You'll have to look at the specifics, UM-- some policies have a mechanism for seeking subject approvals, and some (unfortunately) lack all such mechanisms, so it's functionally impossible to even do observational field work with those more rigid policies. Sometimes there is a loophole built in for observational studies-- read the fine print.
You can sometimes get around the animal subject prohibition if you can find a way to piggyback on an institutional approval for animal/human subjects (e.g. IRB) that is already in existence, or starting for another purpose such as a grant/pilot study. To do that you have to know someone who is willing to underwrite the project on their approval, though-- university or research department, usually. It never hurts to ask if you happen to find someone in that position with similar research interests, though.
The real problem with those kinds of prohibitions is that taken to extremes, they mean that even polling classmates for the purposes of doing statistical analyses can be considered under the constraints of involving "human subjects." Which is ridiculous, of course, if you're asking for volunteers to run through a red/green colorblindness test or something, IMO, but there it is-- apparently the process of asking someone a few questions after they look at neutral images is potentially scarring to one's peers.
I'm also pretty sure that birdwatching is not bothering the birds in question if you're doing it through binoculars, too, but even that can be off-limits under the most strict policies. The Cornell lab, though-- that has an approval, and you might be able to get some wiggle room by going through that channel. I don't know that, but it probably can't hurt to ask.
