-
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.
Photographing birds at nest-sites...Illegal? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Sancho
- Start date
James Thomas
Well-known member
The phrase near the nest is just too wishy washy to work any more, most species will be near a nest at this time of year. Far too open to interpretation to work.
Just to show how out of date this list is no egrets are mentioned at all, little egret would have gone on at one point but is now so widespread it's hardly reported, cattle egret should be there but will probably be too common in a couple of years to warrant reporting, Great White should be there.
Don't know how workable it is under law but the RSPB should be issuing a list before each breeding season stating clearly all species that ought to be treated as Schedule 1 for that summer. Agree with the comments thats there's no need to knowingly risk disturbance of any species except for scientific purposes.
Just to show how out of date this list is no egrets are mentioned at all, little egret would have gone on at one point but is now so widespread it's hardly reported, cattle egret should be there but will probably be too common in a couple of years to warrant reporting, Great White should be there.
Don't know how workable it is under law but the RSPB should be issuing a list before each breeding season stating clearly all species that ought to be treated as Schedule 1 for that summer. Agree with the comments thats there's no need to knowingly risk disturbance of any species except for scientific purposes.
Howard King
Well-known member
Birds that in general nest in very public places - parks, gardens, along side roads etc are far more aware of us than we are often of them - the bird itself has determined the distance from closest approach instinctively. This is where common sense on our part comes in, in recognising that boundary, one could say this applies to watching birds in general. However if one stumbles across a nest I see no harm in a quick photo irrespective of the species involved, the operative word being quick. A nest in public view is a nest in public view I am certain the bird knows this too. But for me the seeking out of any nests not in public view other than for scientific work is I think wrong. A photograph does not constitute scientific work on its own, one should if asked be able to justify the photograph. With modern kit, scopes and long lenses it is not necessary to put any bird under real pressure for that ultimate photograph. I took yesterday a picture of some Kentish Plover chicks, one of my better picture - on a very public beach you can view it in the M/E library - but had I disturbed them I would not have got the shot. I left them as I found them - this is I suppose the common sense rule I work to.
Last year on North Uist at the well known Committe Road site there was a Hen Harrier nesting about 400 metres from the car park and a Merlin about the same distance to the north of the Harrier nest. A fairly short distance beyond that you could see a Golden Eagle eyrie in the heather. I believe that the RSPB "disturbed" that eyrie VERY early in the season in order to encourage the eagles to use the eyrie over the ridge away from the public - which they did.
There was a photographer who had managed to get a license to photograph at the nest site (the one over the ridge). Speaking to RSPB staff and the photographer himself it appears that getting a license is not just a matter of "proving" your worthiness but, to a large extent, dependent upon the local representative of the licensing body. The word was that some officials were just not minded to issue licenses while others were a bit more relaxed about it.
This particular photographer - who was not a professional in the sense that he was photographing for commercial reasons - also contributed to a project involving RSPB and the statutory bodies in that he took rabbit carcasses into the eyrie on their behalf. That saved staff time - and also provided close-up security.
Despite the almost - in fact, when we were there, dawn to dusk - constant presence of responsible birders in the car park there were on a few occasions some idiots (in both senses - disturbing the birds, and laying themselves open to prosecution) who felt the need to wander off the road and onto the moor. Thankfully, the presence of more responsible individuals meant they got a serious ear-bashing. But there was one guy who tried to make out that he was entitled to do whatever he like as he held a Schedule 1 License (I think he claimed it was for somewhere in Lancashire - Bowland?) but eventually even he was deterred.
As I say, the nests of the Harriers and Merlins were so close to the official viewing area that with patience you were guaranteed excellent views of both species - and the Eagles would show also - one guy got a brilliant photo of an Eagle being mobbed by a Harrier being mobbed by a Merlin - all in the same frame.
The Hariers and the Merlin nests were on ground on which one of the crofts had peat-cutting rights. It was suggested that the crofter was quite entitled to go peat-cutting but if if either bird displayed signs of being distrurbed and the crofter went to cut peat a second time they would be breach of the law and could be prosecuted. When I was there a woman did come and cut peat but she did so not far from the viweing area and caused no disturbance to the birds - it may be that even nesting Harriers and Merlin can become used to people (quite a lot at some times) coming and going and hanging about for long periods.
