When is it too close?

[jeffnles1]

Even the "pros" can be thoughtless. I was on a guided trip with a well-known photographer, in a Zodiac photographing sea otters. Over and over the Zodiac came close enough to cause the animals to move away. This is an unnecessary energy expenditure for the otters, plus this photographer-guide advertises "ethical" conduct with respect to the animals.

I've heard stories about some of the wildlife photo workshops. There was one around her that was accused of tying pet store mice out in a field to get clients photos of owls and other raptors swooping in for the kill. Reports on social media at the time were another photographer had photo proof it was done but I never saw the shots. Even if it were so, they were on private property and I don't think there are any specific laws against it so it would have been a kaka storm with little results.

 

[jeffnles1]

My guideline for an animal becoming nervous is if it stops its activity and starts watching me versus a just a casual glance at me. Then it's time to back off. I presume your question was rhetorical, but thought I'd throw in my two cents worth of what I consider an animal getting nervous.

There was an element of rhetorical question. I was really; however, interested in what a group of dedicated nature photographers thought and if others shared my opinion or if I were being overly sensitive to it and I needed to not get so frustrated with folks doing stuff like this.

 

[jeffnles1]

Good post.

Animals are often very aware of people, and may build nests near people because it keeps away predators - the real problem. Other animals consider it fine for people to be close as long as they are in a car, but require 2-3 times as much space for a person on foot. The extreme is someplace like the St. Augustine Alligator farm where birds build nests within 3-4 feet of a busy boardwalk and are perfectly content to raise young year after year.

One of the locations where we frequently photograph river otters is like this. As long as you're in your car, they will come up to shore within 30 feet of you. We can hang cameras out the window, move around in the car and even talk quietly and they go about their business usually dragging a fish up to shore to eat sometimes right next to the car. However, open that car door and poof they are gone for hours. I was photographing otters eating yesterday. One caught a bowfin about 24 inches long. It chewed on that fish for over an hour between running away from the other otters trying to steal the catch of the day. I was laying across the folded back seats of my SUV with the windows all open and resting the camera over the window opening on a bean bag. We were there for a couple hours..

Jeff

 

[jeffnles1]

I agree in principle, but in many ways that requires you have some knowledge of the history of a particular site or animal. Animals can obviously become habituated to people. There's a great horned owl nest I know of, at the top a a fifty foot tree that's next to a highly trafficked trail (walkers, bikers, horses). It's been used for at least six years that I know of and the owls and owlets seem unfazed by the mobs. I don't think anything about setting up tripod and 600mm right on the trail. From their behavior, the owls show interest in any small dog going by But if I found such a nest out in the forest I'd be very careful to keep my distance for a long time. and it would take a few visits before I'd feel it was OK to move closer.

I'm aware of a GHO nest in a location that sounds very similar in Ohio.

 

[Rassie]

I try to anticipate animal behavior, then position myself to let the animal come towards me.

Agree. If I'm out shooting wildlife and I have the time, I like parking myself and allowing the animals to come closer. That way they determine how close they want to come. That is the ideal situation. Sometimes, though, the animal is staying put, such as the owl sleeping in this example and that means we have to decide how close is too close. Numerous times when driving around the rural areas close to my home I find hawks working an area or just perched on a tree. I always drive past before stopping the car to see if I can get a shot. Many hawks are so skittish though that they take off within seconds of the car stopping, even without me climbing out. In those cases I don't fret since the hawks are used to seeing cars and people, even if they like to keep a healthy distance.

The trick is to know how close (or not) one can approach a wild animal without spooking it. I don't have the answer to that one yet. All animals are different.

 

[jeffnles1]

Agree. If I'm out shooting wildlife and I have the time, I like parking myself and allowing the animals to come closer. That way they determine how close they want to come. That is the ideal situation. Sometimes, though, the animal is staying put, such as the owl sleeping in this example and that means we have to decide how close is too close. Numerous times when driving around the rural areas close to my home I find hawks working an area or just perched on a tree. I always drive past before stopping the car to see if I can get a shot. Many hawks are so skittish though that they take off within seconds of the car stopping, even without me climbing out. In those cases I don't fret since the hawks are used to seeing cars and people, even if they like to keep a healthy distance.

The trick is to know how close (or not) one can approach a wild animal without spooking it. I don't have the answer to that one yet. All animals are different.

