Photographing birds at nest-sites...Illegal? (4 Viewers)

[Sancho]

Hi, I read recently that photographing birds at or near nest-sites without a licence is illegal (here anyway, and I assume elsewhere). What is the position in reality? If you take a photo of young birds at or near a nest, are you breaking the law?

I´m just wondering because a lot of photos do appear in birding magazines, etc., of nestlings, fledglings etc., and a lot of us have taken similar snapshots through our scopes or whatever. Also, what about the thousands of people with webcams in garden nest-boxes? Are we all breaking the law?

Just wondering.

 

[Jimthetall]

Certain species of birds in the UK (schedule 1) are given additional protection by the law and a Licence is required to photograph the birds at or near the nest.

http://www.birdimages.co.uk/images/BIRDPHOT_tcm5-43180.pdf

 

[Jaff]

Certain birds are protected by law as Jim has pointed out (not just from photography but in general) but this is quite subjective sometimes in my view.
A certain well known Crested Tit nest site in Abernethy Forest received many visiters from birders and photographers alike but the birds weren't disturbed because people kept a respectable distance. If you're stood next to the tree then you're almost certainly breaking the law but photographing any schedule 1 chicks without a license is a BIG NO! Obviously because it involves getting at the nest itself.

Funnily enough though I've looked at the application form for this license and you have to do some groundwork to prove that you can hold such a license responsibly and it involves... wait for it... taking pictures of common birds at nests and describing your methodolgy for doing it. Just as well only a select few need these licenses or every photographer in the country will be turning the countryside upside down looking for nests!

 

[James Thomas]

I think the Schedule 1 list needs a revisit as there's been some big changes since 1981; Red Kite, Hobby and Osprey have all made a huge comeback and if you go to a reserve with Avocets, try getting a picture away from a nest site. Equally there must be some birds that need adding because they weren't considered possible breeders in 1981, Common Crane, Black Winged Stilt & White Stork for example?

 

[Jaff]

Totally agree.

 

[James Thomas]

Forgot to add also that it's not just the changes in bird population that ought to be taken into consideration but also the equipment. Digiscoping may have been a pipe dream for a few but could they have imagined using 800mm ED lens with 50x eyepiece? Who could have afforded a 500mm + lens? Basically when it was drafted you had to get so close you were risking disturbance, perhaps a redraft should mention proximities rather than simply photographing? It's just not simple any more!

 

[Sandra (Taylor)]

Basically when it was drafted you had to get so close you were risking disturbance, perhaps a redraft should mention proximities rather than simply photographing? It's just not simple any more![/QUOTE]

In some experiences I have had - mainly in Greece - it seems that the bigger the photographer's lens, the closer you have to get to the nest!!

 

[James Thomas]

Hence the need to look at proximities.

 

[Marcus Conway - ebirder]

If you look at the number of pictures on many sites you will see many shots taken at or near breeding grounds for example Avocet, Peregrine, Kingfisher, Cirl Bunting, Crossbills, Dotterel, Divers, Goshawk, Black necked Grebe, Slav Grebe, Marsh Harrier, Barn Owl, Red Kite etc etc... With plenty taken in the last month or so some with young/juv birds and many in breeding plumage. I don't know for sure but I imagine lots of these snappers have no license. I asked the same question when I went to Iona to photograph Corncrake. I took shots from the road along with several others all of us undoubtedly had no license. Same with Black Necked Grebes at a public site with a path all the way around used daily by dog walkers.

Given the number of photographers the law does need some review or further clarification.

Also, technique has changed as 'birds at the nest' are now quite old fashioned and not sought after. Gone are the days when a hide would be a erected next to the nest site as this was the only way to get shots. So that may be a good thing and overall should reduce pressure on some species. People these days prefer (generally) action shots and with the digital revolution this is entirely possible for many keen amateurs and beginners.

I am not sure the 'I was on a public footpath' excuse is valid, but I don't know the law in this area. I guess if you are knowingly disturbing the bird then you are breaking the law. Most shots of a bird in this environment would look unnatural and the bird in a state of stress, again not in vogue.

