When is it too close?

[EricBowles]

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".

Owl baiting has had a lot of discussion. Minnesota was considering a ban on baiting a few years ago, but then people pointed out that baiting was allowed for bear hunting, and there was no specific research at all on the topic. The effort died.

There is a concern about bait that is not natural or native. There is also a concern about bait that changes behavior. Many of the raptor deaths are because raptors are feeding on rodents attracted to the roadside for food thrown out a car window. There is a legitimate concern over baiting any raptor, and it is considered by Audubon to be unethical.

There is a difference between legal and ethical. NANPA adopted a policy through its Truth in Captioning guidelines that provided several different levels of disclosure.
Here is a good article about the topic.

Truth In Captioning - An Interview with Melissa Groo and Don Carter - NANPA

Photographs by Melissa Groo Interview by David C. Lester Although little introduction is needed, Don Carter is the president of NANPA, and Melissa Groo, in addition to being a...

www.nanpa.org

Here is the Truth in Captioning document:

https://www.nanpa.org/wp-content/uploads/NANPA-Truth-In-Captioning-Document-July-2017.pdf

Keep in mind that part of what drives a lot of this is the commercial demand. Jim Zuckerman made a Facebook post today with a photo of a wolf. He's teaching a workshop, and people taking the workshop want to photograph wolves. You might not see a wolf over several days in Yellowstone, but at Triple D Game Farm there are captive wolves that have been trained to follow commands. Some people are against game farms, but might support other types of zoos. If you want to have a photo of a wolf for a publication, it's usually a stock image from someplace like Triple D. But some publications now refuse photos of captive subjects. It's complicated.

 

[dogdaddy13]

I have not read all these, but I know the debate. While not the best photographer in the world, the topic of animal behavior I have spent most my life studying. Most of the problem starts when one person spooks another persons game. Then the topic of, "Your stressing, causing some dangerous chain of events", and it is always the other guy in the wrong. Most times people don't have enough information on the animal's actual activity to know what they are talking about. The Hawk I am watching was sitting nicely on perch. Another photographer arrives and the bird flys off. "IDIOT SPOOKED MY BIRD!!!", "STRESSED THE BIRD". Nothing could be further from the truth. I somethimes follow a bird for several hours. He is just hunting. In fact some of these birds will supprise you. Very curious and have no problem flying over to see what your about. Do they spook from me.....all the time. Wrong or harming the animal because of it, hardly. Examples of harming. Winter deer yards. Stay the heck out of those. These animals are starving. Even when food is just a little ways away. Busting a trail in deep snow to get to it is more dangerous than the food is worth. I watched the DEC put out hay for deer to eat. Deer starve on hay in the winter. Ethics to me is violated every time I see someone photographing big cats taking down large game. Everyone does it. Photo of bear cubs swept away in raging currents. Why do we need to show the world that. To me that is where we need to look at our ethics.

 

[dogdaddy13]

Owl baiting has had a lot of discussion. Minnesota was considering a ban on baiting a few years ago, but then people pointed out that baiting was allowed for bear hunting, and there was no specific research at all on the topic. The effort died.

There is a concern about bait that is not natural or native. There is also a concern about bait that changes behavior. Many of the raptor deaths are because raptors are feeding on rodents attracted to the roadside for food thrown out a car window. There is a legitimate concern over baiting any raptor, and it is considered by Audubon to be unethical.

There is a difference between legal and ethical. NANPA adopted a policy through its Truth in Captioning guidelines that provided several different levels of disclosure.
Here is a good article about the topic.

Truth In Captioning - An Interview with Melissa Groo and Don Carter - NANPA

Photographs by Melissa Groo Interview by David C. Lester Although little introduction is needed, Don Carter is the president of NANPA, and Melissa Groo, in addition to being a...

www.nanpa.org

Here is the Truth in Captioning document:

https://www.nanpa.org/wp-content/uploads/NANPA-Truth-In-Captioning-Document-July-2017.pdf

Keep in mind that part of what drives a lot of this is the commercial demand. Jim Zuckerman made a Facebook post today with a photo of a wolf. He's teaching a workshop, and people taking the workshop want to photograph wolves. You might not see a wolf over several days in Yellowstone, but at Triple D Game Farm there are captive wolves that have been trained to follow commands. Some people are against game farms, but might support other types of zoos. If you want to have a photo of a wolf for a publication, it's usually a stock image from someplace like Triple D. But some publications now refuse photos of captive subjects. It's complicated.

