[Helwith]

ATTENTION GALLERY USERS

Please do not post any photos of NESTS, EGGS OR NESTING BIRDS

Just wondering why there is a problem with this! If you have a license to do so, there's no problem IMHO.

[KCFoggin]

There certainly is a problem when you read that someone has gone to great trouble to climb a tree to get this shot and are damn proud of it too. No regard to the stress or danger it puts the nest/nestlings in.

Further, where a digiscoped shot wouldn't prove to be a problem, sometimes a new photographer doesn't realize this and thinks it perfectly okay to emulate shots he/she sees in the gallery only getting much closer than they should. We are a bird forum and the well being of the birds are first and foremost.

[Helwith]

Originally Posted by KCFoggin

There certainly is a problem when you read that someone has gone to great trouble to climb a tree to get this shot and are damn proud of it too. No regard to the stress or danger it puts the nest/nestlings in.

Further, where a digiscoped shot wouldn't prove to be a problem, sometimes a new photographer doesn't realize this and thinks it perfectly okay to emulate shots he/she sees in the gallery only getting much closer than they should. We are a bird forum and the well being of the birds are first and foremost.

That maybe a problem in the USA! Not much of a problem here in the UK.

In the UK if you have a license publishing a photo a of birds on the nest, eggs etc is legitimate.

[KCFoggin]

It might be legitimate but don't you feel that you are stressing out the bird in your endeavors to get a shot particularly if you are not using a scope?

[Keith Reeder]

Chris,

how would anybody but you know you really had a licence?

Better err on the side of caution just in case there are dishonest people out there, eh?

[IanF]

The bottom line is that this is one of the Gallery rules.

Being licenced to take photos hopefully shows some responsibility on the part of the photographer and I'm sure most non licenced photographers would be responsible as well, but at the end of the day I'm also sure some would be more interested in taking the photo at any cost/disturbance.

By not permitting such close taken photos at all we aren't encouraging any disturbance of nests at a vulnerable time - whether the person is licenced or not, responsible or not.

It's not an ideal solution and I sometimes think it's a pity we don't have nest photos as it's such a major part of a bird's life that we don't cover - not so much for the eggs and nestlings as for the places, environment, styles and materials that birds use.

As Keith so aptly puts, 'better to err on the side of caution'.

[Quacker]

I might add to these observations by pointing interested persons in the general direction of the books already available showing nests, eggs and nestlings.

This way someone has already gone to the trouble of disturbing the nest sites, so there's no necessity to do it again;-)

Remember, regardless of anything, the golden rule of the bird always comes first.

[markho]

Does this rule include pictures taken from sites like Loch of the lowes, Garten, Frisa, Symonds Yat etc where sites are monitored by the RSPB or similar Wildlife Trusts.

[IanF]

Yes and no!

If you're referring to the WT Eagles and the Ospreys then that implies digiscoping or use of very very long lenses - which when you read the Guidelines in more detail do allow for such photos.

The ban is actually on 'closely taken' nest photos.

[Edward woodwood]

couple of weeks back I posted a pic of the first nest found of Pink-tailed Bunting... it might need removing...

[Rob Hutchinson]

Originally Posted by Tim Allwood

couple of weeks back I posted a pic of the first nest found of Pink-tailed Bunting... it might need removing...

Bloody photographers.....

[markho]

Originally Posted by IanF

Yes and no!

If you're referring to the WT Eagles and the Ospreys then that implies digiscoping or use of very very long lenses - which when you read the Guidelines in more detail do allow for such photos.

The ban is actually on 'closely taken' nest photos.

Ok thanks for that , hope to get some decent pictures at Loch of the Lowes next year now I have a digiscoping kit. As the set up there is very good , with hides giving a decent view of the nest across the loch. WT Eagles at Frisa are miles away , (even with my scope )but I was just using it as an example.

[Edward woodwood]

Originally Posted by Rob Hutchinson

Bloody photographers.....

not my camera guv...

we almost relieved a nestling of a feather or two for DNA analysis so it could have its affinities analysed.... bunting or rosefinch or other... we were persuaded against it...

twas in the interests of science of course...

[Rob Hutchinson]

Originally Posted by Tim Allwood

we almost relieved a nestling of a feather or two for DNA analysis so it could have its affinities analysed.... bunting or rosefinch or other... we were persuaded against it...

My money would be on 'other', a really unique bird, quite unlike any other asian rosefinches - perhaps you'll have to go back soon and get that feather...

[cuckooroller]

Exception made for cases like Tim's in which there is a valid reason for taking a reasonable record shot (obviously taking pains to disturb as little as humanly possible), I can think of a couple of great reasons not to disturb nests - some birds will abandon the nest eggs and all - if I were a predator I would be greatly interested in seeing what all the fuss is about and would be very pleased to have the humans point out where I can get some free eggs.

[Helwith]

Originally Posted by Keith Reeder

Chris,

how would anybody but you know you really had a licence?

Better err on the side of caution just in case there are dishonest people out there, eh?

I don't have a licence! Dishonest? About what?

Just trying to get to grips with all these rules and regulations!!!!! on the said Forum.

[Keith Reeder]

Eh?

What on earth makes you think I was talking about you, Chris?

The point has been well made on here that it is in fact legal to photgraph nests if properly licenced.

I was saying that because it would be effectively impossible for the Birdforum admin to know that "a given photographer" really had a nest photography licence, the only common sense approach they could adopt is a blanket "no" to such photographs, working on the principle that it is better to safe than sorry.

[Rasmus Boegh]

Originally Posted by Tim Allwood

we almost relieved a nestling of a feather or two for DNA analysis so it could have its affinities analysed.... bunting or rosefinch or other... we were persuaded against it...

