nigelblake
don't re member
Might be an appropriate time to post this link regarding the law in the UK
http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/BIRDPHOT_tcm5-43180.pdf
http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/BIRDPHOT_tcm5-43180.pdf
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Bird photography and the law (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter nigelblake
- Start date
BenBirding
Well-known member
Wow. You Brits have it alot harder than we do in the US. We don't have many rules like some of those... that I am aware of.
BenBirding said:
Or conversely, birds have it better here. Actually, bar point 8 (schedule 1 species), they are not strictly rules, but considerations that the RSPB advises bird photographers to have. The idea is to advise on responsible behaviour at nestsites and as such is equally applicable to photographers anywhere in the world.
Actually a lot of it seems fairly similar to the ABA guide to birding ethics. Harrasment of birds etc is covered by elements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Although I'd imagine all of this goes out the window for some birders/photographers if there is an opportunity to see/photograph a rare bird.
Luke
http://www.americanbirding.org/abaethics.htm
Luke
http://www.americanbirding.org/abaethics.htm
BenBirding
Well-known member
Those are code of ethics and aren't enforced at all. Breaking them is frowned upon though.
Having said that, I have broken a few of those, but not many times.
Having said that, I have broken a few of those, but not many times.
Nice timely reminder, Nigel.
Witnessed someone tape luring Dartfords last week (one of those PDA things), not a good time to be meddling with territorial birds... all for a view of a bird that's easily viewed with a little bit of patience.
cheers,
Andy
Witnessed someone tape luring Dartfords last week (one of those PDA things), not a good time to be meddling with territorial birds... all for a view of a bird that's easily viewed with a little bit of patience.
cheers,
Andy
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
As a matter of general principle I won't shoot any nesting bird, and if I realise there's an occupied nest near to where I am, I'll up stakes and leave it in peace.
Last edited:
nigelblake
don't re member
I have been quite surprised by the many people I have spoken to who were unaware that there are laws regarding the photography/disturbance of nesting birds.
As there is such an increase in the number of birders who now carry cameras and long lenses it seemed to me that a post to increase awareness of the law would be a good idea.
As there is such an increase in the number of birders who now carry cameras and long lenses it seemed to me that a post to increase awareness of the law would be a good idea.
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Yep, I couldn't agree more, Nigel.
christineredgate
Winner of the Copeland Wildlife Photographer of th
Would the above be applicable to someone who is digiscoping a shot which is a greater distance from the nesting site?.
nigelblake
don't re member
Yes it all applies to digiscoping too.
There are circumstances however where in the eyes of the law it would would have to be proven that disturbance had been caused, so for example, if you photographed Avocets at the nest from a hide at Minsmere, or Ospreys from the Hide at Loch Garten, you are not causing disturbance as the birds are viewable from a recocnisable public site.
Elsewhere if it is deemed that you are likely to affect the behavior or breeding success of the birds then you are breaking the law where schedule 1 birds are concerned.
There are circumstances however where in the eyes of the law it would would have to be proven that disturbance had been caused, so for example, if you photographed Avocets at the nest from a hide at Minsmere, or Ospreys from the Hide at Loch Garten, you are not causing disturbance as the birds are viewable from a recocnisable public site.
Elsewhere if it is deemed that you are likely to affect the behavior or breeding success of the birds then you are breaking the law where schedule 1 birds are concerned.
martin kitching
Obsessed seawatcher
nigelblake said:
As far as photographing Schedule 1 species at or near a nest is concerned, the link you provided makes it clear that it is an offence regardless of whether disturbance is caused or not. There are obvious examples though, such as the ones above, where pursuing a prosecution would not be in the public interest and common sense would prevail.
martin
jcwings
Well-known member
Actually, this is not much different than laws in the US protecting all native bird species. If followed to the letter of the law, any sort of "harassment" of a bird while nesting is a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and can be considered "taking" of the species thereby interrupting the nesting process. This includes activities as benign as possessing feathers from a road kill (for which I was chewed-out by a Park Ranger as a kid!). The laws are pretty strict here too, if they are enforced.
hollis_f
Well-known member
Well, I hope so, otherwise I'll be up before the beak. I've been photographing schedule 1 birds at the nest. But, being as this was from a hide on an RSPB reserve, overlooking a specially prepared bank for Kingfishers to use, I don't think I'd be disturbing them too much.martin kitching said:
hollis_f said:
I think the law, as it stands, is correct in this issue - this case, photographing a bird from an RSPB hide is unlikely to cause disturbance and thus would never make it to court. However, it is right that it remains technically against the law as from the photograph alone it would be difficult to show what means of photography had been employed (ie. conventional, digiscoping, RSPB hide, etc) - thus, should there ever be the need, it is only sensible that the onus should be on the photographer to show disturbance wasn't caused ...in my opinion.
Ken Tone
still learning....always will be
nigelblake said:
I'm sorry I just don't understand this. I'm fairly new to birding and digiscoping, so please explain.
How can it be ok to look at a bird on its nest through a scope and yet not to to put a digital camera up against the eyepiece and take a picture?
Surely the issue is how close one is to the nest, whether one is photographing or merely looking through binoculars or even using the naked eye? What's special about taking photos?
K.
mike from ebbw
Well-known member
i take a monthly photographic magazine and there was an article in there about photographing schedule 1 species.it had a peregrine nest site on anglesey as an example.it stated that it was not an offence to photograph the nest providing you took the photo from the public footpath that overlooked it.but if you stepped off the footpath to get a bit closer you were breaking the law.
mike from ebbw
Well-known member
unless there was a copper at the bottom of the cliff waiting to catch you as you fell off i would think you would be ok!eddwillis said:
