# Flash and wildlife



## sanj (Apr 18, 2016)

http://www.naturettl.com/does-flash-photography-harm-animals/

I agree with this.


----------



## Click (Apr 18, 2016)

Very good information. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 18, 2016)

Thank you for sharing that link, sanj.

I believe this topic has been discussed here before but this article is quite interesting.
Short summary what I did understand and found relevant:
- The author is referring to animal’s eye physiology.
- But only the ones of mammals and - with some restrictions as of the similar physiology - to the eyes of birds and other vertebrates.
- There are no real studies if flash light is causing harm or death to animals or if it is disturbing their normal behavior.
- Contrary to this there seems to be the observation that some mammals really don’t care.
- The author’s conclusion: in general flash photography does not cause harm or distress to animals when ambient light conditions are adequate. 
But it still is better to avoid it. 

This argumentation is something I cannot disprove scientifically. And I am glad that he still comes to the conclusion to avoid it.
Nonetheless I'd like to add my opinion here as well:
- The author fails in the assumption that eye’s physiology is the same or similar, even if we stay just with vertebrates. 
And of course this cannot be maintained if we proceed to other classes.
- If I can believe the statement of a zoo keeper and the warning signs in the Stuttgart Zoo “Wilhelma” some cave fishes really can die (!) from flashlight. 
So other light sensitive animals will also suffer or even die if that is true.
- And personally I can remember the time quite well when digital photography started and everybody having a P&S now not caring about photography before was firing away like there was a competition in faster battery draining. It was so annoying to me that I sometimes left the room or party. And if it’s annoying to human eyes it must be annoying to more sensitive eyes as well.
So I avoid it as much as I can. 
But I also must confess that a few times I did use some fill flash with insects, but only in bright sunlight.


----------



## j-nord (Apr 20, 2016)

Thanks for sharing, I've recently been thinking about using some fill flash for bird photography in my back yard. I haven't been able to get the sharpness I want even in good lighting and extremely close distances. I think in the case of mammals it should be avoided. With birds however, it doesn't seem to phase them at all, as if they can't even see it (based off all sorts of video I've seen showing this type of shooting). With out more research, it's a tough call but always better to air on the side of caution.


----------



## applecider (Apr 20, 2016)

Good thing flash isn't too bad, because lightning would be devastating, Might even cause mass extinction.

Granted flash and lightning might have different wavelengths so their effects could be different, but for just the rods it probably makes no difference.

I avoid flashing birds about to land or other situations where a brief loss of vision could harm, but otherwise no worries. I'm sure the absolute purists think natural lighting is the only way so be it. 

The hummingbirds that I feed get used to the flashes,three and in their faces, after about two flashes. I wonder if they see birdies?


----------



## weixing (Apr 25, 2016)

Hi,
Although, I think using flash properly generally will not cause any issue with adult birds, but I don't recommend using it on juvenile birds base on my personal experience... I had seen juvenile birds startle when using flash on them and one of the juvenile kingfisher nearly fall down from the tree when I use flash on it...  One of the main reason I decided not to use flash.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Zeidora (Apr 25, 2016)

I find it amusing that animals = vertebrates. The vast majority of animals are members of various invert phyla. And in close-up photography (most animals are small), using flashes close to the animal (= "large" light source for soft lighting) there is also the heat aspect. That stimulus may actually be stronger than light change for ectotherm organisms compared in homeotherms.

I've noticed very short term reaction in terrestrial snails (partial retraction of optic stalks), nothing in insects including highly visual Mantodea, nothing in other arthropods (Arachnida, Acari, Solifugae, Uropygi, Myriapoda, etc.), nothing in worms (Annelida, Nematoda, Nematomopha, Turbellaria, etc.) either.

No experience with mammals or birds. They are over-photographed, so don't bother with them.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 25, 2016)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> Although, I think using flash properly generally will not cause any issue with adult birds, but I don't recommend using it on juvenile birds base on my personal experience... I had seen juvenile birds startle when using flash on them and one of the juvenile kingfisher nearly fall down from the tree when I use flash on it...  One of the main reason I decided not to use flash.
> 
> Have a nice day.



Anecdotal evidence? The fact that the bird was clearly a juvenile might be why it clumsily fell, and you just thought you had cause and effect worked out.

