Dilemma

[cr_wildlife]

It's interesting that you characterize it as a "war" rather than passioned responses. There are a multitude of suggested "guidelines" with respect to ethical approaches to WL photography. This article provides a well mapped out strategy as well as links to various organizations (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explor...-solutions/the-ethics-of-wildlife-photography). In your circumstance, the bird approached you on its own and you did nothing intentional to stress or interfere with it other than being there. So, from that perspective, I say you would be in the clear. Overall, I find the whole debate very challenging because most people will have their own preconceived notions based on their personal experiences. In my opinion, I've encountered just as many rude and unprofessional "birders" as I have photographers so I ascribe it more to the individual than any particular collective group.

Recently, when I was observing and shooting a lovely tri-color heron in FL a pair of folks with binoculars spied me and came running. Their behavior spooked the bird and I lost a really great opportunity. They seemed completely clueless that they had flushed the bird and rather than yelling at them I did my best to engage the pair, started a conversation, showed them some of my images and then started talking about ethical behavior. Did it resonate? Who knows, but the teaspoon of honey approach seems to have a better chance in changing opinions than hurling angry rants.

BTW, this snowy landed on a pole about 15-20 yards away from me. What was I to do? Melt away, turn into prey? After carefully snapping a few images , I did what any responsible person would do and that is I broke eye contact, moved slowly, and deliberately backed away in a non-threatening manner.
View attachment 70813

I agree that often rules are made for the 5% of bad actors and that the rules adversely impact the 95% of considerate people. Great shot of the owl!

 

[cr_wildlife]

When it comes to owls, I think enough bad actors have been witnessed by birders (and bird photographers, I consider myself both) that the stereotype is well earned. Owls don't always have their eyes open or look at you when roosting, given most are nocturnal. We all crave an owl picture with open eyes, looking right at us or while in flight. Trying to obtain this often won't happen without inappropriately disturbing the owl. Not every photographer with $20k worth of gear on their tripod will be satisfied with just seeing the bird in its natural habitat and coming home with a photo that doesn't mirror the ones that generate the most "likes" on social media.

A snowy owl in Washington a couple years ago had to have nearby roads closed by fish and game due to photographers harassing the owl hoping to capture it in flight. Similarly, a rancher shot and killed a Northern Hawk owl on his property a few years back due to frustration with birders and photographers swarming his property. Outing the birds locations on social media was the underlying, and in today's world almost unavoidable, problem.

I think if you get a fantastic shot like you did and have the desire to post it on social media, it can be done without generating a judgement dilemma. The correct way to go about it without creating waves is to describe the unique circumstances behind capturing the image exactly as you did in this thread. A story behind an amazing photo always makes it more interesting anyway.

Thanks for you comments. I, too, think that owls can cause bad behavior. We had a similar experience near where I live with a Long-eared Owl, with many photographers mobbing the site to get an image. When I was there, one person with an inappropriately short lens would run after the owl every time it perched and scare it off. I tried to discuss this with him, to no avail.

 

[cr_wildlife]

After reading this thread again with the additional posts, I’m curious. Are these more populated areas or close to populated areas? My experiences with wildlife photography must differ much differently in Texas and New Mexico.

At several State Parks in Texas they have bird blinds with water features and several different feeders and perches. You can sit behind clear glass or polycarbonate or you can stand behind open holes in a brick wall to shoot pictures through. The ones i know the best are in the Chihuahun Desert.

At both Bosque Del Apache NWR and Bitter Lake NWR they have roads that you can drive around and look at different ponds where the different types of birds will be. People will be on the banks with their cameras on Tripods and basically surrounding the banks closest to the road. People are going around these roads all day and can observe both wildlife and migratory birds. Personally, I have seen Deer, Cranes, Ducks, Snow Geese, Coyotes, a Cougar, Bobcat, Bald Eagles, Great Horned Owls, Javalenas and various birds of prey and other types of birds. Both of these NWR's also have bird blinds in different locations. Personally i have seen close to a hundred photographers and birders watching the morning takeoffs at Bosque Del Apache.

