I'm not out to piddle in anyones pond, but I prefer to shoot in Mother nature. No additional costs, and availability is second to none - it's there when I'm ready.
I suppose. But, I'm increasingly wondering about the real differences. Really, if you spend $8,000 a person to take a "safari" in Africa, where the guides know exactly where the animals are likely to be and can pretty much guarantee that you'll get shots of the "big four" is that so much different than going to a ranch where they keep herds of bison, antelope, etc.?
Or, for that matter, what about traveling to Alaska to a known site where eagles and grizzlies gather to gorge on Salmon during the spawning season? Or spending several thousand dollars to take a snowcrawler out among the polar bears in Canada?
Yes, for me, I really enjoy seeing a red tail hawk circling overhead or a great blue heron fishing in the local lake, and I enjoy the challenge of capturing these animals on film. But, I also know that if I really want to get close up shots of herons or red tails, I'm better off traveling somewhere where there are a lot of them and they are more predictable.
I'm not out to piddle in anyone's pond either – but I don't hold it against those who can't afford the more exotic locales and have to rely on what they have at hand and can afford in order to pursue their passion.
It seems as though in many cases, we are talking about small degrees of difference.