The enactive approach to cognition is presented as an attractive alternative to mainstream paradigms in the cognitive sciences, rejecting notions such as the ones of information processing, representation, and computation. However, notwithstanding the growing interest received in contemporary debates, enactivism is confronted with critical methodological challenges. One of these challenges is the so-called “Motley-Crew Argument.” It makes the critical point that if cognition has to be studied as spanning across brains, bodies, and environment, then enactivists automatically rely on a definition of cognition that is too broad and ultimately amenable to rigorous scientific scrutiny. In this text, we pave the way for a methodological answer to this worry and argue for an interdisciplinary connection between biological ethology and enactivism. We show that both approaches share theoretical commitments and that the methodical repertoire of ethology fits the theoretical perspective of enactivism. An ethological case study on risk evaluation in gregarious birds is presented as an example of how a cognitive phenomenon can simultaneously be approached from an enactivist and ethological perspective.