Or it might have seen you behind the flash at that moment and been startled by your appearance?

I wonder where the myth started? There are those photographers who think flash is never a good thing, either because it is "artificial" or too complicated. Depends on the level of honesty...

On the other hand, a constant barrage of flash would be maddening...Which might explain why so many rock stars and politicians are completely nuts?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 26, 2016)

I've spent quite a few hours photographing chickadees and whoever else drops by with a 600Ex-RT double flash setup and there is no question that the smaller birds are startled because I've caught their reaction to the pre-flash many times. As a result I've moved to manual.

However, it never has discouraged them from coming back, nor have I observed any erratic flight or activities. My African Grey is most fascinated by bright lights and has not shown any adverse effects from being photographed with flash, although I don't do it too often. 

I'm on the side of it being generally fine with maybe some small caveats. 

Jack


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 14, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> weixing said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...



It wasn't so bad. He said the juvenile "nearly" fell out of his treeeeeeeeeeeeeee...plop.


----------



## retroreflection (Jun 14, 2016)

Lightning is a good baseline for assessing risk from flash. Full sun to deep shade is another. A species not adapted to these common variations in illumination level would either have to restrict their exposure (cave fish) or not be long on this earth.
That all assumes reasonable flash power. There is film of Harold Edgerton demonstrating the strobe he built for nighttime aerial photography during WWII, it can set a sheet of newspaper on fire. On a more reasonable level, I was once in a film museum in Dusseldorf and I triggered a flash as I walked into some passage. It staggered me. If I were flying at speed through a forest, could I have lost sight of obstacles and crashed into a tree? I only hope I could take some ewoks out with me.
I'm not prepared to lay out the math, but daylight flash luminance should not exceed full sun. Nighttime flash should be a few stops below that. High ISO is there for a reason. Chose the number of stops yourself. Avoid flashing eyes that never see the sun. Finally, put your own head in the setup, see how you like it.


----------



## Eldar (Jun 14, 2016)

retroreflection said:


> Lightning is a good baseline for assessing risk from flash. Full sun to deep shade is another. A species not adapted to these common variations in illumination level would either have to restrict their exposure (cave fish) or not be long on this earth.
> That all assumes reasonable flash power. There is film of Harold Edgerton demonstrating the strobe he built for nighttime aerial photography during WWII, it can set a sheet of newspaper on fire. On a more reasonable level, I was once in a film museum in Dusseldorf and I triggered a flash as I walked into some passage. It staggered me. If I were flying at speed through a forest, could I have lost sight of obstacles and crashed into a tree? I only hope I could take some ewoks out with me.
> I'm not prepared to lay out the math, but daylight flash luminance should not exceed full sun. Nighttime flash should be a few stops below that. High ISO is there for a reason. Chose the number of stops yourself. Avoid flashing eyes that never see the sun. Finally, put your own head in the setup, see how you like it.


I am not sure I agree with the lightning/flash comparison. Lightning will illuminate the entire surroundings from above, as a long light line, whereas a flash is a point source, probably directed directly against the animal´s/bird´s line of vision. I have never been blinded by lightning, but I certainly have from a flash.

Personally I have not used a flash, for bird or animal photography, for a very long time. I do not photograph at night though. I have lost some good opportunities because of that, but not more than I can live with. My reason is probably split between laziness (I hate flashes) and not knowing how it affects the animals/birds. My current cameras also perform so good in low light that I do not find it to be a seriously limiting factor. Life was a bit different in the old film days, when I used Kodachrome 200 and Ektachrome 400 ...


----------



## takesome1 (Jun 14, 2016)

retroreflection said:


> Lightning is a good baseline for assessing risk from flash. Full sun to deep shade is another. A species not adapted to these common variations in illumination level would either have to restrict their exposure (cave fish) or not be long on this earth.



A lightning storm can wipe turkeys out. They panic and especially in the evening they will leave the roost out of fear. 

If Lightning is a good baseline for using a flash by wildlife photographers, I would say that photographers are not a good baseline for determining if one is a conservationist.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 19, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> retroreflection said:
> 
> 
> > Lightning is a good baseline for assessing risk from flash. Full sun to deep shade is another. A species not adapted to these common variations in illumination level would either have to restrict their exposure (cave fish) or not be long on this earth.
> ...



