Yeah but...to strip the guy of his award on an assumption? That seems a bit severe. Where's the proof he used a trained "model"? I hate it when that word "probably" enters into a decision of this sort. If it was Photo Shopped, you can usually pick that up at the pixel level.

Sorry, but the foot is behind the post. There is a notch on the post that looks like a continuation of the foot - try saving the image and zooming in.

This would be really easy to figure out - simply find the 'commercial model wolf', identify it by the same markings visible on the photograph - simple.

Otherwise, restore the prize - how can the prize be stripped on a 'probably'?

Well ain't that a b. itch? Well- maybe not!

What makes it look odd is the type of lens used.

Maybe it was a Wolf stand-in/extra. A stunt wolf, if you will. I think if it was a Hollywood wolf, he would have mugged for the camera.

That's what happens when you cry wolf.

Where's the rest of the story? Is it really only 4 paragraphs long?

You can see a shadow on the ground so that would make the action real in space and time. I agree, a bit severe on an assumption, but I would think there would have to be more than an assumption for them to be able to revoke the honor. Maybe they found proof that this was in fact a tame animal.

If proof had been found, surely that would have been in the article.

When you get right down to it the wolf is 'probably' related to my dog, but I have no proof!

The photographer needs to take a page out of Hollywood's book and HIRE A LAWYER. Thank the Gods this isn't a death penalty case -- guilty until proven innocent!

"Competition spokeswoman Louise Emerson said Wednesday that judges had investigated and decided that the wolf is probably "an animal model that can be hired for photographic purposes."

Let me get this straight, the photographer was stripped of his prize and his reputation ruined on an assumption by a judge, with no proof? Granted the shot was astounding; however, that doesn't mean it was faked. I've seen some pretty incredible wild animal behaivor in the Sierra Nevada Mountains; and many times wished I'd had a high speed camera.

If I were this photographer, I would appeal, sue and demand a public retaction. Even so, there will always be those who want to believe the worst..

"If" it was staged I'm pretty sure that the owner of the dog would have come forward and said something.

I agree that proof would be a prerequisite to stripping the award if life were fair. But, once again for those who may have missed it. Lets review the short list of things that are 100% certain....

* From dust you come, to dust you shall return.

* Life is not fair

* Women have secrets (good or bad making no difference)

* Taxes (whether you pay them in cash or prison time)

The list may seem negative to some... its not... having a few certainties in your life will make you a more stable person.

I think the photo of the wolf looks a bit fake... its a bit too dark under the wolf and just behind him/her and the fence... where he is in flight seems all wrong to the angle he should be. I have seen dogs jump a fence... they sort of Climb up and over it... not Hurtle it like a steeple chase horse...

They could tell by the hair on his chinny chin chin.......

I agree with the comments about the whole "probably "an animal model that can be hired for photographic purposes." " - that is a complete bunch of BS. Either they can prove that it wasn't a wild animal, or they can't. From this statement, it appears that they CAN'T. The award should not be stripped without definitive proof - something that they apparently don't have.

The wolf's agent would know better than anyone.. 'track him down'... and ask.

Since nobody reads more then the first page we'll see if this keeps it closer to the front.

The photo is not "probably" fake it is fake and they have the proof. This story just doesn't show it and the British must be too polite to just come out and say he is a cheat.

There is a photo of the suspected tame wolfs compound that is a dead ringer for the photo. Check out this photo http://www.suomenluonto.fi/maisemavertailu.jpg/image The tree in the background is a match.

The wolf also looks like the wolf Ossian. His ear is a little messed up now but who doesn't expect wolves to fight a little. http://www.suomenluonto.fi/susivertailu-pienempi.jpg/image

This was a wild animal photo contest. Animals in captivity are easy to get great photos of this guy cheated and got just what he deserved. He could have taken dozens of photos of this wolf jumping the 'gate' and picked the best. In real life wildlife photography you might get one chance if you are lucky and then the lighting might not be right. It looks good because he set it up to look that way, try doing that with a truly wild animal.

