Digiscoping and the law (UK) (1 Viewer)

KarltheBatman · Apr 30, 2005

Does anyone know the current interpretation of the law regarding to digiscoping and Schedule 1 birds?
Under the law it is illegal to photograph Schedule 1 birds at or near the nest unless you have a licence.
Without a licence, provided that you do not cause disturbance, you are allowed to scope a nest.
Does the law allow digiscoping? Obviously it causes only the same amount of disturbance as watching the birds on a nest, but is it legal?
Hope someone out there can help!
Cheers,
Karl the Batman

Andrew Rowlands · Apr 30, 2005

Hi Karl,

If the law states that photographing is illegal then digiscoping must be illegal too.

There hasn't been a test case yet (to my knowledge), so best to play safe, esp. away from publicly accessible sites

?

Andy.

Keith Reeder · Apr 30, 2005

You're still acquiring an image on a camera when digiscoping so I suspect the law will regard the presence of a telescope as an irrelevance - and certainly no defence.

I'm with Andrew. Don't do it.

Adey Baker · Apr 30, 2005

It's the 'at the nest' bit that is the problem. The law was first drawn up when photography at the nest meant being at the nest, thus causing possible disturbance.

The idea that viewing a distant bird through a camera on a scope is legal but pressing the shutter suddenly makes it illegal is, frankly, ridiculous!

Keith Reeder · Apr 30, 2005

Agreed, but if the law applies to taking telephoto pictures, it'll also apply to digiscoping.

Obviously how far from the nest you are is the key, but the point being made is that if what you're doing is likely to be illegal if there isn't a scope involved, then it's likely to be just as illegal if there is a scope involved...

Edward woodwood · Apr 30, 2005

I wouldn't scope or digiscope a Schedule one bird on the nest if there was any question of disturbance

best to stay clear?

Tim

IanF · Apr 30, 2005

Tim Allwood said:
I wouldn't scope or digiscope a Schedule one bird on the nest if there was any question of disturbance

best to stay clear?

Tim

Hm! That's the whole point. Digiscoping rarely means any nest disturbance or even bird diturbance at all as it's usually done from so far away.

I have queried this with the RSPB and my local bird club and both reckoned it was still up for debate as no disturbance is involved which is why the legislation was introduced.

Advice was not to do it, though prosecution was unlikely.

It makes you wonder though when the RSPB sets up viewing points where it's easy to take digiscoped shots from without a hint of disturbance e.g. Loch of the Lowes, Loch Garten etc. for Osprey.

Edward woodwood · Apr 30, 2005

just let em nest

simon · Apr 30, 2005

Andrew Rowlands said:
Hi Karl,

If the law states that photographing is illegal then digiscoping must be illegal too.

There hasn't been a test case yet (to my knowledge), so best to play safe, esp. away from publicly accessible sites ?

Andy.

So what about photographing/digiscoping the Ospreys at Loch garten/ loch of the lowes etc etc? If we take the law to the letter surely everyone ( and there is thousands ) who has used a cameras at any of these public view points are breaking the law ! Loch Garten even used to let you pay extra and go to the forward hide !
:h?:

Edward woodwood · Apr 30, 2005

I presume there is no disturbance there though as they are well wardened sites and viewpoints are reasonably distant

that's the crucial point?

remember the farago with a cetain well known birder and nesting Monty's last year/year before

Tim

postcardcv · Apr 30, 2005

Personally I think the big issue is disturbance - on a trip to Weeting you could digiscope stone curlew and woodlark on/near the nest, then onto Lakenheath for the orioles. Head up to the coast and at Titchwell you can easily digiscope avocet, marsh harrier, little tern, beardies (ok, not easy) all on/near nests. I doubt that anyone would question taking photos of any of these as you really would not cause any disturbance. However other places locally with breeding Montys, Dartford warbler, Savi's warblers and the likes would be a whole different case - unpublicised sites where disturbance can be a real issue.

Basically I think it's just common sense if you might cause any disturbance don't go there - like Tim said "just let em nest". Though hopefully everyone on this site would have the sense to do this anyway, whether photographing or just watching.

IanF · Apr 30, 2005

Exactly!

I thinks it's always better to err on the side of caution and simply don't do it.

Even in digiscoping you can take a photo from 15-20' which I'd almost guarantee discomfort/disturbance unless very well concealed - hence the need for a licence.

Best advice is not to do it unless from approved/managed locations such as the Osprey viewing points.

