Boundary Bay Owl being flushed by a photographer! UGH!

[Dan Brown]

Giving us all a bad name!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0_gzY2k7P0&feature=share

[Doug West]

What a butt munch.

What was his need for trying to get so close? Looks like he had a good enough telephoto.

Doug

[Dan Brown]

What a butt munch.

What was his need for trying to get so close? Looks like he had a good enough telephoto.

DougThe talk on facebook is that he was trying to get a wide angle shot with the mountain in the bg.

[Roger Clark]

The talk on facebook is that he was trying to get a wide angle shot with the mountain in the bg.

That was a mighty big lens her was carrying for a "wide angle" shot.

Roger

[John Chardine]

Here are the three twits from a screen grab of the 720p feed. CSI here we come!

[arash_hazeghi]

Maybe he was trying to grab the owl? It would be fun to have a snowy as a pet :bg3:

[adrian dancy]

All the gear and no idea.

Personally I would not encroach on the land where the owls are. It is not just a question of disturbing the owls but affecting their behaviour. The photographers, not just the ones that are close by, are walking over the owl's dinner plate.

[Andrew Merwin]

Here are the three twits from a screen grab of the 720p feed. CSI here we come!

What is CSI? If it is a law enforcement agency of some sort, go for it.

[Dave Leroy]

You are definitely right Dan about giving the rest of us a bad name.
The owls first showed up in late November and starting in mid December it has been pretty much a circus. Some people are very knowledgeable whether they stay on the dyke or go out in the foreshore. Others have not got a clue.
Fortunately, in my very non expert opinion, the Snowy Owls seem to be handling it very well. I think the bigger problem is the excessive trampling around in the grassy foreshore, as well as the wear and tear on other birds and animals in the area.

[Marina Scarr]

I recognize one of these photographers who is actually from Florida. Happy to report he wasn't the one doing the flushing. The "flusher" looks familiar but I can't place him offhand.

[John Chardine]

What a butt munch.

What was his need for trying to get so close? Looks like he had a good enough telephoto.

Doug

Hey Doug- Way to get butt munch by the censors!!!

[Ed Cordes]

This is why serious birders don't understand serious photographers. Those who act like this are stereotyped to represent all of us even though it is not true and unfair. Perhaps he is following this thread and now realizes his behavior is unacceptable.

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

agree with Ed and Dan. lot of us get bad names because of some individuals. and that widens the birder-bird-photographer divide.

[Don Nelson]

Bunch of jerks -- all three are being pilloried on the local tweeters list serve.
Search for boundary bay snowy owls here: http://birdingonthe.net/mailinglists/TWET.html (The local Washington state bird list)
Look at the archives for the past 3 months, particularly the last two weeks as what's currently posted has pushed the relevent items into the archive Archive is here: http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/

The white bearded one should be easy to identify -- Marina,pleae one more look -- does this look like any of the other Florida folks (guilt by association with the one Marina id'd)

[John Chardine]

What is CSI? If it is a law enforcement agency of some sort, go for it.

Hi Andrew- It's a very popular TV drama- CSI=Crime Scene Investigation"- and they quite often bring up a bad, pixelated photo and (unrealistically) interpolate the licence plate of the "perp".

[Andrew Merwin]

Thanks John. I had hoped that it was an acronym for an enforcement agency that would in some way punish this transgression. In YNP, if I get an image of someone breaking the rules & that person is identifiable, law enforcement will try to find the scofflaw & ticket him or her. I have a problem with this behavior because if it is frequent enough, the rules will be changed & the new rules will inevitably impact my experience. For example: in GTNP the rule requiring people to remain 100 yards from predators (bears, wolves) is now being enforced if I am in my vehicle & within 100 yards of the critter.

[Scott Leslie]

Morons. I would only hope that these guys are embarrassed and are never allowed to forget what a bonehead move this is.

[DickLudwig]

Morons. I would only hope that these guys are embarrassed and are never allowed to forget what a bonehead move this is.
Unfortunately these guys don't have enough common sense to know what they did was wrong.

[Don Lacy]

So no one here has ever flushed a bird in the field ever....... Now if they had followed it and continue to flush it then I can see people having an issue but one time and every one is up in arms hundreds of birds and other subjects are flushed every day in the field by everyone who spends anytime in the outdoors and that includes birders. I probably should not have posted this but really they did more harm to that bird with the emissions they used flying to Canada then causing it to fly 50 yards to another perch.