Luckily my 600EX-RTs have silent flashing mode so that there are no raucous thunder claps to scare turkeys from their roosts. 

The nest is on the ground. Eggs are hatched on the ground. Poults are brooded on the ground beneath the hen's wings rain or shine. All turkeys do in the roost is sleep. Until a bird is mature enough to fly (10-12 days) it sleeps on the ground. Coming down out of the roost doesn't kill them. They see quite well at night.

I have no idea what lightning by itself, much less a camera flash, has to do with busting a turkey roost and "wiping" them out.

Birds survive lightning and thunder storms in the wild their whole lives. Comparing one's pidley camera flash to such natural storms is just plain silly.

Want to be a real conservationist? Buy a hunting license and quit sweating the small stuff. 

At least when one buys a hunting license one actually contributes $$$ to conserving the animals and their habitat. Worrying about flash one way or the other does absolutely nothing.


----------



## sanj (Jun 19, 2016)

Brilliant CanonFanBoy.


----------



## takesome1 (Jun 19, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > retroreflection said:
> ...



You are right, it isn't the lightning by itself that kills them. It is the bobcats and coyotes that get them at night while they are on the ground. And yes they hatch and live on stay on the ground for some time, maybe that is why they lay multiple eggs because of some of those babies are going to be eaten at night. 

Lightning storms can be devastating for Turkeys because it will scare them off the roost. This make easy meals for the predators. But that is nature, your flash is not.

I do not need to buy another hunting license, I have already bought a lifetime license years ago. I also spend several thousands of dollars every year to improve habitat on my land for turkey specifically and wildlife in general.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 19, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



Yup, that is why they lay multiple eggs.

I don't buy that thunderstorms are so devastating to Turkeys in general. They spend the vast majority of their lives on the ground... so they are always a target for predators. That is nothing new, thunder or no thunder.

They don't return to the roost no matter the weather until it is roostin' time.

You said a lightning storm will wipe Turkeys out. Not true. Actually, you meant predators would wipe them out if busted off the roost at night. Still not true. If true there wouldn't be a single turkey left in the southeast United States.

Maybe one would be lost now and then, but that happens on bright sunny days too.

Good for you on the lifetime license. Good for you on your land stewardship. 

That still doesn't make your _*exaggerated claim of Turkeys being wiped out*_ true.

Camera flash isn't anything even close to nature in her fury during a storm. Camera flash ain't gonna bust no Turkey roost and make them disappeared. It doesn't scare away birds at all. It is so quiet and quick the birds, and their predators, have been completely unaffected in my experience. 

So I agree, my flash isn't nature. Nature is far more harsh and yet, the Turkeys survive. Nature has been busting Turkey roosts for millennia.

I've never hunted Wild Turkey or big game (deer, elk, etc.) Don't like the taste of either so there is no reason for me to do so. If I'm not going to eat it I won't hunt it. However, I'll take some cottontail or squirrel stew anytime. Sometimes even groundhog. 

Where I live now, Jackrabbits are the choice... and I choose not to go there yet.

BTW: The likelihood of any photographer going out at night to use flash to photograph turkeys on the roost are slim and none.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 20, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> So I agree, my flash isn't nature. Nature is far more harsh and yet, the Turkeys survive. Nature has been busting Turkey roosts for millennia.



I would guess that turkeys, and other wildlife, would have evolved to shelter in a storm, and not to look directly at lightning. I would guess that they have not evolved to recognize a Speedlite with a Beamer, and so would not be so prepared when the light strikes them directly in the eyes. That said, I think there's a big difference between using fill flash at dawn/dusk and using full-power in the dark.

It's entirely possible that you're correct, that flashes don't hurt most/all wildlife. I prefer to err on the side of not doing harm until I hear of a consensus of wildlife biologists that it's so. It's possible to make all sorts of false inferences from simplified principles of evolution.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 20, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



Yeah, that's what I'm doing.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jun 20, 2016)

Hi Folks. 
I don't know that firing a full flash in the dark won't cause a problem for turkeys or other wildlife, but as they would in general be trying to sleep I don't see the need. As for other circumstances I have found that if animals don't like what you are doing they do one of two things, fight or flee, the seagull that thought I was parked (in a public car park) too close to her nest, about 20' vertical separation and much more separation horizontally proceeded to dive at me, repeatedly! Conversely when my cat has had enough of being brushed she leaves, as do some of the small birds that I photograph using flash, the others just go about their business of eating the food I am paying them with! 
I would not force them to endure flash if they were unable to leave for example caged. 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 20, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > So I agree, my flash isn't nature. Nature is far more harsh and yet, the Turkeys survive. Nature has been busting Turkey roosts for millennia.
> ...