Adey Baker · Apr 30, 2005

I think from a practical point many nests that might be digiscoped are those that are not hidden from view but are relatively safe by being inaccessible - I'm thinking of Eagles, Peregrines, etc., on a cliff face.

I'm sure the law is meant to prevent actual disturbance at the nest-site - hence the need for a license to study/ring rare birds as well as photograph them

alcedo.atthis · Apr 30, 2005

"There hasn't been a test case yet"

Oh yes there has. Aberdeen Sheriff court, case thrown out due to the fact that considering the lens which was used ensured that no near approach was made towards the nest, therefore no disturbance, therefore no breach of any law.

(Case involved nesting Golden Eagles)

Regards

Malky

PWG · Apr 30, 2005

alcedo.atthis said:
"There hasn't been a test case yet"

Oh yes there has. Aberdeen Sheriff court, case thrown out due to the fact that considering the lens which was used ensured that no near approach was made towards the nest, therefore no disturbance, therefore no breach of any law.

(Case involved nesting Golden Eagles)

Before people rush off with their cameras based on this. If you are in England and Wales it doesn't necessarily apply and you would need to seek legal advice as Scottish law is different.

alcedo.atthis · May 1, 2005

"Before people rush off with their cameras based on this. If you are in England and Wales it doesn't necessarily apply and you would need to seek legal advice as Scottish law is different."

Paul, Case was brought up as breach of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

Regards

Malky

Nightranger · May 1, 2005

It is a bit vague to say the least as most of the replies have reflected but perhaps there is another way of looking at it. Quite a few of the Schedule I birds are sensitive for more reasons than just susceptibility to disturbance and creating a permanent record of a nest might not be such a good idea. This would be even more important if the nest location was identifiable so perhaps there is a moral message in there too. Having said that, there is nothing stopping anyone digiscoping Schedule I birds - just do it with a license.

Ian

devon.birder · May 1, 2005

In March someone complained on the Somerset Ornitholigical Society message board about a photo of a Kingfisher taken at the nest site. However the well respected Photographer then replied saying he was in a hide open to the paying public at a Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust Reserve. Whilst he was in the hide taking the photograph there were a couple of young children running around and making a noise. It does seem rather stupid if he could be prosecuted for making no noise yet the children would have been OK. However with the Police now apparently scanning motorway cameras to see if they can spot a driver eating a bar of chocolate it is probably better to be safe rather than sorry. Roger

Nightranger · May 1, 2005

simon said:
So what about photographing/digiscoping the Ospreys at Loch garten/ loch of the lowes etc etc? If we take the law to the letter surely everyone ( and there is thousands ) who has used a cameras at any of these public view points are breaking the law ! Loch Garten even used to let you pay extra and go to the forward hide !
:h?:

Simon, I am not picking you out for criticism here but you raise an interesting point. There has been a lot of talk about the conduct of bird watchers over the years (and I really do not exclude myself here either) and I cannot see the why we should be pushing the envelope in aviation parlance. What I mean is, should we not get out collective heads together and say "no" until we clear things up for certain. Personally, I cannot see a realistic problem but we have to beware of bad apples though because that image will ruin it for all of us. What I am thinking, is we should not lower the standard yet until we can be sure no one is going to abuse the system further. Digiscoping is one of the most exciting things to have happened in birding for years but we must take care that things do not move faster than the exisiting system can cope with.

Ian

Adey Baker · May 1, 2005

Ian Peters said:
It is a bit vague to say the least as most of the replies have reflected but perhaps there is another way of looking at it. Quite a few of the Schedule I birds are sensitive for more reasons than just susceptibility to disturbance and creating a permanent record of a nest might not be such a good idea. This would be even more important if the nest location was identifiable so perhaps there is a moral message in there too. Having said that, there is nothing stopping anyone digiscoping Schedule I birds - just do it with a license.

Ian

Is it illegal to say where a nest site is located, Ian?

If not, then we have a situation where one can give details of a site to all and sundry, but if we show a photograph of the nest that may identify the site then we're breaking the law!

I hope my posts on this thread don't imply that I'm encouraging digiscoping of rare birds' nests - I'm just pointing out that the law needs clarifying.

It's not a great problem on Birdforum, of course, as nest photographs aren't generally allowed anyway.

Digiscoping and the law (UK) (1 Viewer)

Member

Well-known member

Watch the birdie...

Member

Watch the birdie...

Member

Moderator

Member

Well-known member

Member

Super Moderator

Moderator

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Moment

Well-known member

Senior Moment

Member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread