of the animals were ever injured during that time but I'm sure when they grew up they most likely ended up on the dinner table. Would it be more acceptable if it was kittens or puppies in the picture? They scratch/bite people also. Or, is what truly bothers you the thought of them ending up as food for a person? I'm a vegetarian so I do somewhat understand if that's the case.

SheWolfSilver said:

Ummmm isn't this a little extreme? From what I understood of the post you don't know the person or the situation. It could be a person photographing her children with their animals.

Click to expand...

No, it's a professional photog with multiple pics on her page with kids and ducklings/rabbits. The pic in my feed had the one family (this was my friend). And you're right: Maybe it IS extreme, but I have a hard time believing the photog lives in the country and has all those animals as pets, and I don't really think the families do, either. I think they were bought as props, and that really does gross me out because what happens when her use for them is over? They get dumped somewhere just like all the other animals that are acquired and then no longer needed.

Hhbean said:

When I was growing up, we would always love staying at my grandparents farm. Of course spring was the best time because of all the babies. Grandpa would let us hold the young bunnies inside a little fenced off area he created so nobody could get loose. None of the animals were ever injured during that time but I'm sure when they grew up they most likely ended up on the dinner table. Would it be more acceptable if it was kittens or puppies in the picture? They scratch/bite people also. Or, is what truly bothers you the thought of them ending up as food for a person? I'm a vegetarian so I do somewhat understand if that's the case.

Click to expand...

I see a huge difference between posing with pets and posing with "prop" animals. But maybe that's just me.

This is apparently a big thing for people, though. I found oodles of photogs who offer the "service." https://www.google.com/search?q=pho...e.0.57j60l3j0l2.4582&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Just found this: "Professional Photographers of America (PPA)—the largest nonprofit association of its kind in the world—has taken a stand against the use of live rabbits for photo shoots."

I stand by my "grossed out" feelings, and there is no way in my mind that I can justify a photo shoot with live animals purchased as props. There's too much potential for disaster, and I don't for a second believe that those animals are properly cared for after their use as props is over.

I'm a hobbyist photographer but I have many friends who are professional photographers. A lot of times props in general are expensive and take up more room then most people have. Props like this usually come from friends, farms or people family know.

I know some rescues/shelters with bunnies will do Easter photo shoots to get exposed for adoptions and fund raising. They use rabbits from their shelter/rescue that have been shown to be pretty tame. As for bites and scratches, a lot of photographers let people know that it may happen. As I always say; If it has a mouth it will bite. Same go with claws and scratches.

The only time I personally find this unnerving is when you find the photographers who buy pets or animals for these types of things and once its over "get rid" of the animal. These people are out there but they are slowly dwindling down in numbers.

Would ask the photographer you originally posted about and find out what her personal practices are before assuming that she/he is one of the bad ones out there.

CanadianComforts said:

I'm a hobbyist photographer but I have many friends who are professional photographers. A lot of times props in general are expensive and take up more room then most people have. Props like this usually come from friends, farms or people family know.

I know some rescues/shelters with bunnies will do Easter photo shoots to get exposed for adoptions and fund raising. They use rabbits from their shelter/rescue that have been shown to be pretty tame. As for bites and scratches, a lot of photographers let people know that it may happen. As I always say; If it has a mouth it will bite. Same go with claws and scratches.

The only time I personally find this unnerving is when you find the photographers who buy pets or animals for these types of things and once its over "get rid" of the animal. These people are out there but they are slowly dwindling down in numbers.

Would ask the photographer you originally posted about and find out what her personal practices are before assuming that she/he is one of the bad ones out there.

Click to expand...

TY, CanadianComforts, for your perspective. This is far less unnerving than the alternative. I was horrified when I saw how many photogs offer this "service," but as long as it's being done under the guidance of the humane societies, shelters, rescues, etc., I can understand and accept it.

My friend has a farm and works with a local photographer on many things, including bringing animals in the spring for multiple shoots. Then they go right back to their life on the farm as usual.

