Too Close for Comfort

Recent article posted by Audubon.

https://www.audubon.org/magazine/may...-close-comfort

It is a well written one-sided article. However, in response to Kevin's view on an owl-in-flight example from this year’s Audubon photo contest, I would like to say that Kevin has absolutely no clue to owl's behavior and how an owl in flight shot can be achieved at night.
We spent a lot of time putting out natural man made boxes for these owls and studied their behavior and feeding pattern. Understand their behavior is why we have so much success in capturing these images. It can be done ethically.
I would like to extend an invite to you, Kevin, to spend 2 hours in one evening with me in Florida next season to show you how I can capture these images of owl in flight without using bait or call.

https://scontent-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hp...de&oe=55989A59

Troy, it is interesting that you post this as the other thread from Mike Hitchens is much on the same topic. I just read the entire article, and good points are made by all. It was refreshing to see the Audubon folks talk about working with the Photographers, I think the crux of this issue lies there, and people on both sides have to put aside the attitude of past annoyances.

Since specific people were mentioned in the article, and for full disclosure I know none of them, I think it is also very important for all of us to not jump to conclusions from what we read, there may very well be other sides to those stories that we are not aware of.

Thanks for pointing this out, very interesting reading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Dewey

Troy, it is interesting that you post this as the other thread from Mike Hitchens is much on the same topic. I just read the entire article, and good points are made by all. It was refreshing to see the Audubon folks talk about working with the Photographers, I think the crux of this issue lies there, and people on both sides have to put aside the attitude of past annoyances.

Since specific people were mentioned in the article, and for full disclosure I know none of them, I think it is also very important for all of us to not jump to conclusions from what we read, there may very well be other sides to those stories that we are not aware of.

Thanks for pointing this out, very interesting reading.

---

I agree that both sides need to work together. However, I have been photographing birds since 2010. I can tell you that ALL my encounters with Audubon people locally in Sarasota has not been a pleasant. The volunteers, including the president of the local chapter were all militant and very rude. Every time they opened their mouth, it was always confrontational. It is sad but true.
Kevin has no clue of the owl behavior, I was appalled when I read that section of the article. The fledglings that I photographed in the last few years all fledged successfully. That's why I extend my invitation to Kevin, to show him that capturing owl in flight ethically without using call or bait is truly possible. It will certainly be an educational trip for him.

This article is one sided - from the Audubon point of view. While Jim did enter a guilty plea, the costs of defense were overwhelming. It was the choice of the lesser of two evils (cost of fighting vs plea bargain rather than stand up for his rights which should have included innocent until proven guilty). The article paints him as guilty without giving both points of view.

I am in agreement with Artie's comments on the tick and run crowd, essentially the possession of a large lens makes you guilty by association.

Out here in Oregon, the tick and run crowd threatened to slash a guy's tires if he approached a snowy owl in Astoria by closer than spotting scope distance.

To say they are confrontational is an understatement I will never forget being yelled at by a volunteer at Ft Desoto by the mulberry trees my first year there because I was standing to close to the fountain. She told me I was hurting the birds because they could not use the fountain to drink embarrisng me in front of everyone there. The following year the fountian was turned off, its that divorced from reality attitude when it comes to nature and human interaction with it that I have issues with. Anyone who has spent time in the field photographing knows that proximity to an animal does not automatically induce stress, if you take your time or allow them to come to you they will often get extremely close without altering their behavior. So there really is no way to define to close to a set distance the birds will define it for them selfs. The articles main premise is also suspect, Gatorland, Aligator Farm, Wakodahatchee, and Ahinga Trail get more foot traffic in a single day then Alfaia Banks gets in ten years and those rookerys thrive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Nelson

This article is one sided - from the Audubon point of view. While Jim did enter a guilty plea, the costs of defense were overwhelming. It was the choice of the lesser of two evils (cost of fighting vs plea bargain rather than stand up for his rights which should have included innocent until proven guilty). The article paints him as guilty without giving both points of view.

I am in agreement with Artie's comments on the tick and run crowd, essentially the possession of a large lens makes you guilty by association.

Out here in Oregon, the tick and run crowd threatened to slash a guy's tires if he approached a snowy owl in Astoria by closer than spotting scope distance.