From what I just read on the link to the B&H website about ethical wildlife the above seems totally out of line with these ethics.

I'm confused.....................

I think permanent blinds at good sites for photography is a great idea. Obviously, with the owls we shooting, we had to shoot where they had nested, so permanent blinds were not possible. Some people like portable blinds, and we did, indeed, use them at a sharp tailed grouse lek on this trip. Habituated animals are a lot different from truly wild ones that have little, if any, experience with people and that get quite nervous if they just see you. As an aside, great gray owls seem to care not at all about us. They just go about their business most of the time.

 

[cr_wildlife]

This topic is one that I've become increasingly frustrated with recently, and it comes up in contexts that go well beyond photographing birds and animals. If a landscape photographer is caught moving a single dead leaf out of the frame it's treated by many as if they've committed the photography equivalent of murder, so one can only imagine how badly it's regarded if someone is believed to have done something which might actually harm an animal.

I think there are obviously lines that can be crossed and legitimate standards for ethics and morality in photography - but I also think that many have become weirdly obsessed with this idea of having no impact whatsoever on anything to the point that it would essentially rule out the entire field of photography if we tried to actually follow the standards that are often upheld.

As I mentioned in a comment about this on a recent Youtube video on the topic, the reality is that you can't even go for a hike on a trail without violating so many of the strict standards that get thrown around these days. Just the fact that you've got a scent to you and you're out in the woods is alerting animals, changing their behaviors, causing them varying degrees of stress, etc. Certainly any birders complaining about photographers are having an impact on the birds they're trying to see - and on other creatures in the area - just as much so, and likely more so, than the photographers are. Again, it's one thing to leave the animals alone and to refrain from doing things that may harm them, but it's another to try to meet this standard of having "no impact" on them. If that's the standard, forget about photography - we need to all move to the moon or something to achieve that.

Yes, as I said in a prior response, there is certainly a contingent whose goal is to show that they are better than you in the treatment of animals, rather than being reasonable about it. And, yes, there are true bad actors out there that make things difficult for the rest of us.

 

[cr_wildlife]

As is often the case, there are extremists on both sides of the issue. In the case of the owl in the original post, she flew and landed near the photographer her own, and he had to back up. Maybe her fellow owls should be chastising her for disturbing the human being by getting too close?

Thanks for the comment, Woody. In a perfect world, we could just trust everyone to have reasonable personal standards of behavior. Unfortunately, not the case. I do have friends that I think go a bit too far in their attempts to get images. We talk about this and disagree. However, I don't think this makes them evil. We remain friends and have fine times together. I just don't participate in activities that bother me.

 

[cr_wildlife]

A gyrfalcon did the same to me. Hopped within 6' of me, I had to back up to focus (1981). Stressed? you bet I was! Fortunately I didn't soil my shorts.

View attachment 70854​

 

[cr_wildlife]

Nice photo. Beautiful. If you're being respectful of the animals you're shooting then as a few have already said, feel free to ignore the chatter around you (AND social media comments; feel free to delete)! My favourite personal moment of what you're talking about came when I wasn't even shooting wildlife (but had the camera with a 50mm around my neck) but was yelling (to make noise) at a coyote as it trotted toward several people (three or four separate groups) in a cemetery in downtown Toronto on a bright afternoon. A passing cyclist stopped and started to berate me for "disturbing" the wild animal -- my initial words to him were not of welcome and then I suggested what would truly disturb the coyote if it received no 'be wary of human" behaviour from humans -- certainly when we're IN THE CITY -- would be an animal control officer's gun.

You certainly can't please everyone. I just wish people would respect others enough to realize that different people have different standards that they have arrived at after thoughtful consideration of the situation.