Hi Tim,

Luckily, someone has already done the hard work:

Groth, J.G. 2000. Molecular evidence for the systemaic position of Urocynchramus pylzowi. Auk 117: 787-791.

I certainly can't claim to be an expert on that species (after all, I've only seen it once), but I do remember that my impression was the "Rosefinch direction" (as suggested by the data in above article).

[Sorry for re-opening this thread for that minor footnote; hadn't noticed date]

[Modular]

I totally agree with all about taking picture's of nest's and the way some
irresponsible people climb tree's and go through bushes and hedges just to gain
a picture ... Personally i would'nt dream of doing it,

My only query is the "License" subject ... Is this needed to have right's to photograph
nest's?, If it is then surely there's a distance etc that you are allowed to do it without
a license, If not ... then probably every member here as broke the law ...
I've took hundred's of picture's that include "Nest's" on top of tree's ... Crow's nest's ... Pigeon nest's etc ... Not on purpose but it's on top of the tree usually,
So i'm guessing there's a distance and disturbance parameter to this "License",
Top photographer's take Sunset's and Scenery all the Time that include the odd
twiggy nest on top of a Old Oak or something ... So i'm pretty sure there's some
policy of distance etc ... Else were all Law breaker's.
Anyway Take care all,

[scottishdude]

Strangely enough when I was in Florida, the ranger was pointing out Osprey nests and was encouraging me to get closer. He said and I quote 'The quicker birds learn to put up with the disturbance of man, the more likely they will survive in the future as we are continually eating up their natural habitat' and I must say he's got a point. I also notice how much more tolerant birds were when photographers and other people were around

Jamie

[Modular]

Good point there Jamie ... My question to that is how many Bird's abandoned the Egg's
or nest's to get to this point, Hope not many if any at all,
Guess the Ranger's would'nt let that happen if they care about the Bird's,
Take care,

[steve55]

Reading through this here it sounds like there's a little confusion on what you do and don’t need a license for...

It’s only illegal to take damage or destroy a bird’s nest when in use and there’s no such law against taking photos of "ordinary" birds or chicks in nests. Not even illegal to examine the contents of a wild birds nest, although why would you want to unless you were a BTO nest recorder.

I say ordinary because there are exceptions with birds listed under schedule 1 of the wildlife and countryside act 1982. You need a license to photograph these birds on the nest or even near a nest containing eggs or chicks and there are very strict quotas placed on the number of licenses issued every year.

Its also illegal to intentionally or recklessly disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule 1 but try telling that to the dog walkers on a particular beach with little terns nesting near!

Think there's a little bit of a grey area with digiscoping schedule 1 birds and photographing from hides and locations set up specifically for the purpose of viewing protected birds of prey and places like Coquet Island where you can easily take a few shots of Roseate terns from the boat cruises that pull in at the jetty there.

Personally though I think there is no need for a photographer to take nest photos. There are a lot of images out there already, just do a google image search and you'll see. Wild birds have a hard enough time already so just leave them alone at this vulnerable stage of their life and there'll be more to enjoy later on when they fledge!

Steve


------------------------------------
Schedule 1 birds include

Avocet
Bee-eater
Bittern
Bittern, little
Bluethroat
Brambling
Bunting, cirl
Bunting, Lapland
Bunting, snow
Buzzard, honey
Capercaillie (in Scotland - see note below)
Chough
Corncrake
Crake, spotted
Crossbill (all species)
Curlew, stone
Diver (all species)
Dotterel
Duck, long-tailed
Eagle, golden
Eagle, white-tailed
Falcon, gyr
Fieldfare
Firecrest
Garganey
Godwit, black-tailed
Goshawk
Grebe, black-necked
Grebe, Slavonian
Greenshank
Gull, little
Gull, Mediterranean
Harriers (all species)
Heron, purple
Hobby
Hoopoe
Kingfisher
Kite, red
Merlin
Oriole, golden
Osprey
Owl, barn
Owl, snowy
Peregrine
Petrel, Leach's
Phalarope, red-necked
Plover, Kentish
Plover, little ringed
Quail, common
Redstart, black
Redwing
Rosefinch, scarlet
Ruff
Sandpiper, green
Sandpiper, purple
Sandpiper, wood
Scaup
Scoter, common
Scoter, velvet
Serin
Shorelark
Shrike, red-backed
Spoonbill
Stilt, black-winged
Stint, Temminck's
Swan, Bewick's
Swan, whooper
Tern, black
Tern, little
Tern, roseate
Tit, bearded
Tit, crested
Treecreeper, short-toed
Warbler, Cetti's
Warbler, Dartford
Warbler, marsh
Warbler, Savi's
Whimbrel
Woodlark
Wryneck

[mike from ebbw]

i have to agree with you john about the netting and trapping.personally i dont think there could be anything more distressing for any bird than being "hung" in a net for hours on end.there is more than enough research done on these birds for this practice to be scaled down dramatically.

[Jos Stratford]

Originally Posted by mike from ebbw

i have to agree with you john about the netting and trapping.personally i dont think there could be anything more distressing for any bird than being "hung" in a net for hours on end. .

clearly not a ringer - try minutes on end!

[Allen S. Moore]

Originally Posted by mike from ebbw

i have to agree with you john about the netting and trapping.personally i dont think there could be anything more distressing for any bird than being "hung" in a net for hours on end.there is more than enough research done on these birds for this practice to be scaled down dramatically.

I know that Jos has pointed out the exaggeration as regards the length of time that a bird is in a net or otherwise held, but Mike has a point. The birds are disturbed whether the nest photographer or ringer has a licence or not. Most licence holders are hopefully more responsible than people without licences in keeping such disturbance to a minimum. It is debatable whether nest photography is always necessary, except to illustrate something new, like a nest in an unusual situation. I don't disagree with Mike about the scale of bird-ringing, either.
Allen