I would also say that most photographers take the birds welfare seriously, despite what is often written and the behaviours of the minority at twitches and other sites.

 

[Mono]

This page contains a PDF that outlines the current legal situation with regard to taking photographs in the UK.

 

[birdsgalway]

In Ireland

As part of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2000 (1979) a licence is require to take or make photographic, video or other pictures of a protected wild bird of a species specified in the licence on or near a nest containing eggs or unflown young,

As all birds are protected under Irish and EU law a licence is required.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0038/sec0030.html#partiv-chapi-sec30

30.-Section 22 of the Principal Act is hereby amended-

(a) in subsection (5)-
(i) by the substitution, in paragraph (b), of "aquaculture, fishing, forestry or turbary" for "fishing or forestry",
(ii) by the insertion, in paragraph (d), of ", or the orphaned and dependant young of such a bird," after "protected wild bird" and by the deletion of the words "or with the intention of tending it and of later releasing it" after "humanely",
(iii) by the insertion, in paragraph (e), of "and where the bird is so injured or disabled that there is no reasonable chance of its recovering," after "paragraph (h) of this subsection",
(iv) by the deletion of paragraph (f) (inserted by the Regulations of 1985),
(v) by the insertion, in paragraph (g), of "unless the nest contains the eggs or young of a protected wild bird" after "building", and
(vi) by the substitution of "a licence or other permission granted or issued pursuant to the Wildlife Acts, 1976 and 2000, or which is duly done pursuant to any other statute" for "a statute (other than this Act)",
(b) in subsection (9)-
(i) by the insertion, in paragraph (d), of "examine, inspect or" before "take", and
(ii) by the insertion of the following after paragraph (d):
"(e) to take the eggs of a protected wild bird of a species specified in the licence for the purposes of having them hatched out for repopulation, or re-introduction to the wild or, for such purposes, to move such eggs from the nest of a bird so specified to that of another bird of the same species or for such other purposes as the Minister considers appropriate in the circumstances in respect of the species so specified,
(f) to take or make photographic, video or other pictures of a protected wild bird of a species specified in the licence on or near a nest containing eggs or unflown young,
(g) to have in possession, for a reasonable period of time-
(i) an injured or disabled wild bird, or
(ii) one or more than one dependant young of a wild bird which is orphaned,
with the intention of tending and later releasing such bird or young back into the wild when and only when such bird or young, as the case may be, is no longer injured, disabled or dependant,
(h) to retain possession of a wild bird, that for reasons of disability or for other reasons deemed reasonable by the Minister, would, if released, be unlikely to survive unaided in the wild.",
and the said subsections (5) (other than paragraphs (a), (c) and (h) and (9) (other than paragraphs (a) to (c) and inserted paragraphs (e) to (h)), as so amended, are set out in the Table to this section

Further licenses may be granted on application of individual birds on Schedule II on a county by county basis
SCHEDULE II
Arctic Tern
Barn Owl
Black-headed Gull
Black-necked Grebe
Common Gull
Common Scoter
Common Tern
Cormorant
Corncrake
Dunlin
Eider
Golden Eagle
Great Skua
Grey Partridge
Hen Harrier
Leach's Petrel
Little Tern
Mediterranean Gull
Merlin
Nightjar
Peregrine Falcon
Red-throated Diver
Ring Ouzel
Roseate Tern
Sandwich Tern
Short-eared Owl
Twite
Wood Warbler
Yellow Wagtail

The condition of my licence is all bird species except those on Schedule II in County Galway only.
Conditions
1. This licence shall be produced for inspection on a request being made on that behalf by a member of An Garda Siochana or any person appointed by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government under Section 72 of the Wildlife Act, 1976, (as amended) to be an authorised person for the purposes of that Act.
2. This licence does not confer the right to capture or handle any of the above species.
3. Local National Parks & Wildlife Service staff must be notified and agreement reached before any work can commence at any site.
4. You must liase with the local Conservation Ranger prior to embarking to photograph animals at any particular location.
5. Not for Schedule II Species at the nest.
NOTE: This licence does not confer right of entry on any land
The law also applies to mammals and licence must be applied for separately.