[John Chardine]

I took a look at the Youtube video again and a new version has been posted in place of the original. The new version cuts off the end of the original version, which showed clearly their faces (see my post above). Perhaps the lawyers have got involved.

[Steve Kaluski]

Dan if they are there at the end of next week rest assured, those three will certainly be on my hit list to photograph. Forget the lens, seems like he needs a new pair of glasses at least if he has to get that close.

[Grant Eldridge]

I will say this, the "conservationists" that are at Boundary Bay are pretty militant. If you so much as step off the dyke into the flats they will be all over you and if they missed you on the way down they will certainly get you on the way back. Their heart is in the right place but seem somewhat miss guided in attacking everyone. There have been reports of some throwing rocks at photographers. For the most part the photographers I have seen down there keep their distance (100ft) and respect the birds, any that don't are usually encouraged to change by the other photographers. With 20+ birds in the area it is sometimes difficult to avoid flushing one without even knowing it is there. Dave is right though, the birds are handling it well and are certainly well fed. I've seen lots of pellets produced and there is evidence of fresh kills on their talons and beaks. I can't help but think the climate is a bit like a mexico vacation for them compared to their normal stomping grounds.

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

good to hear the other side of the story. thx.

[Don Lacy]

Just read some new information on Boundary Bay and it would seem that were the Owls are hunters are also present along with people walking there dogs and riding mopeds on the dikes and that they are often flushed by this activity but hey Im sure the Owls don't mind the gunshots and dogs but those photographers sure need to be put in their place for scaring the birds with their shutters going off. By all accounts the Owls are doing fine and feeding well while coping with their stardom.

[Grant Eldridge]

You are absolutely right Don, lots of duck hunting goes on there. Owls don't seem to flinch, myself on the other hand, almost needed a change of clothes on one occasion. I had no idea the hunter was there until he let rip. It is a very busy place but it also has large areas that are isolated, if the owls were that bothered I'm sure they would move down.

I do notice the "Conservations" do not confront the shotgun toting hunters :t3

[Marina Scarr]

Good point about the hunters, etc, Don, and I totally agree that many if not all of us have at one time or another flushed a bird inadvertently. Luck for us, we weren't videotaped doing it. In this particular case, the photographer had lousy skills when it came to his approach. I imagine had he moved in slowly over a period of time, he would have been able to sit quite close to the owl without any problems. The fact that this videotape was filmed with a long lens probably made him look as though he was quite a bit closer to the owl as well. People are very quick to judge. I am just happy it wasn't my face on that videotape and it will probably give us all some pause for thought in the future when we are out in the field.

[Don Lacy]

I do notice the "Conservations" do not confront the shotgun toting hunters
They might be self righteous but apparently not stupid and I would not call them conservationist a true conservationist understands nature on a much deeper level then these people ever will.

[Don Lacy]

Good point about the hunters, etc, Don, and I totally agree that many if not all of us have at one time or another flushed a bird inadvertently. Luck for us, we weren't videotaped doing it. In this particular case, the photographer had lousy skills when it came to his approach. I imagine had he moved in slowly over a period of time, he would have been able to sit quite close to the owl without any problems. The fact that this videotape was filmed with a long lens probably made him look as though he was quite a bit closer to the owl as well. People are very quick to judge. I am just happy it wasn't my face on that videotape and it will probably give us all some pause for thought in the future when we are out in the field.
Anyone who spends anytime in the field knows there is always the possibility you might flush your subject and it's not the end of the world if a bird flies away thats why they have wings. I just did not like the tone of the postings and the condemnation and thought someone should stand up for common sense.

[Dave Leroy]

I have tried a couple times to compose a response to this issue. I have been going to this area since 1983. It is sort of one of my little fiefdoms. Most of the time no one is out in the salt marshy foreshore other than a few ducks hunters in season or a few others like myself wandering around.

Last year started to change that with some very friendly Short-eared Owls. This year with the Snowies there have been many more people getting off the dyke to get those "killer" shots. Unfortunately many have either no idea or are some what greedy and over reach what should be done. They are annoying at times and at other times just a nuisance.
However many have learned what can and should be done and so have better field skills and understanding.

I have taken the time to answer questions and to tell several what they have done and needed to have done. Others I have told they should have stayed on the dyke.

