The ethics of bird photography with a 250-mm lens

Yesterday morning I went back out to the fledgling (I think that's what they are) little green herons. I did get some images, and I'll post one tonight.

Late yesterday afternoon I went out again, and one was in the clear on a low branch. When it saw me it started walking up the branch to get back into the leaves, and something just happened in my brain and I said to myself, "No. I can't be responsible for this, for making these young birds have to find cover." And now I think that's the case for all birds.

Yesterday morning when I was sitting watching the little green herons what I think is a young male cardinal landed on the fence appearing to want to see what I was doing and near enough for a photo, so I have that, too, and I don't feel bad at all about any occasions where a bird might approach me or land near me. But I'm not going to be the reason birds have to walk or fly away anymore.

This has been bothering me for a while, and last evening with the little green heron just made it fall into place. It also might have been bothering people that have been observing my efforts on NPN that I have been trying to get that close to birds. I don't know if anyone has any thoughts or comments about this, but I just wanted to let you all know.

Your concern here, I feel, is enough indication that *you* do not cause undue stress to birds and other wildlife. Most everything we see in the wild is a "prey" animal and as such they must be extremely cautious to survive. I think we all have seen wildlife get used to our presence and relax abit about our being near. That experience tells me that they understand us by our movements and therefore moving with very slow, non-challenging approach should be our goal. I feel there is some reverence that the general public gains from vieweing good wildlife images so we may be doing some good by doing it cautiously and right (what ever that is).

I have a question about how I might, with caution, get better insect photos that touches on ethics that I will post also.

This is an ongoing issue and has been discussed in various forms here at NPN over the years. Its one of those sticky situations where there are few clear cut boundaries and many gray areas.

Personally, I try not to disturb any subject: if a bird is still where I found it when I have finished taking photos I'm happy. I'm not always successful, of course. Over time I've gained experience and so will you.

Moving slowly and avoiding excessive noise are obvious advantages. Learning to "read" your subject is important. The Green Heron that moved away is one example - understanding that as you did is a good sign that you are paying attention and showing concern.

If birds approach you as you sit or stand quietly you are doing well; if birds escape i panic as you approach and all you get are shots from behind you aren't doing well.

So, continue to be sensitive. Avoid the obvious things that put your potential subjects into escape mode. Don't do things that could cause real harm (flashing owls at night; baiting hawks and owls).

Having a certain amount of reverence for birds is good, but I would not get too worked up over an occasional crossing the line. Most of us have inadvertently (and sometimes deliberately) crossed that line into the bird's flight reflex. Personally, I adhere to a very slow stalk, sometimes on my knees and sometimes on my belly (not very often—arthritis). If you need some salve for your conscience, consider the following: after a slow and careful 5 minute crawl, and I am ready to photograph a flock of shorebirds, some idiot jogger listening to a tune from his earbuds, or some moony couple holding hands, gazing into each other's eyes, deliberately jogs or walks through the whole flock, startling everyone to wholesale flight. Now that chafes my buns! At least photographers, particularly NPN photographers, take many precautions to avoid stressing wildlife. And we learn as we go, if we are observant at all.

If your goal is to never spook a bird again, you'll certainly fail (unless you stop bird photography altogether). However, I applaud your decision to try not to stress your subjects excessively. There have been many discussion about the ethics of animal photography here on NPN, and a lot of people seem to agree that trying to reduce the stress for the animals is the right thing to do, but that completely eliminating any stress is almost impossible (unless you stay home, that is). So, the question is whether there is an obvious way to reduce your impact on the animals. And I think your title clearly says what you think is the obvious way to do so - using a longer lens (I may have missed previous discussions on that topic, though). I agree with that - that will reduce frustration for you, and stress for the animals.

As you mentioned ethics in your title - is it unethical to shoot birds with a 250 mm lens? I don't think that this can be said that way. I think that it would be unethical to approach birds in situations where they can not escape, or pushing closer in situations where the bird is clearly heading for cover already. Now the thing is, I guess when using a short lens, a photographer may be more likely to engage in such behaviour, because he/she can't fill the frame otherwise. Which would be inappropriate behaviour (in my opinion). However, I'd say that as long as you are aware of what you're doing (and you seem to be), and when to stop, using a short lens for bird photography is not necessarily unethical.

Thank you all so much for your replies and comments. Charlie's comments really shone some light on this for me, and the rest of you continued to clarify it. I really appreciate it.