I know a great deal about wolves, having made a documentary about them in 1995 and having owned wolves and hybrids for over 15 years.

Wolves cannot be trained to hop fences like a border collie!

The stone wall was likely partially dismantled, the tree that looks exactly the same can't be moved so easily. From the look of the moss on the stones in the original they came from someplace nearer the ground. That's a lot of moss for the top of a stone wall. Also the rocks actually in the ground are a very close match. One other thing that always bothered me about this photo is that the gate serves no purpose. I've been around a farm enough to know what gates and fences look like. The gate looks like it could be just pushed over as there is nothing for it to connect to or hinge on. If it is buried into the ground it can't be opened. There is a very good path in both shots that looks very close to the same so it is a well used path with a useless gate?

And since there are so few Iberian Wolves in Spain any in captivity are well known. From what I understand this was not a tough ID for those in the know.

ummm...no

i have to agree it looks like the wolf was photoshopped into that picture he isnt even over the fence yet and his back legs are in front of the gate.

Organizers of a wildlife photography competition have disqualified the winning image of a leaping wolf after an investigation determined the animal was trained, not wild.

What kind of investigation? And have they even found the alleged "trained" wolf? If people could determine what's going on or what's real or fake based on looking at a photo, a lot of people would be out of work.

That's part of the post not his foot.

Shift- I'll have to disagree with you. My grandfather has pictures of a wild group of wolves that have been trained to do some amazing things all while remaining completely wild.

I myself have owned 2 hybrids, 1/2 Timber wolf 1/4 Arctic and 1/4 Griffon.

Also my Uncle had a pure Timber. She was very trained. The only difference between the two is the Full blooded wolf would leave every few weeks and be gone for a few days running with the local wild pack. It surpised us that they allowed her in at all!

She would hunt, had multiple litters and survived a cougar attack when her pups were being hunted. She could do just about anything a normal "Dog" could be trained to do but she was never truly tamed. She stayed in-doors most nights but, Not an animal you could "Cuddle Up" with but still very respectable. Being Native American and living hte Native lifestyle she got the life of co-existence with the 2-leggeds (Humans), not a life of being dominated, like a house dog. Which I think is why she CHOSE to be with my Uncle, not because she was chained to his heels and forced to submit in that way.

People who cry Photoshop have no clue about photography.

Buy a high end camera with a high end flash, go outside at night, and take some photos. They'll look 'shopped to you. They're not.

alienhat

Thanks for the reply...but wolves are not border collies. I have lived in similar fashion with wolves and I could cuddle up with them and all... but you yourself said that they are not like dogs in your post. They wolves I have known would have gone around the fence. This could also be a hybrid...

I will not doubt the guy's story without evidence though. My post was actually in his support.

Wolves are amazing creatures and my favorite of all animals.

TimJ,

First of all, the official statement by the Competition Spokeswoman was

that judges had investigated and decided that the wolf is probably "an animal model that can be hired for photographic purposes."

If they have proof, then she would have/should have said so.

Second, although your comparison pic is interesting, it is in no way conclusive proof. The background does NOT look the same to my eye - although the first couple of trees are similar, there is no conclusive proof. Also, why would the stone fence be so radically changed? There is no good reason for it. I still see NOTHING proving that the photo was faked or staged.

As far as the comments about the wolf jumping the fence is concerned, wolves are like all other wild animals (or tame ones, for that matter) - they take the path that they feel is best for them. I agree that if there was gap in the fence nearby, the wolf would likely use it - but if the stone fence stretched for a significant distance in both directions, the wolf will take the 'path of least resistance' (so long there isn't a reason for the wolf not to). Jumping a fairly short gate wouldn't be difficult at all for a wolf of that size - it wouldn't NEED training to do so.