However, I don't think the Snowies are being too bothered nor harassed by the activity. I am not suggesting it is good; I just don't think it is bad as it may appear. They have moved closer to the dyke and people. They will pop up when no one is nearby, or when a Harrier tries to give then a haircut, or when an eagle flies by, or when another snowy lands beside them or when someone or many approach too fast or too close or just because.

On the plus side more people are aware of the world around them. On the down side if more people continue to wander around out there after the Snowies are gone the marsh will suffer.

For me at times I wish that the Snowies had not shown up but....

[John Chardine]

Don- the sentiment about which you seem to be indignant was a product of the package deal here- photographers behaving precisely as they shouldn't, in a place where signage explicitly prohibits such behaviour, in broad daylight. and in plain view of several photographers and presumably bird watchers and the general public. The odd flush is not going to have a measurable impact on the bird but you have to be extra-specially careful in places like this where there is a relatively high level of human activity and where the chances of a bird being flushed or otherwise disturbed several times a day could be high. This is exactly why the signs are there- to prevent this cumulative effect.

[Don Lacy]

Don- the sentiment about which you seem to be indignant was a product of the package deal here- photographers behaving precisely as they shouldn't, in a place where signage explicitly prohibits such behaviour, in broad daylight. and in plain view of several photographers and presumably bird watchers and the general public. The odd flush is not going to have a measurable impact on the bird but you have to be extra-specially careful in places like this where there is a relatively high level of human activity and where the chances of a bird being flushed or otherwise disturbed several times a day could be high. This is exactly why the signs are there- to prevent this cumulative effect.
Is it legal to walk off the dike my understanding is yes if no were are the hunters standing. If not then why do they allow hunting here if it is a protected area if some areas are off limits to both hunters and hikers were the photographers in a restricted area this was not mention or alluded to in the video, again from my reading the Owls are in the same area as the hunters. The beginning of the video shows a sign asking people not to approach to close to the Owls no were does it state it is illegal so forgive me if I find it kind of ridiculous that people are okay with shotgun blast but lose their mind over a photographer appearing to get to close to an Owl. If the Owls feel too threaten they will leave the area apparently the Owls are okay with their popularity

[Roman Kurywczak]

OK......I have seen the vidoe elsewhere.....but I dunno' Don......watching the video......that is a bit different than accidentally flushing/spooking the bird. Nevermind that they were in the wrong light angle.....and wind direction (given where the owl flew).......this is a bit more than accidentally spooking. This is not the fine line.....this is clearly over it. That is why this has a place here and gives all photographers a bad name. If a shotgun got that close.......there would be bits left......so not really a comparison. Different debate.....but lets not forget that we hunt with a camera...and these actions will only make it harder for all of us.

[Don Lacy]

No, they did not accidentally flush the bird he used clumsy field craft and spooked his subject I have done it and will do it again push to close lose the opportunity curse myself for missing the shot and life goes on. Every day on this and other forums images are posted of baited, called, and lured birds thats how we get our images even with a 500 you need to get close to get a frame filling image. If they were in a restricted area then they were clearly in the wrong but no one has shown any evidence that they broke any laws or were in an area that was closed to the public. The birders are upset because they think photographers get to close to the birds but have no problem with the hunters in the same area and fields were the Owls are blowing the brains out of Ducks. Read Dave's post the Owls are doing fine even with all the attention as far as the birder go they are rude and self righteous and if the reports of them throwing stones at photographers is true also pretty pathetic.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey Don,
don't get me started on birders :).......I agree with the holier than though attitude.....but the OP asked about specific actions. That one guy went well beyond acceptable levels of approaching in almost all cases. Can we say that about a lot of images? Sure......and the people who went against the rules have been called out. Every case is different.......and no "blanket" rules apply to all. Heck.....you guys and gals in Fla have it made......birds are habituated (through no action of photogs) to people. You and I have walked past birds at the Anhinga trail and others....without a flinch from the birds! Did this guy break the "rules"? Not sure or even care. Did he not use common sense?.......that is the only thing certain.......and that can get all us photographers in trouble......alas......he is not alone. This is more of a warning.

[James Shadle]

John,
"Hey Doug- Way to get butt munch by the censors!!!"
Anal pore will also fly.