Well, Turkeys don't know ahead of time when a lightning flash is coming and when to look away.  They don't when a flash with a beamer is either. But if lightning doesn't blind them, neither does a speedlight. Speedlights just are not that powerful. We don't need a biologist to tell us that.

Turkeys stay in the roost during storms unless they are scared from the roost by thunder.

The fact remains that speedlights don't bust Turkey roosts and that Turkeys aren't wiped out when thunder scares them down either... which is what takesome1 alleged.

Now, I wish somebody could scrounge up a video of Turkeys flying down from the roost and getting "wiped out" because a photographer flashed them.

By all means do what your conscience dictates. You are on the right track. I can't disagree with your opinion one bit.

I just don't buy takesome1's frightful warning that turkeys are wiped out when scared off the roost by thunder and that speedlite flash must be just as detrimental.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 20, 2016)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Folks.
> I don't know that firing a full flash in the dark won't cause a problem for turkeys or other wildlife, but as they would in general be trying to sleep I don't see the need. As for other circumstances I have found that if animals don't like what you are doing they do one of two things, fight or flee, the seagull that thought I was parked (in a public car park) too close to her nest, about 20' vertical separation and much more separation horizontally proceeded to dive at me, repeatedly! Conversely when my cat has had enough of being brushed she leaves, as do some of the small birds that I photograph using flash, the others just go about their business of eating the food I am paying them with!
> I would not force them to endure flash if they were unable to leave for example caged.
> 
> Cheers, Graham.



8) Before long there will be bans on photographing anything. Buildings, bugs, birds, and even people.

While I have never photographed a Turkey with flash, much less in the middle of the night when they are sleeping, I have set up flash pointed at branches etc. where male songbirds frequent during the spring or whenever I observe it. They have never seemed annoyed, it doesn't interrupt their songs, and they keep returning to those spots flash after flash.

Turkeys, unlike songbirds, are very wary animals when on the ground. Ask any hunter who does his best to conceal himself. Trying to setup flash ahead of time or use a beamer to photograph them as though they were songbirds is a little pointless. Getting close enough would be extremely difficult.

Smart post Graham    Not my photo.


----------



## takesome1 (Jun 20, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> While I have never photographed a Turkey with flash
> 
> Ask any hunter



So you speak from experience.

Many responsible competent Turkey hunters would tell you to stay away from the Turkey's roost and to leave the birds alone when they are on the roost.

Most photographers would tell you that you need to use a flash when it is dusk and dawn. 

Most responsible competent Turkey hunters would tell you that at those times you have to be to close to the roost move away.

So enlighten us from your lack of experience some more.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 21, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > While I have never photographed a Turkey with flash
> ...



I should have warned you not to jump into the deep end if you can't swim. Let me throw you a life ring. :

Do you hunt Turkeys? You blast them don't you? With a shotgun? I don't hunt them because I don't like eating them. They don't taste good to me.

But here we are... you're worried about flash while you are wiping out Turkeys with your shotgun. Nice. Just go away. I've already told you we don't have to agree, yet you seem to demand compliance with your perspective. You aren't getting that from me. BTW: I'll bet your shotgun busts a roost much better than a piddly little speedlite. Your shotgun flashes too. Oh my!!!


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 21, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Want to be a real conservationist? Buy a hunting license and quit sweating the small stuff.
> 
> At least when one buys a hunting license one actually contributes $$$ to conserving the animals and their habitat. Worrying about flash one way or the other does absolutely nothing.



I laughed when I read that comment.... mostly because it is true yet mostly misunderstood....

For example, Ducks Unlimited, a hunting organization, has done more in North America to protect waterfowl than anyone else..... after all, if they go extinct or onto the protected list, no more hunting....