---

Well said, it is one sided!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Lacy

To say they are confrontational is an understatement I will never forget being yelled at by a volunteer at Ft Desoto by the mulberry trees my first year there because I was standing to close to the fountain. She told me I was hurting the birds because they could not use the fountain to drink embarrisng me in front of everyone there. The following year the fountian was turned off, its that divorced from reality attitude when it comes to nature and human interaction with it that I have issues with. Anyone who has spent time in the field photographing knows that proximity to an animal does not automatically induce stress, if you take your time or allow them to come to you they will often get extremely close without altering their behavior. So there really is no way to define to close to a set distance the birds will define it for them selfs. The articles main premise is also suspect, Gatorland, Aligator Farm, Wakodahatchee, and Ahinga Trail get more foot traffic in a single day then Alfaia Banks gets in ten years and those rookerys thrive.

---

I love this response, that is what I always say, they never worry about their own presence among the birds but it is wrong that photographers with long lenses are there. BS!

“Hey, listen, do I ever scare a bird by getting too close? Yeah, once in a while,” Morris said. “So does everybody who walks to the beach and goes outdoors and opens the door of their house or their cabin. I try to do my best and not do anything that will have a negative impact on the birds, especially nesting birds.”

Too often on the west coast, the tick and run crowd were the ones that were causing the Snowy owls to fly -- by trying to get too close with their point and shoot cameras. It was never the long lens photographers.....

My own favorite personal encounter was during the Snowy Owl irruption a few years back at Boundary Bay BC. Why they picked on me, I'll never know, as I was one of several bazillion folks in the field. In my case I actually go to the trouble of carrying a Range Finder, Nikon of course :w3, and stay about 25-30 yards away, unless a bird comes close or I accidentally walk around a bush and one is standing there. As I came out of the field, a "kind soul" starts asking me if I understand Bird Ethics, so I start spouting, paraphrasing because I am too lazy to memorize, the stuff off the Audubon site, and others. Didn't matter. Of course it didn't seem to make a dent either when I pointed to the 10 or so Owls that were 10 feet off the dike where everyone was walking, yelling, screaming and the dogs were running at the owls. Funny thing, the Owls didn't give a rip, they sat there and stared. Or when the Owl Rehab folks came out to rescue an injured owl, one of the bunch within 10 feet of the dike. As they approached, what a surprise, all the owls flushed. Funny part, so did the "injured" one, they said "Gee, guess it didn't need rehab after all". Yes, this stuff happens, we all have our stories.

The problem is that as long as both sides refuse to set "yesterday" behind, we won't make progress. Understand, I am NOT pointing any fingers here at Artie, Jim, myself, you or the Man in the Moon, just making an observation. Bad part is that it is tough to weed out the "busy bodies" from those who actually understand behavior, but we as photographers are not without blame as well. One spot that I had year round access to I can no longer go, because a couple of folks who guide tours went there during hunting season and not only bothered the bird, but the hunters and birders as well. Land owner had enough of that. By the way, that is the LAST time I pass along information to someone I don't trust explicitly, and that is sad indeed.

Don, it would not surprise me at all if you and I had not seen each other at Boundary Bay, Damon Point or Stanwood over the last few years.

It is one sided...after reading it a few times...

I just finished reading this article in the Audubon magazine and was simply astonished by the one-sided nature of the writing. It seemed to me to be a smear job trying to portray wildlife photographers as uncaring villains, while glossing over the actions of the two self-styled (and apparently self-uniformed) Audubon "wardens" who seemly spend their days boating around harassing anyone involved in recreational or photographic activities. It is this sort of heavy-handed, sanctimonious attitude that costs the Audubon credibility. (And I say that as a member of the Audubon society).

I am always amazed that two groups (Bird watchers and nature photographers) whom both have such a love and respect for nature can't find common ground. I've seen the same type of attitudes in our area. This past winter a well-known birder in our area posted on ebird.org that "Nature photographers" were pushing the snowy owls and causing them to fly away. He failed to mention the large crowds of tourists with phone-cameras and point and shoots. This past weekend, our local Audubon society sponsored a "nature walk" to learn about and identify birds migrating through the area. It turned out to be a group of over 30 people moving through the woods with all the grace of an angry herd of buffalo. I would imagine they managed to stress a bird or two.

There are always going to be a few bad apples in every group. I just don't see a need to paint all photographers (or all birders) with such a broad brush.

Interesting that so soon after this Audubon article this news story comes out on our ABC local news. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/ra...s-in-tampa-bay.

Ironically, all the rookeries and birds appear to be doing great as per Mark Rachel in this new story, the same Audubon mouthpiece who had a rather different report in his original smear campaign of nature photographers.