Don,
"So no one here has ever flushed a bird in the field ever....... "
IMO that's not the point. Any honest nature photographer will admit they have flushed a bird.
In this case, there was a clear warning posted. The photographer showed very poor judgement with his choice of gear(at Alafia I suggest you use the longest lens you can to get the job done) under the circumstance. In addition to the lack of concern for the owl, he obviously was not concerned about the other photographers opportunity to photograph the owl.

[James Shadle]

Don,
"No, they did not accidentally flush the bird he used clumsy field craft and spooked his subject I have done it and will do it again push to close lose the opportunity curse myself for missing the shot and life goes on"

Don,
Are you saying that you will use "clumsy field craft" in the future?
Accidents happen, misjudgements happen but there really is no reason someone can't improve their "field craft".

[Don Lacy]

Don,
Are you saying that you will use "clumsy field craft" in the future?
Accidents happen, misjudgements happen but there really is no reason someone can't improve their "field craft".
No what I am saying is there is always the chance I will make a misjudgment and flush my subject. I will also use calls and other means to get subjects in range what I will not do is repeatedly push a subject again they used poor judgement and field craft the sign is a joke this is a land use area set up for hunting and interaction with wildlife and again no one was said they broke any laws or were in a restricted area if the authorities were that concern with the Owls welfare they would disallow the hunting.

[Todd Frost]

The actions of these photographers is certainly not what I would consider appropriate as the actions were obviously intentional. Re: the area, I have made two trip up there and will likely make a couple more and from my understanding the marshy area is not part of the Boundary Bay refuge and is indeed a hunting area and any rules of the refuge are not enforcible out in the marsh. Perhaps Dave Leroy can confirm this as he lives and frequents the area.

[Dave Leroy]

This area is part of a Regional Park and open to the public. Hunting is allowed during specific seasons. The bit of duck hunting that does take place here has very limited effect on the owls. There are a few shooters and fewer hunters that do use this area. The owls, as far as I can see, have not been effected and can very easily move away. I would think the bigger impact would be wayward photographers on the hunters. The hunters generally follow a trail down to the waters edge and then turn off to their hunting spots. Windsurfers will at times also use the same trail. The trail is not in the prime resting area for the owls.

I find it hard to imagine someone on the dyke throwing sticks or stones at someone who spooked an owl. If there was an isolated instance then I would assign the term wing nut to whoever did it.

I think the issue with those in the video is what did they do next? Did they pursue that owl or try their luck getting close to another?

From what I saw of the video I think the intention was to use a short focal length to get a decent shot of the owl and Mt. Baker in the bg. Poor understanding, field craft or judgement was used. Certainly not new from what I have seen out there.

These owls seem to be all right. The bigger effect may be what these Snowy owls are doing to the other regular users of this habitat such as Harriers, GBH's and SE'd owls. The food source is generally the same. And what impact do 10, 20 or 30 photographers wandering around in the foreshore have on the area generally?

[Don Lacy]

Dave, Thanks for the information. So their only sins are using poor field craft and judgement in an area they are allowed to be in. One last question, if you do not mind is the sign shown at the beginning of the video located in this marsh area.

[John Chardine]

Dave, Thanks for the information. So their only sins are using poor field craft and judgement in an area they are allowed to be in. One last question, if you do not mind is the sign shown at the beginning of the video located in this marsh area.

You're really on a mission Don. "Fill your boots" as they say here down east.

[Don Lacy]

You're really on a mission Don. "Fill your boots" as they say here down east.Silly me my only agenda is the truth and some of the comments on this site could be consider defamation of character beginning with the accusation which has been proven false of criminal behavior and if I was one of the men pictured in your post on pane 5 the owners of this site would have heard from my lawyer by now. Not sure what you mean with the fill your boots comment but I am pretty sure it was meant in a derogative way if I was wrong please enlighten me.

[Dave Leroy]

Roughly from one end of the bay to the other is 15 miles or so. Each end has access and adjacent parking. Then at three locations along the length, country roads which dead end up against the dyke have been enlarged to allow for parking. At 72nd St there is a park bulletin board with details about Boundary Bay, local animals and some regional activities. I believe there is a sign here talking and explaining about the owls. Then climbing up onto the dyke is another enlarged area with some more touristy info all at grade. There are some boulders and touristy type signs with more info about Dunlin and the like. There are also signs by the Regional District here and at times large posters by local naturalists telling people not to disturb the owls.