I work on a site where we have a military firing range. The place is silly with deer and turkeys.... they wander around without fear. They walk across the range in the middle of an exercise, all firing stops until they cross, then once it is clear, the shooting resumes. If they can adapt to a hundred soldiers wailing away at targets, a flash is trivial....


----------



## arthurbikemad (Jun 21, 2016)

It will pay animals to learn to avoid mankind haha! That way they may survive a little longer, if they have anywhere left to live in peace that is..

Same here, we also have a military firing range, a sanctuary for wildlife, only thing that ever needs continually telling that bullets kill, bullets are dangerous, don't walk on the range, red is for danger, flags are red and so on are dumb ass people!

I use a lot of OCF, never had any issues, other than sometimes the subject matter maybe a little off beat, if thats the case the flash just goes back in the bag..


----------



## Eldar (Jun 21, 2016)

I am sure many animals and birds accepts a flash without too much annoyance, especially if it is fill flash at dusk or dawn. But I have seen deer, moose and fox react and clearly have problem with their vision afterwards, I have seen birds crash into windows and trees after a full front flash and I have seen an elephant totally pissed off after a flash (I am glad he did´t find me ...), so nobody can convince me that it does not affect them. So again, I don´t use it, because I don´t like using it (I´m lazy) and the high ISO performance of my 1DX/1DX-II is sufficient in most cases.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 21, 2016)

Eldar said:


> I am sure many animals and birds accepts a flash without too much annoyance, especially if it is fill flash at dusk or dawn. But I have seen deer, moose and fox react and clearly have problem with their vision afterwards, I have seen birds crash into windows and trees after a full front flash and I have seen an elephant totally pissed off after a flash (I am glad he did´t find me ...), so nobody can convince me that it does not affect them. So again, I don´t use it, because I don´t like using it (I´m lazy) and the high ISO performance of my 1DX/1DX-II is sufficient in most cases.


Not pissing off an elephant is a good thing!  I understand that they can do a lot more damage than an annoyed chipmunk....


----------



## takesome1 (Jun 22, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



Still talking about things you have little or no knowledge of.
Keep going, occasionally you might hit on something that is correct.


----------



## takesome1 (Jun 22, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Want to be a real conservationist? Buy a hunting license and quit sweating the small stuff.
> ...



The National Wild Turkey Federation would be a better example in this situation.
http://www.nwtf.org/

Many military bases have wildlife biologist on staff, or they work with state or local dept of wildlife staff.
There are several bases in my state that have full time staff that manage the wildlife. So there is a reason they stop firing when the deer and turkey cross the firing range.


----------



## eml58 (Jun 22, 2016)

I know very little about Turkeys.

But I have used Flash quite a bit on wildlife both in the daytime and evening here in Africa.

Right now I'm in Mala Mala South Africa, last night I was using Flash on a Leopard that goes by the name of "The Bicycle Crossing Male", this is a magnificent animal, I first came across this Leopard 12 years ago when it was only a youngster, I'de say now at the age of 14 years old it's been photographed and Flashed more than Brad Pit or Angelina Jollie and it hasn't seemed to worry this guy.

I don't though use Flash on Elephants, it's a self preservation thing.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 22, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



Hey man, I'm not the one who said Turkeys are "wiped out" when the roost gets busted. You are. *sigh*

I'm also not the one killing them, although I'd be happy to do so if I liked eating them.

There, I got the last word.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 22, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



Yeah, because they've been ordered beforehand not to shoot the wildlife.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 22, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Want to be a real conservationist? Buy a hunting license and quit sweating the small stuff.
> ...


Of course, this great conservation work by hunters began to occur AFTER hunters had spent over a century doing their damned best to wipe out game species, e.g. bison, passenger pigeon, etc. While there are many exceptions, the hunting community as a whole seems to have 20-20 hindsight: "oops, we've almost wiped out X, we'd better do something urgently!!" OK, that's great, but how about a little foresight instead? I believe the biggest threats to wildlife diversity are loss of habitat, followed by climate change. Hunting regulations are finally sane, but there are people who ignore them routinely in areas that are not well patrolled. That notion that hunters are the best conservationists is nonsense: the best conservation work is done before the damage is heavy.



> I work on a site where we have a military firing range. The place is silly with deer and turkeys.... they wander around without fear. They walk across the range in the middle of an exercise, all firing stops until they cross, then once it is clear, the shooting resumes. If they can adapt to a hundred soldiers wailing away at targets, a flash is trivial....