 

[Flyboy]

BEAUTIFUL photos, all! I have been an admirer of Wildlife and Wildlife photographers for most of my adult life, (Zoos are the closest I come mostly)... and one year, my wife gave me a book by John Shaw, a photographer that I have admired. One of his photos was a close-up of a nest of young bird, thinking he was the mother, going to feed them. That bothered me, and I have tried to avoid that type of situation ever since. But...I imagine all of us have done something that will stress our wildlife subjects at one time or another. My Granddaughter and I were at a National Park, feeding Clark's Nutcrackers with Peanuts, when this woman approached, and told us "You're not feeding them Chocolate, are you? Chocolate is BAD for them! " People should learn to mind their own business, or at least be aware that other people do have some knowledge and regard for each other and small creatures.

 

[Replytoken]

I really don't know what is "too close". I personally watch behavior and move away if I see anything that makes me think that I am worrying the subject.

I am not too worried about what you find too close as you seem to be exercising a lot of common sense. I am just trying to understand what the birders think is too close and why. If they are exercising common sense, then it may be an educational discussion. And if they are not, then, yes, it would be a conversation to be avoided. And there is also the theoretical vs. reality. Some birds may need large amounts of undisturbed space to do well. But if their environment has been encroached upon, or they have decided to take up residence in an area that is already developed, then the ideal is no longer possible and common sense should be exercised as best as possible. I think your observations above have illustrated many of the difficulties when dealing with folks who are running on too much emotion and not enough reason. But not all birders are like that, just like all photographers are like that. So, I recommend picking your social media platform for sharing carefully and describe the situation as you did. Then it is easy enough to ignore the ones that cannot come to reason.

--Ken

 

[cr_wildlife]

I am not too worried about what you find too close as you seem to be exercising a lot of common sense. I am just trying to understand what the birders think is too close and why. If they are exercising common sense, then it may be an educational discussion. And if they are not, then, yes, it would be a conversation to be avoided. And there is also the theoretical vs. reality. Some birds may need large amounts of undisturbed space to do well. But if their environment has been encroached upon, or they have decided to take up residence in an area that is already developed, then the ideal is no longer possible and common sense should be exercised as best as possible. I think your observations above have illustrated many of the difficulties when dealing with folks who are running on too much emotion and not enough reason. But not all birders are like that, just like all photographers are like that. So, I recommend picking your social media platform for sharing carefully and describe the situation as you did. Then it is easy enough to ignore the ones that cannot come to reason.

--Ken

Thanks for your thoughtful advice, Ken.

 

[cr_wildlife]

BEAUTIFUL photos, all! I have been an admirer of Wildlife and Wildlife photographers for most of my adult life, (Zoos are the closest I come mostly)... and one year, my wife gave me a book by John Shaw, a photographer that I have admired. One of his photos was a close-up of a nest of young bird, thinking he was the mother, going to feed them. That bothered me, and I have tried to avoid that type of situation ever since. But...I imagine all of us have done something that will stress our wildlife subjects at one time or another. My Granddaughter and I were at a National Park, feeding Clark's Nutcrackers with Peanuts, when this woman approached, and told us "You're not feeding them Chocolate, are you? Chocolate is BAD for them! " People should learn to mind their own business, or at least be aware that other people do have some knowledge and regard for each other and small creatures.

Thanks for the thoughtful comment.

 

[DavidT]

Opinions are like a** holes and everyone has one. I wouldn’t give a second thought to these folks. I watched a lady pull up to a group of photographers standing next to their cars and yell at them for taking a pic of an elk who was walking through a parking lot. She then spear off and about hit one. Who’s the real problem here?

 

[cr_wildlife]

Opinions are like a** holes and everyone has one. I wouldn’t give a second thought to these folks. I watched a lady pull up to a group of photographers standing next to their cars and yell at them for taking a pic of an elk who was walking through a parking lot. She then spear off and about hit one. Who’s the real problem here?

Always bad actors on every side of any issue!