Hope this makes sense
ATB
Tom
PS I original posted this on IBN

 

[Fred-plus-fours]

If you are out playing a round of golf and come across a nest as a consequence of a sliced drive yet have camera in bag - can you take a picture say to identify the species -

 

[Marcus Conway - ebirder]

Define near.

As part of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2000 (1979) a licence is require to take or make photographic, video or other pictures of a protected wild bird of a species specified in the licence on or near a nest containing eggs or unflown young,

As all birds are protected under Irish and EU law a licence is required.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0038/sec0030.html#partiv-chapi-sec30

30.-Section 22 of the Principal Act is hereby amended-

(a) in subsection (5)-
(i) by the substitution, in paragraph (b), of "aquaculture, fishing, forestry or turbary" for "fishing or forestry",
(ii) by the insertion, in paragraph (d), of ", or the orphaned and dependant young of such a bird," after "protected wild bird" and by the deletion of the words "or with the intention of tending it and of later releasing it" after "humanely",
(iii) by the insertion, in paragraph (e), of "and where the bird is so injured or disabled that there is no reasonable chance of its recovering," after "paragraph (h) of this subsection",
(iv) by the deletion of paragraph (f) (inserted by the Regulations of 1985),
(v) by the insertion, in paragraph (g), of "unless the nest contains the eggs or young of a protected wild bird" after "building", and
(vi) by the substitution of "a licence or other permission granted or issued pursuant to the Wildlife Acts, 1976 and 2000, or which is duly done pursuant to any other statute" for "a statute (other than this Act)",
(b) in subsection (9)-
(i) by the insertion, in paragraph (d), of "examine, inspect or" before "take", and
(ii) by the insertion of the following after paragraph (d):
"(e) to take the eggs of a protected wild bird of a species specified in the licence for the purposes of having them hatched out for repopulation, or re-introduction to the wild or, for such purposes, to move such eggs from the nest of a bird so specified to that of another bird of the same species or for such other purposes as the Minister considers appropriate in the circumstances in respect of the species so specified,
(f) to take or make photographic, video or other pictures of a protected wild bird of a species specified in the licence on or near a nest containing eggs or unflown young,
(g) to have in possession, for a reasonable period of time-
(i) an injured or disabled wild bird, or
(ii) one or more than one dependant young of a wild bird which is orphaned,
with the intention of tending and later releasing such bird or young back into the wild when and only when such bird or young, as the case may be, is no longer injured, disabled or dependant,
(h) to retain possession of a wild bird, that for reasons of disability or for other reasons deemed reasonable by the Minister, would, if released, be unlikely to survive unaided in the wild.",
and the said subsections (5) (other than paragraphs (a), (c) and (h) and (9) (other than paragraphs (a) to (c) and inserted paragraphs (e) to (h)), as so amended, are set out in the Table to this section

Further licenses may be granted on application of individual birds on Schedule II on a county by county basis
SCHEDULE II
Arctic Tern
Barn Owl
Black-headed Gull
Black-necked Grebe
Common Gull
Common Scoter
Common Tern
Cormorant
Corncrake
Dunlin
Eider
Golden Eagle
Great Skua
Grey Partridge
Hen Harrier
Leach's Petrel
Little Tern
Mediterranean Gull
Merlin
Nightjar
Peregrine Falcon
Red-throated Diver
Ring Ouzel
Roseate Tern
Sandwich Tern
Short-eared Owl
Twite
Wood Warbler
Yellow Wagtail

The condition of my licence is all bird species except those on Schedule II in County Galway only.
Conditions
1. This licence shall be produced for inspection on a request being made on that behalf by a member of An Garda Siochana or any person appointed by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government under Section 72 of the Wildlife Act, 1976, (as amended) to be an authorised person for the purposes of that Act.
2. This licence does not confer the right to capture or handle any of the above species.
3. Local National Parks & Wildlife Service staff must be notified and agreement reached before any work can commence at any site.
4. You must liase with the local Conservation Ranger prior to embarking to photograph animals at any particular location.
5. Not for Schedule II Species at the nest.
NOTE: This licence does not confer right of entry on any land
The law also applies to mammals and licence must be applied for separately.

