Boundary Bay Owl being flushed by a photographer! UGH!

[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.

I know personally the damage that can be done to individual birds by overzealous photographers.

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.

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.