 

[Dinusaur]

A few rotten apples on both sides ruin it for everyone. Two years ago it got so bad with behaviour (e.g. shaking tree branch to wake up a sleeping owl for that desirable shot) that one of the local parks in Toronto, Canada had to put up fences to keep people away from the roosting spot of owls and now has big signs everywhere reminding proper photographing ethics. The logic that 'the bird will fly away if they don't like our presence' doesn't always hold true, particularly for smaller owls such as Saw-whet or Screech owl . They are usually tucked inside a tree during day time in order to avoid predation from bigger owl or other birds of prey. They will put up with stress caused by us invading their space than getting killed. Why not let things happen naturally (as is the case with the OP) and use your better judgement. I am a birder and build my life list with photos; I am always carrying a big lens while on a trail and thus constantly judged by other birders carrying a binocular - I have to be respectful to my surroundings all the time.

 

[CoyoteCreationsNW]

First point, a lot of birder binoculars have approximately the magnification of a 400 mm full frame lens, a few scopes are closer to 600 mm equivalent, only rarely do I see birders with equipment comparable to 800+ mm lenses. So the distance to get a "clear view" is not really all that different. Second point, habituation changes how close is too close. I live 15 minutes away from a federal wildlife refuge with an auto tour loop. It is common for Columbian white tailed deer to feed 20 yards from the side of the road, so close sometimes I can't get a full body shot at the 100 mm end of my zoom. When I hike into wilder areas this same species is likely to spook at 100 yards. American Kestrels in the preserve will bring a vole to signs along the road and casually eat it with cars 10 yards away. Hawks are almost as habituated here. In open country where they both hunt fields they won't tolerate anyone within 50 yards. I have snowshowed into lakes when food is scare and had birds land on my arm and take a piece out of my tuna fish sandwich. At other times of the year it is almost impossible to get a clear look through the brush at the same birds. There is no simple "how close rule" You have to judge the subjects behavior and consider where you are.

 

[Dinusaur]

Also, keep in mind that our natural world is facing bigger problems than few misbehaving photogs and birders. 3 billion birds disappeared from Canada and US in the last 50 years as a result of the habitat loss, pesticide use and other environmental impact. If we keep this big picture in mind, the rest (photogs vs. birders) becomes less significant in any discussion.

 

[cr_wildlife]

Also, keep in mind that our natural world is facing bigger problems than few misbehaving photogs and birders. 3 billion birds disappeared from Canada and US in the last 50 years as a result of the habitat loss, pesticide use and other environmental impact. If we keep this big picture in mind, the rest (photogs vs. birders) becomes less significant in any discussion.

I certainly agree with that. And don't forget about feral and outdoor pet domestic cats. If you have a cat, please keep it indoors at all times. And please don't write me any notes about how great cats are. I have nothing against domestic cats, I am only opposed to domestic cats killing wild birds.

 

[Jim McD]

FWIW -- A roseate spoonbill was in our area recently, a very unusual sighting for birders and photographers. While I was walking in the area with my camera and telephoto lens, a birder passed me and asked "Have you seen it yet? I'll show you where it is and you can use my scope."
More to the point, some beautiful photographs here, and wise advice to judge the subject's behavior in the context of its surroundings. A hawk in a city will react differently than one deep in a forest. (We can all educate ourselves to interpret their behavior better, of course.)This hawk landed close enough to me that I also had to back up (I was using a 500pf lens) and stayed in place for at least five minutes, along a busy trail and near an active golf course:

 

[Larry S]

All excellent thoughts on “how close is too close”. I just checked the phone book for the “Proximity Police” and found it listed under “United Busy Bodies”. Their motto is “My nose looks good poked in your business!” I would not engage any of these arrogant self-righteous dingbats in debate. Diplomacy and restraint wins the day. The only person whose standards you need heed… are yours. That you started this thread speaks volumes….. ! Stay the couse!