Hope this makes sense
ATB
Tom
PS I original posted this on IBN

 

[Marcus Conway - ebirder]

If you are out playing a round of golf and come across a nest as a consequence of a sliced drive yet have camera in bag - can you take a picture say to identify the species -

Only if it is an Eagle or an Albatross.

Sorry :-O

 

[birdsgalway]

Marcus
I cant' at this time define NEAR as related in the law in my last post. I think as a previous post states this should be revisited and some limitations on distance to the nest could be appropriate. For obvious reasons relating to the use of digicoping. Of course this would only relate to birds nesting in exposed situations. Concealed nest will pose other obvious limitations.
Tom

 

[Marcus Conway - ebirder]

Marcus
I cant' at this time define NEAR as related in the law in my last post. I think as a previous post states this should be revisited and some limitations on distance to the nest could be appropriate. For obvious reasons relating to the use of digicoping. Of course this would only relate to birds nesting in exposed situations. Concealed nest will pose other obvious limitations.
Tom

Yes it's tricky and too open to interpretation.

 

[Howard King]

Only if it is an Eagle or an Albatross.

Sorry :-O[/QUOTE

You mean has to be special then any old birdie wouldn't do

PS Very Good - I am Fred - currently staying with Howard this w/e for a round on their Golf Course. Had to cancel my account seems ADMIN don't like two users on one computer (his)- will return with Golfing rarities as and when I need help with ID

 

[Stephen Fletcher]

A very difficult subject to legislate for, and even harder to police correctly. I emailed the RSPB and Natural England recently on the same subject and had some surprising answers. I will not cut and paste them here, out of respect for their dealing with me as an individual, and not knowingly for general release, however i will try to summarise what their stand on different matters was.

Photographing a schedule 1 nest site from a public footpath.
Both replied that although adhering stictly to the letter of the law, and was technically illegal, it would be extremely difficult to get a prosecution and they probably wouldnt even try.

Photographing a nest site utilising deliberate disturbance
Definitely illegal, and would result in a prosecution every time given enough evidence. This is for any nest site, and not just schedule 1


Personally speaking, i cannot see any reason whatsoever to grant a schedule 1 license to any photographer for the purpose of photographing any nest sites. I understand the need to ring and monitor, giving a valid reason for the license, but for photos, no. I have published photos of immature birds, and fledglings being fed, but they are always well away from nest sites, and taken from areas of public access, but the recent photo of the Sparrowhawk nest with young in it, whereby the guy had to climb a 20 foot tree to gain access should most definitely result in a prosecution.

 

[Marcus Conway - ebirder]

Personally speaking, i cannot see any reason whatsoever to grant a schedule 1 license to any photographer for the purpose of photographing any nest sites.

I tend to agree Steve.

 

[Jaff]

As I understand the way it works you only apply for a license for whatever species (can be more than one) it is you need to photograph. Holding such a license does not give you the authority to travel round the country photographing every schedule 1 bird at it's nest site.
So every Jonny photographer most defintiely does not need one. However I agree they are required by people who carry out research and conservation for schedule 1 birds. The point of them is not so's you can get fantastic images of birds on the nest or near the nest but for documentation of ringing of the chicks or how many eggs in a nest and so on. That's my understanding.

But times have most definitely changed and a review is certainly required, especially now photography is not just for the chosen few. But who do we contact to bring to their attention, RSPB, Local MP or Government? With all that's going on I doubt that anyone wants to tread that minefield right now.

My dad tells me the RSPB quite regularly check up on the Peregrine nesting sites local to him and always ask him his business and make sure he's keeping a respectable distance whenever they see him there so clearly it's still being enforced in that respect but then how do you balance that against places like Warton Cragg?

It's making my head hurt so I'll stop there.