I think that this is nothing but a wolf in sheep's clothing; or is this a sheep in wolf's clothing???

Ello,

Just what part of ignorant are you? Exactly what rules didn't the Photographer adhere to? It was a judge who decided without proof of any kind, that the photographer either faked the shot or hired a trained animal. It appears we have a judge making a premature calling without anything substantial to back up the decision. Cut and dried, what happened to innocent until proved guilty? The photographer adamantly denied any wrong doing and their was nothing to prove he was lying. Except an exceptional shot that a judge thinks is too good, therefore it must be faked......

The wolf's snout and ears are different, the tree is a completely different species.

Hey Therese, there's actually a lot of proof against the photographer, it's just not mentioned in the four-paragraph story that MSNBC posted. If you believe that this small article covered all the facts, then you are at fault for not donig your research. Here's a link to the model wolf, with the same scar-like mark under its right eye. The model wolf is in a reserve in Spain. Ironically, there is a unique tree also in the reserve that resembles a tree in the photo. That tree is also in the link. http://www.suomenluonto.fi/bbcs-nature-photo-competition-judge-admits-winner-photo-investigated-due-to-fraud-allegations

If you search further, you will also see that other photographers have photos from the same reserve with an identical fence. The only thing the photographer did wrong was neglecting to declare the animal as being captive. Oh, and he had been baiting it with meat to get it accustomed to his photo equipment, so this wasn't exactly a "wild animal" situation, and multiple wolf experts all agree that a wolf would have tried to slip through the fence, and not do a high jump over it. The next time you want to jump to conclusions like that, let me know and I'll take a pic for a contest.

Now who's ignorant?

Its not a scar under the eye, it is a mark of the species. Look at the pictures of other wolves of the same species and you will see that same black spot, in the same spot over and over again. The Tree bark is completely different as well, one is paper bark the other has actual tree bark.

From a BBC article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8470962.stm

"Mr Carwardine explained that he and his fellow judges had gathered evidence and sought the opinions of wolf experts in order to reach their decision.

The experts compared the winning picture to pictures of Ossian, a tame wolf that lives at a zoological park near Madrid called Canada Real.

"You can see several very distinctive markings and the experts all agreed that, yes, it's the same wolf," said Mr Carwardine".

I'm not a wolf expert, but if experts are saying that it's the same wolf, I would think they have more knowledge than I do. Don't get me wrong, I think the shot was timed perfectly and I'm sure it took a lot of work, just like the photographer said it did. But if the contest requires declaration of a captive animal, and experts agree it's a captive wolf, then the photographer didn't play by the rules. I've got some great shots I took at a local zoo. I hopped a railing, and shot through the holes of a fence, and no one would be able to tell they're a zoo pic, but I'm not enterinig them into a "wildlife" contest, they were just for fun.

Also, the photographer states that he worked on this many nights, and got multiple shots, so why can't he produce any other shots? Why can't he come up with any good answers for the judges, and why can't he show them the location where the photo was taken? For that much money, I'd take you there and show you the fence, and the gate. There are multiple allegations from fellow photogs that the gate is in the same reserve as the wolf Ossian, and there's photographic proof of that. Why can't he come up with some proof of his own, to silence the critics?

From telegraph.co.uk: "In his notes about the photograph, Mr Rodriguez said he had "visualised this image many years ago" and that the picture symbolised "the ancient conflict between humans and wolves". He explained how he tempted the wild animal over a fence into a disused cattle corral every night for several weeks until he captured the perfect shot, with the wolf triggering the flash via a trip beam."

It's plausible. He is stupid to mess around with a wolf like that, but not necessarily a cheater.

And a wolf would probably not get that close to a human under natural circumstances.

Wolves will venture into human territory if they are looking for food or are curious, or if a wolf and a human "bumped" into each other in the wild, which is uncommon but not impossible.

damn right.

Apparently you care because you read the story and took time to write a comment.

very true!!

I'm going to have to agree with you there.