Yes, I have found by far the best camouflage is to stand still and be quiet. It is amazing how alive the woods become about 15 minutes after you stop walking and talking. My usual MO is to walk the trails until I see something interesting be it a nice landscape scene, wildflowers or some wildlife activity and then just stand there (or sit down if it is possible) and wait for the action. sometimes they come to me, sometimes they don't but always I get enjoyment watching the woods come back to life after all nature's creatures realize I'm not a threat. They tend to not pay attention although they all know I am there and they all knew I was there from the moment I stepped into their woods.

RE: Raptors, with their eyesight, they usually see us long before we see them. They have a definite eyesight advantage against us humans for darn sure.

I agree the trick is knowing how close and sometimes having the insight as to what is going on in their world. May, 2021, my wife and I were walking down a trail at a local preserve and noticed a young doe standing just a few feet from the trail looking at us. She was calm and didn't raise her tail and run.. A woman's intuition I guess my wife said "she's having her baby". I looked and noticed ripples of contractions in her abdomen. We both spoke very softly letting her know we were not going to hurt her baby as we slowly and quietly backed away. My wife realized right away what was going on and it was a special moment. Everything in me wanted to sit down and photograph the event. However, that would not have been the right thing to do.

The first photo below is the only shot I captured of her that day. This was before the "stupid man (me) figured out what was happening. The second photo below is her and her baby just a few weeks ago. Baby is all grown up now. They stayed in the same field all spring summer and fall. After the rut mama send baby along its merry way but over the course of the summer we watched it grow up and both baby and mama became habituated to our presence and would glance back to see us and then go about browsing, sleeping or whatever it was they were doing. There is no hunting on this preserve so I did not feel bad about them not seeing me as a threat.

very pregnant mama on the day she gave birth.

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

Mama and baby. She only had one (or only one was live born) this year. I figure she was young and this was her first baby.

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

 

[Whiskeyman]

The technique of remaining still and waiting for the wildlife to come to you is a good one if you know how to make it work. I have photos from years ago when I observed an Great Blue Heron making its way along the edge of pond. I moved to what I thought was a good spot, sat down and waited. By maintaining slow movements, I was able to not startle the bird and it ended up wading by me as it went around the pond. At one point, it was so close as to be within the minimum focusing distance of the lens. This technique worked in this case, but I can think of other cases where it hasn't worked, like with Great Egrets, or where there is no feature to channel the subject towards your location. This is also where the patience in photography is needed in great amounts.

 

[NorthernFocus]

There was an element of rhetorical question. I was really; however, interested in what a group of dedicated nature photographers thought and if others shared my opinion or if I were being overly sensitive to it and I needed to not get so frustrated with folks doing stuff like this.

Certainly you need to not get frustrated with it. It's just people being people. If it's in an area where it's not prohibited or not a protected species what can you do? Shake your head and walk away. In areas with no specific regulations we each have to follow our own moral compass.

 

[jeffnles1]

Certainly you need to not get frustrated with it. It's just people being people. If it's in an area where it's not prohibited or not a protected species what can you do? Shake your head and walk away. In areas with no specific regulations we each have to follow our own moral compass.

Yep. That's about all we can do.

 

[jeffnles1]

The technique of remaining still and waiting for the wildlife to come to you is a good one if you know how to make it work. I have photos from years ago when I observed an Great Blue Heron making its way along the edge of pond. I moved to what I thought was a good spot, sat down and waited. By maintaining slow movements, I was able to not startle the bird and it ended up wading by me as it went around the pond. At one point, it was so close as to be within the minimum focusing distance of the lens. This technique worked in this case, but I can think of other cases where it hasn't worked, like with Great Egrets, or where there is no feature to channel the subject towards your location. This is also where the patience in photography is needed in great amounts.

exactly, nothing works all the time and for each animal. sometimes we just miss the shot. What I say about those times is "the quality of the memory is far more important than the quality of the photograph."

 

[Karl]

Lots of opinions! Essentially, all of you seem to be in agreement to give the birds some space. However, to be the contrarian, I have never heard of any scientific research that has concluded the birds need the space. Now I'm not saying I like to crowd them but we really don't know all that much about the consequences of crowding the birds, other than opinions. I even read where it was possibly beneficial to bother birds. The case involved a male chickadee that became a better potential mate by responding to playbacks of it's calls. Apparently, by confronting the source of the sounds, the male chickadee was proving his worth to the females. Many birders are touchy about using playback calls. Sibley's introduction in his field guides regarding ethics states "In most cases, the effect on birds is probably not significant...". He does go on to say use discretion and good judgement. So, even though we don't know all the variables involved, it is likely best to error in favor of what could be best for the birds.