The area is pretty cleared marked about disturbing the birds.

I watched the video again and noticed a couple more things. The fellow did get very low to approach the owl which was fine although perhaps not necessary. I am pretty sure that as he gets closer to the owl the owl starts to fidget turning its head about possibly looking for a way out. Time to absolutely stop movement. The fellow continues moving about and I think it is then possible to see the owl starting to stretch. Another bad sign and the moving around continues and the owl flies away. Then at the very end as the camera follows the owls flying away we can see others moving in on the owl as well. This additional movement may also have triggered some action from the owl.

It is very typical to see owls out in the foreshore being popped up and not so the ones close to the dyke.

[Don Lacy]

Thanks Dave all I was interested in was getting the truth of what was permitted by law in this area. I am sorry to ask another question but on average how many people are out in the marsh on any given day and again thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

[John Chardine]

You're really on a mission Don. "Fill your boots" as they say here down east.
It's just a phrase we use down here meaning "get on with it",

[Dave Leroy]

I am quite sure there is no specific law restricting access to the foreshore in this area. I also do not think there would be a specific law about the birds and or wildlife in this area. There would most likely be generic provincial laws about destroying habitat and harassing wildlife.

Early in December, going by memory, as the numbers of people continued to increase the Regional District did have a few people out with a small booth providing some information about not disturbing the owls. That lasted a day or two.

When the owls first started to show up about Nov 20., I think by the second day, when I happened to be out there, perhaps a dozen or so photographers were out and spread out over a 1 mile stretch. Within a couple weeks the numbers would have increased to 10 to 20 in the foreshore and twice as many on the dyke. On a sunny weekend day, when I would be avoiding the place I suspect perhaps 30 or so in the foreshore and again twice as many on the dyke. The dyke crowd would change through out the day and numbers would decrease in the foreshore.

I went out this past Tuesday in early dawn light to get into place in what turned out to be a cloudy poor light day with a strong wind off the water. There were owls around my area. On one large stump some way off there were perhaps 5 or 6 owls perched.

The only people I saw in the foreshore were couple, and they came off the dyke around 8:30. They headed into the foreshore in my general direction. They really were not familiar with the area and/or birding. They soon became cutoff from going further by a blind channel or water drainage. In trying to get around the channel they spooked all of the 5 or 6 snowies. What can you say.

For lack of light reasons I headed back to the dyke. There was a small group of Japanese birders on the dyke quite pleased with seeing the owls close to the dyke and a male harrier as it flew by.

I stayed away for most of December. When I went back in late December my strategy was to get out early in dawn light on the water side of the perches I had scouted out, preferably far out from the maddening crowds, and with the light at my back. I would then hang out and wait for a spooked owl to come to me. It often worked and at times owls would land within 50 feet. Unfortunately I got feed up again with just really simple people, and I stayed away.

I agree with Dan in the original post that even those who try hard to do the right and responsible things will be tarred with the same brush as the "others".

[Don Lacy]

Thanks again Dave I do hope your Marsh returns back to normal once the Owls move on.

[Jamie Strickland]

wow one word sums it up IDIOT ! I have never seen anything remotely close to that before and sure hope I never do, what an inconsiderate prick to the other photographers on top of everything else

[dankearl]

It was just bad field craft, but it really only was bad for the other photogs around. I don't think it was bad on the Owl.
I am in Ocean Shores, Wa as I type this, spent all day shooting Snowy's, with lots of people around.
I could get within 30 feet or so and never bothered or flushed one. I saw one or two flushed by people who just walked to close too fast.
The owls are pretty tame, not much contact with humans, you can tell.
The easiest to photo birds I have ever been around.
I would not be that hard on the guy.
A Mistake, but not criminal.

[Rick Poulin]

As a life long raptor bander the owl was not harmd in any way by the approach of the photographer. The owl would consider his approach a minor nuisence.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/Buckstopper/Snowy.jpg

This snowy was rather indignant that he could not secure the lure. He sat glaring at me from close range after he was released.

[John Chardine]

Dan and Rick- I probably agree that the flush was a minor nuisance. But as I mentioned above, you cannot look at each event like this in isolation. You have to look at the cumulative effects of repeated flushes over the course of a day or longer period, which could be significant in this area. This is an extremely important point that we ignore at our peril. Many of the millions of negative things we do to our environment may have little or no effect on their own, but taken together we are having a huge impact. It's analogous to "death by a thousand cuts". A common defence is "well, my impact is minimal so why punish me?". The answer is we all have to take responsibility for our individual actions, however small, because we don't live in isolation of others.