Go back to sleep, Sleeper. Who said he was a "minority" Hes a Spaniard, you know, from SPAIN! HE IS A EURO! DUHHHH!

(Iberia is the Spanish/Portugese penninsula, you know, in EUROPE!)

Um, thank you Britalian.

If you hadn't said that, I certainly would have. He must be American because most Americans don't know squat about geography.

What's geography?

By the way, sleeper, it was fellow Spanish photographers that raised the authenticity question in the first place. Do a little research. The photographer's Spanish, his accusers are Spanish, and the wolf is Spanish. That's not a minority. That's called reality.

To say that "Americans" don't know squat about geography is a blanket stereotype that is really outdated. There is idiocy in every country and of every creed. If you want to hate on someone, try not to hate on the entire population over one persons misdeeds.

That statement only shows a lack of your own intelligence. It also shows that even tho we are in the year 2010 there are still prejudices that are from the early 1900's. Remember blacks were once thought of as sub-human, the Holocaust etc... should I continue? Are you in the same league or more intelligent than? Should I blame your entier nation for your own ignorant statement? Does that seem fitting?

deccles2, you do realize your post is no different at all than Sleeper's post, right?

To get a shot like that, all you need to do is use an electric eye to activate the shutter and wait somewhere else, hardly 21st century tech.....

Also, those wolves are not like the ones in North America, they do not fear and avoid people like they do here.

So I take it that wolf attacks are examples of how they would "never" go near humans in the wild...

Wolf attacks are very rare and usually the result of an animal that was banished from its pack and is starving or something.

Wolf attacks on humans are pretty unusual. There's an article on Yellowstone's website that says in the 1900's wolves attacked humans about 20 or 30 times in North America. I wouldn't go poke one with a stick of course, but usually they keep their distance. Either way though, the wolf in the picture isn't attacking or keeping it's distance. To me it seems likely it has been trained.

Like somebody said already, probably the only way you could get this picture is if you had a camera sitting on the fence with a motion senser. Does that count for the contest though?

and you son never heard of motion sensor photography? real pro he is

John the Savage....ROFLMAO!!!! "I wouldn't go poke one with a stick..."

I love that!

Some idiot tourist is going to you know. They try to feed wild lions in Africa and get close to buffalo in the United States.

an award for 'motion sensor' photography? real pro he is

I don't think that being a pro photographer makes you a wolf expert. I take alot of nature photo's and have won national awards and I can tell you that if you take the time you can get some pretty amazing shots. I have a infra-red remote for my camera so it's not hard to set it up and go hide till the subject comes around. alot of animals just need a little bait to get them to come in where you want them.

Whoa, wait.. Won't go near human areas? Because we didn't try to wipe out the wolf population at one point in time due to the livestock attacks? There are NO close up pictures of wild wolves. Come on. We have close up of Polar Bears on LIVE camera.. You think the photographers are only 5 feet away?

Princessofwit, most photos of wildlife are taken from a great distance using telephoto lens. Of course that is not the only way to do it, but in this case a telephoto lens was definitely not used as the perspective and flash indicate close proximity to the lens.

It is stated that he was after the livestock.

Would certainly won the UGLY award! Great statement!!!!!!!!!!

I agree, This is a photo to be proud of..

Somewhat defeats the purpose of a "WILDLIFE" photography competition though, which I presume is to capture the most brilliant images of wild animals in their natural environment.

I saw this either yesterday or the day before, on a different news site, but they had a much higher res version of the photo. I've studied it and I see no evidence of Photoshop, aside from maybe adjusting the levels and hue/saturation, which is perfectly acceptable for photographers to do.

The Judges for the competition, also, said nothing about the photo be manipulated as the reason for him being disqualified, just that they believe the animal was actually a trained wolf. In the other article it stated that the judges compared this photo to pictures of a known trained wolf and the judges believe that, due to the similarities of the markings on the wolves in both photos, they believe it's the same wolf.