 

[Turberticus]

This thread reminds me of a moment I had with a Kentucky Warbler last May. Up to that point, and especially in 2020 when I was a new bird photographer, I would typically chase after or stalk birds once I saw/heard them. After consuming tons of YouTube wildlife photography videos and reading articles/forums, I learned that the best way to photograph most birds is to use the sit and wait method, once you've located them of course. My goal last year was to photograph as many warblers as possible, and when I saw a Kentucky Warbler reported at a local park I had to check it out. I found its location which was literally on a bike/walking trail, so I walked a few feet in to the forest and sat down on my backpack and waited. It didn't take long for it to realize I wasn't a threat because I barely moved. I sat there for a few hours and watched this beautiful bird make occasional appearances right in front of me while it was on the ground looking for food with intermittent singing/calling mixed in. Sure, it probably saw me, but it was comfortable enough to continue its natural behavior while I just sat there and observed, and managed to get frame filling photos at 300mm. This is the way.

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

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

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

 

[EricBowles]

Lots of opinions! Essentially, all of you seem to be in agreement to give the birds some space. However, to be the contrarian, I have never heard of any scientific research that has concluded the birds need the space. Now I'm not saying I like to crowd them but we really don't know all that much about the consequences of crowding the birds, other than opinions. I even read where it was possibly beneficial to bother birds. The case involved a male chickadee that became a better potential mate by responding to playbacks of it's calls. Apparently, by confronting the source of the sounds, the male chickadee was proving his worth to the females. Many birders are touchy about using playback calls. Sibley's introduction in his field guides regarding ethics states "In most cases, the effect on birds is probably not significant...". He does go on to say use discretion and good judgement. So, even though we don't know all the variables involved, it is likely best to error in favor of what could be best for the birds.

This issue has come up a number of times, and you are correct that there is very little research on any of the related topics. It's generally anecdotal reports based on experience of one or a small number of people. Then that opinion is published and becomes the reference as though it is research or fact. Some of the Audubon articles lack factual basis and are simply " best practice suggestions based on the view of a small number of people. The specific area I looked at with some others was around baiting or feeding different species. The research was extremely limited even though government authorities often took action and made policy based on common perception rather than research.

BUT - there is some basis in fact for these comments for some subjects in some locations. For example, there is critical habitat for shorebirds where they group and rest - particularly at higher tides. These resting areas are important because some of the birds are migrants making an interim stop of days or weeks while on long migrations. The red knots are an extreme example of this behavior and while concentrated at Cape May, they make stops along the eastern coast from late April through early June.

There is research about human disruption leading to birds abandoning nests. It's a survival instinct where the survival of the adults at breeding age is more important than the nesting chicks. The adults may build another nest and have another clutch of eggs if early in the season. Some birds even retain breeding plumage for several months in case of a loss of the entire nest.

The fact is research can be one of the most disruptive activities for birds, and thousands of birds die each year from injuries directly related to the research. Bird banding causes many injuries to birds even with skilled workers with close supervision. But bird banding is important research, so there is a tradeoff.

 

[NorthernFocus]

This issue has come up a number of times, and you are correct that there is very little research on any of the related topics. It's generally anecdotal reports based on experience of one or a small number of people. Then that opinion is published and becomes the reference as though it is research or fact. Some of the Audubon articles lack factual basis and are simply " best practice suggestions based on the view of a small number of people. The specific area I looked at with some others was around baiting or feeding different species. The research was extremely limited even though government authorities often took action and made policy based on common perception rather than research...

I'm glad you said it. I wanted to but wasn't going to stick my face into a hornets nest. In almost all cases of laws/policies being passed regarding distance to animals, baiting, etc, there is no hard data. Essentially a self-motivated vocal minority and/or managing to the least common denominator dictates to the rest of us. A little more field craft and common sense and a bit less reliance on blog reading and "expert" opinions would serve many people well.

 

[eaj101]

I'm glad you said it. I wanted to but wasn't going to stick my face into a hornets nest. In almost all cases of laws/policies being passed regarding distance to animals, baiting, etc, there is no hard data. Essentially a self-motivated vocal minority and/or managing to the least common denominator dictates to the rest of us. A little more field craft and common sense and a bit less reliance on blog reading and "expert" opinions would serve many people well.

I agree in principle, and you're technically correct about the lack of extensive data or research. Unfortunately though, relying on the 'common sense' of individuals is generally a failure, in that common sense seems to be extremely uncommon in practice. So we end up with guidelines and expert opinions as a common denominator firewall against poor behavior. I don't like it either, because a lot of experienced people (like most of the people here) get swept up in the lowest common denominator rule set. But I don't see what alternative there is. Having seen recent examples of careless destruction and defacement of historical artifacts, my confidence in public good behavior is low.

