Snowy Egrets do sometimes change nesting locations, but they also show loyalty to the same sites year after year. This tree was actually an emergency roost for them after their previous habitat was razed for the same reasons: residents in a housing development complained. So, they were evicted from one home, found another, and now face the same conundrum of locating a safe place to raise their babies.
Buddhists have a term, samma sankappa, which loosely interpreted speaks to "RIGHT INTENT": the intent of goodwill and harmlessness. That's obviously an over-simplification. But in deciding what to share without completely withholding, intent and possible outcome inform my wildlife choices. Will sharing this information have the effect of harm or harmlessness? Or better yet, can sharing this achieve some possible benefit to the animals?
One of the ethical issues that comes up time and again in wildlife photography is people encroaching so close as to harass or spook wild animals. There are a lot of reasons people cross and blur those ethical lines, but the main one is to get close to a wild animal, to fill the frame. The best photographers I know get these images through patience and through allowing animals to become comfortable with their presence.
Wildlife "management" systems lag behind in addressing these most recent studies and revelations. I believe, along with a growing chorus of wildlife and animal advocates, that it's time to close the gap between some of those archaic ideas, and consider more fully the individual wild animal and his or her needs in our larger paradigm.