I find this a lot less repugnant than the promotion at a church Sunday School many years ago where they gave out live baby chicks to the kids at Easter. My nephews and nieces were among the kids who got a chick (thankfully, just one). Mind you, there were six kids in the family living in an apartment, but there was no "vetting" of who the chicks went to. They just went to every single kid/family. I'm sure some were tossed in the garbage or outside when parents discovered this and didn't want them. The chick was a male, as I suspect they all were, since those are "culls" because they can't lay eggs. Who in their right mind gives out chicks to young city kids and thinks it's a good thing?

The chick grew into a rooster, and thankfully my family found a farm where he could (supposedly) live out his days in a more rural suburb. I sort of worry that he ended up eaten, but the optimistic part of me prefers to believe that the farm owner was sincere in saying she'd keep him as a pet.

Hopefully most photographers are working with humane societies and farms, although I'm sure some use the critters as disposable props.

I guess it would be a little different if the animals are actually props. We have no idea where the animals came from or how they were treated, though.

If they're well fed and cared for, I see no problem with it. It's probably a lot better than the conditions you find at commercial chicken farms.

I find this post quite judging. You are assuming you know their situations, that they are being mistreated, and thrown. We dont know any of this, so its all assumed and judging on that assumption. =(

BNCavy91 said:

I find this post quite judging. You are assuming you know their situations, that they are being mistreated, and thrown. We dont know any of this, so its all assumed and judging on that assumption. =(

Click to expand...

A. My misunderstanding has already been explained to me, and I acknowledged it.
B. Nowhere did I say these animals were being thrown. Saying that one is worried about potential mistreatment is NOT AT ALL the same thing as saying animals are actually being abused. Just a little "FYI."

(Just went back and reread, and nope, nowhere did I say these animals were actually currently being abused. I'd not have bothered posting on a GP forum if I had reason to believe they were. I'd have contacted the authorities and let them do the judging for me.)

I dunno, just in my opinion, I think there are a lot worse things you could be upset about or "grossed out" by. People have pictures taken with animals all the time - in the scheme of things, it's pretty low on the spectrum of disturbing things, at least to me.

I know folks here seem to take a particular pride in being irritated, angered or disgusted by any and everything that can potentially be even slightly unfair or cruel to an animal, but this one really seems to be reaching and when I initially read it last night I kind of wondered if it was meant to be a joke. Alas, it was not.

The chick grew into a rooster, and thankfully my family found a farm where he could (supposedly) live out his days in a more rural suburb. I sort of worry that he ended up eaten, but the optimistic part of me prefers to believe that the farm owner was sincere in saying she'd keep him as a pet.

Click to expand...

Even if he were eaten, his life was probably far more humane than the vast majority of the chicks given away at that event and it was almost certainly better --by far-- than those living and dying on factory farms.

Agree with PP^
I'm more grossed out by backyard breeders, people who house guineas in tanks, people who don't every train their dogs and blame the dog for being ill behaved, etc.

I used to be a model and I modeled with animals all the time. The photographer and I would work with someone who owned a farm, or we used my own rabbit, or people who had the animals as pets. They were never harmed and we always had full support of the owners. I'm not saying this is always the case but I really do believe that it is most of the time.

I also held loads of baby animals as a kid, all kinds. We were taught to be gentle and if we got hurt it was our own dumb fault (and our parents to a certain extent).

Since there seems to be a fair bit of ganging up on the OP (I use "ganging up" mildly and for lack of a better term I can think of, I do not think the other posters are being mean, rude, or inappropriate, most of them anyway), I have to admit that I'm just not a fan of pictures like these. I too would wonder where the animals came from and would be hoping that, especially in the hands of a small child, the animal wasn't squeezed too hard or hurt, or some kind of incident with the animal being startled and biting someone. I wouldn't say I'm offended or disgusted, but I just don't really like the idea of animals being used as "props" -- I know this isn't always the intent and other posters may not see these pictures this way, but that is just my opinion and how I see them. Plus I have to admit that I'm just really REALLY not a kid person so maybe that also biases me against these pictures. Again, I don't have a particularly strong reaction to types of pictures OP described, but I can see where she is coming from.

Nowhere did I say these animals were being thrown.

Click to expand...

This might be where @BNCavy91 got the idea that you mentioned the animals being thrown.

asnnbrg said:

Does the animal get euthanized, does the kid toss it or drop it

Click to expand...