The difficulty for the legislators is, I suppose, trying to be prescriptive about what is "near", or that other wonderful legal term "reasonable". As I have suggested above these particular Harriers and Merlins appears to be comfortable with a significant human presence within 500 metres but I have been on moors where Harriers have made it obvious my presence was not appreciated and a far greater distance. I think the classic example is the Grey Heron which can become habituated to human presence but in a truly "wild" situation is an extremely nervous bird taking flight when you are hundreds of metres away.
Then nowadays, of course, there is the huge issue of choice - we all had it before (to a greater or lesser degree depending on our resources), but since that awful woman in 1979 it seems that everyone is entitled to anything and everything because its their RIGHT.
So yes - the legislation could be looked at again and schedules changed and some firmer definitions applied but even then the half-wits who think they can do what they want or are just to stupid to know better will continue to exist. Education is said to be the answer but for so many of these people its too late (don't ask who "these people" are I know I'm probably stereo-typing).
cheers
Gordon
There was a photographer who had managed to get a license to photograph at the nest site (the one over the ridge). Speaking to RSPB staff and the photographer himself it appears that getting a license is not just a matter of "proving" your worthiness but, to a large extent, dependent upon the local representative of the licensing body. The word was that some officials were just not minded to issue licenses while others were a bit more relaxed about it.
This particular photographer - who was not a professional in the sense that he was photographing for commercial reasons - also contributed to a project involving RSPB and the statutory bodies in that he took rabbit carcasses into the eyrie on their behalf. That saved staff time - and also provided close-up security.
Despite the almost - in fact, when we were there, dawn to dusk - constant presence of responsible birders in the car park there were on a few occasions some idiots (in both senses - disturbing the birds, and laying themselves open to prosecution) who felt the need to wander off the road and onto the moor. Thankfully, the presence of more responsible individuals meant they got a serious ear-bashing. But there was one guy who tried to make out that he was entitled to do whatever he like as he held a Schedule 1 License (I think he claimed it was for somewhere in Lancashire - Bowland?) but eventually even he was deterred.
As I say, the nests of the Harriers and Merlins were so close to the official viewing area that with patience you were guaranteed excellent views of both species - and the Eagles would show also - one guy got a brilliant photo of an Eagle being mobbed by a Harrier being mobbed by a Merlin - all in the same frame.
The Hariers and the Merlin nests were on ground on which one of the crofts had peat-cutting rights. It was suggested that the crofter was quite entitled to go peat-cutting but if if either bird displayed signs of being distrurbed and the crofter went to cut peat a second time they would be breach of the law and could be prosecuted. When I was there a woman did come and cut peat but she did so not far from the viweing area and caused no disturbance to the birds - it may be that even nesting Harriers and Merlin can become used to people (quite a lot at some times) coming and going and hanging about for long periods.
The difficulty for the legislators is, I suppose, trying to be prescriptive about what is "near", or that other wonderful legal term "reasonable". As I have suggested above these particular Harriers and Merlins appears to be comfortable with a significant human presence within 500 metres but I have been on moors where Harriers have made it obvious my presence was not appreciated and a far greater distance. I think the classic example is the Grey Heron which can become habituated to human presence but in a truly "wild" situation is an extremely nervous bird taking flight when you are hundreds of metres away.
Then nowadays, of course, there is the huge issue of choice - we all had it before (to a greater or lesser degree depending on our resources), but since that awful woman in 1979 it seems that everyone is entitled to anything and everything because its their RIGHT.
So yes - the legislation could be looked at again and schedules changed and some firmer definitions applied but even then the half-wits who think they can do what they want or are just to stupid to know better will continue to exist. Education is said to be the answer but for so many of these people its too late (don't ask who "these people" are I know I'm probably stereo-typing).
cheers
Gordon
AStevenson
Well-known member
Gordon,
Whilst I agree with much of what you say, in terms of idiots causing disturbance and the fact that in places like Uist in some areas Schedule 1 birds are the typical relatively common species which do interact regularly with people, you should be careful what you repeat as 'word is' and 'I believe'.