It's a conundrum that applies to a lot of natural resources, whether animals, landscapes, artifacts, or really anything that's vulnerable. As more people show up to do or see something, use, overuse, and abuse grow.

Perhaps if wildlife photography became less popular...

 

[Whiskeyman]

I'm glad you said it. I wanted to but wasn't going to stick my face into a hornets nest. In almost all cases of laws/policies being passed regarding distance to animals, baiting, etc, there is no hard data. Essentially a self-motivated vocal minority and/or managing to the least common denominator dictates to the rest of us. A little more field craft and common sense and a bit less reliance on blog reading and "expert" opinions would serve many people well.

This reminds me of a point in a Frans Lanting video when an audience member made a statement about why an animal behaves a certain way and Lanting's response was to the tune of "Nobody asked the animal what it was thinking." I laughed to myself at that one.

 

[jeffnles1]

I appreciate you all keeping it thus far civil. I was hesitant to post this for fear there a big poo storm. I was genuinely interested in the varying opinions. Personally, I go by the "if the animal changes its behavior, I've been spotted and it is time to back off" philosophy. I'd rather miss a shot than risk harm to my subject. However, I'm far from a purist. I realize that my very presence in the forest is an interruption. Where I live, it is blue jays, chipmunks, woodpeckers and squirrel that sound the alarm notifying "everyone" in the forest there is something that doesn't belong here. I'm sure there are creatures that perform a similar "tattle tale of the forest" roll all across the globe. Where I boil it all down is do your best to not be obnoxious, don't push the animals and basically treat them as I would like to be treated. If I'm eating, I don't like it when someone interrupts my meal. If I'm sleeping I don't like to be woke up. If I were being "passionate" I wouldn't want someone to poke a camera in my face and ask what I'm doing. Yes, I realize animals are not people. I'm not one of the "animals are people" crowd. But I just try to put myself in their place and act accordingly.

I used to try to suggest to photographers they were too close or being too noisy. I quickly found that was about as welcome as a turd in the nacho cheese dip. What I have found is I can strike up a conversation. Asking about the gear or what they have seen that day. Then I can suggest something like "hey, over here where I am there is a great view through the branches you may want to come over here and check it out." Then talk about composition, colors, etc. Stuff photographers are interested in. The point is usually made without "preaching". Sometimes it works, sometime it doesn't. That's just life.

Jeff

 

[Letolen]

Jeff

I don't think their images would have been better. They might be closer, yet looking up at an animal that is not in a relaxed state anymore is not going to be a nice image.
We should all respect their space, they belong.
Sad some don't respect them.

 

[Andrew Lamberson]

This was too close!

Seriously, I prefer to sit still and let the animal decide. They often get closer than I was expecting! They know I'm there and not a threat. For example, this Pine Squirell came along while we were eating lunch at the truck. It scolded us for a few minutes, then settled in for a nap. It would have never let me get this close (300mm lens) if I had been walking!!!

 

[EricBowles]

There are large differences in field craft, experience with specific species, and the frequency of encounters. I was with wildlife pro Bill Lea a few years ago photographing black bears and a young bear came to within 3 feet of us. The other bears were feeding and completely ignored us. Bill spent 20 years as a forest service ranger and has photographed bears for years, so he was comfortable just using a tripod to prod the bear and chase it away. But it was a species he knew very well and he could read the behavior. My close bear encounters have almost always been in cases where I was stationary and the bears moved past me without paying any notice.

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

That was very different from another encounter in the Smokies where a crowd gathered and watched a pair of bears mating. A Japanese man with a point and shoot got within 20 feet of the pair of bears (a violation of park rules). While the bears were otherwise engaged, they could have been a lot less tolerant. In this case the encounter was in a park with lots of people in the area, and the tourist had probably never seen a wild black bear before or certainly had no idea about behavior.

Not all encounters end well when rules are violated. There was a case a few years ago of a young elk approaching and "butting" a photographer in the Smokies. While the photographer was quiet and let the elk behave normally, it got far too close. The reality was the elk was begging for food - a behavior learned because of others feeding that elk and others in the park. That young elk was a problem, and subsequently euthanized for it's overly aggressive action toward people.

There are a number of discussions about field craft and working with specific species. It's understandable that the guidance from "authorities" is conservative as the public in general does not take the time to learn behavior or avoid encounters that are problematic.

