OK, I think we're bikeshedding a little bit now, but if you're OK continuing this just a little longer... mostly just because it's interesting to think about, I hope :)
> You can demonstrate this pretty easily at night in your backyard. Have someone shine a flashlight at something.
I don't hunt, but I do go outside at night with a hiking headlight, and it's never been my experience that I could see something better, further away, without lighting. Even when there's something closer to me reflecting much of the light (like a tree), some of the light will go around it and light up what it's behind it. In the absolute worst case (like when I accidentally point the light at a retroreflective street sign), yes, there'll a huge blindingly bright spot, but still much of the light will spill around it, and aiming just a few degrees left or right will then illuminate the stuff behind it.
Have you had different experiences, or can you think of a specific scenario where this wouldn't be the case?
> Same reason photos of the moon don't show the stars in the sky; they get washed out by the brighter object.
That's not really the same thing. Cameras have limited dynamic range to begin with, and in that case, both the reflected moonlight and the ambient starlight are facing the photographer... with the reflected moonlight being several orders of magnitude brighter.
That's more like having someone shining a bright flashlight in your face from a foot away while there's some old dim string lights in the background.
It's not the same as two objects reflecting light from the same light source pointed away from the observer, held by the observer. Unless there's some big difference in reflectance between those objects, presumably their apparent brightness would mostly be a function of their distance.