I'm surprised to see you write this, Don, you are usually more thoughtful. You CANNOT extrapolate from a few species in one area to a general rule. Each species responds differently, and some are able to adapt to situations that they should find threatening -- how many of us get deer in our back yards? A "smart" deer wouldn't do that, right? Some populations of some species have adapted to humans; this does not extrapolate.

You may find a few wildlife biologist who support a particular opinion, but you need to look for the consensus of the the experts on a particular species.


----------



## takesome1 (Jun 22, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Thanks Captain Obvious for figuring that one out.


----------



## NancyP (Jun 22, 2016)

The best conservation work with hunted species involves strategically located landowners. Many farmers like to hunt, and if the DOC comes to them with a proposal to plant favorable plant species in a few drainage ditches or along fence lines or access roads, some farmers invite the DOC to do their bit. My state has a working program to bring bobwhite quail back.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 22, 2016)

NancyP said:


> The best conservation work with hunted species involves strategically located landowners. Many farmers like to hunt, and if the DOC comes to them with a proposal to plant favorable plant species in a few drainage ditches or along fence lines or access roads, some farmers invite the DOC to do their bit. My state has a working program to bring bobwhite quail back.



Yes, for hunted species there has been good work with some landowners. The more general question of proper treatment of wildlife needs to acknowledge that different species (and populations) respond differently to human disturbance, so we should not be quick to assume our actions are without consequences.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jun 22, 2016)

Hi Orangutan. 
This statement got me thinking whether flash photography has anywhere near the implications that the intermittent feeders have. Those people who put up feeders and food and encourage an increase in the population just to forget to feed them when times get hard. I'm not suggesting that 2 wrongs make a right, but I'm sure there are worse things to endure than a camera flash. 
Also we have just had a very short thunderstorm and I caught a flash full on, it left me dazzled, more than I have ever been with a camera flash, just saying. 

Cheers, Graham. 



Orangutan said:


> different species (and populations) respond differently to human disturbance, so we should not be quick to assume our actions are without consequences.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 23, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



Last word.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 23, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


The soldiers are on the range to show that they are competent with the weaponry..... to hit anything other than the target is to demonstrated that you are incompetent and can not be trusted with a weapon...... a career limiting move in the military.....


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 23, 2016)

Valvebounce said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > different species (and populations) respond differently to human disturbance, so we should not be quick to assume our actions are without consequences.
> ...




I believe this has been studied, I remember hearing about one such. Don't take this as settled fact, just my memory. I believe the results showed that it gave some bird populations an early start on nesting sites and breeding, as though they had been in the earliest wave of returnees. However, it did not seem to affect the species as a whole if there were "wild" areas nearby to allow diversity. That reminds me that I need to dig up that study: I've been thinking of going back to feeding birds (I had stopped for a long time for this reason).



> Also we have just had a very short thunderstorm and I caught a flash full on, it left me dazzled, more than I have ever been with a camera flash, just saying.


I don't dispute that; however, if you were a bird (or other critter) that was regularly out in t-storms, you would probably learn to hunker-down and avert your eyes from the storm. A flash may be less powerful, but it's unexpected, and often right in the eyes.



Cheers, O.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jun 23, 2016)

Hi Orangutan. 
I didn't know about the study you mentioned, sounds interesting. Still learning something everyday. 
Also a very good point about the lightning and hunkering down. I was stood in the back door enjoying the storm washing away the high humidity and pollen so I could breath easily and watching the lightning. D'oh. ;D

Cheers, Graham. 



Orangutan said:


> > Also we have just had a very short thunderstorm and I caught a flash full on, it left me dazzled, more than I have ever been with a camera flash, just saying.
> 
> 
> I don't dispute that; however, if you were a bird (or other critter) that was regularly out in t-storms, you would probably learn to hunker-down and avert your eyes from the storm. A flash may be less powerful, but it's unexpected, and often right in the eyes.
> ...


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 23, 2016)

Despite all the turkey and thunderstorm discussions that revive this thread I maintain my opinion from reply #2 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=29627.msg591443#msg591443

Try to avoid flash with living being as much as possible. That includes humans as well


----------