 

[jeffnles1]

@Andrew Lamberson and @EricBowles I agree completely it is a totally different situation when the animal chooses to come to you. I got this shot of a bald eagle earlier this week. My wife and I were standing by a stream in a local state park. We were looking for interesting landscape shots and also to see if any ducks were taking refuge in the open water. This eagle landed in a sycamore tree about 15 yards from where my wife was standing. It obviously knew we were there (notice it is looking directly at the camera). We were there when it landed so it knew we were there even before it landed. It seemed more curious about what these humans were doing there than anything else. We took a few photos and walked back to the car and drove away. As we drove away, it was still sitting on the same branch. I know where its nest is but it is about 1.5 miles downstream from where we were standing.

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

 

[Rassie]

Where I live, it is blue jays, chipmunks, woodpeckers and squirrel that sound the alarm notifying "everyone" in the forest there is something that doesn't belong here. I'm sure there are creatures that perform a similar "tattle tale of the forest" roll all across the globe.

In Africa, that role is played by the Gray Lourie (Go-away bird). See

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

 

[jeffnles1]

In Africa, that role is played by the Gray Lourie (Go-away bird). See

View attachment 31930

That video made me smile this morning. African Blue Jays . I honestly love them. Thank you for sharing this.

 

[Anjin San]

I appreciate you all keeping it thus far civil. I was hesitant to post this for fear there a big poo storm.

This is one of those debates that nobody's going to agree on I think. What's acceptable to one person isn't necessarily the same as what's acceptable to another person. Just like feeding them…a lot of folks say absolutely not but putting out a feeder for hummingbirds is fine…so it's just a matter of degree that an individual is willing to accept. There really isn't any right answer to the question…a lot of folks like Brad Hill say that if the animal/bird looks at you and does *anything* that isn't completely natural then you're interfering with the shot. That seems a little overkill to me…but as I said it's an individual thing. In a lot of places…the wildlife is perfectly habituated to people and just doesn't care…alligators in Florida and birds in the Everglades for example, elk and bison out west.

I can kinda/sorta get the feeding thing if you're feeding them pet store mice that might be infected with something…whereas feeding them wildlife feeding quality mice won't be…but then you could be accused of still 'baiting them'…but if you put the mice out in the field where there are probably mice anyway but one happens to be out in front of your blind or in the sun or whatever are you really baiting them? Depends on the shooter…

This is one of those debates that I tend to not express an opinion on outside of "everybody is different".

 

[jeffnles1]

This is one of those debates that nobody's going to agree on I think. What's acceptable to one person isn't necessarily the same as what's acceptable to another person. Just like feeding them…a lot of folks say absolutely not but putting out a feeder for hummingbirds is fine…so it's just a matter of degree that an individual is willing to accept. There really isn't any right answer to the question…a lot of folks like Brad Hill say that if the animal/bird looks at you and does *anything* that isn't completely natural then you're interfering with the shot. That seems a little overkill to me…but as I said it's an individual thing. In a lot of places…the wildlife is perfectly habituated to people and just doesn't care…alligators in Florida and birds in the Everglades for example, elk and bison out west.

I can kinda/sorta get the feeding thing if you're feeding them pet store mice that might be infected with something…whereas feeding them wildlife feeding quality mice won't be…but then you could be accused of still 'baiting them'…but if you put the mice out in the field where there are probably mice anyway but one happens to be out in front of your blind or in the sun or whatever are you really baiting them? Depends on the shooter…

This is one of those debates that I tend to not express an opinion on outside of "everybody is different".

I tend to agree. I do think any topic should be able to be discussed among adults with varying opinions and varying points of view. think the discussion thus far here has been adult, civil and even differing points of view have been treated with respect. The is the way things "should" work.

I once had an avid birder friend of mine say a person should never under any circumstances bait an animal. I asked if he had bird feeders out (knowing he did because I had seen photos of birds at his feeders). He responded it was different. I asked how so and his only answer was it is different. We are friends, we still are friends, we kind of laughed about it and it was done with respect and good feelings.

Personally, I don't like the idea of baiting to get an animal close or to "get an action shot" although I know some have no problem. I guess I'm also a bit of a hypocrite because I don't see any problem with sprinkling a few seeds around tree or in a tree hole and photographing birds grabbing seeds from the hole. I guess at the end of the day that would be baiting but it also does not hurt the birds nor does a temporary windfall make them dependent any more than the same birds finding a squirrel's stash in a tree would make them dependent on the squirrel.

It is a complex topic. I guess most would agree with obvious harassment (throwing a rock or stick to get an animal to get it to move to a better spot), puling up wildflowers to move to a better spot, clapping hands or making noise to get an owl to open its eyes, etc.). The rest will alway remain a gray area.

I'm just happy the conversation here has been what I would hope all conversations would be like. (at least this far).

Jeff