As a trained animator, (I have animated dogs) I would have to say that pose most assuredly is a natural canine jumping pose. I've drawn it numerous times for key frames, after watching dogs jump and looking at still frames of video footage of dogs jumping in that exact pose. As a matter of fact, I just googled "jumping dog" and of the 2,390,000 image results there were many of dogs in that pose, with the feet tucked under them to help them clear the object they are jumping over, they only extend their front paws on the decent in, as you stated, anticipation of landing.

The other site was the guardian.co.uk, and not only do the judges think the wolf is tame they believe it is named Ossian. Other experts have pointed out, that in the wild wolves prefer not to jump but would rather squeeze through a fence.

I agree with INOSH. It is a completely natural jump pose for a canine of this size and stature. Apparently some posting here have never seen any agility events of dog competitions. Dogs can jump almost the same as a Horse in competition. Think about it, they both have 4 legs! A canine has more limber joints and has a greater range of motion in their ankles leading to even greater jumping variations.

My Boarder Collie/Lab has done almost that same pose during competitions. He is about the same height, width, and weight of this wolf. Long, tall and narrow. It is completely plausible.

As for a wild canine such as this to rarely jump a fence, that totally depends on what its after. I have seen wolves do just that in the wild chasing a rabbit. They will leap over and crawl under depending on what their target is doing. They are highly intelligent and will take the path of least resistence especilly when chasing prey. If it is faster to go over and the path looks clear then over they will go.

I have seen a few wolves do this and end up in unexpected ponds! Wolves do tend to steer clear of humans, but as their prey hunt and migrate for food and as we encroach on their habitats, some wolves will come right to your back door. My grandfather in ID has a small group that lives on the edge of his property. They hunt the deer and will kill within 50 feet of his back door. Again it all depends on what they have become accostomed too and if they feel safe. Obviously if they are willing to raise their young within eyesight of humans why not be around equipment. You can sit something out for weeks and it becomes part of the landscape once they get used to it.

You must have one huge Border Collie. I've never seen on the size of a wolf.

aliekhat, I agree it seems to be a natural pose...for a trained animal. You said yourself.... in pursuit of prey, a wolf would take the path of least resistance, but the photographer's story was that he "lured" the animal with a piece of meat. I don't think the wolf would jump over the gate like that for a piece of meat, since it is not fleeing.

SAY IT AGAIN PLEASE:

Disgusts me....So many "haters".... Boo-hoo!! He used a trained wolf for his picture!!! GET OVER IT!!! It was still a moment in time captured forever....and for us to enjoy!!! If someone were to try and re-create this photo (without "photoshop") They would be unsuccessful... It was a perfect shot and the reason it was named the "winner"........The punishment doesn't fit the crime. Give his award back you damn babies!!!

THANK YOU: DisappointedinUSA

You have no basis in fact to say any of that.

As I posted above:

To get a shot like that, all you need to do is use an electric eye to activate the shutter and wait somewhere else, hardly 21st century tech.....

Also, those wolves are not like the ones in North America, they do not fear and avoid people like they do here.

That being said, there is no such thing as a domesticated wolf, just like there is no such thing as a domesticated African Lion.

Some dog breeds that trace back to the same animal as the wolf like my Alaskan Malamute have been bred with wolves and jackalsthousands of years ago, and are considered semi domesticated because they retain wolf like adult behavior. When any dog is crossed with wolves, the pups can not be considered domesticated no matter what you do with them, just ask the Inuit tribe, because they reintroduce wolf blood into the Malamutes on occasion to keep the toughness in them. They produce wild animals and must wait one or more generations breeding with Mals to end up with a dog you can work with.

Domestication is simply breeding in juvenile and infantile traits and breeding out adult traits over many many generations. This is why so many dog breeds have the same features and behaviors as puppies. Domestication can not be accomplished simply by raising a wild pup as a pet.