I watched a photographer shoot a Golden Eagle fly from one perch 20 ft to the next. All in a studio with modeling lights and a Hasselblad. Shots are out of this world. There is a place for all kinds of wildlife photography.

 

[dogdaddy13]

I agree with the others who say if your action causes the animal to change their behavior you made it to the point where you got too close. It can be challenging to know this line as certain locations animals are used to people being around and other areas where if the animal can see you it’s agitated. It’s best to use common sense and it’s always worth trying to educate people who maybe didn’t know, but in a respectful way and not over doing it. People tend to receive the information better when not being lectured or scolded. I find it worse when the animals in question is at risk of being killed for being aggressive if responding to the person getting too close pushing the boundaries.

Many of the same people that complain about photographers getting to close, drive 60 mph at night through Whitetail country during the rut. Now that is a place to start changing your habits.

 

[EricBowles]

The original post was about proximity and humans causing subjects to flee. I think the bottom line is that photographers should make every effort to know their subjects and understand the impact of disturbing them. The big issue is not a single incidence of disturbing a subject - it's when there are other factors involved and disturbing the subject has an impact on it's survival.

There is a different type of ethical considerations when photographing a subject. As pointed out above, the photographer who was patient and established a position allowing the subject to become comfortable may not cause any problems. But then a group of photographers or birders walks up, sees someone close to the subject, and thinks they can move to the same position without spending the time for acclimatization. Next thing you know the original photographer is blamed for being too close, or the newcomers fail to realize they just ended a two hour effort by the photographer to photograph a subject without disturbing it.

 

[jeffnles1]

The original post was about proximity and humans causing subjects to flee. I think the bottom line is that photographers should make every effort to know their subjects and understand the impact of disturbing them. The big issue is not a single incidence of disturbing a subject - it's when there are other factors involved and disturbing the subject has an impact on it's survival.

There is a different type of ethical considerations when photographing a subject. As pointed out above, the photographer who was patient and established a position allowing the subject to become comfortable may not cause any problems. But then a group of photographers or birders walks up, sees someone close to the subject, and thinks they can move to the same position without spending the time for acclimatization. Next thing you know the original photographer is blamed for being too close, or the newcomers fail to realize they just ended a two hour effort by the photographer to photograph a subject without disturbing it.

Actually, in my opening post the owl did not fly and it really wasn't about causing the animal to flee. It was more to have a discussion about how close is too close. Although I did not capture a photo of the most egregious behavior at this particular tree, there were people who walked to within 10 feet of the base of the tree. I suspect the only reason they didn't get closer was because the lay of the land made it difficult to get closer. It wouldn't have surprised me to see someone trying to climb a tree nearby so they could get a photo on their cell phone. It was a bit of a circus.

I don't know the right answer and I think it is somewhat situational. I do believe there are things we can all agree upon like not walking up to 10' from a sleeping owl. If a person looks at the bathroom in their home. It is probably about 8 to 10 feet wide. Yes, that is how close they were.

Baiting is a whole new topic. Like I said earlier I admit I'm somewhat hypocritical on this. I have no compulsion about feeding birds in my yard and photographing them on the perches around the yard. I abhor the idea of tossing a mouse in a field for a raptor. I'm not a fan of staking a dead deer out in a field to photograph predators although that probably is no different than a road killed deer. Some of this comes to personal choice and what the law and rules of the particular area say.

My opening post was not about "scaring away" a bird or any other creature that a person was photographing though that does happen. It was really about how we, as photographers, can make a difference in a positive way.

