How close is too close? For discussion. Longish post

[What was that?]

Bear in mind this is for discussion and not necessarily my direct viewpoint, please, no flaming. I am not defending the individual (who I know not), not castigating them (I feel that I lack much relevant information).

With respect to the incident (posted in the Toronto reports) about the photog scaring off the owl.
No information was posted with respect to actual distances involved. If the photog had a long enough lens, then the distance is likely to be quite more substantial than a 'happy snapper'.
I have scared many a bird off inadvertently (big feet, poor eyes). What is too close for one person may not be close enough for another.
Having gone out with birding groups (OFO/TOC and Point Pelee) many have scopes/better optics than I have (500mm lens on my Sony). For them their requirement is to see the bird but not to photograph it. The photographer has to get closer in almost every case to be able to take a decent shot.
But the question is how close is too close?
Is too close the closest approach to cause ANY stress to the bird (or other living thing)?
How would that stress be measured (lack of apparent change in activity is a very poor measure indeed)?
Is the closest approach that which the individual is comfortable with? Of course this would change with every person (and with respect to the availability of optical equipment used). Should a beginner be penalised for using 8x bins compared to a long time birder with 40x scope?

The impact of humans on wildlife everywhere has been discussed for many years. Most reasonable people would agree that there has to be some form of compromise (and many extremists who believe that we should change our lifestyle drastically). Where does that compromise lie?

An alternate scenario for the incident posted (given the limited information).
A photographer, with family and children in need of sustenance, requires a picture of said bird to prepare a report/article to earn money to support said family. He/she has limited experience in such situations but has successfully been able to carefully move closer to the birds in the past (nothing was indicated about his fieldcraft). In this case something happened to scare the bird off (what else was happening around the area).

Are we entitled to castigate this individual when it may not even have been them that caused the bird to fly off?
Having been accused unrightly in the past (nothing related to birding or illegal activities) I like to promote innocent until proven guilty.

If the individual stormed through the undergrowth, destroying plant life (and who here is defending the rights of the plants, don't they have equal entitlements with the bird?), got to within 3 feet of the owl so they could use a wide angle/macro lens - okay, then I would suggest that they were in the wrong.
And how was this individual treated at the time?
Were they approached and informed of the consequences of their deeds in a polite and effective manner?
Where extenuating circumstances sought and addressed in an adult manner?

Or was their hide draped all over public forums for display.
I believe that such reports are good and proper if sufficient information is presented to allow others to form a cogent opinion. A secondhand report containing hearsay could be considered inflammatory at worst (venting) of seriously inadequate (at best).

Discuss?

Thank you.
Graham
BTW, I have a Sony DSLR. It is noisier than the Canons and Nikons (at least). On several occassions I have aggravated looks directed at me by other photographers because of it (my wife tends to notice) even though we are the same distance from the birds as they are. I freely admit that the birds do tend to fly off more frequently as a result of this slight extra noise (autofocus and shutter). I also have no intention of backing off further than the other photogs or waiting until I am the only one left. Am I right , wrong or other?

[Anonymous]

Already discussed....

http://outdoorontario.net/birds/phpBB/v ... php?t=2294

[What was that?]

Thank you. Interesting post, well worth reading.
As the other post indicates, there is much more to be considered than a quick emotional response to a situation that pushes your buttons. A slower considered response is much more valuable.

Graham
Tends to be logical rather than emotional, trying to be able to access both sides of the brain.

[What was that?]

Just reading an article in Outdoor Photographer (http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/colu ... tance.html).
Author states he was able to 'roam alone', then states 'But with so many visitors, restraints are necessary.'

The implication (to me) is that with fewer humans around, interaction with the wildlife is more permissible than with many humans.
I'm sure that we have all seen the pictures of extreme close-ups of various wildlife (penguins and gorillas come immediately to mind), or with the photographer being shown interacting right next to the animal.

Is it any wonder people overstep the bounds some others place on them? Society depicts such actions as normal.
I've often heard that a successful person (in many fileds) has to take chances and do the unusual to make a mark, otherwise they are just 'another one', same ol' same ol' ".

So, who do we listen to?
Graham
(Listens to himself and will probably be castigated by some for it).

[Kin Lau]

Many Penguins are curious, and will basically walk right up to a person to check them out. Many other birds/animals that do not have any fear of man due to isolation, will often tolerate very close approaches - both the deliberate and inadvertent. I've seen owls perched over/near a roadway/walkway and people walking right by who were not aware of the bird. Sometimes the owl cares, sometimes it doesn't.

I've also learned to weigh second hand reports carefully. I've had several occasions to speak/communicate with the parties involved in various "reports", and in cases, even other witnesses of the events, and the stories are always different.

As for what might flush an owl, do keep in mind that they have considerably better eyesight and hearing than you or me. It's aware of things that we are not. The Whitby Barred Owl of a few winters ago was a good example. It was often unconcerned about people/cars etc, but it could detect the presence of another raptor, picking it up long before we did.

What I do not like, is people inferring intent, especially when they have not spoken to the parties involved.

[ravynne40]

i love to take pictures of birds..it is simple..i try not to get too close, even the slightest movements at times will start the birds, footsteps, and even the reflection of the bird in the lens even if i am at what i think is a half decent distance (i'm using a 500 mm telephoto as well) so i know i don't need to get too close.
there were times in high park i wanted to scream at the tourist/camera group taking pictures of the wood ducks, and litterally whipping some form of seeds at them, and then realized these people didn't even speak english
i was not impressed.
if a bird crosses my path as i am walking about, i will try to take a picture. if the bird flies away, i am greatful that i got to see them and move on.
i always try to approach with caution, even if it is a bird i do not want to photograph, it may be eating or feeding its young, i slow my pace and try to make sure the bird doesnt feel threatened, but sometimes no matter what you do..they do fly off.
i also remember appologizing profusely to a lovely gent in a park that was trying to get a picture of a bird, and i was happily "romping" down the hill unaware and frightened "his" birds away.
stuff happens and i felt bad, but sometimes we have no way of knowing. now when i go to that park, i check from a distance to make sure i don't encroach upon his work.

there is nothing more satisfying then getting that "perfect pic", but also remember that you can shoot from a little distance and always crop your photo in photoshop or whatever editor you use to make the bird look closer.
just my two cents.
Irene
God gave birds wings so they could fly away when they feel in danger.

[JTF]

Check out the pic with the shorebirds.

http://report.bandedbirds.org/DrawOnePage.aspx?PageID=9

[ravynne40]

ok that's just way too close LOL

[Kin Lau]

If you look carefully, there aren't any birds within 20ft of the birders.

For shorebirds, sometimes if you just lay low and don't move much, they'll practically run over you.

[Photoman]

LOL :lol:  :lol:  :lol:
Great photo!!!!!Hope they counted each one.

[ravynne40]

they really look close, funny how the eye can be deceptive when viewing things.

[skyviewer]

Damn birders look at how close they are in that pic you'd never see a photog doing that unless a celebrity was in town.  
JUST KIDDING don't i sound rediculous LOL.  

Why can't we all just get along.  The people we should really be trying to annihilate is the ones who truly have no regard for nature and are bent on doing it harm.  We shoud all band together and form some group like "BIRD PHOTOG front of anti naturalist behaviour" or "birders united front of photography" or "scare my bird and die" or "BIRD THIS" or "bird lovers united"

So many choices

[What was that?]

I love birds - Swiss Chalet rocks.
Graham

[GStuart]

HERETIC!

I prefer St. Hubert's.

[Anonymous]

GStuart...lol

-