Sharing A Moment

Curious Whitetail Buck: Canon 40-D 70-200mmL F2.8

If treated with respect, even whitetail deer will give their trust to certain humans and in turn reward them by giving them insights into their lives that few are fortunate enough to ever see or comprehend.

Where's The Elk: Meet "Fred"-Bull Number 36

As our "Where's The Elk ?" saga continues ,we take a look at a famous character bull, and one of only three truly large bulls that I saw this year.

I first saw ‘Fred’ in 1997 when he was a small but beautiful raghorn. Billie Cromwell and I were videotaping a large bull in front of us when we heard a piercing bugle directly behind us and very, very near. We turned to find a beautiful, young bull. At first we were somewhat nervous, but then we realized that he was no threat whatsoever, but was simply following the action in front of us and staying out of reach of the larger bulls.

I didn’t know his name then but learned it next year. This was well before the Elk Season began in 2001 and most of the bulls on Winslow Hill were named, many by Claude M. Nye (Dr. Perk). There was a famous monster bull known as Fred who was gored by another bull in 1995 and had to be terminated. Dr. Perk named the young bull Fred Jr. as he was supposed to be the son of the original Fred. Another group of people called him “Dog Rope” as he had a dog leash tangled in his antlers for some time. He was photographed with the leash in his antlers . One of my favorite Pennsylvania Elk Photographers “Buckwheat” still calls him “ Dog Rope” to this day.

I was shooting video exclusively at that time and have no still pictures from that period to post.

Eventually Fred Jr. turned into a tremendous bull. Most would call him a “trophy” bull, but I dislike that term immensely.

The PGC Elk Biologist at the time said that naming these animals was demeaning to a “magnificent game animal”, but they thought nothing of fitting them with bright yellow collars with large black numbers. This is done to track them with radio transmitters and study them, but it effectively ruins the animal for videotaping purposes. Before the days of computers this would have been an equal problem with still photography too, but thanks to Photoshop those collars can vanish quite easily.

Fred spends much of his time in downtown Benezette and is quite easy to approach so at some point in either 2003 or 2004 he was tranquilized and fitted with a collar. He then officially became Bull Number 36.

Fred at Gilbert Viewing Area

Most September mornings in Elk County are foggy. This was one of only two times that I saw a bull at "The Gilbert", an area which is usually the center of activity.

Collar and roadway removed in Photoshop

Fred with bright yellow collar

It is said that in 2006 the boundaries of the no hunt zone were changed so that his home range would be in hunting territory. Some made the accusation that this was specifically done to target him as he was now of advanced age and would shortly go “downhill” so he should be taken by a sportsman while he was still a “trophy”.

Interestingly this change was buried in the hunting regulation book in such a manner that one had to read it extremely closely to realize that this had happened. Concerned citizens did not discover it until sometime in September.

This caused a firestorm of protest. Outdoor writer, photographer, and elk activist, Carol Mulvihill, was among those instrumental in pointing this change out. PGC director Carl Roe responded by pointing out that the boundaries would be changed back to their original status, but that he was still concerned about “habituated” elk.

It amazes me how many people travel to Benezette, primarily to see "Fred" or "Freddie" as he is also known. Many who hunt other species, or perhaps would even hunt elk in more remote regions of the state are completely turned off by the idea of Fred being shot.

If Fred is unlucky and is taken in season, I cannot comprehend how the “lucky” hunter will be able to portray this as a fair chase hunt. This bull and his tolerance for humans is known to a staggering number of people. I don’t think the man who kills Fred will win any “Person or Hunter of The Year Awards” and the rack should not be considered for the Boone and Crockett Record Book, as there is no way that the hunt could be termed "fair chase".

Canadian Thistle

I had to post this to show "Salty" that on rare occasion I do photograph other things than whitetail deer, or elk. Actually I like all types of nature photography and think that few things look better than a good close shot of a flower. Many consider this a noxious weed and it is a problem for sure when it becomes established in a field that is being crop farmed . I think though that it also is an attractive photographic subject both in summer when it is blooming and in autumn when its' life is ended and its seeds have been cast to the wind.

Canadian Thistle

Discussion of Extenders for Canon DSLRs

This is in response to Abraham Lincoln's question about extenders to boost the range of his 70-200mm F4 L lens. First off there is no choice but to buy Canon in this case. Canon has a list of which lenses their extenders will work with. In some cases extenders will actually not physically fit the wrong lens, but in many it is that although they will fit, optical performance is unacceptable. It is generally accepted that one should buy extenders designed for a specific lens. I have been down the generic brand route before and it has never worked well.

The second point is somewhat controversial, but most consider the 1.4X to give acceptable results. I have found it to work well on the 70-200mm 2.8L and it is also recommended for the F4 version. Using the extender makes the lens about one stop slower. According to a chart I found, the 70-200mmF4 becomes a 98 -280 5.6 lens which equals a 156-448 mm film camera lens once one factors in the digital rebels 1.6X multiplication factor.

Most do not recommend the 2X extender. I have never tried it on the 70-200mm, but did extensively on the 500mmF4 early on and only got a few acceptable photos. It seemed I could get better results by using the 1.4X and cropping more severely in photoshop. Two seasoned photographers advised against buying it and I wouldn't listen.

Now for the confusing part. This test is by no means scientific and one must bear in mind the quality of pictures is hard to judge at the size we use them on the internet. The acid test would be to print them out.

A flock of Eastern Wild Turkey came into the meadow between 200-250 yards from me. (I still think of distance in a rifleman's terms) and I conducted this impromptu test with the Canon 40D and the 70-200mm 2.8. The birds were continually moving about but they stayed about the same distance. I didn't try for correct composition on the uncropped shots, but basically centered them. Images were shot in RAW and sharpened in Photoshop CS3 along with tweaking

levels. Everything was optimized for the best possible images: ISO 100, tripod, remote release and of course good lighting. Exposure was 1/500 f4.5 without extender and 1/350 f4.5 with extender.

200mm No Extender

200mm 1.4 Extender

200mm Cropped in Photoshop

200mm and 1.4X- Cropped in Photoshop

The bottom line is that it is hard to tell from these pictures if the extender is of value or not as the image holds up well to the cropping in both cases. Personally I wouldn't want to be without one. Although I don't use it often, it does come in handy. Perhaps the biggest lesson to be learned from this is that a photograph can be cropped quite tightly when a good lens is used and conditions are ideal.

Another possible option is the 100-400mm Canon L Zoom. I don't think it can be cropped as severely as the 70-200mm or the 500mm, but it is a very powerful lens which on the Rebel is 640mm 35mm equivalent on the top end. This is about a $1,400 lens. "Salty" is using mine at present and is quite happy with it. I know two other superb photographers who use it as well and all are pleased with it. On the down side it is a push-pull type zoom and gets longer as you zoom in, it also is not as sharp as a prime L lens and has only a 5.6 aperature when at maximum zoom. Its' big pluses is that it has IS, is reasonably sharp, and is a very powerful lens in a relatively small package. It is listed as being compatabile with the 1.4 extender, but it doesn't hold up too well with it and I prefer to avoid using the extender with it.

Here are some links for further information: All are to B&H Photo in New York.

1.4 extender

2x extender

Canon 100-400mm