The historical issue regarding Schedule 1 photography licences dates back to a number of incidents where these were abused or suspected of abuse, therefore the safest way to deal with the situation (where evidence was often circumstantial) was to stop issuing licences, however, after a suitable gap one or two licences have now been given to individuals to carry out photography. The process does involve checking on whether the persons applying are considered responsible so it's not unusual for local staff to be contacted about either the person or which species and where they wish to photograph.
The golden eagle eyrie you mention is not an alternative site for the pair where the watchpoint is, and has not been a successfully used site for many years - 'shifting' birds as soon as they start building a nest is an offence so I doubt that is what the RSPB did. Incidently, there is currently a consultation going through the Scottish Government which may make it an offence to disturb golden eagles (and some other species) full stop and doing anything at or near a nest outwith the breeding season.
Schedule 1 disturbance licences are usually area and/or species specific, so the person you mention would have known that they were breaking the law if they had a licence covering Lancashire only.
Technically, what you said about the peat-cutter is correct however, there's a difference(although technically not legally) between someone cutting peats, who is by and large not interested in the birds, (which are as you suggest habituated to the people doing this - they've been cutting peat there as long as the birds have been nesting) unless they are in the immediate vicinty of a nest causing disturbance (would be reckless disturbance), as opposed to a birdwatcher/photographer who goes over there to find and photograph birds at or near nests (deliberate and if they know anything about birds and legislation, illegal).
I would think you would find some common sense applied by the authorities to some of the 'technical offences' mentioned in the thread. Taking photos of avocets from a hide on a nature reserve ain't going to get you prosecuted in reality.
Behaviour of birds will generally tell you you are too close, so if you are a birdwatcher or claim to be a bird/wildlife photographer you should know if you have overstepped the mark - so if a witness tells the authorities that harriers were flying around agitated, calling and mobbing the person then they're wide open to prosecution (the acceptance level of tolerance of individual birds will vary but the birds only respond when they decide you are too near for them to tolerate you).
Digital photography/digiscoping should have made disturbance issues less due to the fact that photos can be taken from non-disturbing distance more easily than ever, however, as has been debated several times particularly with vagrants, a number of people want a frame filler at all cost (news of snowy owls here has been suppressed at times due to excessive disturbance by people with cameras and deliberate flushing of the birds to get flight shots), and that happens too with rare breeding birds - seems for some to be almost a competition to see who can get the 'best pic' on web.
The real difficulty with digital photography is it is pretty much impossible to know whether an offence has been committed (unless you get things like the exif data).
Incidently, the Committee Road isn't an 'official' watchpoint as such, but it is a safe area for visiting birdwatchers to watch/photograph a number of schedule 1 species without causing disturbance and as you say there is no need to go off the road to be able to get good photos as the birds are relatively tolerant of people - the small car park is a relatively recent local access initiative partly to prevent the single road passing places being blocked up (technically a motoring offence), given the number of birdwatchers who visit there now in spring.
As for the Schedule 1 list being out of date - this is partly a legislative quirk - the Schedules of the WCA 1981 for animals and plants have a 5 yearly recview built in , Schedule 1 for birds does not. For changes to be made to Schedule 1 a separate review has to be arranged involving the country agencies, JNCC and Govt - changes can be made, capercaillie was upgraded to Schedule 1 relatively recently.
Cheers,
Andrew
Whilst I agree with much of what you say, in terms of idiots causing disturbance and the fact that in places like Uist in some areas Schedule 1 birds are the typical relatively common species which do interact regularly with people, you should be careful what you repeat as 'word is' and 'I believe'.
The historical issue regarding Schedule 1 photography licences dates back to a number of incidents where these were abused or suspected of abuse, therefore the safest way to deal with the situation (where evidence was often circumstantial) was to stop issuing licences, however, after a suitable gap one or two licences have now been given to individuals to carry out photography. The process does involve checking on whether the persons applying are considered responsible so it's not unusual for local staff to be contacted about either the person or which species and where they wish to photograph.
The golden eagle eyrie you mention is not an alternative site for the pair where the watchpoint is, and has not been a successfully used site for many years - 'shifting' birds as soon as they start building a nest is an offence so I doubt that is what the RSPB did. Incidently, there is currently a consultation going through the Scottish Government which may make it an offence to disturb golden eagles (and some other species) full stop and doing anything at or near a nest outwith the breeding season.