Also, the criminality of the behaviour illustrated here is not the issue, nor is the fact that hunting may go on in the general area (as mentioned by others above). Both steer interest way from the core issue of photographer ethics in this particular case. If you are interested in criminality, owls in Canada are provincially protected and could also be covered under federal, provincial or municipal statutes in protected areas or by species at risk provisions.

[Andrew Merwin]

Dan and Rick- I probably agree that the flush was a minor nuisance. But as I mentioned above, you cannot look at each event like this in isolation. You have to look at the cumulative effects of repeated flushes over the course of a day or longer period, which could be significant in this area. This is an extremely important point that we ignore at our peril. Many of the millions of negative things we do to our environment may have little or no effect on their own, but taken together we are having a huge impact. It's analogous to "death by a thousand cuts". A common defence is "well, my impact is minimal so why punish me?". The answer is we all have to take responsibility for our individual actions, however small, because we don't live in isolation of others.

Also, the criminality of the behaviour illustrated here is not the issue, nor is the fact that hunting may go on in the general area (as mentioned by others above). Both steer interest way from the core issue of photographer ethics in this particular case. If you are interested in criminality, owls in Canada are provincially protected and could also be covered under federal, provincial or municipal statutes in protected areas or by species at risk provisions.


John, a very good point & very well stated. Thanks for keeping the "bigger picture" in mind & reminding us of it.

[adrian dancy]

Thank you for providing us with your life long wisdom. Given the limitation of what happened in the field I would whole heartedly agree with you.The bird suffered only minor distress. I would also agree that what the photographer did in the field will result or has resulted in an embarrassment/condemnation dissproportionate to his transgression against bird photography ethics etc etc but this is now the internet age ....and there by the grace of god go I and many others. I hope the individual concerned and those with him take stock, learn from the this experience and move on, hopefully in a manner that would make them teach and save others from the same plight and then some good will come of it.

However, in my view, there is still a very valid point which your comment does not address and that is, who knows for sure what the cumulative affect is going to be on the owls being repeatedly disturbed. Anecdotal evidence suggesting they are doing well because they are popping up pellets is hardly convincing evidence. If Snowys are diurnal there will be little chance for them to feed when they are being surrounded and hearded by groups of photographers from dawn to dusk. It does seem to me, having looked at a number of videos and read reports from others, who on the face of it, have no particular axe to grind that there are sometimes 40-50 photographers in the vicinity of the owls. If these facts are correct I would find it hard to imagine that their behaviour has not been altered.

More generally and in relation to comments above, the flushing of birds will always happen. Common sense really. Many birds cope with it but some species are much more vulnerable. Most wildlife photography codes require that you take account of the individual species and the cumulative affect ones actions has on birds/wildlife and the codes require that you observe the wishes of the land owners/custodians or those entrusted to manage the land. Regarding conservationists as being militant does not allow you to draw up your own rules no matter how knowledgeable you think you are. References to hunters and other disturbances are red herrings and divert from the issue of how photographers should behave when what they do may add to an existing burden. The overriding principle being 'The welfare of the bird comes first'.

My views may change if confronted with solid evidence that the owls are in fact doing well.

I have every sympathy with folk who wish to photograph the birds, I'm glad I have not been faced with the dilema! It is not a matter about being self righteous...it's a matter of following standards based on common sense and reasonable ethics designed to help keep the birds we've got and to maintain a high esteem within the wider community. I stated above that for myself I would not encroach onto the marsh. That is just my view. However it does seem to me that some folk may have gotten too close by any standard though of course in some instances I am sure some images may have been made whilst on the path.

[Rick Poulin]

While every situation is different what I am commented on is this video and the reaction to it.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I know personally the damage that can be done to individual birds by overzealous photographers.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
On one of my local bird walks I found a Long -eared Owl nest. I stressed and asked the 100 or so participants to please respect this find and not advertise the location or otherwise disturb the owls going forward. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Within a week the nest had been vandalized (strong words but appropriate) by people trying to get photos. Limbs had been removed exposing the nest to direct sunlight and reducing its concealment from marauding crows. Both nestlings were found dead.