I have seen some what I consider egregious behavior by so-called wildlife photographers including throwing a stick to get an animal to move or wake up, clapping hands loudly to get an owl to open its eyes for a photo, blowing a car horn, climbing fences and trespassing on private property, walking right through delicate wildflowers to get closer to a warbler for a shot, cutting limbs off of bushes in parks for a clear shot, pulling up wildflowers to put them in a more photogenic spot, putting insects in the freezer to kill them so that they can be posed for a macro photograph, etc. I would hope we all would see these things as being problematic if not unethical. It really depends on one's point of view.

I don' have a problem with game farms as long as the person states the photo was of a captive animal. But then I photograph deer in state and city parks all the time. They are free to come and go but are habituated to people. Does that make my photos any less "authentic" than a deer out in a wilderness area? I don't know it feels the same to me but others may disagree.

It is an interesting topic and again I'm glad it has for the most part remained quite civil.
Jeff

 

[Anjin San]

It's complicated.

Yep..
baiting or whatever it all depends on what a person thinks...and like another reply I’ve got a friend that decries baiting but says his bird feeders are “different”.

 

[Karl]

Steve must be a pretty smart guy... he knows better than to get anywhere near something as dangerous as this thread!

 

[jeffnles1]

Steve must be a pretty smart guy... he knows better than to get anywhere near something as dangerous as this thread!

LOL.... Actually it's been pretty civil and I appreciate it. For the most part it has been respectful as I requested in the opening post.

 

[Ian]

Depends how used to humans they are.
Recently at a location in Florida I saw a pair of Sandhill cranes come down the path, a little ahead of me. I sat down on the path to one side, moved slowly and quietly and they walked right past me not 6ft away totally unperturbed.

 

[dogdaddy13]

Since I never see a soul when I am out, I have never run into anyone that has had any issues. I was talking to a photographer friend of mine, (Been shooting a long time.), he said this ethics issue got it's start with those who are, "birders", and life lists and so on. They watch from long range with spotting scopes. When a photographer shows up and he moves into camera range, and many times they are not careful enough. Bird is spooked and the birders bring this issue of ethics up. He said if they cared about the bird, stop posting their gps online.

 

[dogdaddy13]

Can I chime in here one more time on the baiting issue. I have heard a lot about the baiting of owls and so on. I will share a story about some outstanding Goshawk shots I came accross. The image is of a Goshawk tearing apart a ring neck pheasant sitting on a stump in the snow. One of those shots I have dreams about being the guy on the trigger. The photographer is a woman who got up early every morning to drive the highways looking for a road kill pheasant to prop the stump. She would then shag it back to the hide and put out the bird and sit all day and wait. Took her several months to get the shot. Man that is as ethical as it gets.

 

[jeffnles1]

Since I never see a soul when I am out, I have never run into anyone that has had any issues. I was talking to a photographer friend of mine, (Been shooting a long time.), he said this ethics issue got it's start with those who are, "birders", and life lists and so on. They watch from long range with spotting scopes. When a photographer shows up and he moves into camera range, and many times they are not careful enough. Bird is spooked and the birders bring this issue of ethics up. He said if they cared about the bird, stop posting their gps online.

Generally I think you're on to something. However, it's not purely tribal. I have seen more than one photographer pull a set of pruners out of their belt an cut branches on underbrush to get a more clear shot of a bird's nest. I have seen other photographers cross over a fence to trespass on private property to get a better angle of a raptor nest. Yes I even saw a photographer pull up a wildflower, walk about ten feet to position it in a better more photogenic location. Killed the wildflower but hey, he got the photo he wanted. I have witnessed a photographer standing by a sleeping owl clapping her hands to get the owl to open its eyes.

I agree some of the tribalism "us and them" comes to play. I'm not a birder or life lister. I know people who are and we are all fine with each other. I believe a lot of the issues stem from people getting caught up in the moment and maybe not even realizing what they are doing. I'm sure I've done things that some would not like. Heck, the fact I'm breathing is enough for some people as I can be abrasive at times. Recently a pro photographer got banned from US National Parks because he was feeding a fox so people in his workshops could get a better photo. There was a photo safari group locally in SW Ohio that was allegedly (I didn't see it first hand) tying thread to the tails of pet store mice and letting them run out in a field to draw owls (snowy in this case) in so people in the workshop could get a good action shot.

I reckon my main point in all of this is to suggest we take a brief moment and ask "is the photo worth it" before doing some of these egregious things. Others may disagree and that's just fine. If I was into shaming people I wouldn't have altered the photos I posted in the original post. The intent here was never to shame anyone but to stir a discussion.

I got my answer or at least the answer I thought I"d get and that is the opinions are mixed at best.

Jeff

 

[Palmor]

I think most things have been said but what it going to ruin it for everyone (photographers and birders) is when people do things that are against the rules of where they are. Locally we get Snowy Owls every year and people will walk out into the sand dunes to get closer, even though there are sign posted everywhere that walking on the dunes is not allowed. Stuff like will eventually lead to less access for everyone. Unfortunately it's usually people will cameras around here that are doing that kind of thing so anyone with a camera gets a bad rap.

There are also other rules in place (agree with them or not) in a lot of the local areas where the most interesting things to photograph are (how close you're allowed to get to wildlife, purposely flushing them, private property, restricted locations etc) that more and more people are just ignoring.

 

[airestudiosmt]

Last week I picked up my new camera and headed for Yellowstone for the day to see what was out. This time of year, we know where there are usually animals – the Lamar valley will be Buffalo/Bison, Wolves, and Coyotes. Just west of the Soda Butte rest stop is always Bighorn. This time of year it is mostly rams, and this time there were three. A tour group was set up in a turnout photographing the rams about 25 yards uphill from them. There were a few other individuals that were also set up next to them. And then there were two that needed to get closer and that better shot by climbing the bank. The bank the rams were on is steep and covered with shale tailings. The temp was -2F with a very slight breeze and full sun. These two took off their coats and proceeded to climb the bank on the backside of the rams. We kept driving to the rest stop to have lunch and watch this play out. As the two mental giants made it about halfway between being eye level to the rams and the road, the rams moved into a draw filled with willows. This completely ruined any photographs for the tour group and the other individuals. I am pretty sure these two mental giants did not think this through – the rams are not going to turn 180 and face them, and secondly, they took off their coats! What do we photographers do most of the time when photographing a subject(s) – we stand/sit for long periods of time. These two were not prepared for a sit for any length of time at -2F. It was all about them (the mental giants), and the heck with everyone else.

I felt for the tour group as they were doing the right thing by positioning themselves to where the rams were going to be and not chasing them around. We caught up with the tour group later that day and they were being rewarded with a great photo opportunity. Just east of Pebble Creek there was an open meadow with three bull moose, one of which still had not dropped his antlers yet. The bigger of the bulls had dropped his antlers that morning – there was fresh blood at the center of the “buttons” (the point where the antlers connect to the skull).

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

 

[Karl]

I found an example of "too close" (actually, the eagle was flying low over our yard and I was at 600mm)... I think the Golden Eagle made me more nervous than I made him:

https://flic.kr/p/2myJ3Wj

 

[jeffnles1]

I found an example of "too close" (actually, the eagle was flying low over our yard and I was at 600mm)... I think the Golden Eagle made me more nervous than I made him:

https://flic.kr/p/2myJ3Wj

gotta love those times when the critters come to you! great shot by the way

 

[JerryR]

I very much appreciate your bringing this issue up for a discussion. I think there may be many photographers who are new to wildlife photography who simply just didn't think about this aspect of their photography. This helps to enlighten them about their responsibilities as photographers to not stress the animals. After all we benefit from the animals' presence, we marvel at their beauty and amazing behaviors, and we photograph them because we admire them so it makes no sense to stress them out. So I very much appreciate you bringing up the subject so that people who have not given it a lot of thought in the past will perhaps give more thought to it for the future. This should help us all as photographers and nature lovers appreciate the incredible world in which we live with respect and dignity and consideration of each other.

 

[HRB]

Every year someone gets too close to a bison in South Dakota’s Custer State Park and gets injured. Sometimes it happens when people are trying to get a “selfie” with a bison in the background, other times when motorcycle riders are annoying the animals with loud exhaust pipes. Bison are unpredictable animals especially during spring calving and during the August rut.

 

[jeffnles1]

Every year someone gets too close to a bison in South Dakota’s Custer State Park and gets injured. Sometimes it happens when people are trying to get a “selfie” with a bison in the background, other times when motorcycle riders are annoying the animals with loud exhaust pipes. Bison are unpredictable animals especially during spring calving and during the August rut.

not to mention they are 1500 pounds of horn, hoof and muscle that can run up to 35mph. I've seen people entirely too close to bison and moose at Yellowstone. Not necessarily photographers but just average people who either didn't know or got all caught up in the moment.

 

[jeffnles1]

I very much appreciate your bringing this issue up for a discussion. I think there may be many photographers who are new to wildlife photography who simply just didn't think about this aspect of their photography. This helps to enlighten them about their responsibilities as photographers to not stress the animals. After all we benefit from the animals' presence, we marvel at their beauty and amazing behaviors, and we photograph them because we admire them so it makes no sense to stress them out. So I very much appreciate you bringing up the subject so that people who have not given it a lot of thought in the past will perhaps give more thought to it for the future. This should help us all as photographers and nature lovers appreciate the incredible world in which we live with respect and dignity and consideration of each other.

Thank you.

 

[MadMikeOne]

Never share locations online! No gps tags!

Amen to that. I've completely stopped sharing locations. Plus, I refuse to post pics on FB, Instagram, and the like. When I go out specifically to shoot a "rare" bird, I go alone. Close friends regularly receive emails with some of my favorite images. Right now, there is a serious issue with photographers getting WAY too close to the Snowy Owls in my neck of the woods. Just the other day, a birder & I reported 2 of them who had walked well into the dunes and flushed the Snowy that had been resting in the dune grass. When we confronted them, one of them insisted that she wasn't anywhere near the dunes. Seriously? So why were there TWO sets of footprints, and why was she in the photo that I took of the duo brazenly walking onto the dunes? The Rangers and Police in one location have stepped up their patrols and are fining people as well as refusing access to the offenders. OK, rant over!

 

[Fishboy1952]

Many years ago, my wife and I were staying at the El Tovar hotel right on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon. Being in a national park, the local animals seemed to be more accepting of a human presence. In the front of the hotel is a fairly large grassy area by the front drive. Going to dinner in the early evening we walked by and saw a large 6 point bull elk grazing on the grass. We we’re about 30 feet away and didn’t approach any further. I had a point and shoot with me and grabbed a couple of images. We stood there and watched and I was amazed. Soon a crowd gathered to watch and grab photos. A couple of lunatics actually walked up with cellphones and were easily within 10 feet of the elk. I tried to motion them away without success. This was 700+ pounds of wild animal, and not something the hotel staged. Amazingly, the elk just kept eating.

We went inside and I told someone at the front desk what was happening. He said he’d take care of it. We proceeded to dinner. About 90 minutes later, I looked out on the front grass through a window, and the elk was still there….still grazing.

I can see how some people who do not interface with the wild, or at least on a limited bases can be influenced by instances like this. That being said, I’m not at all surprised when I read about people being injured with behaviors like this, or observe individuals adversely affecting wildlife while being stupid.

 

[Doug Herr]

.. the photographer who was patient and established a position allowing the subject to become comfortable may not cause any problems. But then a group of photographers or birders walks up, sees someone close to the subject, and thinks they can move to the same position without spending the time for acclimatization. Next thing you know the original photographer is blamed for being too close, or the newcomers fail to realize they just ended a two hour effort by the photographer to photograph a subject without disturbing it.

This is why I wear camo. The animals will see me, in fact I often want them to so they can become comfortable with my presence. The camo is to reduce the chances that people will see me.

 

[jeffnles1]

This is why I wear camo. The animals will see me, in fact I often want them to so they can become comfortable with my presence. The camo is to reduce the chances that people will see me.

Haha, reminded me of the time I saw a guy sitting on a folding chair at the edge of a field playing bird calls. He was wearing a full ghillie suit and had camo netting over his spotting scope. Only problem was his suit was summer green and the field was late autumn brown. I don't think he fooled either the birds he was trying to spot nor any humans he may have been tryin to hide from. 8 weeks earlier and I most likely wouldn't have seen him at all.