Schedule 1 disturbance licences are usually area and/or species specific, so the person you mention would have known that they were breaking the law if they had a licence covering Lancashire only.
Technically, what you said about the peat-cutter is correct however, there's a difference(although technically not legally) between someone cutting peats, who is by and large not interested in the birds, (which are as you suggest habituated to the people doing this - they've been cutting peat there as long as the birds have been nesting) unless they are in the immediate vicinty of a nest causing disturbance (would be reckless disturbance), as opposed to a birdwatcher/photographer who goes over there to find and photograph birds at or near nests (deliberate and if they know anything about birds and legislation, illegal).
I would think you would find some common sense applied by the authorities to some of the 'technical offences' mentioned in the thread. Taking photos of avocets from a hide on a nature reserve ain't going to get you prosecuted in reality.
Behaviour of birds will generally tell you you are too close, so if you are a birdwatcher or claim to be a bird/wildlife photographer you should know if you have overstepped the mark - so if a witness tells the authorities that harriers were flying around agitated, calling and mobbing the person then they're wide open to prosecution (the acceptance level of tolerance of individual birds will vary but the birds only respond when they decide you are too near for them to tolerate you).
Digital photography/digiscoping should have made disturbance issues less due to the fact that photos can be taken from non-disturbing distance more easily than ever, however, as has been debated several times particularly with vagrants, a number of people want a frame filler at all cost (news of snowy owls here has been suppressed at times due to excessive disturbance by people with cameras and deliberate flushing of the birds to get flight shots), and that happens too with rare breeding birds - seems for some to be almost a competition to see who can get the 'best pic' on web.
The real difficulty with digital photography is it is pretty much impossible to know whether an offence has been committed (unless you get things like the exif data).
Incidently, the Committee Road isn't an 'official' watchpoint as such, but it is a safe area for visiting birdwatchers to watch/photograph a number of schedule 1 species without causing disturbance and as you say there is no need to go off the road to be able to get good photos as the birds are relatively tolerant of people - the small car park is a relatively recent local access initiative partly to prevent the single road passing places being blocked up (technically a motoring offence), given the number of birdwatchers who visit there now in spring.
As for the Schedule 1 list being out of date - this is partly a legislative quirk - the Schedules of the WCA 1981 for animals and plants have a 5 yearly recview built in , Schedule 1 for birds does not. For changes to be made to Schedule 1 a separate review has to be arranged involving the country agencies, JNCC and Govt - changes can be made, capercaillie was upgraded to Schedule 1 relatively recently.
Cheers,
Andrew
James Thomas
Well-known member
Totally agree, really I was saying this but also to keep avocets on the list kind of demeans the list.
Mike Price
Well-known member
I have a further question about photographing schedule 1 nesting birds, whats the situation if the birds are being ringed by a licensed ringer, is it ok to photograph them if you were helping the guy out (for example peregrine chicks).
Robin Edwards
Well-known member
I agree with those that think it is time to review the policy and law regarding photography for all of the reasons others have suggested.
I remember raising some time ago the issue of digiscoping a schedule one bird near a nest site from a sizable distance and with no disturbance to the birds. If the digiscoping is illegal as the law currently proposes then isn't it the same as just watching the same bird from the same position through the same scope ?
It should be about unlawful disturbance of birds which I know can be subjective depending upon an individual's point of view, rather than Ok to watch but not to Photograph. Having a binary view based on the current law would rule most modern bird photographers off side.
Robin
I remember raising some time ago the issue of digiscoping a schedule one bird near a nest site from a sizable distance and with no disturbance to the birds. If the digiscoping is illegal as the law currently proposes then isn't it the same as just watching the same bird from the same position through the same scope ?
It should be about unlawful disturbance of birds which I know can be subjective depending upon an individual's point of view, rather than Ok to watch but not to Photograph. Having a binary view based on the current law would rule most modern bird photographers off side.
Robin
Fozzybear
Ich bin ein Vogelbeobachter
When I was at Titchwell last summer the Avocets were nesting in full view of the Parrinder hide, albeit quite some way off... I don't recall there being a notice about not photographing the birds at the nest and given the popularity of the reserve with casual birdwatchers you'd hope the RSPB would have thought to make it clear if it was illegal... I certainly wouldn't have known it was.