 

[RikWriter]

It's not just owls, either. When I post bear photos from Yellowstone and Grand Teton on Facebook groups devoted to wildlife in those parks, you always get some smart-mouth saying "you were too close!" without asking what lens I used, whether I cropped or not, or what the circumstances were. I automatically block those people and unlike others who've bowed to the pressure and always say "photo taken with a 1200mm equivalent lens and cropped in 50%," I refuse to cater to know-it-alls, most of whom have never been to the parks or seen a bear in the wild.

This. for instance, was taken with a 100-400 lens at about 200mm. They would scream "you're too close." Well, except I took it from the driver's window of my car while all the traffic was stopped and this young grizzly walked down the middle of the road at Golden Gate.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[cr_wildlife]

All excellent thoughts on “how close is too close”. I just checked the phone book for the “Proximity Police” and found it listed under “United Busy Bodies”. Their motto is “My nose looks good poked in your business!” I would not engage any of these arrogant self-righteous dingbats in debate. Diplomacy and restraint wins the day. The only person whose standards you need heed… are yours. That you started this thread speaks volumes….. ! Stay the couse!

Thanks for you thoughtful comments, Larry.

 

[cr_wildlife]

It's not just owls, either. When I post bear photos from Yellowstone and Grand Teton on Facebook groups devoted to wildlife in those parks, you always get some smart-mouth saying "you were too close!" without asking what lens I used, whether I cropped or not, or what the circumstances were. I automatically block those people and unlike others who've bowed to the pressure and always say "photo taken with a 1200mm equivalent lens and cropped in 50%," I refuse to cater to know-it-alls, most of whom have never been to the parks or seen a bear in the wild.

This. for instance, was taken with a 100-400 lens at about 200mm. They would scream "you're too close." Well, except I took it from the driver's window of my car while all the traffic was stopped and this young grizzly walked down the middle of the road at Golden Gate.
View attachment 70872

While photographing brown bears a Silver Salmon Creek Lodge, we often had to group ourselves together as a bear walking within feet of us. They are well habituated there, and we followed the lodge's protocols. We were clearly not bothering them in any way. Magnificent animals, although when you are that close, the claws look pretty big.

 

[NatureBoy]

Ive been a hunter, trapper, nature enthusiast, birder and own a wildlife control business so Im used to dealing with animals in all kinds of situations. The same people that would criticize you without knowing the facts dont realize just driving their car how many frogs, birds, snakes, squirrels etc they have killed. Or dont care about their cat going out and killing songbirds because thats what cats do. Its In my opinion a little short sited to think they personally have no impact on wildlife.
Ive seen bird groups led by someone with a laser pointer and as you probably know, that will quickly shut down the action.
Lasers are actually used to Harass birds in areas like airports.
Like a lot of reply’s said already, it works both ways. Ive had birders tap me on the shoulder while Im shooting and ask what Im seeing.
And I count the times where a bird flys up close to you like that as a gift. I thank God for those.
That’s a big difference from climbing a tree to photograph owls in a nest And playing calls over and over and over, LOL
I try and not worry about anyone else and I trust myself to know when the animal is not happy and I back off.
A lot of it is what the animal is conditioned to as well. At my local beach I can photograph great Blue Herons and Egrets really close as they are used to people.
Just getting back from a photography trip to Maine and it was plain to see the Herons in North Western Maine are not and did not like me anywhere near them.

 

[NatureBoy]

I certainly agree with that. And don't forget about feral and outdoor pet domestic cats. If you have a cat, please keep it indoors at all times. And please don't write me any notes about how great cats are. I have nothing against domestic cats, I am only opposed to domestic cats killing wild birds.

Sorry, i didnt see you already mentioned this and said the same thing. So true though!

 

[EricKlees]

Lol don't even get me started on birders. They are the most inconsiderate people towards all wildlife and photographers. Purposely scaring off birds and wildlife so photographers can't get shots just to name one issue.