Zvi and VA-Birders, I'm not trying to stir up the "photographer vs. birder"
debate. I think there's room for both, but Zvi's post just brought it to the
forefront again.
I read Zvi's post which wondered about the potential disappearance of the
Screech Owl at Dyke Marsh. I viewed Zvi's photo of the bird and I have to say
that I was saddened by it. Human disturbance is already a major issue in
harming birds and other wildlife, and I would like to address this by using
this photo as an example of how bird-loving photographers are hurting their
subjects. I'm not attempting to publicly shame you Zvi, just hoping to share
some thoughts as you and many others enjoy the wonderful art of photography.
The Screech Owl is obviously a nocturnal bird with some of the best
night-vision eyes out there. Unfortunately, this photo does not reflect any
concern for the well-being of the owl. There is not an inch of the bird and the
surrounding tree that is not excessively lit up. Unfortunately, many of the
shots I have seen of this and other owls exhibit the same issue of flash
overkill.
I have dabbled in nature photography and have been honored to have photographs
published in magazines, textbooks and on informational signs that appear at
dozens of nature preserves, etc, around the country, so I truly understand the
need and value in obtaining great shots of wildlife. However, my wish as
someone that cares about the welfare of birds is that photographers would
understand the difference between using the flash with a dead-on
light-up-the-night blast versus the much gentler method of cranking up your
ISO, playing with the aperture and using the flash to gently fill in some
ambient light.
Think about what temporarily happens to your vision if, at night, someone were
to shine a flashlight in your eyes. Permanent damage will not result, but it
sure takes a while to be able to see properly again. That's what happens to
owls as well. Consider the bother these birds go through when multiple overkill
flashes from one or more cameras are assaulting them frequently at night.
Here is an excerpt from Dr. Dennis Olivero, a veterinary opthamologist, and Dr.
Donald Cohen, an opthamologist:
"...use of flash may cause a temporary reduction in vision for 5-20 minutes. It
takes one hour of dark conditioning to achieve maximum electrical responses
from rod cells in the retina. The regeneration of rod function even after
“bleaching” by a bright light is not linear with time. Animals and birds
probably have 50% return of function in the first five minutes, and 75% in
another five minutes. The rods are rapidly moving from zero function to full
sensitivity during that time, with the greatest return of function per time
unit occurring in the first 10-15 minutes." See more at:
http://www.naturescapes.net/articles/health/flash-photography-and-the-visual-system-of-birds-and-animals/#sthash.EwtUb7W3.dpuf
To sum, bright flash photography is certainly not going to kill or even blind
an owl, but it does greatly affect its nightly routine of emerging from its
cavity, surveying its surroundings, allowing its eyes to adjust for the light
levels, and finally commencing its hunt.
Perhaps if flash-using photographers could adapt and be more gentle in their
approach, then the owl would also adapt, tolerate a bit of gentle
papparazi-fever, and remain content and healthy in its trailside tree. We all
appreciate great photos of the birds we love, lets just try to obtain them in a
less harmful way.
Just some thoughts,
Steve Hersey, Alexandria, VA
